Monday, Mark spoke with Chris Ryan, the father of Sgt. Eddie Ryan.

What great Americans! Both Eddie and his father!

HelpEddieRyan.com

Monday, Mark described the 72-25 vote to allow an up or down vote for Samuel Alito.

Another Constitutional Justice? The Cape Cod Orca embarassing the dems?

It’s a great day!!

What’s this? National Guard recruitment is increasing? But all the libs tell us it is so horrible that no one is enlisting!!!

On the contrary, young people today are much smarter than these libs give them credit and they believe in the country and their President. So much so that they want to serve their country.

They don’t rely on the liberal main stream media for news and information; they research things for themselves and they know that America is good and that our brave soldiers are doing great things around the world. More Americans want to be part of this.

God Bless them…

Debra Burlingame wrote an outstanding editorial for the WSJ today! Here’s an excerpt:

Our Right to Security
Al Qaeda, not the FBI, is the greater threat to America.

BY DEBRA BURLINGAME
Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 a.m.

One of the most excruciating images of the September 11 attacks is the sight of a man who was trapped in one of the World Trade Center towers. Stripped of his suit jacket and tie and hanging on to what appears to be his office curtains, he is seen trying to lower himself outside a window to the floor immediately below. Frantically kicking his legs in an effort to find a purchase, he loses his grip, and falls.

That horrific scene and thousands more were the images that awakened a sleeping nation on that long, brutal morning. Instead of overwhelming fear or paralyzing self-doubt, the attacks were met with defiance, unity and a sense of moral purpose. Following the heroic example of ordinary citizens who put their fellow human beings and the public good ahead of themselves, the country’s leaders cast aside politics and personal ambition and enacted the USA Patriot Act just 45 days later.

A mere four-and-a-half years after victims were forced to choose between being burned alive and jumping from 90 stories, it is frankly shocking that there is anyone in Washington who would politicize the Patriot Act. It is an insult to those who died to tell the American people that the organization posing the greatest threat to their liberty is not al Qaeda but the FBI. Hearing any member of Congress actually crow about “killing” or “playing chicken” with this critical legislation is as disturbing today as it would have been when Ground Zero was still smoldering. Today we know in far greater detail what not having it cost us.

Read the rest here!

Here’s another great post by Mark Levin on his blog, And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

These Pseudo-Reformers Are Getting on My Nerves
by Mark R. Levin

Oh please, Newt. You’re beginning to sound like McCain, of Keating 5 fame (anyone remember that?). One phony reformer is about all the Republican party can take.

Lobbying is not only as old as Congress itself, but it’s constitutionally protected. The Abramoff case isn’t about lobbying, it’s about bribery. Serious conservatives are upset that Republicans are acting like Democrats not because they have some meal paid for by a lobbyist, but because they failed to curb spending. If they outlawed members receiving meals or trips or whatever, it would have exactly no impact on the continuing growth of the government. Indeed, it would empower the entrenched bureaucracy, the liberal media, and the other voices in Washington that demand more government.

And as I’ve said before, if the president had shown leadership in this regard, such as using his veto pen on a couple of spending bills, rather than demanding new entitlement programs, Republicans in the House (and the Senate for that matter) wouldn’t have passed them. The prescription-drug program, federalizing education, and expanding the farm subsidy program weren’t Tom DeLay’s ideas. DeLay was a good soldier for the White House, which hatched all of it. (As for pork spending, I’ve pointed out before that while it’s clearly abusive, it’s not nearly the problem that institutionalized spending is. Pork spending is pennies on the entitlement dollar. I don’t like it, but in many ways it’s a diversion.)

And those Democrats who feign concern about spending are the first to complain that these programs don’t go far enough and aren’t fully funded. So, of course the Democrats are as much to blame for bloated big-spending. The fact that they’re not in the majority makes them no less irresponsible. They vote for and demand even bigger government than the Republicans. To give them a pass is to give big-spending a pass, except when Republicans are in power. Reform, as I understand the reformers to intend it, means reforming the government, not just the Republican majority. [ 01/29/2006 11:40 PM ]

The South Tower, September 14, 2001

So long as America exists as a democracy, the oppressive influence of tyrants and terrorists remains at risk. Jihad, holy war, is their strategy and subversion is their ally. Terrorists seek the collaboration of a few and quietly revel at a growing insurgency of naïve protestors.

(more…)

Friday, Mark described how Senate liberals want to filibuster Sam Alito in the name of defending what they claim are Constitutional rights.

Yet, as Mark explained, the very act of a filibuster against a judicial nominee is in and of itself un-Constitutional.

Hugh calls in to Mark’s show and sings?!? Then Suzi drops the phone…

Almost a song and dance…

Thank you to Suzi for sending this around in email. Just thought that everyone could see this.

http://www.helpeddieryan.com/

This is the Help Eddie Ryan site. You can read the emotional story of SGT Ryan and his parents.

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

These are scary times. Mark is right, as always!

Oh man, this is too funny folks. PMSNBC is hurting bad enough with shows like Countdown to no ratings, but now they have this to worry about. It appears a bunch of looney toon lib bloggers has declared war on Chris Matthews, the host of Screwball. They even created a protest blog (that’s all these morons are good at folks) where they list the names of PMSNBC advertisers in order to discourage them from advertising with PMSNBC.

LOL!

Check this out…
(more…)

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Wednesday, Mark spoke about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and took some entertaining calls.

I love it when those Libs try to be smart and get slapped down! LOL!

Tuesday, Mark spoke about the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to send Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination to the Senate floor for a vote.

