Dr. Brian Cox (16:30)

Foreign

Mark Levin (16:33)

just had its biggest year since 1979, up 67%. 53 new all time highs, then blew past $5,500 in January. Right now, almost every major bank on Wall street, they're telling their clients this is the buy window before gold hits 6, 7, even $8,000. Meanwhile, silver is sitting on a structural supply deficit for the sixth straight year, meaning there's not enough silver for industrial use. Many central banks in China, Poland, Brazil, India are buying gold at record prices. Now's the time to diversify, ladies and gentlemen, with silver and gold. Call Monetary Gold today. Get your complimentary Gold and Silver Guide, the number one requested guide in America for more than 25 years, absolutely free. Call Monetary Gold at 877-now-gold or go to marklovesgold.com that's 877-now-gold or mark loves gold.com performance may vary. Always consult your financial and tax professional. You ever hear this guy Rogue Kahana Rokana I guess is how you pronounce it. He's all over the media spewing his bs. This is the guy in the Epstein manor that went to the floor of the house along with his buddy Tommy Massey. Both supported by George Soros, no doubt revealing names of individuals who did absolutely nothing but had been providing support and help to the government's case and all but ruined their lives. He's utterly irresponsible individual. This is a guy who pretends he doesn't know who I am. I'm a relic of the past. Isn't it funny, Mr. Badasser? All these middle aged people going through their middle aged crises. Nobody knows who I am but they won't leave me alone. So when I speak out, I'm in charge of the war with Iran. I'm in charge of this. Levin is that Levin's got too much power. Levin. But nobody listens to Levin, his audience. I don't even look at these people straight folks. They're just nuts. They're crazy. They can't even get their BS straight. This guy's all over the media. He's got nothing else to do. Pushing impeachment of the President of the United states, pushing the 25th Amendment against the President of the United States. Throwing around the term war crimes. War crimes are going on. He's a complete head case. And then he pretends he was a moderate or is a moderate and now he favors a wealth tax and on and on and on. He's a complete fraud and phony, that's what he is. And he reached out to me in 2023, wanted to engage foreign silver is now in its sixth consecutive year of structural supply deficit, meaning demand is outpacing supply of silver every single year. Solar energy alone is projected to consume 160 to 194 million ounces of silver this year. Because silver is irreplaceable in solar cell technology and the world is using more and more silver. There's no substitute, folks. Silver is currently trading at a great price, 71 to $80 per ounce after hitting $100 earlier this year. That's the zigzag I talk about. But the trajectory is up, meaning the industrial demand story hasn't even fully played out yet. Call Monetary Gold today. Get your complimentary Gold and Silver Guide, the number one requested guide in America for more than 25 years, absolutely free. Call Monetary Gold at 877-now-Gold or go to marklovesgold.com that's 877-now-Gold or mark loves gold.com performance may vary. Should always consult your financial attacks professional. Mark Levin, tough as hell. That's why I like Mark Levin, and

Dr. Brian Cox (20:30)

I'm not sure a lot of people like him.

Mark Levin (20:32)

