Mark Levin’s extensive exposition of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney alliance

Two nights ago Mark Levin spent an hour and a half of radio time on this Ron Paul/Mitt Romney alliance. I decided, instead of just posting a piece of it, to post the entire thing.

It’s long but it’s good.

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.
  • John_Frank

    RS, thank you for bringing this audio to our attention.

  • It’s so good, I already listened to it twice, now I’m gonna listen to it again here!

  • Dittos Scoop…

    It is very, VERY good.

    Levin’s exposition about Murry Rothbard and Llewellwyn “Lew” Rockwell is exceptional.

    Murry Rothbard –

    Llewellwyn Rockwell –

    Santorum Hates Freedom: Do What I Say, Chump!
    Michael S. Rozeff on February 25, 2012


  • kim

    Heard it the first time and relistening.

    This rates as one of his best. Helps one to understand his disdain for Paul and to put all the puzzle pieces together on his libertarianism.

    Also including a link someone else posted the other day that adds clarity.

    Scary that Paul uses the word “revolution” and many followers are of the OWS French Revolution bent. Could it be he is used as a useful tool to bring about anarchy so that we can finish “transforming” America?

    • unseen1

      No the reason they have Paul run every cycle is to ensure the liberterians and conservatives do not come together like they did under Reagan. the establishment understands the only way they can win is to keep these groups divided.

      for instance take the 10% that Paul gets and the 30 odd % a conservative gets and there is no way a rino like Mitt would stand a chance. This is what made Palin so dangerous and the tea party so dangerous to the establishment both Palin and the TEa party movement has the ability to unite those two groups like Reagan did.

  • PVG

    Been hoping you would post this. Bunker Brilliance!!!

  • Linky1

    Thanks, Scoop. This is the kind of stuff that has to get out there to expose Romney and Paul for the sleazes they are.

  • No one is good enough for Ron Paul, no one is conservative enough.

    Not Reagan,
    Not Lincoln,
    Not Gingrich,
    Not Santorum,
    Not Perry,
    Not Bachmann,
    Not Cain,
    Soon or Later, Rand Paul isn’t going to be good enough.

    But Ron Paul is friendly with Mitt Romney.

    • las1

      That’s exactly what you run into with Paulbots. Only they, the truly initiated in a secret society, have spiritual enlightenment enough to determine what qualifies as strict and doctrinaire truths of libertarianism… and the more extreme it gets the more anarcho-capitalistic it becomes. You can never win with these types.

      This article is also worth a re-read…

      • conspiracygirl


        Oh my heck, I nearly peed my pants. How about actually attending a libertarian convention sometime and then report back on the “strict and doctrinaire truths of libertarianism,” lol. If you think libertarians subscribe to GROUPTHINK you missed the point from the very beginning.

        • Gotterdammerung141

          Everything I’ve ever read or heard from the mouth of a “libertarian” is barely distinguishable from the members of Code Pink, 9/, or pretty much any idiotic leftist organization. I’m sorry but libertarians are about anarchy in place of limited gov’t. Unlimited license in lieu of freedom. There is differences between these things that separate them as surely as Marxism is different from classical liberalism.

        • las1

          It’s you who obviously missed the point of this whole posting from Levin. Nobody is “conservative” enough for the Libertarian Guru Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard. Paul, unlike Rothbard, hides his extremism behind his Congressional Seat.

          And there is also a huge problem when trying to have discourse with Paul Bots. It’ matters little if I support seventy or eighty percent of Paul’s fiscal ideas… it’s never good enough for Paulites. And, by the way, now that YOU bring it up… yeah! There is a lot of group think as well in Paul’s circles. The same Chompskyite talking points: military industrial complex; neo-cons; imperialistic wars… on and on it goes.

          So continue to roll on the floor laughing your a$$ off… just don’t bump your head doing it or you won’t be conscious enough to change your drawers after peeing in them.

    • TPDanbo

      Yes Ron Paul’s only acceptable Conservative is the UN-Conservative Romney!

  • This is really long, does someone have a very brief synopsis?

    • Yep – Steven…

      Santorum is a consistent Reagan conservative
      Paul is a consistent Rothbard libertarian

      PS… see Steven Valdez above


    • I don’t know if can it do it justice, because it’s really good, but he basically lays out the case that Ron Paul has contempt for conservatives and that he’s a libertarian anarchist and that’s the reason for the Romney alliance, the ends justify the means.

      • Yes, Anarchists love to amass state power… Do you realize how much of a contradiction that is?

        • conspiracygirl

          These guys haven’t got a clue what they’re talking about. They don’t even know what the word anarchy means.

      • conspiracygirl

        LOL. Just FYI, anarchists don’t vote or hold political office because they don’t believe in the legitimacy of the state.

    • Plays clips from the 80’s as to how Ron Paul thinks Reagan is a traitor and not a conservative. And Ron Paul saying over and over and over that Reagan and the CIA used illegal drug money to fund illegal wars.

      IOW, popcorn material.

      • Oh, it seems that it hasn’t come to your attention that Reagan betrayed all of his beliefs as soon as he got into office. The reason why no one really cares is because it is expected and acceptable behavior for presidents to do. Hell, behavior like that has gone on since our first president Washington -See Whiskey Rebellion-, definitely Lincoln -See his support of the ‘Corwin Amendment-, Wilson -Kept us ‘out of the war’ while trying to get us in it – See WWI-, FDR – Like Wilson ‘kept us out of the war’ while actively trying to get us in it – See Japan oil embargo and WWII, how about Bush, Campaigned on a non-interventionist foreign policy then launched the most world wide war effort in human history to combat terrorism.

        Oh yeah.. we can go on and on…

        “Ron Paul has contempt for conservatives and that he’s a libertarian anarchist and that’s the reason for the Romney alliance, the ends justify the means.”

        So let me get this straight… he has contempt for conservatives… yet libertarian anarchists agree with a lot of the things -conservatives- believe when it comes to government.. this is not agreeing with the neo-conservative movement (since at least the 50s and finally coming out in force with Kristol). This libertarian anarchist is going to support someone who claims to be a conservative.. yet he acts like a socialist (which libertarian anarchists wouldn’t support) and you’re saying that there is an alliance because they coordinated their efforts and they don’t want to attack each other right now… Hmm.. seems to me that the non-aggression principle is at work here.. live and let live some might say.. alliance? Hardly.. all 4 need to be in the race to get a brokered convention. Having Santorum or Gingrich drop makes it a two man race to pick either a moderate or a libertarian.

        Personally, I want this place to go to hell in a hand basket. That way people will be “well.. we tried more government and that didn’t work.. exactly like Ron Paul said it wouldn’t.” If Paul is elected now people will only think that a libertarian was president when their world came crashing down. People will put the blame on him when it was the predecessors that destroyed this country.

  • I wondered why you hadn’t posted this.

  • This is exactly what Rush was mentioning on Thursday, though he spoke in generalities it is good to get this out there. I do wonder what the Ronbots think about their man loving him some Republican liberalism. Is this enough hypocrisy for RP’s followers to throw him overboard and sign up with conservatives?

    • ApplePie101

      I have read comments by Ron Paul supporters who threaten to vote for Obama if their man doesn’t win the nomination. If Obama is their second choice, that tells you all you need to know about their first choice.

      • It is possible that there is one thing (motive) Obama, Mitt Romney, and Paul have in common (though it may be a reach).

        Obama: wants to “transform America” [into a socialist state]
        Romney: “saves the country- QUOTE when the Constitution is hanging by a thread” UNQUOTE [from the Mormon White Horse Prophecy]
        Paul: is an anarchist (no news to me & I doubt, anyone here, either). He wants America as we know it destroyed just as much as Obama. (I guess in a manner of speaking, Romney too, since that is when he fulfills his “destiny” per the prophecy)
        This could be the connection between the Paul people and OWS- who ALSO want revolution & to destroy/ remake America. Remember that self-designated anarchists, socialists, & communists are major players in OWS.

        All three of these men are “hiding [their agenda] in plain sight”; saying what they need to be saying, but doing the exact opposite.

      • librtifirst

        Most of them will vote third party. Obama is the worst of the worst. There are some who say that Paul could win in a third party run. Obama’s base has been disrupted by Paul as well. I think that is why Obama is doing this:

        The problem for Obama’s plan is people like this:

      • I think not!!
        Ron Paul supporters will WRITE HIM IN!!!
        We will not vote for any other then Ron Paul!!
        Mark Levine was fired from his radio show because he speaks LIES!!

      • George Soros said Romney and Obama are the same…

  • Nukeman60

    Thank you, Scoop. Many times, I listen to some liberal fruitcake and tell myself, “there’s 30 seconds of my life I’ll never get back” or “there’s 2 minutes I’ll never get back“, and so on.

    Well, I’m here to say, “I just got them all back !!!

    • “… all back”…

      I like that… that’s deep, in a philosophical sense.


  • I’ve always despised Ron and Rand Paul, but hearing that recording of him carrying on like an absolute NUT was just HORRIFYING. This is the guy these unwashed paulnuts want to be president?

    • Rand Paul is fantastic, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son.

      • Uh…

        Hope so.


      • Yeah, I’ll remember that the next time he’s musing about how he’d like to overturn as un-Constitutional all civil rights legislation.


          There is a reason the civil rights legislation has been misinterpreted. Please…Do some research about the whole issue. Don not listen to what other people say. It makes perfect sense.

          • I didn’t listen to “other people”, paul supporter. I listened to Rand Paul’s own, big mouth. If he doesn’t like civil rights legislation, he can move to Europe.

        • 1Michae1

          He opposes ONE of the ELEVEN titles of the civil rights act of 1964. That is NOT “all civil rights legislation.” Reading what you wrote you obviously don’t know the grounds on which he opposes that one title. Try doing some homework. You sound like a fuzzy headed “liberal”

      • WordsFailMe

        I got an email from Rand Paul, who’s not running for anything, attacking Satorum. I agreed with Rand on the major points about Rick, but that’s tacky. I signed up to support, or show interest in Rand Paul. Why is RAND Paul engaging in attacks on Republican candidates?

        I think there’s something sleazy going on here. He claims he’s supporting “My Dad.” I don’t buy it. The fix is in somewhere and they are all starting to smell like Romney the rat.

        • OldDan

          Maybe Rand Paul is attacking Santorum because Santorum, early on, not only attacked Ron Paul, but arrogantly attempted to belittle and marginalize him. That, in itself, should prove to you that Santorum is not very bright.

        • conspiracygirl

          You don’t buy that Rand Paul would support his DAD…? Holy crow. I’ve heard of tin-foil hatted conspiracy kooks but this about takes it!!!!

          Would you get this freaked if Santorum’s kids said they supported their dad…? Hell’s bells….

          • WordsFailMe

            Santorum’s children are teenagers. I can forgive them

      • hbnolikeee

        But the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

      • cabensg

        So far your absolutely correct. Rand Paul has done an excellent job calling out Democrats. I’d vote for him for Senator in my state if he was running here.

      • TPDanbo

        Assuming Rand Paul is being honest and not a GREAT CONMAN like his father!

  • carolt2

    I had Mark on Thursday but I was working, and I can’t listen to everything he says when I am trying to work. I was going to go to Mark’s website and listen again but Thank you RS you saved me a few minutes. I read months ago on National Journal emails that they were friends for years, probably from running for POTUS as a career.

  • Levin has been spot on through out this primary season. These recent revelations are much needed ones. Thanks, RS. We knew something was amiss. Gulag Bound also sheds some light on this. All very interesting and newsworthy.

  • 911Infidel

    I don’t need to hear all of the clip. I already made up my mind. I’m not supporting the Repubik Establishment of psudo-conservatives or some grumpy looney old fart. Karl Rove and the rest of the Establishment talking head freak show can blow it out their rear ends. Oh and Morning Schmo…well what can you say about him that hasn’t already has been said. He’s a wanker of the highest rank. He only looks smart because he sits next to little Mika, the dolt extraordinaire. She’s an embassador with credentials to morons everywhere.

    • hbnolikeee

      so you must be voting for Duh Bumbler.

      • 911Infidel

        Gee I dunno. I don’t like crazy, anti-semite, grumpy old men or RHINO’s. So who could that be?

        • 1Michae1

          So you must not be voting if you aren’t voting for RHINOS. Unless you are blocking out rick santorums record and pretending he is conservative.

          • 911Infidel

            Yes I know your logic is to be illogical but you can’t help it.

  • Ken Caudll

    Levin has just joined the wacko hall of fame. Hopefully, he will join Santorum in the endless hunt for terrorists under his bed.

    • librtifirst

      Apparently WSPD radio decided that Levin went too far on the Ron Paul issue. They cancelled his show.

      • Watchman74

        It’s pretty lame to cancel someone just because you disagree with there opinion. That’s pretty much the point of talk radio isn’t it? And what of freedom of speech? I thought Ron Paul supports were big on constitutional rights.

        • librtifirst

          The guy said that he did it because Levin was repeatedly stating falsehoods about Paul. He was misrepresenting the truth. He also stated that Levin had changed quite a bit over the years, and he didn’t like his tone. They had received complaints and decided to take him off the station.

