Loading summary
Transcript168 lines
- [00:00]
A
You know, folks, Americans rely on credit cards for secure payments and seamless transactions. But consumers stand to lose it all with the Durbin Marshall credit card mandate bill. Big government mandates favor corporate megastores and allow them to choose how your credit card is processed. They might end up using untested payment networks that could jeopardize your data security and rewards. Tell Congress to guard your card because Americans lose when politicians choose. Visit guardyourcard.com to learn more. That's guardyourcard.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition.
- [00:33]
B
He's here now, broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building. We've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Len.
- [01:04]
C
Sam.
- [02:05]
A
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 838-1381-187738-13811. We can't possibly fit into the three hours of this program. Everything I want to get to that said, I want to focus a bit on Fauci and the COVID virus because what the nation went through was quite, quite horrendous in so many respects. And covering up for the communist Chinese and their lab and the funding that our government provided that lab is really unacceptable. It was Tom Cotton who first raised the possibility, first raised the possibility of the lab. It was my show on Life Liberty in Levin with a guest, a man who was formerly the New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, who had written a long piece who I brought onto the program that pushed this really into the, into the national mindset in a very significant way because he is a very serious writer for a very liberal newspaper and he was retired, but he was very, very concerned about what was taking place in the reporting. And I gave him the first national platform that he had. And people don't remember how free speech during that period of time was under attack like everything else in terms of our civil liberties. But most TV hosts and radio hosts were too worried, too nervous, too stressed to take a firm stand. And I'm not talking about the nut jobs and the conspiracy nuts. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about legitimate substantive positions. So Nicholas Wade was on Life Liberty in Levin on May 23, 2021. I don't normally do this, but I need to do this because it's very important. Our history is very important, especially when it comes to this virus and the lack of civil liberties. Cut to a go. Our guest is Nicholas Wade. The question is the origin of COVID 19 this was brought to my attention by a friend of mine, David Berlinski, one of the smartest people I've ever met. He's been on this program a few years back, and he said, mark, you got to read this article, and you need to have Mr. Wade on your program to talk about this. That is the origin of the coronavirus. And Mr. Wade is an investigative science writer. He's formerly New York Times science writer, a formerly writer with Nature and Science, so he knows something about these subjects. And I want to thank you for coming on the program. The first paragraph, sir, of your. Of your piece, which is published in something called the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. So it sounds like it's quite legitimate. The first paragraph says the COVID 19 pandemic has disrupted lives the world over for more than a year. Its death toll will soon reach 3 million people. Yet the origin of pandemic remains uncertain. The political agendas of governments and scientists have generated thick clouds of obfuscation which the mainstream press seems helpless to dispel. So I want to go through some of this so it's understandable to all of us, some of the institutions, some of the names, and you can fill it in for us, if you don't mind, sir. So let's begin with identifying some of the institutions and actors. What exactly is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases in Washington, D.C.
- [05:50]
B
well, that's a branch of the National Institutes of Health, and it awards grants to scientists in the US and abroad who study matters of interest to. To allergy and infectious diseases. And in particular, it supports research into animal viruses that seem to have the potential of spilling over into humans. And that includes these bat viruses called coronaviruses.
- [06:20]
A
Is it a big bureaucracy? Is it a heavily funded bureaucracy?
- [06:25]
B
Do you know? I don't know for sure, but all these components of the nih, the National Institutes of Health, have a lot of money to give out. They fund lots of research. Will be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not approaching a billion.
- [06:41]
A
So who is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases?
- [06:46]
B
Well, that's Dr. Anthony Fauci, and he's
- [06:48]
A
been there a long time, about 37 years, by my calculation. Now, what is the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
- [06:55]
B
So that is the leading center in China for studying coronaviruses, and it's in Wuhan. And the chief scientist there is called Dr. Zheng Li Xi, who is an expert on bat viruses.
- [07:12]
A
In fact, in your piece, and others have called her the Bat lady, that's how expert she is on bat Viruses, Correct?
- [07:18]
B
That's right. She's been collecting these viruses from the caves in southern China and elsewhere where bats hang out for many years, and she has an enormous collection of them.
- [07:28]
A
Who is Ralph S. Barrick?
- [07:31]
B
Well, Ralph Barak is her counterpart in the US you might say he's a very distinguished coronavirus researcher. He trained Dr. Xi in many of his techniques, particularly those for genetically engineering coronaviruses. And he's a leader in his field.
- [07:49]
A
And I'm going through this, I want the American people to know, so we understand the individuals that you write about, we understand these institutions, and then we can draw some more information out about them. And what's been taking place here? What is gain of function, or GOF research?
- [08:08]
B
Well, this is anything you do to a virus that increases its pathogenicity. So it's long been possible, with new techniques of genetic engineering, to make changes in a virus's genome and to add properties to it that it didn't have before. And that is called gain of function if you make it more pathogenic.
- [08:32]
A
Is this a controversial area of research, getting viruses and making them more lethal?
- [08:37]
B
Yes, it has been controversial because of its obvious danger. So for a period from 2014, 2017, it was under a US government moratorium on funding such research. And the moratorium was lifted, but it was replaced by a sort of reporting system. If you were funding research of this kind, you meant to report into the government that you were doing it.
- [09:02]
A
And what is the theory behind research like this, making viruses more lethal, particularly lethal for human beings?
- [09:08]
B
Well, that's right. It sounds crazy at first sight, but the rationale is that many of these viruses are going eventually to jump over from animals to humans anyway, once they acquire sort of a couple of mutations that allows them to make that jump. And so if we could define those mutations in advance, we would get a jump on the virus or jump on what it was going to do naturally. And that would give us a leg up in trying to predict and prevent future epidemics. That's the rationale for conferring gain of function on these viruses.
- [09:43]
A
So basically, create in a lab more lethal viruses from the original virus so you can try and figure out what to do with it should it become more lethal and jump into human beings. Is that about right?
- [09:59]
B
Yes, that's right. With one exception is you're not. You're not always working with the original virus. You are often swapping into it bits and pieces from related viruses that may be able to do something better or spread the range of hosts the virus can attack.
- [10:17]
A
Now, this expert, this Chinese expert scientist at the Wuhan lab, you say she set out to create coronaviruses with the highest possible infectivity on human cells. Is this what she's known to do?
- [10:34]
B
She's not known just for that. She's just. She's known as a sort of general expert on coronaviruses.
- [10:40]
A
Now, I assume if you're going to be messing around with viruses and making them more lethal, that there's some level of safety you need to have at these labs. And you say there are four degrees of safety designated BSL1 to BSL4, with BSL4 being the most restrictive and designed for deadly pathogens like the Ebola virus. And you're right, the Wuhan Institute of Virology has a new BSL4 lab, but its data readiness considerably alarmed the State Department inspectors who visited Beijing. Much of her work gained a function in coronavirus, you write, however, was not performed in the highest safety level of BSL4. It wasn't at BSL3. It was BSL2. And you get the input from an expert from Rutgers by the name of Professor Albrecht. And he says, it's clear that summer all of this work was being performed using a biosafety standard. Biosafety level 2. The level of standard. In a dentist's office. In a dentist's office. Well, that raises some issues, doesn't it, sir?
- [11:50]
B
Yes, it does. I mean, there are quite. There are other general issues because these were the internationally agreed rules for working on coronaviruses. If you. If you were working on the two coronaviruses that caused the two previous epidemics, the SARS1 epidemic and the MERS epidemic, you had to. You had to research those only in BSL3. But if you were working on any other coronavirus, you could work in BSL too. So Dr. Xi was following the international rules. It's just that to outsiders, it seems there's an illogicality there because if. If you create a particularly dangerous coronavirus in BSL2, your safety precautions may be inadequate and it may well escape.
- [12:40]
A
So in this lab, the Wuhan lab, they're working on viruses. I'm putting this in Mark's plain English. Viruses that could become more killer viruses, more lethal viruses to human beings. The level of safety in this lab, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4 being the highest, is a 2. And I want to ask you a couple other questions related to this, sir. Who is Peter Daszak?
- [13:10]
B
Okay, so Peter Daszak has an important role in this story. He is the president of an organization in New York called the EcoHealth Alliance. And its main concern is to study animal viruses around the world that might turn into human pathogens. Now, the niaid, as we've discussed, that gave the grant is it did not do so, not give the grant directly to Dr. Shi at the Wuhan Institute. It gave it to Peter Dasak. So he is the prime investigator on this grant and he then subcontracted Dr. Shi to do the work on coronaviruses.
- [13:51]
A
All right, we're live now. I have to take a break. This is very important. It was important when we did this over five years ago, and it's important tonight right now. I will pick up where we leave off when we return. Mark levin. With Donald Trump back in office, one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security. But Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before his last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more at guard your car.com that's guard your car.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. Let's pick up right where we left off. Go. Let me get this straight because this is important, I think, to the American people. Our official federal Infectious disease office director, Fauci, runs it. They gave a grant to this intermediary organization, EcoHealth alliance in New York run by Peter Daszak. They in turn gave a grant to Dr. Shi in the Wuhan lab. To do exactly what?
