Mark Levin Quotes



"Try and become better."

"In a civil society you must have a moral order."

"Don't let little setbacks derail your efforts."

"Conservatism represents the founding principles."

"So the right to privacy means everything and nothing."

"The biggest influences on my life were and are my mom and dad."

"if there's an opportunity to pursue your goal, recognize and seize it."

"Don't let negative people or negative responses deter you. Learn from life's experiences."

"When justices veto legislative acts based on personal policy preferences, that's tyranny."

“Mr. President, please reject the Left's current efforts to influence your selection. Your political enemies wish you ill.”

"My recommendation to teens is this: try different things, decide what you enjoy and what motivates you. Then pursue it."

"The civil society is what he we call organized liberty or the social compact, and there are various elements to it, and this is the heart of conservatism."

"I realized that conservatism was the philosophy that best suited me, with its emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and merit."

"Activist justices come in many stripes but, as a rule, they use their lifetime positions to impose by fiat that which should be decided through the democratic process."

"The only thing that makes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unalienable is the belief in a Creator, not the belief in man or some government."

"When justices seize authority from the other branches of the federal government, as well as state and local governments, under the rubric of judicial review, that's tyranny."

"I keep hearing, "Well, there's the social conservatives, the free market conservatives, and the national security conservatives." No, there are not."

"The Founding Fathers created a society, and that's what they created in the Declaration of Independence, founded on natural law, divine providence, God-given natural law, alien rights."

"In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience."

"Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy also included a new constitutional right to abortion."

"Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts."

"You know, that man has a spirit, that each man and woman is unique, that we have duty to promote our unalienable rights and to protect them, that we have a duty to our families and ourselves, to take care of ourselves, to contribute to charity, that we have a duty to support a just and righteous law that is stable and predictable."

"In a civil society you must have a moral order. Right versus wrong, good versus evil, just versus unjust, and means versus ends. They're not the same thing, and when we talk about moral order, you must have a moral order to have a rule of law, for the free market to work, to advance national security. There are not three branches to conservatism; there is Conservatism."

"In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual's time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty."

"John Kerry and the other Democratic leaders are on the wrong side of history, as they were during the Reagan presidency. If they had won the day, and Reagan had failed, the Soviet Union would still exist, as would all the harm and suffering it unleashed, and American security would be far weaker as a result. And if they win this election thanks to a promise to undo the Reagan-Bush Doctrine, those cheering loudest will be the most evil-loving among us."

"To be true to its constitutional role, the Supreme Court should refuse to be drawn into making public policy, and it should strike down legislation only when a clear constitutional violation exists. When judicial activists resort to various inventions and theories to impose their personal views on privacy and liberty, they jeopardize the legitimacy of the judiciary as an institution and undermine the role of the other branches of government."

"activist judges have taken over school systems, prisons, private-sector hiring and firing practices, and farm quotas. They have ordered local governments to raise property taxes and states to grant benefits to illegal immigrants; they have upheld severe limits on political speech, promoted racial discrimination in admissions policies, endorsed the seizure of private property without just compensation, struck a federal ban on partial-birth abortion, and intervene in the electoral process."

"Today, no less than five Supreme Court justices are on record, either through their opinions or speeches (or both), that they will consult foreign law and foreign-court rulings for guidance in certain circumstances. Of course, policymakers are free to consult whatever they want, but not justices. They're limited to the Constitution and the law."

"Don't let little setbacks derail your efforts. Don't let negative people or negative responses deter you. Learn from life's experiences. Try and become better. Be willing to learn and be open to ideas. But stay focused on your goal. You'll eventually get there. Not until I was in my forties did I become a professional radio host."

"Why are we doing this? This war has been fought far more "humanely" than any prior major war (including our three greatest wars — the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II). Where's the compelling evidence that the executive branch has instituted a policy of widespread torture of detainees? Why empower the ACLU and judges to substitute their priorities and views for an elected president and his military and intelligence advisers?"

