’People Who Push ‘America First’ Are ‘Schizophrenic’ - Mark Levin is a lunatic, he's all over the place in his neurotic rant. Something about him just isn't quite kosher.....
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
He has been a famous Hannity admirer. He is an establishment type that has some distorted views on a lot of things. He has penned some decent books in the past but I have a feeling he is no Trump admirer.
He is very much a Trump admirer. The problem with a lot of folks is unless the individual is 100 % in lock step with YOUR personal views, then he's automatically labeled with whatever invective you feel fits... I don't always agree with some of his views ....
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
He correctly cites to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and their appeal to natural law and natural rights and their applicability to all men. He is an original intent Constitutionalist, as he should be. He points out (quite correctly) that neither the Constitution or Declaration use the terms "nationalist" and "populist" and that the Framers were concerned with the possibility of mobocracy (which is the essence of populism). He rightly points out that this country is, first and foremost about liberty. He correctly points out that the 10th amendment rejects nationalism in favor of Federalism. He points out that Nationalists essentially want an all-powerful Federal government. He also points out the errors of isolationism. He is right on.
He correctly cites to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and their appeal to natural law and natural rights and their applicability to all men.
He does, indeed.
Quote
He is an original intent Constitutionalist, as he should be.
Not on all points.
Quote
He points out (quite correctly) that neither the Constitution or Declaration use the terms "nationalist" and "populist"
He does, indeed, but it's entirely irrelevant, since those terms weren't used then.
Quote
... and that the Framers were concerned with the possibility of mobocracy (which is the essence of populism).
No, populism isn't the equivalent of mobocracy, nor is mobocracy the essence of populism. Populism refers to a viewpoint that's suspicious of the power of an elite, through deceitful means, gaining control over governance, and it's a viewpoint encouraged by the Founders.
Quote
He rightly points out that this country is, first and foremost about liberty.
Liberty, under law.
Quote
He correctly points out that the 10th amendment rejects nationalism in favor of Federalism.
These are not on opposing sides. The Founders were both nationalists and defenders of Federalism, understood to mean that governmental power in the US is divided both within the Federal Government and between the Federal Government, the States, and the local governments, for the purpose of preventing consolidated centralized governance.
Quote
He points out that Nationalists essentially want an all-powerful Federal government.
Your assertion is completely false. Concern for one's own nation having priority over concerns for foreign nations isn't in the least inconsistent with decentralized governance.
Quote
He also points out the errors of isolationism. He is right on.
He is dead wrong, as are you. "Isolationism" is a derogatory term invented by the internationalists, i.e., the advocates for global governance and the ultimate elimination of national sovereignty. So-called isolationists were those who rightly opposed that.
The American Revolution was explicitly nationalistic. That is to say, it made no contention…had no pretense of being a revolution for all mankind. Unlike, for instance the French Revolution, we didn’t wish to expand it. We did not go on any crusade to change the world. What change in the world we promulgated was to be accomplished by example, not force of arms or even revolution. It was that we founded what we believed to be the best form of government FOR THIS COUNTRY and OUR PROGENY. Sure, we believed that rights are universal and inherent, but we never claimed the right to assert them for on behalf of anyone else.
Only with the Civil War did we begin assume the right to forcibly assert these rights for others. As a result, we’ve been more or less continually at war ever since and our rights have steadily eroded here at home.
The American Revolution was explicitly nationalistic. That is to say, it made no contention…had no pretense of being a revolution for all mankind. Unlike, for instance the French Revolution, we didn’t wish to expand it. We did not go on any crusade to change the world. What change in the world we promulgated was to be accomplished by example, not force of arms or even revolution. It was that we founded what we believed to be the best form of government FOR THIS COUNTRY and OUR PROGENY. Sure, we believed that rights are universal and inherent, but we never claimed the right to assert them for on behalf of anyone else.
Only with the Civil War did we begin assume the right to forcibly assert these rights for others. As a result, we’ve been more or less continually at war ever since and our rights have steadily eroded here at home.
The American Revolution was explicitly nationalistic. That is to say, it made no contention…had no pretense of being a revolution for all mankind. Unlike, for instance the French Revolution, we didn’t wish to expand it. We did not go on any crusade to change the world. What change in the world we promulgated was to be accomplished by example, not force of arms or even revolution. It was that we founded what we believed to be the best form of government FOR THIS COUNTRY and OUR PROGENY. Sure, we believed that rights are universal and inherent, but we never claimed the right to assert them for on behalf of anyone else.
Only with the Civil War did we begin assume the right to forcibly assert these rights for others. As a result, we’ve been more or less continually at war ever since and our rights have steadily eroded here at home.
He is very much a Trump admirer. The problem with a lot of folks is unless the individual is 100 % in lock step with YOUR personal views, then he's automatically labeled with whatever invective you feel fits... I don't always agree with some of his views ....
I have to agree with this. I'm glad he is on our/my side on most issues. In fact, I don't know a single person in my own life with whom I've agreed or who has agreed with me 100% of the time. If everybody were to start looking for those 100%ers for whom to vote, the next election, for any position, would result in a 0-0 tie, if people were honest with themselves, in my opinion.
_________________________________________________________________________ “Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
