Loading summary
Transcript80 lines
- [00:00]
Mark Levin
It's all quiet in the underground bunker,
- [00:04]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
doors closed, locks bolted. But the Great One isn't just resting on his laurels. He's making sure your weekend is even better by giving you his best.
- [00:16]
Mark Levin
This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [00:20]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
You see a lot going on with these Marxists and these Islamists and the woke right neo fascists that I've talked about. I want to circle back with you to my book on power and so we can get into this and have even a more fuller understanding of what's taking place, if you will. And so for modern Western societies, most of which are said to be advanced, enlightened and democratic, what I call negative power. Negative power is more opaque, or what I call soft negative power than you might see in these full blown communist and fascist regimes. Typically, Western institutions have been established gradually by experience and practice, are constituted by design to counter or limit the most aggressive forms of negative power, such as dictatorships or oligarchies, different forms of that type of centralized authoritarianism. But over time they tend to become susceptible to a softer form of negative power. Political parties and political movements in the west look for advantage in acquiring, holding and expanding their power, whether changing election laws, governing increasingly through non representatives like bureaucrats and so called independent agencies and commissions, the rule of carefully selected judges or judicial councils and the like. Now the conflict between honoring and complying with the institutional limits placed on power, the law of self aggrandizement, is both real and, and perhaps, perhaps inevitable over time. Now, I want you to keep something in mind. This book came out two years ago, so I'm writing about things that are transpiring, as it turns out now, before they were in full bloom. But I can see them, I can see them on the move now. Once the authentic and thought to be effective institutions for limiting excesses of power are transformed into Potemkin, like fictions used to disguise the true intentions of the abusers, and worse, are transformed into tools in support of the exercise of a soft negative power. This is what I term, excuse me, this is what I terminated. Authoritarian democracy. Authoritarian democracy. Authoritarian democracy is when a democracy begins to slide into a form of authoritarianism, not all at once, but steadily, where authoritarian attributes slowly proliferate and one branch of the democracy begins to envelop the others, or all branches coalesce into a whole. Either way, the exercise of power is steadily centralized and the citizenry increasingly peripheral. It typically results in the rule by unelected governmental branches, that is the judiciary and the administrative state, but can also mutate into excessive Executive or legislative empowerment. Authoritarian democracy and the democracies of that sort adopt and use the tactics of authoritarian regimes, albeit first with more of a glove than an iron fist. But the underlying attributes are there. For example, legislatures that pass tyrannical laws, but which laws are said to be legitimate simply because the legislature adopted them, courts that disregard due process, but which trials are said to do justice because they were held in a court of law, with defense counsel and juries present, and so forth. The use of law is said to be a legitimate application of power because it is the law, not because it's proper, just or moral law. Now, even today, Let me take this out. Even today, the impact of authoritarian democracy has seeped into our society psyche so successfully that the late Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises observed that one of the worst tyrannies of all, Marxism, has become part of the west psyche. He said, to a considerable extent, without knowing it. Many people are philosophical Marxists, although they use a different name for their philosophical ideas. But there are also those, perhaps many, who benefit from the government's use of soft negative power, including when that power is used, for example, to forcibly redistribute the wealth and property of those who produced and earned it for the use and enrichment of others beyond the usual and the basic needs of a civil society. And they justify what would otherwise be considered thievery as noble and even moral. The beneficiaries of such soft negative power are fully aware that they did not earn what they have received, but delude themselves in various ways that they are deserving of it. You know, I saw an example this online. I wish I knew who. I give them credit. One successful person. You take their money and you give it to five lazy people who don't work, but that one successful person is one vote. Those five lazy people who don't work, that's five votes. And I think this cuts right to the, to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? The one successful person is one vote. So if you're interested in political power, governmental power, you can seize the wealth of that one person or lose one vote, give it to five people and gain five votes. And that's part of the problem with democracies, which is why we're not a democracy. We are a republic. And so after the break, that brings me back to the democratic socialists of America. And I want to apply this to them. And we've kind of outlined already what their policies are, but I want you to hear