Sean Hannity Should Not Throw Stones About Plagiarism

Conservative talk radio is at its best when it is clever, smart, informative and dressed with zesty helping of satire. That is why Rush Limbaugh is Public Enemy #1 to Statist-Marxist-Democrats. No one does it better. Mark Levin is a great legal mind who guts Leftist legal doctrine like Sarah Palin field dressing an elk. Neal Boortz, the Talkmaster, infuriates me at times with some of his social views, but he represents Libertarianism like no other. Sirius morning superstar Mike Church has an incredible grasp of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. In fact, Church's commentaries on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention along with other issues related to the Founding should be studied by the rest of the talk radio upper strata so that they might build a stronger foundation for their political ideology. Of course, I think at least one of the heavyweights does listen to Church, though only to steal gimmicks and not to educate himself.

Yesterday, Sean Hannity went on a long diatribe about the earth-shattering and inventive concepts that are present on his website and how the rest of talk radio copies his intellectual property. Of course, it was OK since he takes it as flattery. He went on...and on...and on. That, by the way, is his most noticeable trait: the beating of a dead horse.

As Hannity droned on about his superior and "original" ideas, my mind drifted back to the summer. Soon after President Obama (and other Democrat "leaders") referred to Conservatives as "an angry mob", Mike Church began asking his listeners to make up a mob name when they called in to the show. It was funny and the callers came up with some creative ideas. Several days later, out of the blue, Sean Hannity begins running the same bit. He was so proud of comedy invention, you would think Seano Marx had just created the "knock, knock" joke. Truth was, he was just stealing a bit from another talk show host. I guess Church is what Hannity and Levin refer to as one of the "back benchers." Note to Sean: Nancy Pelosi will wear a "What Would Reagan Do" t-shirt before Mike Church will need to steal show ideas from you.

Mark Levin also devolves into the attacks on other hosts and that is unfortunate. He has been less involved in that nonsense since the success of his marvelous book, "Liberty and Tyranny." Hopefully, he realizes that he just has to do his thing and listeners will know they are hearing a keen legal mind. He doesn't need to be in a mud fight with Michael Savage. Savage has his niche and Levin has his. While he still refers to the "back benchers" he usually makes a quick comment and moves on. Hopefully, Levin will realize his work stands on its merit and that jabs at other talk show hosts are useless diversions (unless the comments are about specific comments that don't advance the cause).

When Hannity starts tooting his own horn and attacking others, it can last hours (ok, it may only seem that long). Hannity's work with the Freedom Concerts deserves praise. He does champion Conservatism over Republicanism in most cases. His radio and TV presence give him a large audience. Why the anger? Look, Sean, do your thing and don't assume you invented every talk radio bit or website feature in the marketplace. It is obvious you are not above cannibalizing others' ideas. Let's remember, the enemies are Marxist Democrats and RINO's, not competing talk show hosts.

Michael Moore, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Big Media

Recent events have provided more evidence to disprove one of the sacred myths of the American Left: namely, the oft-recited mantra of how Fox News is simply an arm of the Republican Party unlike the "real journalists" in the so-called mainstream media (Big Media).

Last week, Sean Hannity invited "documentary" (wink, wink) director Michael Moore on his Fox show. Hannity gave Moore nearly an hour of air time. More people saw the Leni Riefenstahl of the American Left that night that will buy tickets to watch his latest half-baked propaganda piece. Moore was able to spew his non-sequitors and lies about capitalism (which he clearly could not define) and explain his goofy point-of-view.

Meanwhile, constitutional scholar and talk radio host Mark Levin wrote a book last spring, Liberty and Tyranny, that spent 13 weeks atop the New York Times best-seller list and has remained in the top ten for most of six months. Levin's book has sold over a million copies, which is extremely rare for political non-fiction. The Old Gray Lady provided only a short, half-hearted review of the book. None of the major networks gave one second of coverage to the 13-week number one book on a news program, news magazine show, or morning gab fest.

You see, whereas Hannity was willing to debate Moore and his kooky Leftist ideology, Big Media knows that they cannot intellectually refute the rock solid arguments made by Mark Levin in Liberty and Tyranny. Levin is not some slob with outlandish pronouncements. He is a clear communicator who has written the best explanation of Conservatism in recent memory. So, despite the incredible success of Levin and his book, Big Media has chosen to pretend Liberty and Tyranny does not exist.

The moral of the story is quite simple. Conservatives know their ideas and their foundations are solid and they can defend them against wacky Leftists. Statist Moonbats realize they only way their anti-liberty, anti-American ideologies can appear plausible is to prevent side-by-side comparisons at all costs. I'm still hoping someone in Big Media will grow a pair and belatedly bring Levin on to discuss his book. That will be "must see TV."