- [15:52]
B
Well, her task, which we know because the abstracts of the grant are a matter of public record, her task was to explore what made the spike protein. That's the part of the coronavirus that sticks out and actually attacks its target on human cells or on other animal impact, may be infecting. She she was to explore the range of infectivity of these spike proteins from it, it seems, from a range of coronaviruses. And she would swap them in one by one to a sort of generic coronavirus backbone to see which spike proteins made the virus most infectious. That seems to have been her program. And that's more or less what Dr. Dasak describes in an interview he gave in December 2019, just before the pandemic hit.
- [16:51]
A
So we're funding, in part, this lab in China run by Dr. Xi through a party in New York run by Peter Daszak. And the purpose of this funding is to. Is to increase the lethality of coronaviruses, theoretically, for the purpose of trying to figure out what to do with these more lethal viruses, should these more lethal viruses become manifested, Correct?
- [17:24]
B
Well, I think that's basically right, but I think I would put the emphasis in a slightly different place. I mean, first of all, it was definitely the duty of Dr. Fauci and the NIAAD to explore these viruses and see what kind of danger they presented, because they had already generated two pandemics, the SARS one and the MERS epidemic. So it was a very legitimate subject of research for him. And that was the overall purpose of the grant. It wasn't in itself to create the most dangerous virus. It was to explore the infective possibility inherent in the natural viruses circulating in bats in China.
- [18:07]
A
Would it be the responsibility of a government agency to make sure that a lab that's getting ultimately federal dollars for this sort of research has the security and safety measures that it ought to have? Apparently, the State Department didn't think it did.
- [18:22]
B
Well, I think that's a very interesting question, and probably we can't answer it quite yet. I mean, if we supposing there had been a virus escape from a lab in the U.S. a lab that was funded by NIAID, I don't think we'd immediately say, well, you, NIAID, are responsible for that. I think, first of all, we'd look to the director of the lab and say, was he following all applicable safety rules? Did he take all necessary precautions?
- [18:52]
A
All right, we're going to take a little break here as I continue to press this matter. Press it a little harder with Nicholas Wade when we return. We'll be right back. With Donald Trump back in office, one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago, is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal, strong security. But Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before. His last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more@guardyourcard.com that's guardyourcard.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. Mark Lefen, an unapologetic patriot and unapologetic constitutionalist. You can reach him at 877-381-3811. All right. We're going to pick up where we left off because I want to try and pack it all into this hour, if we can. Remember, it's Nicholas Wade, formerly of the New York Times and the science editor, the science writer there about COVID and where it came from. Go ahead.
- [20:35]
B
So I think the responsibility lies first and foremost with the lab director. And then if you wish to go one step back in this case, you arrive at Dr. Daschak. He was the principal investigator on the grant. And maybe, though I don't know exactly how the regulations are written, but just sort of in general terms, you would think he would be the first sort of oversight person responsible for making sure that his sub Grantees like Dr. Xi, were working in safe conditions. But now if I could take it one step further back than that, as I've mentioned, Dr. Xi was, was working in, in exactly the same rules as are followed by virologists all around the world. So now you could argue, well, the virologists have set these rules far too low to be easy on themselves. They don't like suiting up in a bubble suit for the BSL Level 4. That's what you see the pictures of Dr. Shear on the Internet. She's wearing one of these bubble suits. Those are not the conditions she was working. So it may be that responsibility is also shared or it should be looked at in terms of what the virology community as it as a whole was recommending in terms of these safety levels.
- [21:51]
A
Here with Nicholas Wade, who is a well known writer about science and worked for the New York Times, Nature, Science magazines, all these these expert sort of areas and wrote a piece that has really drawn my attention, the attention of a lot of people in something called the Bulletin of Atomic Science. So it sounds pretty important. And so I took a look at this and I Want to get into this again further, Peter Daszak, you said he's the president of the Echo Health alliance of New York. He got a grant from our infectious disease Federal department. He used a grant to fund some of the research at the Wuhan lab. Well, let me ask you this, Mr. Wade Dantzic. There's a publication called Lancet. And what did Dancet and Lancet wind up doing in turn when the pandemic first broke out?
- [22:53]
B
Well, when it first broke out, there were two very reasonable scenarios for the origin of the virus. And one, it could have jumped naturally from animals, and the other, it could have escaped from the lab, which after all, right in the middle of Wuhan is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as we've said. But right from the beginning, public perception favored natural emergence over lab escape. And that perception was very much shaped by a letter that appeared in the Lancet. It and derided lab escape as a conspiracy theory and said that natural emergence, of course, was the way this virus had emerged. And we should all stand shoulder to shoulder with our Chinese colleagues on the forefront of fighting the disease. Now, this letter, it later turned out, had been drafted and organized by Dr. Daschak, who, of course, if the virus had indeed escaped from the Wuhan labor, he might certainly be perceived as being at fault for not overseeing it better. So he had a clear conflict of interest, which unfortunately was not declared to the readers of the Lancet. And indeed, his letter ends, we declare no conflict of interest.
- [24:05]
A
And this was cited by a lot of the media at the time, as I recall, and people who said, well, maybe we ought to look at the lab and so forth. As you, you point out, they were dismissed. Some of them were dismissed as kooks. President Trump said maybe we should look at the lab. And maybe that had an influence on the media in our country. Who is Kristen Andersen?
- [24:24]
B
Well, he's a virologist and he was the author of a second letter which also was widely influential in shaping public perceptions. And this second letter also said that the virus could, could clearly not have been manipulated and therefore natural emergence was the best solution. But in fact, there was no, there was no good scientific basis for his statement. He was assuring the public of something that he could not know for sure. And that is something that in general, scientists, in my view, should not do.
- [24:59]
A
So we have these scientific journals, we have these scientists, we have, have sort of these groups of scientists. In the case of Dantzic, he had 20, 25, actually 35 signatures. We have the second one from Anderson five signatures. The media basically used these letters as an argument that had to be from animal jump to human beings. Why do you think the media was so incurious? I mean, people are getting ill. This is a pandemic. Would you, I mean, if you were back at the New York Times and so forth, wouldn't you say to your editor, I want to know how the hell this happened?
- [25:41]
B
Well, I agree, Mark. It's very puzzling to me why the media, headed by the science journalists that are on the staff of most mainstream newspapers and networks didn't run after this story, which by, by any standards was one of the biggest science stories of the decade. And I am perplexed to know why they didn't see through the rather large holes in the Anderson and Dasak letters that so much shaped public opinion. But with the science journalists sort of going along with the natural emergence of theory, the editors, who I guess will depend on their advice, went along too. And in addition, the whole issue became horribly politicized, essentially by President Trump saying the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab and not providing any evidence. Now, I'm pretty sure, my guess is that what his intelligence service said to him was exactly the same as they've been been saying under the Biden administration, namely that we cannot rule out the possibility of lab escape. And Mr. Trump, I fear, dropped all those caveats and announced it as if it were an outright fact. So therefore, everyone who was with President Trump sort of favored lab escape and everyone who was against President Trump refused to consider seems to, to me to be a reflection how so politicized our whole public discussion has become that these political attitudes prevailed over what should have been scientific curiosity.
- [27:23]
A
Well, Let me say two things about that. If I'm Mr. Xi in communist China and if President of the United States says he came out of a lab, then why wouldn't I provide the data that you indicate in your article that the Chinese have, but they won't release to prove otherwise. And I suspect President Trump may have been trying to goad the communist Chinese into providing that data. He said it came out of the lab. All the communist Chinese had to do is say, wait a minute, here's our data, have access to our lab. Isn't it interesting that the Chinese will not, as you say in your article, release any of the data related to this research?
- [28:04]
B
Yes, I think it is. One has to sort of bear in mind that the sort of knee jerk reaction of authoritarian regimes is to suppress data. And the Chinese did suppress data after the SARS1 epidemic, which had a perfectly natural causation. Nonetheless, I think what we see here is a very systematic and relentless cover up in that all the records of the Wuhan Institute have been concealed, all the databases with information about bat viruses have been closed down. And I think the trickle of information that the Chinese have let out has been mostly either false or designed to mislead and misdirect.
- [28:41]
A
So, ladies and gentlemen, seems like a good time to tell you. This is from May 23, 2021, Life, Liberty and Levin on Fox. That's Nicholas Wade, who was an expert on so much of this and in fact was the New York Times science writer, formerly writer with nature and science. At the time we were talking about this, there was a lot that was swirling around. But I wanted to dig into this piece he wrote because nobody else had. And I jumped right into it so we could find out what was going on. Because it was becoming apparent, quite clear to me that this had come out of a lab. Go right ahead, you're watching what's going on. I mean, you see your former profession. What caused you to write this article? It's a very substantial article. What caused you to do this?