Those Democrats are flailing away helplessly, aren’t they? It’s actually funny to watch!

Monday, Mark continued to defend the President’s power to protect our country by the surveillance of terrorist communications.

The Great One stops by to chat with Hannity. It’s (ALMOST) official! KSFO (MAY BE) on the list for The Mark Levin Show!

(Information received subsequent to the broadcast revealed that negotiations are in the final stages).

Here’s a new NRO article by Mark Levin!

Mark R. Levin
NRO Contributing Editor

January 23, 2006, 2:38 p.m.
John McCain, Weak on Defense
Weakening our position by fighting like Clinton did.

One of the primary and most compelling criticisms of the Clinton administration’s approach to terrorism was that it treated terrorism as a criminal rather than national-security matter. The enemy declared war on us years earlier, attacking various U.S. targets and killing U.S. citizens, and we indicted them if we could muster enough evidence. Despite 9/11, today many in Congress and the judiciary, with prodding by the media and left-wing (legal) activists, continue to treat the war on terrorism as Clinton did. And one of the most vocal sponsors of this approach is John McCain.

Despite his tough talk about sending more troops to Iraq (the benefit of which is and was debatable), McCain has led an effort to diminish the traditional war-power authority of the president.

Detaining the enemy
As reported in the New York Times (December 13, 2003), after visiting Guantanamo Bay with his favorite sidekick, Republican Lindsey Graham, and Democrat Maria Cantwell, McCain proclaimed, “They [al Qaeda detainees] may not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions as far as I’m concerned, but they have rights under various human rights declarations. And one of them is the right not to be detained indefinitely.” In a letter McCain and the others fired off to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, McCain asserted, “The treatment of the detainees is not an issue. However, a serious concern arises over the disposition of the detainees — a considerable number of whom have been held for two years.”

I am aware of no “right” under some binding declaration that requires the release or trial of unlawful enemy combatants before the end of hostilities. In fact, garden-variety prisoners of war, who have full protection under the Geneva Conventions, are held until the war’s end. In World War II, before the Geneva Conventions, hundreds of thousands of POWs were held until we defeated the enemy. As a practical matter, the McCain approach would require a nation at war to allocate massive resources to processing the enemy through the court system. Untold numbers of military personnel would have to be pulled from the battlefield to provide some form of testimony justifying detention in each case. And the Supreme Court’s 2004 Rasul and Hamdi decisions, conferring (unspecified) due process rights on the enemy — which, presumably, McCain would endorse given his release-or-try demand — would make military victory extraordinarily difficult.

Interrogating the enemy
Having earlier said that the length of detention of detainees, not their treatment, was his concern, McCain would then move on to their treatment. McCain seized on endless reports in the New York Times and elsewhere about Abu Ghraib and the mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo to push an amendment he attached to the Defense-appropriations bill conferring Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights on al Qaeda terrorists detained in Cuba. The amendment also makes aggressive interrogation of the enemy far more complicated and difficult by providing that “No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” [Emphasis added.] Of course, the phrase “degrading treatment” will now appear in every brief filed by some ACLU lawyer claiming torture on behalf of his terrorist client. Ultimately, judges willbe called upon to make what should be presidential war-making decisions.

Gathering intelligence on the enemy
Having already challenged the detention and interrogation of the enemy, this Sunday on Fox News Sunday McCain said that he doesn’t believe the president has the constitutional authority to intercept al Qaeda communications with possible saboteurs in the U.S. unless that authority is statutorily granted by Congress. There’s nothing in our history to support that position. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt didn’t seek congressional authority to secure intelligence against the enemy, because they already had the power under the Constitution. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act cannot and does not trump presidential authority. Moreover, the Fourth Amendment, and the requirement of probable cause and search warrants, has nothing to do with gathering intelligence on a declared enemy. Even in 18th-century Britain, from where we get the concept of probable cause, its application had no relevance to war-related investigations aimed at determining the enemy’s next act. The idea that the president has the power to rain devastation on the enemy, including destroying entire cities as in World War II, but he doesn’t have the authority to intercept the enemy’s communications with individuals in the U.S. without judicial approval, is absurd at every level.

It just so happens that in each of these cases — detention, interrogation, and intelligence gathering — McCain has adopted the litigation agenda of some of the most radical antiwar activists, including the ACLU. If Mona Charen decides to update her book Useful Idiots, she might want to add a new chapter.

Here’s another great post by Mark Levin on his blog, And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

Supreme Questions
by Mark R. Levin

My friend Andy McCarthy wrote a great piece not long ago listing numerous examples of court-created and recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement for searches of U.S. citizens during peace-time. Where did the Supreme Court get the power to make such exceptions? And who checks the power of the justices? Of course, the judicial oligarchs (a.k.a. judicial activists, a.k.a. judicial supremists) don’t much care. It never ceases to amaze me how willing we are to accept decisions of nine unelected lawyers in black robes, with few in the mainstream media questioning their authority, while pouncing quickly on a president who is exercising his legitimate constitutional authority to protect the nation from an enemy who has already killed 3,000 of us. Indeed, the president’s critics speak of him pushing the edges of executive authority for his unwillingness to cede his commander-in-chief power to judges. Support for judicial supremacy runs deep in Washington and other parts of our society, despite the fact that the judiciary has a very checkered past when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Congress, of course, sees it as a way to weaken a competing elected branch of government. And too many judges cannot resist expanding their influence over policymaking. The lunatic-Left talks of impeaching the president for exercising his constitutional authority to intercept enemy communications during wartime without judicial warrants. Should we should also impeach those justices who went much further than the president when they found numerous exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. If not, why not? After all, if Bush violated the Constitution, they did too, no? [ 01/22/2006 02:19 PM ]

Friday, Mark reminded us of the 25th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s 1st inauguration as President. Mark read some quotes in the MSM smearing Reagan at the time.