I Would Pay To See Chris Matthews Debate Mark Levin

MSNBC's signature Leftist Chris Matthews seems to have a problem with the fact Conservatives are literate and actually buy books that inspire critical thought and expose that which Big Media chooses to ignore. News Busters reports on Matthews' complaints about the "right wing crap" on the best seller list. Sounds like sour grapes, as Leftist books normally do not approach best-seller status. Of course, much of their constituency is illiterate or more likely to watch "Entertainment Tonight" than read a book.

Rather than dismiss books by folks like Mark Levin, Bill O'Reilly, or Michelle Malkin as "crap," why doesn't Chrissy bring them on his low-rated cable access program and dismantle their assertions? Since he is obviously their intellectual superior, he should bring them on "Hardball" and embarrass them. It is time for Chris Matthews to assert his domination over these Conservative thinkers.

The solution is simple: Chris Matthews should invite Mark Levin to participate in a one-hour debate during "Hardball." This will allow Matthews an opportunity to refute Levin's ideas in "Liberty and Tyranny" (and maybe even "Men in Black," since I'm sure the intellectual giant Chrissy would make short work of Levin). In addition, for one night MSNBC might actually draw a respectable audience.

How about it, Chrissy Matthews? After you demonstrate the power of Leftist ideology in squashing Conservative principles, the "right wing crap" will hold less interest. Come on, Tiger! Go get 'em!

Mark Levin Butchers History Of The South And The Constitution

I love Mark Levin and his books have been important contributions to the Conservative movement. However, he got on a rant at the end of his show today that demonstrates the limits of a Yankee education. I've heard him tell his version of the North/South issues of antebellum American, so it wasn't a big shock. The misunderstanding of early American history is a big problem when it comes to truly understanding how and why our liberties are under attack now. Conventional Conservatives typically start with FDR and work forward through the Great Society and the impact of educational and media indoctrination over the last half century. Occassionally, they will venture back to Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, though they are careful to uphold Theodore Roosvelt as a paragon of liberty even though we may well have been more of a Statist than Wilson.

Levin was on a slavery, the South and "Civil War" kick for some reason. I'll admit, I missed out on what led into the rant, but what I heard was a severe lack of historical depth. First, he was talking about how a clause to end the slave trade in twenty years was placed in the Constitution to appease the South. In fact, every Southern state except South Carolina outlawed the importation of slaves prior to 1808. When Congress passed a law to place a federal ban on slave importation in 1808, there were representatives from four states in opposition: South Carolina, Virginia, Vermont and New Hampshire (FYI, the last two are not in the South).

From there he jumped to how the North went to war to end slavery. Oh my. First, let me suggest what I believe is the best book on the subject: "When In The Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams. The refusal by so many to accept that there were any burning issues in antebellum America other than slavery is detrimental to our understanding of the earliest attacks on the Constitution.

Conservatives fall into a trap with the focus on slavery in that historical discussion. The other issue, and the one which had a bigger impact on secession, was the federal government's tariff policy. The tariff was the primary revenue source for the central government. The Whig party, and then the Republican party, favored a tariff system that favored manufacturing states at the expense of agricultural exporting states. Southern states argued that the tariff laws violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now, by chance, the lineups are essentially the same. The anti-slavery states were also the pro-tariff states as they paid little in tariffs and reaped the benefits of road, canal, and eventually railroad construction grants from the federal government. The slave states opposed the protective tariffs because they paid the lion's share while receiving few direct benefits. In other words, the Whigs and Republicans were practicing the same kind of income redistribution that Leftist Democrats do today. Obviously, their abuse paled in extent to what we see today, but it was an unchecked usurpation that eroded federalism and helped feed Leviathan.

I think Conservatives are afraid of this issue, but to understand how we have gotten to this point it is vital to understand that liberty has been under attack and the State has been on the advance since the ink on the Constitution was barely dry. It is a tremendous irony that a war that did result in the ending of slavery (although that was an afterthought and not a primary purpose) also greatly advanced the war on federalism and the growth of central power. There is no denying this fact.

Being historically correct is not a defense of slavery. It was an immoral institution. However, slavery's immorality should not be used to shroud the violence done to the Constitution and federalism by the Whigs/Republicans of that time (including Saint Abraham). Check out the words of French economic philosopher Frederic Bastiat in 1850:

Look at the United States There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But, even in the United States, there are two issues, and only two, that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two questions? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

The one evil was eradicated from the United States. The other, the primary reason for the War of the Rebellion, was vindicated with the Union victory. The non-slaveowners are uncritically considered the heroes of the episode even though they did great violence to the Constitution. As Bastiat said, there were two pervasive evils. It is time we finally defeat the other one, which is unlawful plunder of man's property for redistribution by the state. An important step is admitting the genesis of the problem as we strike at the roots.