I was cleaning out my phone of old videos & ran across this from 2016 Dana Loesch where she suggests either Mitt Romney or John Bolton as Secretary of State for President Trump 🤨
— #StopTheSteal 🎼AdagioForStrings🎻 POTUS Elect (@adagioforstring) November 25, 2020
Dana also suggested just eliminating the EPA and the Department of Education altogether & Allen West for Veteran Affairs & she's cordial to super RINO Dana Perino 🦏 pic.twitter.com/sr2XqO09SM
— #StopTheSteal 🎼AdagioForStrings🎻 POTUS Elect (@adagioforstring) November 25, 2020
In the spirit of reaching across the aisle bipartisanship I think people should compose more opera - and I suggest it should be about Kozlowski's evil wife as the evil villain. Admittedly, Pelosi never actually said unemployed Americans should spend more times composing opera, that anecdote was only extrapolated from Mark Steyn from Steyn, Mark. The [u]ndocumented Mark Steyn: Don't Say You Weren't Warned. , 2014. Print.
So what jobs will Americans get to do? We dignify the new age as “the knowledge economy,” although, to the casual observer, it doesn’t seem to require a lot of knowledge. One of the advantages of Obamacare, according to Nancy Pelosi, is that it will liberate the citizenry: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.” It’s certainly true that employer-based health coverage distorts the job market, but what’s more likely in a world without work? A new golden age of American sculpture
and opera? Or millions more people who live vicariously through celebrity gossip and electronic diversions? One of the differences between government health care in America compared to, say, Sweden is the costs of obesity, heart disease, childhood diabetes, etc. In an ever more sedentary society where fewer and fewer have to get up to go to work in the morning, is it likely that those trends will diminish or increase?
Mrs. Kozlowski should be cast as Lady MacBeth, or possibly the Tory whore Peggy Shippen who caused poor Benedict Arnold to become a traitor, as depicted in "Drunk History"
It's obvious old, fat bald headed guy Kozlowski
embezzled money from his company to woo his rather matronly looking lady friend
who then kicked him when he's down by divorcing him after he went to prison. Evil heifer.
From "American Greed" it's obvious Koslowski's money grubbing Tory whore wife only married him for his money and partied with him when he had it, and ditched him when he didn't:
Maremont: Find ammunition to let Tyco avoid paying Dennis a lot of money
Narrator: David Boies assembles a team of more than one hundred lawyers and accountants. Together, they pore through Tyco's accounts. What they find is nothing short of shocking. Tens of millions of dollars have been pilfered from Tyco for Kozlowski's personal use.
Maremont: I just remmeber, uh, hearing about these things and finding them out and just saying, "That's amazing! You know, I can't believe that's true!" I mean, this can't be the same Dennis Kozlowski that I've known for seven or eight years. How could he have done that? [his evil Tory wife]
Narrator: Perhaps the most sensational example of Kozlowski's spending is a party on the Mediteranian island of Sardinia in the summer of 2001 where half of the $2.1 million tab is paid for by Tyco .
Maremont: The second wife [Tory whore] Karen, was turning forty and he wants to throw a party for her. By all accounts he spent most of the summer cruising around in this yacht, the Endeavour, over in Sardinia, so he has this big party for her.
[crowd sings "Happy Birthday to Kozlowski's Tory whore wife]
Maremont: Tyco secretarial party machine planned this lavish party for his wife in Sardinia
Jimmy Buffet: Yes, it's me, let's rock!
Narrator: Jimmy Buffet performs and collects a cool quarter of a million dollars.
Maremont: They had some what tasteless Gladiator looking guys, young women dressed up in togas throwing rose petals in the pool . These guys with sort of oiled bodies posing like this on pedastals [strikes a muscle man pose]
Kozlowski: I felt bad, you know, I felt horrible about it, you know? It was tacky. I felt that some of it was in bad taste but it was what it was. It was planned, you know, by somebody who had a totally different sense of humor than I had, you know? I don't remmeber having a particularly good time. I've been to better parties in my fraternity days in college.