          This was a private contract that had expired, and was not renewed for these reasons. There is no free speech issue here. Free speech only protects you from government. Free speech and free markets is what got Levin’s show canned. He made a fool of himself, caused others to not want him representing their station, and was taken off due to listener complaints.

          I used to consider Levin to be a decent conservative. Then I realized that he was a part of the establishment. When he went nuts on Ron Paul, and kept lying about him, I lost all respect for him. His credibility went down the tube. If he presented a reasonable argument, and just disagreed with Paul’s policies, I could at least give him due respect, but he went nuts with the whole thing. Way out of bounds. It made me realize that he was an establishment attack dog. No better than the rest of the main stream.

          At least Rush gives due respect to Paul’s positions, and doesn’t go off on tinfoil hat rants.

          • there was a time when Levin gave Ron Paul a lot of credit for positions he had – he stopped when he started being viciously attacked simply because he had expressed any disagreements with Ron Paul at all. Quite frankly he had enough of it, I don’t blame him – there are plenty of other great conservatives in the sea that have all of the positives of Ron Paul, plus the fact that they are just genuinely good people. We didn’t remove Paul from conservatism, Paul removed himself: by refusing to denounce the bully tactics of his followers, and rather than denouncing the 9/11 truth movement he said the only reason he didn’t pursue that issue is because he “didn’t have enough time.”

            I love and respect his son; but Ron Paul the father is really just another political opportunist who’s been in Washington for decades.

            • librtifirst

              I don’t get Levin, locally. I just saw this one clip about him getting cancelled. My post was only stating what someone else thought and did. I used to like Levin, but he did take the RP issue a bit far for me, and lost my respect for him as a commentator. This kind of behavior makes me wonder what else he is being irrational about. Emotionally charged people can run the risk of being labeled irrational. You can be emotionally charged, an still be respectful. I used to view Levin as that kind of guy. Maybe he is when it comes to all things not RP. If he says that Obama is destroying the rule of law in this country, and yells it loudly, I will agree, and appreciate it. When he distorts Paul’s positions for the purpose of defaming his character, it is a big turn off.

              Paul has said many times that he doesn’t believe the government was involved in 9/11. Not having enough time to pursue an issue should make it obvious that it isn’t his thing. He has denounced bad tactics by his supporters, but just says that he can’t control everything that people do. That is based on a lack of interest in controlling people. I wouldn’t expect any candidate to run their campaigns on bashing every tactic that some of their supporters are involved in. How many candidates, pundits, and politicians have talked about how enthusiastic Paul supporters are? Enthusiasm can manifest itself in such a way as to be annoying.

              Paul appeals to groups who want small government, and government transparency. Truthers don’t support him because they believe that he will go after government on the 9/11 issue. They support him because Paul doesn’t agree with the lack of transparency on every level. The more secret government is, the more tyranny we will have. The founders held this view as well.

          • Constance

            Yikes. Well, you go ahead and support Ron Paul then. By doing so, you are supporting Mitt Romney. By doing so, you are supporting the establishment you claim so much to despise. But hey, you know best.

            • librtifirst

              The GOP is pushing Romney. If it were left to Santorum and Gingrich being the only options, Romney would be doing better, because the Paul supporters, and campaign are exposing the vote count manipulation.

              I know that it sucks for people who don’t like Romney and Paul. I understand. Romney has the GOP establishment behind him, and until the election manipulation is stopped, Romney will win. Paul is battling this on the grass roots level by going after delegates, rather than relying on popular vote counts.

              Votes have been stolen from all of the other candidates, not just RP. All Romney detractors should be ticked at the GOP right now.

          • TPDanbo

            NO rush didn’t do those things but Rush last week said he has had strong suspicions that there was an alliance between Romney/Paul since January of this year. But as to Ron Paul’s character/behavior……….if looks like a duck,walks a like a duck,quacks like a duck…….it’s a WACKO RON PAUL!

            • librtifirst

              I didn’t say that Rush was a supporter, just that he has been much more rational. Rush is establishment GOP media. I expect him to go along with the media trends. I was listening to him twenty years ago when I used to buy into the establishment game playing.

      • and there is more to that story

        This guy tried to embarrass Levin by leaking personal emails and well, it looks like there is a lot more about this sleazy program director than originally thought. Not that losing this affiliate really hurts Mark all the much anyway – they were airing him on 4 hour tape delay and only broadcast 2 hours of his show nightly.

      • Constance

        Uh no. That is not the truth of what happened. Wanna know what happened? The general manager of the radio is friends with Ron Paul’s friends. Ron Paul’s friends put the squeeze on the manager to get Levin off the air. That is what happened. There is always a story behind a story.

        • Post with some proof constance.. otherwise it’s just hearsay… As a matter of fact.. both of you should.

        • librtifirst

          The correspondence that went back and forth between Levin and the manager seems to tell a different story.

    • DavidRobertson

      Care to dispute any of the facts, or did you just have enough time to peck out a name to call Levin for having the nerve to attack your idol?

  • librtifirst

    It would be refreshing to hear from a Santorum supporter who actually understood Paul’s positions, and disagreed, but could at least be objective. It is disappointing to see that so many people don’t get what this is all about.

    Paul has been successful in separating himself from the other three, and has differentiated himself from them as a clear conservative alternative to the status quo, and the establishment candidates.

    This attempt to link him to Mitt Romney has a purpose, which is to mark Paul as a go along to get along. They need to blend him in to darken the vibrant difference between him and the others. Santorum got creamed on his “go along to get along”, and Paul was successful at making the difference clear. When Perry accused Paul of being an establishment candidate in a debate, the moderator actually said “are you actually saying that Paul is part of the establishment”. Everyone knows that this isn’t the case.

    The voters are extremely weary of the “go along” politicians. They are giving up on them left and right. This will intensify as Boehner continues to fail to bring any change in the house, and Reid is still doing his bad deeds.

    The establishment would be smart to actually repeal something. Anything, even something small. They could always put it back in later, but this would be a good ruse to fool the disenfranchised voters. Going after Paul as “establishment” is weak. His record is too strong to change people’s perceptions on this.

    The media tried painting him as only having young supporters. This failed because of all of the grey haired people in his crowds, and many middle age people speaking out.

    Every time they try these tactics, it fails, and they move on to another. I am actually enjoying this, because the establishment is failing, and getting more desperate. I dread the day when we have nobody to shake things up, and they are all establishment guys.

    • Ron Paul is unacceptable to be president, period. It’s a pipe dream that Ron Paul would win the GOP nomination. As Ron Paul fans would say: WAKE UP!

      • librtifirst

        I don’t believe that the GOP will ever allow him the nomination. I sure am enjoying them squirm. Same goes for Obama. The media is having to change it up as well. If we are going to end up with an Obama type out of the GOP, I would like to see Paul continue to rile their feathers. The internet is really messing up their plans. That’s why they needed SOPA. The pipe dream is thinking that the other three will change anything. I don’t believe Paul will make it in, and one of the other four will. Therefor nothing will actually change, and I keep putting up food and supplies for the collapse. Its all good. I’ll be as ready as I can be.

        • WordsFailMe

          lib: Your discourse is reminiscent of a previous paul-bot who used to post here. I don’t like this “The Blob” approach to argumentation and discourse used by your class of libertarian. Just take a position. You seem to be engaging every one at every point here but then you use that typical RP trick of diverting, cuddling or sliding sideways out so that the counter argument cannot touch you. It’s sleazy and amatuerish.

          The sniveling technique is a cliche among Libers. It reminds me of the teenagers trying to keep The Blob out of the theater in the 50’s Steve McQueen movie. The blob just squeezes itself down to the thickness of slime, oozes under the door and attacks again.

          Admit that you despise Conservatives and the authority symbolized by Conservatives. And while you profess to love the Constitution, someday you will slide under that door and despise the Constitution because it too symbolizes authority. Authority, discipline, reason and consequence– these are the concepts ALL libertarians reject.

          Move on. Ply your trade on some liberal site lib.

          Right Scoopers. Do not engage with “lib.” If he’s not actually the former resident, “Ron Paulbot,” he’s the son or clone, the RandPaulPot.” Your precious American breath is more valuable.

          Go ahead and reply, you slippery devil you.

          • FreeManWalking

            Well Said WFM!!!

            I am Poed that He/Paul runs in the GOP primary, IMO it is his/their opportunity to reek havoc in the GOP.

            • OldDan

              Funny, I am Po’ed that Santorum is running in the GOP primary. I had to put up with that arrogant jerk as my Senator in PA. Don’t believe anyone who claims he is a conservative. They are either misinformed or lying.

              • FreeManWalking

                Dan going by his voting record it seems pretty conservative. I don’t mind saying he is my 2nd choice, RINOmney 3rd and Paul 4th.

      • librtifirst

        The GOP is pushing him toward a third party run. His supporters are watching the election fraud and are moving in that direction. If Paul doesn’t run third party, his supporters will largely vote third party. This is the blow back effect of the GOP election fraud. If the Paul supporters believe that the GOP ran legitimate primary races, they might stay in with them, but they have learned otherwise. Without the fraud, Paul would have some wins by now. My guess is that the GOP will keep Romney in the lead, and discount Paul’s delegates at the convention. They will have to. Romney will go up against Obama, and 15-20% of the GOP vote will go to a third party candidate. Who knows who will win between Romney and Obama, because Obama’s base is ticked off and defecting as well. If Romney wins, we will hear better rhetoric, and get the same government. Gingrich and Santorum won’t have the delegates to compete at the convention, so they will just be there to broker a deal for appointments, or running mate with Romney.

        A Santorum or Gingrich nomination is a pipe dream as well.

        • Nukeman60

          My guess is that the GOP will keep Romney in the lead‘ -librt

          Is that why Paul is running anti-Santorum ads in Michigan while not actively campaigning there? To keep Romney from winning? Answering that question would go a long way to proving your point.

          • hbnolikeee

            Note the crickets on that question. The Frank Purdue branch of the party must be out clucking elsewhere.

            • librtifirst

              Does that help?

          • librtifirst

            Paul cannot compete with establishment GOP vote counts. They are giving them to Romney. Therefor attacking Romney is a mute point. Paul is competing for “conservative” delegates. People who have conservative philosophies. After the first vote at the convention, the delegates can vote for whomever, if they are from a state that allows it. Paul is going after Santorum because he is selling himself as “the most conservative” candidate, and is having success at it.

            • Nukeman60

              Paul is taking down Santorum in Michigan so that he can get delegates at the convention after the first vote, even though the vote won’t go past the first round if Romney sews it up with 1144. Is that what you’re saying?

              I would think that he would want to keep Romney from getting the 1144 first, wouldn’t you? I still haven’t heard a good answer from anybody yet.

              • librtifirst

                If people looking at Santorum and Gingrich switch to a more conservative candidate, they won’t go to Romney. Paul delegates won’t compromise with Romney as quickly as the others would. Gingrich and Santorum cannot compete in the delegate race. Their delegates will end up going to Romney if Paul delegates don’t have them. Gingrich isn’t even in the running for 564 delegates. Santorum is at a disadvantage as well. When people step up to be a delegate, they might not want to for Gingrich and Santorum, knowing this. People who show up, and get in the running are going to dominate in delegates.

                Romney will get awarded many delegates through vote count manipulation. Paul gets the ones available when nobody else fills the slots, and when the actual vote counts at the caucus events favors him. The GOP can change the vote count “officially”, but they can’t change the delegate counts at the caucus’. That is why Paul hit the caucus’ hard. The GOP in Iowa was able to take away Paul delegates, but it was so obvious that repeating this in other states would have been suicide for the GOP establishment.

                Eventually people quit giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt, and realize that they are putting up on guy to win. Romney is it.

                Romney doesn’t need Paul’s help. Santorum and Gingrich supporters should be ticked as well, because some of their votes have gone to Romney. I don’t believe that Gingrich did as poorly in Iowa as he was reported to.

                This documentary cemented my belief in electronic voting fraud. National elections can be decided electronically. I believe that they are.

            • hbnolikeee

              Wrong. Mitt stated he is severely conservative and the most conservative. But save the baloney. I’m not eating it. Enjoy throwing your vote and this country down the toilet voting for a nut that CANNOT win.

          • Chordsman

            Ron Paul isn’t actively campaigning in Michigan? Here’s some Michigan events scheduled that I found after a quick look:
            1. Presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak at a Town Hall in Detroit at the Little Rock Baptist Church, 8801 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI on Monday, February 27th at 11:00 am Eastern. This event is free and open to the public.
            2. Presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak at Michigan State University – MSU Auditorium, 149 Auditorium, East Lansing, Michigan on Monday, February 27th at 4:00 pm Eastern.
            3. Presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak at Dearborn’s Ford Community and Performing Arts Center – Michael A. Guido Theater, 15801 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, MI 48126 on Monday, February 27th at 7:00 pm Eastern.
            4. Presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak at The Pinnacle Center in metro Grand Rapids, Michigan on Sunday, February 26th at 4:00 pm Eastern.
            5. Presidential candidate Ron Paul will speak at the CMU Plachta Auditorium, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan on Saturday, February 25th at 6:00 pm Eastern.

            • OldDan

              LOL. Shame on me. I made the mistake (again) of believing the scuttlebutt about Ron Paul.