He's tough as hell, but I like him. I love him. Call in now. 877-381-3811 long piece here in the New York Slimes. And we know that you have to take this with a grain of salt, but it's out there. It's out there. And it's a long piece about the lead up to the decision by the president to unleash the military operation against Iran. And the reporters are Jonathan Swan, who's a decent reporter, Maggie Haberman, who in my view is not. But nonetheless, in the midst of this long article, it says nobody in Mr. Trump's inner circle was more worried about the prospect of war with Iran or did more to try to stop it than the vice president. Mr. Vance had built his political career posing precisely. I'm reading from the article the kind of military adventurism that was now under serious consideration. It's not adventurism, I would say, to the slimes. Let's see here. He had described a war with Iran as, quote, a huge distraction of resources, quote, massively expensive, unquote. First, who's leaking all this stuff? I mean, they're actually quoting from meetings, and he's not the only one they're quoting. Now, say what you will, a vice president or a secretary of defense or Secretary State or a CIA director. They need to be able to give advice to the President in absolute confidence. There's a constant leaking problem. Uh oh, trouble. Okay. Breaking news. All right. From, from True Social. This is brand new and it is 6:35pm just shy of the 8pm witching hour. Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shabazz Sharif. That would be Pakistan and Field Marshal Aseem Munir of Pakistan. And wherein they requested that I hold off the destruction the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran. And subject to the Islamic Republican of Iran agreeing to the complete immediate. He capitalizes in safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz. I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided cease fire. The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all military objectives and and are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning long term peace with Iran and peace in the Middle east. We received a 10 point proposal from Iran believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran. But a two week period will allow the agreement to be finalized and consummated. On behalf of the United States of America's President and also representing the countries of the Middle east, it is an honor to have this log this rather long term problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. That's all I know. That's all we have right now. That's all I know. I don't know what the 10 points are. I don't have any of that. I don't think it's public yet. Is it, Mr. Producer? No. The Ten Point Plan? Yeah, not yet. So we don't have that yet. This was literally just released by the President in the White House and so we'll see where that goes. Now the people negotiating on our side are the two envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, and apparently the Vice President. So we'll see how that goes. But let me go on with his article. Vice President thought a regime change war with Iran would be a disaster. His preference was for no strikes at all. But knowing that Mr. Trump was likely to intervene in some fashion, he tried to steer toward more limited action. Later, when it seemed certain the President was set on a large scale campaign, Mr. Vance argued that he should do so with overwhelming force in the hope of achieving his objective quickly. In front of his colleagues, Mr. Vance warned Mr. Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. It could also break apart Mr. Trump's political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who bought into the promise of no new wars. Mr. Vance raised other concerns, too. As vice president, he was aware of the scope of America's munitions problem. A war against a regime with enormous will for survival could leave the United States in far worse position to fight conflicts for some years. He told associates that no amount of military insight could truly gauge what Iran would do in retaliation. When survival of the regime was at stake, it could go into unpredictable directions, he thought. There seemed to be little chance building a peaceful Iran in the aftermath. And it goes on Tucker Carlson, the commentator who had emerged as another prominent skeptic of intervention on the right. How can you call him of the right now if by right they mean conservative? That's been abandoned. That was abandoned a long time ago. He'd come to the Oval Office several times over the previous year to warn Mr. Trump that a war with Iran would destroy his presidency. A couple of weeks before the war began, Mr. Trump, who had known Carlson for years, tried to reassure him over the phone. I know you're worried about it, but it's going to be okay, the president said. Carlson asked how he knew. Because it always is, Mr. Trump replied. Well, then we know that was a two way conversation, right, Mr. Medusa? So we know one of the leakers is Tucker Carlson in the final days of February. And it goes on. It's a very long piece, but I thought that aspect of it might interest you. It also turns out that the general who was the most gung ho of the generals was not raising Kane. It was Admiral Cooper. Admiral Cooper apparently has in each aspect of this inform the President that our military could in fact achieve what it is achieving. So it seems like Admiral Cooper is more of a raising cane than raising cane, if I read between the lines here properly. But the most important voice was also the most committed voice to taking on Iran. The President of the United States. More so than the CIA director, more so than the Secretary of State. There's not much here about the Secretary of Defense in this article. Again, if the article is accurate and who the hell knows? I sure as don't. I mean, who knows? But the President is the apparently the most conservative of the group, Mr. Producer. He's also the most security conscience, apparently. Again, there's nothing in here that I can see. Nothing much anyway about Hegseth, only a little about Rubio. And this is part of a book that they're writing by the way. So they must be getting a crapload of leaks. And what happens is this. Almost everybody's leaking. I don't know who's not, I don't know who is. But almost all of them are leaking because they want to appear very well on the book. They want to appear to be, quote unquote, a good guy or a position themselves. And so they, they leak. I've seen this. It was in the Reagan administration, other administrations, because they all have interests beyond government, right? Vice president wants to be president, Secretary of state may want to be something else, I don't know. But the point is, if the book's going to be written by journalists with the New York Times and that's going to be viewed by the rest of the media as definitive, even though it certainly won't be. The fact of the matter is the individuals try to position themselves. Again, I don't know who's leaked and who hasn't leaked, but most of the individuals try to position themselves and put themselves in a good light. Maybe somebody else in not such a good light, especially if they're seeking higher office one day. That's how you get articles like this, with all these leaks and so forth. While we're on this topic, I will be on Hannity tonight, 9:00pm Eastern Time to discuss this, I assume, but maybe birthright citizenship. I don't know, but he asked me to come on and I will be there, of course. But then there's this story in the New York Post. Yassimin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, the first Iranian American Democrat elected to Congress, raged against Donald Trump for his jaw dropping threats to Iran, including to end the country, quote in one night, and called impeaching hegseth a necessary step to prevent a catastrophe. So online you had the woke right neo fascist isolationist just trashing the President for his statement that he put out that he's going to destroy the civilization of Iran or something like that, that you had little Adolf, Fuentes, Tucker, Trader, Kitarlsson going nuts. Piers Morgan was very upset. They were all very, very upset when all the rest of us knew, millions and millions of us knew this is how the President operates to try and bring maximum pressure against an enemy like Iran. And so I put out a thing out there online to Morgan and I said, okay, how much you want to bet he doesn't destroy the Iranian civilization? Because it's absurd. We know what he was doing. He is using psychological warfare and he does this sort of thing fairly frequently. So the idea that people miss it is really ridiculous. And so the Democrats are saying what he said would be a war crime. So we need to impeach him. What he said shows that he's mentally unhinged. So we need to see the 25th Amendment triggered. And they don't even understand how that works. But this was going on all day and all last night. All day and all last night. She says. Now this is an Iranian American Democrat. And by the way, she does not speak for most Iranian Americans, I assure you. I'm introducing articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth. Pete Hagseth, for repeatedly violating his oath of office and his duty to the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war. Not a rogue president or his lackeys. Hagseth's reckless, endangered. Okay, so factually, Hagseth hasn't made any decisions. The president makes the decisions. That's number one. And the secretary of war carries them out. That's number two. And number three, this whole idea of declaration of war has been explained by me repeatedly, and I'm not going to explain it again. But she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. What's happening here, America, is they're trying to use impeachment and the 25th Amendment not because the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor, not because Hagsett has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. They want to use the 25th Amendment. They again, they don't even know how that works. Not because the president is senile and can't function. He's not Biden, but because they disagree with him on this military operation in Iran. That's not what impeachment is for. That's not. That's not what the 25th Amendment is for. The 25th Amendment is for whether a president can actually complete his responsibilities and undertake his responsibilities, which this president can. They just disagree with him. And impeachment is for a high crime and misdemeanor, which has a very specific meaning and understanding. This is not that. She says only Congress has the power to declare war, not a rogue president or his lackeys. Now, here we are in the middle of a war. This is how the Democrats conduct themselves, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is how traitor Tucker conducts himself. This is how all the other little, little Puzians conduct themselves. In the middle of a war. Yes, in the middle of a war. Her singling out Hegseth comes weeks after Trump revealed last month that his secretary of war was the first to call for war against Iran. Hagseth's team brushed off the impeachment push, with Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson telling the Post it's just another Democrat trying to make headlines, which is true. Hagseth has done a fantastic job. He's in charge of the nuts and bolts. He's in charge of overseeing much of this nuts and bolts. And of course they want to impeach him. I'll be right back. I'd like to tell you about a man named Phineas who as a child survived the Holocaust. Phineas survived because Christians hid him from the Nazis, risking everything to save his life. Today he's in his 80s. He can no longer stand on his own or leave his home to receive medical care. And when sirens sound and missiles fall, he doesn't have time or strength to reach safety. But once again, Christians are helping save his life. Through the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, a mobile clinic brings doctors and medicine right to his home, providing care he wouldn't receive, especially in wartime. Christians saved my life during the Holocaust, phineas says. And now, again, they're helping me. As Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day approaches, we honor survivors like like Phineas, not just with words, but with action. Please give $45, a tax deductible gift right now to the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews to rush life saving essentials to the most vulnerable under fire in the holy land. Call 888-585 IFCJ. That's 888-585 IFCJ or online at levin for the fellowship.org that's L E V I N for the fellowship.org foreign. We have a great video podcast up there today that we just did. I want to encourage you to check it out on Rumble or YouTube and we have it on all our social sites too, if you want to check it out as well. It's all free, all available, all very easy to access and use if you're not used to it, it's very easy. Liberty's voice over at Rumble and Liberty's voice over at YouTube. We want to thank Rumble in particular is doing a fantastic job of YouTube too. We have no billionaires funding this. We don't have a big marketing budget. We don't have all that stuff going on. No foreign governments behind, nothing like that. It's me, myself and I with a crew of two who are fantastic, David and Josh, and a big helping hand from Rich here. And that's what we do. So I know you're gonna like it. Check it out. Some of you who don't normally listen to podcasts or video or don't watch video podcast. You ought to check it out. It's Liberty's voice over at rumble and YouTube. And I'm trying to bring as many radio folks into that world and as many people in that world to radio because there's a minimal overlap. Minimal. We did our own Checking at 7%. That's it. Did you know that, Mr. Producer, 7% of the people listen to this program on talk radio. 7% go on the Internet and vice versa. So that's why we run our radio program on the Internet. Delayed. And that's why I'm doing this, to have multiple platforms, one to build on top of the other, that is to encourage more radio listeners, encourage more viewers and so forth and so on. It's the only way these different platforms are going to grow. It's the only way. So in other words, I'm saying for me, I don't need to compete against myself. I don't want to compete against these different platforms. I want to use the platforms together, one to build the other, which nobody does. But we will do it. We will do it. I'll be right back. This segment of the podcast is exclusively sponsored by Pure Talk. 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. PureTalk. He's here. He's here now.

Dr. Brian Cox (38:48)

Broadcasting from the underground command post deep

Mark Levin (38:51)

in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of

Dr. Brian Cox (38:56)

a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.

Mark Levin (39:06)

Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 8773-8138-1187-7381-38111. Well, unfortunately I have to go into that toxic pool from time to time called the Internet. But we do find pearls in there. And I think I found one. Dr. Brian Cox, professor at Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate, and I was reading things he was saying about so called war crimes because the Democrats are beating their chests about, oh, this is a war crime and that's a war crime. They think the very existence of Donald Trump is a war crime. Of course they don't understand the declaration of war provision in the Constitution. I've been through that, oh, about 400,000 times. But this war crime issue is a new one that they bring up. They didn't bring it up when Clinton was bombing away. They didn't bring it up when Obama was Bombing away and so forth and so on. But they think they have something now and they really don't. So I wanted to bring Dr. Brian Cox on. How are you, sir?