Narrator: Though the $2.1 million birthday party is sensational, it's small potatoes compared to the rest of Kozlowski's questionable spending
Narrator: Now that Kozlowski is behind bars even his critics are left wondering if the punishment fits the crime.
Newsweek Deniel Gross : I think that's a pretty harsh sentence compared with other white collar crime that we saw in the 1990s. This company [ Tyco ] did not go bankrupt. The employees did not lose all of their 401Ks as happened in Worldcomm. It's still a going concern. He obviously crossed several lines and paid the price, being convicted lose a lot of his assets. You know I think upon further reflection, it does seem like a pretty long sentence.
Narrator: When asked what he'd do differently with life, Kozlowski denies doing anything wrong.
Kozlowski: I don't know what I wish I do know I can't go back anything. I do wish I had better documentation . I do wish I had more seasoned people running the compensation system at Tyco.
Narrator: One week after this interview, Kozlowski's appeal for a new trial was denied.
🤚On the one hand I feel sorry for former Tyco CEO Kozlowski went to prison
✋But on the other hand he's unrepentant & only lesson he learned was to hire more dishonest CPAs to cook the books 😒 pic.twitter.com/Gckv0UAknc
— 🎼AdagioForStrings🎻 (@adagioforstring) April 5, 2018
Kozlowski: I've read anybody's autobiography from Che Guevara to Ronald Reagan, so the gamut of virtually of anybody out there.
Narrator: Karen Kozlowski filed for divorce a year after her husband's conviction [Tory whore].
And then there was the 40th birthday party for Kozlowski's wife Karen on Sardinia. It was togas galore, a four day festival of flesh. Jimmy Buffett was flown in for the music and guests were treated to a special cake: an anatomically correct woman with exploding breasts.
The cost of the party was over $2 million; since Kozlowski claimed it was in part a work retreat, Tyco footed half the bill.
During the trial, jurors were shown a tape of the party. Kozlowski says it was "absolutely horrible."
"It was over the top, you know. I was taken aback by it, but I smiled and worked my through it, wanted the night to end as fast as I could," he recalls.
"Donald Trump called your behavior tacky," Safer remarks.
"Tacky? Tacky from Donald Trump?" Kozlowski replies. "Wow. But he would know."
Those excesses may have been tacky, but tacky doesn't send you to jail. Far more serious was the allegation that Kozlowski literally stole money from Tyco.
He and his second-in-command Mark Swartz were charged with stealing $170 million and pocketing an additional $430 million through the sale of company stock, while lying about Tyco's financial condition.
— 🎼AdagioForStrings🎻 (@adagioforstring) April 5, 2018
This is a classic story of the Prodigal Son, who had lots of fair weather "friends" as long as he had money to spend, but ended up alone, living in a pig sty when he lost all his money. Again, Kozlowski's wife was an evil, money grubbing Tory whore heifer.
In the meantime, he spends much of his time in prison focused on his appeal. He can receive visitors on the weekends, but he says he has few friends left.
"In the final analysis, most of the people were close to you because of your power and your wealth?" Safer asks.
"That's correct. And they wanted to share in that. That was probably 90 percent of the people in my life," Kozlowski says.
And it is not just his friends who have left him – he and his wife Karen are divorcing.
Asked if the marriage was all about money, Kozlowski says, "Morley, we're in the middle of a divorce and agreement. I'm not going to say anything about that, you know, at this time."
It's ironic I'm defending Presbyterians. After my grandmother converted from Presbyterianism to Catholicism, her family shunned us as pagan, idol worshipers because we're not iconoclasts and still have statues and stained glass windows in our churches. However, I'd like to live by the Golden Rule and treat others the way that I wish to be treated, rather than solely reciprocate how they treat me.
Catholics agree with most Protestant denominations in the concept of free will: that each individual is responsible for asking God's forgiveness for our sins. Of course, Protestants don't believe in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or the need for priests, hence Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
Usually, people who assume free will is true just ignore the contradiction between an omnipotent God and the actions of individuals exercising his/her free will. Most people just shrug their shoulders and say it's a mystery. Presbyterians tilt the balance in favor of God's omnipotence.