The 40th President and the Press: The Record

Those vile quotes sound exactly like the way the media is smearing Bush today!

Read Reagan’s First Inaugural Address.

Thursday, Mark spoke about the NSA program of terrorist surveillance and communication intercept.

A liberal blog, Crooks and Liars, has declared war on conservative authors on Amazon.com.

Something is under Mark Levin’s skin

(A little late night fun at C&L)
Oh yea, it’s us! He’s not happy because Kate O’Berine’s book tanked so quickly. The word I’m hearing is that many at the NRO aren’t pleased either. Let’s take a look at his book, ” Men in Black,” reviewed by Dahlia Lithwick so we can gauge his own incredible writing skills.

Slate:

“I use the word “book” with some hesitation: Certainly it possesses chapters and words and other book-like accoutrements. But Men in Black is 208 large-print pages of mostly block quotes (from court decisions or other legal thinkers) padded with a foreword by the eminent legal scholar Rush Limbaugh, and a blurry 10-page “Appendix” of internal memos to and from congressional Democrats—stolen during Memogate. The reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Black than it took Levin to write it is that you’ll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters….read on“

It gets worse from there. Here’s a very detailed also. Nice job Mark, don’t let honesty get in your way-although that seems to be a detail many conservative book writers share.

(Update) Yep, the Corner is unraveling as we speak.

9:19:34 PM Comments (47) permalink9:19:34 PM

If it’s a war they want, it’s a war they’ll get! Let’s get ready to rumble!

Oh, I just found another Lib blog smearing Mark! Check this one out. Think Progress

I knew the Libbys would wet their pants when Mark started broadcasting in Washington DC! LOL!

UPDATE: Read The “Sacking” of O’Beirne, by Kathryn Jean Lopez.

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Mark is going post crazy over at his new blog! I can’t keep up with all of his great posts! He really should write another book! Read one of Mark’s recent posts on And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

The Levin Reform Plan
by Mark R. Levin

Here are some congressional “reforms” I’d like to propose, since it’s another reform season in Washington:

1. Lobbyists should be required to spend lots and lots of money sending members of Congress on all kinds of trips outside the country. That way they won’t be in Washington increasing our taxes, redistributing wealth, and undermining the war on terrorism.

2. Congress should not be permitted to meet more than six months a year. That way the state governments might have something to do.

3. Congress should pass a constitutional amendment, along the lines first proposed by Milton Friedman, limiting federal spending to a percentage of the gross domestic product. With less money to spend, there will be less opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse of billions in taxpayer dollars, less earmarks, and less of a lot of things we don’t need.

4. Congress should pass a constitutional amendment limiting their own terms. We might lose some real statesmen (although I have more fingers than there are statesmen), but if it sends Ted Kennedy back to Hyannis Port after more than 40 years in the Senate, it’s worth it.

5. And when we’re done reforming Congress, let’s turn our attention to reforming the courts. [ 01/18/2006 11:36 PM ]

Amazing! A couple days ago Mark told us that Kate O’Beirne’s book was being smeared on Amazon. Now Mark’s book is receiving more smear comments and ratings! Coincidence? I think not! Check out the comment section at the following link and leave your own comments!

Wednesday, Mark’s opening monologue was interrupted by a call from a soldier in Kuwait.

Yes, Mark has a following in Kuwait, too!

The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and individual plantiffs have no standing in their lawsuits against the NSA and President Bush. They present nothing to substantiate they were among those here the NSA suspected of communicating with al Qaeda outside the United States and monitored. If they are admitting they are communicating with the enemy at large, nothing grants them an expectation of privacy. Along with Al Gore’s accusations, soaring platitudes, and fear mongering, theirs is an egregious case of political pandering:

“We don’t have any direct evidence” that the plaintiffs were monitored by the security agency, said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U. “But the plaintiffs have a well-founded belief that they may have been monitored, (more…)

This is the news we’ve all been waiting for! Woo hoo!

Here’s an article in Billboard Monitor Magazine.

Confirmed: ABC to Syndicate Talker Levin

Also, read this press release from the ABC Radio Networks.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ABC RADIO NETWORKS TO SYNDICATE
THE MARK LEVIN SHOW

Top-Rated Conservative Talker, Best-Selling Author and Constitutional Lawyer To Be Heard
In Four of the Top 10 U.S. Markets Beginning January 30

NEW YORK, NY (January 17, 2006) – ABC Radio Networks today announced a multi-year agreement with talk show personality Mark Levin to nationally syndicate The Mark Levin Show to radio stations around the country. The program will air on four stations in the top 10 markets beginning January 30: WABC in New York, WMAL Washington, D.C., WBAP Dallas and WJR Detroit.

Levin’s program is currently among the most popular talk shows in the New York area, heard daily from 6-8pm (ET). In the first 18 months on the air, the program jumped to No. 1 in the time slot.

“I am elated to be able to contribute to the growing conservative dialogue across our country,” said Levin. “I think listeners will find my perspective and approach thought-provoking, educational, entertaining and sometimes controversial – but never boring. We’ll plan on having a lot of fun, too.”

A frequent guest and substitute host on The Sean Hannity Show, Levin is one of the country’s preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers. He is a contributing editor for National Review Online, and writes frequently for many other publications. His book, Men in Black, which was released in February 2005, was on the New York Times Best Sellers list for 10 weeks.

