Skip to comments.Mark Levin Threatens To Campaign Against Rand Paul If Ron Paul Runs Third Party (AUDIO)
Posted on 01/02/2012 3:57:01 PM PST by i88schwartz
click here to read article
Pipe down you blow hard!!!
I wish Ron would just let Rand take his place on the current ballot. He’d have my vote right now. That said, I am with Levin here. If Ron Paul did go 3rd party, it would be devastating and guarantee an Obama 2nd term. Anyone associated with it should be shunned.
I always liked Rand Paul, but then I heard him bashing Newt as a Progressive on Fox and he said his father can get the independents. His father who believes we caused 9-11. Who believes Iran should have a nuke and many more extreme, kooky and dangerous things. If he can bash Newt, he needs to ask himself how he can support his father because I see a lot more to fear in a Ron Paul candidate myself. No wonder Mark Levin is saying what he is. I also believe Mark Levin has been hearing some rumblings behind the scenes that we have not. He said a few weeks ago that he will trash ANYONE who goes third party. I have heard a certain pundant saying they would vote Ron Paul 3rd party over Newt. Hmmmmmmmmm
So who isn't a "fraud" to your way of thinking? Is William Rawle (A View of the Constitution of the United States -1829) a fraud too? The whole NBC thing is hardly as clear cut as some would like to think.
It is quite clear (to me anyway) that the Birth Certificate images released by Obama are fraudulent but radio guys like Levin and Rush may not always be able to speak freely on every topic. (Rush was almost destroyed for briefly speaking freely about Vince Foster, and resorts to innuendo now about such dangerous topics.)
Thanks for that bit of info. A loud bell went off in my head when he trashed Newt on tv a few weeks ago and said to vote for his kook father on Fox. I am aware it is his Dad but a true tea party person would not support such extreme views such as what Ron Paul has. You only confirm what I thought when I heard him.
Can u say Pat Dewine Redue.
I am sure most posters here remember Mike Dewine’s, a senator from Ohio son, Pat ran for a House seat. All the
GOP establishment supported Pat for the seat. And Pat had
5x the money any other candidate had.
The only problem was Mike, his father, was part of the 14
Gangsters that clogged up the senate, during the short senate
majority the GOP held.
Due to the liberal sins of Mike Dewine, Pat came in 4th
place in the GOP Primary. I suggest Rand Paul have a talk
with his father.
Progressives are pro-big government. Newt contributed to the growth of big government. Therefore, it’s fair to call Newt a progressive.
The real problem is this, there are almost as many big government so-called “conservatives” as there are big government “liberals.” Conservatives just want their type of big government. Remember Medicare Part D (Santorum voted for it, Newt lobbied for it, undoubtedly, Mitt would have supported it). That extra-constitutional legislation was passed by a republican House, Senate and signed by a republican president. Hmmm...exactly where in the Constitution does Congress or the president find the authority to pass Medicare Part D? Crickets.
Every one of the candidates including Obama will raise their hand to uphold and defend the Constitution and then immediately violate it with their policies they’re promoting. And you trust these people? Hmmm, how strange.
Didn’t know TGO was live tonight.
When did Ron Paul say he has ruled it out? When has he categorically denied he would ever do it? Right now there are enough people stroking his ego and eccentricity to get him to do just about anything.
As for Trump, he has always been Obama’s card to play. Trump is a tool.
Your right Levin is powerless, but for what it’s worth he use his mic to oppose the Pauls if pappy goes rogue.
The real Tea Party helped get Rand elected and Palin helped with her endorsement.
In closing, Levin is a coward.
Give up VicVega, there are way too many Levinites here tonight. They believe him to be “the great one” because he bullies people and pontificate about his supposed allegiance to the Constitution and his listening audience buys it...and his books; all the while making him a millionaire off misinformation.
Like someone earlier wrote, Rand Paul was one of only 7 (SEVEN) US Senators (I think) to vote against the NDAA. Again, a Paul standing up for liberty and what do the likes of Levin do...threaten him. Thanks goodness his audience isn’t that big. It will have zero effect in KY.
Screw Mark Levin for this kind of crap!!! Threatening family is the sh*t that the Rat party does . The GOP needs to decide just what in HELL they stand for & advocate for it . Right now the Rat party can be summed up in three words & they are:SOCIALISM,SODOMY & SLAVERY! The GOP can be summed up in three words also & they are :SUCKING DONKEY DICK.
For opposing Ron Paul?
Seems to me that makes him a patriot -- something that Ron Paul is not.
LOL. You know that kool-aid the Levin fans drink has to taste like *%#P.
So as far as you are concerned anything for the cause ? Nothing is beyond the off limits if it harms your political opponents or their families? My advise is be very careful what you wish for because you just might get it good & hard.
Has zero to do with RP. Patriot? Really? LOL How many times has McCain and the rest of the lame leaders on the republican side been called that? So many you can’t even count. Time for some real patriots and leaders to step up. Our Party better wake the heck up. Not sure if it wants to.
I think whoever wins the GOP primary should imediately call all the others in and announce that there were many good ideas proposed, he values their input, and that they will help form a team of ‘advisors’ to help defeat Obama
“...there are way too many Levinites here tonight. They believe him to be the great one because he bullies people and pontificate about his supposed allegiance to the Constitution and his listening audience buys it...”