PBS "Closer to Truth" Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviewed Villanova University Professor Jesse Couenhoven on the subject of Predestination ( you have to click on link to watch - no embed video, sorry, but below is the transcript):
Jesse: Predestination is the idea that sometime before [human] history, God has made a plan that covers the whole of history and that throughout time, then, God is trying to make history conform to that plan. So then the question is 'How would that work? In what way can we still have genuine agency [ free will ] and some kind of authority of our own, if God seems to be the One telling the story of the universe?' So the plan, that's addressed by doctrine of predestination is really the plan of salvation, the question of who, ultimately, is going to be in a positive relationship with God. And so traditionally, there are different ways of thinking of what it would mean for God to be 'predestining'. One concept called 'single predestination' says that God is really just focused on the ones that God wants to have an eternally positive relationship with and so that the plan that God makes is for certain individuals to be with God and God is enacting that plan, but there might be all sorts of other things that are happening in the universe. Then there are disputed views about this. Maybe, one possibility would be, God doesn't really do much, they [mankind] are on their own. So you could have the possibility that some of the people that God did not predestine, still make it in, somehow if they have their own libertarian freedom of choice where they get to decide: 'Do I love God or not?'
Robert: Those seem like the better guys because they weren't forced to do it. God controlled the others and they got in by robotic technique but those other guys - I like those - they're better!
Jesse: Yeah, now it's possible to think of predestination in a way that allows everybody this freedom of choice. So one traditional definition of what it is for God to predestine, basically includes God's foreknowledge, and then suggests on the basis of God's foreknowledge, has a plan for your life that's already based on what He foresees that you will choose independently, on your own, as it were. Robert: But that's not really predestination. And that's sort of foreknowledge under the cloak of predestination.
Jesse: Well that is certainly what those who are influenced by St. Augustine would say. It's not real predestination.
Robert: So, any way, we have a single definition of single form predestination. If there is single -there must be a double. Jesse: Yes, the other possibility is that God elects, before the creation of all things, that some people will be in, and that some people will be out.
Robert: So, making an affirmative 'out' decision.
Jesse: Yeah. Right, so that would be the strongest possible version of the double predestination is that there will be a definite intentionality as to who is in and who is out.
Robert: Now what is obvious from all of this is that you gain the so called 'good' of God's sovereignty, you're giving up a huge amount in human freedom.
Jesse: Well, I think the answer to that is 'yes and no.' I guess I'm not convinced that we're giving up that much if human beings don't have that many undetermined free choices. I'm kind of a compatibilist, all right? You can be free but also be under necessity, of a certain sort.
Robert: Right, so there can be a determined series of physical laws, or God could... Jesse: ...just make stuff happen, yeah.
Robert: Then it's even more sure because it's God doing it
Jesse: Right
Robert: Then the real core of the question is 'Do you have an ultimate choice or is it 100% sure that you will have to go the way God programmed you?'
Jesse: Right, for Augustine there would definitely at least be instances where you definitely have to go the way God programmed you
Robert: Right. Do you think predestination is fair? If that's the way the world is, would that be a world you'd like to live in? Jesse: I think, possibly, yea. We always tend to think it will be problematic if we don't have control, but think of something like falling in love, for instance. Robert: But the difference here is when God decides it - it's done, it's absolute. It's multiple handcuffs on every cell of your existence. And if you're chosen, well, you may not have free will but at least get something to benefit by, supposedly. But if you're on the other side. That's a question. Is that fair? Or, maybe, God doesn't have to be fair. Jesse: A lot of these authors classically did not think that God had obligations or responsibilities, because God is the generator of obligations and responsibilities. Robert: If God, especially under double predestination, determines that person is not part of the saved, whatever that may mean, is that fair to the person? Jesse: If you're a genuinely responsible agent, then it can be fair to blame you for things even if you're not independent kind in the way of freedom of choice conception of free will might want you to be. But these questions about predestination can really open up fascinating avenues into the issues of free will.