- [29:30]
B
I first got interested in this about a year ago and I read an article posted by a man called Yuri Dagin, who's a Russian Canadian, and he wrote a very long article showing in detail how the virus could have been manipulated. He didn't say it was, he just said it could have been. And that started me reading everything I could find about the situation and gradually accumulating evidence until I found I had enough to write a very, very long, 11,000 word article. And
- [30:07]
A
why do you think you're one of the few people who was curious enough and motivated enough to do this? I mean, there are people still at the New York Times and the Washington Post. There are people at CBS and NBC and abc. You're talking about a virus that has killed an enormous number of people, that shut down our economy, that changed the way we even govern ourselves. And the media will pick up stories on things that are of no consequence whatsoever. And yet here you are, I guess you're semi retired. And here you are, you're looking at this saying, you know what, I'm going to get to the bottom of this. I mean, what accounts for that? Do you think you were in this industry a long time?
- [30:49]
B
Well, I think we see a sustained Chinese propaganda effort at work. But, you know, more than that, it was just the blindness, if I could put it that way, of our media. Where's the we're too polarized to see scientific issues for their own sake without putting a political gloss on them. And everyone was sort of blindsided right from the start by these two letters. We've just discussed into thinking that natural emergence was the only possible solution. In fact, there are two possible scenarios. We have no direct evidence for either of them. So we must get keep our minds open. We don't know for sure the origin of the virus. It's just we've got these two possible scenarios. But if you look at all the evidence and ask yourself, well, which scenario explains all these facts better on present evidence, it seems to me at least that the lab escape hypothesis explains it a lot better. So that's where we are. But it's a sort of complicated conclusion to arrive at. And I can only assume, assume in answer to your question, that the media was blindsided. They didn't do the work that was necessary. They failed to take off their political glasses and look at just news, which seems sort of so old fashioned nowadays. And thus, thus they failed to at least present the two possibilities in the way I tried to do in the article.
- [32:14]
A
Don't you think, even though there's not a direct connection, as you pointed, don't you think the National Institute was these infectious diseases or the National Institutes of Health, these entities that the American people have had a lot of faith in, they've put a lot of reliance on. I know I have over the decades that they have a responsibility to try and figure out how this happened. I hear nothing from those institutions about where they think this virus came from other than they dismiss people who have thoughts and comments and so forth. It just seems to me if you're going to be in the business of grant giving, I don't care if it's three levels below or whatever it is at this point, you know, something horrific happened. Shouldn't they have some responsibility to try and get to the bottom of it, including saying, look, we're trying to get the data but the Communist regime in China won't give it to us?
- [33:10]
B
Mark, I think that's an excellent point. The National Institutes of Health, even more so than all the media, surely had a duty to investigate the origin of the virus as carefully as it could, to lay out its role in it, to explain why it continued funding this research even during a US government moratorium on funding it. And there are lots of questions that I wish the NIH had addressed a year ago and, and been upfront about and invited public comment and scrutiny and just laid out everything they knew and Tried to see what had happened and explain it to us.
- [33:51]
A
We're gonna have to break here. We're back live. Leave it at that. I believe it came out of this lab. The conversation goes on. I've linked to it on my social sites if you want to check it out. And this was really the first national rational discussion about this. And basically, it was covered up by the very people who were funding it, and that would include Fauci. They didn't want to pursue it. They didn't pursue it. The letters that the gentleman talks about were intended to throw everybody off track and to throw them off track from the lab, the lab that we were funding in Communist China. So I believe to this day, it came out of that lab. The Chinese still have not allowed us to get a hold of the data. But the fact that it jumped from bats to humans, I never really bought into that, even after reading all the arguments for it, didn't make any sense to me. We'll be right back. With Donald Trump back in office, one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago, is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security. But Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before. His last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for American families. Tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more@guardyourcard.com that's guardyourcard.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. Next hour, I'm going to play for you. It's certainly not as long. It's a few minutes. A call we received out of the blue from a lady who identified herself as Elaine. She was the medical supervisor, administrator at a nursing home. We now know her name to be Elaine Healy. And she talked about a memo, an order that had come out from the governor's office. I would be Cuomo at the time in New York, directing. Directing nursing homes to accept without excuses, without challenge, individuals who were being released from hospitals who had the COVID virus. Many of you remember this, but I'm going through this because Mr. Fauci took the Fifth Amendment on every single matter. And so we want to fill in the gaps that he left out. It'll only be a seven or eight minute clip. I've trimmed it down. But it's something you need to remember, something you need to hear about what was taking place at the time. The hearing today in the Senate was eye opening. It was eye opening because of what Fauci wouldn't say, which was he wouldn't say anything, anything. Putting aside the law, putting aside the pardon, putting aside the legal issues which I'll address on life, liberty and Levin probably. But for now, I want to focus on the substance because virtually every one of you was affected, every family was affected, and many of you were infected. We know I was and many others were as well. But many people didn't survive these decisions that were made by our government. And this is one of the reasons I say when Bernie Sanders says government should control our health care, Medicare, I say not so fast. Better think hard and fast about this. We'll be right back. This segment of the podcast is exclusively sponsored by PureTalk. Pure Talk offers great coverage and can save your family money on your wireless bill every single month. Go to PureTalk.com to find the plan that's right for you. Thank you again for listening and thank you so much for this sponsorship. Pure Talk. He's here.
- [38:25]
B
He's here now. Broadcasting from the underground financial post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, We've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.
- [38:44]
A
Hello, America. Mark Levin Here, our number, 877-3813, 811-877-3813, 811. All right. Elaine Healy, It's a wonderful lady. We've since gotten to know her better over the years. She called into this program on March 26, 2020, called into the radio show right here and conveyed to us some shocking news. Now, apparently it appeared earlier that day in the Wall Street Journal. I had not seen it, but nonetheless, here's what she said. And this was a big, big deal. And it went nationwide very, very quickly as a result of this radio show. Cut one, Go. Elaine. New Rochelle, New York, the great wabc. Go. Now, that's the EPA of epicenters. Go ahead.
- [39:37]
D
Yes, hello. Thank you very much for taking my call. I wanted to bring to your attention and the listeners attention what is about to happen in New York with respect to nursing homes and the governor has ordered that all nursing homes must accept COVID positive patients that are actually potentially still infectious into. Into their facilities. And this will put our residents, our long term care population.
- [40:09]
A
Wait, wait, wait, wait. Is this. Are you pulling my leg? Seriously?
- [40:14]
D
No.
- [40:14]
A
Why would you send somebody who has this virus into a population that can kill people?
- [40:22]
D
Thank you.
- [40:24]
A
No, no. Are you serious?
- [40:26]
D
I am serious.
- [40:27]
A
Well, why would he order this? I don't. It doesn't make any sense.
- [40:30]
D
Well, because. Because the hospital. Well, first of all, in. You know, I will point out that nursing homes are in the habit of accepting patients from hospitals to continue their care after their.
- [40:44]
A
They may be in the habit, but they must realize now that the most vulnerable people among us are senior citizens and nursing homes. These are people that have issues. And so I'm trying to understand the point of this. What is the point of this?
- [40:59]
D
I'm looking at a directive from Andrew Cuomo and Howard Zucker, dated March 25, that is ordering nursing homes. It says nursing homes must comply with the expedited receipt of residents from hospitals. They are deemed appropriate to go into the nursing homes by the hospitals and we cannot discriminate based on the presence of COVID And that's it. And that's how he's been managing this crisis. He has been dictating, he's been sending out memorandum and orders and executive orders. And there has been no coordination on the ground level here. I'm speaking from Westchester and New Rochelle. Just. We had the first COVID positive case in New York and we were for a time, the epicenter. Now, of course, it's shifted a little south of us, but basically, as you know, the hospitals are overwhelmed. They want to discharge patients somewhere else so they can take in new patients. And that's what the governor has ordered. Now our national association of Nursing home Medical Directors, when I sent this memorandum to them, has issued a statement saying that this is extremely dangerous, unsafe, that it will increase the risk of transmission in nursing homes. And we all learned from Washington how catastrophic that is. It will destabilize the facilities, potentially increase the flow back into hospitals, overwhelm capacity, endanger healthcare personnel and escalate the death rate. But you can't get through to anybody down here. You can't talk to anybody. We don't have. There's nobody coordinated coordinating the response at this level, certainly at the county level. And I know from my prior.
- [43:01]
A
Have you, have you given this information to local media?
- [43:05]
D
That's why I'm calling you.
- [43:06]
A
But I'm not. Local media have you given this information. Hold on to information. These reporters show up at these press events where Cuomo does these, you know, kind of dance, song and dance moves there, always demanding that somebody else do something else. This needs to be in the hands of a reporter who is at that conference in Albany and reads it to him and asks him how he can explain this.