it from, from one of their own. Now, we have tried to get these senior people on the program, and they will not come on the program. As I've explained to you before, they won't come on the program because I understand what they're saying. I understand their ideology. I understand the defectiveness of all of it. Where some people are very superficial in questioning them. We would be cutting right to the chase Now. The Democratic Socialists of America are communists, I like to say Marxist. Technically, it's the same thing, I suppose. But I really want you to think about this. Before we were hearing from them, how different are they really from Hakeem Jeffries and the Democrats who were talking about abolishing? Abolishing what? The Electoral College. Abolishing the Senate. They say, no, we can't abolish the Senate. Okay, they disagree on that. They talk about abolishing the Supreme Court. But the Democrats, in effect, would do that by turning into something it was never meant to be, by adding seats and turning it into their own politburo. So I'd call that a wash. And the Democrats really are socialist in most respects, and they've been pretty blunt about what they want to do to our Constitution, haven't they? And they have embraced the 1619 Project, and they've embraced all of these. These attacks on our founders. You better believe it. And they have embraced attacks on our constitutional construct. They have embraced attacks on the Declaration. We have talked about that before. So they really have given birth to the Democratic Socialists of America, that is the Communists. And they are also quasi communists themselves, to be perfectly blunt about it. So if you really understand this as you and I do, it's not really a matter of. Well, there's this battle within the Democrat Party. There are, in fact, moderates in the Democrat Party, but the Democrat Party as a whole, the leadership of the Democrat Party and so forth and so on, they've been a lot more coy than the Democratic Socialists of America. But there is a significant overlap, I would argue. Significant. Now, one of the senior members of the Democratic Socialists of America is this Megan Romer. Now, Mr. Producer has reached out multiple times to the Democratic Socialists of America, and we've been unable to get Megan Romer or any one of their other senior people on this program. And the reason is simple, and I don't pat myself on the head. I understand Communism, I understand socialism, I understand the Constitution, and I understand what they're doing. And to really do a deep dive with these people would be to expose these people. Most hosts can't do that because that's not their mindset. I have Spent my whole life studying it and writing about it and so forth and so on. But here she is, Megan Romer, dsa, one of the senior people there on FOX News Sunday. Cut one, go.
- [10:42]
Interviewer/Host
Okay, so we're going to put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform. And I want to ask you, just give me sort of a true or false on these. Abolish the Senate. True. Okay. Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them. Yep. Abolish ice. Absolutely. Abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US Illegally as a long term plan. Yep. Defund the Pentagon. Absolutely. Abolish prisons, at least in large part. Yeah. Again as part of a long term program. Yeah. Okay, so no prisons, government or public ownership of most large corporations. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so then let's go back through some of those. Then abolish the Senate. There are people who are in the Senate now who are very supportive of dsa. They lose their seats. Well, the Senate is an anachronistic institution. It comes from the British House of Lords. It is made to protect power for,
- [11:40]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
you know, let's hold right there. The Senate does not come from the British House of Lords. The Senate was created not because of the British House of Lords has nothing to do with the British House of Lords. The British House of Lords. Now, the Senate was made to ensure that smaller states with smaller populations had a say in the government. They wouldn't have voted for the Constitution. They wouldn't have been part of the Union. And yet some of these smaller states with smaller populations or big states with smaller populations are crucial to this nation even today. Oil producing states, food producing states and so forth and so on. And so the notion was we'll have a bicameral Congress, not a Parliament. And the direct election of individuals, which in fact the founders of this republic feared to some extent because of mobocracy and factions, was just for the House of Representatives. The Senate was chosen by the state legislatures or however the state legislatures would decide to choose them. And then of course, we have a president that's chosen not just through people voting, but through an electoral college, again, to ensure that all states have a say, not just the most populous states with the most populous metropolitan areas. It's all quite a brilliant, brilliant setup. And so when they say, yeah, the Senate is anachronistic, that is, you know, we have elections around here. The point of the Senate was to ensure not that we have elections around here are not that everybody gets a vote. It was to ensure that first of all we could form a union. And secondly, smaller states have a say in the national government through the Senate because they don't have much of a say through the House of Representatives. It's that simple. Actually Quite brilliant. Go ahead.
