Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I received the book today from Amazon.
Mine is on order. Expect it Monday.
Well that was the whole idea sell books, but the idea ain't gonna happen.
To a leftist such as yerself? That is the thought...and WHY dolts as yew fail.I received the book today from Amazon.
Mine is on order. Expect it Monday.
Well that was the whole idea sell books, but the idea ain't gonna happen.
To a leftist such as yerself? That is the thought...and WHY dolts as yew fail.Mine is on order. Expect it Monday.
Well that was the whole idea sell books, but the idea ain't gonna happen.
See? We had the same dilemma with jackasses as yew in the American Revolution...YEW were properly called foes of liberty.
Why should it change now?
And MacArthur was addressing the LIBERALS of that time which were the framers. Has ZERO to do with present times and the Liberals of this time that are nothing but Statist Marxists...To a leftist such as yerself? That is the thought...and WHY dolts as yew fail.Well that was the whole idea sell books, but the idea ain't gonna happen.
See? We had the same dilemma with jackasses as yew in the American Revolution...YEW were properly called foes of liberty.
Why should it change now?
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought."
General Douglas MacArthur
Might want to read up on the American Revolution, and while there check out John Locke and the Age of Enlightenment. It was a liberal period and the end result was America.
PS, the foes of liberty were the Tories.
Since the beginning of time, ALL Wars and ALL Revolutions have been about economics.
Every one of them.
As long as we're doing fine, as long as nobody is going without a whole lot, as long as people aren't hungry in the streets..... There's not going to be any problems.
So Mark's proposition is nothing more than mental masturbation.
What WILL provoke an uprising is when an economy falls flat on it face and people start casting blame in one direction.
THAT can turn into a situation.
Right now, I'm thinking that the implementation of the ACA could just push this economy over the cliff.
I'm talking a full-blown economic Depression.
People are tired of obama. Businesses are especially tired of obama.
People are getting their hours caught because of the ACA. All those jobs that the Stuttering Clusterfukk and his toadies are bragging about? They're all part-time, low-paying, service industry, hospitality industry, McDonalds and Walmart jobs.
There aren't any more good manufacturing jobs because the Stuttering Clusterfukk has run them off... To Asia.
They're gone. And he's doing nothing about it because....
Because dimocraps are stupid.
All dimcraps know how to do is complain. They don't know how to build anything, how to create, how to engineer... All they know how to do is to destroy and complain.
If we do go into a full blown depression by the end of 2014 (20% Chance)....
Then look out.
If we don't, then none of it matters as long as people are fat and happy.
Wasn't Ron Paul...he didn't have nice things to say about RON, or his supporters.Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?
It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.
You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.
Was levin a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul supporter, or did he throw his support behind Romney?
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.Wasn't Ron Paul...he didn't have nice things to say about RON, or his supporters.Was levin a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul supporter, or did he throw his support behind Romney?
He said this regarding voting for Gary Johnson: "Mark Levins apoplectic point was, So whats the alternative, reelect Obama by voting for Gary Johnson? I had to turn the volume down on that one." ".
"I will do everything within my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way and if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything within my power to defeat his son in Kentucky, Levin promised."
Levin is just another big government authoritarian republican clown no matter what he says and writes, just look at his actions.
LOL, Mark Levin on Iraq:
Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online
Below pretty much describes levin:
The Treachery of Mark Levin the anti-American | Peace . Gold . Liberty
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.Wasn't Ron Paul...he didn't have nice things to say about RON, or his supporters.
He said this regarding voting for Gary Johnson: "Mark Levins apoplectic point was, So whats the alternative, reelect Obama by voting for Gary Johnson? I had to turn the volume down on that one." ".
"I will do everything within my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way and if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything within my power to defeat his son in Kentucky, Levin promised."
Levin is just another big government authoritarian republican clown no matter what he says and writes, just look at his actions.
LOL, Mark Levin on Iraq:
Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online
Below pretty much describes levin:
The Treachery of Mark Levin the anti-American | Peace . Gold . Liberty
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.Wasn't Ron Paul...he didn't have nice things to say about RON, or his supporters.
He said this regarding voting for Gary Johnson: "Mark Levins apoplectic point was, So whats the alternative, reelect Obama by voting for Gary Johnson? I had to turn the volume down on that one." ".
"I will do everything within my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way and if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything within my power to defeat his son in Kentucky, Levin promised."
Levin is just another big government authoritarian republican clown no matter what he says and writes, just look at his actions.
LOL, Mark Levin on Iraq:
Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online
Below pretty much describes levin:
The Treachery of Mark Levin the anti-American | Peace . Gold . Liberty
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.He said this regarding voting for Gary Johnson: "Mark Levin’s apoplectic point was, “So what’s the alternative, reelect Obama by voting for Gary Johnson?” I had to turn the volume down on that one." ".