- [43:36]
D
Yeah, that's a good idea. I mean, it's not my line of work, but I got it to. We got this information to the Wall Street Journal, who published something today. So that's the first thing. First time we've got it out to the media. And, you know, it's not what we generally.
- [43:52]
A
So in other words, it's available for all these cable stars and all these reporters at the New York Daily News and the New York Times and the rest of them. They know it's out there.
- [44:03]
D
Well, if they read that article, I don't know who else picked up on the story. We got it. It was published today in the Wall Street Journal. One article. So now, now, our executive organization, the executive director this afternoon issued the statement, you know, stating that our organization was against this.
- [44:24]
A
If we wanted to find that, do you know, where would we go to find the link?
- [44:30]
D
I can send it to you, but it's. It's the American Medical Directors Association. It has a longer name that I'll give you in a moment, and I'm sure it's on its website. You might have to be a member to get it, but we can get it to you through our executive director. It's the Society for Post Acute and Long Term Care.
- [44:53]
A
Just go on my Facebook site and post it. Post the link.
- [44:57]
D
Okay.
- [44:58]
A
All right. Mark Levincho Facebook or Mark Levincho Twitter. Either one. And then the whole country can look at it and draw conclusions from it.
- [45:07]
D
And I just want to say if I could, you know, nursing homes and people that work at nursing homes are such a dedicated group of professionals, and we really want to help, but.
- [45:19]
A
So you're a doctor?
- [45:21]
D
I'm a medical director. I'm a physician. Medical director. I'm both.
- [45:25]
A
Yeah.
- [45:26]
D
I'm an administrative medical director, plus, you know, a clinician. And our home is a wonderful facility, but, you know, it's going to affect all area nursing homes any minute now.
- [45:39]
A
Well, if this is. If this is right, this is exactly the wrong thing that he's doing.
- [45:45]
D
Yeah, I mean, understand. And he's backed himself into a corner here, and all of this should have been planned out as. I believe you.
- [45:55]
A
I've talked about it over and over and over again that, look, you can never be fully prepared for these things, but you could be better prepared. And since these things are really. The states want to control their hospitals, their beds, their ventilators, their MRIs, their CTs, their medical institutions and so forth. And they do. And so the question is, he's been there some time now. Why didn't he at least prioritize health services in case there's a pandemic? He was aware of it. There's been reports put out that New York is sorely unprepared. He's had opportunities to order significantly more beds and ventilators over the years, but he hasn't done it.
- [46:33]
D
He hasn't. Not only that, he's closed. I mean, in my neighborhood.
- [46:38]
A
And you're telling me you can't even get to him?
- [46:41]
D
Oh, can't get to anybody. You can't get to anybody. There's supposed to be somebody at the county level, but wait a minute.
- [46:48]
A
He keeps putting out phone numbers and websites during his press conferences. You are the medical director of a nursing home. This order goes out and you can't reach anybody?
- [46:58]
D
Can't reach anybody. And not only that, there's supposed to be someone at the county level that's coordinating, let's say. I mean, I. It is not a good.
- [47:07]
A
I only have 30 seconds.
- [47:09]
D
All right. There's no coordination of the response here in Westchester. It's just a series of directives. He's behaving like a dictator. Executive directors orders.
- [47:21]
A
Well, he wanted Trump to nationalize businesses. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this was the beginning of the end, I think, for the governor, among other things that he was accused of. But I'm not getting into that. And this is something that we highlighted, and this is something we caused to go national, just as we caused the Wuhan Lab Lab issue to go national with our Fox interview. This was our radio program right here. She called into WABC or called into the show, and she heard it on wabc, and we got into this issue and this. And it went viral, and it should have. And she's a great hero for having done that. Very courageous. We'll be right back. You don't have to overpay for big wireless, not when Pure Talk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost. And now, for the first time ever, Pure Talk, my favorite wireless company, is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first three months. That's unbelievable. There's never been a better time to take Pure Talk for a test drive. It's fast, it's reliable. You're going to love it. Again, any Pure Talk plan, including their unlimited data plans, even their top tier $65 a month plans, just $15 a month for your first three months. That's a savings of up to $150. But I'd switch today because this offer is extremely short lived. Switch to Pure Talk. Enjoy your first three months of talk, text and data for just 15 bucks a month. Go to PureTalk. Do that's PureTalk.com L E V I n to make the switch to Pure Talk right now. Again. PureTalk.com Levin PureTalk.com L E V I n to start saving. Well, say the Last hour and 20 minutes or so, you have been brought up to speed on what took place, right? Particularly some of the most important issues related to the virus and so forth. And basically we had Fauci today who was taking the fifth throughout, as he said here, cut eight go. Although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions. And the response from Rand Paul, the chairman of this committee, was cut nine go. The chairman has denied your assertion of
- [50:29]
B
privilege and directed you to answer, but
- [50:31]
A
you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon.
- [50:36]
B
The committee will have to consider after
- [50:38]
A
this hearing what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so.
- [50:45]
B
It's against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.
- [50:54]
A
Now this isn't so clear cut, to be perfectly honest. I'm just trying to be objective and pass real information onto you from the constitutional perspective. He was given a pardon for everything that's taken place or anything that may take place. That's my understanding. It's very broad pardon. And so what Rand Paul is saying, what his lawyers are saying to him, I suppose, is that under those circumstances he can testify what Fauci's lawyers are saying. No, because if he says something that you claim is not accurate or is, you know, criminal nature, then he can be charged independently of that pardon, which might be true. So this probably will wind up in the courts once they pass their contempt resolution. And that's what it is, a resolution. And it may have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to sort this out. So there is some Ambiguity here. I'm just being honest with you. You know, people will say, well, why doesn't he just tell the truth? And there's no problem. Which is a good, good point. But his lawyer no doubt is whispering in his ear, no, because somebody may say, even though you think you're telling the truth, you're not telling the truth. And they may make a criminal referral and you may not be protected anymore. So if you're the lawyer, you can understand where the lawyer might say that, would say that. But you can also understand the perspective of Rand Paul and the committee Republicans saying, excuse me, you have this broad pardon, and we want to hear what you have to say. These are important issues. So Fauci pleads the Fifth Amendment repeatedly. Now he's asked about, well, let's, let's do it this way and I'll explain it to you. Let's go to cut 13. Go. Josh Hawley. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the Fifth, huh, Doc? Let's try something.
- [53:09]
C
What day of the week is it today?
- [53:12]
A
On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What color tie are you wearing? On the advice of counsel, I respectfully declined to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
- [53:27]
C
What color is the carpet in front of you?
- [53:30]
A
On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
- [53:37]
C
Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you've been pardoned. As you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more. Brown versus Walker, 1896. When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege.
- [53:52]
A
All right, that's. Ho, ho, ho. I'm well familiar with that case. It's not exactly on point. Now, again, I'm not trying to take a side on this in that respect. I'm just telling you. Go ahead.
- [54:05]
C
Sitting behind you now, shifting nervously in their chairs. They know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This is about contempt. Contempt for this body and contempt for the American people.
- [54:16]
A
Now, does anybody know, do you know, Mr. Producer, why he wouldn't answer questions about the color of this or the color of that? Because if he begins testifying, he may give up his privilege. Well, if you can tell us the color of the floor, you can tell us the color of your tie, then why can't you be factual and tell us about what took place on this date and that date and this date and that date. You understand what I'm saying? This is why I'm here explaining it to all you folks out there, whether people like it or not. That's the issue. Now the problem is the guy lied to the American people and he lied badly to the American people based on what he wrote in his own diaries. And he was an egomaniac. He sought out and was so excited about getting media attention. Pictures in the front of magazines, talking to actors and actresses. He actually had dinner with Jake Tapper and his wife, which is pretty outrageous. Pretty outrageous. And so this will have to be sorted out one way or another, quite frankly. And contempt, real contempt is, it's not that it's impossible to prove, just requires certain standards to be met as well. So if there's a legal conflict, that's probably not a basis for upholding contempt in a court, but it could be. It could be. So we'll see. So we'll see. So a lot of people are saying, well, he wouldn't say what the color of his tie was, the color the carpet was. Well, there was a reason for that because once you start testifying, you go down that road, you can't really stop. You can't really stop. So that's why his lawyer obviously told him, keep reading this. No matter what they ask you, keep reading this. Now I want to move to another subject. May I? I think I may. Ukraine. You know, from the moment Putin invaded Ukraine, I've stood up for the country of Ukraine. I've stood up for Zelensky against the woke right. Neo fascists for some reason are in love with Putin. Putin is a killer. Putin is old kgb. Putin not only assassinates his opponents and journalists and others and so forth, he's led to the death of a million, million and a half Russians. And for what? He invades Ukraine. And Zelensky and the Ukrainians, man, they are putting up a hell of a fight. In fact, if you, if you really look at it, they're the ones going on the offensive now because of their, their technology. They've developed very smart people, very smart culture. And these drones, these long distance killer drones, and they don't really have a great way to stop them, that is the Russians. And so now they're blowing up their oil refineries deep into Russia. They're blowing up other facilities deep into Russia. Russia's paying a price. These drones are destroying their tanks and they have great tanks and they're destroying them as they move. And there are really what's called now dead man zones where when the Russians move into a certain zone area close to the Ukrainian border, they're getting blown out by these drones and they're able to send thousands of them at once. The Ukrainians have changed the battlefield, I think, for all countries, for all time. We shall see. But I want to pick up on this because I'm seeing in the administration and in the public generally a shift that's beginning in support of Ukraine and Zelensky and against Russia and Putin. We'll be right back. You don't have to overpay for big wireless, not when PureTalk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost. And now, for the first time ever, PureTalk, my favorite wireless company, is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first three months. That's unbelievable. There's never been a better time to take Pure Talk for a test drive. It's fast, it's reliable, you're gonna love it. Again, any pur plan, including their unlimited data plans, even their top tier $65 a month plans, just $15 a month for your first three months. That's a savings of up to $150. But I'd switch today because this offer is extremely short lived. Switch to Pure Talk. Enjoy your first three months of talk, text and data for just 15 bucks a month. Go to PureTalk.com Levin. That's PureTalk.com L E V I N to make the switch to PureTalk. PureTalk.com Lavin PureTalk.com L E v I N to start saving.
