Tom Woods vs. Mark Levin

I’ve linked to this page from two separate videos now, so you may encounter more here than the video you watched led you to expect.

First, my exchange with Levin on presidential war powers. He refused to link to my replies. I’m happy to link to his. Here’s the whole exchange:

Levin’s original comments on radio, transcribed;
My blog post in response;
His reply;
My challenge;
His alleged reply to my challenge;
My summary and conclusion (“How I Sent Mark Levin Home Crying”).

See also my lengthy Q&A-style essay “The Phony Case for Presidential War Powers.”

For a great deal more on presidential war powers and the Constitution, see the website of Louis Fisher, among the country’s foremost experts on the subject.

Second, foreign policy. Levin and his friend Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator claim Ron Paul’s noninterventionist foreign policy makes him a left-liberal [!]. This is completely false.

Here’s my refutation of this claim:

Lord tried responding to this. That was a mistake. I came back with this article.

Here are some other relevant pieces of mine:

Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder? Russell Kirk on Militarism
Come Home, Conservatives — To the Antiwar Conservative Movement
The Conservative Case Against the War: A Review
No Patronizing, No Sloganeering

I also recommend Bill Kauffman’s Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle American Anti-Imperialism.

Daniel P. McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative magazine, gives a good overview of the correct conservative foreign policy in this extended interview (part one deals primarily with domestic issues):

Here’s my interview with Iowa conservative Steve Deace, who asked me about Ron Paul’s foreign policy:

On Israel, Dr. Paul writes in his #1 New York Times bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto:

“How does Israel, with which the United States has long enjoyed a special relationship, fit into this picture? I see no reason that our friendship with Israel cannot continue. I favor extending to Israel the same honest friendship that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers urged us to offer to all nations. But that also means no special privileges like foreign aid — a position I maintain vis-a-vis all other countries as well. That means I also favor discontinuing foreign aid to governments that are actual or potential enemies of Israel, which taken together receive much more American aid than Israel does. Giving aid to both sides has understandably made many average Israelis and American Jews conclude that the American government is hypocritically hedging its bets.

“I oppose all foreign aid on principle, for reasons I detail in a later chapter. Foreign aid is not only immoral, since it involves the forced transfer of wealth, but it is also counterproductive, as a ceaseless stream of scholarship continues to show. Foreign aid has been a disaster in Africa, delaying sound economic reforms and encouraging wastefulness and statism. We should not wish it on our worst enemy, much less a friend. Moreover, since the aid has to be spent on products made by American corporations, it is really just a form of corporate welfare, which I can never support.

“Only those with a very superficial attachment to Israel can really be happy that she continues to rely on over $2 billion in American aid every year. In the absence of such grants, Israel would at last be under pressure to adopt a freer economy, thereby bringing about greater prosperity for her people and making it easier for her to be self-reliant. Foreign aid only inhibits salutary reforms like this, reforms that any true friend of Israel is eager to see. As a matter of fact, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Jerusalem argues that ‘foreign aid is the greatest obstacle to economic freedom in Israel.’ It is an open secret that Israel’s military industry is inefficient and top-heavy with bureaucracy, shortcomings that consistent American aid obviously encourages. Why make difficult adjustments when billions in aid can be counted on regardless of what you do?

“Our government has also done Israel a disservice by effectively infringing on her sovereignty. Israel seeks American approval for military action she deems necessary, she consults with America on matters pertaining to her own borders, and she even seeks American approval for peace talks with her neighbors…. This needs to stop. And with an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons, Israel is more than capable of deterring or repelling any enemy. She should once again be in charge of her own destiny.”

Note also this article in Arutz Sheva, the media voice of the “settler” movement, in favor of Ron Paul.

And note this article about all the Israeli voices who favor an end to foreign aid.

I myself supported the Persian Gulf War of 1991 and other military interventions in the Middle East at one time. Here’s a little bit about what changed my mind, from a speech I gave in Los Angeles in May 2011. (The whole speech, which has had over 30,000 views, is here; below is the last — and most relevant — part of the speech that someone made into a separate video.)

Crownos

Perhaps you are waking up? Levin Has an AGENDA.
Crownos

WOW!!!!!!!! Barnz 78 I was the same 3 years ago. Waking up! Yes, a fact and a most fitting word. It’s so hard to tell the neo-cons that they are just as strung along as their socialists counterpart if not one and the same. Hard to tell these days Dems and Rep. both NEED wars, so that the International Banksters / Fed Reserve, can in the end kill our currency and strip us of sovereignty. Its Ron Paul or I don’t want to think where we will be. I would urge people to read G.Edward Griffin’s “The Creature From Jekyll Island”.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

The initial Mark Levin comments can be listened to on You Tube at:

http://youtu.be/oua3ueP7oUI
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

I respectfully disagree with the description of “great scholar” attributed to Mark Levin. While it is true Mark Levin has substantial “credentials” and written many books, he always takes a position of infallibility to himself.

