Levin: Romney needs to lay out a principled case of liberty and stop with class warfare

Romney was overheard speaking candidly at a fundraiser about tax changes he’s considering for the wealthy, including ending mortgage interest deductions for second homes, eliminating deductions for state and local taxes, as well as closing or merging federal agencies that deal with education and housing. This has Levin worried that Romney is going the Rockefeller-Republican route using class-warfare tactics against the wealthy because he’s ashamed of his wealth and/or he can’t defend his wealth.

Levin says that if Romney really wants to win independents and women, he should stop running from these class warfare arguments and explain his wealth, defend capitalism and lay out a principled case of liberty, because that is what will attract all voters:

Just after his monologue above, Levin came back and presented his own case for liberty as if he were Romney standing in front of those fundraisers. And it’s awesome:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • E. Lee Zimmerman

    Romney can’t stop with the class warfare. It’s who he is.

  • Islam_Sucks

    …… and how can this be?

    for he is the kwisatz haderach. Oh wait … that was Obama.

    Nope .. I checked and had it right the first time. Romney is Obama and Obama is Romney.

  • K-Bob

    The “inevitable” candidate’s plan of attack:

    “Vote for me! I’m not quite as bad as that other fellow.”

    • “Romney..at least he’s not a commie”

      I have to get that t-shirt.

      ABO 2012!

    • CalCoolidge

      I said, day one, that would be all Romney would ever have: the lesser of two evils.

      At least, Nixon was honest when he described himself as the lesser of three evils.

  • ApplePie101

    Why should Romney defend capitalism or decrease taxes? He knows he’s going to get the votes of the ABO crowd no matter what he does. He doesn’t need Mark Levin’s blessing.

    • K-Bob

      The ABO crowd isn’t big enough to get Romney elected. A lot of middle-of-the-road, “moderates” who don’t want to support those medieval, radical right-wingers are still seeing Romney as a sort of bland, Obama-lite choice. …And one of those weird religion guys.

      But Obama is still a cool, laid back guy that understands how to party. And he sells success because, hey, look at those white shirts and crisp ties. Why vote for Romney, when he barely makes a distinction, and he’s not cool like that?

      That’s what the mushy, middle, independent voter is seeing right now.

      ABO was a mistake, right out of the box. It’s like voting for “whoever,” when what we desperately needed was another George Washington.

      It’s time to start grooming Allen West for the top job. And none of this “high negatives” crap.

      • Stehekin912

        Allen West….wonderful choice. Remember, Allen, George Washington didn’t think he was worthy, either.

        I’ll do ABO Romney if I have to…but I do pray for a better way and a better choice.

      • TENCOLE

        Not only that, the republican base is already threatening not to vote for Mitt.

        • K-Bob

          I suspect even the most strident anti-Mitt voices will still line up, lube up, and vote for Mitt anyway. But that’s not the real problem.

          The major voices on the right that are going to be doing what they can to help elect Mitt are not going to lie. The right cannot lie convincingly. So the best they’ll be able to do with any real conviction is tell folks how bad Obama is.

          That’s not enough to take out an incumbent.

          • stage9

            If I have to lube up, then he’s not worth voting for…I’ve been lubed enough over the last 4 years…

            A Conservative Party NOW!

          • Karl Rogue

            don’t think so. If willard is going to win it, he has to pander like hell to indies and centrist dems.

            • K-Bob

              Well, he does seem to understand how to pander.

        • sDee

          This conservative decided that long ago.

      • M_J_S

        I would take a bullet for Colonel West. Now HE is a President.

        • sDee

          It is leadership. It is our missing ingredient. I am an independent cuss but West commands my respect and will be there too.

          • unclesamnephew

            i am willing to follow a leader such as A. West. it was a leader (Reagan) who talked me into the GOP. America hasn’t had a leader since Reagan.

      • cathmom

        In the words of Mark Levin: “Sarah Palin where are you”?

      • sDee

        “”But Obama is still a cool, laid back guy that understands how to party.””

        Exactly the message I heard Hussein sending when he openly told the President of Columbia, “dud, I am just down her scoping out a vacation spot for me and Michelle”

        cool, dude

        (I agree on the Colonel. West and SarahPAC are now getting the money I was sending Santorum and Gingrich)

    • sara holy land

      Is as no bad as the worst.
      not milk, is not meat, is fur.
      Not smell or stink = nullity 🙂

  • 12grace

    As usual, Levin tells it like it is…love him.

  • Lord we’re in so much trouble. I can’t stand mittens- I sure wish Mark was running instead.

    • Stehekin912

      Amen to that. I thought the same thing.

    • steprock

      I wish Mark’s proverbial orange juice can was running.

    • freenca

      Levin is on the right track, Hope he speaks at the elephants convention.
      Got an idea that would work for anyone that likes to wear clean undies, 1. treat the stains with oxy-stain remover 2. wash in hot water, with plenty of Issa 3.spin out any remaining dirt on 2nd rinse cycle 4. dry on high heat to shrink the slack parts 5. put away as soon as possible 6. ready to go to work, neat and clean
      just a different slant on shrinking the big g down to size.

      • LOL, that’s the most interesting way of shrinking gubmint I think I’ve ever heard! I like it! 😀

        • freenca

          Was doing laundry today and it just occured. 😉
          Maybe if we dumb it down enough……..

          • unclesamnephew

            we (conservatives) need to hold a laundry day at the G.O.P. convention

    • MaxineCA

      Very deep doo doo. I was so hopeful months ago that people would wake up when we had a variety of very good candidates. I still think that Newt is the last one standing against the elites. I feel as though they (RNC) have stuck a finger in the eye of every conservative/constitution loving American. I get more depressed everyday. The only hope left is a contested convention.

      • I agree Maxine. I do not envy you guys in the choices you’re stuck with. 🙁

        • kim

          Do you have an extra room for rent in Canada?

          • nibblesyble

            LOL, I think ABC lives in Florida, but you are welcome to B.C. anytime..however it is kinda like Cali in the sense we have a whole lot of hippies!

          • I don’t anymore kim sorry! I think most folks here will be heading up to Nibblesyble’s, Linky’s or one of the other Canadians who are up there. 🙂 I don’t blame ya. If I hadn’t have worked so hard to come down here, I might head back up there with y’all. But, I love America too much and intend to fight for it.

            • sDee

              America is the last stand. The Constitution their last obstacle. Proud to be with you ABC.

              • Thanks sDee. I’m honored to be with you and the others here. My line is drawn.

      • StrangernFiction

        I think Orrin Hatch pretty much summed up the view of the GOPE, when he said he despises us.

        • nibblesyble

          Do you believe that slime? He perfectly expressed how all Republican elites feel about anyone that does not fall in line. That is why they despise Newt as well.

          • What better reason to continue to vote for the “establishment” pick. As a person holds their nose, the Countryclub R’s are laughing themselves silly knowing that the person will do it again and again and again.