- [59:12]
B
You've heard of Lady Liberty? Well, this is Mr. Liberty, the Mark Levin Show.
- [59:19]
A
Call him now at 877-381-3811. All right, there's an article in the Washington examiner by Byron York and he kind of has been picking a scab with the late Lindsey Graham. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so. I think he, he views him as some kind of a warmonger, a war hawk. He doesn't put it that way. But here's what he's written. He said, quote, he never saw a war that he didn't like, unquote. Never speak ill of the dead, quote, unquote is almost always good advice. It's even followed in Washington, at least some of the time. But what to make of President Donald Trump's remarks on the day of the Washington funeral for his friend and key political ally Lindsey Graham? An appearance on Fox Tuesday morning and at the National Cathedral funeral that afternoon The President said a lot of good things about Graham. But Trump also said something apparently based upon the many, many times Graham recommended that Trump pursue this or that military action, and certainly the times Graham urged Trump to attack Iran. He said Lindsay liked war. On Fox and Friends, he liked war. And I jokingly say, and nothing funny about it, he's never seen a war he didn't like. It was a striking moment in which viewers might have been expecting an anecdote about, say, playing golf with Graham. They got that when Trump said Graham loved to play the game and worked hard at it, but he wasn't born to be a golfer. Still, Iran, in the issues of the moment, two wartime leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Zelensky traveled to the United States to attend the funeral were always top of mind. His remarks at the funeral, Trump gave Graham fulsome praise. But Trump, with world events weighing heavily on his mind, returned to the subject of the war. This time, he put Graham's enthusiasm for war in context of patriotism. Still, even in that context, saying someone never saw a war that he didn't like is just not a terribly positive observation in the past. Trump used to describe one time National Security Adviser John Bolton, who Trump said has never seen a war he doesn't like. He didn't mean it as a compliment. Tuesday in Washington was filled with talk of Lindsey Graham. After all, Netanyahu and Zelensky were at the White House on that day only because of Graham, and most tributes to Graham spoke well of him, as befits the occasion. But Graham's most consequential achievement in many his many years in the Senate successfully pushing for a war in Iran has not so far worked out as he told Trump it would. And that fact was visible all day on Tuesday, even as Washington paid tribute to one of its most powerful lawmakers. I would say to Byron, you don't know what Graham told Trump about this war or about how to pursue this war. I can tell you that after the first two weeks of the war, when we went immediately into a ceasefire, that he and General Keane and people like me were troubled by it. We were troubled by it because we were on the offense, the Iranian military was on its back. And Graham was also troubled by, as I am in many respects, this on again, off again, on again, off again. And I speak for enormous number of people in this audience. We spent what, almost two hours yesterday taking calls on this, and to a person, you all were insisting that we get this over with and defeat the enemy and we all agreed that a deal will not be upheld. It will not stop this enemy, certainly not in the middle long term. So I'm not sure what pulse Byron has out there, what pulse he's touching and feeling and understanding. I'm not sure what most of these people are, but I believe conservative talk radio does have the pulse certainly of conservatives and maga. And conservatives and MAGA want us to defeat this enemy. And we do not believe this enemy can be trusted. And I know Lindsey Graham believed the same thing. And I'm not sure he agrees with the way that this is being handled necessarily. And I don't say that as a, as an attack on anybody. I just point out that there are differences of opinion, which is natural, which is a good thing, where people are giving their opinion on what they think should be done or how things are being done. But the sort of, the last sentence of this particular piece gives away its premise, I believe. I don't think it's the first time I've seen this from our friend Byron just pointing it out. But I want to get back to. Let's see here. Bear with me, America, Bear with me. I will not tell you that my printer is not working. You're probably tired of hearing things like that. Let us go to. Back to the audio now. March, I guess, was February 24, 2022. Start a full scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I went on the air and I said the following. Now again, I want to remind you that there seems to be a change in attitude toward Ukraine since they're winning both in the White House on Capitol Hill and I think generally among the American people. But here's what I said. I guess it's four years ago, more than four years ago, four and a half years ago. Cut 15. Go. I am deeply disturbed and frustrated by the fact that we haven't unleashed crippling sanctions. These salami tactics don't work and they're not going to work. This is me criticizing Biden. Go ahead. And frustrated that we are not pouring weaponry, enormous amounts into the Ukraine. We've stood up to the Russians before. We've stood up to the Soviets before. You know, there was a West Berlin. Harry Truman stepped up to the plate and of course West Germany. And we could go on now, not by our choice, by Putin's. We need to see the Russian army bogged down in Ukraine. And the Ukrainian people are brave people and they have a very smart, Democratic, courageous leadership in. Zelensky was really quite remarkable to hear Putin say he wants to de Nazify the Ukraine. Ukraine's president is a Jew and he was elected overwhelmingly. And one of the reasons he was elected overwhelmingly was to stop Putin and a corrupt government that preceded him by two presidencies. Now, I don't know, but I just cannot understand why we are not, in fact, unleashing crushing sanctions against Putin directly. I don't know why we have at least 15 areas of his economy that we're not going to touch. I don't know why we're not pouring weapons, defensive and offense, into Ukraine to protect not just the Ukrainian people, but protect the NATO allies and to protect the United States. For God's sakes. Let's go to cut 17. Go. And these same neo con artists, if you will. Neo appeasers, neo sellouts. So don't put America first. And they don't care about your kids and your grandkids. They're the Tokyo Roses of our time, giving aid and comfort to the enemy as far as I'm concerned. No one in particular, just as a general matter, because they come to the defense of the enemy. All right, we're going to take a break. We'll be right back. You don't have to overpay for big wireless, not when Pure Talk comes in with the same service for a tiny fraction of the cost. And now, for the first time ever, PureTalk, my favorite wireless company, is offering any plan at just $15 a month for your first three months. That's unbelievable. There's never been a better time to take Pure Talk for a test drive. It's fast, it's reliable, you're going to love it. Again, any Pure Talk plan, including their unlimited data plans, even their top tier $65 a month plans, just $15 a month for your first three months. That's a savings of up to $150. But I'd switch today because this offer is extremely short lived. Switch to Pure Talk. Enjoy your first three months of talk, text and data for just 15 bucks a month. Go to PureTalk.com that's Pure Talk.com L E V I N to make the switch to Pure Talk right now. Again. PureTalk.com Levin PureTalk.com Levin to start saving. Zelensky on FOX News Yesterday with Sean cut 18. Go. We want to stop this war. We're asking, you know, President Trump wants and the Europeans want, Putin doesn't want. We are asking to stop this war each day to minimum to negotiate ceasefire for some period of time and give possibility for diplomats to negotiate. But Putin doesn't want. So this is the problem that's why we need to respond. Be tough, be strong. Not only we, we count on sanctions. By the way, Lindsey's bill was very important.
- [69:27]
C
Mm.
- [69:29]
A
Now we move to New York quickly, where Netanyahu is under attack by the disgusting Islamist Marxist mayor. But Netanyahu is very tough. He's not going to back down to some weasel like Mandami. Cut 19. Go.
- [69:44]
B
But I'm definitely going there.
- [69:45]
A
I'm going to speak the truth in front of this. You know, there's just hate spewing.
- [69:51]
B
Elected official who's pitting one group of New Yorkers against the others. He's turning them against New York Jews. I mean, what are we in the 1930s? What is this, you know?
- [70:03]
A
So much hate, so many lies.
- [70:06]
C
Mm.