        • Riiiight. It’s not Paul’s fault he’s crazy and hasn’t won, it’s fraud. LAUP NOR!

          • librtifirst

            A little research on the caucus’ in Maine, Nevada, and Iowa, might prove a thing or two. If we ignore election fraud, then we won’t have a democratic power to the people electoral system.

        • KenInMontana

          Your candidate has stated he will not run “third party”, he repeated this just recently.

          • hbnolikeee

            Unless he as restated his answer on that. It was more of the usual evasive politically motivated rhetorical BS than an answer. He stated when asked a YES or NO question that he DOESN”T PLAN ON IT. Obviously another deceitful crap meister.

            • Why should you be forced to answer yes or no to your future actions? Obviously if you have free will you can change your mind at any time.

              Man for someone who thinks they know a lot.. you sure don’t know what you are talking about.

              • hbnolikeee

                Well, if you’re asked a question which is a yes or no question (you are aware of such things, yes?). You either say yes or no or I don’t care to answer that question. None of which did the Chicken Man do.

                Can you get it? And the crack “for someone who thinks they know a lot.. you sure don’t know what you are talking about…” You just reveal what a moron you are.

                Shoot the messenger, yup. You don’t like what I said so slam and don’t address the message. Lib or Paul Bot same tactic and it doesn’t work so slither off troll boy.

                • Like I said.. it’s not a yes or no question. You are trying to make it a yes or no question by forcing someone to say yes or no to a question. If someone asks you do you want to go to the movies then you can’t say maybe or maybe not.. because it’s a yes or no question?

                  Please, know what you are talking about because it really makes you look like a complete moron when you try to act smart.

          • librtifirst

            Paul may be reserving his definitive “no” response for a later date as not to turn off his supporters that will want it. Many Paul supporters know that the GOP will not allow him the nomination, and will want a third party run due to their contempt for the two party electoral dictatorship.

            Paul doesn’t want to allow the conversation to migrate toward the third party issue. The media has hammered that from day one in an attempt to slow the conversion rates by causing people to believe, first, that he is unelectable, and second that he will disrupt the “legitimate” two party race.

            I find the whole thing fascinating.

          • librtifirst

            Paul may be reserving his definitive “no” response for a later date as not to turn off his supporters that will want it. Many Paul supporters know that the GOP will not allow him the nomination, and will want a third party run due to their contempt for the two party electoral dictatorship.

            Paul doesn’t want to allow the conversation to migrate toward the third party issue. The media has hammered that from day one in an attempt to slow the conversion rates by causing people to believe, first, that he is unelectable, and second that he will disrupt the “legitimate” two party race.

            I find the whole thing fascinating.

            • hbnolikeee

              Then the HONEST answer is I don’t care to answer that question at this time. Not the lame garbage he offered up.

              • librtifirst

                He said that he won’t rule it out, but he doesn’t want to. What’s dishonest about that? He gets asked the question so much, it is hard to come up with a different way of saying it.

        • hbnolikeee

          “The GOP is pushing him toward a third party run”. What a laugh. Recall all the times he was asked about running as a third party candidate if he did not get the pick? A bit of tap dancing and no direct answer, just the usual evasive rhetoric.

          If the reincarnation of Frank Purdue runs on a third party and Du Bummer wins, where do you think (if you can) that the blame for the loss will go? Do you think it will go to all the poor fools that didn’t see the wisdom in voting for the Ostrich man?

          • librtifirst

            Paul supporters are largely people who have been disenfranchised by the two parties over the years. The majority of those have voted republican in the past. When the conservative establishment goes after their new alternative within the party, they tend to rebel, and will abandon the two party system.

            Its just human nature.

            • hbnolikeee

              There’s nothing good about someone that will split the vote of people that are against Du Bumbler. He won’t do a damn thing to fix this in so doing. If he loses the primary (as he surely will), he SHOULD take all you Bots are point you at the winner and tell them whomever it is is better than Du Bumbler.

              • librtifirst

                What does it matter if there is no real difference between Obummer and the GOP candidate. Do you really think that Romney is going to get in there and reverse anything? We are all going to eat Obama Care whether we like it or not. The FDA is still going to be a bunch of thugs with guns, and the dollar is still going to crash.

                I would rather put in my protest vote, which will probably get changed, than give them my consent to screw me over yet again.

      • Sober_Thinking

        He won’t win a GOP nomination. But his son might win a GOP VP spot. That’s the rub.

        • librtifirst

          I get regular e-mails from Rand asking for support for Ron. In these e-mails, he states clearly that he supports all of his father’s policies. I believe that Rand is a more eloquent, and diplomatic Ron Paul. As time goes by, an if Rand has any effect, the establishment will turn on him as well. I can see his establishment tea party support already fading. If Rand has the same core convictions, he won’t want to be VP in this election, and the establishment won’t want him any more than they want Ron. That would be a good test as to whether Rand will take his dad’s position in the liberty movement. Rand is voting along side of Ron.

          • Sober_Thinking

            Thanks for the reply… interesting.

      • TPDanbo

        It’s time the Republican Party passed a new party law blackballing WACKOS for life, goodbye Ron Paul!

        • OldDan

          Place Santorum at the top of the list.

    • ApplePie101

      Ironically, Paul supporters were spamming the blogs for months with claims that Bachmann, Santorum, whoever, were in cahoots with Romney because they never attacked him in debates. Now their boy is on the receiving end. What goes around, comes around.

      • hbnolikeee

        chirp chirp chirp. nope, i don’t hear a single Paul Bot answering that one.

        • librtifirst

          I agree with it.

    • hbnolikeee

      “Paul has been successful in separating himself from the other three”… Really? He sure appears to have his head firmly planted up Mittens butt.

  • s.hayward2

    Now I know there are a few nutty supporters in all candidates camps. Politics does seem to attract it. But when Mark Levin recently didn’t have his contract renewed with one radio station,the manager of that station cited Levins problem with ron paul as the reason.Levin mentioned this on his segment.Now frankly it is that mans toybox and if he wants to openly run a pro ron paul station to help paul it is up to him, america is a free country yes .No problem with that.

    The problem I had was how the main forum of paul supporters on the internet supported it. Now remember Paul has huge support online it seems, look at how they spam the polls on fox news. They had an entire thread that went on and on, calling this a victory for ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’. They were repeating it like some brainwashed mantra,scary it was.

    Now this wasn’t just one or two trolls saying this, the entire forum call this some kind of victory? chucking someones show off a station? What planet are they on?

    Anyway Levin in a far more intelligent way confirmed something I thought for sometime. You would think pauls fanatical supporters with their ‘no one but paul mantra’, would be raving mad about this.Well…. no exactly.More than a few are kind of comfortable with this providing romney gives them a big carrot, like ron or rand as VP , Or ron has a very important role in the admin. To them, this could further help the ‘movement’.Well in my view it won’t. In the UK right after the last election none of the 3 political parties won a majority so the conservative party ,so the party with the largest vote share the conservative party made a coalition with the liberal democrats. It meant seats on the cabinet the most senior part of the government for the libs. Many lib dems supported it thinking their party would finally have influence and their movement into government would only help their party as people would see how amazing a lib dem government would be.

    Well…. it didn’t quite work out that way. Sure they are having more of an influence in running the country as several of their politicians have senior positons. But it has come with a big cost, their party is now a shell it could well in the next election be overtaken by a minority party, like the green party or the UKIP (a right wing party I support,nigel farage is leader you may have heard of him,sometimes is on fox) .Their supporters have deserted it because they have been sold out. Basically those lib dems in government care more for power than the movement. And the conservative party were smart. More important the voting public don’t so much view the lib dems as sellouts, but as traitors for supporting unpopular cuts in social welfare and also because of further power going to the EU. The lib dems also get the blame for a soft law and order policy and a higher foreign aid budget from more right wing voters. They are the governments whipping boy.And the truth is in the polls. Despite cuts in public spending that rival the time of Mrs thatcher, British families being worse off than for years as cost of living as gone up and wages frozen or cut, benefit claimants being worse off, the conservative party who are doing all this are maintaining their position in the polls ,the lib dems are totally finished.

    Those lib dems in government have no choice now but to cling to the coat tails of the conservative party, and take the scraps they are thrown. That is what will happen if Paul is stupid enough.Would anyone here trust Mitt. Mitt might be a conservative, liberal, democrat depending on the change of weather, but one thing he is not is stupid.

  • 911Infidel

    Yeah, WSPD Toledo’s Lew Rockwell, the Ron Paul-supporting program director (and on-air host), decided not to renew Levin’s five-year contract even though Levin’s show is No1 nationally and probally locally in that time slot. Poor Lew, he must have been a sheltered child growing up.

    • KenInMontana

      Gee, that wouldn’t be the same Lew Rockwell that was the editor for Ron Paul’s newsletter would it?

      • 911Infidel

        Could be.

      • Gee.. It would be great if people posted actual evidence instead of posting unsubstantiated claims.

        • KenInMontana

          Just what claim would that be?

        • KenInMontana

          If you are referring to Rockwell being the editor of Paul’s newsletter, here you go.
          Just remember you asked for it, although you will likely in true Paulbot fashion claim it to be lies and hearsay.

          • Actually it was addressed to both of you. Also, I never said anything about it being lies or hearsay.. especially when you respond to a post that has no evidence behind it Ken.

            Spoken like a true bot yourself.

            • KenInMontana

              I did not say you did, I said you likely would. Speaking of responding to posts……

  • Been_There_BT

    As I recall, there was a guy in Germany who gathered the misfits, miscreants, thugs and anti-Semites into a political force which he used to wield power for his own personal gain. He called himself a National Socialist … but mainly he was an Opportunist who preyed on the discontent of others.

    • W.

      Socialism is the party of the discontent, the covetous and envious, the violators of the 10th commandment who feel entitled to the benefit and blessing of others’ hard work, wisdom, self-control and savings.

      Because of this perceived entitlement, they go on to violate the 8th, and even the 6th and that leads to breaking the 7th… but of course, preceding those, they have also left off the 1-4th.

      (Deuteronomy 5:6-21)

      • OldDan

        You can lump Medicare Part D into that Socialism pile.

    • DebbyX

      Was his name Obama?

    • librtifirst

      Agreed. That is why individual liberties must be protected.

    • Strange.. During that time Germany was forced to pay off a massive debt that was forced onto them by others.. they were forced to give up things that used to belong to them and their currency was hyper-inflated to pay for the things that they could never realistically pay back..

      Never mind the fact that there are misfits, miscreants, thugs and racists in both parties in the US. You’re acting like that was some type of new phenomena.. especially when the state itself is a giant coercive monopoly of legitimized violence against others.

      Go figure right?

      • Been_There_BT

        So Kyle, then you agree with my point and my example – there are always political opportunists ready to take advantage of the discontented in times of economic/social upheavel.

        And no, I’m not “acting like” anything – I’m serious about it.

        • Of course I agree with your point that is the point of my post. However, what I’m saying is political opportunists are not something that is new. Hell, we can go as far back as Caesar.

  • JoeMontana16

    There does seem to be a joint effort between the two. Is it factual? I can’t see that yet. I’m reminded of another tag team duo….Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. They hanged up on other candidates themselves. Mostly Romney. Nothing wrong with that except they are whining about the other duo doing the same thing. What’s the difference? I’m so sick of the hypocrisy of all these guys. Santorum seems to be untouchable because as soon as he gets criticized he whines. The Guy is great except some of his votes in the senate. He is a stand up Guy it seems. I wish he would just stop acting like the world is out to get him. It doesn’t become him. If he would just focus on Obama and not act like he is being bullied then none of these attacks would stick. He is the most conservative of this bunch…which isn’t saying much as I’m sure all would agree. Maybe he should team up again with Newt and put themselves at the top. Would be a better strategy. Leave it alone all of them and get back to Obama. How many times have the voters asked them to do this? Too many.

    • capelady

      Gingrich and Santorum are competing for the true conservative votes… they are not a tag team at all. The difference is that they both believe in conservatism so they are bound to agree on some things.

      • 1Michae1

        The true conservative votes huh? I wasn’t aware that medicare part D, doubling public education, bailouts, cosponsoring numerous bills with pelosi, etc. was the true conservative position.

        • capelady

          It is naive to judge votes without knowing how those bills were written and what the motivation is behind the vote. It is not that simplistic. It is easy to judge Ronald Reagan based on the deficit, etc., but Washington is not easy and you don’t get everything you want. Newt explained that he supported Medicare Part D because it was unfair to tell seniors that we would pay for dialysis but we would not help them with insulin – it made no sense – but he would have found a way to pay for it. If Newt ever co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi I would like to know what it was, and why. With Newt’s record of conservative accomplishments as Speaker of the House he has done more to advance conservatism than anyone else in our field of candidates. I don’t know much about Santorum’s record, but he is certainly more conservative than Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul is not a conservative at all. So yes… true conservatives are lining up behind Gingrich or Santorum… so they are competing for votes. Maybe they should team up — payback for what Romney and Paul are clearly doing to take out everyone who challenges Romney!