- [13:41]
Interviewer/Host
Senate was part of the system that was made to make sure that the people didn't have too much of a say.
- [13:48]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
So we want to stop right there. Has nothing to do with the people not having much of a say for the reason I just said. They wanted to make sure people in like today, Delaware, people In Rhode island, two of the 13 original colonies, or today people in Wyoming and Minnesota and North Dakota and South Dakota, people in Arizona and New Mexico, all kinds of states that have very minimal populations. They wanted to make sure that they had some say. And so it's quite the opposite of what she says. It ensures that all citizens have some form of say in their federal government. It's to ensure that the states have some kind of stay in their federal government.
- [14:39]
Interviewer/Host
Go ahead significantly, but make it a unicameral.
- [14:44]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
If we made a unit cameral, as I've explained many times before, basically you'd have 12 states, some count 14. All right, 12 to 14 states which control everything. That's it. So the whole point of having states and federalism so forth would cease to exist, which is really what they're about. They want centralized power, centralized decision making. They simply want to plow through with factions and majorities. And that does not protect your civil liberties. That does not protect your property rights. That simply does not protect all citizens of the country.
- [15:21]
Mark Levin
Mark the VIN.
- [15:26]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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.
- [16:36]
Mark Levin
Making your weekend and Even better. This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [16:42]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
I watched part of the ceremonies honoring Lindsey Graham, the National Cathedral and before that at the Capitol. Very, very touching. The tributes were beautiful. And as I've told you before, I got to know Lindsey Graham, I'd say last three, three and a half years, very, very well. He would call me sometimes at 2 in the morning. I would text him sometimes at 6 in the morning, 5 in the morning. In a wonderful staff as well. And why, you might ask. First of all, as for today, it pains me greatly that I was not there. It pains me greatly that I was not there Monday night for a special limited event, a dinner. But as some of you know or have read through the, through the lines here, I have an older brother who's quite ill and he is in Florida. And I don't get down Florida as much as I want to, even though I'm here often. And so this week and last week, I've been here, including with the grandchildren, our daughter as well. So I could not leave and I need to be by his side from time to time. That said, I think Lindsay will be very impressed with what he's saying. You know, when I endorse Lindsay for the Senate, I said to him off the air before he came on the air, is it going to help you or hurt you? He said, mark, it's South Carolina. It's going to help me. But he, he sort of confided in me that a lot of conservatives were not out there endorsing him. And if you look at conservatives on TV and radio, a lot of them did not. I came to really admire this man, to respect this man. We had many things in common, the three in particular, Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. You see, ladies and gentlemen, I believe in good versus evil and I believe Israel's good, Ukraine's good and Taiwan is good. I believe the Islamo Nazis are bad. I believe Russia is bad and I believe Communist China and Xi are bad. It's not too complicated to me, and these are our allies and I'm not going to get into every particular. But we would spend a lot of time, significant time, talking about how, how to persuade this person or that person or whatever to move in a particular direction away from isolationism, appeasement, pacifism and so forth. And we would talk about a number of people, the woke, right. We talk about certain senators and congressmen that I'm not going to share, even certain hosts as friends, not intended to be public about it, but we would look at the whole horizon of events and individuals, and we would discuss those things. I brought him on the program about an hour before the. About an hour before the polls closed in South Carolina. I've always felt that to be very effective. And he was always excited to come on. He didn't come on that often because I don't ask a lot of politicians to come on that often, but he was always excited. And so when he came on, I guess a month before the election, I talked to him and I said on the air, I said, I'm going to endorse you. Is that going to hurt you? He said, absolutely not. So they actually used it, or he did in a number of his speeches. And it was a great honor. It's a great