Anyone who disagrees, or has an alternative perspective, Mark Levin attacks, demeans, defames.

Mark Levin is a loud, obnoxious person who makes his points by shouting down and drowning out any debate. He doesn’t debate EVER the facts in a civil manner.

Anyone who takes an absolute position of infallibility and of ultra elite intellect beyond everyone and anyone else (“the great one” need I say more)…is not a scholar, they are an ego maniac.

Mark Levin decries liberal academic institutions because they lack balance and objective demeanor is guilty of the exact same thing.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Agreed.

Levin “justifies” whatever he personally subscribes to, either through “precedent” or his own take on the Constitution.

He does not hold the Constitution inviolate…he uses the Constitution for agenda.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Anyone who is civil, and has listened to Levin for any period of time soon tires of his loud, condescending, shouting, angry, elitism.

I cannot stand listening to such a ego maniac.

And BTW, “credentials” alone do not create anything. After all Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

I too allowed the likes of Levin to “drown out” any real debate and factual dialogue on the Constitution and bottom line truth.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Levin NEVER debates. Anyone who speaks to him who does not agree with him…he shouts them down, cuts off their microphone, calls them stupid liberals and traitors…then cancels their call.

Then he will defame that person for a period of time, uncontested….monologue.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

The incredible thing is: this is representative of 90% of Levin, not just in this one instance.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Karl “Red Face” Levin
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Scholars continue to be open to learn…Levin has never been open to anything. He considers himself the absolute source of all intellect and knowledge, wisdom and believes he alone is “the great one.”
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Agreed. The evidence goes beyond merely the act of “declaring war” but also is supported by who controls all funding, revenue, taxation and passing laws that would lead to a draft (raising an army.)

The POTUS is the Commander, not the King nor the Legislator.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

I disagree. No “person” is perfect nor does any person deserve to be considered the standard.

The Constitution was a forged compromise of the founders. Each would have altered or done various things differently in their own right.

The Constitution must speak for itself based upon it’s language, it context of when written and the debate that took place during its creation.

Post Constitution precedents cannot be considered inviolate. For any mistake, over step or reach thus becomes the precedent and redefines the Constitution.

We must always be open to the concept that mistakes in carrying out the Constitution have had errors.

You can look to slavery and civil rights to determine whether we can rely upon technical precedents to “justify” current agendas.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

Amen!

The men individually are not the Constitution. The work product created, the sum, was greater than it’s parts.

We can look to examples, and the debate for explanation. But we cannot use precedent alone in post ratification to redefine the Constitution. Otherwise the Constitution was and is doomed to become something completely different that it was intended and written, as it is manipulated by technicalities and erroneous precedents.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

What? You believe that Levin can make statements, allegations and ascribe certain issues WITHOUT citing any evidence to support his position?

So this means you subscribe to the doctrine of justification, and the politics of expediency?

I agree with Tom Woods. No person can take a position of knowledge on a historical subject without historical context and evidence. Otherwise that is the quinessential definition of PROPAGANDA.
http://www.facebook.com/nibarger John Nibarger

We HONOR the founding fathers, but we follow and defend the Constitution. We can look to the debate during ratification for context, but we cannot myopically use a single founding father as the end all.

The Constitutional work product was the SUM of the many parts, greater in sum than the parts.
Jlgwhiz

This is counterproductive and frankly does our conservative movement a disservice. Two men who emulate and promote the conservative agenda in their own right according to their own unique talents and personal career paths should not be crossing swords but supporting each other by attacking the progressive agenda and their mouth pieces. All of you who sit on the sidelines spectating as if watching a prize fight between two top contenders need to spend your energy supporting your local groups and staying engaged in the fight against the liberals. We can ill afford such infighting at a time such as this and denigrating one of the few conservative media patriots like Mark Levin in a media wilderness dominated by liberal goons is giving aid to enemy and weakens our cause of liberty.
http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

Then you should urge Levin to stop acting like a child. That is FAR worse than anything said on this site.
http://www.recordpricebreakout.com thetradedetective

So how about actually reading Levin’s books… Which philosopher do you want him to quote, because he can. It’s like asking a neurosurgeon to quote his sources on brain surgery. Get it?