Mark Levin: It’s time to raise our voices!

This is a MUST LISTEN. Mark Levin says conservatism is the only antidote to tyranny and it’s time that we preach our message to the masses. He attacks the notion that we’ve lost the blue states and says conservatism when explained will work anywhere in America because it is the message of freedom.

In my opinion this is Levin’s best monologue in a long time and you should listen to the whole thing. I’m serious, it is that 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.
  • Metalplate6538

    May I comment about something off topic. If you want to help defeat Harry Reid, one way you can do that is by spending his own campaign money.

    You may have perhaps noticed the anti Sharron Angle advertisements on this website and other right minded or conservative sites. With that type of pay-per-click ad, his campaign doesn’t pay for the placement of that ad until someone clicks on it. Then, the campaign will have to pay somewhere between $0.50 up to $3.00 or $4.00 for every time someone clicks on the ad.

    Spend his money, really you’ll be wasting his money; start with the idea that his message is an obfuscation, pay no attention to it as you wish; click the link, let the ad page load (a new window will open, so you won’t lose the Scoop), then close the window and you’re Right back here. Don’t worry they won’t take away your birthday.

    Do this every time you see the ad. BUT, only once a day, per each site which has a Harry Reid ad you visit that day. Mass clicking again and again will not be effective; to click again and again in succession is actually counter-productive. But, if we all do this whenever possible, that will eat into his campaign treasury pretty quickly. Maybe only $100… maybe $100,000; who knows? You’l be fighting on a cheap and easy counter-insurgency battlefield, in which anyone can play.

    Please spread the idea around, or tell me I’m full of crap… It’s up to you. Oh, and on that second thing, it won’t be the first time; some of you should tone down the self righteousness and get to work instead of trying to prove your “expertise”. I’m just sharing an idea, not stapling targets on a wall. If you know what I mean.

    Peace be unto you my friends; until next time.

  • Morgan

    Not sure what audio service that is but it’s either crummy or overloaded or both right now. Might try elsewhere.

    If it’s overloaded, good for you guys.

    • Morgan,

      He uploads a very low bitrate version (for speed of transfer/download). If you adjust the volume on the embedded player (to somewhere around HALF) and monitor speed from your computer’s volume settings… it will be far less noticeable.

      Sackett

    • Morgan,

      He uploads a very low bitrate version (for speed of transfer/download). If you adjust the volume on the embedded player (to somewhere around HALF) and monitor speed from your computer’s volume settings… it will be far less noticeable.

      Sackett

  • Josie

    I believe Mark – I believe and we will win!

  • Anonymous

    Love it and right to the point!

  • Damn right. There’s liberty, and there’s everything else.

  • KeninMontana

    Right on the money,he really nailed it.

  • Anonymous

    Mr Levin: One more time, thank you for the passion and patriotic messages. I LOVE it when you get unhinged; the outrage is genuine and WE get it. You, RUSH, Beck, are the only conservatives that can hit a big audience with the airwaves. Keep up the great work and remember that WE are listening….

  • Ed Herold-Freespool

    Fantastic!!!

  • Anonymous

    Mark, I listened to you live and I want to add one thing to your thoughts. In the 70’s I heard a lot of people saying “Government ought to do something about …”, well Government at all levels are doing something about everything from speed cameras, roof rain water runoff (to clean the Bay) while I have to drive one hour to get my emmissions tested and use 3 gallons a gasoline. That cost me $7.90 in fuel, $12.00 for the test as I contributed $1.26 in fuel tax. The list is endless of the Government attacking my time and income.
    I hear you and agree however most of the self preserving Bureaucrats need to be purged as well as the Policy Manuals. We are reaching a point that Government employees will be voting for the current power structure to preserve there careers.

  • Pingback: Hey, If They Fling Mud, Plant Flowers!()

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • We want the obama regime out of our wallets
    This is an SOS The obama regime is hurting our country save the small business owners

  • Anonymous

    “The Democrats always never think this way, they’re always all in”

    Wha? When is the last time since the Civil Rights act that Democrats have ever tried to win in the deep south?

    “If they don’t they try to corrupt the system”… Are you implying that electoral corruption is one-way? Because there’s more than enough hi-jinx on both sides.

    “Unleashing hundreds of thousands of ideologues…” Last I checked, the party in power gets to make nominations. You don’t think Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are ideologues?

    EPA & FCC haven’t done either of the things he’s attributed to them.