Dr. Brian Cox (40:17)

Very well, thanks. How are you doing this evening?

Mark Levin (40:19)

I'm doing very well. Now. You. You're a veteran I just mentioned, right. You're retired U.S. army.

Dr. Brian Cox (40:26)

That's right, yeah. So I joined the army right out of high school. I was 18 years old in 1996. And then I was in various occupations for 22. In the military for 22 years. The last seven, I was a judge advocate or a military lawyer.

Mark Levin (40:43)

So what exactly what kind of law do you teach?

Dr. Brian Cox (40:47)

So every fall, my staple class is law and ethics of armed conflict. So, you know, law of armed conflicts, law involving the resort to force. So it really focuses on international law related to armed conflict. And then every spring when I do teach is just kind of a wild card. Usually whatever I teach usually focuses on some. Some sort of national security aspect or military law, foreign policy, things like that.

Mark Levin (41:17)

Well, there you are. You're reading all these claims and listening to all these claims that if we hit a bridge or if we hit an oil depot or if we do this, or if it's an absolute war crime, what makes something a war crime? Because I know we've hit bridges and other infrastructure before and other battles.

Dr. Brian Cox (41:36)

Yeah. So this is something that, unfortunately, this rhetoric has existed for a long time. It's something that I noticed and I paid attention to even before I retired from the military in 2018, that there's in public perception what actually is a war crime. Those two don't really connect. So the public perception of what it is versus what we actually practice in. In law, like in the military. So what it requires. And so the United States hasn't ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for various jurisdictional concerns and all that. But we were involved with developing the substance, like the text of the treaty and everything really, that's in there, almost everything. And the war crimes section is consistent with the United States interpretation of law of armed conflict, even though we haven't ratified it. And so if we look at that as kind of a template, and again, it's consistent with US Doctrine, it requires the intent to. So intentionally directing an attack against a civilian object or a civilian person. So the civilian person has to be something that, you know, a civilian who is not taking direct part in hostilities. And it requires intent. And this is the part where most. I don't know about. Well, actually, probably most commenters tend to get their Evaluation of war crime. Wrong. It requires actual evidence of the intent of the person who was involved, the intent of the person who was responsible for the attack. And you know, as you mentioned, we can talk more about it. There was a recent attack against the B1 bridge in Iran that was very widely denounced as a war crime. But that, that doesn't actually qualify as a war crime because that bridge, based on at least public reporting, was served a dual purpose. And so if there's a military utility into attack that goes into attacking a bridge or a power station or whatever, then that qualifies as a military objective. And so attacking it wouldn't automatically be a war crime.

Mark Levin (43:50)

Let me, let me focus in more, even more on this.

Dr. Brian Cox (43:54)

Yeah.

Mark Levin (43:54)

So in other words, if you're just destroying a civilian structure, to destroy a civilian structure, that's one issue. But if you're destroying a structure that can be used by the military, has been used by the military and so forth and so on in the middle of a war, that's not a war crime. Correct?

Dr. Brian Cox (44:14)

Absolutely. Yeah. So the definition, the doctrinal definition for what a military objective is is something that by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contrib to the military action of the opposing party of the adversary. And so if, let's say a bridge has some sort of military utility that's been identified by the attacking party, then it qualifies as a military objective. And by definition, directing an attack against a military objective is not a war crime. So the actual, like the, an actual war crime would be, you know, I'm looking through, you know, the scope or the sites or whatever it is. I know, I know this is a civilian building or bridge or whatever. I know that it has no military utility and I'm going to strike it anyways. Even though there's no military value in attacking it. That's what war crimes provisions are intended to prohibit.

Mark Levin (45:15)

Now the Iranians on the other hand, are targeting civilians. They're using weaponry that is actually outlawed as a matter of the laws of war. And they're hitting many, many towns, homes and other non military structures and individuals. Correct?

Dr. Brian Cox (45:39)

Yeah. So this is part of the frustrating part about kind of removing the doctrinal meaning for a war crime is a party like Iran. So when Iran attacks Israel, for example, they attack with weap, with munitions that can't be directed against a specific military objective. They're just launching them into Israel, not caring where the munitions land. Right. So they've been launching, for example, high altitude clustered munitions that are designed to try to get around Israel's missile defenses. And so by dispersing at a high altitude, the clusters, the submunitions, can go wherever, they can scatter wherever, and they can land indiscriminately within the civilian population, not even trying to direct it against a military objective, just trying to get it into Israel to cause damage wherever they can and try to get around Israel's missile defenses. That is the definition of a war crime, one of the definitions. So launching an attack without trying even to direct your munition against a military objective, that is legitimately a war crime. Whereas when United States and Israel launch attacks against Iran, they are. They're trying to. They're identifying military objectives, they are directing their attacks against military objectives. That is not a war crime. But because of social and political preferences of commentators who weigh in or propaganda from the Iranian government, everything that, basically everything that the United States or Israel does is characterized as a war crime, even when it's not. And everything that Iran does basically is a war crime. And that gets largely unnoticed or, you know, doesn't really get attention.

Mark Levin (47:30)

How long have these rules been in place? For instance, when we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, those were focused on civilian populations, but the goal was to end the war. So how would that be interpreted today?

Dr. Brian Cox (47:45)

Yeah, so the Law of Armed Conflicts, it applies to weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear weapons, but it ends up. The calculation is different. And so the rules have existed for a long time. They started really getting codified in, say, the 1860s or so, but over time they've gradually developed and become more specific. But the decision to launch nuclear weapons, it would probably be different today than it was in 1945. But the rules have advanced. Law of Armed Conflict has advanced a bit since World War II. But really the main provisions of the Law of Armed Conflict that we deal with, especially in the military, day in and day out, those are really focused on conventional weapons. And then something that has a weapon of mass destruction, like that type of the capacity for destruction, typically that's going to be reserved at the political level. And it's going to be same rules, but kind of different calculation and different people making those judgments.

Mark Levin (48:50)

What about. Well, let's take Dresden then. That was all conventional.

Dr. Brian Cox (48:54)

Yeah.

Mark Levin (48:54)

What do you think?

Dr. Brian Cox (48:56)

Yeah. So the law has developed a bit now so that level of destruction would be regarded differently. But at the same time, it was. That campaign was launched in the context of World War II based on the rules that exist at the time. So the law of War, Law of Armed Conflict, since its inception has always allowed for extensive destruction. I mean, that's what war is about. Like, if I were to boil down to its essence what the law of armed conflict really is about, it's to make sure that if a party is using force that there's some military utility in doing so. That it's not, we're not engaged in just wanton destruction, that we're not, I mean, basically doing what Iran is doing. It's just like, you know, launching munitions without really caring where they go and without any regard whatsoever to trying to identify and attack a military objective. That is what the law of war is designed to prohibit. But you know, the level of destruction isn't really the measure for whether something is a war crime or whether something implies law of armed conflict. It really is, you know, the intent of the person. Was there some sort of identifiable military utility that was identified for engaging that attack? And if so, now the law of war, of course is more specific than that. But that's kind of at its essence, what it exists to make sure that we're achieving.

