Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Thunder? Or the voice of an angel? Which sound did Mark Levin hear from Heaven upon the passing of Phyllis Schlafly on Monday? What did we hear? Though obviously she was strongly and deeply admired by Levin, he could not nor would not the following night offer up to his radio audience a rationale for how it came to be two solidly constitutionally grounded individuals could come down so hard on different sides of Trump’s candidacy for the presidency of the United States of America.

That was the big story of Tuesday night’s Levin broadcast. Not that Levin would vote for Trump in November; but that two Constitutionalists had disagreed on a Yuge matter, had remained entrenched in their positions, had fought, and now only one them lived to tell about it. The entrenchment had suddenly, unexpectedly, most inconveniently turned into stone, into permanency, because it was commonly realized Phyllis Schlafly will never say another word on the subject.

She had ended the argument so abruptly. She had walked away with the ball and gone home. Poor Mark, he so wanted to win this particular argument with her: why a true Conservative could never vote for Trump. Instead at the opening of his broadcast he simply repeated, “We had our differences,” over and over again. Perhaps out of reverence for her good name he hesitated, walked away from engaging her position regarding Trump.

It was a moment in time, that evening broadcast, when the thunder or angel’s voice sound was such even mortals could hear it, respond to it. It was similar to a time in Jerusalem when the text quotes Jesus as saying for all to hear, “The hour has come. Glorify Your Name.” Heavy, weighty are substitute words for glory. There was a time when we said “Heavy” with the force of Hefty, only without the ft sound, something like Hev-Eee. In The Wedding Date Kat exclaimed, “Holy cr*p.” That’s an example of when “Hev-Eee” might have been her appropriate slang response, if the movie had been produced in the late 60’s or early 70’s. Levin was Tuesday night similarly in his own “Holy cr*p” moment, flailing away in his attempt to dovetail a tribute to Schlafly with his carefully crafted, long awaited, very reticent “I will vote for Trump” announcement.

Perhaps Levin was convinced in his heart every word against Trump would tarnish Schlafly’s remembrance, hers known most recently for promoting Trump so vigorously among Levin’s fellow Conservatives, real Conservatives very much like his self; so firm he was that he was right and Schlafly was wrong. It seemed like he wanted to go there, discuss their differences, and argue his side Tuesday night. Further, it appeared he was still debating in his own mind whether or not he should go there. He did not. He left her, in repose, unburied. He couldn’t lift the shovel, couldn’t move the dirt, not even a little.

And here is the crux of Schlafly’s argument FOR Trump: running to the Constitution, promoting the Constitution as a defense for the Republic has not worked, has not connected with voters. The Left knows the ins and outs of the Constitution better than we do, has won the public over to the erroneous view the Constitution IS working, “transforming” us into the democracy we should be. That’s the chant of Leftists around the world, after Obama’s Apology Tour, during Obama’s Arab Spring, even now: “This is what democracy looks like.” She also pointed out why she thought Donald Trump is the candidate for this particular hour in our nation’s history, because he is taking it to the establishment power brokers of all the political parties. And her description of the establishment: globalists, open borders advocates (much the same thing) who stand opposed to Americanism, especially when Americanism performs at its very best.

She argued we need to change the field of battle. Quit arguing it’s all about the Constitution. That was her position. She reasoned we Conservatives should know better than to walk straight through a field full of mines and booby traps; for instance when the first amendment is used against us, especially when the field has been clearly marked: “Mine Field. Danger. Do not proceed beyond this point.”

Can we recall the parable of the pragmatic supervisor who reduced the debts of his master’s debtors just before he knew he would be fired? So that the master’s grateful debtors might return the superintendent’s favor, be kind to him, and perhaps help him out while he was unemployed? Of him Jesus somewhat admirably said the children of men are characteristically cleverer, smarter than the religious. Trump, in Schlafly’s view, seems to be that superintendent; that man who watches out for himself while benefiting those around him, possibly an entire nation, in real currency, cash.

Levin, to his credit, acknowledged by his deference to Phyllis Schlafly’s remarkable legacy this one thing. He reminded himself and us he lives in the same house she lived in, until she departed. The same house all we Conservatives have determined to call our home. We cherish the relationships we have with each other in this, our cozy little cottage (it’s no mansion,) even when we differ in our opinions, even when we possess “anti-matter” facts in our relationships with each other.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?