          • 1Michae1

            I think it is naive to buy justifications for so many anti freedom positions. Aside from the 418 bills he cosponsored with pelosi, he even wrote a forward to a book that called for tearing up the constitution because it was outdated. I don’t have a problem with anyone who disagrees with Paul on foreign policy, but I’d like to hear your opinion on which positions of his you disagree with domestically. I don’t understand how anyone could say he isn’t conservative at all. Thanks for the discussion!

            • capelady

              I would like to know the title of that book and see documentation of the 418 bills he cosponsored with Nancy Pelosi. There are so many misrepresentations and outright lies floating around out there, I don’t accept anything at face value anymore.

              As for Ron Paul being a conservative, he rejected Ronald Reagan, he rejects Abraham Lincoln… Ron Paul is a libertarian and that is not the same thing as being a conservative. I think Ron Paul is correct on the Fed and Newt has given him credit for that and says he would fire Ben Bernacke and audit the Fed immediately… but from what I have heard of Ron Paul’s view of history and his current policies, he is not a conservative. He previously resigned from the Republican party to run as a libertarian years ago, and it seems that is where he really should be.

              I have enjoyed chatting with you and appreciate your civility… it seems to be very rare on these comment threads.

              Be blessed, Michael!

  • Linky1

    Mark Levin is definitely on to something here.

    It’s one thing to debate each other on the issues to see who is the best to represent the Republican party in the general election, it’s another to “tag team” the opposition because your campaign is so weak, your positions are so weak that you have to buy votes and support. It’s a pattern here – Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and now, Santorum.

    Just heard the RINO bleached blond chubby chaser Ann Coulter on FOX defending Mittens, saying Santorum is “whiny” and looking for conspiracies under the bed yet, I read this morning and know that Santorum is being tag teamed by Romney and Paul.

    Two things in particular stand out here:

    **”To help prove his point, Santorum singled out Congressman Paul’s campaign spots now flooding the airwaves in the Wolverine State.

    “He’s not campaigning in Michigan, yet he’s running ads in Michigan against me,” Santorum said during a Tea Party rally here.”

    **”In a replay of tactics used against Newt Gingrich in Florida, Team Romney is deploying surrogates to Santorum events in Michigan to provide on the spot criticism of the former senator while defending the Romney record.

    This time it was Michigan State Representative Aric Nesbitt, who approached reporters after the event to say, “It’s sad to see Senator Santorum trying to run away from his record, but it’s to be expected.”

    “It’s very disappointing seeing and hearing in our own turf of Michigan him trying to sell something that he isn’t.”

    When asked, Nesbitt admitted Santorum’s Tea Party event was not in his district, which is more than 100-miles away.”

    Read more:

    BTW, I like Santorum a lot but could not be considered a supporter of his, just a supporter of fair play.

  • W.

    And now the nasty ruthless, dishonest creeps, Paul and Romney, are refusing to debate again, hoping to silence Gingrich and Santorum.

    • LS Meron

      An excellent way to showcase Gingrich and Santorum would be to conduct a very much needed debate, unencumbered by tag-team Romney/Paul, run by Levin, Rush and someone like Brent Bozell or Dr. Larry Arnn.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Thanks Scoop!!!

    Mark remains a giant!

  • Sober_Thinking

    It’s a sell out for Paul because he has NO chance to win the GOP nomination. Don’t give me the delegate nonsense… He will NOT be the GOP nominee.

    I’m stunned that RP fans aren’t holding him accountable. But I will say if this is indeed being done so Rand Paul can get a VP nomination, then it’s deviously brilliant. But shame on you Ron Paul fans who support this… you will effectively become the GOP establishment’s “useful idots”.

    • hbnolikeee

      They’re halfway there…

    • librtifirst

      Paul’s entire campaign, and cause, is exposing corruption, and promoting individual liberties. His supporters don’t see a real alternative to Obama in the other GOP nominees. They are focused on changing the system, and running this campaign is part of doing that. Rand being VP doesn’t accomplish that. The media can ignore the VP, and the VP’s tie breaker vote isn’t worth as much as a consistent vote in the Senate. With Paul in the executive branch, Rand could build a coalition including people like DeMint. The tea party guys would have to choose their flavor, and show their true colors. Not that I see Paul getting in, but that is what many supporters may think.

      Most RP supporters want him to win. It doesn’t really go any further than that. They want it so much that they will support a third party run. I don’t see it having anything to do with VP. That is the last thing on most people’s mind. I give money to the campaign for the cause, and won’t be detracted by the loss. The system is beyond repair, and doesn’t work anymore. It needs radical change, but the opposite of Obama’s change, and more than establishment GOP change.

      • Sober_Thinking

        I think that was well-said.

        I can identify with many of the things that Paul is pushing for because Washington has grown fat and corrupted. I’d love to see Constitutionally-based Tea Party emerge as another option. And I’d like to see all the conservatives and non-anarchists, freedom-loving Americans unite under that banner.

        I mean no disrepect to you at all. Again, thanks for your post.

    • 1Michae1

      IF RP changes his positions his supporters will not support him. They admire the fact that he “turned on” Reagan when Reagan ran up the debt and deficits. They support his principles, not just him.

    • TPDanbo

      The Paulbots aren’t upset at their fearless leaders betrayal of his principles to subject his campaign to a Progressive Romney because they like their leader have NO PRINCIPLES, just blind obedience!

      • What betrayal? What exactly has he given up in order to gain something? Please, enlighten me with evidence to support your conclusions otherwise it’s nothing but a baseless opinion.

      • Blind obedience? Like you sheep that listen to Levin and Hannity?

        Obama is just another Bush-get used to that fact.

  • Sober_Thinking

    It’s a sell out for Paul because he has NO chance to win the GOP nomination. Don’t give me the delegate nonsense… He will NOT be the GOP nominee.

    I’m stunned that RP fans aren’t holding him accountable. But I will say if this is indeed being done so Rand Paul can get a VP nomination, then it’s deviously brilliant. But shame on you Ron Paul fans who support this… you will effectively become the GOP establishment’s “useful idots”.

  • xam3991

    good stuff!

  • denbren52

    Jan Brewer has just endorsed Romney. The GOP establishment is heavy handing every GOP Governor, Congressman, Senator and many statewide office-holders. I don’t think for a minute that Jan Brewer thinks that Romney is the best candidate but I do believe that the RNC would crush her in a primary if she did not go along and she knows it.

    Politics is a nasty game.

    • Linky1

      And what has Romney promised Brewer in return for her support? She disappoints me greatly with this endorsement.

      More FOX pundits talking about the unholy Paul/Romney alliance and what it all means. They’re like the leftys now, transparent as glass with their intentions.

      • Is_Sense_Common

        I don’t know that Mittens has offered her anything (he doesn’t offer anyone anything), but I’m sure the GOP told her that if she wants financial support in her next election-bid, then she’ll tow the party line. It’s really the same as the Democrats’ support of Obamneycare. Many of the folks elected by normal Americans who still vote Democrat b/c they always have (don’t get me started on that..), knew that their vote for that monstrosity would pi$$ off their electorate but if they didn’t, Barry & the Thugs who are in charge of the Democrat party would strip their funding for re-election, remove them from any leadership on committees, and basically neuter them. So what did they do? They love power more than country and they fell in line.

      • Is_Sense_Common

        I don’t know that Mittens has offered her anything (he doesn’t offer anyone anything), but I’m sure the GOP told her that if she wants financial support in her next election-bid, then she’ll tow the party line. It’s really the same as the Democrats’ support of Obamneycare. Many of the folks elected by normal Americans who still vote Democrat b/c they always have (don’t get me started on that..), knew that their vote for that monstrosity would pi$$ off their electorate but if they didn’t, Barry & the Thugs who are in charge of the Democrat party would strip their funding for re-election, remove them from any leadership on committees, and basically neuter them. So what did they do? They love power more than country and they fell in line.

    • Is_Sense_Common

      Ugh – I hadn’t heard that. Damn GOP.

    • nibblesyble

      Good Grief…..and I held out so much hope for Gov. Brewer. Sigh, another one bites the dust!

      • Is_Sense_Common

        At the debate, she mentioned her delight in Newt and his proposals – all but endorsing him… Someone got to her.

        • nibblesyble

          yes, I remember her saying she was impressed by Newt. I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of all of these former people she endorsed and campaigned for; Brewer, Bondi, Haley ect that have gone against thier conservative roots for personal gain? I am guessing she would not be surprised as politics is a dirty game(she knowing that more than anyone) but so dissapointed.

        • capelady

          It was the same with Nikky Haley. Fortunately, nobody seems to be paying much attention to the various governor’s endorsements.

        • librtifirst

          Politics is a team sport. Sometimes you have to do something that goes against your principles.

    • cabensg

      Jan Brewer is strong or immigration and has been very brave in calling the Obama administration on it but she is no conservative. I for one believe she chose Romney because it’s really her choice not because she fears retaliation from the party, she is after all one of them.

      Sorry not to give a reference or two but it’s been at least 5 months since I read the articles listing Brewer’s actions and I can’t remember any of them. So you’ll have to do your own looking if you want to see her credentials as a non conservative.

    • capelady

      It is a very nasty game, but it would be nice to see these conservative governors stand up for what is right and not bow to the GOP for the sake of their political ambitions. I was impressed with Allen West when he said he wasn’t worried about re-election, he was worried about the future of America. We need more people like that in government.

      That being said, I don’t think these political endorsements mean very much anymore. Informed voters are not being swayed by them. I think what is far more detrimental is the tsunami of negative ads that Romney has been paying millions of dollars for against anyone who challenges him, and the media support – that is effectively swaying those who do not get the truth online or on the radio – which are the only places that truth resides anymore.

    • ApplePie101

      What happens to these smart politicians if voters elect Santorum or Gingrich? Are they going to turn to the electorate and say “Ooops”? I like the idea of a president who doesn’t owe anything to the power brokers, but knows what he owes to the American people.

    • StNikao

      Challenge the Status Quo
      Serve the Common Good

      Integrity, Good Will, Clear Convictions and a Servant’s Heart

    • librtifirst

      I liked the positions that she took against the feds, but then I found out about her refusal to deal with the Quartzite mayor issue. The leftist city council “fired” the mayor, put the chief of police in power, and closed city council meetings. This was all criminal under state law. The mayor appealed to the governor to deal with it.

      This city council abuse of power is a trend that is pushed by global initiatives, and led by Bill Clinton. A quick search will bring up lots of information.

      Some of the city police officers publicly opposed their chief of police.

      Jan Brewer ignored it as much as possible.

  • Is_Sense_Common

    Thanks so much for posting this! I heard him mention it in the interview with Newt the other day & was looking for it. Glad I could easily locate it here. (although it did prompt me to sign up for Mark’s podcast, so that’s not a bad thing either, right? :))

  • Matthew Fuino

    How do you defeat a man running for President that is incorruptible, consistent, will “really” cut spending, bring our troops home and loves the Constitution? Make up lies about him and try to marry him with the least popular running mate. For those who believe that he will join Romney, wake up. Go online and watch the words from RON PAUL himself, not people in the media. Lastly, go by the rule “follow the money” and see who is donating money to each candidate. Make your own decision.

  • This is outstanding! I learned a lot here about Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and more. I feel like I’ve just been in school. Is this stuff gonna be on the test? Can I borrow your notes?

  • FreeManWalking

    The establishment has been not-so-slowly taking over the Party since Reagan left office, and continue pushing moderate liberal candidates and platform down our throats. For the conservatives the GOP primary has been screwed up from the git-go.

    I don’t think anyone was enthused with Dole or thought he had a chance. At least Bush 43 had some charisma, and a little more conservative than his dad. McCain, an embarrassment, but I have to give him kudos for choosing Sarah and bringing her on the scene. You know that by the time she finished her speech at the convention, McCaint was having deep regrets because he knew he was upstaged by her for the rest of his carrier.

    Why have a big tent republican acceptance in the primary that doesn’t hold to a core conservative platform. This gives us moderates like Willard who is 0bama-lite, and R.Paul and his whacky foreign policy who’s supporters say they would just as soon vote for 0bama if Paul isn’t the nominee.

    Ron Paul who should be running in the Libertarian primary, and his partner Willard should be in the Democrat primary, neither should be hosing up the GOP primary. Levin exposes them and the subterfuge they are using to eliminate the voice of conservatives in the party.

    If the conservatives are going to have a voice in government the TEA Party will have to be built up as its OWN force.

    • capelady

      The conservatives have never had control of the Republican Party… it was a revolutionary movement that was begun with Ronald Reagan, and he was fought tooth and nail by the GOP establishment but was able to get popular support that put him in office… an then it was picked up by Newt Gingrich… and as Speaker of the House he was tenacious enough and fearless enough to accomplish the most conservative reforms in Congress in the 20th Century. The Democrats had been in control of the House for 40 years!!! True conservatives have always been in the minority and that is why as soon as the RINO’s regain control they manage to reverse any progress that has been made. They are perfectly content feathering their nests and slowing down the liberal agenda, they do not believe we can overturn it. That takes vision… like Ronald Reagan had, and like Newt has…. and it takes a tremendous amount of determination and conviction. That is what too many in the GOP establishment lack.

      • FreeManWalking

        Speaking of Newt, did you catch his speech at the CA convention yesterday?