"“I will do everything within my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way and if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything within my power to defeat his son in Kentucky,” Levin promised."
Levin is just another big government authoritarian republican clown no matter what he says and writes, just look at his actions.
LOL, Mark Levin on Iraq:
Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online
Below pretty much describes levin:
The Treachery of Mark Levin the anti-American | Peace . Gold . Liberty
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
So we amend the Constitution because some are not comfortable with the changes to the Constitution that has been done over the years.? How do we know the people are also uncomfortable with those changes? And now if we change it with amendments, what is to prevent the Congress, the president and the Court from changing back to what it is today?
Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.
Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?
It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.
You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.
I love being called a liberal. I have been a liberal all my life and have no intention of changing. I believe in using the government not only for the benefit of corporations and business, but also for the people.
The Supreme Court I'm not so wild about, I mean five conservatives and the Court's questionable takeover of interpreting and applying the Constitution, when that power was not in the Constitution.
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.He said this regarding voting for Gary Johnson: "Mark Levins apoplectic point was, So whats the alternative, reelect Obama by voting for Gary Johnson? I had to turn the volume down on that one." ".
"I will do everything within my power, as limited as it is, to fight them every damn step of the way and if Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third party, which is detrimental to this nation and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything within my power to defeat his son in Kentucky, Levin promised."
Levin is just another big government authoritarian republican clown no matter what he says and writes, just look at his actions.
LOL, Mark Levin on Iraq:
Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online
Below pretty much describes levin:
The Treachery of Mark Levin the anti-American | Peace . Gold . Liberty
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
So we amend the Constitution because some are not comfortable with the changes to the Constitution that has been done over the years.? How do we know the people are also uncomfortable with those changes? And now if we change it with amendments, what is to prevent the Congress, the president and the Court from changing back to what it is today?
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
So we amend the Constitution because some are not comfortable with the changes to the Constitution that has been done over the years.? How do we know the people are also uncomfortable with those changes? And now if we change it with amendments, what is to prevent the Congress, the president and the Court from changing back to what it is today?
That some are not comfortable with current Constitutional case law is an indication that the Constitution and its case law are indeed working as intended; if some on the right are uncomfortable because the cant violate the rights of gays, immigrants, or women then we know our civil liberties are safeguarded against similar attacks from conservatives.
No...he isn't...Sorry to dispute you here. He is a Constitutionalist.
What do you think his new book is about? His past books? His Radio show?
It's ALL about getting US back on proper course as the Founders would have it.
Have YOU ever listened to him?
It's obvious you haven't.
He has a FREE site where YOU can download and listen.
LINK <==AUDIO REWIND
Up to 4 weeks of Mark.
He isn't that far apart from Ron Paul as to the Constitution, just takes a different tact.
So we amend the Constitution because some are not comfortable with the changes to the Constitution that has been done over the years.? How do we know the people are also uncomfortable with those changes? And now if we change it with amendments, what is to prevent the Congress, the president and the Court from changing back to what it is today?
That some are not comfortable with current Constitutional case law is an indication that the Constitution and its case law are indeed working as intended; if some on the right are uncomfortable because the cant violate the rights of gays, immigrants, or women then we know our civil liberties are safeguarded against similar attacks from conservatives.
Are delegates to the convention restricted as to the number of amendments they might introduce? To date, over 4000 amendments have been introduced to the Congress.
The present Constitution is a result of a convention that met to revise the Articles and ended up with today's Constitution, and I doubt a new convention will have individuals as they had in 1787.
Today with more democracy and corporations, every vested interest will be involved in the writing of the amendments, and while it would be interesting to watch the convention take place, chances of its happening are indeed slim but it does sell books.
Here's the deal, and Levin has addressed this beautifully... Whatever is adopted by the convention, then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. This pretty much kills any outrageous proposals for special interest amendments and whatnot. Levin says he gets two general arguments against his proposal... 1) That it will be impossible to get 3/4 of the states to ratify... and 2) That we'll end up with all these crazy radical amendments. He contends that BOTH are unlikely to happen, so which one is it?
It's fascinating that the Liberal left is already gunning at this. QW, this exposes you for the liberal fraud you are, because any respectable libertarian would be all for these amendments. It returns power to the states and the people, and dramatically limits the scope and power of the Federal Leviathan libertarians claim to hate so much... but as you've illustrated, you're really a BIG GOVERNMENT kinda guy! You LIKE having a big intrusive Federal Government that can tell the rest of us what to do. You LIKE having an all-powerful Supreme Court who can rule with impunity and force Liberal views on society for generations to come.