honor. So he will be missed. But I posted that he'd be quite amused, I think, by the pack house at the National Cathedral and what was said about him. I think he'd be kind of amused that he. That he was in the Rotunda today. I think he'd be pleased. Very pleased, very happy about it, but amused because a lot of those giving him accolades today certainly weren't giving him accolades three weeks ago where they kept labeling him a warmonger. He was never a warmonger. He believed in standing up for our allies and standing up against evil. I call that a peace monger. The peace monger. Of course, we had our disagreements early on when he was a congressman, he was sitting on the House Judiciary Committee. It was a long time ago, but I was on the air with you folks. One of the counts against Clinton he successfully had pulled from the impeachment list. And that was when Clinton lied during his deposition in front of federal Judge Susan Wright. And I said that was actually the strongest count against Clinton. And you might recall the Landmark Legal foundation that I and our group that we filed a letter with Judge Wright laying out the case for contempt of court, criminal contempt of court by Clinton. And she would later use that letter without, without referencing it, but used the cites and the other arguments we made. I made him Arthur Ferguson, Pete Hutchison, Mike o', Neill, Matt Forays, and she held him in civil contempt. That was the result of that letter. But I said, you know, that was bad. So the first time I bumped into him, and I don't go to Capitol Hill often, in fact, probably in the last 25 years, I can count him on one hand five times, maybe for different events. And he said, you're Mark Levin? I said, yes, I am. And he said, well, I know you're upset with me on that one count. I said, well, I am, because that was the strongest count we have. He said, you might have been right. We disagreed on the Gang of Eight, where he was working with McCain and actually Rubio and others. And I was being lobbied very, very heavily by Rubio. I don't talk to him very much these days. Don't know why. I just don't. I do my own thing and he does his thing. I have tremendous respect for him, though. Tremendous. But Lindsay started reaching out more and more the last several years, and I did reciprocated, and we had a little text group with two other senators, and I won't pull that in. Two senators who are very solid, who you would know. And so the four of us would text daily. I would say, Mr. Producer, the four of us would text daily. Really things we thought were important and so forth, related to Iran and Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah. That whole area of the world, as well as Ukraine and Russia, which we all agreed on. Taiwan and China were not that big of issues over the last three years. But that's who we were and that's what we believed. And it really shouldn't come to any surprise. He used to say, you know, Mark, you. You have these views because you're an old Reaganite. I said, that's probably true. I remember when we met at the President's Club in New Jersey. We were all a small dinner. My wife was there as well, and we had a strong discussion about NATO, and I gave my positions on NATO, and Lindsay kept urging me on. I'll keep telling him, keep telling. I said, okay, well, I'm just giving my opinion, things of that sort. So I. I'm sorry I missed these events, but, you know, it's okay. You got to do what you got to do. All right, let's try cut one. President Trump on Fox and Friends. He likes that program. Cut one, Go.
- [26:13]
Mark Levin
But I have some Republicans said, well, why don't we hit them harder? So, you know, it's like, at some point. So I have. You have a lot of competing factions. You have a group.
- [26:23]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
By the way, I'm one of them. By the. I don't know. I want to destroy them. I want to eliminate it. Yes. So, you know, it's like, ladies and gentlemen, a few months ago, I said, you and I, we're going to lead the charge against the Democratic Socialists of America. We're going to expose them. And we do, but we're going to lead the charge against American Marxism. Remember, we said that a few years ago, and we do. And people have to eventually catch up with us. Because this isn't complicated stuff. When you have an Islamist regime in Iran that wants nuclear weapons and the idea that we're going to keep them in a box somehow, some way, which is really impossible, given their ideology. Yes, some people want to hit them harder. Some people want them eliminated, including arming the people who are there and unleashing the Israelis and the Mossad, working with the CIA that we use all the instrumentalities we have righteously and nobly for the very reason we attacked them in the first place, to finish them off. So you can count me among those Republicans. So let's start from the top again. Go.