            As much as there is a cry from West for African-Americans to wake up from the Dem abuse, we need to wake up from the Repub abuse of conservatives.

      • ApplePie101

        We need a third (constitutional conservative) party. First, as a nascent threat to the democrat and republican parties. Second, because it would put an end to the game playing by those in congress who call themselves conservatives yet tow the liberal republican party line, by forcing them to choose one or the other. Third, because a real conservative party would set the rules for its own convention, and prevent republicans and democrats from running on the conservative line of the ballot.

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t a third party establish itself in congress with just a few members, without endangering the present republican majority? And yet it could become the kernel of a real constitutional, budget cutting new party.

        • Would this be something similar to the idea of the Conservative party in NY?

  • Trust1TG

    Mark Levin, Rush and others need to stop trying to defend Romney as a viable legitimate conservative candidate. He isn’t.

    From this article: http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/why-is-romney-being-supported-by-the-global-warming-crowd/
    “Why is Romney being supported by the Global Warming Crowd?”

    “Aside from the slew of conservative groups, publications and think tanks that took money from Romney and now proclaim him a conservative, we shouldn’t forget Team Romney’s covert operations. For example, one group was formed called “Evangelicals for Mitt,” headed by David and Nancy French. Its main purpose is the propagandizing of evangelicals into believing Romney is a superstar on the social issues. Their website simply parrots items given to them by the Romney campaign and they’ve done a tremendous job covering up the fact that Governor Romney carried out perhaps the most aggressive gay rights agenda of any governor in American history.”

    “But that’s not all. A number of other global warming zealots are backing Romney including billionaire Trammel Crow and Rob Sisson, who heads up a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. And one of Romney’s economic advisors is Greg Mankiw, who has spent much of his career pushing for a carbon tax to finance all the wacky global warming programs of the type Mitt pushed in Massachusetts. Also advising Romney on environmental issues are James Connaughton, a cap-and-trader who headed up Bush’s Council of Environmental Quality, and Jeff Holmstead, a Bush EPA official known for his extreme global warming views. But this isn’t surprising given the fact Romney hired hard-left environmentalist John Holdren – now Obama’s science advisor – to be a key advisor while Governor of Massachusetts.”

    Besides Holdren, another consultant Romney used was Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN who is now Obama’s Safe Schools Czar – who was given hundreds of millions of dollars to push the LBGTQ agenda in public schools.

    • Trust1TG

      Remember, Soros said there was no real difference between Obama and Romney – just the supporters they brought to the table.

    • They all get Romney money is why they support him. It just sickens me.

      • K-Bob

        Where’s the proof of that? Levin get’s “Romney money?” Where? How much?

        Let’s stay focused here, and not go chasing phantoms.

    • sDee

      Great viewpoint. Romeny’s campaign, websites, photo shots, sound bites, trolls, etc remind me very much of Obama’s. So much so I think they have hired many of the same people

    • David_Krys

      Are they are all trying to get him to sound similar to, oh let me see, mmmm, maybe like Gingrich addressing the NRA?

      Michael Ames, at The Daily Beast:

      “If the Republican presidential nomination were decided by the volume and energy of applause from thousands of National Rifle Association members who gathered in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich might yet have a shot at greatness… Friday’s Celebration of American Values Leadership forum featured speeches by Mitt Romney, recent contender Rick Santorum, plus conservative stars like former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. But members of the influential gun lobby reserved their greatest enthusiasms not for their presumptive nominee Romney, but for Newt Gingrich, a candidate who perseveres to the wonderment of many and the joy of some.”

  • I think Romney needs to explain why he’s talking about a Republican DREAM Act?

    He said during the debates that he would veto that if it ever came to his desk. Flip/flop!

    • MaxineCA

      Because Rubio already introduced it. Talk about pandering!

    • c4pfan

      Didn’t you see what happened in Puerto Rico?

      • sDee

        Granting Puerto Rico statehood combined with entitlement-based amnesty of illegal subversives, will permanently seal the political establishment’s control.

        Our time is short to stop them. Romney is being sent in to clamp off the last artery.

  • M_J_S

    The only thing that gives me solace is going to be the humiliation the GOP leadership will suffer when Obama wins re-election.

    Let us all pray the outrage of the “anti-Obama” crowd after he wins forces the GOP to do some real soul searching.

    • cathmom

      You are assuming the GOP and GOP elites want Obama to lose.

      • M_J_S

        They may be rooting for Obama, but they may not be ready for what will come after that.

        At this point, I believe most Conservative Republicans and Democrats (as well as independents) would love a 3rd party for 2016 and leave the two parties behind.

        They are useless.

      • sDee

        True. The GOP’s order of preference.

        Romney beats Obama.
        Obama beats Romney
        Obama beats a Conservative
        A Conservative beats Obama

        Nothing threatens the political establishment more than a Conservative who will lead the people and cut the size of government.

  • Trust1TG

    Mark Levin, Romney can’t exactly explain and defend how he got his wealth – much of it was gained from methods and means that are indefensible, like draining worker pension funds and from massive helpings of US taxpayer funds, bail-outs, etc.. Romney’s brand of capitalism is something he should be embarrassed about.

    • c4pfan

      I’m actually just plain over the fact that Romney and RINOs like him say that they believe in the free market and don’t! He’s no different than any other politician. Has he named one program he’d cut? Why is it always a ‘me too’ crap with Liberal ideas?

    • sDee

      I have always wondered why no one calls him out on his claim to be a business man. He is a henchman for bankers.

      • TPDanbo

        To Quote the movie “Apocalypse Now”: Kurtz: You’re an Assassin? “WILLARD”(Romney): I’M A SOLDIER, Kurtz: You’re neither. You’re an errand boy,sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill!!! LOL, perrfect!

  • stage9

    Poll: Voters Doubt Romney Can Beat Obama
    http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/voters-we-doubt-romney-can-bea.php

    What a disaster.

  • c4pfan

    Hello! People are just noticing how Romney has been saying from day one?!

    • sDee

      Hiding it in plain sight.

    • And people wanted the primaries crammed up into a few months. Now that people are realizing things, it would seem to be a bit on the late side.

  • justrighton

    I vote for Mark Levin to be president on Romney’s behalf

    • ApplePie101

      There’s our George Washington for the 21st century. Rick Santelli VP.

      • Rick Santelli – now there is an interesting pick!!!

  • odin147

    pipe dream…

  • sDee

    easy as ABC

    A) Romney has based his economic plan on INCREASING Federal spending outlays to 20% of GDP.

    B) We are far below that now and yet do not have enough tax income. So, we borrow over a trillion a year just to maintain a level of spending LOWER than what Romney wants.

    C) Romney will have to raise taxes well beyond anything that even Hussein would have to do today to balance the budget.

    Is no one listening to this man?