Mark Levin (50:30)

I have to take a break. I'd like to hold you over. We're talking to Dr. Brian Cox who teaches international law at Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate, served 22 years, if I recall correctly, in the United States army and really, really very helpful in walking us through this. I have several more questions if you don't mind, Professor. So we'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. PureTalk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their north star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide and Pure Talks. Creating American jobs with a US Only workforce. Sure it'd be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your value? Helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com lavim to switch to Pure Talk. That's PureTalk.com Levin to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. We're here with the Professor Dr. Brian Cocker, Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate, actually knows this stuff about war crimes. This is an area of his expertise. Let me ask you this question. We had people putting out statements from Congress who said the mere fact that the President of the United States talked about eliminating the Iranian, what was it, the civilization of Iran or something of that sort, that in and of itself was a war crime. That's nonsense, isn't it?

Dr. Brian Cox (52:44)

That's right. Yeah. So it's definitely. It doesn't qualify as a war crime. So again, war crime is intentionally directing attack against civilian persons or objects. You know, if the United States ends up identifying the military, ends up identifying military targets that also have a civilian component and attacking those like, so bridges, roadways, electrical outlet or electrical power, power generation facilities, those are. That's not going to be a war crime because there is some sort of military utility. But what they're really talking about is the threat to essentially commit genocide. Right. So the genocide convention prohibits killing or doing other actions when the intent is to destroy in whole or in part. In this case, a national group. Right. So the national group would be Iranian. So if we just go by President Trump's truth social post, he starts off by saying, you know, a civilization will die tonight or will kill, be killed tonight or whatever it is. And so, you know, this is, this is kind of typical President Trump messaging. He's. This message isn't directed necessarily just to the American people, but it's really directed to the Iranian government trying to impose pressure on them to basically say, like, listen, we mean business. So if you don't follow, if you don't make a deal with us, basically, then expect extensive destruction. So he ends the true social post by saying something along the lines of God bless the people of Iran. So if you're planning to commit genocide against a people, you don't close by saying, God bless you guys. So it's really, they're taking what President Trump said out of context and they're trying to build really social and political rhetoric out of it to, you know, to find some way to criticize President Trump when really what he's engaged in is just he's messaging to the Iranian government. I mean business. So let's, you know, let's strike a deal. And it seems, at least, and I was listening in before I joined, you know, that you read the true social post from President Trump saying it looks like we've got a tentative deal. So it seems to have worked.

Mark Levin (55:17)

Yeah. Now, I do have some questions about this because we don't know what these 10 points are like? How are you going to enforce any deal against that regime? How are you going to stop them from committing terrorism? There's nothing about Hezbollah in here, so there's still some sticky wickets out there. But all that said, and yet this is a regime that kills, I would say around 50,000 of their own people. They're still executing away like nothing's happened. In fact, they've accelerated executions and so forth. So you have a terror regime that's slurring its own people, that's close to getting nuclear weapons. They have the enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. They're building thousands of ballistic missiles which can do massive damage in and of themselves. And by the way, the more I'm expressing this to you, professor, the more I'm concerned that we got to make sure, however we have a deal, that we really screw it down tightly somehow. And, but, but all that said, so they do whatever they want. We don't because we claim we're civilized. Okay, great. If somebody wants to bring a charge against the secretary of War, the president, United States, the secretary of State, where do they even go? And we're not part, as you point out, we're not part of these international courts or anything like that. So where do they go?

Dr. Brian Cox (56:39)

That's right. So we have not ratified the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute in part out of jurisdictional consider concerns. So what we've seen, and this was back in, I think it was the year 2000, 2000, maybe 2001, when President Clinton on his way out of office, this would have been 2000, he signed the Rome Statute, but not did not ratify it. But when he signed it, he expressed, you know, I am concerned that because of the jurisdictional structure that was created in 1998, that we may end up getting a rogue court and the court may go after parties of personnel out of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute. And that's exactly what has happened. Right. So these the concerns that we saw in 1998 in Rome that led us not to endorse the treaty then or to ratify it, those have played out to be accurate. And so really, the only place that there would be an option to do anything would be to introduce articles of impeachment. And so I heard you were talking about that, that one of the Democratic, I think it was a senator has

Mark Levin (57:51)

announced a congresswoman who is an Iranian American. If you don't, if you'll bear with me, if we can hold on to you one more time, I'd appreciate it. Dr. Brian Cox, Professor, Cornell Law, retired Army Judge advocate. And of course I find these great, these great talents like this professor. So now he'll be in great demand. I hope he is. We'll be right back. You know folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide and Pure Talks. Creating American jobs with a US Only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage, is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your value. Helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com Lavin to switch to Pure Talk. That's PureTalk.com L E V I N to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. The cost of freedom is high, but this phone call is not. Call Mark Levin toll free at 877-381-3811. All right, we're here with Dr. Brian Cox who teaches international law at Cornell Law, retired Army Judge Advocate. We walk through briefly what is and what is not a war crime as you see it, Professor. I mean, are we going to great lengths to make sure we don't commit war crimes much like the Israelis and Gaza and so forth and so on? Because we have the weaponry we're working, we can do far more damage, as do the Israelis.

Dr. Brian Cox (60:05)

Yeah, so that's actually a really great point because the concern that I've seen about the way that the public tends to evaluate law of armed conflict compliance is we look at, the public tends to look at the outcome of an attack. So the Minab School incident in Iran is a good example of that. So it looks, assuming that the United States was responsible for that incidental damage and assuming that it did not qualify as a military objective at the time, it was not intentional. Right. So because the way that we fight is there's, we get no military utility out of attacking a school that has, that's not a military objective. So we're not going to do it. At least not on purpose. And so that would be a war crime. And, you know, I've seen this, I've studied it for the last couple of years with the conflict in Gaza and the region, that the same rhetoric that's being used against the United States military has also been used against the idf, the Israel Defense Force for the last couple of years as well. Where there's incidental damage that happens, there's reports of civilian casualties, and automatically the rhetoric becomes, well, you can't attack civilians. Civilians were attacked. And so this is a war crime. But in practice, in military doctrine, that's not how we evaluate law of armed conflict compliance. And to be quite frank, this is not how we fight. We don't. There's no reason to look down and see a school that has not a military objective and say, I'm just going to go attack this thing anyways. There's just no. We get no military utility out of that. That would be a war crime. But we don't fight like that. We go through great lengths, as you said, not only in the equipment that we bring to the conflict, the munitions that we bring, but also the processes, the targeting processes that we engage in. We go to great lengths to make sure that we're not committing war crimes. And we do by ensuring that if we are directing an attack against a person or an object, it is at least identified by us at the time as a military objective.

Mark Levin (62:12)

I mean, civilized nations do this and terrorist nations do not. And so by adhering to these rules, we do kind of have one hand tied behind our back against these enemies. But. But that's who we are and that's what we do. So let me ask you this.

Dr. Brian Cox (62:30)

That's right.