I view non-Presbyterians - usually Evangelicals and Mormons - who cavalierly demand Trump surrender the tenet of predestination in order to be considered a true Christians as modern day Torquemadas. Demanding Presbyterians give up their belief in predestination - that God decides who is saved and who isn't - would be similar to Catholics demanding Protestants surrender their belief in sola scriptura. Again, if you believe in the Bill of Rights, you'll respect different denominations interpretation of scripture.
Radio host, Mark Levin, supported Senator Ted Cruz during the GOP Primary. After Trump won the nomination, Levin decided to vote for Trump in order to stop Hillary.
Levin: Lets put a little context into this election that you won't hear or see anywhere else. No, I'm not going to talk about meatballs, or the last time I went to my local shoe store. I want to talk to you about things that effect you directly. Directly. I hear it on TV, radio, 'Oh, I'm tired of this election.' I'm tired of this election, too. And that's why the left always wins. They're not tired of anything. They plow ahead. They wear you down. And not just at election time in life, generally. Health care - immigration issues - the work place - they just keep beating you down, beating you down. And how is this? How do they get away with this? Isn't that important to understand? Two weeks before a presidential election? We're a third of the Senate is also up and all of the House of Representatives? It's up, too. Is this the time to turn a blind eye? Is this the time to be bored? Well, I hope not. Because trust me when I tell you, the left is not bored, they are psyched! And they're on the move. And I can't come from behind this microphone and talk to you about the Constitution and tyranny and liberty and how bad Obama is and all the rest and then two weeks before the election say, 'You know what? let's pick lint out of our belly button.'
It's too big. We can do that on Saturday and Sunday. Let's step back a second, forget that Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. What is Hillary Clinton campaigning on? What is Hillary Clinton campaigning on? Hillary Clinton is campaigning on, once and for all, unmooring our government from the Constitution. Even more! Expanding that part of government which makes your vote increasingly irrelevant, which increasingly disenfranchises you, which increasingly ruins your liberty, your employment, your job, your business, what is that? What is it that she wants to empower? What is this monster? It's the administrative state. It's the massive bureaucracy. This is the great coup, the great counter revolution that I've been talking about all these years and writing about.
Levin: Against the American Revolution and heritage. of liberty. It's the great war on the individual. It's the great war on faith and family. It's the great war on capitalism. It's the great war on private property rights. It's the great war on citizenship. This administrative state. Department after department - agency after agency. Bureaucrat after bureaucrat. The statist "progressives" have all but obliterated the notion of separation of powers and the courts have gone along.
When the nation was originally founded, we had these three different branches of government. Something that has been urged by great philosopher after philosopher. By the way, these idiots that talk and go on about 'What do I care about philosophy for?' Certain philosophies have real impact in your lives.
Levin: Practical, political, impact on your lives. We can't just look at the superficial, the surface. We've got to dig under and understand what's going on with us. What's going on in this country. What motivates our enemies. They reject the notion of the individual. They reject our founding. They consider us and it, backwards. This is the so-called 'new thinking.' The 'progressive' thinking. The late 1800s and beyond, now. Where we are to be ruled, by 'experts'. By professionals. By people who are said to know more than we know. And they're going to make decisions, claim that they're on our behalf. When they could care less what you actually think which is why they enshrine their views, and their positions with tenure, with union protection. And so they exist and they function outside the election process. Regardless who's elected. And so we have this massive, as Hobbes called it, Leviathan.
Levin: Massive. Tentacles everywhere! So the notion that the government exists for you is turned on its head. You exist for the government. You will sign up for Obamacare in order to make Obamacare work. Quote - unquote. You will follow the rules when it comes to bathrooms, whether you like it or not. Your kids will follow the rules from the [Federal] school lunch program, whether you like it or not. You now exist for the government. That's the great change. And, there's nothing you can do about it, so goes the argument, because this massive Leviathan, this administrative state, meaning the bureaucracy, all the bureaucrats, faceless, who are supposed to be the experts, the professionals, when, in fact, they're not.
Levin: They are the ones who are going to decide policy. Energy policy. Education policy. Farming policy. Energy policy. Oh, I already said that. You know what I mean.