    • c4pfan

      I have and that’s why I never supported him. People STILL don’t want to deal with the debt.

    • While I do like it sDee, I gotta say, I’m not easy! 😉

  • nibblesyble

    Maybe ‘the great one’ should put his full support behind Newt instead of giving up. Romney has also stated that he wants to pursue a ‘republican dream act’ as well. Weird, because he was such a hard-a$$ duriing the debates about it. He is a liar, and a panderer…for those former Santo-lovers that have also given up…I suggest you decide to fight a bit longer. Romney believes he has won now, so he isn’t even trying to go right anymore. I shake my head.

  • Republican voters did an awful job this cycle. They have given us a liberal statist with an R next to his name.

    Even if he wins, we are still screwed.

    • WordsFailMe

      Maybe but we won’t be blue-ed and tattooed!

    • StrangernFiction

      A real genuine clusterfluke.

    • TPDanbo

      Hard to say for sure, how much republicans are to blame since any fool can walk in and vote, and many Dems.and others did to, it’s so stupid! This delema was forced upon us by GOP Elites, who shot down every Conservative that came along and Newt TWICE!

  • c4pfan

    Next will be the VAT tax!

    • stage9

      What is the Vat tax exactly? If you don’t fall in line they throw you in a vat?

      • nibblesyble

        value added tax..I assume on purchasing goods.

        • sDee

          VAT is different than a national sales tax. VAT is more than revenue collection. It isa socialist supply chain control of the economy.

          Today at state level usually suppliers, wholesalers, distributors, manufactures etc usually are exempt from sales tax as they buy and sell until the goods get to the cash register.

          National VAT is set up so the government can collect tax wherever value is added. So the tax accumulates along the path of production of goods, food, energy etc. The government sometimes collects or debits along the way, then refunds or credits it back to companies in the supply chain.

          • nibblesyble

            Thanks sDee for the clarification.

      • sDee

        pretty much

    • sDee

      Yes – the numbers just do not add up without major tax increases. He never mentions cutting government.

      Romney follows orders. His job was to champion the poison pill of Obamacare. That is designed as a major control of citizens by making us dependent on and fearful of government, and to eventually force private payers and provides in a nationalized system.

      I suspect a VAT is in the works too. National sales tax is bad. VAT is evil. It lets the government tax and escrow the cash flow in an economy because it taxes goods and energy at many stages stage of raw material to retail sale then, rebating as they see fit.

      Who needs Obamacare when you can go for the whole enchilada.

      Government control of private enterprise through regulation and taxation – that ‘ism ain’t capital’ism.

  • WordsFailMe

    Mark: If you could just find a way to get you arm up his throat and move his jaw manually with your hand, we might make a man out of this mouse.

    • K-Bob

      There should be some leftover Soviet Technology from the days they needed it to animate Breshnev and Andropov.

      • WordsFailMe

        hahahaha hohoho!

  • StrangernFiction

    Mitt Romney channeling Mark Levin?

    That’ll be the day.

  • MaxineCA

    So what are we going to do about it?

    I just received another “Presidential Platform Survey” from the RNC (probably the 6th I’ve received but never returned with a contribution).

    Here’s my plan, tell me what you think.

    I’m going to write a letter to dear Reince Priebus and tell him how I feel (of course in a very professional and civil manner), and use their pre-paid postage envelope to mail it, without the survey. But I’m struggling with the subject line. I had a few ideas:

    The RNC sucks – no, that won’t work.
    Romney is a RINO – no that won’t work

    Many others, but none would work

    Hey my fellow Scoopers – Help me out with something catchy that will get their attention.

    If anyone wants to do the same, I would love to flood their office with letters – yes paper, as it has a visual impact.

    (I think it would be best if we all use the same subject line, but it’s not necessary.)

    Here’s the address:
    Republican National Committee
    310 First Street SE
    PO Box 96994
    Washington DC 20077-7556

    Thanks all. I know we are frustrated but banging away on our keyboards isn’t going to change a thing. We need to do something!

    • WordsFailMe

      Suggestion:
      RNC- Stick This Plank in Your Platform!

      • kim

        LOL

      • MaxineCA

        I’m still laughing! Good one!

    • freenca

      Been doing the same as you Maxine, I keep sending in the surveys and don’t know how to get my conservative points across, are they listening or just begging ?

      • MaxineCA

        They think that if they send us a survey, we will think we have a voice. I don’t think so. Bottom line – they want our money. I returned the first survey (no money), but they keep coming. $$$$$ is all they are after so they can support the candidate of their choice.

        • freenca

          It’s all in how they couch the questions, they only give one avenue of rebuttal usually. So they don’t really want any positive or creative input. They only THINK they are getting true opinion, but they are, ALAS, not.

    • You can try Maxine, but don’t expect an answer. I tried that last go around when I got one when they tried to pass off mclame. I’m still waiting.

      • MaxineCA

        I’m not expecting a reply. I’m just one of the “little people” not a lobbyist or billionaire. I guess it’s only those folks that matter these days. I don’t think so. It is clear to me that people are fed up. It’s just so frustrating.

    • sDee

      They check the envelope for money and then throw it in the trash.

      • MaxineCA

        So be it, if that’s what they do. It’s their postage not mine. I just don’t want to go down without a fight or at least speaking my mind. That’s why I’m looking for a catchy subject line.

        • sDee

          They know what we are thinking. They knew how many of us turned out to hear Sarah Palin. They know we turned the streets of DC into a sea of red, white, blue, and don’t tread on me.

          They know. They just do not care.

          I say we all send 5 or 10 bucks to Colonel West. Filling his coffers instead of Romney’s is something the elites will notice.

      • c4pfan

        LOL You are probably right.

    • JRD1

      I send it back in their prepaid envelope every time telling them that I will never support Romney even if he chooses a conservative VP. I advise them that I refuse to give my time and money to the corrupt ba$tards club. Why beat around the bush. I told the truth. I’m so over them.

      They are receiving many of these envelopes. You are not alone.

    • ApplePie101

      Subject line: ‘Third Party’

  • Karl Rogue

    If Mark would just kick in $50k to Romney2012, Mitt might come on his show

    • kim

      Mitt the Mouse will never go on Mark’s show.

      • sDee

        Is that Ann”s hand inside the sock puppet?

        • kim

          No, can’t be. It would be sharp if that were the case. Mitt is more like George McFly (pre-transformation) in Back to the Future. He is facing off against Biff.

  • sDee

    Who would Cloward and Piven send in to “rebuild” system after it’s collapse?

    • freenca

      Weasel Tim says over and over that THEY DON’T have a plan, but do not like anyone else’s. Don’t be fooled, they have a plan that they do not want to reveal, It’s not a good plan, for us.

      • sDee

        Yup. Things don’t add up and when those things have 12 zeros after them, it does not take a bloody genius to know who is going to end up on the pointed end of the stick.