    This is barely worth the energy it takes to pick apart, but I’m not sure since when the Republicans have all of the sudden been viewed as fractitious and the Democrats have been this monolithic entity. In general the Republicans have had strength in unity of message while the Democrats have been a pretty fractured party for a while now. As far as I can tell, all that’s going on with Christine O’Donnell is that the politically-minded people inside of the Republican party voicing their serious concerns about her electability while the ideologically-minded folks are saying that they’d rather have a candidate that they can support 100% rather than a candidate that they feel uneasy about on certain issues. Both reasonable angles and certainly a worthwhile and important conversation to have… is Levin suggesting that they cease debate and start marching in lockstep? Because marching in lockstep usually leads to really bad things happening…

    • Dawnrps

      You are dead wrong about the EPA and the FCC. And as I live in Texas, which is part of the South, I can tell you there are plenty of Democrats elected so it is not this monolithic Republican stronghold you presume. As for the Supreme Court judges you mention, I find it ridiculous to suggest Originalists are merely ideologues. A “living document” is the radical absurdity. (Even though that is the crap they forced down our throats in law school which are overrun by the Left.) Is a contract “living”? Of course not. But for some reason, precedent court cases are supposed to have more inviolable language than our Founding Documents? We are supposed to have legislators in robes rather than follow the provided amendment process? And as for hi-jinx on both sides, yes, we are all human and therefore sinners. But Right versus Left is Right versus Wrong and since our side actually believes in God, we are a little more likely to behave morally.

  • Anonymous

    “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

    ” The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents, would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise, not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expence of house-rent to the whole expense of living, is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessities of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess.***A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.***”

    ” ***The principal objection to all such taxes is their inequality, an inequality of the worst kind, as they must frequently fall much heavier upon the poor than upon the rich. *** A house of ten pounds rent in a country town may sometimes have more windows than a house of five hundred pounds rent in London; and though the inhabitant of the former is likely to be a much poorer man than that of the latter, yet so far as his contribution is regulated by the window-tax, he must contribute more to the support of the state.”

    Who can name the author?

    Incidentally, since when was Hegel such a bad thing?

  • Anonymous

    “The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

    ” The inequality with which a tax of this kind might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents, would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise, not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expence of house-rent to the whole expense of living, is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessities of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich; and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess.***A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.***”

    ” ***The principal objection to all such taxes is their inequality, an inequality of the worst kind, as they must frequently fall much heavier upon the poor than upon the rich. *** A house of ten pounds rent in a country town may sometimes have more windows than a house of five hundred pounds rent in London; and though the inhabitant of the former is likely to be a much poorer man than that of the latter, yet so far as his contribution is regulated by the window-tax, he must contribute more to the support of the state.”

    Who can name the author?

    Incidentally, since when was Hegel such a bad thing?

    • 1886… search google books for “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”

      They have a complete “E” copy online for view…

    • 1886… search google books for “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”

      They have a complete “E” copy online for view…

    • 1886… search google books for “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”

      They have a complete “E” copy online for view…

    • 1886… search google books for “An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”

      They have a complete “E” copy online for view…

      • Anonymous

        You’re off by 110 years.

        I only bring it up because of Levin’s harping about Adam Smith…

        • EDITED: Thank you for that correction. I was unfamiliar with the words, and came to rest on that copy on ‘goople books’.

          Again, thanks!

  • Cheryl~

    Adam Smith! I made my kids read that book Wealth of Nations!

  • cbs71

    Castel you lost sweetie, grow up you old dead piece of wood you. TERM LIMITS

  • Anonymous

    “You don’t think Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are ideologues?”

    According to Merriam-Webster online, an ideologue is an “impractical idealist” or “an often blindly partisan advocate” of an ideology.

    So no, I would not consider Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito to be ideologues. The Constitution is not impractical and they all swore an oath to protect and defend it.

    Anyone who thinks the Constitution is impractical and blindly adheres to the idea that it is a living, changing document is an ideologue.

    Next time you get confused just think of any liberal you know. That should help.

    • Anonymous

      And what makes their/your reading of the Constitution the only “correct” one?

      • Think about it.

        The same thing that makes you think, yours is.

      • Dawnrps

        You must not understand what an Originalist is. He applies the language strictly with the commonly understood meaning of the words at that time it was written. He is always mindful of the original intent of the legislators.