3 Responses to “Mark Levin endorsed Richard Mourdock for Senate”

1. Mark Huehls says:

   August 12, 2011 at 12:00 pm

   Thank you for your endorsement of Richard Mourdock vs Richard Lugar.

   Lugar is not from Indiana any more and is an excellent example of why we need term limits. Our Founding Fathers never intended national politics to be a career. National politics is supposed to be a citizen service position that is held for a few years then relinquished to the next citizen.

   Richard Lugar not being from Indiana anymore is also anecdotal evidence for the need to return the election of Senators to the state legislators. Then Senators would focus on their state’s interests and not go slip sliding away into oblivion.
2. task says:

   August 15, 2011 at 8:05 am

   The Indiana Senate Republican primary is fast becoming a tale of two extremely different Dick’s. Dick Lugar and Dick Mourdock, beat to very different drums. One is irrevocably committed to the growth of a behemoth, intrusive and controlling national government that has long ceased to represent the limited federal concept it was originally designed to be. The other is conservative and wishes to take us back to original federalism, a concept we should never have departed from.

   Chuck Hagel, the two Senators from Maine, John McCain, Christopher Shays along with a host of others including the wanabe Mike Castle are indistinguishable from Dick Lugar who himself gave as much political support to his friend Barack Obama as his friend received from his closest and most ardent supporters.

   Lugar did nothing to offset the Obama automotive bailout that resulted in the translocation of the bond debt to union workers which amounts to nothing less than frank theft. That alone is all you need to know about the man. When democrats are close to a majority they can frequently count on Lugar and other RINO’s to give them the extra needed edge. The maniacal unconstitutional social spending over the past several decades has accelerated to light speed and demands that those we elect, not only hold the line but that they also take back lost ground. That means they have to be committed conservatives. The very idea that a huge bill for entitlement spending can be given to the party that generally votes the opposite way is preposterous. When democrats speak of raising taxes, in the name of fairness, on the wealthy, they also demand that republicans, as citizens, pay for programs that they never vote for and thereby create and support a recipient class that, by subsidizing, can always be counted upon to expand. What is most unfair is that the party of entitlements and subsidies never pays an equal share but instead demands that the party that opposes them pick up the bulk of the cost. There are many more registered democrats than republicans in America and yet this large majority exhibits no embarrassment demanding that conservatives and republicans pay the lion’s share of expensive social and regulatory programs spawned by self-governing agencies on autopilot that inhibit the creation of the very wealth they look to confiscate and redistribute among themselves.

   Ancient Greece ostentatiously represents the genesis of democracy that also fostered the idea that the individual trumps the collective. Grecian individual liberty succumbed to entitlement spending that eventually consumed their treasury. Individual freedom and creatitivity rebounded during the Renaissance and prospered everywhere in Europe absent despotism and until the fashionable and contagious Teutonic concept of the central planner once again gave preference to the state at the expense of individual liberty and property rights. Today Greece and much of socialized Europe, suffering from political amnesia, is repeating the very history they created. Greece, under the egalitarian concept of the European Union, expects Germans to work several extra years so that Greek citizens, who despise paying taxes, can retire early. There is absolutely no difference between contemporary indebted Greece and the current Democratic Party. The party that wants the most and does the least expects everyone but themselves to pick up the tab. Today they call this equality. Tell me what part of founding principles and our Constitution even remotely legitimizes such behavior? And that is why supporting Dick Mourdock and other conservatives is imperative. You simply cannot compromise on principles that give refuge and protection for individual liberty. Without the recognition and understanding that liberty, free markets, limited government, capitalism and property ownership and use are intimately connected and intertwined with founding principles you have absolutely no right to hold a political office that requires you to uphold an oath to the Constitution of the United States. Because some have, and others have compromised, is why we are where we are today.
3. Glen Leirer says:

   August 18, 2011 at 5:24 pm

   Mark; I see where you have endorsed Hasner for Senate in Florida. You should check out Col Mike McCalister, he is more your type candidate. Mike is a gun toten, God fearing, retired military and fiscal conservative. You have picked the wrong man in Hasner, we are tired of the Tallahassee pols here in Florida. I believe if you would look at Col Mike you would see why the Tea Party folks in Florida are backing him.
   Glen from Panama City Beach.