  • marketcomp

    Is it possible to layout an economic agenda when one lacks a core, specifically a conservative core in this case, along with an inability to articulate and communicate the Constitution? We are in for a ride that will not be fun!

    • sDee

      The agenda is laid out for him. He just has to follow orders.

      • marketcomp

        This is what we get when corporations and establishment pick the candidate, a candidate that cannot follow a strip and a coreless candidate.

  • stage9

    Republicans to Romney: Embrace Your Mormonism
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-mormonism-election-2012/2012/04/16/id/436033

    Do people even stop anymore to do research and find out what exactly they’re endorsing? You really need to watch these….they’re very eye-opening…

    DNA VS THE BOOK OF MORMON
    http://sourceflix.com/dna-vs-the-book-of-mormon/

    The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon
    http://sourceflix.com/the-bible-vs-the-book-of-mormon/

    The Bible vs. Joseph Smith
    http://sourceflix.com/the-bible-vs-joseph-smith-official-release/

    • sDee

      thanks!

    • c4pfan

      Nope. His religion is the least of my problems with him.

    • Desperation sets in and all principles are thrown out the window when ABO is more important than who the candidate will be….

    • Calvin Wells

      The professional anti-LDS crowd cracks me up. It’s amazing to me that anybody would pay good money to listen to a bunch of lies proffered by the likes of these guys making these videos. Here’s just one example of dishonesty they want you to pay good money for: The Book of Mormon does NOT teach that all native americans descended from a group that came to the Americas from Jerusalem. And yet, that’s what the DNA video attempts to debunk. They start with a false claim, and then go ahead and try to use DNA to prove the false claim false. There’s not a chance that DNA evidence can discern whether a small group of people arrived in central america from the holy land some 2600 years ago by testing today’s population of native americans. It would be impossible even if those folks from the holy land never came into contact with other populations, but since they absolutely did mingle with other populations, it’s even more ludicrous to think one can disprove the Book of Mormon this way. The very idea is ludicrous, but that’s what you’re being asked to spend your money on. Save your money.

      If you really have a desire to know what the LDS church teaches, you can go to LDS.org, the same web site used by church members world-wide, that contains all of the scripture, student manuals, teacher’s manuals for all of the various organizations within the church (sunday school, priesthood, relief society, young men’s and young women’s programs, institutes of religion classes, etc.), leadership manuals, magazine back-issues going back decades, general conference talks delivered by general authorities of the church going back years, and so forth and so on. It’s all there. No need to get your information about the LDS church from someone with an agenda to put the church in as bad a light as possible. You’re guaranteed to be feed falsehoods if that’s your source of info. And no, we 14 million LDS church members are not brainwashed, and nor are we taught to lie about our beliefs while we keep controversial stuff secret.

      • Trust1TG

        How can Mormons reconcile Romney’s implementation of gay marriage and adoption by executive order violating the Massachusetts Constitution when they were defending marriage on the other side of the country in California?

        Do Mormons condone Romney’s lies, his huge taxpayer funds bailouts, his ruthless business and campaign tactics, his liberal social policies?

        • When you donate a few million to BYU, I am sure a few things will be overlooked.

      • Trust1TG

        The roots of Mormonism lie in Joseph Smith’s character – and he was run out of several states for his concocted religion, scandalous exploitations, sexual teachings and practices and business deals and finally murdered in jail because of his schemes. His book and religion was derived from an unpublished manuscript that Sydney Rigdon a defrocked Baptist minister had obtained and it is a mixture of Christianity, Masonry, and Mohammedanism. It is a syncretistic confabulation of secret rituals…spiritualism that were popular at the time and in the Burned-over district which had experienced several revivals and had become addicted to emotions and signs and wonders in religion. Mormonism practiced polygamy until the early 20th century and racism until the 1980s.

  • Santorum…. why, why, WHY DID YOU DROP?!?!?!?!?!

    • c4pfan

      He couldn’t get into more debt and Texas didn’t say if they were going to be winner take all. His daughter is very ill and they don’t have much money when it comes for running for office and having a child in the hospital.

    • ApplePie101

      I wonder how much money it would take to get him back in the race? Too bad I didn’t win the mega millions jackpot. But as c4pfan says, his daughter’s illness had a lot to do with it.

  • The

    Its unfortunate that people do not realize Romney is not going to be the Republican nominee. Most of you have already given up. I guess you can charge that to being Human. Or you can charge that to being a Conservative. Defeat is something that you conservatives seem to be willing to take. The going gets a little hard and wham lets settle for the next less thing… Anyways

    Mitt Romney will not be the Republican nominee. Newt Gingrich will and Sarah Palin will run with him. You all need to get on your knees and Thank God for this. It is only because he loves this country that it will happen. God bless.

    • sDee

      Faith is essential but not in politics. I’ll send money when I see a sign. In the meantime, it goes to conservatives who I know will fight either the marxist donkey or the progressive elephant who ends up in the white house.

      • The

        sDee I talk about neither Faith or politics. I talk about the Truth. It transcends.

        The signs are all around you. You just cant detect what already has been shown. Just thank God. He has been good to you.

      • freenca

        THIS TIME, maybe THIS TIME people will stand up. It HAS happened before, if WE can waken enough sleeping people. I keep trying – I KNOW you do too. Pray well.

    • nibblesyble

      I haven’t given up, and I am on my knees.

      • The

        Me too Nibblesyble. Me too…

    • Josh

      I think that what is unfortunate is that the establishment crowns their prince without listening to the people. If the GOP had listened, Romney would have been out on his ear. We would be having a meaningful debate over whether Santorum’s character, Newt’s intelligence, or Cain’s charisma was the best way to beat Obama. As shown in the ND primary, the votes of the common man do not count as much as they should. A donor’s vote counts much more. Here’s hoping that you are right! But, with the amount of corrupt politicians that exist, I am not sure that this election has not already been decided without “we the people”.

    • GraceKnows

      From your mouth to God’s ear! Many are still out there praying for and working to help Newt. You are absolutely right that too many conservatives abandoned ship when Romney claimed he was the nominee. It’s hard to reason with people who have given up and given in like this. So many who have been staunch conservatives have slipped away and compromised, one by one.

      Hold fast to your convictions, my friend! God bless you, too.

      NEWT 2012

  • JazzFromHell

    mark levin 2012

  • shagstar

    how do they justify asking for donations for their election?
    everyone of these schmucks are beyond rich! (friggin hypocrites/thieves)!
    this country is in so much trouble.

  • leaky_sink

    Until Romney’s willing to have a straight, one-on-one talk with Levin, I won’t trust or support him.

  • Kordane

    Mark may denounce the political idea of it being “fairness” to take from A and give to B, just because B is in need and A is not – But the one thing that you will NEVER catch Mark doing is denouncing the morality of “altruism” which declares that it is your ‘moral obligation’ and the ‘primary source of virtue’ to sacrifice A for the sake of B, just because B is “in need” and A is not.