“We are thrilled to bring Mark Levin and his unique brand of talk to listeners around the country,” said John McConnell, Senior Vice President of Programming, ABC Radio Networks. “Paired along with Sean Hannity, Levin’s show is a tremendous one-two punch for programmers to grab and keep listeners on the radio dial.”

Levin has served as a top adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet, including Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States. In 2001, the American Conservative Union named Levin the recipient of the prestigious Ronald Reagan Award. He currently practices law in the private sector, heading the prestigious Landmark Legal Foundation in Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, Mark started off by reading the following article in the Associated Press.

Groups Sue to Stop Domestic Spying Program

Then, Mark went on to explain who runs the The Center for Constitutional Rights.

What’s shocking is that this information is all public knowledge, but the MSM ignores it!

At the time of Mark’s show, Wikipedia had the information about The Center for Constitutional Rights. Now it appears they pulled the article. However, you can find the same info on this page.

Mark hates to see a friend under attack by Libs! Therefore, he used his blog, (And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.) to alert us of the attempt to smear Kate O’Beirne’s book on Amazon.com in the review section.

Spamming Amazon
Over at Amazon.com, my dear friend Kate O’Beirne has become an obvious target of an organized campaign by so-called feminists to degrade the rating of her book — Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports — by posting absurd personal attacks as reviews. Clearly most of those posting reviews haven’t read Kate’s book. You can tell by what they’re posting. And she has already received nearly 300 reviews, a remarkably high number in such a short period of time. Hence, the clear indication of an organized campaign to trash the book. I wish Amazon had a better way to rate a book than this. [ 01/15/2006 03:48 PM ]

Last night, Mark Levin read the AP report and had a point by point response to Hillary’s remarks at Sharpton’s MLK Day event.

“When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation and you know what I’m talking about…”

Controversial Words At Sharpton’s MLK Event

What are you talking about, Hillary? Explain yourself! That statement is absolutely outrageous! What else can you call these remarks by Hillary Rotten Clinton?

Cross linked at The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy

Yesterday during The Sean Hannity Show, Mark Levin talks to retiring conservative radio icon Bob Grant.

Monday, Mark discussed the totally asinine comments made by Al Gore.

And to think, if it wasn’t for Florida in 2000, this clown would have been President of the United States!

Friday, Mark discussed how the State of Maryland is trying to destroy Wal-Mart!

It’s really amazing that a government would target a single company to ruin!

On his radio show last night, Mark Levin mentioned that on January 5, 2006, a former Marine confronted Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) and Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) at a town hall meeting in Arlington, VA. The next day the Washington Post reported the event drew a huge crowd and that, “MoveOn.org sent e-mails to opponents of the war urging them to attend.” A crowd of about 600, mostly moonbats, filled the room.

After Murtha and Moran made brief remarks, they opened the meeting up to questions. First in line at the microphone was:

“Yes sir my name is Mark Seevey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seevey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, [a smattering of applause interrupted him]”

Then, Sgt Seevey told Congressmen Murtha and Moran the truth from the front lines, where he in his combat boots had served… (more…)

Looks like Kennedy has taken McCarthyism to new heights! Read Mark’s post on And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

Kennedyism
The media like to pat themselves on the back for taking down Joseph McCarthy. They award themselves the Edward R. Murrow Award for courage in journalism as Murrow is viewed as the reporter who exposed McCarthy. McCarthy’s name has been turned into a synonym for character assassination.

And yet, judicial-confirmation hearing after judicial-confirmation hearing — during the terms of Republican presidents — there sits Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee using every sleazy tactic fed to him by every sleazy left-wing group to destroy the reputation of honorable men and women.

From Clement Haynsworth, William Rehnquist, Bob Bork, and Clarence Thomas, to Jeff Sessions, Bill Pryor, Charles Pickering, and Sam Alito — and scores of others — Kennedy has played the role of McCarthy for 40 years, and always to a fawning press. He’s a greater menace than McCarthy ever was. Indeed, McCarthy’s influence lasted only four years.

In 1954, the Senate censured McCarthy for his behavior. Today’s Senate lacks the statesmen to censure Kennedy, and the media lack the integrity to expose him. Thus, the next nominee can expect to be subjected to Kennedyism. [ 01/13/2006 12:48 PM ]

Thursday, Mark took a call by a lady that was runover by Senator Kennedy.

Why didn’t this lady see the Cape Cod Orca coming? LOL!

Thursday, Mark discussed how since 9/11, Congress & the courts have eroded Presidential authority!

Mark knows his stuff and is so passionate about it! He makes complicated topics easy to understand!

As Curator of the Museum of Left Wing Lunacy, I am seldom surprised with some of the insane things I see coming from the left in this country. But sometimes I see something that people really need to see in order to believe. This article from the Progressive Magazines web site really takes the cake. For those who don’t realize how defeatist and moronic some of these loons are, I hope this will open your eyes. Here is just a small excerpt from this guy’s article. In it, he calls for an end to all war and tries to make the point that none of our wars were for a good cause. Here’s the bonehead…

In the Second World War, there was indeed a strong moral imperative, which still resonates among most people in this country and which maintains the reputation of World War II as “the good war.” There was a need to defeat the monstrosity of fascism. It was that belief that drove me to enlist in the Air Force and fly bombing missions over Europe.

Only after the war did I begin to question the purity of the moral crusade. Dropping bombs from five miles high, I had seen no human beings, heard no screams, seen no children dismembered. But now I had to think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden, the deaths of 600,000 civilians in Japan, and a similar number in Germany.