- [27:34]
Mark Levin
But I have some Republicans said, well, why don't we hit them harder? So, you know, it's like at some point. So I have. You have a lot of competing factions. You have a group of people that wanted to be obliterated in the truest sense of the word. Then you have a group that. That this is actually a good time to make a deal for them. If they don't make a deal, then I go back and I finish the job. But that's going to take them forever to rebuild already. It'll take many years to ever rebuild. And I go back and finish up the job, as some people would like, with the bridges, with the Very easy. I could take out most of their bridges in less than an hour. Less than an hour. But, you know, it takes him 10 years to build a bridge. Bridges take the longest, and power plants are second. I can knock out the power plants within one day, all of their power plants would be gone. And I let them know that, you know, with negotiations, they said, look, people want me to do that. I think I get almost the same thing out of it as doing it. But the problem is they'll never be able to. You know, I think about 91 million people without power, without bridges, without.
- [28:41]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
The problem is the people there want liberation. They want their freedom. And so when we were fighting World War II, we weren't thinking about how long it might take to rebuild that sort of thing. And same with the Cold War and these other things. These are things that you. You try to do after. After you've won. And they're difficult. But the truth of the matter is the vast majority of the people there want this regime obliterated. They're being slaughtered when they speak out. People are being hanged as we speak. And this is their position. And I don't think we need to blow out all their bridges and power sources and so forth. And so on. I think what we need to do is arm the people, go after the irgc, pull them out by the roots. And I think we need to find a couple more generals in there who are more patent, like where the kind of generals Lincoln had to find a Grant type or Sherman type and apply them to the situation with a different mindset. That's, that's where I'm coming from. So it's, it's not just a matter of bombing them harder and harder. It's a matter of bombing the right things and, and taking this regime out. I mean, the truth is it was much harder to defeat the Soviet Union and it is the Iranian regime. And there's a lot of things we can learn from what took place in the past. Go ahead.
- [30:05]
Mark Levin
It's a very, very delicate balance. So I think we have a very strong position right now. They know I'm going to do that. If they don't make a deal, the bridges are going to be gone literally in less than, I would say in two hours. Most of the bridges.
- [30:19]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Let me just say this. I was at a diner with a lot of friends who are all Trump supporters yesterday morning, older folks and again, all Trump guys, all of them, all veterans. And they were very troubled by all this, by this back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. This is what they were telling me. Again, I want to hear what people have to say. And this is what they were telling me. They were saying, look, we're a little confused. One day we're going to blow them off the face of the earth if they don't listen to us. The next day we're going to. We back off. They want to negotiate. The next day we're going to blow them off the face here. The next day they want to negotiate back and forth and back and forth. And they're saying, let's finish the job. And finish the job means to go in there for two or three or four weeks and finish the job and get those people armed up and overthrow that regime. I'm just saying this is where the public is, the public that I deal with. As a matter of fact, let's open to the callers. Mr. Producer, Mr. Call screener. What do you folks think I did this last month? And all of you to a person said, let's finish this thing. And the other thing, we talk about the midterm elections. I just don't think this helps us with the midterm elections. We're going to blow them off the face of the earth. But they want to Negotiate and back and forth. I don't. That's just my personal opinion. Go ahead, Be gone.
- [31:50]
Mark Levin
And the power plants in one day?
- [31:53]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Mm. Well, I don't know that we need to take out all their power plants and bridges by now. I think we're able to better target what needs to be targeted. That's certainly my guess. What about the Strait of Hormuz? There's some stuff in the media. I have no way of knowing if it's true that Iran would have some significant control over that. Just remember that memorandum of understanding, which I thought was terrible, absolutely terrible, made my opinions known, came under attack for it. I don't know why. I've been proven right that this regime is not going to honor it. Not going to honor anything. I mean, I don't know what more evidence we need. I've got a story right here, right now. You know what they've done, Mr. Producer? They fired two missiles at our base in Jordan, which were intercepted. Okay. Is that okay? I don't think it's okay. Do you think it's okay? Go ahead.