Mark Levin (62:32)

When you, when you look at a regime like Iran or when you look at Hamas or Hezbollah and these sorts of things, if we have an agreement with them, and I don't have any idea what this agreement, this proposed agreement or early agreement and so forth is, but when you look at it, yeah, to me, the big problem is, how do you enforce this? That is, this is a regime that by its very nature doesn't believe in the west, doesn't believe in Western rules and laws, and is perfectly happy to deceive you and maybe wait to the next president or the president after that. It's a very difficult thing, isn't

Dr. Brian Cox (63:10)

Is? Yeah. And so what I think it's going to come down to is, you know, President Trump has shown to the country and to Iran and to the world that he is willing to take a Different approach because previous approaches to the Iranian government have failed. And so this comes out a lot in public messaging, this focus on peace through strength. Right. But the strength element is, I think what it really comes down to for enforcement is to stand behind a peace agreement with the threat that if you do not to the Iranian government, if you do not comply with obligations that you've committed to based on this ceasefire agreement, we will go right back to armed conflict. So that's, you know, the definition of peace, maintaining peace through the realistic proposal of strength, standing behind it.

Mark Levin (64:01)

And that may mean we have to rearrange or alter, improve or however our presence there. So we can monitor and quickly, I guess, hit them in a pinpointed way if necessary.

Dr. Brian Cox (64:15)

I think so, yeah. So. And one of the things that made this particular operation enduring, Sorry, the oes, this Operation Epic Fury against Iran possible now is very recently, through midnight hammer and rising line by Israel, we have taken out a lot of the air defense capabilities of Iran. And so they were already in a military weakened position. You know, based on these operations that have been going on for the last several weeks, they're going to be even more so. And so I expect that President Trump will maintain a robust military presence in the region and be prepared to reengage if necessary. I think that's the only way that we can, that he will be able to maintain any semblance of agreement from, from the Iranian government. And actually having them stick to it is the threat of, very real threat of overwhelming military force standing behind it if they don't.

Mark Levin (65:21)

Well, what'll be interesting to me is what will be on the list that they can do and what won't be on the list. In other words, what can they do? I mean, there's a lot of weapons you can build and a lot of very powerful weapons that aren't nuclear, that aren't necessarily ballistic missiles, but even that ballistic missiles, I mean, they had more than we thought. I think they were able to hide them and so forth and so on. So. So it could get a little complicated.

Dr. Brian Cox (65:45)

And the range, we've now identified that the range is a lot further than we expected as well.

Mark Levin (65:53)

So if you were advising somebody, I know it's not your area, but still, I'm curious, given your military background, what is it that you would really want to lock down and how would you lock it down? In addition to sort of arranging our force structure so we can hit them if we need to hit them?

Dr. Brian Cox (66:08)

Them? Yeah, it's really going to come down to, I think, maintaining the Political will here at home militarily. You know, we, we, we have the strongest military in the world. The United States does. And there's, there's, you know, everybody in the world knows that. It's, it's, that's an open, openly knowledge and so the military will be able to achieve, you know, the strategic objectives through force if we need to. What it's really going to come down to, I think, think more than anything for President Trump is maintain the political will at home to be able to back up this threat of peace through strength and, you know, the threat of re engaging if he needs to. It needs to be politically tenable here at home. And that's going to be the biggest challenge, I think, for President Trump moving forward.

Mark Levin (66:57)

It's really tough. You don't have to answer this. When you have one party that's trying to sabotage you every damn step of the way. Don't answer that. I don't want to get you in trouble. I can say that, you can't say that. But that's, that's, that's my view. You've been a tremendous help and I've just told our producer that does my Sean Fox to reach out to you. Don't do anybody else yet and see if we can get you, get you set up because I think this is very, very useful and helpful. So I want to thank you.

Dr. Brian Cox (67:27)

Absolutely. Well, thank you very much for reaching out. I'm really glad to be able to join, join you and it's been a really great conversation.

Mark Levin (67:33)

Yeah, no, I've enjoyed it a lot. That's Brian Cox. Thank you. Professor Cornell Law, retired Army judge Advocate, a veteran, 22 years in the Army. Good man. You can see how sharp he is. And very patriotic, of course. I'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran led company, so helping veterans is their north star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide and Pure Talks. Creating American jobs with a US Only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overse like other companies do. But they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, Same network, same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I Choose to do business with a company that shares my values. Your value. Helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to PureTalk.com lavim to switch to Pure. That's PureTalk.com Levin to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. Lots going on. I hope, I hope you find it compelling. I think it's compelling. Joe Kernan is a very good host at cnbc and he has a guy on by the name of Representative Ro Kahana. Representative Ro Kahana reached out to us in the summer of 2023. He felt there were a lot of issues of overlap between he and I and he'd like to engage and discuss them. And I thought he was full of crap then and he's really full of crap now. He's moved to the extreme, left from the left. He's obviously interested in higher office or whatever he is. He's all over the media right now. He's demanding the 25th Amendment be used to remove Trump. He's demanding that if they take over the House, the Democrats, he will lead an impeachment effort against Trump. Trump. He's accused Trump of committing war crimes, of violating the declaration of war clause of the Constitution. The guy's a nut, but he's a radical. Whereas he was fairly moderate when it comes to the state of Israel. He's now turn on Israel. He's attacking them and AIPAC and the usual he's trying to out kook AOC and so forth. Mance turned into a bigot in my view. You, he's one of the guys who went to the House floor with Tom Massie and revealed the names of individuals who were actually helping the prosecution of Epstein in many cases ruin their lives, ruin their reputations. But he's protected by the immunity clause of the Constitution. But Joe Kernan was very, very good. He said this to Roy, to Ro Khanna. Cut five, go. You have Hasan Piker. You don't dissociate yourself from a clear anti type semi.

Dr. Brian Cox (70:48)

You go on his twitch feeds all the time. You have no problem with shutting down now.

Mark Levin (70:53)

You're for a wealth tax which you were never before.

Dr. Brian Cox (70:56)

All your constituents counted on you not

Mark Levin (70:59)

to go there and you're going there. It just looks like you are appeasing the left flank of the Democratic Party

Dr. Brian Cox (71:06)

right now just for votes, just for ends to justify the means.

Mark Levin (71:10)

So go over each one. Why? Why would you not dissociate yourself from Hasan Piker?

Dr. Brian Cox (71:14)

Why? Well, first of all, I have gone on every media Podcast.

Mark Levin (71:18)

And he goes on like, that's. Like that's a legitimate answer, right? Hasan Piker also said that we, the American people, deserve 9 11. That we deserve 9 11. He also talked about shooting senators like Rick Scott. To me, the guy ought to be investigated for making threats like this. He's obviously part of the enemy within. He's made it clear. But the point is, you have a congressman, this guy Kahana, and he's not the only one. You have a Mayor Mondame, you have aoc, you have a Senator Bernie Sanders, and there are more of them who embrace this guy. You have a guy running for the Senate, the Democrat nomination, likely to get it in the state of Michigan,

Dr. Brian Cox (72:07)

who

Mark Levin (72:07)

also is a frontman and a defender for terror groups like Hamas, as I believe this guy Puker is. That's right, Puker. Not Piker. Puker. The fact here's Hassan Piker Puker right now, what he said today. Cut six, go.

Dr. Brian Cox (72:28)

If you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick Scott. Okay? You wouldn't make Rick Scott former governor of Florida Rick Scott. You wouldn't make him the current. What is his current officer.

Mark Levin (72:42)

That's enough. He said. I don't know why we bleeped it out, but he said, you will kill Rick Scott. Kill him. So 9 11. We deserved it. Kill Rick Scott. He said October 7th. The rape and the.

Dr. Brian Cox (72:59)

The.