I came to a conclusion about the psychology of myself and other warriors: Once we decided, at the start, that our side was the good side and the other side was evil, once we had made that simple and simplistic calculation, we did not have to think anymore. Then we could commit unspeakable crimes and it was all right.

I began to think about the motives of the Western powers and Stalinist Russia and wondered if they cared as much about fascism as about retaining their own empires, their own power, and if that was why they had military priorities higher than bombing the rail lines leading to Auschwitz. Six million Jews were killed in the death camps (allowed to be killed?). Only 60,000 were saved by the war—1 percent.

Yes, of course. How selfish of our country. Let’s just forget about the Nazi’s invading Poland and steamrolling France. Hey, while we’re at it, we should have sent a thank you card to Tojo for blowing our fleet out of the water at Pearl Harbor. If we had just listened to this mental midget and peacefully dismantled all our weapons of war, we’d all know how to speak German! If this guy had his way 100 percent of the Jews in the World would be gone. He would have us just sit there and watch it happen because to do something about it would mean to bomb German cities. Heaven forbid we’d want to bomb the Nazis and their weapons factories! Heaven forbid we’d want to finish a war that the Japanese started with a sneak attack.

This is the defeatist left that has no clue folks. They’ll watch someone slaughter people by the thousands and do squat about it because the only solution would be a violent one. The more we expose these bozos to the general public, the better.

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Oh, Stephen Breyer too! See another post by Mark on And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

And There’s Something About Breyer
Oh, and there’s this, from my friend Ed Whelan, reminding us of Ted Kennedy’s defense of Stephen Breyer’s questionable ethics. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

Judge Stephen Breyer faced much more serious complaints in his confirmation hearings about his involvement as a judge in more than half a dozen cases that involved insurance underwritten by Lloyd’s of London, an insurance syndicate in which he was an investor. As an investor in Lloyd’s, Judge Breyer faced potentially unlimited liability for the losses covered by its policies, and many investors were bankrupted by their participation in Lloyd’s syndicates. The New York Times labeled Judge Breyer’s alleged conflict as “troubling” and a “cloud . . .hanging over his nomination,” but guess who was his most ardent defender? Yes, the same Teddy Kennedy, who even got into a heated argument with one of his Democratic colleagues on the committee: “You’ve asked for my opinion whether Judge Breyer’s committed a violation of judicial ethics in investing in Lloyds name and insurance underwriting while being a federal judge. In my opinion, there was no violation of judicial ethics.”

This is far more troubling than Alito’s Vanguard investment. Some might call Kennedy a hypocrite. [ 01/12/2006 12:21 PM ]

Look at this! Mark remains on top!

Mark Levin beats Savage in New York, Again … 3.9 to 3.1

Mark uncovered some interesting facts about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and posted it on And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

Mutual Concerns
Ethics expert Ted Kennedy is offended by Judge Alito’s participation in a case involving the Vanguard mutual fund, in which Alito has been invested. When he became aware of Vanguard’s connection in the case, Alito immediately recused himself despite the fact he was under no legal obligation to do so and neither Vanguard nor he benefited from his ruling. After he informed the other judges on his court, a new panel reheard the case and issued the same ruling. Now, if this is a basis for denying Alito a seat on the Supreme Court, then I would think if a Supreme Court justice ruled in cases involving companies in which her husband was invested, that would be grounds for impeachment then, no? That’s exactly what happened with Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. As reported by the New York Times (”The Husband Of A Justice Sells His Stock After Scrutiny,” July 11, 1997):

The husband of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said today that he had ordered his broker to sell all the stocks in an individual retirement account after a news magazine reported that Justice Ginsburg had failed to disqualify herself from more than 20 cases involving companies his account held. Insight magazine … said in its July 28 issue that Justice Ginsburg might have violated Federal law as well as professional codes of ethics by participating in cases since 1995 in which her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, had a financial stake. The magazine said it was not clear, however, that her involvement affected the outcome of the cases, most of which it said were procedural rulings in which the Court formally decides whether to take a case. …

Mr. Ginsburg issued the following statement in response to the report:

I had not appreciated that stocks held in an I.R.A. account managed by a third party professional raised the concern Insight has highlighted. After reading the article, I promptly instructed Smith Barney to sell all stocks in the I.R.A. account and to invest in mutual funds.

The reason Mr. Ginsburg had his investments transferred from an I.R.A. to a mutual fund is because mutual funds are exempted from conflict-of-interest implications because investors have no control over the companies mutual funds invest in. However, when you own an I.R.A., you can direct your investments. Justice Ginsburg’s oversight raised far more serious ethical issues than Judge Alito’s mutual-fund investment. According to the Washington Times, Mr. Ginsburg’s I.R.A. investments included stocks in such companies as Exxon, General Electric, AT&T, and Proctor & Gamble — all of which were involved in cases that Justice Ginsburg participated in. Somebody wake-up the new ethics watchdog on the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask him to square his criticism of Alito with his silence on Ginsburg. [ 01/12/2006 11:21 AM ]

Wednesday, Mark discussed the Alito hearings again. The Democrats were smearing Judge Alito because of his associations with some groups in the past. Mark had enough of that. If they are going down that road, Mark can do it too!

Those are some amazing facts about those liberal Senators. It’s hard to believe they can ignore their own past issues and smear Judge Alito!

Wednesday, Mark spoke with his friend, Kate O’Beirne. Mark discussed her book, .

During the Alito hearing today, Ted Kennedy (aka. the Cape Cod Orca) got into a squabble with Arlen Specter. This is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard on the floor of the Senate! LOL!

Hat tip to The Political Teen

Here’s another great post by the Great One on And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog.