- [33:02]
Mark Levin
We have a blockade up there right now, and only ships that we want to get through get through. Iran doesn't control the strait. We control the strait. Now, they can drop a couple of mines in there and screw things up, but we control the state. Our navy is incredible. Not one ship has gotten to Iran during any time where we had the blockade. So we had the blockade. We had the confines of a deal. I set the blockade back, but I didn't take it away. The ships were not. The ships are not getting through now. And then I had to bring it back. But no, this is done with the admiral. He's great. This is all done with the admiral. He's a great guy. General Raisin, President. We write that the. No merchant ships are getting through right now. Maybe three or four a day when you need about 100. The only ones that get through are the ones that we want to get through. They're the only ships that get through. Brian, we have a blockade that's so powerful that nobody can get through. They tried. Three or four of them tried over the last week. But, you know, we opened the blockade because we had the confines of a deal, so we did it, and then we put it back. Because they broke the deal. They break the deal. We cannot have them break deals anymore.
- [34:05]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Yeah, well, they're breaking them left and right. Is that the problem, Rich? I don't know what else to say. I don't know what else to say about this, but It'll continue as it continues, I suppose. And we shall see. I just feel when you start something like this, you got to finish it, that this is not a regime. This is not a normal regime. This is a regime that's built on an ideology that you and I have discussed now for months, years actually. And survival is the key. And they believe they get stronger and stronger and stronger as we think we diminish them more and more and more. If they're still around, they think they've just gotten stronger and stronger and stronger and it's God's will, that's how they think. That's their belief. And so they figure if they survive, and by survive, I don't mean Khomeini per se or anything like that, if the regime survives in one form or another, the Iranian Republican Guard Corps, the irgc, then they believe they are defeating us. And they also believe that we don't have the will, that time is on their side. And when you listen to our media and you listen to the Democrats and you listen to the isolationists, the woke, right neo fascists, they certainly would provide the impression to the enemy that time is on their side and not ours. And depending on what happens in the midterm elections, if we win, great, I'm all for that and we're going to fight like hell. But if we don't, well, then time is on their side, isn't it? They also know that we have cyclical elections and in two and a half years we'll have a presidential election. And they'll be rooting for the isolationists, they'll be rooting for the Democrats. And so they don't believe we will have the will to, quote unquote, contain them, to, quote unquote, enforce any deal. And they're certainly not of the mind. They don't feel obliged to adhere to any deal because we're enemy number one, you and me, we are enemy number one to this regime. And so again, survivability. They view that as a, as a direct, you know, action by God, to empower them to defeat us. That's how they view it. And they're surviving. And tonight they just fired missiles at our base in Jordan. We had to take them out. And so they're very cocky. They remain cocky. Mark the vin. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it was would be fun if we made $15 bills.
- [37:13]
Mark Levin
But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial.
- [37:19]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [37:22]
Interviewer/Host
of $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 months or $180 for 12 month Plan required $15 per month equivalent to taxes and feeds. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy. See terms.
- [37:34]
Mark Levin
You're listening to the best of Mark Levin.
- [37:39]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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. And 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. Radio show cut one Go. Elaine. New Rochelle, New York, the great wabc. Go. Now that's the EPA of epicenters. Go ahead.
- [38:18]
Elaine Healy
Yes, hello. Thank you very much for taking my call. I wanted to bring to your attention and the listeners attention what it's 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 their facilities. And this will put our residents, our long term care population.
- [38:50]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
- [38:51]
Elaine Healy
Is this.
- [38:52]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Are you pulling my leg? Seriously?
- [38:55]
Elaine Healy
No.
- [38:55]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Why would you send somebody who has this virus into a population that can kill people?
- [39:03]
Elaine Healy
Thank you.
- [39:05]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
No, no. Are you serious?
- [39:07]
Elaine Healy
I am serious.
- [39:08]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Well, why would he order this? It doesn't make any sense.
- [39:11]
Elaine Healy
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.
- [39:25]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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?