    Denouncing the political idea is NOT enough.

    He must also denounce the morality of altruism too, because otherwise he’s merely dealing with the symptom of the disease, rather than dealing with the cause.

    The politics of “fairness” is a product of the morality of “altruism”.

    I say… I am not my brother’s keeper! I am not my brother’s healthcare provider! I am not my brother’s pension provider! I am not my brother’s housing and food provider! It is NOT morally good to tell me that I am a slave to others, just because others are “in need”!

    • Trust1TG

      The Buffett rule and Eat The Rich will be the showcase of Obama’s Election Campaign…(along with the War on Women which may not float his sinking boat after all.)

      Using class warfare, an ancient ploy of the Communists, Obama will try to divide, create chaos, motivate voters to vote for him.

      CHARLES KRAUTENHAMMER has debunked the Buffett Rule here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/04/16/3558786/charles-krauthammer-the-buffet.html

      This is Obama’s class warfare strategy goes hand-in-glove with his OWS street riots planned for Summer 2012 – which will be paid for by unions and YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

      They will have professional activists/protestors (who were at work in Egypt/Libya/Syria/LA,WI, etc and are Union/Obama marxist thugs) to augment the sincere, but naive/immature hippies. The professionals specialize in escalating the action from merely disturbing the peace to destruction, fires, looting and bloodshed. (what Obama’s people, Marxists and Islamists do best).

      Romney can’t challenge the Buffett rule without sounding suspiciously self-interested.

      Romney can’t even defend his own business practices which were vulturistic to say the least and his biggest prey was the US taxpayer through all the billions of bail outs, loans, etc. Romney is a corrupt dud, greedy opportunist, corporate raider, product of his backers corporate greed strategies. Heck, each of his sons and possibly his grandchildren has a 100 million dollar trust. They have ties to Solamere which was tied to a ponzi scheme.

      Only Newt, Palin, Santorum and Bachmann can face down Obama on principle – attack his class warfare, hyper-spending, racist games and win.

      They have the credibility and the abilities needed – Romney does not.

    • Your “altruism” is not the issue. The issue is what is the best way to help those who are truly in need. There will always be those who are unable to defend themselves and are in need of support because they are just like you and me.

      I agree that a man who does not work shall not eat. However, it should not be up to the government to make these decisions. This has proven to be a failed proposition. This needs to be returned to the private sector that better demonstrates the needed compassion and “tough” love than an entity known as the Federal Government.

      • Kordane

        Altruism is at the root of almost every single issue that we face today. It is the dominant morality that guides the nation in matters of virtue and vice.

        It is not enough to say “the government should not engage in altruism”, since merely ‘saying it’ does nothing to sway altruists in government who want to “do good” by sacrificing groups of the population (eg. the rich) for the sake of other ‘needy’ groups (eg. the poor), and other variants thereof.

        If morality can make a man strap a bomb on himself and then blow himself up, killing dozens of people in the process, then morality can and will make men advocate altruistic policies in government.

        What has to be rejected, as a matter of principle, is the idea that self-sacrifice for the sake of others (altruism) is a) a moral obligation and b) the primary source of virtue.

        Half measures will NOT do. What’s needed is a philosophical revolution in which altruism and collectivism are utterly rejected and denounced, and where individualism and egoism are embraced and intellectually supported.

        • You will be on a huge uphill climb in trying to reject the idea of self-sacrifice for the sake of others. This is foundational to our country and our Constitution. You would not be here in the USA if not for the altruism of our Founding Fathers. One of the problems of today is that altruism is not the root but has been forgotten or being destroyed.

          True altruism is self-sacrifice by or of the individual for the sake of others, hence heroism. Heroism is one of the greatest displays of altruism. It is a part of the moral fabric that has been corrupted by those in government and on the Left and in small part by Libertarians (extreme).

          I would argue that it is individualism and egoism as well as collectivism that is destroying this nation. Those three “isms” need to take a hike and never return.

          • Kordane

            You’ve got it ALL wrong, but you’re not alone in that because most conservatives would say exactly the same things, and that’s why Conservatives suck when they’re up against the statism of the Left. You may not realise it, but you have basically just taken a crap upon the declaration of independence with your comment.

            “Sacrifice” is when you give up something of greater value (to you) in exchange for something of lesser value or no value (to you).

            To say that the founding fathers sacrificed themselves (for the sake of others) in creating the US, is to say that the creation of the US was of less or no value (to them) relative to the greater value which was the time/effort that they could have spent elsewhere, perhaps tending to their estates and/or businesses. No, I say that yours is a completely wrong view of what they did, for I say that (to them) the creation of the US was of greater value than the lesser/no value which was that time/effort they might have spent doing other things. I say that the act of creating the US was inhereently an act of self-interest/egoism. It was very clearly in their self-interest to create it, and it was very clearly in their self-interest to ensure that the government was constitutionally limited.

            If the founding fathers sacrificed themselves to create the US and to limit it (with a constitution) then both of these things would have had to have been of lesser or no value to the founding fathers, relative to the greater value which was the time/effort they might have spent elsewhere. To make such a claim (of altruism) is to denigrate them and everything they did! Don’t you realise that?

            You’ve contradicted yourself in your last comment, since you denounce individualism and collectivism, which leaves you with no middle ground to stand upon. It’s the morality of altruism which is doing this to you; causing your views to become so convoluted.

            If you believe that individualism and egoism is destroying the country, then you are effectively rejecting the declaration of independence in which our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are recognized. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the quintessentially selfish right, since it means Man’s right to live for himself, so long as he respects the rights of others. The right to liberty means freedom from government coercion. The right to life, which is the source of all rights, means that you have the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being. All of these rights are inherently individualistic and egoistic, yet there you are, corrupted by altruism, denouncing the foundational principles of the United States.

            Lastly, I want to refute your “heroism” argument. You probably think (as almost all Conservatives think) that joining the army and going to war is a “self-sacrifice” and therefore heroic and altruistic. I would argue that joining the army and going to war is selfish, because you’d value the survival of your country higher than the lesser value which is your time/effort and risk to your life; you profit from the arrangement. To say that this is a “self-sacrifice” is to say that the soldier values the survival of the country less than the greater value which is their time/effort and risk to their life. To make such an “altruistic” claim is to basically spit upon that soldier and his deeds, yet there you are, doing exactly that, but doing so with an aura of self-righteousness.

            Look at the post I have to make just to refute your altruism. That is what I’m up against here. I’m up against people who spit upon the founding fathers and the declaration of independence, yet do so self-righteously, and worse, claim that they (and only they) are the “true defenders” of the founding fathers and of the declaration of independence.

            I know my post won’t do anything to sway you, just as there is nothing I could say to sway a suicide bomber who believes that by detonating himself in a crowd of unbelievers is the morally good thing to do.