        The link still works for a replay.

        • capelady

          I think I caught part of it but thanks, I would like to see the whole thing. I am so impressed with him and inspired by him, I try to watch everything I can find! Now, if voters would just wake up and pay attention! I find it difficult to believe that anyone who as any sense at all and listens to Newt will not be convinced that he is the man to lead America out of the mess we are in!!!

          • 1Michae1

            I don’t mind most of the things he says (minus creating moon bases while we are bankrupting ourselves)…. it is his past actions that show who he really is.

            • capelady

              I don’t know how old you are, Michael, perhaps you are too young to remember, or like me there was so much going on in your life that you were not paying attention… but what Newt accomplished in 1994 was nothing less than miraculous – and he paid a very heavy personal price. If you want to be properly informed in the face of this primary it is important that you see this, and share it if you are as impressed as I am. This is a documentary that was created by the media back then…. it is done in a very bipartisan way and it was a real eye-opener for me. It is on YouTube in 15 parts, but the entire video is posted at this link. It is WORTH your time to put the conservative movement in Washington DC in perspective! Very educational!


              • 1Michae1

                Due to your respectful reply I will take a look at the link. I can’t imagine it will overcome him supporting TARP and many other anti freedom positions though. Do those positions bother you at all?

                • capelady

                  They do, of course… but there are no perfect candidates out there. You can even find fault with Ronald Reagan’s record if you are a purist, which is a luxury we cannot afford. Rather than zero in on every vote and stance, I have tried to look at the big picture – and then listen to what they have to say today. This documentary is very comprehensive and I saw a few liberal faces I haven’t seen in a long time… it was not produced by people who supported Newt, but it gives you a very good idea of what he was able to accomplish, the opposition and dirty tricks of the liberals who fought him tooth and nail (including the 84 frivolous ethics charges which almost bankrupted him and took several years for him to be cleared of, which oddly never made the front pages!) and even the resistance he got from establishment conservatives (many of whom still resent him because he refused their pet pork projects so that he could balance the budget!). Every time I listen to Newt speak I hear a leader who is bold and fearless… and when you listen to his solutions and check out his website he always makes perfect sense. He is also, probably because of his teaching background, a great communicator. He can inspire people, and Lord knows America needs that right now. That is one of the reasons I prefer him to Santorum because we have an entire generation who know nothing of conservatism and believe the liberal lies. Anyway, I hope you will watch it, and then you can decide for yourself. If you are impressed, spread it around…. Newt needs all the help he can get. Romney did quite a job on him with $18 million in smear ads that cost him his momentum. I am convinced he is the only one who can beat Obama… once thinking people who believe in America actually HEAR what he has to say!

                • 1Michae1

                  My fear is electing another “conservative” who will follow an anti capitalist agenda and give free enterprise a bad name. It still bothers me that people refer to bush as a free market deregulator.
                  I agree there is no perfect candidate. Ron Paul to me has the perfect domestic policy and is the standard for pushing economic freedom. I can understand those who don’t like his foreign policy though. And he isn’t all that clear or charismatic, but he is consistent. I’m always interested to hear others opinions on RPs fiscal record.
                  I will take a look at your link tomorrow!

                • capelady

                  I was just listening to the documentary again and it is fascinating insight into the way Congress works, and the tension and differences in ideology between the left and the right. They tried to get a balanced budget amendment and term limits but without a GOP majority in the Senate, they were unsuccessful.. but it is amazing what they could accomplish – and I find it interesting that the Republican warnings about our debt are really coming home to roost now. (And I agree with you about George Bush… he was not a fiscal conservative at all!) You are right on about Ron Paul’s foreign policy – I think that is very dangerous and would be a serious concern. Let me know what you think of the documentary when you get a chance to watch it. It is long, but worth the time just to understand the dynamics of the fight we are in… which has now become and existential battle.

                • 1Michae1

                  I’m not sure why one of your replies isn’t showing here, but only on my email. The book is “the third wave”. I haven’t read it but there are bizarre statements about the constitution needing to be redone because it is outdated. Decide for yourself, I don’t think you should take anyones word for anything.
                  Many of these could be no brainer types of things, but it’s a red flag.
                  I don’t understand the claim that Ron Paul isn’t conservative because he went against Reagan. He was with Reagan until he started doing non conservative things like running up the debt and deficits. He left the party when they abandoned their principles. Fiscally speaking, what would you say is the difference between libertarians and conservatives? In theory both believe in economic freedom so I don’t know what the difference is. I appreciate the civil discussion as well!

                • capelady

                  If you watched the documentary, Newt mentioned that book teaching his class in regard to how technology was going to change the world and we had to prepare for that and take advantage of it. I don’t know about the rest of it. Ron Paul has been in Congress for many years and accomplished absolutely nothing… and his foreign policy is naive and dangerous. How he can say that Iran is not a threat to us when they are putting missiles in Venezuela and working with Hezbollah on our border is beyond me. I am voting for Newt because he has real solutions to the problems that America faces and a remarkable record of getting things done in Washington in spite of a liberal Senate and President. His agenda included term limits and a balanced budget amendment, which were not passed in the Senate at that time, but if we can give him a conservative majority he will get it done! That is conservative enough for me. I am just hoping that Santorum will implode and Newt can fill the void. There is a lot of talk about an alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, tag teaming in the debates and possibly negotiating a position for Rand Paul in the process. If you support Ron Paul, I have to wonder what you think about all of that?

    • librtifirst

      Paul would run libertarian if the two party dictatorship didn’t have elections so controlled that he could get on all the ballots as a libertarian. The media doesn’t cover their candidates either. So what party does a libertarian run in if he wants to make a difference?

      • FreeManWalking

        That sounds so lame and such a cop out to me.

        I have to screw up your process because I can’t figure out how to get on the ballot as a libertarian.

        Why doesn’t he run in the democratic primary if he just wants to screw up the process?

        • librtifirst

          Its called the two party dictatorship because they both use the same tactics. They shut out all other parties. It is the ultimate system of preservation to the status quo. No legitimate political revolution can happen without major societal unrest. They can just shut it down if that happens.

          There is no choice. Run republican or democrat.

          • FreeManWalking

            I think they are running without you and your candidate… Better hurry us before you miss the bus.

            • librtifirst

              Heh, heh. Nice try. I’m sure the press will send droves of cameras to broadcast their convention. They are hoping for a historic 1M votes for their party nominee. Why bother when their head guy is in the republican party getting the coverage? They should be backing Paul. I guess they have to keep the platform going, and be on the ballots when Paul loses the nomination.

              • FreeManWalking

                First you say you can’t play in your own field because the dems and reps won’t let you have one.

                I point you to the field and you complain there won’t be any press.

                And have the gall to say that once Paul is out on his duff here you think that Paul can just step in and be coronated as Mr. libertarian. I doubt they will play as nice as the GOP has.

                Which brings us back to Levin’s excellent dissertation exposing that Paul is in cahoots with willard to sink the conservatives.

                • librtifirst

                  Libertarians will have their own candidate, unless they hand it over to Paul. I would expect Paul to run as an independent. The press controls exposure, therefor you won’t compete without it. The press is in with the two party system, and rejects alternatives. Paul would likely not be included in debates in the general, just as has happened in the past with third party candidates.

                  I’m not complaining that there won’t be any press, I am pointing out how the system works, and why a libertarian would run as a republican. Paul has won 12 republican races, and lost one libertarian race in the same district. What changed? Not his positions.

    • What I find hysterical is that if Romney gets the nomination, all you people hating on Mitt will still vote for him.

      However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Paul.

      And who are the fakes here?

      • FreeManWalking

        It is all about putting the brakes on and trying to prevent us from going off the cliff.

        Anarchist could care less and would be helping push toward the cliff.

        You say “However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Paul.”

        I say “That’s because Paul won’t be on the ballot”.

  • anotherinterestedreader

    Very important information on the Romney/Paul alliance.

  • Maxsteele

    Wow, now I fully realize why they call him the great one. Listening to Mark Levin describe the reasoning behind the Romney – Paul Alliance so methodically and with evidence makes all the TV journalist look so enemic.

    • OldDan

      The Romney-Paul alliance is a myth dreamed-up (I believe) by the liberal Joe Scarborough. The Santorum team jumped on this myth to help prop up a sagging campaign. The fact that Mark Levin is perpetuating this myth says a great deal about his character (or lack of it).

      Folks, you are making a big mistake supporting Santorum. He is an arrogant, phony, condescending whiny-bird (just like Levin). I have been following him for years (he was my senator in PA), and he is no conservative. He is a big-government, big-spending, “do as I say” authoritarian. Please don’t rely on ratings by so-called conservative organizations. A check of his actual voting record will confirm the truth of my statements.

      The closest thing we have to a conservative who has the balls to take it to Obama is Gringrich. Santorum will sell you out, just like he did the conservatives in Pennsylvania. Take one for the team? Which team is that? It certainly was not for the small-government, freedom-loving, hard-working American team.

      The only reservation I have about Gringrich is his hero-worship of the progressives T. Roosevelt and Wilson. But as Speaker Newt did advance the conservative cause. On the other hand, as Majority Whip, Santorum advanced the big-government, progressive cause like a good-little, go-along to get-along, team player. This country is fighting for it’s survival. We cannot afford another Dole, McCain, Bush-lite progressive.

      I just saw a recent Larry Kudlow report featuring Ron Paul where they discuss the “Romney-Paul alliance” myth:

      • Maxsteele

        Wow, is delusional a word in your vocabulary? Even the most non-observant person can see that Paul does not criticize Romney. I do not need your supposed conspiracy theory (you sound just line Paul actually) to point that out for me. You have the right to your own opinion of course but you do not have one factual response to anything that Levin said in his show but then have no problem calling him
        an “arrogant, phony, condescending whiny-bird”. No facts just persoal insults. Then you add a link of Ron Paul refuting the alliance…duh…Like Paul is going to say, “Yes Larry, I am an anarchistic, self promoting, corrupt official just like what I say everyone else is. You got me.”
        From the beginning I favoured Santorum and Gingrich and either one would represent the republican party well. Romney and Paul are a disaster waiting to happen.

        • OldDan

          Is condescension a word in your vocabulary? You might want to add it. You see, condescension does not prove an argument. It only proves you are arrogant in your beliefs to the point you are convinced of something that may or may not be true. I have heard Ron Paul criticize Romney many times since the beginning of this campaign. If you had been listening to anyone besides the “Grate One”, you would have heard the criticisms as well.

          Unlike you, I have researched the candidates (all of them) on my own, and I came to these conclusions long ago:

          1) Romney is a flip-flopper. He sticks his finger in the air and changes his positions accordingly. If the nation demands he be a small-government, fiscal conservative, that is what he will be. He is also one helluva smart businessman.

          2) Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. Strict constructionists are very rare. Even Scalia and Thomas are not as strict as Paul. Only someone ignorant of the constitution would believe Paul is an anarchist.

          3) Newt Gringrich is also a flip-flopper on many social issues, but his legacy is fiscal conservative, and it is a good one. He is also “in your face” when it comes to judicial activism. I truly believe he will tell the judiciary that they will either rule according to the constitution of they will have their rulings ignored (or worse).

          4) Rich Santorum is a fiscal liberal and an social authoritarian, except when he is a a social liberal. He has a lame excuse for everything–for every time he voted against conservatism (if he had been in the military he would have learned the phrase, “no excuse, sir”). Teamwork appears to be more important to him than the constitution, or at least that is his excuse for voting for Bush’s big-government agenda. He is also very arrogant, in the “I know better than you” sense. His most arrogant abuse of power that I recall is when he went over the heads of the voters Pennsylvania on the Pittsburgh stadium issue in 1997. The citizens voted overwhelmingly against a stadium referendum, but Tricky Ricky knew better. He went over their heads to the state legislature and pushed through hidden funding for the stadiums. Understand, this was a United States Senator meddling in state and local affairs.

          5) Michele Bachmann was initially my first choice, but that did not last long. I left her when she went way over-the-top after Rick Perry on the Gardasil issue.

          6) Rick Perry is a good man, and I would support him if he was still in the race.

          7) Herman Cain is also a good man, and I would support him if he was still in the race (it would be a toss-up between Cain and Perry).

          8) John Huntsman of Utah was dropped off my list early on when I found out he was Obama’s Ambassador to China. That was all the research I needed.

          9) Gary Johnson seems to be a good man, but I never bothered to learn very much about him since he didn’t hang around very long.

          Currently I am supporting Newt, and I don’t see me changing my position unless he drops out. Then it will be either Romney or Paul–never Santorum!

        • OldDan

          Okay, I admit did not respond to your claim that I “do not have one factual response to anything that Levin said in his show.” That statement is true. Frankly, I find him nauseating, and I quit listening to him years ago. But, I “took one for the team” and actually listened to the part of Levin’s show posted above.

          As I figured, his very first piece of “evidence” was bogus. Starting about 7:25 into his rant, Levin, referring to a WFPL interview, states, “It reads as follows, and maybe this is it, “Kentucky’s junior senator said it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for presidential candidate Mitt Romney.” Levin followed up with, “BTW, I think Rand Paul would be a good Vice President. but that’s beside the point”.