Vast-Left-Wing Flop
First there was John Roberts. Now there’s Sam Alito. The left-wing battle plan honed since 1987 during Bob Bork’s confirmation hearings is flopping badly. And there are several reasons for this.

Today Americans have a much more sophisticated understanding of the proper role of judges. First and foremost, the judiciary has so exceeded the bounds of its legitimate authority that the public has taken notice of, and interest in, its egregious abuses of power. From upholding the seizure of homes and barring a display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, to conferring rights on terrorists and benefits on illegal immigrants, the accumulation of these policy decisions are troubling not just to conservative intellectuals, but wide swaths of American society which are affected directly by these rulings.

Conservatives have also done a superior job in explaining their case against judicial activism by way of the new media. Long before these hearings, Rush and Sean, among others, have been educating millions about the framers’ intended limits on the judiciary, and have exposed the underlying hostility for representative government motivating the judicial supremacists. The Left is now forced to defend the idea that the dictates of nine lawyers in black robes should set national policy, while conservatives are defending popular sovereignty and the founding principles.

The liberal senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee look frustrated and sound incoherent because, well, they are. Their problem is that when you don’t have fidelity to the written Constitution, your judicial philosophy, such as it is, consists of nothing more than strained and often contradictory arguments made for the purpose of advancing a political and policy agenda. Hence, we hear Dianne Feinstein demand from Alito adherence to judicial precedent respecting Roe v. Wade (Arlen Specter refers to is as super-precedent), and in the next breath acceptance of something called a living and breathing Constitution.

As for Borking — the smearing of conservative Supreme Court nominees through blatant dissembling about their character and thinking — it falls flat today because the American people have become largely immune to the strategy. It has been unleashed with such frequency and fury during the last 20 years that even a casual observer understands that every conservative nominee cannot possibly be a racist, sexist, and unethical pervert. And the left-wing groups that serve this poison, such as Hollywood’s People for the (Un)American Way and the radical Alliance for (In)Justice, have lost what little credibility they once may have had with the public.

Sam Alito will be confirmed. The only question is how much more damage the Democrats will inflict on themselves during the course of these hearings.
01/11 11:14 AM

Tuesday, Mark discussed the Alito hearings in the Senate.

Alito made those Lib Senators look like fools, didn’t he? LOL!

Here’s a new section on National Review Online dedicated to the Great One! It’s called And Another Thing… The Mark Levin Blog. Check out Mark’s first post!.

The Race-Card Fallback Position
We knew it was coming; that is, the attempt to impugn Sam Alito by using the race card against him. You see, it’s a given in Washington, New York, Hollywood, and other liberal enclaves that conservatives are, by nature and philosophy, racist. And conservative presidents, as a matter of course, nominate racists to the bench — Bob Bork, Clarence Thomas (even though he is black, but that didn’t matter), Charles Pickering, Bill Pryor, and, now, Sam Alito. They’ve all been targeted this way.

Ironically, the party that defended slavery in the 19th century and segregation for much of the 20th century is the Democrat party. The governors who stood in schoolhouse doorways were all Democrats. The segregationist senators who filibustered the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts were all Democrats. The party that elected former Klansman Bob Byrd as its leader in the Senate for a decade was the Democrat party.

These are just some of the highlights of the Democrat party’s embrace of racism. That’s certainly not to say that every Democrat is a racist, or every Democrat during these periods was a racist. Indeed, many fought their own party. Many were involved in championing abolition and civil rights. But that’s not the point. The argument proffered by Patrick Leahy and Ted Kennedy, among others, makes no such distinction

During today’s Alito hearings, Leahy’s smear went something like this: Alito’s membership in a college group, in which an individual member wrote an absurd article about blacks, taints Alito as a racist. This is contemptible demagoguery, no matter how many times the Democrats use it against Republican judicial nominees.

For example, Ted Kennedy’s father was sympathetic to Adolf Hitler while he served as Franklin Roosevelt’s ambassador to Britain. Joseph Kennedy opened back-channels to the Third Reich. He was openly anti-Semitic. FDR had to recall him from his post. Now, what does that say about Ted Kennedy? Nothing — unless, of course, we adopt the smear by association tactics used against Alito. Indeed, Kennedy, Leahy, and every Senate Democrat who voted repeatedly for Bob Byrd to serve as their leader — a post he held for 12 years — is what, a pro-KKK racist? That’s absurd and offensive.

It’s hard to believe that the party that so abused race in the past is doing so again today. It’s also sad that the major media carry this message as if it has some legitimacy. To my knowledge, not a single mainstream journalist has shown the courage to condemn this disgraceful farce. Where’s Edward R. Murrow when you need him?
01/10 12:41 PM

Monday, Mark debuted in Washington DC and Detroit!

Washington DC has needed a lecture on the Supreme Court and Constitution for a long time. What timing! The day the Alito hearings begin, Mark is on the air! I love it!

Monday, Mark commented on the spectacle going on in the Senate this afternoon in his post on NRO’s The Corner.

THE HEARINGS [Mark R. Levin]
I hope those observing today’s Alito hearings will pay at least as much attention to what Alito says in response to questioning as to the predictable idiocy of many of the questioners. There are serious problems with the substance and consistency of the premises of those who reject an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Arlen Specter and Chuck Schumer are full of contradictions. They speak of the Court following precedent (even super-duper precedent) when they support a line of cases, particularly respecting abortion. Of course, Roe v. Wade was nothing more than a concoction of the policy preferences of seven justices. And which precedents are we to follow? In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld segregation. Fifty-eight years later, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court began unraveling Plessy. In Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court upheld state sodomy laws. Seventeen years later, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court ruled state sodomy laws are unconstitutional. There are myriad examples of this kind of rejection of precedent. With what convolutions of logic do they square their supposed reverence for precedent with these cases?