            I’ll leave you with three questions to consider about altruism. Three questions which altruism cannot withstand.

            1. Why must man live for the sake of others?
            2. Why must he be a sacrificial animal?
            3. Why is that the good?

            Hint: There is no earthly reason for it.

            • Your understanding of altruism is myopic at best and a built strawman at worst. You only allow altruism in a negative sense of someone giving up a greater value for a lesser value. This is utterly false and wrong.

              You state,

              “Sacrifice” is when you give up something of greater value (to you) in exchange for something of lesser value or no value (to you).

              This is a false premise. Sacrifice is not giving something of greater value for something of lesser: since when? When I do not spend my money on myself and use it for my kids, I sacrifice for them. Am I devaluing myself over my kids? No, my kids needs are more important to me and I am willing to sacrifice for them. You have it all backwards.

              Your understanding of sacrifice is laced with selfishness. Altruism is an unselfish devotion to the interests and welfare of others. Sacrifice is what our military does on a regular basis in defending our Constitution for your betterment. Is your freedom of no value? Webster defines sacrifice as Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering

              Since your definition of this concept is erroneous, your whole argument collapses.

              Man is made for community. We are social creatures who are built for interdependency. This is why both “collectivism” and “individualism” are bad. They go to the two extremes. Collectivism goes towards unions, socialism, and communism. Individualism leads to anarchy, everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. Man is built to be individually responsible for his own actions and also to work responsibly within a structure of community for the betterment of society.

              The founding fathers sacrifice was altruistic for they did not know the outcome, but knew that it was best for the whole of society and that was worth fighting for.

              Let me ask you: what are you willing to die for?

              • Kordane

                Quote: “This is a false premise. Sacrifice is not giving something of greater value for something of lesser: since when?

                Since the beginning of time. It is self-evident. Your example of not spending money on yourself, but spending it on your kids, is not a sacrifice. Yes, you’ve given something up, but you have profited from the exchange! You can’t call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you’d call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money… in exchange for said stick of gum. Don’t call something “myopic” when it is your own lack of understanding that is at fault.

                Quote: “Your understanding of sacrifice is laced with selfishness. Altruism is an unselfish devotion to the interests and welfare of others.

                Altruism isn’t about good will towards fellow human beings; that’s “benevolence”, which altruism makes impossible and declares as evil – It’s a morality which says, in no uncertain terms, that anything which benefits you is evil; that if there’s any self-interest at all in anything you do, then it dilutes your virtue. If you helped your friends or family, rather than absolute strangers, then you’re being selfish, because you chose to benefit people who matter to you. In fact, even if you helped absolute strangers, then you’re being selfish, because you chose to benefit your fellow human beings, rather than animals or plants. In fact, even if you helped animals and plants, rather than nothingness itself, then you’re being selfish, because you chose to benefit fellow life forms, rather than nothingness.

                Taken to its consistent extreme, altruism demands total and utter self-abnegation, self-denial and ultimately… self-destruction.

                Nobody can practice altruism consistently; nobody can gain “full virtue” and become “fully good”, except by immediately committing suicide.

                Quote: “Sacrifice is what our military does on a regular basis in defending our Constitution for your betterment. Is your freedom of no value?

                Yes, my freedom is of great value, but so is it to those soldiers who fight for it. In defending the nation, they are defending their own freedom, their own property, and their own lives. Oh, but you see, you can’t stand that aspect, because it’s selfishness, isn’t it? You can’t tolerate any selfish gain whatsoever. It has to be total and utter sacrifice, no selfish gain at all allowed, otherwise it’s not morally good by your standards.

                Quote: “Webster defines sacrifice as Hence, to destroy, surrender, or suffer to be lost, for the sake of obtaining something; to give up in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty; to devote, with loss or suffering”

                I acknowledge that that is one of the definitions for sacrifice, but what you have to acknowledge is that dictionaries just reflect how people understand words, and even if their understanding is illogical, then it’ll get included in the dictionary. If enough people decided that “slavery” meant “freedom”, then that too would be included in the dictionary as one of the definitions, even though we might currently think it’s completely illogical to define it as that.

                There is no way that you can ever persuade me that profiting from an exchange of value is a sacrifice. It makes about as much sense as my gum example.

                To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a ‘net loss’ from an exchange of value.
                For example: 1. You give $100 to someone in exchange for $50, or 2. You give $100 to someone in exchange for nothing. Both are “sacrifices” because you have lost from the exchange; you have not profited.

                The opposite of a sacrifice, which is to “profit” is when you have a ‘net gain’ from an exchange of value.
                For example: 1. You give $50 to someone in exchange for $100, or 2. You give nothing to someone in exchange for $100. Both are “profits” because you have gained from the exchange; you have not sacrificed.

                If you’re the one gaining (in the latter example) then you’re arguably “selfish”, and if you’re the one losing (in the former example) then you’re arguably “altruistic”.

                That is LOGICAL. There is no amount of denial that will change that fact.

                Quote: “Man is made for community. We are social creatures who are built for interdependency.”

                A member of the communist party couldn’t have said it any better!

                With that one statement you have denied validity of man as a sovereign individual in his own right, and you have relegated man to being a mere faceless cog in a machine. Your views are no different from the communists who marched innocent people into concentration camps for the good of the state, for the good of society, or for the good of the bureaucrats. You treat man as a disposable commodity with no intrinsic value. This is symptomatic for altruists though, since altruism practised consistently demands death, wholesale slaughter, genocide… for the sake of others. Little do you realise it, but altruism has killed more people than anything else in the whole history of Mankind. It is a morality of death.

                Quote: “Man is built to be individually responsible for his own actions and also to work responsibly within a structure of community for the betterment of society

                Again, a member of the communist party couldn’t have said it any better.

                Yes, man is “individually responsible”, but where I differ from your communistic leanings, is where you say that man should work “for the bettermen of society” rather than for his OWN betterment. Again, it’s altruism at work. You can’t tolerate any self-interest; it always has to be sacrifice sacrifice sacrifice.

                Without even speaking to you about it, I know that you utterly detest “Capitalism”. I know that you believe it to be the most evil system ever devised by man, because the moral justification of Capitalism is inherently selfish since it is a system which recognized that man has a right to exist for his own sake, where he neither sacrifices himself to others, nor sacrifices others to himself. Capitalism is a system which recognizes that each man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; not a slave to others; not a sacrificial animal serving anyone’s need. It is a system that is completely antithetical to your moral code of altruism.

                • You are clueless as to what you think I know and detest. So now you make up definitions to fit your own paradigm. Wow! Way to build up that strawman act. You get to define the terms, argue against that, and then call anyone who disagrees with you names. You cannot find a single shred of evidence to support your idea. You call it logical but it is not. You go so far as to discredit Mr. Webster and every dictionary out there. It would look as if you need to take the class on etymology again.