Now this notion of separation of powers. When the nation was first founded, and beyond. When the framers adopted the Constitution, they were ratified in the state legislatures, or they were ratified in Convention by the states, there really was no such thing as two permanent political parties. There were two parties, but it wasn't the party system that was the end all and be all. And when the framers did meet in Philadelphia, there wasn't this idea of a two party system, really. So like it or not, I'm just giving you a little bit of history. What has happened, particularly on the Democrat side, but also on the Republican side, but particularly on the Democrat side, you have a Congress, you have a President. Rather than balancing each other, checking each other what happens when the Democrats control the Senate and the House and they control the Presidency, they don't care about separation of powers! They confer as much power on their Democrat president as they possibly can! Because he quote-unquote "has the power to act" He's one man - or one woman - who can effectuate a great deal of their agenda without going through the legislative process, but instead go through these administrative departments and agencies. So what happens when the Democrats control the whole thing - separation of powers goes out the window - the Democrats give as much power as they can to an Obama or a Hillary Clinton or whomever it is - to advance their ideology. They are not committed to the Constitutional scheme. They are not faithful to the Constitutional scheme. The Constitution, itself, gets in the way!
Levin: The Constitution gets in the way of their agenda! Which I explained in great length in "Ameritopia"
Levin: So if Hillary Clinton is president, and the Senate goes Democrat, and the House goes Democrat. They are going to build on this administrative state. And, in the end, this administrative state, is led by one man - or one woman - the president. And so, this is sort of back door fascism. Back door totalitarianism. Well, what else do you call it?
Levin: When more and more power is seized by a president and more and more power is conferred to a president, despite the fact that such conference is unconstitutional, what do you call it? Now, Hillary Clinton is well aware of this. Well aware of this. She is surrounded by people who are well aware of this. Barack Obama is well aware of this. He's surrounded by people who are well aware of this. Donald Trump has no idea what I'm talking about. And most of the people surrounding Donald Trump have no idea what I'm talking about. The Republican leadership, for the most part, they have no idea what I'm talking about. And they're surrounded by people who have no idea what I'm talking about. And they go along.
But Hillary Clinton is a player. Hillary Clinton is an Alinsky ideologue.
Levin: Hillary Clinton understands everything that I'm saying. The administrative state bypasses separation of powers. And the reason we fight, in these national elections, those of us who believe that only Article V can ultimately save the republic - but the reason we do this, is to try and stop the aggressive ideological expansion of the administrative state which has, as its purpose, to devour the civil society, and what liberties we have left. That's why this election, and, quite frankly, every election is important. The administrative state is self serving. It's self aggrandizing. It empowers itself. When it issues regulations - it not only legislates - it not only executes - it adjudicates! They have administrative law judges. All three powers of our government are in the bureaucracy, now, under the President of the United States. When she talks about, Hillary, "free" college, that means the administrative state will control college - and curriculum -and, essentially, students. Of course they [leftists] give out "freebies" because they get votes and, in turn, they get these votes and massively increase the administrative state. Power begets power. Centralized power becomes increasingly centralized. Damn the people! Damn the individual! They [leftists] never talk about individual liberty. Ever! The never talk about unalienable rights. Unless it's a throw away line. They never talk about property rights. They never do. And so this system, is self perpetuating. And it's getting more aggressive, more insatiable, more bloated. 'What of the judiciary?' you ask. Well, about a hundred years ago, give or take, the Supreme Court said, 'No,' to this. The Supreme Court said, 'No.' Politicians and bureaucrats don't have the power to do this under our Constitution. And to put it simply, I don't have time for the entire story, Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court
Levin: [FDR's] Vice President at the time, a former Speaker of the House, a very leftwing Democrat, but still a man of tradition in some ways. John Nance Garner. Lobbied against Roosevelt's attempt to expand the court from nine to fourteen members, so [FDR] could appoint five of the members. It was defeated in the Congress even though the Congress was Democrat. Led, behind the scenes, by John Nance Garner. But the Court got the message. There were a lot of old people on the court. Some of them died, some of them retired, and in the end, Roosevelt replaced all of them. And virtually every single effort that Roosevelt put in place as a matter of policy that massively increased the size of the administrative state that had come to life really during the US Civil War but was really pushed as an ideological matter by Theodore Roosevelt, by Howard Taft, and, most certainly, by Woodrow Wilson.