Then we get their argument for a “living Constitution.” Justice Stephen Breyer calls it “active liberty.” The late Justice William Douglas invented the phrase (shorthand) “emanations from penumbras.” These phrases are nothing more than arguments for rejecting the Constitution. And they represent the antithesis of precedent, i.e., anything goes.

Specter and Schumer have also argued that the Court needs to have respect for the proper roles the different branches of government play. But here, too, they are result-oriented. In 2000, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court struck down Nebraska’s ban on partial birth abortion. You won’t hear Specter or Schumer criticize this judicial usurpation of a state legislature because they support partial birth abortion.

I am hopeful that one, or perhaps more, conservative Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will use the occasion of the Alito hearings to expose the absolute bankruptcy of the Left’s arguments, and its effort to institutionalize its political and policy agenda through the Court.
Posted at 12:06 PM

Mark Levin makes his debut in Washington DC & Detroit tonight! Don’t pull any punches, Mark!

Just 2 more days until Mark Levin broadcasts in Washington DC! Woo Hoo!

Friday, Mark read the Drudge Report Exclusive article, DEMOCRATS PLAN TO DESTROY ALITO. Then he read the previously posted Weekly Standard article about Saddam’s terrorist training camps in Iraq.

You wait; the Libs will keep right on saying there is no connection between Iraq and 9/11! Yes, they’re that dense!

Check out this article in Billboard Radio Monitor!

WMAL, WJR Add WABC’s Mark Levin
Jan. 06, 2006
By Tony Sanders

It looks like ABC Radio is preparing to syndicate another in-house personality, but there’s nothing official on the topic, yet. Starting Monday (Jan. 9), ABC Radio’s New York evening talker Mark Levin begins talking on two more of the group’s sister stations: news/talk WMAL Washington, D.C., and news/talk WJR Detroit.

Levin currently airs live from 6 p.m.-8 p.m. (ET) on WABC and will do so on WMAL, too.

WABC PD Phil Boyce tells Billboard Radio Monitor Levin will air from 11 p.m.-1 a.m. on WJR as that AM shuffles other personalities in its lineup. “WJR is going to air Sean [Hannity] live from 3-to-5 [p.m.],” Boyce said, “directly after Rush [Limbaugh].” Boyce also told Monitor that Levin was added to the lineup on Dallas-Ft. Worth sister WBAP last year, on Sept. 12.

That brings Levin’s station count to four ABC O&Os.

Boyce offered no comment to Monitor’s query if Levin would become a new syndicated offering from ABC.

Levin took over the WABC 6pm slot on September 2nd, 2003.

Fantastic! Go get em, Mark!

January 6, 2006 – hat tips to Black Five, the Mudville Gazette, and the NRO
guest contributed by the webmaster of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

Congressman Murtha, you really must reconsider your news sources. You might at least listen to a fellow Marine:

“The family had been kidnapped by insurgents and held inside their house while the insurgents shot at Marines. Air strikes were called in and the family was killed inside the home when the bombs dropped. The video showed people wailing and crying and talked about how Americans had caused the deaths of the family. This story was 5 weeks old. When we were doing offensive operations out here, we had 25 plus reporters from CNN, USA Today, the NY Times, Time Magazine, among others. Now that the bombs aren’t dropping and the cities have been stabilized, we had 1 reporter here for the elections. She is from the Christian Science Monitor. Not exactly the most widely read publication in the US of A…

(more…)

Here’s an article in the Weekly Standard that liberals do not want you to read! Therefore, I will link to it here!

Saddam’s Terror Training Camps
What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal–and why they should all be made public.
by Stephen F. Hayes
01/16/2006, Volume 011, Issue 17

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

Read the rest here

Thursday, Mark read the following article in the NY Sun and spoke with Freeper, Doug from Upland, CA about a Hillary Clinton Fund-Raising scandal.

A Clinton Fund-Raising Group Is Fined for Understating Gifts

You’ll never here a word of this on the MSM!

Thursday, Mark spoke with his friend Andy McCarthy. They discussed Andy’s article (Now Judges Are Leaking) in National Review Online about FISA judges leaking in violation of their ethical responsibilities to the Washington Post.

Mark is right, the Supreme Court is not the only place there are partisan judicial activist judges!

Thursday, Mark ranted about Democrat efforts to smear and/or filibuster Samuel Alito.

Save some for Monday, Mark, when you will be broadcasting in Washington DC! LOL!

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Look out Washington, Mark Levin is coming to town! Here is Mark’s latest article he wrote for National Review Online.

Don’t Rush on DeLay
January 05, 2006, 1:11 p.m.
Now is the time for principled loyalty.

So, what exactly are the federal criminal allegations against Tom DeLay? Well, there aren’t any. He participated in a golf junket? He says that he thought a nonprofit paid for it, as they often do. He flew on private jets? Is that unique for members of Congress, let alone a crime? Well, he flew on private jets frequently! That may be bad policy, but it doesn’t make it a crime. Oh, his wife was employed by a nonprofit. So what? Many congressional families are two-income households. They work for nonprofits, companies, lobbying firms, and the government. And I’m sure I haven’t exhausted the list of inferences of impropriety — which is all they are right now.