- [70:08]
A
So much hate, so many lies. You're not kidding. As he destroys the city. How much time left, Mr. Producer. Okay, let me go here. We've got a lot to cover. So I said we wouldn't get it all done in, in three hours, and we're not going to. But I want to move on to a few other things here. President Trump has said. New York Post. We will beat the effing s out of Iran after the surprise missile attack this evening. He's saying, look, they've told us they're very, very sorry that there was another group that ordered the attack and so forth, but we are. We will attack back. They attacked us, they shot us, and we'll shoot at them. Kind of downplaying it, don't you think, Rich? From what he originally said. Meanwhile, the U.S. our Air Force and the Saudis have launched joint strikes on Iran's terrorist proxies in Iraq and also the Houthis in Yemen. So that's going on as well, I guess. They didn't tell the Saudis to stand down. And they're not sidelined, certainly not now anyway. And then we have our good friend Mr. Xi exclusive. Iran to get Chinese shoulder launched missile systems and weak, sources say. And this is from Yahoo News through Reuters. Iran is expected to receive within weeks a first shipment out of four to four, up to 400 Chinese made shoulder fired air defense missile launchers. Three sources three familiar with the DL told Reuters as it rebuilds its defenses amid war with the United States. This could be a huge problem. Huge problem to have these shoulder fired air defense missiles. That's what we gave the Mushahadeen, the Northern alliance in Afghanistan to take out the Russian helicopters. The purchase, valued at 60, 70 million, is one of Tehran's largest known efforts to strengthen its short Range air defenses since the outbreak of the war with the US and Israel, which exposed gaps in Iran's ability to protect military sites and strategic infrastructure. See, to me, we should be arming the Iranian people. It's long overdue. We should be arming them heavily now. If we're arming them now, obviously we're not doing enough. We should be arming the Iranian people to take on the regime inside the border, that is the borders of Iran. Again, we've done this before and we've done it to great effect. Reuters has the specifics. Really incredible. The contract covers the purchase of between three and 400 man portable air defense systems that's called MANPADS, including Chinese made QW12 FN16 missiles. The deal was signed with anyway, it doesn't matter who it was signed with. The sources spoke on condition with anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Iran's Foreign Ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment. Course not. China's Foreign Ministry said, quote, the relevant reports are completely groundless. China's consistently played a role in promoting peace and ending the conflict. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. Just as the Islamists do. Just as the Islamists do. Iran needs to rearm. After months of fighting. This is what happens when we have these gaps and negotiations and so forth. When you have your foot on the throat of an enemy like this, you finish them off, in my humble opinion. We'll be right back. As the United States marked 250 years of independence, we're reminded that freedom isn't merely inherited. It must be defended, cherished and passed on to those who come after us. And for generations, America and Israel have stood together, unified by a belief in liberty, faith, democracy and the God given dignity of every human life. Those shared values have endured through triumph and trial alike. Today the people of Israel continue to face relentless attacks and daily uncertainty. This is not the time for indifference, but for resolve. Through the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, you can stand alongside your Jewish brothers and sisters in Israel. And to commemorate this historic anniversary, you can request your Free US Israel flag pin from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. A symbol of two nations, of freedom and faith, and of your commitment to stand with Israel when it matters most. Visit levin for the Fellowship.org to request your US Israel flag pin today. That's Levin. L E V I n for the fellowship.org he's here.
- [75:15]
B
He's here now, broadcasting them from the underground command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker. Somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.
- [75:36]
A
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381-38111. Charles Blow is a radical left wing kook. I think he's been hanging around the New York Times for most of his career, but doesn't really matter. And so what about reparations in New York City? You knew they were going to get to this, didn't you? Cut 23. Go. If a commission studying reparations in this city recommended cash reparations for people impacted in New York City, would you support that recommendation?
- [76:17]
B
First time.
- [76:18]
A
Let's stop right there. What does that mean? What does that mean? The Civil War was over in 1865, right? It's 161 years ago. So who are we talking about here? You've had immigrants coming in from all over the world, including people who are black and brown, coming in from all over the world who had no relationship whatsoever to slavery in America. But even so, you're three, four, five generations away. What does that mean? Literally, what does that mean? And this is the constant effort by the communists and the Democrat Party, the hardcore left, to continue to divide us, to continue to pick at scabs. We are probably the most diverse country on the face of the earth and the most beneficent country on the face of the earth. It seems to me reparations, if they're going to be paid, should be paid for by people whose lineage. Go back to Democrats. New York was not a slave city. New York was part of the Union that fought slavery. I mean, I suppose you can go back to the earliest times, but you know, if you're going to have an honest discussion about slavery, you have to have an honest discussion about Africa. You have to have an honest discussion about African tribes. You have to have an honest description about slavery in Africa and how slaves were sold to Europeans and others to be sent abroad. But we're the only country on the face of the earth that actually fought a civil war to end slavery. A civil war that tore the country apart and even afterwards passed amendments to our Constitution to address it. 13, 14, 15th amendments. There was still resistance in the country, as we well know, including from the Supreme Court, Plessy versus Virgilson, and we took 58 years to overturn that with Brown versus Board of Education. We're well aware of Jim Crow again, the Democrats with Jim Crow and other, other means by which creating obstacles to black people to vote, have fair representation and be treated equally and all. But that's mostly been resolved now, whether people want to believe it or not, it's true. It's a fantastic country with civil liberties. We have more equality under the law than any other country on the face of the earth. And that is a fact. Whether people want to hear it or not, that is a fact. Look around you, you can see it, whatever your race is. Now, that said, this whole thing of reparations is preposterous. Preposterous. But you actually have people in this country who lost family members fighting against slavery, fighting on the side of the Union. Most of them are, we call them Republicans. So why should those families be paying anything reparations? They already had loved ones who may have died or been horribly wounded or what have you, or spent four years of their lives in the Civil War, who knows? And now we're going to go back and figure out what's what and who's who. What a waste of time. It's just another way, just another way for Democrats to. To create hostilities, to create divisions, to create another basis for taking money from one person and giving it to another person. It's just appalling. Can you imagine all the graft and all the corruption that would be involved in that? It would make Medicare and Medicaid in Minnesota and other places in California look like a joke when you start doing that sort of thing. But they won't, they won't stop. Guys like Charles Blow and of course Mandami. Well, what did Mandami say? Go. Yes, it's the truth. Yes, it's not a personal assessment. And we often think about slavery and the complicity in slavery. Here's a guy from Uganda, comes to our country when he's 7, he's a naturalized citizen. When he's 18, he's 34, 35 years old. He comes from our country. Now he's going to lecture the American people on our history, on our history. His family did nothing to prevent slavery in this country. His family wasn't involved in our civil war, come into our country and start lecturing us about reparations. I resent this. This disgusts me. Absolutely disgust me. I totally resent this. Go ahead. Certain geographic areas of the country here in New York City, we were very complicit. And so I look forward to whatever happens. Hold on. How are we very complicit in New York City? Very complicit. It's just a constant put down of American history. And when you Put down American history, you're putting down Americans. It is a constant put down of we the people. Constantly.
- [81:46]
C
It.
- [81:47]
A
Today, it's the rich, it's white people, it's Christians and Jews, it's. It's Italians and Irish and Polish and German. And if you're black, it's black people who aren't down for the revolution. Oh, yeah. This kind of group think which is constant. This is a dangerous man. This is a vile person. But to come here as an immigrant, become a naturalized citizen, and start lecturing all the people in New York City, all the people all over the country, it just disgusts me. It turns my stomach. In New York, we were very complicit. Why don't you spell out exactly how New York was complicit? Why not? Better yet, you tell us how many men were sent to the civil war from the north out of New York City? A bunch. A bunch to fight the confederacy and to fight for the. For the freedom of black slaves. New York City. I don't even know where these guys get their idiocy from. Go ahead. I can't give you an answer in advance of them, but I can tell you that this is critically important because this is also what it looks like to acknowledge what history truly was. See what I mean? What was history like in Uganda? Does anybody remember Idi Amin? You hear that? Remember that name, Mr. Producer? Idi Amin was a dictator in Uganda. See, real history is not known. He was a dictator in Uganda and he was a genocidal maniac. And there are various tribes or tribe affiliations in Uganda, and he was slaughtering and slaughtering and slaughtering. Matter of fact, the guy died from a sexual disease because he had like a hundred children. You know, he was a pig. He was a real pig. Turns out he became a communist, and he was a communist, and so he would just slaughter people and he would have them summarily executed even in front of him. And he thought it was funny, thought it was great. Uganda. It's just an incredible thing. These people come from Uganda, they come into the United States, they trash our economic system, they trash our constitution. Now they. They trash our history. They demand that we provide for reparations. And I'm like, who the hell is this guy to be lecturing you and me? To be lecturing you and me? Sickening. We'll be right back. Mud Levin. With Donald Trump backing off as one of his biggest adversaries, top Democrat Dick Durbin of Chicago is leading the charge to derail President Trump's agenda at Every turn. And now Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Right now, Americans have thousands of credit card options, all with equal strong security. But Senator Durbin's plan could result in less security. That means more risk for your credit, your identity, and your financial future. Durbin's bill isn't about helping consumers. It's a giveaway to corporate megastores, which could shift costs onto you while putting your rewards and fraud protections in jeopardy. We've seen Durbin's fail policies before his last big banking regulation backfired, leading to higher costs and fewer benefits for Americans. American families tell Republican senators, stop Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Learn more at guard your car.com. that's guardyourcard.com paid for by the Electronic Payments Coalition. All right, let's take some calls. Darryl. Nashville, Tennessee. Sirius XM7 satellite. Go right ahead.