True, but people can listen to, and enjoy, a variety of talk radio hosts without buying into their game so far that they are duped. For example, I heard Levin’s bizarre threats to Rand Paul, saw this thread, and finally figured out what was going on after reading another thread on this forum regarding Rand Paul’s calling ex-senator Santorum on his record including Santorum’s support for no-child-left-behind, Medicare Part D, fiscal irresponsibility, and it suddenly made sense. Santorum is Levin’s boy, a fellow-Philadelphia lawyer and Rand had said the truth. Levin harbors a desire for a big Iowa surprise for Santorum, and is afraid Rand Paul’s credibility as a Tea-party fiscal conservative might interfere with that dream.
Too bad Levin felt compelled to go all gangsta tonight.
Does it make sense to campaign against anybody in the Senate who endorses Mitt Romney? If Levin's logic was followed half of us would be campaigning for Democrats in the next Senate election, and that would be just plain crazy.
Regardless of what we all think of Ron Paul we need every conservative we can get in the Senate and the House. They may be the only thing holding Obama or Romney back.
Reading my post again are ya :-)...
Yes, Pro legal Pot Stoners, Anti-War-er's, Isolationist and now Anti Semites.
Sounds like the Obamatons.
BTW It will be a double wammy around the margins when Nader steps in a skims some more cream off the top for Obama...
I still say by the time Nov rolls around it will be a 5 person race if not 6...
Spot on assessment ngat. Though I really wish those who listen to Levin defend the Incorporation Doctrine - which by the way has all but gutted the purpose of the Bill of Rights - would actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights before slamming Rand Paul just because Levin says so.
Not by me.
No. But it does make sense to campaign against anybody in the Senate who backs Ron Paul -- if he chooses to run 3rd party.
If you’re calling Levin one, than yeah...
I generally agree with Mark about 99% of the time but not on this. Why punish the son for the sins of the father?
I’m with you Mark!
Yeah, let’s run down the road.
Yeah, let’s run him down the road.
Grow up, Rand Pauls gone all in on his nutty fathers campaign to damage US foreign policy calling Santorum a war monger. I’ll be backing Levin 100%.
Listening to tonight’s show, all I could think was Levin should have taken another day’s vacation. The whole show was pretty horrible. Maybe it’ll be better tomorrow.
I don't think anybody on this thread wants to punish Rand for the sins of Ron.
So here's a distinction you may have missed:
If Rand should support ANY third-party candidate, father or not, that action would be a mortal sin -- something that might contribute to re-election of the TØTUS, and something that should be condemned to high Heaven by all who want a speedy end to the era of Øbamanation. In other words, Rand ought to be punished only for his OWN sins, if indeed he eventually commits same.
(But if Rand doesn't support a third-party candidate, then he will be more-or-less clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.)
Santorum is a War Monger. “His words not mine”
Mark Levin is a whiney blowhard.
Sadly, I will league with Mark.
Ron’s a good guy but....
Hold on now, indeed!
RP avoided answering and finally said NO!
(This video must be archived some where..)
There was only one definition of natural born Citizen at the time the Constitution was written, and that was found in Vattel's Law of Nations.
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines Natural Born Citizen in 1789 forty years before the leftist Pennsylvanian Quaker and abolitionist William Rawles opined on the subject.
Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!
I tried listening to Levin’s podcast several months ago.
After several weeks I unsubscribed. It had become obvious that Levin was a GOP shill and, perhaps, mentally ill.
While I might agree with you that the Vattel concept was what the Framers had in mind, you are either dreaming or ignorant of the other usage examples including ones in England and in the Colonies. Any court could reasonably decide this issue however they wanted to decide it.
Again, the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution.
Natural-born is something we refer to in the English language as an adjective. It has meaning apart from the noun it modifies. You could better make your argument by making reference to the phrase: natural-born athlete, and consider that it refers to something about a person's blood or genes and not that he was born in Yankee Stadium. But you would rather make your one-sided arguments and not consider the merits of arguments opposed to your view. I suppose that is your right, but it isn't helpful.
>> the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution <<
You may be correct. But in any case, your point is not relevant because the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) allows the Congress to change the definition of who is a citizen at birth, versus who must be “naturalized” to become a citizen.
Mark Levin Denounces Smear Attacks On Newt Gingrich
I have to tell you that Im looking at these attacks on Newt Gingrich, as an example, and Im very troubled by them. They go beyond substantive and intellectual analysis of the mans record, into attacking what people are claiming are some kind of psychosis and so forth, really smearing the guy. Really smearing the guy. OK?
Ive said it before and I want to say it again. Every single one of our candidates is head and shoulders over Obama. Every single one of them loves this country, loves the Constitution, loves our economic system. Theyre imperfect in many ways in their personal lives, some more than others, and in their policy positions over the decades, absolutely.
But I do know this! Not one of them is a Marxist. Not one of them seeks the destruction of the private sector. Not one of them seeks to massively increase the central government.
Now I have strong disagreements with several of them. But I do not believe that when we are eleven months away from the most important election in my lifetime, where Newt Gingrich may well be the nominee and Im making no predictions that all the trashing and attacking and opposition research thats being used, not to challenge his positions, but to character assassinate him, to absolutely destroy him.
Im not joining in on that! As a matter of fact, Im denouncing it!
Because if he is our nominee, I intend to fight with 100% of my energy to get that man elected, good, bad, and indifferent!
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the acquisition of citizenship and nationality by somebody who was not a citizen of that country at the time of birth.
As you can see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 has NOTHING to do with natural born Citizenship.
>> As you can see, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 has NOTHING to do with natural born Citizenship. <<
Wow! A new type of logic! Thanks!!!
My guess is something like the above was said to Sara too.