                  You can’t call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you’d call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money… in exchange for said stick of gum.

                  To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a ‘net loss’ from an exchange of value.

                  It would seem to be that you are contradicting yourself here. Talk about being logical?

                  Again you set up a strawman stating that I would profit from spending my money on my child when I could have spent in on myself. So now you can judge me on whether I profited on this, how? What makes you so sure that I did? You have no idea what it may or may not be.

                  Capitalism is the best system in the world, not because it is inherently selfish, but because it reigns in and harnesses man’s greatest weakness for betterment. I am sure you have had time to appreciate Dr. Sowell’s book “A Conflict of Visions”. Then again, you must think that he is a communist since he would utterly disagree with about almost everything you wrote. Capitalism harnesses man’s propensity towards evil and turns it into good. I know, you must be having a conniption pulling your hair out. You seem to not understand this at all. If you do not have a community of people, your capitalism will fail. Notice that when a person in a capitalistic society (man doesn’t society tend to be community) desires to better himself, he also will tend to better others around him.

                  For example: a person starts a business for themselves, it is a success and so he hires a jobless person (bettering that person as well). Now that the jobless person has a great paying job, they turn around and buy a home. Wait, buying a home means someone has to sell it. Oh my, that means that the person who buys it not only betters himself but also the one who sold it to him. But according to you this isn’t capitalism since it betters the community. Hence, your view is myopic (but I am sure your definition does not agree with everyone else, right?)

                  Altruism and benevolence are related to each other, in other words they are the same thing. But, since you do not trust dictionaries, I guess you will never know that.

                  since altruism practised consistently demands death, wholesale slaughter, genocide… for the sake of others. Little do you realise it, but altruism has killed more people than anything else in the whole history of Mankind.

                  Really, you have something to back this up with. Again, you have a myopic view of altruism. It is always evil, it is always bad, it is “moral.” By the way, why do you have such a horrendous attitude towards morality anyway. Altruism is not a religion, though you act like it is and you want so much for it to be. It is an attitude of selflessness. Sadly, you just want to focus on those who abuse such motivation. There are many who have made great benefits to society through altruism.

                  With that one statement you have denied validity of man as a sovereign individual in his own right, and you have relegated man to being a mere faceless cog in a machine.

                  I’m sorry, but do you make your own food, where did you get the see from? Did you build your own house, mode of transportation, tools? Do you speak with others? If so, you are not sovereign. Sorry, but my definition includes personal responsibility. We are built for community. If not, you would have never been born. Interestingly, one cannot be sovereign if they needed to be born. Your desire for extreme libertarianism cannot be supporter or work since it has to reject the very notion of society and capitalism.

                • Kordane

                  Quote: “You go so far as to discredit Mr. Webster and every dictionary out there

                  I merely explained to you how dictionaries work. Why do you think dictionaries don’t provide ONE definition for each word? – Because people have different definitions for words, and all that the dictionary is doing is listing them all. Just because that sole definition is in the dictionary, doesn’t mean that it is the true definition; all it means is that enough people think that it’s the definition, so therefore it gets included. Dictionaries constantly change their definitions for words as the culture changes. I could go look up the dictionary definition for “capitalism” and I’d probably find a dozen different definitions. Which one is the right one? You can’t tell. The only way to figure it out is to think for yourself and to use logic! If I go to dictionary.com to look up “sacrifice”, I get ten bloody definitions, not one sole true 100% valid definition! Think for yourself! Use logic (the art of non-contradictory identification)!

                  Quote: “Again you set up a strawman stating that I would profit from spending my money on my child when I could have spent in on myself

                  You profit from spending money on your child IF your child’s well-being is of greater value to you than the lesser value which was the money you gave to them. If you consider it a “sacrifice” to spend money on your child’s well-being, then you clearly value the money higher than your children, which quite frankly would make you a pretty uncaring parent! That’s what it sounds like to me when I hear you call it a “sacrifice” to spend money on your child.

                  Quote: “Capitalism is the best system in the world, not because it is inherently selfish, but because it reigns in and harnesses man’s greatest weakness for betterment

                  I’ve read your comments about capitalism. It’s clear to me that, being the altruist that you are, you are trying to justify capitalism on the basis of service and self-sacrifice to others, to the state, to society – Rather than on how it recognizes man’s right to exist for his own sake.

                  Yes, a man may start a business, he may then offer work and he may produce goods which others benefit from. The moral justification for capitalism isn’t the benefits that others derive from it; those are a mere secondary consequence that need not be his motivation. The moral justification for capitalism is in the man’s freedom to pursue his happiness and to make money for himself. But you see, as I pointed out numerous times, you can’t tolerate that because it’s selfish to pursue your happiness, it’s selfish to make money, it’s selfish to want and gain the fruits of your labor – All of these things are EVIL according to your morality, even though those activities keep man alive and allow man to thrive on this earth.

                  Quote: “I’m sorry, but do you make your own food, where did you get the seed from? Did you build your own house, mode of transportation, tools?

                  I worked my butt off and then traded for them, exchanging value for value, neither sacrificing others to myself, nor myself to others. In all of this I was a sovereign individual; I didn’t enslave others to my needs, nor did others enslave me to their needs. This differs from your outlook, where all men are enslaved to all men.

                  You know, you go on about “society”. Well let me tell you something: There is no such thing as “society”. Any group is just a number of individuals, all with their own individual minds, bodies and property. You think of society as being some kind of super-organism, or hive-mind, or vast machine where all the individuals are faceless cogs in a machine. It is that collectivistic thinking that resulted in the worst tyrannies that Mankind has ever created. America was based on individualism, where man is recognized as an individual endowed with unalienable individual rights, and not just some rightless part of some “group”.

                  Yes, we may ‘use’ others for certain things (eg. using a baker to bake bread, rathe than bake it yourself), but that does not mean that we have to use others. I could go off and live on a deserted island all by myself. People have lived for decades, all alone, totally self-sufficient. It is entirely possible. Stop subscribing to that utterly BS elizabeth warren rhetoric – It’s the rhetoric of self-enslavement.

                • Replied here to make sure we have a wider window.

                  America was based on individualism, where man is recognized as an individual endowed with unalienable individual rights, and not just some rightless part of some “group”.

                  No one disagrees that a person is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Your problem is that the preamble of the Constitution starts with “We the people….” It would seem that “we the people” is more than just individualism, so get off the extreme libertarian bandwagon.

                  Dictionaries constantly change their definitions for words as the culture changes. I could go look up the dictionary definition for “capitalism” and I’d probably find a dozen different definitions. Which one is the right one? You can’t tell.

                  I am so glad that you know the exact definition of the term, “sacrifice”. Yet, you seem to miss the bigger picture of etymology. Words do have meaning, and generally their meaning does stay consistent until someone desires to hijack the term; like “gay” for example. If you go back in time of the meaning, the root, one would see that “sacrifice” has not changed that much at all in the sense that I use the definition.