- [85:57]
C
Flea Levin. It's great to talk to you, my friend.
- [86:00]
A
Thank you, sir.
- [86:02]
C
I miss that guy. So do I. Yeah, you, you alluded to this earlier and you didn't use the, these words, but I am in the respect that I feel like the approach to the Iranians has been chaotic and I, I think there was not enough imagination about how they would react to what we did. I have no, I have, I support the, the Strat now. I don't support the strategy, but I support why we did this. I think they were close to a nuclear weapon. But the starting and stopping, starting and stopping threats, bombast. We're going to bomb the bat, you know, we're going to bomb them back to the Stone Age, which he has said probably dozens of times now, now. And yet they just keep going right along, being the Iranians and pretty much with impunity. I mean, they are a formidable force that I don't know if, if Trump took too lightly, if, if he's not listening to, you know, the, the real strategy makers. And I go on Breitbart and I go on other, other conservative websites, and when I criticize the strategy, my conservative brethren excoriate me. And if we can't hold someone that we voted for accountable, we're not doing our job. So I don't believe in idolatry and I don't believe, I don't believe in blind allegiance to any politician because they're all men. Am I missing something here, Mark? I, I just.
- [87:34]
A
No, no. I mean, when I even worked for Ronald Reagan, there are issues that I would raise. There are issues that cabinet sectors would raise. So I mean, to me, as long as it's done in an effort to, to raise an issue in a respectful way, in a legitimate way, a civil way, why not? I mean, what's wrong with that? And we may be able to be helpful in doing it. And so no, we shouldn't, we shouldn't ignore our principles. And if you have a belief or an opinion, then you shouldn't be, you shouldn't be silenced. And yet I, I, I, I see these people, do they do the same thing. And yet, what's interesting to me, I posted something earlier. Let me read it to you. Let's see if this strikes home with you too. Just bear with me, everybody. I posted it and I want to read what I posted. So it's exactly right. Let me read this to you. All right, where is it? The Woke right isolationists celebrate the President when he scales back military action and enters into negotiations with the enemy, but are either silent or lash out against MAGA conservatives who support the President's military action against Iran, carefully avoiding criticism of the President who's calling the shots. They do this even though it is crystal clear that negotiations are not working, that the enemy has never honored any deals during its 47 year reign of terror, including recent ceasefires and the Memorandum of Understanding, and that the regime's Islamist ideology would in fact result in it using nuclear weapons against us. As the President himself has noted repeatedly, what the Woke right isolationists have never explained is what their approach would have been, apart from slogans and name calling. What would they have done? It seems they would have done nothing, meaning the enemy would have finished developing nuclear weapons. And apparently they're okay with that, despite the enormous risk to our country and humanity generally. Furthermore, while most of them claim to support the President, obviously they oppose him having launched military operations against the Iranian regime. They're not supporting the President. So my point there is, hey, look, these negotiations are going nowhere fast, in my humble opinion. And in fact, when we have these ceasefires, these waiting periods, they're able to build up and do other things that I have a problem with. And I have voiced that. I have voiced it on fox. I voice it here, I do it in a respectful way. But these people who attack you, and probably the same ones attack me and everybody else, they're like a little horde that go around, a little cabal, and they don't support this war effort because when, as I said, the President takes military action, they're silent. And when he doesn't, or when he's in a negotiation Mode, they're supportive. Is that about right? Is that what you think?
- [90:35]
C
Well, to be honest with you, that's, that's not really the line of thinking I was having. My line of thinking was that when I disagree with the strategies, even though I do support the mission, I get a lot of criticism for it from people who support, support Trump because he's Trump. I don't support Trump because he's Trump. I said.
- [90:56]
A
I think that's pretty much what I was trying to say. Anyway, go ahead.
- [91:00]
C
Okay. Okay. I support conservatism, but my fear is, and I would bet money on this, that unless we take decisive answers, decisive action quickly, we're going to be back there 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now with boots on the ground with a much more lethal enemy. And, you know, if we can bomb them into submission, I'm all for it. But I don't think it's possible because these guys are like rats. They know where to hide. They've got tunnels built.
- [91:30]
A
I think we're in, I think we're in agreement. And what I've been talking about is arming their people. I don't think we need to send in troops. I don't think Reagan would have sent in troops. And I don't think the American people will tolerate it, given our psychology right now. And I don't think it's necessary. But we do need to send in weapons for those people that they're ready made. They want, you know, there's, there's millions of them that want to get, get rid of this government and so forth. And I think it's, it's a huge mistake not to do that. And of course, I've been talking about this day in and day out that we're not going to be able to contain them certainly after Trump leaves, that we can't do this forever and we need to complete the job. All right, my friend, I do appreciate your call. Excellent call. Let's continue. Let's go to Adam. Wilmington, North Carolina. The Great Waa. What is it? Aav. Go.
- [92:25]
C
Hey, Mark, I was calling to speak toward your point about having open and honest conflict conversation about slavery. And, you know, the point also needs to be made and discussed about the industries in the north that opposed, opposed abolition of slavery. I mean, the south is not totally responsible for slavery and the north gets off scot free, but there were industries like the, like the textile industry that did not want to see slavery ended in the south because they got cheap cotton.
- [93:12]
A
Well, really, there wasn't much of a textile industry. In the north, to be perfectly honest with you. And if you're saying there were pockets in the north that supported slavery, you're correct. But the vast majority of the population in the north not only didn't support slavery, they never even met a slave. All throughout New England, much of much of the Northeast, and the truth be told, in the south, most of the people in the south didn't own slaves. About 25% of the population owned slaves. But nonetheless, it was a rallying point and it was part of the reason, if not a significant reason for the Civil War. But I get your point. I don't think there were too many industries in the north that were relying on slavery. The North's industrial capacity was really quite sophisticated. And in the 1860s, they were relying on pretty much built the middle class, quite frankly, as did the South. That was the second, what I call the second capitalist revolution that was taking place during the course of the Civil War.
- [94:29]
C
All right.
- [94:30]
A
We'll be right back. Mark Levin, tough as hell. That's why I like Mark Levin. And I'm not sure a lot of people like him. He's tough as hell. But I, I like them. I love them. Call in now, 877-381-3811. All right, let's go to Mike, Naperville, Illinois, the great WLS. How are you, Mike?
- [94:57]
C
I'm great to talk with you.
- [94:59]
A
Thank you.
- [95:02]
C
Listen, I listen to your show all the time and I think the issue about the reparations is laughable. I had grandfathers who fought in the Civil War. I actually have ancestors where abolitionists work hard to free the slaves. And I think it's all a distraction. Black Americans need to be focused on the people who are coming in, taking the jobs and why and ask themselves why are they continually being held back is because they continually vote for people who are allowing other people to come in and displace them.
- [95:34]
A
I think there is a lot to that. I think immigration, particularly illegal immigration, is very damaging in these various communities, in the cities and the metropolitan areas especially. But I do think you're right. The focus is completely wrong. We ought to focus on American citizens, all American citizens, regardless of race or background, on how they can improve their lot through real capitalism, through participatory government, not through government welfare and more democratic policies and so forth and so on. We'd be doing a lot better for a lot people. But you know, the left, this isn't the way they operate. The way they operate is as Marxists, they look at people in groups. They identify People by groups, and they try to build the number of quote, unquote, oppressed, you know, versus the oppressors, which is everybody else. But they keep going back to the Civil War. Civil War, Civil War, which should be viewed as a magnificent human effort to eliminate and abolish slavery, rather than. Okay, now, what about reparations? Reparations. You know, Ronald Reagan believed in reparations for the Japanese Americans, those families that were, that had their property taken, their business taken, and FDR put them in internment camps because they were still alive. They were alive. The children were still alive. But we're talking about many generations away now. It's just ridiculous. I mean, it's, it's going to be impossible to even figure it out. And I can just see the massive corruption that would be attended to this. Thanks for your call, Mike. God bless you, brother. You take care of yourself. Okay, let's see. Bear with me, folks. All right, done. Let's continue. Let's go to John in Brandon, WJNT country. How are you?