- [39:40]
Elaine Healy
I'm looking at a directive from Andrew Cuomo and Howard Zucker dated March 25th 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. And 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 health care personnel, and escalate the death rate. So. But you can't get through to anybody down here. You can't. You can't talk to anybody. We don't have. There's nobody coordinating the response at this level, certainly at the county level. And I know from my prior.
- [41:42]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Have you. Have you given this information to local media?
- [41:46]
Elaine Healy
That's why I'm calling you.
- [41:47]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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. They're 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.
- [42:17]
Elaine Healy
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. So that's the first thing. The first time we've got it out to the media. And, you know, it's not what we generally.
- [42:33]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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.
- [42:43]
Elaine Healy
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 our executive organization, the executive director this afternoon issued the statement, you know, stating that our organization was against this.
- [43:05]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
If we wanted to find that, do you know, where would we go to find the link?
- [43:11]
Elaine Healy
I can send it to you, but 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 Medicine.
- [43:34]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Just go on my Facebook site and post it. Post the link.
- [43:38]
Elaine Healy
Okay.
- [43:39]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
All right. Mark Levincho Facebook or Mark Levincho Twitter. Either one.
- [43:44]
Mark Levin
Yeah.
- [43:45]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
And then the whole country can look at it and draw conclusions from it.
- [43:48]
Elaine Healy
And I just want to say if I could, you know, nursing homes in the. And people that work at nursing homes are such a dedicated group of professionals.
- [43:56]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Oh, yes.
- [43:58]
Elaine Healy
And we really want to help, but.
- [44:00]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
So you're a doctor?
- [44:02]
Elaine Healy
I'm a medical director. I'm a physician. Medical director. I'm both.
- [44:06]
Mark Levin
Yeah.
- [44:07]
Elaine Healy
I'm an administrative medical director plus a, 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.
- [44:20]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Well, if this is right, this is exactly the wrong thing that he's doing.
- [44:26]
Elaine Healy
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.
- [44:36]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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 and. But he hasn't done it.
- [45:14]
Elaine Healy
He hasn't. Not only that, he's closed. I mean, in my neighborhood.
- [45:19]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
And you're telling me you can't even get to him?
- [45:21]
Elaine Healy
Oh, can't get to anybody. You can't get to anybody. There's supposed to be somebody at the county level.
- [45:28]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
But wait a minute. 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?
- [45:39]
Elaine Healy
We 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, it is not a good.
- [45:48]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
I only have 30 seconds.
- [45:50]
Elaine Healy
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.
- [46:02]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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 it lab issue to go national with our Fox interview. This was our radio program right here. She called into WABC our but 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.
- [46:47]
Elaine Healy
Mark,
- [46:58]
Mark Levin
The great one makes your weekend even better. This is the best of Mark Levin.
- [47:05]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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? First, I want to 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 picket 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, yet they 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 amendment. 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 and 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 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, Mondami. Well, what did Mondami say? Go. Yes, it's the truth. 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 to from our country of Uganda. 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 disgusts 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. Hold on. How are we very complicit in New York City? Very complicated. 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. Constant today. It's the rich, it's white people, it's Christians and Jews, 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's just. It just disgusts me. It turns my stomach. 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. Their idiocy from. Go ahead.
- [54:18]
Mark Levin
All right.
- [54:18]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
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. 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. Mark Levin. We're giving you nothing but the best,
- [56:06]
Mark Levin
the best of Mark Levin.