Edward, Edward Mandell. Philip Dru: Administrator. Upper Saddle River: Literature House, 1969. Print.
Levin: Became this massive government Leviathan that you see today and that just keeps expanding. And the courts, defer to it. The courts give it deference. Now there are a multitude of cases in which this was made the situation with the courts, but there is particularly one case, if you want to google it, it's called the "Chevron Case."
One of Trump's potential #SCOTUS picks wrote a scathing critique of Chevron in a recent opinion: https://t.co/b5qVojSLP7
Levin: And it was a case where a decision was written by John Paul Stevens, who was a very, very liberal member of the court. Appointed by Gerald Ford, his only appointee. And so, now all three branches of the Federal Government are in collusion to expand the Federal Government's power, to confer power on the presidency, to massively increase the administrative state. Which is an attack on you, our history, our heritage, our liberty. You have one candidate in Hillary Clinton, who is an ideologue, who is committed to doing it even more and putting the final nail in the coffin. And you have another candidate, unwittingly, who is not. I'll be right back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ad break ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Levin: Once established, no department, no agency, no entitlement, no program is ever eliminated because that would be a step backwards for the statists. They will never surrender. So why are we surrendering to them? I don't care what your view of Donald Trump is, from my perspective. It's not even relevant, really, in this election. What's relevant is the person who is likely to get elected President, at this point, is going to take aim at your liberty, at your property, and try and expand further that entity which isn't even Constitutionally founded. I'll be back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ad break ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Announcer: Blasting Conservative fire! The Mark Levin Show. Call in now at 877-381-3811
Levin: Now when you have the Courts against the Declaration of Independence, against the Constitution, against you, and for this unConstitutional governing system, if you will. When you have Congress, particularly under the Democrats, that intentionally weakens its Constitutional powers in order to empower a single person, the President of the United States. When you have a President of the United States that has an army of bureaucrats, millions, and scores and scores of departments and agencies from which he can rule. Well, that ought to get your damn attention. And why people are arguing about secondary and third, tertiary issues, when this is the bottom line, I don't know. Ted Cruz understands this. I haven't talked to him, but I know he understands this. Which is why he made the same decision that I did. He understands it. And he, more than anybody, has a reason to be so repulsed by Donald Trump as to not even say that he would vote for him. But he's going to vote for him. And I think much of the reason he's going to vote for him is what I'm explaining to you right now. Because we care about our country and we know what's next. You see, tyranny is contagious. This battle between tyranny and liberty is a permanent battle. Tyranny usually wins. Our American system is unique in all of humankind. It is unique. And it has been continuing to be eviscerated. I don't see any saviour in Donald Trump, not even close. I don't even see a saviour in ANY politician. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, so forth and so on.
But there's a difference between somebody who is aggressively and affirmatively - aggressively and affirmatively advancing a systemic ideological case for tyranny. That's what I'm trying to underscore. I don't know that I've done it well, I don't know that I've done my best. But I'm trying to explain it - I'm trying to explain it. The media want us to talk about everything other than what I'm talking about. There are talk show hosts that want to talk about everything other than what I'm talking about. There are talk show hosts that are so impressed with themselves that they think they're the only ones that stand on principle [ Levin seems to be subtweeting Glenn Beck]. They are all wrong. They're just wrong. Harry Reid has announced that if the Republicans attempt to block a Supreme Court justice nominated by Hillary Clinton, and, by the way, she thinks the guy that Obama nominated isn't radical enough. If she nominates a Supreme Court justice, and the Republicans don't go along with it, and the Democrats control the Senate, he said he's going to blow out the filibuster rule again, this time, as it applies to the Supreme Court, so a simple majority can now put Justices on the Court for Hillary Clinton. Now I am telling you, ladies and gentlemen, that's the end of it. Not of America, but of Americanism. That's the end of it. There's no where to go! The government is everywhere, and you won't be able to get relief from it. You're going to get relief by going to one of the branches that's controlled by the left? No, you're not! Well, that's what we're facing. That is what we're facing in fourteen days [ Tuesday November 8, 2016] ! As Obama desperately wants to hand over the reins of power to Hillary Clinton. One Alinskyite to the next!