- [97:31]
C
Hey, thanks, sir. Thank you so much. And thank you. My call, and I just wanted to mention about Mondami and his talk about reparations. My great, great, great grandfather fought with the New Hampshire first volunteer calories through all four years of the Civil War, and all he wound up with was with a headstone at the VA Cemetery in Brooklyn, New York. And he fought for what he believed in. And I cannot believe that, you know, we're, we're still fighting this battle over all the good.
- [98:10]
A
We're not. You know, the Marxists and the Democrats, they want to keep fighting this battle. They'll fight it for another 500 years if they have to because this, this, they believe angers people, upsets people, turns people against people. And this is all they ever do. This is all they ever do. I mean, the Civil War was really a remarkable, remarkable event. I mean, the, the amount of carnage and casualties was, you know, unimaginable. And you know, we talk today and we should about we've lost 14 or we've lost 16 or 17 great patriots, real heroes. I mean, they lost over 700,000 during the course of the Civil War and at least half of them for the North. And so I don't think reparations are in order, and I don't think it could even be figured out if they were in order. And John, thank you, my friend. Appreciate your call. Excellent call. Let us go to Adam, Malibu, California, on the Mark Levin app. Go right ahead, please. Yes, Adam, go ahead.
- [99:22]
C
Mark. Awesome show. And China Sent that virus, that deadly virus to America. I believe citizens, their citizens were contaminated with it, and they brought him here. And In January of 2020, I did not hear Senator Rand Paul say, stop bringing those fights into America. They kept coming in. They contaminated and killed over a million Americans. China skates as usual, just like Saudi Arabia skated with 9 11. Those Saudi Arabians attacked our country on 9 11, knocking down the towers in the Pentagon and what happened in Pennsylvania. So it looks like to me that China is going to get off the hook. It's going to skate on this, and they're going to go after the key. Laurel Fauci. There are so many people involved in this. In New York City, I remember the Army Corps of Engineers took the Javits center, turned it into a hospital. Trump sent the Navy hospital ship here and the Central Park. That beautiful Christian organization set up a mobile hospital, and they were getting harassed. And this tennis center was turned into a hospital, too, and nobody was sent there. They sent them Governor Murphy of New Jersey, who takes no heat. He has that protective last name. He gets no heat. He was sending people to the. He was sending them to the nursing homes who had Covid. And if you remember, in the beginning, everybody was champion. Cuomo. Oh, he's so great. He's so this and that. He demanded that Trump send him ventilators. Trump gave him everything he wanted, and he still turned on him. These folks, this is more than Fauci, folks. It's the communist Chinese who sent this virus here. And I believe it's also. They sent it here because they were mad at Trump for the tariffs that he put on them, and they wanted him out of office. And the way to do it was to do it economically because Trump was flying high in December and January of 2020. And then all of a sudden, the virus constantly, the country is turned upside down. And unfortunately, he loses the election and he abandoned the illegal immigration thing. Legal immigration has got to come to an end. This guy, Mommy Tommy, he's only been a citizen for eight years. He's now the mayor of the biggest city on the planet. Folks, it's legal immigration. Anybody who supports legal immigration is a useful idiot. And they're on the side of Communist China and Saudi Arabia who are pouring billions, billions of dollars into this country to change this country. They've invited 100 million third world.
- [101:57]
A
All right, my friend, you're good. You're very, very good. I appreciate your call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Pretty good, don't you think? I think so. We got Danny's got a good question. Danny in Boston, Massachusetts, listening on wabc. Danny, how are you?
- [102:15]
C
You. What was that all about? I mean, the guy made some good points, but, I mean, but, but talk radio is fabulous. That's what I like. And you went, I mean, it was great. And I, I agree with that. Last call. The communist Chinese, you know what they look at as America? They look at as America as a, as their version of Saturday Night Live. They must have been laughing with the things with Fauci in Congress and what color.
- [102:44]
A
They look at America as a failing society. The communist Chinese, like the Islamists, they look at the world in thousands of years, not every 10 or 30 or 50 or 100 years. And they think we are a society that is devolving in some ways. We certainly are. But that's why you and me and the people in this audience have to keep pushing back. But that's, that's how they view us anyway. Go ahead.
- [103:13]
C
And they view us. They see our American children with the help of some psychos in the hospitals dissecting themselves. They're laughing. Men playing women's sports, beating up women on the volleyball and basketball and swimming. They're laughing.
- [103:31]
A
By the way, they're not going to let Islamists from the middle least come into their country, are they?
- [103:36]
C
No. And Islamists ain't gonna let the Chinese come into their countries. I can't build a Christian church.
- [103:42]
A
That's what I'm saying. They're, they're, they're rounding up Christians around it up, Muslims, Tibetans, you know, they don't, they don't mess around. Not that we should be them, of course, but is it really too hard to ask our government, our entire ruling class to keep, to keep Islamist radicals who want to destroy our country the hell out of this country? Is that asking too much?
- [104:05]
C
No, it's not. And all they got to do is stop legal immigration, throw these people out.
- [104:09]
A
You had a good question. Go ahead and ask your question.
- [104:13]
C
Okay. My question is revolving around, like lawsuits and attorney generals in obviously Republican states going after everybody who was involved in this. I say this massive hoax and cover up where they, let's face it, millions, millions of dollars was robbed from the COVID money. And that was the beginning, folks. You don't know, was the beginning of the, the beginning of the illegal aliens who worked in the restaurants turning on the restaurant owners because they wanted that twelve hundred dollars a week. But they weren't on the books, so they were.
- [104:50]
A
We're going to run out of time. So your question Was, as I understand it. What about state attorneys general? Why can't they do something? Isn't that correct?
- [104:58]
C
That's correct, but they won't do nothing because that would drag China into it.
- [105:01]
A
All right, slow down, slow down. You have to have a state violation. You have to have a state violation. I think you're in the right direction because that pardon would not affect state law or the ability to prosecute Fauci under state law. So if you have Republican attorneys general, they ought to look over their criminal codes. They ought to see if there's an opportunity there, if there's something they can do, and then you're right, they are free to act because this, this pardon does not. Does not apply to them. Thank you, brother. We'll be right back. Mud Love in. Let us continue, shall we? Let's go to Eric, Napa County, California, the great ksfo. Eric, how are you?
- [105:55]
C
I'm fine, thanks, Mark. It occurred to me when a previous caller was talking about supporting the war, that not only was the greatest generation, the guys who went off to war, but it was the people who stayed at home and sacrificed, rationing food and doing scrap drives and all that. And that we definitely don't have that aspect of this country anymore.
- [106:19]
A
In fact. In fact, the price of gasoline goes up 50 cents, and you'd think the. The world was coming to an end.
- [106:25]
C
Right. I'd pay $20 a gallon to support getting rid of the regime in Iran.
- [106:34]
A
I think you're right. We haven't made a lot of sacrifices, have we? The vast majority of Americans haven't felt anything.
- [106:40]
C
Yeah. And don't forget, there's a lot of us ditto heads out here still that love you as much as we loved Rush. And I don't want you to ever sell yourself short about that.
- [106:49]
A
I'm very, very kind.
- [106:50]
C
We love.
- [106:51]
A
You're very kind. You know, Rush brought me into this business here in Hannity, used to call me F. Lee Levin, as you may know, and. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry.
- [107:03]
C
I talked to Rush twice. Yeah.
- [107:05]
A
That's amazing. You got through. It was impossible to get through to
- [107:08]
C
him, you know, that was the hard part. Yeah.
- [107:12]
A
Now he was something else. I know he would be. You love Netanyahu. They were close friends. I know he wanted. He would want Iran to be defeated. I feel like many things I say, he and I were very simpatico, very so. All right, my friend, thank you so much for your call. Rush will always be with us. Always. At least on this program, him. Let's go to Chuck Appleton, Wisconsin, the great wtaq. Chuck, go right ahead, please.
- [107:45]
C
Thank you. Mark. Back to Fauci in the hearings today. He's got a pardon for everything. He did involve Covid, but now he's afraid if he testifies to anything, he might accidentally say a lie or on purpose say a lie, and he might get prosecuted for it. Every witness who testifies before Congress has that same concern. If he gets away with the Fifth because he's afraid he might lie, then nobody will ever have to testify before Congress again. All they have to say is, I'm afraid I might tell a lie. I'm pleading the Fifth. To every question the court, most people,
- [108:15]
A
most people who testify, it's not a matter of life and death or crime or no crime, to be perfectly honest with you. So I don't think it's that dire. And I think, just to be perfectly honest with you, this matter hasn't been resolved in all these decades. So I don't think it's as black and white as Rand Paul says it is. But I don't think it's a complete defense either. So at some point, the Supreme Court's gonna have to straighten this out. But good call. I love all you callers. We salute our armed forces, police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel, our friends in ice, our truckers, the men and women in Ukraine, the men and women in Israel, the men and women in in Persia, and you, the American people. Thank God for you, and thank you. Let's do this again tomorrow. We'll see you same place, same time. Have a great night.