          LOL. That is the oldest trick in the book–trying to appear impartial when your goal is to smear and demagogue a person or issue.

          But there is more: Rand Paul did not actually say what Levin said he said. The statement by Levin actually came from a bit of creative journalism by the author, Kenny Colston. Later in the article, Colston wrote, “When asked directly what he would say if Romney made the offer, Paul tried to punt. “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.”

          “Tried to punt?” That is almost as subjective as Levin’s next statement: “This MAY BE what Ron Paul is hoping for [my emphasis].”

          LOL! What a joke of a “researcher”. He is a speculator, folks. In all fairness, a minute or so later, after speculating about Ron Paul’s wishes, Levin qualifies his remarks with, “I have no idea if that is the case.” Finally, he commits a random act of journalism

          Note that in Rand Paul’s actual statement he does not commit to being Romney’s VP. He only states it would be an honor to be considered as vice president, something most any politician would say. BTW, the link is:

          Read it for yourself.

          Then Levin delivers a “punch” by quoting Stephen Hayes of Fox News who also speculates that there is a defacto alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney “because” Jesse Benton (Ron Paul’s campaign manager) stated Paul’s campaign “cooperates” with the Romney campaign (“there are weekly phone calls”, “they have good relations”. . .).

          Benton stated in another interview that Paul supporters might embrace Romney if he adopts a more constitutional foreign policy, is open to talking about the federal reserve, and he talks about real cuts in spending, but Levin did not think that important enough to mention. Link:

          So, do two “subjectives” equal an “objective”? Maybe if you believe in the “New Math”. But Levin clears it up with, “It is even more than Stephen Hayes said. It is even more than I speculated.”

          There is that “speculated” word again. But that is okay for Levin because he is also a “good litigator”, and he is going to “prove” Paul and Romney are in cahoots by pointing out (among other things) the fact that Paul is an admirer of Murray Rothbard, a well-known free-market capitalist, but an anti-capitalist anarchist for the sake of Levin’s argument.
          Levin also interjects the “racist”, “anti-semitic” Ron Paul newsletters for good measure, tying both Paul and Rothbard to them. The fact that Rothbard is himself a Jew will not allay the insuations of race-baiters, such as Levin, that Paul is anti-semitic, and by association, Rothbard.

          Back to that pesky “anarchist” label Levin pasted on Rothbard. Well read this from wikipedia:

          “Rothard believes the difference between free-market capitalism and “state capitalism” is the difference between “peaceful, voluntary exchange” and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market. Capitalism,” as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action . . . Central to anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of self-ownership and original appropriation.” Link:

          Free markets! Wow! That is scary stuff! It is worth noting that true anarchists reject anarcho-capitalists, and vice versa, but Levin apparently doesn’t believe that is important enough to mention in his quest to “prove” (by changing the subject) that Romney and Paul are in cahoots.

          Now Levin sneaks this in: Paul labeled Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gringrich–all–as fake conservatives” as they coordinate with the Romney campaign” [dropping Stephen Hayes insinuations into the mix for good measure], hoping that we will forget that none of this Paul-Romney Alliance has any element of proof whatsoever.

          Now he gets even more bold: “We picked up on . . . this coordination going on [between Paul and Romney]”. To back up that statement, Levin reads Ron Paul’s 1987 letter of resignation from the Republican Party, citing sky-rocketing deficits, doubled national debt, Iranian arms for hostages, illegally funding the Contras, massive monetary inflation, indescriminate military spending, irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming federal aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and freedoms and privacy.”

          If that doesn’t convince you that there is a Paul-Romney alliance, then how about this: “Ron Paul despises Abraham Lincoln”, not to mention that William F. Buckley has nothing but disdain for Ron Paul’s friend, Murray Rothbard, who must be some sort of “anti-semitic” Jew, if you follow Levin’s reasoning, and and anarchist (who also was a devout free-market capitalist), because Rothbard had nothing but disdain for “conservatives” whom Rothbard called authoritarian. It also appears Rothbard’s followers have trashed Burke, Lincoln, Reagan, Scalia, Buckley, and possibly other “conservatives”, at one time or another. I wonder why?

          Now Levin delivers another punch: Romney and Paul are in alliance because they have, in common, contempt for “conservatives”. He explains the connection because Romney and Paul are attacking “conservatives” “from the right”. Romney even had the gall to blast those who supported “No child left behind”, a program partly written by the bastion of conservativism, Ted Kennedy, that had the support of all republicans except three “liberal” republicans. Even crony capitalist Phil Gramm voted for it. Wow? That is the same Phil Gramm who, along with such bastions of conservatism as Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Arthur Levitt and Lawrence Summers pushed through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that further deregulated the derivatives market. Now that was a brilliant move by the “conservative” Phil Gramm. Levin also appears to be blaming Romney for Medicare Part D. Maybe I misunderstood.

          Now Levin is going for the jugular. He is questioning the everyday Ron Paul supporters, asking if they realize “that [Paul] has made this deal [with Romney]”. What deal was that? I forget? Mark, maybe there was no deal. But Mark has now convinced himself that there was a deal. His reasoning is almost as convincing as one of John Edward’s seances.

          Mark’s greatest outrage appears to be Ron Paul’s attempts to “destroy” the “conservatives” (one-by-one) in the race. Can you imagine anyone would do that–point out a political opponent’s inconsistencies? I am certain Mark will express similar outrage at the “conservatives” attempts (one-by-one) to destroy Ron Paul. Certainly Mark will go after Michele Bachmann for dimissing Ron Paul as a “Dangerous President”, or Rick Santorum (between eye rolls) dismissing Ron Paul as a “Dangerous Candidate”, or Newt Gringrich dismissing Ron Paul as “Stunningly Dangerous for the U.S.”. It certainly appears all the “conservatives” coordinated their attacks on Ron Paul, and we all know how much Mark Levin hates “coordination”.

          Well, maybe not, because now Levin is repeating his mantra that Ron Paul has contempt for “conservatives”. He is bringing out several controversial statements by Ron Paul that Levin considers “wacky”, such as the “Bush, CIA and Drugs” conspiracy theory. Maybe they are wacky, maybe they are not–Levin doesn’t know, neither do I. I personally think they are wacky, but to be candid Ron Paul would be in a better position than either of us to know the truth. Anyway, he repeats Paul’s statements that culminate in Iran wanting a weapon because they feel threatened. Of course this further proves the Paul-Romney coordination.

          Levin repeats Ron Paul’s “contempt” for the policies of Ronald Reagan (explaining away Reagan’s deficiencies because he is “not a dictator”). Then he moves on to Romney’s attacks on Santorum for “No Child Left Behind”, while pointing out Romney’s hypocrisy on the issue (at one time Romney praised No Child Left Behind), as if that is some sort of relevation. Who would have thought Romney is a flip-flopper? Ron Paul certainly does because he as said it many times during interviews in this campaign. Levin must have missed all those interviews. I guess he was too busy digging up 25 year-old stuff on Ron Paul.

          Well, to sum it up, according to Levin, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are coordinating their campaigns because:

          1) Rand Paul said it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for presidential candidate Mitt Romney, even though Rand Paul never said that.
          2) Jesse Benton (Ron Paul’s campaign manager) stated Paul’s campaign “cooperates” with the Romney campaign, e.g., “there are weekly phone calls”, “they have good relations”, even though Benton described the “coordination” as mostly relating to scheduling.
          3) Ron Paul admires Murray Rothbard, and obvious “anti-semitic” Jew who is both an anarchist and a devout, free-market capitalist (?).
          4) Ron Paul labeled Santorum, Perry, Bachmann and Gringrich–all–as fake conservatives.
          5) Ron Paul resigned from the Republican Party in 1987, citing sky-rocketing deficits, doubled national debt, Iranian arms for hostages, illegally funding the Contras, massive monetary inflation, indescriminate military spending, irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming federal aid, the exaltation of international banking,
          and the attack on our personal liberties and freedoms and privacy.
          6) Ron Paul despises Abraham Lincoln.
          7) William F. Buckley has nothing but disdain for Ron Paul’s friend, Murray Rothbard (the “anti-semitic” Jew) because Rothbard had nothing but disdain for “conservatives” who Rothbard called authoritarian.
          8) Rothbard’s followers have trashed Burke, Lincoln, Reagan, Scalia, Buckley, and possibly other “conservatives” at one time or another.
          9) Romney and Paul are in alliance because they have in common contempt for “conservatives”.
          10) Romney and Paul are attacking “conservatives” from the right (note, that would be hard to do unless the “conservatives” had established liberal voting records of some sort).
          11) Ron Paul said some things in the past that may be considered “wacky”, such as embracing the “Bush, CIA and Drugs” conspiracy theory.
          12) Romney blasted Santorum for supporting “No Child Left Behind” and Medicare Prescription Drugs Part D.
          13) Ron Paul has attempted to “destroy” the “conservatives” (one-by-one) in the race (the same conservatives who attempted to destroy Ron Paul–go figure).
          14) Ron Paul believes Iran wants a nuclear weapon because they feel threatened. Romney doesn’t believe that, but Levin must have figured that wasn’t important.
          15) Romney is a flip-flopper. Ron Paul has called Romney a flip-flopper many times in the campaign, but Levin must have figured that wasn’t important.

          Certainly all that should prove a Paul-Romney conspiracy against the “conservatives”, or should it? [This new math is almost as nauseating as Mark Levin’s radio show].

          I have an alternate theory. Ron Paul has contempt for phony conservatives. Ron Paul doesn’t like being labeled as “dangerous” by phony conservatives. Mitt Romney considers his chief competitors to be the front-running “conservative” at the time, not Ron Paul, so he goes after the front-running conservative. Romney has never been nasty to Ron Paul, and Ron Paul has never been nasty to Mitt Romney, so there is mutual respect. No conspiracy, just mutual respect.

          It is just a theory.

          • AmericanGold

            Whew! Lot of intelligence here, exhaustively researched. Thank you for getting it on record.

  • W.

    Ron Paul claimed after the Arizona debate that he was actually second in the number of GOP convention delegates.

    The Paul camp claims this ‘fact’ is actually being hidden by the MSM:

    They claim Santorum’s primary wins are non-committed delegates and are really Ron Paul delegates:

    Here are several articles that attempt to explain away the report of a Paul/Romney collusion:

    It is wearying to try to figure out who is conservative and who is lying, who will serve this nation, not themselves or a political interest.

    May all evil and deception will be exposed.

  • A_CAT

    This is hocus-pocus b.s.
    Romney is above all of this nonsense. This cat knows a winner and his name is Mitt!

    • FreeManWalking

      Three little kittens lost their mitten…

    • StNikao

      Romney is certainly not above non-truth.

      He is severely non-factual.

    • KenInMontana

      In truth, he is up to his eyeballs in it.

  • Ron Paul is the most “Anarchistic” candidate? Nice rhetoric. Gag me. I guess we should all just get on the Obama bandwagon that the Constitution is a “living document.”

    And the PRESSITUTE “mainstream” media pushing this “alliance” means NOTHING to me. They are SO off base when it comes to honest reporting of politics that I’ve almost completely stopped listening. Please, show me just ONE thing that they have got right recently…really, JUST ONE.

    I’ll close with this quote to explain the Ron Paul strategy of knocking off opponents, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The goal is to make Ron Paul and Mitt Romney the last two men standing, because Mitt Romney is the EASIEST to take out. Have you ever watched an episode of Survivor? Do they take out the weakest or the strongest opponents first? The strongest, because they know that as time goes on, it will become more difficult to beat them. And so it is with Mitt Romney: he is a CLOWN and a PUPPET and Ron Paul will wipe the floor with him if it’s down to those two in the closing months.

    • AmericanGold

      Yep! Nicely stated.


    Listen carefully to what Ron Paul says starting at the 0:12 mark. In his own words he won’t stand by someone that is against his (and his constituents’) beliefs.

    People can say, “well, he’s a politician, he’ll say anything to get elected.” But luckily for Ron Paul supporters, with RP, what you see is what you get. He’s the only candidate who isn’t a liar and a fraud, so it’s easy to believe him.

    • KenInMontana

      Actually, Paul is no different than any other candidate, he is a member of the professional political class that has taken up residence where our founders envisioned a citizen legislature being. You think he is really any different than the rest? You keep reminding yourself of that, while he flies first class on your dime.

      • Lawrence O’Donnell hates Ron Paul, and thinks he is wrong on everything, but even he will admit that there is nothing inconsistent with his flying habits.

        If you don’t believe me just do a youtube search on “lawrence o’donnell ron paul.” He is trashing Paul in all of his other videos.

        • KenInMontana

          I never said he was different than anyone else in congress in regards to his flying habits and that is precisely the problem.

          BTW; the excuse he gives for it is lame as well, he could get the same perks flying business class and get the same perks when it comes to rescheduling flights.

          • Wow, you really are pretty twisted up on his issue. My point is that UNLIKE the rest of the people in Congress he still returns money at the end of the year. He is ACTUALLY fiscally responsible, unlike the rest of the nitwits in Congress…did you miss the part in the article that YOU posted where is says that Paul opted-OUT of the Congressional Pension Plan? How much money do you think THAT will save? Let me make it easy for you: Just TWO MONTHS of not receiving the pension money after retirement will cover the cost difference between ALL of his 1st Class and Coach flying since 2009. But I fail to understand why this issue actually matters to you…especially considering the fact that he returns money every year.

