Saturday, September 24, 2011

Mark Levin mocks Professor Elizabeth Warren

On Thursday, Mark Levin had a segment in his last hour in which he demonstrated how to turn the tables on Marxists. If he sounds demagogic against the Left, remember that is his point. This is the Left's tactics, as they use it against businesses and taxpayers, but used on them instead.

The object of his efforts, which is what ours should be, is to try to get well-meaning liberals*, maybe only a handful at a time, to understand what monsters they've helped unleash on the world in their name. It is never too late to ask forgiveness and try to fix the damage that is a consequence of electing politicians who ignore and override the limitations in the U.S. Constitution to the power they wield.


At the very least, it may help get conservative moderates to understand why there is no real compromise with people who want to enslave them. Compromise simply means they'll enslave you piecemeal. (If I have said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The progress that "Progressives" have sought was accomplished by accumulating every niggling bit of power that they could beg, borrow, steal or wrest from individuals and vested it in their collective.)

There is another important point that Mr. Levin partially discusses about the Left's version of the social contract that connects it with the Left's hatred of humanity. If only I can keep from getting distracted and forgetting about it, I will make a separate post explaining it.

For now, read this transcript in an effort to learn from the tactic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*behind whose good intentions the Leftists and Statists hide their greed for power.


The times noted refer to positions in his 9/22/2011 podcast. [If the link ever goes dead, leave me a comment or, better, email a request and I'll try to send you a copy within fair use rules.]

[1:20:15] Now ladies and gentlemen, who thinks like this? Well, Obama and his friends. But rather than fight this totalitarianism, why don't we turn it on them?

Ms Warren is a professor at Harvard Law School. Harvard receives federal money through federal student loans and direct grants. I imagine those roads that lead up to Harvard -- we all pay for those, you know. So we all have an ownership interest in Ms Warren, don't we?

Because that's what she is talking about: the government has an ownership interest in you. I've explained this many times and I've written about it in Liberty and Tyranny.

You have a finite amount of time on this earth. We all know that. From the first day you're born you're gonna die -- one day. And you have a finite amount of time in which you are able to produce labor, in which you are able to produce wealth. Whether it is more intellectual than physical or both, but it really doesn't matter. So you work for a limited time on this earth. In order to take care of yourself and your family. The illegitimate siezure of your wealth -- whether it's you income or you property, what have you -- is enslavement. Because somebody is taking from you a piece of your life, a piece of the time you have on this earth. And if they do it illegitimately it's a form of enslavement. That's what the founders used to believe. That's what Americans used to believe.

What the good professor Warren has done is turn it on its head. She says YOU, you belong to the government. Ladies and Gentlemen: if they can take the fruits of your labor, and almost any amount of it, they're taking your life. They're taking who you are and what you do. They're taking your liberty. And she says it's all well and good; you owe it. Because there's a road in front of your house.

I don't want to get into all the specifics. I know how development works: how builders have to pay for the roads that lead to these communities that they build. I understand all that. That's not the point. Stick with the bigger point, the overarching point, which is what she's saying and thinking. But if this is the way it works then it works for us against them too, right?

So anybody who's on the government payroll, we own them. So we own Ms Warren. Now Ms Warren: you can keep a chunk of your teaching schedule. But I want a chunk of it. I want to teach your class fifty percent of the time. I'm paying for the roads leading to Harvard. I'm contributing to your salary, and to the buildings and to whatever the Hell goes on at Harvard Law, so I own a piece of you. I have a right to a piece of you. So does everybody in my audience.

And I would like to take over your class for a couple of months out of the semester. Well, a couple of weeks. The semester there is probably only a few months. Just for a couple of weeks. And let me teach it. For, after all, I subsidize you. Don't I? We subsidize the whole damn Ivy League School operation, don't we?

Oh, it doesn't work that way, oh! Well why not? Why shouldn't? Oh, and by the way Ms Warren, I bet I pay more federal income taxes than you have ever dreamed of paying. So I get a bigger chunk of you than you get a chunk of you. And while I'm at it, I want a piece of your salary. After all, but for me, and millions and millions others of us who pay federal income taxes, you wouldn't have a salary, would you Ms Warren?

Why is it that public institutions and people who work at public institutions are immune from the Warren approach to things? Only those of us in the private sector are subject to it. In fact those in the public sector should be subject to it far more because they receive direct benefits. We don't have to play around with a road in front of your house or a road in front of your factory. We're paying their salary, their pension, their health care benefits. So I want a chunk of her house while I'm at it. Why not? Anybody visiting the Harvard area, well, ask Ms Elizabeth Warren -- the genius that she is -- let her know that you want to stay at her house and you want some of her food. For after all, you're paying for some of it. Aren't you? I mean it is the radical egalitarian way, isn't it?

The scary thing ladies and gentlemen is that this woman is running for the United States Senate, she has a shot at winning, and she believes all this. I mock her. I turn it against her. And she's a Harvard Law professor. Does this sound like law to you? Or lawlessness? Well of course it's lawlessness.

Now let me explain something about the social compact [1:26:25].... [1:28:28]Professor Warren would oppose the American Revolution back in the day and support the French Revolution because she's a nut. [1:28:38]

1 comment: