690 of 841 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (Hardcover)
This book is perfect for the individual who has always "felt" conservative, but couldn't quite explain herself. Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" begins with an excellent overview of where our country is as a constitutional republic and how we got here. He then states clearly his book's theme and rallying cry -- Conservatives must know the philosophical foundations for the principles they purport to advance in order to defend liberty from the "soft tyranny" of modern liberalism.
Levin goes on meticulously (many more than 300 endnotes), but plainly explaining the principles of classic conservative philosophy of "prudent" progress, a government that is subservient to the people (rather than the other way around), the fundamental truth that rights are not derived from the government but from a higher power, that the free market system more than any other in history provides the best, most efficient and most just opportunity for individual prosperity as well as for the general welfare, and much much more.
Levin's book provides ample evidence of government encroachment on individual liberty and our country's descent into the soft tyranny warned of by Alexis de Tocqueville in our country's earliest years. Economic regulation, environmental extremism, the usurpation of representative government by the judiciary, unprecedented and uncontrolled illegal influx of people into out country, and the like threaten our economic viability. Finally, Levin's book details how the liberal (and some so-called conservative) political elite rejects the notion of American Exceptionalism and seek to surrender voluntarily the sovereignty our forefathers fought and died to give and to preserve for us.
This is a must read for those who wish to understand, defend and advance Conservatism
Tracked by 4 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 29 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 24, 2009 11:21:44 AM PDT
Repeat it as often as you like, but I don't know any conservatives who think Levin is a "conservative." He is a neocon. He is loyal to Israel. He wants to bankrupt the country fighting wars for Israel and giving Israel money. His views are antithetical to what this nation is about.
Posted on Mar 24, 2009 4:00:34 PM PDT
So, tell us, does F. Lee Levin identify the Trotskyite traitors (neo-cons) within the Republican party, or does he only have his sites set upon obvious liberals (excuse me, statists) in the Democrat party? Based upon his blind devotion to our undeclared interventionist war, which is the result of our big government managed interventionist foreign policy and interventionist management of other governments, Levin, though overall conservative, is not consistently conservative enough to write a "conservative manifesto." It is inconsistent to oppose government interventionism in all other facets of society (social/domestic) programs, but "cheer foreign entanglements."
Does Levin recognize that the cozy relationship between corporate elites and D.C. is less like capitalism and more like economic fascism? He sure hasn't given any hint of this observation from behind his acerbic microphone. Even with the current bailout fiasco begun by fascist George W. Bush, it is only Glenn Beck who has come close to identifying the incestuous relationship between politicians and corporate lobbyists, but even he seems hesitant to call it what it is - fascism. Everyone seems to recognize that money influences politics, but not a single conservative talk show host, including Levin, has made the connection that corporate execs have gotten exactly the policy they bought.
Until Levin identifies the big government cancer within the Republican party, the usurpation of the individual's constitutional representation by corporate money interests facilitated by Trotskyite neo-cons, William F. Buckley - Pied Piper for the Establishment by John F. McManus is the de facto conservative manifesto.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2009 2:16:49 PM PDT
Deckard, why are you so obsessed with putting a label on everyone? Why don't you listen to the actual message that he is trying to say? That explains why so many supported Obama back in November. Get past the package and listen to the contents.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2009 9:46:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2009 9:48:08 AM PDT
OK, I will tell you, Mr or Ms. delquattro -- yes, he does. Frequently.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2009 5:50:06 AM PDT
Erica L. Howard says:
Thanks for the review, Charlie. I can tell that you actually read the book, unlike the astroturfers here bashing it.
Posted on Apr 14, 2009 4:57:28 PM PDT
V. Do says:
Great review! you took the words right out of my mouth when you wrote "This book is perfect for the individual who has always "felt" conservative, but couldn't quite explain herself."
Posted on Apr 24, 2009 10:53:24 PM PDT
Gene Garman says:
Excuse me, but the government of the United States is subservient to its Constitution, not to the people, and the government's and the people's fundamental rights are derived from the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land," which means there is no "higher power." Strict constructionist conservatives uphold and defend the Constitution, as written, which means, "higher power" types are liberal revisionists, not strict constructionist conservatives. It is the principles of the Constitution which make the USA great, not the principles promoted by Mark Levin.
The Constitution commands: "religion" is not be be established by law or Congress (First Amendment) and there is to be "no religious test" for public office (Art. 6). Which of those commandments are not clearly stated? Obviously, readers who have read Mark Levin's book need to read a better book for understanding the founding principles of the USA. It is also sold by Amazon.com and is titled: The Religion Commandments, by Gene Garman.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2009 1:45:17 PM PDT
Roger A. Connor Jr. says:
In reply to G. Garman: The Constitution does Not establish the fundemental rights of the people. It is a document that sets forth the rules that the government is to operate under, and in fact clearly establishes that the rules not covered by Constitution are reserved or the States, and the people. The Amendments were added to clarify those points where the FEDERAL government was not to interfere with the rights of the people -it did NOT grant the people those rights, they already had them. Further, as far as religion is concerned, the statement directs that the government will not establish a state religion, not that religious parctices by anyone were forbidden to be held on public or governmental property. -Roger Connor
Posted on May 19, 2009 7:36:46 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 9, 2009 10:23:35 AM PDT]
In reply to an earlier post on May 22, 2009 7:43:33 AM PDT