Levin: I am speaking to you as somebody who opposed Donald Trump in the Republican primary. I am speaking to you as somebody who voted for Ted Cruz. I am speaking to you as somebody who finds Donald Trump's positions on a number of issues absolutely objectionable. And I find his positions on other issues, sound. But this election isn't about Donald Trump. Donald Trump couldn't do the damage that Hillary Clinton will do on his best [worst?] day. Because he doesn't think that way. Because he's not an Alinsky ideologue. He may have liberal leaning on issues, he may have been a liberal, but he's not her! A radical, dug in, ideologue since college and law school and ever since. And that's the truth. And if she's elected president, we are all going to regret it.
We have one candidate who's proposing killing off Obamacare and replacing it with something else. Just kill the damn thing and replace it with anything, just kill it. We have another candidate who wants to expand it. We have one candidate who wants to secure the border. We have another candidate who doesn't. We have one candidate who wants to bring competition to education, school choice. We have another candidate who doesn't. We have one candidate who wants to raise $1.4 trillion in taxes and we have another candidate who doesn't. We have one candidate who wants to slash regulations. We have another candidate who wants to double and triple them! We have one candidate who has put out a list of twenty potential Supreme Court nominees and said he'd stick to the list. We have another candidate who has told us what she wants to do to the Supreme Court. She wants to turn it into a leftwing, radical, Politburo - and bygod she will!
Now, that, at least, is how I see it. And I've been extremely reluctant in saying that I'm going to vote for Trump and I've been extremely clear in why. It's called damage control. And it's based on morality, and it's based on principle. People with principle and morality can have different positions. I'm not putting anybody down. I'm just making the point. For me, my principles and my reality tell me she is a grave threat to my family, to this country, and to the future. She is a grave threat! I know all about Trump. We all know about Trump. How can you not watch the media and read it and not know about Trump? I got it, I know all about Trump. I know all about it. She is a crook, she's an unindicted felon. But worse than all that, even worse than her pathological lying, she's one of them [shape shifting lizard people - I jest!!!] She's one of the "fundamentally transform America" types.
Levin: And I don't know how we come out from under with four more years of this. And I don't know how we win elections with open borders with four more years, it's hard enough, right now. And by the way, it's likely we're going to lose this election. I'm not cheering for that OBVIOUSLY. O.B.V.I.O.U.S.L.Y. But it's likely we're going to lose it [POTUS race] and the Senate - and the Supreme Court.
Levin: And the administrative state will become far more powerful than it already is. And many of your jobs will be threatened far more than they already are. And many businesses that are barely holding on will go under.
Brutal. This map shows how much Obamacare premiums are going up in every state. pic.twitter.com/hAy0LLJyjS
Levin: And school systems and hospitals and law enforcement overwhelmed with foreigners pouring into our country will be overwhelmed as your communities will. The lack of assimilation and Americanization will continue because that is the progressive model. [speaking as a Progressive] 'America's not special - America's not exceptional - we just got to get our social engineering down - we just got to keep trying things.' Hillary says she has a million ideas - she does, and she intends to put as many of them in place as possible. But that's not what our government is supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be ubiquitous, it's supposed to be innocuous. I'll be right back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ad break ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Levin: You know I know we're focused on the November 8th election, but have you given any thought to what you're going to do after the election or after the inauguration? There's going to be a lot to consider. I know of a great venue where like minded conservatives will be gathering to discuss the issues we all care about. And I'm sure it's a lot warmer than where you might live. Brent Bozell over at the Media Research Center, he's a good buddy of mine, is planning a seven day Caribbean cruise in February. I would like to strongly encourage you to sign up before it sells out. Go to MRCCruise.com
Levin: For all details or call 1-800-955-7018. Brent's lined up a great group of solid conservatives like Allen West, Cal Thomas, Jerry Boykin, and many many others. And you'll have a chance to meet and talk to all these great Americans. That's going to be a lot of fun and you are probably going to need it after this election. Going with solid, like minded conservatives having a good solid vetting and discussion about events in this country.