            Is this REALLY the best you can do to come up with reasons not to vote for Ron Paul?

            • KenInMontana

              I have a myriad of reasons as to why I do not choose to support Ron Paul, first and foremost is the fact that he is a career politician, which is a rather large negative in my view. I did read the entire article, and I am aware of his fiscal practices and his voting record and methods. Ron Paul casts his votes to play to his partisans, as does any politician, I am disgusted with politicians of all stripes, career politicos and perennial candidates top that list. I would rather flush the lot of them, Paul included, and return to an actual citizen legislature that would work effectively to constrain government to its Constitutional limits. You and the rest of Paul’s partisans would do much better trying to “sell” your candidate, than resorting to treating those who do not support him as neophytes and unlearned morons.

              • I highly doubt that your career politician thing is a true principle with you. I have a hard time seeing you stop supporting Jim Demint or Allen West, or insert any of your favorite politician here just because they spend x amount of time in Washington. As long as they keep making good speeches, and vote according to your preferences than I would doubt that you would vote against them.

                • KenInMontana

                  I highly doubt that your career politician thing is a true principle with you.

                  Try me.

                • Well again. Think about your favorite politician or office holder. If they kept doing what made you like them so much in the first place for the next 20 years would you suddenly stop supporting them because they had been there 20 years? It kinda reminds me of the politicians who support term limits, but then don’t leave office. They get called hypocrits and understandably so, but if all politicians who believe in term limits self impose term limits than there will never be term limits.

                • KenInMontana

                  “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” –Thomas Jefferson

                  I have a consistent record of voting against incumbents in congress (But, never for a Democrat) Presidents are a different matter as they are already limited. Politicians can never be relied upon to keep their word, they can be relied upon to work in their own self interests though.

                • AmericanGold

                  Right on!

              • AmericanGold

                You probably didn’t look up the word “myriad” before you used it. Also, if you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would realize that he stands precisely for that which you prefer, “an actual citizen legislature that would work effectively to constrain government to its Constitutional limits.” As for your parting comment, well?

                • KenInMontana

                  So you are telling me how I think? If Paul were truly “a citizen legislator”, he would accept nothing more than a stipend for expenses, in truth he is a career politician like all the rest. You’re a bit more subtle with it than other Paul partisans, but in the end your methods are the same. Sorry, no sale.

      • Wow, really? Can you show me ANY OTHER candidate in HISTORY who voted so consistently on the Constitution?

        And regarding his flying first class, he STILL comes in WAY under budget…which I highly doubt the rest of Congress can claim:

    • c4pfan

      He’s been in office forever and has done nothing. His son has done more than him.

      • So, just to be clear, you would rather have a candidate that has sold his soul for the “greater good” than the ONLY candidate who has remained honorable and stayed true to the OATH that he SWORE to the Constitution?

  • Well the stuff about Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk is a lie. Tom Woods often quotes these two favorably and he is the founder of the Ron Paul superpac.

    • KenInMontana

      You’re talking about the Tom Woods that is a founding member of this organization?

      • He has also been at many left leaning organizations, but that doesn’t mean he agreed with them. He still stuck to his principles that he always does. If you are trying to paint him as a racist than good luck finding any racists comments from him. Please support your argument with stances from Woods rather than guilt by association please.

        • KenInMontana

          No it was a question, I put no stock in anything anyone has to say who is attached so firmly to anyone’s campaign, let alone running a superpac, which certainly places his statements in a less than objective light. As to his works/writings, I have read several, some I find good, others not so good, many color him as having NeoConfederate sympathies (others would just flat out label him as one). As to his connections League of the South, whether he continues as member or not matters little to me. But his association with it fits the pattern of many of those who have held and do hold positions in Paul’s campaign organization. I don’t need to do anything to alienate people from Paul’s candidacy, many of his supporters do that far better than any opposition campaign operative ever could. My overarching point here is that Wood’s opinion could hardly be taken as an unbiased, neutral assessment of Ron Paul, given his capacity with Paul’s campaign. I have issues with every single candidate that is still in the GOP race, every one of them, which is why I have yet to declare a preference towards any of them.

          BTW, that’s a pretty pathetic attempt with your assertion of accusations of racism, which I never intimated. The League of the South, is a Southern Nationalist or “NeoConfederate” (if you prefer the term) organization and treads very carefully to avoid public comments that might be construed as racist.

          • I had no idea what you were going for there, but it certainly looked like an attempt to discredit the person I brought forward just because he attended one meeting of an organization back when he was 21, and before the stances of the organization were really established. The entire point of my first comment is that Levin wasn’t telling the truth that Ron Paul type libertarians don’t like Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke. Tom Woods is a Ron Paul style libertarian by any measure, and he founded the Ron Paul superpac. He speaks favorably about Burke and Kirk in many of his lectures. Even the stuff about Friedman is a little over the top. What Friedman says in his youtube videos and non-scholarly books (Capitalism and Freedom) is shared by Austrians. Austrians differ with Friedman in some of his higher level stuff that really only Economists talk about. Just read this


            Oh Austrians disagree with Friedman on the quantity theory of money!!! That must mean they hate him and trash him!!!! No they don’t.

            Now I really don’t understand why you are discrediting what Woods and his opinion on Paul. I’m not arguing that you should support Paul because Woods does. I’m arguing that Paul supporters don’t hate and trash Burke, Kirk, and Friedman and I am holding up Woods as an example.

            • KenInMontana

              I was a Libertarian for a while (philosophically, I have never been an official member of any party), I walked away from it when Libertarianism became inundated with Anarchy of every stripe and was drifting away from the classical liberalism of the founders. In all honesty and truthfulness, of late the goings on in the Austrian School and the Mises Institute communities is looking like something akin to the “night of the long knives” or a purge of sorts. Politically, for simplicities sake, I guess you could label me and “Independent Constitutionalist” that caucuses with Republicans/Conservatives, which I have witnessed on many occasions, confuses the heck out of many Paul partisans (which I confess, amuses me to no end).

              As to my comments/observations on Woods, he has indeed “flamed” individuals for their positions on Ron Paul, in fact he made an appearance on this blog once and did just that, which in truth is a hallmark of partisans/zealots of all stripes. Treating those that hold a different preference for a candidate with a thinly veiled contempt, labeling them as ignorant, unlearned, morons and worse. Which only causes them to dig their heels in and resist more vehemently. As I said there are many of his works (as a historian) I have found to be very good and others that have left me scratching my head, saying “WTF has he been smoking?”, that said my observations are questioning his objectivity in a political sense, he is a member of a candidate’s political machine so I would expect him to support his candidate of choice, but in following the dictates of reason, that fact “colors” his statements as biased in favor of Paul to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I view the statements of anyone who stumps for a particular candidate through that “lens”, particularly those who hold positions high in a candidates organizations.

              • Well okay. You disagree with Woods which is your prerogative, but that does nothing to refute my point. Levin asserts that we Paul supporters hate Burke, Friedman, and Kirk.

                Virtually all Paul supporters would support Woods as representative supporter.
                Woods does not condemn these men. Granted being from different schools of thought they would have their intellectual disagreements. As you can read from the forum link I posted, the average engaged Austrian follower supports Friedman more than they oppose Friedman.

                Therefore Levin is wrong about his characterization of Paul Supporters as Friedman, Burke, Kirk haters.

                • KenInMontana

                  Well in part I would agree that Levin is known to, shall we say, “overstate” his case (which in my opinion, in this case he has, in regards to this Friedman “thing”), due to his passionate nature, add to that he is also, what I would call a “hard line Conservative” in the same fashion I would classify Woods as close-enough-makes-no-difference, a “hard line Libertarian” and I see neither as infallible. Although I have seen self identified Paul partisans attack Friedman and Burke, would I color all of Paul’s supporters in that same light? No, no more than I would classify all Liberals as communists, I know more than a few that have mild socialist tendencies (I know, rare birds) at the same time they are ardent outspoken defenders of the Bill of Rights as it is written, as most Conservatives and strict Constitutionalists read it (although I do feel that the lion’s share of modern liberals are hard core socialists). American politics are lively and complex due in no small part to what has been called that “Rugged American Individualism”, outside observers of our political process have on more than one occasion remarked on how astonishing it is that our process does not result in a civil war every two or four years.

          • AmericanGold

            I would guess from all of this that you have confused yourself. Having a strong conviction does not make one “less than objective.” Ferret out the truth for yourself and pin your hopes to that. You can know your truth by the feeling of peace that engulfs you when you speak it with conviction, as if to God, Himself.

            • KenInMontana

              You mistake me, I am not confused, not at all.

          • OldDan

            Neo-Confederate, defined:

            Neo-Confederate, as defined the left-wing extremist Morris Dees and his radical Southern Poverty Law Center:

            • KenInMontana

              I know the definition of NeoConfederate, and I am fully aware of what that pinhead Dees has to say, you are aware that Dees classifies anything to the right of his position as a hate group.

              • OldDan

                LOL. He certainly does.

  • BTW that passage that he is reading at the 19 minute mark……would anyone like to point out anything in that passage that is not factually accurate and a legitimate complaint?

    • OldDan

      I have no doubt it is accurate.

      Now, can anyone prove that Paul and Romney are teaming up against the “conservatives” (so-called)? Or did Levin use this bit about Reagan to divert attention from the fact that he has no proof whatsoever that Romney and Paul are in cahoots?

  • DebbyX

    Thank you for posting this. I would hate to have missed this explanation.

    Ron Paul looks and tries to act innocent but those are the ones you have to watch. Mr. Mitt has an uphill battle and he’s looking mighty tired these days.

  • Now, you’ve done it, RS. I’ve got Romney-supporters (AKA, anklebiters) mad at me, and refusing to even listen to this. In spite of his own words being played out, in spite of Rumpelstiltskin’s own words being played out (or psychotic rants and screams being played out), they still won’t listen, and call it ‘opining’, instead of the presentation of historical data. Not only do I have a clearer picture of Willard, not only do I have an even clearer picture of the psychotic racial supremacist Ron Paul, but I also have a crystal clear window looking right at the people that so blindly support them, just as doggedly as any O-bot supports Obama.

    • c4pfan

      That’s been the GOP since forever.

      Have you guys not seen what happened to Sarah Palin?

  • c4pfan

    Come on, Ron Paul is obviously working an angle to hurt Santorum to keep Mitt in the race. It doesn’t take much to figure that out. I just don’t get how Santorum didn’t know that going into it, because Ron was making rounds on TV snipping at Santorum and not Romney for days before the debate.

    You know what the press or Mitt lackey Christie or Sununnu will focus on whenever there’s anyone that threatens Romney’s chance at the nomination.

    However, Santorum nor Gringrich have some lackeys speaking for them. The press is already full on board for Romney.

    All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don’t fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race.

    • And they call us RP supporters conspiracy theorists… *sigh* Occam’s Razor folks. Romney is a NE establishment/Rockefeller Republican. No one voting for a man like that will pick Ron Paul as anything but last choice, and possibly would support Obama over him (just as they did against Goldwater in 64 and Buchanan in 92). Thus Ron’s campaign sees no benefit in trying to woo his voters.

    • “All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don’t fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race. ”
      Are you serious? It’s obvious from the the posts here the majority of you wouldn’t know a true conservative if he bit you on the a**. There is only one candidate who will get enough of the Independent and cross-over vote to defeat Obama. Period. Without those votes, the Dems get it for four more years. Embrace the horror.

    • OldDan

      If you really want to know the truth about why Ron Paul has been going after Santorum, watch the early debates where Santorum arrogantly dismissed Paul as dangerous and unstable, and condescendingly rolled his eyes when Paul was speaking.

      When that first occurred, my wife and I came to the same conclusion that Santorum had opened up a hornet’s nest. Any politician with as sorry a record as Santorum would do well to be polite and diplomatic, rather than resort to playground tactics.

  • MadeleineTector

    Rand Paul has spoken ot several people and denied that anyone offered him the vice Presidency or that his Father was offered any Vice Presidency either, this is just a rumor that is going around because it makers ron paul look bad. Rand said his Dad was never even offered anything. I don’t listen to Levine anyway, I don’t like him although that is beside the point.

  • wtf is wrong with you people?

  • brazen_infidel

    As some of these posts demonstrate all too vividly, there’s a natural and long-standing antipathy between libertarians and big government social conservatives, despite their occasional agreement on economic issues. Just because Dr. Paul went after Sanctorum in the debate, it doesn’t mean he’s in bed with Romney; it just means that he and Romney both have their own reasons to try and burst the recent Sanctorum bubble. You big government conservatives like Mark Levin, who have been dissing Dr. Paul from the get-go anyway, need to untie that knot in your knickers because you are sounding like a bunch of crybabies now.

    By the way, before the invective starts flying in this direction, I don’t actually support Dr. Paul’s candidacy because of his isolationist foreign policy views. However, on all other issues he deserves to be treated with respect as the conscience of our party.

