Mark Levin, if you don’t already know, is an extraordinary conservative commentator and constitutional lawyer and has served as a top advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet – including as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General of the United States (per his About page). In other words, the guy has a brain a yard and a half wide, so you might wanna listen to what he says. I’m looking forward to getting his latest book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, which I just ordered from Amazon. Yes, I know, I’m a bit slow on the uptake here, but I’ve always got about six to eight books open at once and had to finish out most of them in order to ‘clear the deck’ for this one.
In the meantime, the following bozos have vowed to vote against keeping health care for only citizens and forcovering everyone inside our borders, no matter what their status!
Don’t want government run health care?
Call 202-225-3121 and tell the 7 Blue Dogs on Energy and Commerce to vote NO.
Reps. John Barrow (D-Ga.)
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Baron Hill (D-Ind.)
Jim Matheson (D-Utah)
Charlie Melancon (D-La.)
Mike Ross (D-Ark)
Zack Space (D-Ohio)
Mark Levin is fundamentally a fire-breathing moron. Aside from that he’s an advocate of aristocracy. In his interview with Sean Hannity, he states that conservatives are the beneficiaries of thousands of years of human experience. He then refers to Obama and others as relying on philosophies a couple of hundred years old. That’s interesting considering that aside from the Ancient Greeks, Democracy as we know it is only as old as this country itself…approximately 218 years old. Those philosophies that preceded it were aristocratic, authoritarian, or theocratic. They were not democratic. They were exactly the philosophies that our founders rejected.
Yesterday while in my car, Mr. Levin cited Frederich Hayek to illustrate a point to his doting audience as an authority figure to back up his tirade of the moment. (Conservatives love authority figures) The problem is that Hayek was not a conservative. In fact he wrote an essay titled “Why I am not a Conservative”. Apparently Levin hasn’t read it or if he has, he figures that you won’t. So he’s citing as an authority, a person that totally rejects his views.
Judging from your resume’, I’m not likely to change your mind about anything. You are a “true believer”. Conservatism fits the personality of the true believer very neatly. Russell Kirk defined modern conservatism in 1953 with “The six canons of conservatism.” Now Levin has written a “Conservative Manifesto”. What you have here is a dogmatic adherence to a belief system. Levin is quick to call the president an “ideologue”, and this comes from a man that writes a manisfesto for conservatism? How dogmatically ideological is that?
You state this: “So my advice is to open your eyes to see what’s happening around you outside of your little world”.
My advice to you (and this is coming from somebody old enough to be your father) is to recognize that believing in something doesn’t make it true. Especially when it’s a fallalble idea coming from a fallable human being. Unless of course you think that Mr.Levin and conservatism are in fact…infallable. As an educated person you might ask yourself, “is it possible that I could be wrong”? If it isn’t possible for you to be wrong, then how can you be right? If you can’t entertain that as a possibility, then you’re simply preaching a belief, which can’t be demonstrated as being true. One would hope that the truth is more important than any belief.
Looking for things that support your beliefs won’t make them true. That’s inductive reasoning. If you really are looking for the truth, then look for the things that would render those beliefs as false. If you won’t challenge your own beliefs whether they’re Biblical, or political, how will you ever know if those beliefs are actually true?
I’ll leave you with this from Albert Einstein: “All the experiments that man can come up with won’t prove my theories to be true. One experiment can prove them to be false.”
Overarching advice to Mr. Brown is ‘heal thyself’. Based on a review of his website when it comes to worshipping false idols I can only imagine Mr. Brown has a drawer full of Che Guevara t-shirts (which I’m sure were manufactured in a third world sweatshop).
For someone who presents himself as so cock-sure about conservatism, of which Mr. Brown has no apparent literate background, it is startling to see how he preaches against a ‘true believer’ mentality. He seems to be a ‘true believer’ against conservatism, but he has no understanding of conservatism whatsoever. However, based on Mr. Brown’s website, he has imbedded himself as a ‘true believer’ in the socialist ideology of the left and it’s new leader, President Obama. Ah, Mr. Brown, we despise what we are, don’t we?
Are Mr. Brown’s points the quintessence of hypocrisy? Or are they representative of a poor soul who struggles against the fact that his historically-proven failed socialist ideologies have infected his DNA to the extent that he is crazed with scorn (since he is unable to change his belief system) when faced with conservatism, an historically proven tradition of principles beliefs and values that are the bedrock of America.
His scathing attacks on conservatism and it’s principles, Russell Kirk, F.A. Hayek’s views on conservatism and direct attacks on Mark Levin’s conservative beliefs clearly indicate a lack of any understanding of conservatism, Kirk and Hayek. What they do display is the same old, same old patented ignorant and lemming –like socialist/democratic party talking point notations.
Cicero, Burke, Bobbitt, Disraeli, John and Samuel Adams, Jefferson, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis. One could go on and on, but Mr. Brown take a page from your own advice of “believing in something doesn't make it true” given your socialist belief system and read Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind” and open your mind son.
While I have you in the mood please actually read Kirk’s 10 principles, which started out as 6 and you will see how Kirk states, “The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.” Yes, son, conservatism is NOT an ideology, but a set of sentiments and Kirk was very resistant to memorialize these canons with the fear that people such as yourself, who are mesmerized by ideology and need ‘steps’ to be provided to them by their idols, i.e., Obama, Lenin, Castro, Hitler, etc., would attempt to characterize conservatism as an ideology. By the mere fact that Kirk increased the principles (not ideologies) from 6 to 10 supports the fact that conservatism is an open-minded view of the world.
You see Mr. Brown, conservatism respects, venerates and learns from the vast history of tradition, versus your socialist ideology of close minded, impulse, short-sightedness, secular, power hungry central planners who, in their ‘infinite wisdom’, choose winners and losers, which has been representative of the downfall of once great societies. Your socialism is based on the favor of the moment ideology driven by your flavor of the moment leaders.
BTW Mr. Brown, Hayek characterized himself as an “old Whig”. Well Mr. Brown another reading assignment for you on the history of Edmund Burke, the most famous and original ‘old Whig’ and the father of conservative thought.
Son, since I seriously doubt you will take the time to be conversant and understand the subject you revile I will make this easy for you since reading may not be your wheelhouse—the watchword specifically for you is PRUDENCE; LEARN IT. Maybe then even you and will open your mind to truly understand the body of sentiments we call conservatism.
My recent post PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CHANGE RESULTS