Mark Levin (72:59)

What was done to the women and others on October 7th really doesn't bother him one iota. Not one iota, given what. What else has taken place there. And so you literally have elected Democrats and Democrats seeking election embracing this guy Piker, AKA Puker, embracing him. And you have the media, the New York Times was promoting this guy, dressing him up as some kind of a serious commentator. And yet his views, in many respects, in certain respects, are not all that different from the woke, right? Neo fascists, Are they? No, they're not. That's who he is. And this guy Kahan is all over the place. Cut three, go.

Dr. Brian Cox (74:05)

If the United States Congress has any

Mark Levin (74:07)

life left in it, every member of

Dr. Brian Cox (74:09)

Congress and Senator must be calling for Trump's removal today based on the 25th Amendment.

Mark Levin (74:14)

He's threatening the entire destruction of a civilization. He is calling Iranians animals.

Dr. Brian Cox (74:21)

He is showing a total disregard.

Mark Levin (74:23)

All right, shut up. He called the regime that slaughtered 50,000 people animals. What do you call them, you jerk? You twist his words. Everybody knows that the President put out that statement to put pressure on the regime. Except for the woke, right? Neo fascists, the Marxists, the Islamists and the frauds who are hosts, many of them. This is a big issue. It's not an issue in the least. And so he believes the 25th Amendment should be used because he disagrees with Trump in his style. They don't believe in elections. They really don't. They've tried to stop Trump by illegitimately, in fact, unlawfully using the legal system, the so called justice system, to try and destroy him. Him. They tried to use the 14th Amendment and twist it into a pretzel to keep him off ballots. And the list goes on and on and on. And now they're going to try again to impeach him a third time, a fourth time. They certainly don't have the votes to remove them. You need 60 votes to remove a president or somebody who's impeached in the Senate, that they're going to drag the country down into their hell. They're going to be joined by the Tucker Carlsons, by the Steve Bannon, by the Little Adolf, Nick Fuentes, by the Ann Coulters. She's back. I don't know where the hell she's been, but she ought to go back. I'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 identity 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. He's here. He's here now. Broadcasting from the underground code command post deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel

Dr. Brian Cox (77:07)

of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.

Mark Levin (77:17)

Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number, 877-3813-811877-38131. Now the Iranian negotiators put out a statement. So let me read this to you. Give me one second. Pull it up here. And the president posted it on True social goes as follows. I'm reading it cold. On behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I express gratitude and appreciation for my dear brothers, the Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif and Field Marshal Munir for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region. Response to the brotherly request of the Prime Minister. In his tweet considering the request by the United States for negotiations based on its 15 point proposal as well as announcement by POTUS, they write about acceptance of the general framework of Iran's 10 point proposal as a basis for negotiations. I hereby declare on behalf of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, if attacks against Iran are halted, our powerful armed forces will cease their defensive operations for a period of two weeks. Safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran's armed forces and with due consideration of technical limitations. Minister of Foreign Affairs Said Abbas Yabdabad do so I have here multiple missiles have been fired by Iran in the last 30 minutes at Israel, maybe some of the Arab countries too. So now what happens if that continues, Mr. Producer, seems to me if that continues, other countries, Israel, Bahrain, the uae, Saudi Arabia, whomever, they're not going to sit there as sitting ducks. So this will be a very good test early on, because what do you do about a terrorist regime that cheats and lies and conceals what it's doing? Like we didn't know about the distance their ballistic missiles might go. Now we do. We didn't know how many they had. They have a lot now we know. And when Wyckoff met with them, I guess a couple months ago, we learned that they could build 11 nukes in 10 days according to them. So the question is going to be how are we going to enforce this thing? Are we going to rearrange our forces? Are we going to be able to re engage quickly? How about can they rebuild? What can they rebuild? Can they rebuild their massive inventory of ballistic missiles? How do we make sure they can't reach our country? And what about their proxies like Hezbollah? So in other words, all the things that they use, their tentacles, their, their methodologies and so forth, how is this going to be observable? I think that's important because since 1979, they've signed all kinds of agreements and they violated every damn one of them. Now, it's not about underestimating President Trump. I think they do that and they get whacked. The problem is who comes next, particularly a Democrat. They're not likely to use military force. I fear that's one of the concerns. But we'll see, we'll see what happens. The right man is in the right place at the right time. That's Donald Trump and he's taking a lot of heat from his enemies in the Democrat Party and his enemies that are stabbing him in the back from the woke Reich neo fascists. But we can't yell peace in our time yet because we don't know exactly what, what this looks like. But I think we can be very pleased that it looks like there's some positive movement. I have some other questions too. What about the people of Iran? What about them? They're still executing executions, so forth. It's hard. Are they going to give that up? Quite serious about that. What about the proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, but especially Hezbollah. Hezbollah has done a lot of damage to we the people in America here. A lot of damage. What happens there? So I do have a lot of questions, but I think it's, it's a process and the time will come when these questions are answered and we'll have the answers that I hope we need. Now on the this guy Ro Kahan, I want to finish one more point with him. This guy's a bad guy guy. He's a phony and a fraud, in my opinion. He's been on cnn, he's been on cnbc, he's been on Fox, he's been on the Piker podcast. I mean the guy is obviously doing something very aggressively. He's trying to break out from the pack. And by breaking out from the pack, he's becoming insanely left wing. That's what he's become. That's what he is, insanely left wing. Swing. Here he is on CNN yesterday. Cut four, go.

Dr. Brian Cox (83:13)

The second one is that yes, Iran should not be nuclear, but we know that they are. They don't have the capacity to put the enriched uranium on ballistic missiles. And we know that it would be a negotiation to get the enriched uranium. The enriched uranium is underground. The person who got the enriched uranium out was President Obama and 97% of it out, then Donald Trump.

Mark Levin (83:35)