"WABC offered me a weekly Sunday show for no pay. Many people would have turned it down, preferring to keep their Sundays open and find a job that paid. I saw it as an enormous chance to learn more, to get more experience, and to meet people who could be supportive. You make your opportunites if you recognize them and aren't afraid to go for them."

"More recent examples of judicial activism that have outraged many include the Supreme Court finding that homosexual sodomy is a constitutional right; cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads prior to an election are not; judicial decisions based on the nonexistent "wall of separation" notion resulting in the removal of God, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, and even Santa Claus and Christmas trees from the public square, as well as challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance."

"So the right to privacy means everything and nothing. It has no constitutional basis and no tangible form. But what is clear is that the Supreme Court, by usurping the legislature’s authority to set social policy, has seized from the people the power to make such determinations. A mere five justices are now able to substitute their personal judgments for those of Congress and every state government in the name of privacy rights. This quiet revolution against representative government has gone largely unnoticed."

"Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt's internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices."

"Well, why would we surrender our core principles that have served this nation so well, that have served humanity so well? I mean, Americans have contributed so enormous to mankind. Why would we surrender those principles to these politicians who are only in office on a temporary basis, who are advancing their own political careers and their fairly radical agenda? Why would we make peace with people, make peace with such philosophy? Why wouldn't we take our case -- be confident in our case and take it -- to the American people? We can link it to current events, we can promote policies through it, but we can't promote policies that are not based on sound philosophy."

"This is a great point. First of all, let's go to the Declaration first. The Founding Fathers created a society, and that's what they created in the Declaration of Independence, founded on natural law, divine providence, God-given natural law, alien rights. The only thing that makes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unalienable is the belief in a Creator, not the belief in man or some government. Man and government can't, in the end, confer these rights or legitimately deny them. This is a huge difference we have with the statists, whether the modern statists or past statists. They believe rights are something to be rationed. If you agree with them, they give you rights. If you don't agree with them, they take rights away. They believe that they're all-powerful. We don't. We believe they're earthly."

"Today, legalized abortion is the law of the land because the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that its recently created constitutional right to privacy also included a new constitutional right to abortion. If you look in the Constitution, however, you will find no general “right to privacy” any more than you will find a right to abortion — and for good reason: It’s not there. The framers assumed no general right to privacy because, to state the obvious, criminal and evil acts can be committed in privacy. Criminal codes are full of such examples — from murder to incest to rape and other crimes."

"The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society, in whole or part. For the Modern Liberal, the individual's imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville described as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny (some form of totalitarianism). As the word "liberal" is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it is more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist."

"You know, many of them are what I call malcontents. They're victims. They think they are. They always have agreements. They don't look inside. They don't analyze their own lives. I write about this, too. They don't take responsibility for their own situations. They don't know how because they refuse to look beyond their own situations. They don't know how to prosper in the freest, most generous, most benevolent society ever established on the face of the earth. And so they feel the rest of us shouldn't survive or can't survive in a similar society. They're the malcontents. They're what I call the drones, what DeToqueville referred to as -- my phrase -- these drone-like characteristics where more and more of them surrender their independence, their human sensibilities to the state."

"Call it preemption. Call it self-defense. Call it liberation. In truth, President Bush is advancing the Reagan Doctrine, or what should now be called the Reagan-Bush Doctrine. Ronald Reagan rejected the Iron Curtain, he rejected Communism, and he rejected the status quo. He came to office when the Soviet Union was extending its tentacles over several continents, including South America. He believed that, for humanitarian and national-security reasons, the Soviets had to be defeated, not tolerated. And against all conventional wisdom, and severe criticism from many of the same Democrats who now disparage George Bush, Reagan did just that. Hundreds of millions were freed, and the Russians are no longer the threat they once were. Who would have thought it? Certainly not the Democrats."

Compiled by Thomas George
editor@Wisdom-of-the-Wise.com