    • AmericanGold

      Nice post, brazen-infidel, except Ron Paul is not an “isolationist,” as Soros likes to brand him. He is against the evil practice of turning America’s wealth over to war-mongers. Mothers and fathers and babies (ours and theirs) are being obliterated in the name of “democracy?” Wake up!

      • OldDan

        Isolationist, non-interventionist, whatever, Ron Paul would do well to note that “why muslims hate us” is no longer the issue. They do, and they also hate freedom. Their “religion”, which is in fact a strict political system, is as incompatible with our constitution and western tradition as communism and fascism. Their goal is to bring down our system of government and replace it with Sharia. Anyone who embraces their religion as “a religion of peace”, or a religion that deserves constitutional protection, is either naive or treasonous.

      • brazen_infidel

        Hey, I too am against the evil practice of turning America’s wealth over to war-mongers. And, unlike many of the posters here, I won’t deny that the US has been meddling in too many places throughout the world. However, I don’t believe that liberty can survive (or be restored) in the United States if the entire rest of the world has been divided up between the Islamofascists and the socialists.

  • Mark Levin is an enemy of the constitution. He is a hypocrite and a joke and an embarrassment to an already embarrassing medium

  • 1Michae1

    Ron Pauls letter about Reagans debt and deficits was supposed to prove Paul is NOT a conservative?? Because falling in line and supporting higher debt and deficits is a conservative thing to do? Got it.

    • OldDan

      LOL. Levin gave us a lesson in how to prove Ron Paul is a conservative without really trying.

  • 1Michae1

    Did anyone notice how we are talking about some alliance rather than discrediting the claims made that Santorum is NOT a conservative. I wonder why…

    • KenInMontana

      Because “the alliance” is the topic of thread. Not whether Santorum is or is not a Conservative.

      Or are you just trolling for a fight?

      • 1Michae1

        You are right, I should clarify. I don’t mean to poke at what “we” are talking about here. Just the topic brought up by Levin.
        The topic is about poor rick getting ganged up on. Nothing can defend what they were saying about Santorum, so it has to be about some conspiracy against him.

        • KenInMontana

          Well let’s see we have a progressive RINO and a Libertarian who masquerades as a Republican, trying to tell us who is or isn’t a Conservative? And we should believe either one of them, why? Sounds like a non-starter to me.

          • OldDan

            I agree. We should stick to Santorum’s voting record. Of course, Santorum (and maybe Levin and a few others) would prefer we NOT examine his voting record. It is far from conservative.

          • conspiracygirl

            So are you trying to say that someone who is a liberal cannot adjudicate as to whether someone else’s stances are conservative or socialist or libertarian…? That a conservative cannot adjudicate whether someone else’s position and record have been socialist or liberal…? A rather bizarre conclusion I think….

            Perhaps all conservatives should stop calling Obama a socialist and whatever else they call him — unless they are the same….

            • KenInMontana

              No, what I am saying is that those that are not honest about themselves cannot be reliably accurate in defining what some one else is or is not.

            • conspiracygirl

              Well, you know Ken, the name of the Republican Party is the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party. It contains people from all across the spectrum. Ron Paul was elected as a Republican long before he ever ran for office on the Large L Libertarian ticket, but since then he has run on the Republican ticket — because the GOP and Dems have created laws to prevent third parties from challenging their hold on power. It is not illegal to belong to more than one party. And I don’t hear Republicans whining much about the neocon infiltration and takeover of the GOP. These people aren’t conservatives either — hence the name they gave themselves to distinguish themselves from conservatives.

      • OldDan

        If “the alliance” is the topic of the thread, why did Levin stray so far from the topic (e.g., Ron Paul hates Lincoln, Murray Rothbard is an anarchist, etc.). Could it be that Levin had no proof whatsoever that there was an alliance? Just curious.

        • KenInMontana

          I haven’t noticed any comments in the thread from Levin as of yet. As far as I heard Levin is expressing his opinions, and as we all know opinions are “colored” by where an individual stands. As for myself, I don’t believe Rothbard is an anarchist, nor do I believe that Paul hates Lincoln (although it is obvious that Lew Rockwell has no love for the man). On how Levin sees Paul, I believe Levin is looking at those who surround Paul and like many, wonders why, if Paul does not agree with their views, are they so “highly placed” in his political apparatus.

  • Mark who? Oh, the same one that was singing Romney’s praises in ’08? Gotta be one of two things: (1) He must have invited Romney to be on his show and got turned down and his narcissistic personality absolutely had to get even…(2) He gets to be on the FOX NEWS occassionally, it is no secret that they have gone through the “flavor of the month’s” and they have warned him that if he endorsed Romney this time, he won’t be on the show anymore (hmmm that too would be part of the narcissistic personality thing)…that’s all I can figure.

  • LOL

    You guys rail on the “mainstream media” and establishment but support whoever Levin/Hannity/Limbaugh tell you to.

    What a joke. Grow up and become adults and take a look around.

    Maybe just consider for a minute the guy being systematically attacked by the mainstream media and establishment republicans you claim to dislike. Maybe you are being lied to?

  • As I read the comments here I laugh at the stupidity of the writers. It’s like when I watched my two dogs fighting over which one got to chase the ball. I laughed and said to myself “They’re just dogs.” In this case I laughed and said to myself “They’re just fools.”

  • Ron Paul, you fool, we talked to the Soviets because we were forced to negotiate with them, BECAUSE THEY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. If they didn’t have nuclear weapons and wanted them, we wouldn’t have to negotiate them. Don’t you see, we’re trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?

    • I_am_a_lead_pencil

      “Don’t you see, we’re trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?”

      Because ‘hot’ wars are much better than cold ones.

    • AmericanGold

      Good Grief, Patrick! Pinch yourself. Who is this “we” you refer to?

  • davidrugenstein

    HUM!!…. something to think about here!!!!!

  • Son of a Ron Paul!

  • Jay

    Rush mentioned Paul may be looking for the VP slot for his boy. They may have something there.

    • AmericanGold

      Ha! Not even maybe. Rush is so out of touch with truth.

    • conspiracygirl

      Heck, is Rush still doing drugs…?

  • What I find hysterical is that if Romney gets the nomination, all you people hating on Mitt will still vote for him.

    However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Romney.

    And who are the fakes here?

    • AmericanGold

      I doubt that even one Ron Paul supporter would vote for Romney. Instead, we will write in Ron Paul. “Never let it be said that we stood by and did nothing.”

  • This was painful to listen through…jeez, what a snooze….
    I find it horribly ironic that while every American has watched each of the “flavors of the week” & Romney work diligently to distract and divide from Ron Paul and now the Neocon media networks have decided to turn the tables and accuse Paul and Romney of what has been afflicting the Paul campaign from day one. Republicans wont win without Ron Paul supporters. Period.

    • KenInMontana

      Republicans wont win without Ron Paul supporters. Period.

      That goes both ways.

  • If you are for ‘War’ – at any $cost, for any $reason, at any $time and praise Reagan as Jesus-Incarnate, then you are a de-facto ‘friend’ of Mark Levin. If you are not a fan of the above sequence, you are an enemy, unpatriotic and un-‘conservative’.

    Tom Woods has already taken Mark Levin to the proverbial ‘woodshed’ on a few occasions, to which Mark Levin responded in his usual manner – to sling ad-hominem attacks and evade engaging the debate in stark terms, along with little or no historical data to support his positions.

    The simplistic arguments offered up by Levin – in this particular case, grasping-at-rumor and innuendo-as-fact, are the mark of a failed ideal. Frustrated that a being a warhawk is no longer popular with the electorate, Levin finds himself tied up in knots, verbally flailing about, in an attempt to create controversy where none exists.

    I have never witnessed somebody use a term (‘conservative’) so loosely and inappropriately, as to dilute its true meaning down to the point of meaninglessness, as Mark Levin so does on a daily basis.

    For fans of Mark Levin, who think that his background in Constitutional law somehow confers upon him intellectual superiority in the realm of Constitutional precept and spirit above anyone else, primarily because they have never been exposed to anything else, it is understandable that they would harangue that Levin’s opinions are somehow Fact, when they are mostly radio frequency Hot Air, and not much else, but I digress…

  • AmericanGold

    Mark belongs to Soros. What total nonsense he spouts here!! Please, people, do your own research. This man is lying to you.

  • AmericanGold

    Mark Levin is obviously on George Soros’ payroll. Please, people, do your own research. His vicious tone of voice belies every nonsensical accusation he makes.

    • KenInMontana

      That is a fairly serious charge, do you have evidence to support that charge, or is it just political partisan hearsay?

  • Nalejbank

    If you are for limited constitutional government then I feel sure we will find ourselves on the same page on many issues.
    Of course, no one agrees completely on everything but my mission is to promote individual liberty as well as responsibility.
    Since liberty cannot exist without limited government, I promote and teach “legal government”, as taught by Frederic Bastiat in his book – The Law.
    When Ron Paul was interviewed by the several Attorney Generals on December 3rd of 2011, he was ask what book he would suggest for everyone. His reply? Frederic Bastiat’s, The Law!
    As a vital part of one’s liberty education and for you to share with others to help win back our liberties under the Constitution, I implore everyone to read it carefully. It’s free and it will do the trick! It’s short but packs a HUGE punch!
    Please, my friends and countrymen, click and read today!. You WILL thank me later!
    So, here is a link to The Law:

  • All you need do is watch survivor, who will win, who will be voted off the island. And the alliances ensue….

  • Jonathon Hunt

    I believe you are generally on the right track, Mark. Modern day conservatives and libertarians do differ, especially when it comes to social issues. However, conservatism was very much closer to libertarianism back in the glory days of the Old Right. There still existed some differences, but not to the degree that exists by the modern approaches to these philosophies. Anyways, Paul hopes that Santorum gets the nomination. It will explode the GOP into two factions after Santorum inevitably looses the election in 2012; he is undeniably too socially conservative to receive any votes from anyone other than hardcore Republicans. Who’s going to be there to pick up the pieces? The faction that characterizes liberty and applies it consistently; it’s going to be the libertarians.

    Test you? Sure will. What would Reagan say about Libertarianism?


    REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

    REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

    Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.


    Regardless, what is with your repeated implication that whatever Reagan does is the manifestation of conservatism? Is the biggest budget deficit up until that time “conservative?” Is your “drastic” income tax cuts, that were more than made up by increased Social Security taxes aided by bracket creep, “conservative?” Reagan was a failure by even a conservative standard, especially when it comes to economics.

    You’re committing the association fallacy by saying that just because Paul’s mentors were anarchocapitalists, then Paul must be an anarchocapitalist himself. Sorry, Mark but it does not work that way. Paul is not an anarchocapitalist but is a minarchist, which involves the government taking a role known as the “nightwatchman state.” He believes in very limited government; i.e., his views are actually closer to Rothbard’s mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it.


    Stossel: What should government do?

    Paul: Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look at and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. That was the responsibility of the federal government, not to run our lives and run everything in the economy and extend the interstate-commerce clause and the general-welfare clause to do anything they want to do.

    Stossel: So defense, the military, police forces enforce contracts, and that’s about it?

    Paul: That’s it. We would have a court system to enforce contracts, and when people do harm to others, when they take property or injure property, or pollute a neighbor’s air, I think there’s a role for government to protect our environment through private-property rights.

    Stossel: So keep us safe, enforce contracts, run the courts, pollution rules and otherwise butt out? Leave us alone?

    Paul: Basically that, which would mean if I’m elected, I should immediately take a pay cut. You know, because I wouldn’t have so much to do.


    For what it’s worth, the funniest part I heard was that Paul was somehow an “establishment” candidate but also a “libertarian anarchist.” You seriously just said, “I love the government and want to use it (establishment)! I also want to get rid of it (anarchist).” Good God, and people like this have their own radio show.

  • conspiracygirl

    ROFL. Will Santorum have to prove he’s a better choice than Romney AND Paul…? How OUTRAGEOUS! How horrible!!! Why that’s — that’s — that’s exactly what Santorum ALWAYS had to do…

    But I do hope many of Levin’s listeners will start reading Rothbard. It’s about freakin’ time they heard some sense….

    • Tu ne cede malis!

  • conspiracygirl

    Well, actually I will vote Third Party if RP doesn’t get the nomination. If write-in votes were counted and not just thrown in the trash I’d write-in Ron Paul for sure, but since they’re not my vote will likely go to the LP.

  • conspiracygirl

    Statements like these by Rush and Levin illustrate how little these guys know about Ron Paul. Seriously, they have no idea how much RP supporters are rolling on the floor laughing at this whole thing. Neither Rush nor Levin have got a clue as to what makes Ron Paul tick, so they just make stuff up, and to try to make sense of the bizarro scenario they have created they have to come up with more and more of these crazy conspiracy theories.

  • Thanks Mark, this is need to know!

  • markjlm

    Ron Paul has consistently lumped Mitt Romney in with the other candidates. To say someone is not conservative, when they are, in fact, not conservative, is called telling the truth. When you vote for bailouts, you are not a fiscal conservative, when you vote to raise taxes, you are not a fiscal conservative. Ron Paul has never voted for tax increases, EVER. That makes him the most fiscally conservative member. This whole “alliance” thing is a figment of someone’s creative imagination. Ron Paul is running to win, and he has my vote.