You are a LIBERAL who doesn't like being called a liberal, plain and simple.
I love being called a liberal. I have been a liberal all my life and have no intention of changing. I believe in using the government not only for the benefit of corporations and business, but also for the people.
The Supreme Court I'm not so wild about, I mean five conservatives and the Court's questionable takeover of interpreting and applying the Constitution, when that power was not in the Constitution.
The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution. Although a few Framers worried about the power, they expected it would exist. As James Madison stated, A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. In fact, the word Constitution in the Supremacy Clause and the clause describing the Supreme Courts jurisdiction appeared to give textual authorization for judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on state and federal legislation. Indeed, before Marbury, Justice Chase observed that although the Court had never adjudicated whether the judiciary had the authority to declare laws contrary to the Constitution void, this authority was acknowledged by general opinion, the entire Supreme Court bar, and some of the Supreme Court Justices.
By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in Marbury, long and well established principles answered the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land. Marshall concluded that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument. As such, contrary to the traditional account of Marbury, Marshalls decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old.
The Yale Law Journal Online - Why We Have Judicial Review
So we amend the Constitution because some are not comfortable with the changes to the Constitution that has been done over the years.? How do we know the people are also uncomfortable with those changes? And now if we change it with amendments, what is to prevent the Congress, the president and the Court from changing back to what it is today?
That some are not comfortable with current Constitutional case law is an indication that the Constitution and its case law are indeed working as intended; if some on the right are uncomfortable because the cant violate the rights of gays, immigrants, or women then we know our civil liberties are safeguarded against similar attacks from conservatives.
What a load of the usual BS............
A Liberal again stating we want to Violate others rights because we want to propose Amendments to put Term Limits on Congress so we no longer have CAREER POLITICIANS and it's ABOUT ATTACKING GAYS, IMMIGRANTS, OR WOMEN.
Standard Liberal Pravda to push Class Warfare.
Oh my Fucking God. We want to BALANCE THE BUDGET and stop destroying the economic Future of our Children. HOW DARE WE WANT THAT?
You are a FING Liberal loser. The right person pushes this issue and your damned skippy I'll vote for these things. The only question is will there be enough states who agree to outweigh losers like you.
Again. The founders put this into the Constitution so if the Fed gets out of hand the people have an option to put them back in their place. Which is what Mark is talking about.
There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
That some are not comfortable with current Constitutional case law is an indication that the Constitution and its case law are indeed working as intended; if some on the right are uncomfortable because the cant violate the rights of gays, immigrants, or women then we know our civil liberties are safeguarded against similar attacks from conservatives.
What a load of the usual BS............
A Liberal again stating we want to Violate others rights because we want to propose Amendments to put Term Limits on Congress so we no longer have CAREER POLITICIANS and it's ABOUT ATTACKING GAYS, IMMIGRANTS, OR WOMEN.
Standard Liberal Pravda to push Class Warfare.
Oh my Fucking God. We want to BALANCE THE BUDGET and stop destroying the economic Future of our Children. HOW DARE WE WANT THAT?
You are a FING Liberal loser. The right person pushes this issue and your damned skippy I'll vote for these things. The only question is will there be enough states who agree to outweigh losers like you.
Again. The founders put this into the Constitution so if the Fed gets out of hand the people have an option to put them back in their place. Which is what Mark is talking about.
Nonsense.
You can balance the budget absent an amendment. And if you seek to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, elderly, disabled, and working Americans, expect appropriate and justified opposition.
Otherwise, its not class warfare to point out the fact that conservatives, for the most part, are hostile to change, diversity, and dissent consequently they seek to deny gays their equal protection rights with regard to marriage, deny immigrants their due process rights, and women their privacy rights with regard to abortion.
The Constitution and its case law not only protect the rights of minorities and adversely effected classes of citizens, but the rights of all Americans to be free from the arrogance and tyranny of the majority.
The Constitution also prohibits the states from acting in an manner offensive to the Founding document, not just the Federal government.
And all the people are citizens of a single Nation, with a single National government, they are not only residents of a given state:
There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
Which has been turned upside down in the push for minority rights. aka.......Don't dare put a Nativity scene in a park at Christmas it might OFFEND an atheist.......But a Nudist or Gay Rally in the same park...Well that's Ok because it's not Religious to you WACKED LIBS. Excuse me but I'M OFFENDED that they can do this chit in the park but you would raise hell for a Christian nativity Scene in the same park. Even with a permit.The Constitution and its case law not only protect the rights of minorities and adversely effected classes of citizens, but the rights of all Americans to be free from the arrogance and tyranny of the majority.