This guy's such a, such a fraud. I mean he shouldn't be anywhere near public office. We know now how much enriched uranium they had. We know that they violated the agreement even though they were obligated to comply with it by the UN and by the Europeans and We know by the end of that agreement they'd be able to have a breakout for a nuclear weapon, but it wasn't fast enough for them. This guy Ro Kahana is a dangerous man in my view. And if he and his ilk were ever to take back the White House, and I fear one day, of course they will, you'll have a North Korea situation on your hands. That is, they'll run for the, for the finish line and they'll finish with a nuclear weapon. I truly believe that. All right, so on today's Liberty's Voice, which I hope you folks will check out after the radio program, I always give you a little taste of it. I had to take a look at what the woke Reich is doing to the President, how they're stabbing him in the back and what they really stand for. Because the media, like NBC and these other media outlets are trying to project upon you and me, me, red blooded patriotic Americans who support the President, who support this effort and are not racists and bigots and anti Christian and anti Jewish and we don't embrace Sharia law as a replacement to the Constitution. All things that Tucker Carlson has said or guests have said and the President's had enough of them, calls him low IQ that he is and more. The fact of the matter is Tucker is now attacking MAGA and everybody else. From Liberty's Voice today. Cut one, go. What's happened to Tucker? He's lost it. He may have lost it for a lot of reasons, money, foreign influence. Maybe he is just a psychopath in my view. He's attacked maga, he's attacked Christians, he's attacked Jews, he's attacked the whole value system of Judeo Christian beliefs. He's promoting Sharia, he promotes Putin, he's endlessly trashing our military, our war efforts, our right to self defense, our history as colonialists. He brings on guests who basically reinforce the views of the enemy. Guys like Fuentes, who's out there, who is a rambling incessant racist bigot, Jew hater, Christian hater, America hater. Let's go to cut two. Also from Liberty's Voice today go we as conservatives, as constitutionalists, as make America great again, maga, whether it's under Reagan or whether it's under Trump. Are these podcasters and is this new medium serving us well or poorly? Well, obviously there are some hosts who are fantastic and they're serious about having substantive discussions about what's going on in the country, country domestically and in foreign policy. I mean we're in the middle of A war that seems to me very relevant as well as the 250th anniversary. Using our platforms to teach, to learn, to educate, to be educated about our history. Because what we know for sure is that our government schools don't teach our history. They teach what I call anti history. That is to undermine our founding. So we have to use the new media, right? Which isn't that new. It's about 20, 25 years old, but new in the context. Context of things. To advance the cause of what? Americanism. And that's why I do Liberty's voice. We'll be right back. As Operation Epic Fury intensifies, the world braces for what's to come next. And people of faith pray for freedom and for God's people in the Holy Land to be protected. And in the Holy Land. Red alert sirens fill the air. Sirens that give you only 15 seconds to reach the nearest bomb shelter. The situation is serious. The threat is real. And in times like this, freedom and faith aren't just abstract ideas. They are what we depend upon. And the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground preparing large scale distributions of life saving food, first aid, emergency essentials for security personnel, while helping ensure hospitals and emergency rooms and shelters are stocked with critical medical supplies. This aid is focused on Israel's most vulnerable. The sick, the elderly, children, families in great need. But the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews need your most generous gift today to make this work possible. So please rush your gift, which is tax deductible, by calling right away. 888585 IFCJ. That's 888585 IFCJ. Or online at levinforthefellowship.org that's L E V I N again for the fellowship.org. Well, they keep firing missiles into Israel. Mr. Producer, I thought that was going to all stop, right? I mean, not a few either. A lot. I'm just wondering how this is supposed to play out. How's this supposed to play out? And you know, Israel is a democracy, so that government can fall too, if they just sit there and take incoming missiles. So I'm just curious how this is going to play out. I know there's people saying, I don't really care. Damn them. Well, I don't worry about people who talk like that. But we have Mike Tobin in Tel Aviv. He's saying, hey, look, moments ago they fired missiles into Tel Aviv. That's their second biggest city. People like to talk about war crimes. That's a war crime, but it doesn't matter. Does it? Yeah. Abdul El Said Yabba Dabba. He's the Democrat Senate candidate in Michigan. He was on Fox News today. This guy's another, another genius, another problem. He's campaigned with Hassan Puker Piker, that same guy, that same guy who said we deserve 9 11. And he was questioned by Lawrence Jones, who's absolutely outstanding, by the way. Cut seven, go.

Dr. Brian Cox (90:10)

I want to get to your big

Mark Levin (90:11)

event that you're going to have with Hasan Piker. He has said some things about 9 11. What do you stand on this October 7th. He has blamed Israel for that. We know that they were attacked. Do you agree with him? Of course I oppose rape. Of course. I don't think 911 was justified. But because you appear with somebody doesn't mean you agree with them on everything. Think about this. You have the president on the show all the time. He talks about grabbing people by parts of their bodies. I don't think you would ever consider. And that doesn't mean that you wouldn't appear with him. My question to you is when did we start bending to cancel culture? When did we start saying that cancel culture was okay? Because clearly on your show you have, this guy has practice, all these one liners. Cancel culture. When did we bend to it? I've always believed in not cancel culture, but cancel a holes and Nazis and Islamists and their ilk. I've always believed in that. Or we're supposed to embrace them or just pretend they don't exist. And of course they bring up Trump. This guy, he brings up Trump grabbing people's parts by their bodies. But he didn't do that.

Dr. Brian Cox (91:17)

That.

Mark Levin (91:17)

And you can compare that to somebody who says we in America deserve 9 11. Is that what you're going to compare it to? Cut eight, Mr. Producer. Go. But specifically, who are the people within the community that are sad about the Ayatollah being dead? Because the peaceful Muslims that I know,

Dr. Brian Cox (91:37)

including those that are in the Gulf

Mark Levin (91:39)

state that are supporting this action right now, they reject him and they wanted him dead.

Dr. Brian Cox (91:45)

So who are those people that you

Mark Levin (91:46)

know that are sad and why? Well, look, I'm no apologist for any regime, including our own. And at the end of the day, the question is whether or not a leader focuses on his or her people. Clearly the Ayatollah did not and clearly Donald Trump and this administration is not either. So again, I'm going to tell you they are white, they are black, they are Arab, they are non Arab, they are Muslim, they are not Muslim. They are all the people who had to pump gas this morning to get to work and realize that they were going to have to end up paying tremendous, obviously more money because of an illegal, unjustifiable war. So the notion that the Ayatollah is dead is one thing, but the notion by which our country did it fighting a third conflagration in a third country in this year alone, that there is the problem. And I think we have to understand that in politics, in government, the means don't always justify the end. The end doesn't always justify the means. And I think Americans of all stripes right now are unified by asking what is the aim here and what are we doing? Okay, this guy is a real, real slime ball, don't you think? America? Did you think you'd see the day when somebody like this, I don't mean Muslim, I mean Islamist, has a shot at being United States Senator? This has been CAIR's wildest dream. This is what they've been working for. CAIR being the front group to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I mean, we got to take care of the home front as well as overseas threats, nuclear missiles by the enemy. But what about even here at home? What about the home front where these people are threatening us? And this Islamist Marxist axis I've been talking about, people call it green and red. I don't use the colors because I think a lot of people don't even know what I'm talking about. If I do that it exists, it's real, in the umbrella organization is the Democrat Party. The Muslim Brotherhood's welcome care is welcome. These candidates are welcome. They run as Democrats, none of them run as Republicans. Have you noticed Bernie Sanders, a Marxist, embraces piker and Islamist. And now this guy Ro Khanna, who I'm going to been exposing all day and will continue to do so, an Islamist if you will. The Marxist embraces all that, then pretends he's none of those things. He's all those things. We'll be right back. The thunder on the right call in now. 877-381-3811. So I have a question.

Dr. Brian Cox (94:33)

Hold on.

Mark Levin (94:34)

Let me look at one thing here folks, because news is on the move here. I have a question. And on here. Just bear with me folks. We're live and national. We've got this two week ceasefire. It's already being violated right now by the Iranian Nazi regime. Missiles are being fired into Israel and perhaps other countries in the region. Are they able to defend themselves? Can you change that word itself to themselves, Mr. Producer? And we have the right man as president. And I bet he's furious about this. I don't personally know, but this will be the question throughout. That is, do we expect the Iranian regime to honor a deal? How will we monitor it and how will we enforce it? These will all be very difficult issues to resolve. I do believe if anyone can resolve them, the president can. But they're not going to change their spots and they're not going to change their stripes. They're just not. That's why they're called terrorists, because they're terrorists. What are we all you, rich. Got a few calls here. People want to get in in. We'll take a few. Let's go to Wade, Roland Park, Kansas on the Mark Levin app. How are you,

Dr. Brian Cox (96:01)

Mark? How you doing?

Mark Levin (96:02)

Okay.