Now, you've heard the term 'political science', right? There are political science classes all over the place. Have you ever thought about what that means 'political science'? Politics is a science? I'm not talking about poll taking and surveys and so forth. This whole phrase came about as result of the progressive era. Because for the statists, the progressives, but I call the statists, man's purpose is man made. There is no transcendent moral order. There are no unalienable, individual Divine rights. Man decides what rights are. That's why you hear the left talk this way about giving out rights in the form of material rights. So they contend that this is really scientific more than, what should I say, existential, or more than transcendent is what I'm trying to say. And so, you see, that's why their social engineering will never end. That's why I've been asking for years, year after year after year-May we please see the final chapter of your societal model? When we're all equal, when all is fair, can we please see- what does it look like? And they'll never answer. They'll never tell you. Do you want to know why? Because for the statists, that's not even a legitimate question -where we wind up. Because for the statist/progressive mankind and society is endlessly evolving, endlessly evolving. And not spontaneously, with experts and professionals and bureaucrats, constantly instituting change and plans and programs like Hillary said 'I have a million ideas.' And those million ideas are about how to control you. How to dictate to you. How to torment you. How to push you around which is why C.S. Lewis made the point that he fear[ed] these do good types more than he fear[ed] actual kings.
Levin: Because at least with the king, you know what you get. But these do good types, they claim they're doing good on your behalf and it never ends! That's why Obamacare is now the Holy Grail. You can't get rid of it and replace it, no, no, no. It took us a hundred years to get it. We can tinker with it OR we can expand it so the government's more powerful, so healthcare's more centralized. So more bureaucrats make decisions.
Levin: More and more people are caught up - caught up in the process. More and more people have to deal with it. And then, you see, [talking like a progressive] 'if people would just surrender their selfish individual wants. If they would just surrender their free will, then we could organize society properly.' Now, think about the conceit and the ego of politicians and bureaucrats and teachers and professors and philosophers who have this mentality. They're nihilistic, aren't they? Well, that's Hillary Clinton. That's why she believes she's above the law. That's why Barack Obama thinks he's the greatest of all human beings. Because they do have a mind set. A totalitarian mind set. And so their goal isn't to comply with the Constitution, their goal is to evade the Constitution. The Constitution is crap to these people. The Constitution is in the way. Read Woodrow Wilson. [Speaking as a Progressive]: 'The Constitution needs to be mutable. Can't have all this Separation of Powers stuff. How will we get anything done? And the states! The backward states. We can't have federalism! WTH! You think this is 1776? [Year Declaration of Independence signed] You think it's 1787? [Year Constitution ratified] WTH they were slave owners those white guys, we don't have to listen to them. Who cares what they think.? Aristotle? 98% of the American don't even know who Aristotle is, who cares about him! Cicero?!What? One of those Roman guys? Forget about him. Adam Smith - Invisible Hand - what kind of crap is that? And on and on. You see, ladies and gentlemen, the world begins today with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. See, these are modern times. We can't be bogged down and obstructed by Separation of Powers, by a Congress, or even elections. We've got a country to run here! And control and we need progress, and lots of progress and evolution and more evolution and power. Not of the individual! No! We don't care about the individual. The government. The government needs to be free to do whatever the government needs to do. Meaning - the master minds.' I hope this hour has helped you. I really do. I'll be right back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ad break ------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, in summary, Mark Levin wants a limited Constitutional government and sees that as an utter impossibility under Hillary Clinton and views Donald Trump as the most likely candidate to stop her:
The blog title, "noli insipientium iniurias pati" is Latin for "Don't let the turkeys get you down." Benjamin Franklin bookcases the blog header title for two reasons:
1) He allegedly suggested the US adopt the turkey as its official mascot
2) His discovery of electricity helped Al Gore invent the internet
Quantum Physics equation under profile picture explained here
Posts