We don’t know where the Abramoff investigation will lead. Clearly the guy was (is) a class-A crook, as evidenced by his own confessions. He gave lots of money and perks to lots of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. And if any congressmen sold their offices, they should be prosecuted. I admit I haven’t undertaken a statistical analysis to determine which party may have received more largesse — although I am repeatedly informed by the media that this is a Republican scandal.

It’s more than notable that the plea agreements in this case say nothing about DeLay, while they do implicate another congressman. The purpose of such agreements is to set in concrete key details of the defendants’ criminal conduct for use down the prosecutorial road. But no such testimony respecting DeLay has been secured. None of the inferences of impropriety in the New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and so forth, have made their way into the plea agreements.

As I say, we certainly don’t know where all this will lead.

As for the politics of this, I personally am not comfortable with urging House Republicans to abandon DeLay as a leader (or urging DeLay to simply step aside) based on the information that’s publicly known, which, at this time, amounts only to innuendo. Yes, it’s possible that after reinstalling DeLay as majority leader (once the Ronnie Earle farce falls of its own weight), Abramoff-related events will create a legal or political scenario requiring DeLay to step down. But that’s nothing more than speculation.

There’s also the issue of loyalty — not blind loyalty, but loyalty in which the benefit of the doubt is afforded to someone who has been targeted and demonized repeatedly by his political opponents, who’ve been agitating for his downfall for years. And why do they detest DeLay? Well, despite what even some conservative critics have said, and some of it warranted, DeLay has been a remarkably effective leader. The truth is that most conservative legislative initiatives have originated in the House, where conservatives hold a very thin majority.

While the Left rallies around their leaders, we on the right are often too quick to abandon ours. No, we’re not Clinton sycophants. He was actually held in contempt for lying to a federal judge. And no, we’re not like the Left in that we tolerate virtually any transgression by our leaders in hopes of retaining or pursuing power. However, there are in fact times when principle and loyalty are one and the same. Based on what is known, I believe DeLay deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Mark’s right, now is the time for principled loyalty. Starting Monday, the Republicans in Congress are going to hear about it if they’re not!

Wednesday, Mark spoke with a few callers, including a call from Suzi & Hugh who told of their recent hospital visit to see Sgt. Eddie Ryan.

What a nice thing for them to do!

Wednesday, Mark had some advice for Democrats in the wake of the Abramoff scandal.

I thought Mark’s editorial should be written down for all those RSS blog feed aggregators to find! LOL! Here’s Mark’s advice to the Democrats:

Now some of my friends, including at National Review (and they are my friends), they recommend that Tom DeLay not seek again the house majority position because this thing could blow up and the party’s bigger than Tom DeLay.

I have a slightly different take. I think Harry Reid should resign as the Senate Democrat leader, because apparently he took sixty sum odd thousand dollars or his campaign did in exchange for favors. I mean let’s not be hypocrites in reverse. That is if the standard is that the allegation is significant enough that it can harm the party, well we want to look out for the Democrats the way we want to look out for the Republicans, don’t we? The fact is, this guy probably pulled a lot of people in with him of both parties. Now if there are 8 Republicans involved and 3 Democrats, if I were a Democrat I wouldn’t be running around saying “Culture of Corruption”. Corruption is corruption; however number of politicians are involved. And I have no quarter for these politicians. But, I do believe in applying the same standard to everybody, political and legal. So I say this, my own editorial right now tonight, Harry “the body” Reid, you need to step down as the Senate Democrat leader. And you know why. I’m not saying you committed a crime, but the appearance of impropriety is enough for me.

This just in, Mark Levin will also be heard on WJR in Detroit starting on January 9th. WJR is another massive 50,000 watt station where Mark will be heard on tape delay from 11 pm to 1 am. Mark is not officially syndicated yet. But that’s 4 of the top 10 stations, and the biggest talk stations in their cities!

Starting next Monday, January 9th, Mark’s show will be heard on the following stations:

Here’s a great interview I just discovered.

Mark was a guest on Bill Bennett’s show. - Dec 29, 2005

Hat Tip to The OX Rant!

Tuesday, Mark came back with a vengeance!

Do you have to be stupid to be a liberal? Well, it sure seems that way! LOL!

Just one more day, Levin Fanatics! Mark will be back on the air Tuesday night!

Sunday, Mark made some more comments regarding Andrew Sullivan’s view of the NSA leak on NRO’s The Corner.

NSA CONTINUED [Mark R. Levin]
I think Andrew Sullivan can now be dismissed as just another shrill voice. Fresh from regurgitating the leftist spin about American forces torturing detainees (and misusing report after report which he clearly had not read), he’s now doing the same with NSA intercepts of al-Qaeda communications. Has he read the Constitution? Has he read any of the relevant cases? Has he examined U.S. war-time history and the conduct of past presidents? Does it matter? I guess not.
Posted at 05:36 PM

The New York Daily News’ Mike Daly tells of a letter passed on from an Army Sergeant Major:

“I sat in on the daily briefing held here, in Baghdad. One of the features of the briefing is the Chaplain’s portion, where they stop to honor the Hero of the Day…. That particular day, the Hero was Lance Cpl. David Mendez Ruiz, a young Marine. I wrote it down so I wouldn’t forget it. He was the youngest of eight children, a naturalized citizen who had come to the United States from Guatemala at the age of 6. He waved goodbye to his family on the Fourth of July of this year for his second tour of duty in Iraq. He was killed in action 15 Nov. 05.

“Nowhere, except probably in his hometown and a handful of military periodicals, was his death brought to the attention of the American people. I was so furious after seeing the shameful national media spend days bemoaning the loss of a convicted killer of four when fine young men and women such as this are never even mentioned that it took me until now to write….”

(more…)