- [56:09]
Mark Levin (host/narrator)
Many of you have been working. All may not be aware that some of you have been online. Have you seen the massive influx of immigrants into Spain today from Morocco, Northern Africa? Upwards of 80,000. Did you see that, Mr. Medusa? Absolutely unbelievable. Humanity as far as the eye could see, breaking into Spain and Spain, doing nothing about it. 0. Spain has a socialist president, radical leftist, who's anti American, anti Israel. And you know, it only takes one government cycle like this, as it took in our country with Biden, to create these circumstances. You can destroy a country rather quickly. There is simply no question that one of the reasons the communists in our country, that is the Democrat Party, unfortunately, and the Democratic Socialists of America and their ilk, the reason they don't want immigration enforcement, the reason they attack ice, is because they want exactly the circumstance that took place under Biden and the circumstance that took place today in Spain to be a regular occurrence in America. They absolutely want to replace the current citizenry with people from overseas, largely the Third World. Now, this is a fact. This is revolution by immigration, the phrase I've been using now for years. And it will destroy our country. There's not even any talk about assimilating immigrants into our culture. Nobody even talks about it anymore. There's not even any talk about the purpose of immigration. Purpose of immigration isn't to destroy our current society, Is it to replace our current citizens with new people who will become citizens. The purpose of immigration is to reinforce the existing society and the people who are already here. And so if you're going to bring in people from the Third World, and that's what they're talking about, they don't want people in here from Europe or the west or advanced societies, industrial societies, people from the Third World, you're going to bring in Islamists, you're going to bring in Marxists, you're going to bring in people of completely different cultures and languages and so forth and so on. It'll no longer be the United States of America. And that's the goal. That's absolutely the goal. And now what's taking place here, right under our eyes, right under our noses, we see it with the Islamists coming into this country, almost 4,000 mosques, and around them they build these fortresses, segregated Islamist areas where Sharia law reigns, not the Constitution, not state law. And we're tolerating this. I see very little pushback, ladies and gentlemen. I don't see anything happening at the federal level and I don't see anything happening at the state level where the action is with these zoning boards. I don't see it, not even in Republican states. You know who Elizabeth Wyling Powell was. But when Elizabeth Wyling Powell, who was a prominent activist during the early days of our country, actually was an advisor to George Washington, she asked Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence hall on September 17, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention. And at the close of the Constitutional Convention, as he exited Independence hall, she said, well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy? And Franklin famously answered, a republic, if you can keep it. And this exchange actually happened. It was recorded in the Notes of James McHenry was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. And he was outside Independence hall on that last day, Sept. 17, 1787, in Philadelphia. A republic if you can keep it. Not a democracy, not a parliament. A republic. Our republic exists to ensure that the public is at the core of our government. Not a mob, not a faction, but the public, that is we the people. And it does so through representative government and the consent of the people. The people are sovereign, not a ruling class, not elites, not a mob, not some Marxist faction. And furthermore, each individual is sovereign and each individual has certain rights, as described by our Declaration of Independence, that no government can deny. They are God given and unalienable. A pure democracy. We are not, thankfully, a pure democracy where a temporary majority can vote. To deny you your individual God given rights would be a tyranny. A tyranny of the masses, A tyranny of the ballot box. The Democratic socialists of America reject, reject the Declaration. They insist on destroying any and all barriers to mobocracy and factionalism because they are a faction building a mob. And because their Marxist ideology requires two things at once, mobocracy and centralized control. Now this may sound incongruent, but it is the way in which Marxists seize control. That is, they claim the mantle of popular will and populism to appeal to the masses. That is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, which was popularized by Karl Marx in 1875. In his critique of the Gotha program, it describes how goods and work will be shared in a future communist society. It sounds so pleasant and wonderful, doesn't it? Yet Marx recognized that really the only way to achieve this paradise, the workers paradise, was through a period of despotism, a period of despotism, as he wrote in the Communist Manifesto. Now, of course, the period of despotism never ends, does it? In fact, the revolution never ends because totalitarianism is here to stay. There is no worker's paradise. There's no paradise at all. This is the core of the Marxist movement. And the consequences, wherever it's been imposed anywhere in the world, have been horrific. Yet this movement, yet this movement, with its catchphrases and slogans, its promises and claimed aspirations, is essentially built on emotions, victimization, self pity and self righteousness. And yet there it is. It will destroy our country, along with its comrades, the Islamist, political, ideological, so called religious movement, because they have the same aim to destroy our country. To destroy the Judeo Christian foundations of our country. To destroy any notion of the Enlightenment which they both reject utterly and completely. The most fantastic country on the face of the earth. At any time during humankind will disappear and the barbarians will take over.