                  Use logic (the art of non-contradictory identification)!

                  You can’t call it a sacrifice any time you lose any thing. Otherwise, every time you buy a stick of gum, you’d call it a sacrifice, because you had to give up some money… in exchange for said stick of gum.

                  To me, sacrifice is when you suffer a ‘net loss’ from an exchange of value.

                  Right, you are going to try to teach someone logic when you contradict yourself, good one there.

                  Again, you determine that the “profit” of sacrificing for my child is greater value to me than it would be that I would spent it on myself and therefore not a sacrifice. You demean me as a bad parent if I thought differently, but isn’t unselfishness a bad thing in your worldview? You seem to be a very confused individual.

                  I worked my butt off and then traded for them, exchanging value for value, neither sacrificing others to myself, nor myself to others. In all of this I was a sovereign individual;

                  Sorry but you did sacrifice to others. It cannot be helped. In the very nature of exchange and trade is that you had to work (sacrifice your time, effort) to meet the demands of another in order to trade such product. I know it does not make any sense to you. For example, you made $100 and you want an item another has. That person states that it will cost you $200, so you then work again for that money in order to meet the demand of value that the other assessed.

                  The moral justification for capitalism is in the man’s freedom to pursue his happiness and to make money for himself.

                  Rudimentary capitalism is simply making another person happy in order to have your own happiness (trying hard to use your terminology here). If you want a dollar, you make something that you think will make another person happy enough to exchange that dollar for the item you made. For capitalism to work, one must be able to sell a product. Again, you have to read Thomas Sowell’s book, or do you think he is a communist as well? He is an economist who’s grasp on capitalism is well beyond what you have explained.

                  Whether you like it or not, you are not a sovereign individual, you are dependent upon others. You are dependent upon those who produce electricity, make the internet available, etc. In fact, you are dependent upon another to give you money to maintain your personal happiness. Your desire to equate altruism with slavery is demeaning and lacking of any substantial evidence. I have never mention “enslavement” this is your own device that continues to lack any coherence to the conversation. I am not enslaved to a person if I choose to help them out, or choose to make a product that will make their life better and at the same time earn myself a dollar.

                  This sounds like a broken record, but you do not know what my moral code is. Altruism is not the foundation on which I live. Altruism is not a religion but a worthy goal towards heroism and unselfishness. I guess you do not like heroes or those who willingly save another’s life with no regard to themselves. You never did answer the question: Who/what are you willing to die for?

                  Simply recap: You cannot seem to fathom the “both/and” of life. We are individuals endowed with unalienable rights and at the same time are governed by “We the people” notice the plural we and people. In fact, it would seem that the Preamble to the Constitution is something that would be resented by extreme libertarianism.

  • Trust1TG

    Last night and this morning, I wrote Mark Levin, warning him not to risk his conservative reputation on Romney as we have seen Coulter and Drudge do.

    In addition, I also wrote the Susan B. Anthony and National Right to Life groups twice, once briefly and another time with links and evidence. Their endorsement has become as worthless as a Nobel Peace Prize. They better have a contract in writing with millions of dollars penalty – because Romney has shown his word is not worth anything.

    • GraceKnows

      What a great example you’re setting, Trust1G. I can’t believe that right to life groups are caving to this hypocrite. God bless your efforts! I’ll go to NRL and Susan B. Anthony’s web site and get their addresses, too.

      The world has changed so much in such a short time! Black is whit, up is down, bad is good, and good is bad. Of course, this has all been written, and the New Testament warned us.

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    Interesting headline this morning about Romney’s favorability rating in the latest ABC News/WaPo poll — “weakest favorability rating on record for a presumptive presidential nominee ”

    http://news.yahoo.com/record-shortfall-personal-popularity-challenges-romney-race-ahead-205559223.html

    It doesn’t surprise me at all, and it leaves me with a glimmer of hope that some kind of surprise awaits us this summer at the convention. I personally have not given up on Newt.

    • sDee

      To me it reinforces that, as conservatives, we have to stand by our principles and support conservatives.

      It is not (R) vs (D). It is the people vs government. I will not waste my time, money or vote on a big government candidate. Ever. Especially when the only reason given is to get rid of another big government candidate.

    • FreeManWalking

      I wounder was anyone really surprised with that poll?

    • GraceKnows

      Neither have I! Still supporting, donating, trying to spread the word. NEWT!

  • CalCoolidge

    Romney has his own versions of the Buffet Rule

    • sDee

      We have to pay this debt back. There are two mechanisms at our disposal. Higher taxes or cutting the size and budget of the government that is incurring the debt.

      Romney will never cut the size of government and has never said he would. In fact his budget plan is to INCREASE it to 20% of GDP. So where does that leave us? “Read My Lips…?”

  • Jude O’Connor

    Here’s a listing of Federal entitlement programs stuffed with workers drawing a check and producing no items for sale that can be taxed. http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
    Did you know that there are over eleven thousand staff members for our Congress? Read about them here and this info is ten years old, imagine what it is now.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff It’s wonderful that the public can access this info from home, why do you think the Government wants control of the net?

  • Amy

    This was an awesome segment on Levine’s show. I don’t get to listen too often, so I’m always glad when the small parts I listen to agree with me. 😉

  • Amy

    This was an awesome segment on Levine’s show. I don’t get to listen too often, so I’m always glad when the small parts I listen to agree with me. 😉

  • FreeManWalking

    Willard finely puts forth one of his “seriously conservative” platforms, and now we want him to shut up.

  • pmb88

    What brings America together is talking about liberty and freedom. With this we can defeat Obama not class warfare. When I hear an class warfare comment from any R I cringe and especially more so if it is Mitt because he is our presumed nominee. We tried selecting this type of candidate before and looked at what happened, we lost to Obama. Doesn’t the establishment ever learn that these types of candidates dont work.

  • MiketheMarine

    Shocking, you mean Mittwitt isnt’ a conservative with conservative ideas? Tell me it ain’t so.

    This guy is Maobama light.

    Believe it.

  • we’re not gonna get anywhere with this guy….he apparently refuses to reform the tax code and can’t give any specifics on what he’d cut in spending….that’s a recipe for 4 more yrs of obama!! I’m still pissed at how everyone treated newt when he was the one with a plan to reverse the decline and not just manage it

    • GraceKnows

      Right, Becca! It’s like Newt has been the elephant in the room that everyone studiously ignored. I’m talking about the MSM and the conservative media, as well: television, radio, internet. They disregarded, or even tried to smear his impeccable record as Speaker. They did all the damage they could in order to get THEIR candidate in, and keep him in, no matter what.

      Newt is the only one, STILL, who can defeat Barack Hussein Obama. They know it! But look now, how Romney is already tipping his hand, because he believes he has been crowned and anointed.

      GO NEWT!!