Dr. Brian Cox (96:02)

A big honor to talk to you.

Mark Levin (96:04)

Thank you, bro.

Dr. Brian Cox (96:06)

Yeah, I thought I was a conservative back in the Reagan era until I started listening to Mark Levin and then I realized I needed some work on that.

Mark Levin (96:15)

So I want to thank, you know,

Dr. Brian Cox (96:16)

just for everybody out there that it's just so anchoring to hear the nuance, the details, the explanations.

Mark Levin (96:25)

Oh, thank you, brother.

Dr. Brian Cox (96:27)

And the passion that you give to the founders and the whole, the whole nine yards. It's just incredible. My question for you today, you know,

Mark Levin (96:35)

Rokahana said today that I'm a relic with very few listeners.

Dr. Brian Cox (96:41)

See, I think you're relic 3.0.

Mark Levin (96:44)

Well, wait, let me. If I'm a relic with few listeners, why do they keep trying to battle me? Why do they think I control the war effort?

Dr. Brian Cox (96:54)

If I can answer that, I could answer how this senator that's Islamic is thinking he's gonna win. I don't know. I really don't know. But here's my question to you. Is that as part of this Iran deal, I just kind of wanted to get your opinion on this. Is that, you know, Trump, President Trump is, is, you know, always talking about a deal. And I was just thinking that if there's any way possible that the United States could annex a territory in Iran for a military base and also have access to the port of Homerus for our, you know, for our naval 100 year lease, 200 yearly, something along those lines. But we control that area. And this way, just like we did in Europe, just like we did in Japan with these air force bases, it's brought a lot of stability to these areas.

Mark Levin (97:49)

Now the idea is very interesting, but we literally leveled those countries and they were, they had an unconditional surrender. We haven't reached that point. We've leveled their military 95% of the, of it. But the, the regime will continue to exist. And if I'm hearing correctly, our goal was not regime change. I think people are saying. So that would be like defeating the Nazi military operation, taking out Hitler and the top generals and people like that. But the Nazi regime per se still exists. And of course, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, well, they're going to rebuild. There's going to be other people that come to the front and how are we going to control this and handle this? It's very interesting. I'm not sure we'll have it having,

Dr. Brian Cox (98:42)

having our presence there is going to do a couple of things.

Mark Levin (98:45)

Yeah.

Dr. Brian Cox (98:46)

And of course, people are going to try to get on the, the Netanyahu thing that Trump's just doing this for Israel. No, we would be doing it for the safety of the region. And, and in addition to that, Trump had mentioned, I think in the last week or so that he's pretty frustrated with Spain and having an air force base out there. And I thought if we could just have the gumption to go ahead and build a compound, negotiate it in and, you know, we're going to have to throw Iran some kind of a bone over the years, but I think that bone is way less expensive in the long run for what is going to get gained. And, you know, you brought it to the forefront about, you know, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, which I call kind of the new Bermuda Triangle of the conservative side. But I think that having this presence there and getting that in this negotiate negotiation at this time somehow somewhat that that will enable, you know, the Arab nations around us that already like us and they all, like you mentioned earlier, they don't all get along, but they're kind of united right now. And I see something along the lines of having, having that security there. And, and yeah, is, is we're going to benefit from this. You bet they, you bet they will then, and rightly they should. But that way they don't have, depending on the next presidency or anything that comes up, we've already got an anchored presence there.

Mark Levin (100:31)

All right, don't get mad. I gotta move. Excellent call and very, very interesting ideas. Definitely worth discussing. I mean, the administration discussing. Thanks for your call. Excellent call.

Dr. Brian Cox (100:44)

Call.

Mark Levin (100:45)

I've got to try and slip in one more person before the heart break here. Let's see. Let's go to Ray in Grand Prairie, Texas, the great WBAP. How are you,

Dr. Brian Cox (101:00)

Mr. Levin, thank you for taking my call.

Mark Levin (101:03)

Thank you.

Dr. Brian Cox (101:03)

I have three points that I really need to hear your wise words of wisdom on number one. One, why did Trump give another extension to enter into another agreement? Iran's never kept their word on any other treaty we've ever had and during these two weeks they're only going to build up more missiles and missile launchers. Number two, Iran brags that it's okay to lie to non Muslims in order to get what they want. They brag about death to the big Satan which is seen states and death to the little Satan which is Israel. When are we going to believe them? And number three, why did our government say we're short on weapons to carry out another attack? Why broadcast our weaknesses to the rest of the world?

Mark Levin (101:55)

You have three excellent questions there. Now I don't have an answer necessarily other than I'm thinking, trying to think logically. One in three may be like linked, that is maybe there needs to be a break because we need to rearm. I'm not talking about production, there's not enough time for that. But our supply chain perhaps. I don't know your point about how do we trust them? I think that is the biggest point. They've signed deals before. Trump won't be president in three years. So what do we do about a terrorist regime that cheats, lies and conceals what it's doing? And so that's going to be the biggest question, I think. What are we going to do to enforce it? Are we going to have to rearrange our forces, our force structure to be able to re engage if we need to? What about ballistic missiles? How are those going to be treated, the range of the missiles? And what about the proxies, especially Hezbollah? I haven't heard anybody talk about this, that. And what about the people of Iran? They're still executing them. So there's a lot on the table. And look, the president isn't God. He's not a magician. There's only so many things we can do. But these are important things. And so I think they're fair to ask and it's something that I'm sure is going to have to be considered by the administration. Thank you for your call. Excellent call. We'll be right back. Keep reading these headlines. Two weeks cease fire. They're firing missiles into Israel and again they might be sending firing them into Arab countries too, I don't know. And I suppose the response is going to be they don't have complete control of the various elements. Well, they got to get control of various elements there. Jim Loves Park, IL W R O

Dr. Brian Cox (104:05)

K Go oh my gosh man, I am so happy to get on this show. Mark, I love you. I love everything that you're everything. But I want to just say, you know, I want to interject into this whole thing and to your audience that, you know, we can kill wave after wave in Iran, you know, as this regime dies off. But the thing is, is that they're all doing this for a religious reason. They, you know, their whole jihad is Sharia law. That's the difference between all those other Muslim countries around them. Those women are walking around without headdress, without anything, because that's Sharia law. So whoever is pulling the trigger, I mean, no matter who we kill in there, it seems like the next person in the IRGC is just going to keep shooting those missiles because that's what they have to do to fulfill their oath or their belief in God. And all the other Muslims around them are different because they don't follow Sharia law. And I don't know where this ends, but. I don't know where this ends, but.

Mark Levin (105:08)

Well, here's the thing. Here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking it through out loud with you and everybody else. Two weeks. Do you think this regime is capable of honoring a ceasefire for two weeks? They've already violated it. They're still firing missiles off. So the question is, do we actually think that they will now? Time will tell. Maybe they're more clever than we think, that they'll hold off for two weeks or something of that. But isn't that the bottom line? We don't trust them. They.

Dr. Brian Cox (105:40)

We know. Mark, I'm gonna tell you right now, this is all to buy time, everything they do. And I think that Trump and his administration know this, and he doesn't telegraph his moves, you know, just like any other time. You know, just like this whole thing is we're gonna eliminate a civilization. You know what that's like, the art of the deal kind of talk, where you go in with this, you know, crazy offer and then you settle for what you need, you know? But I think there is no dealing with these people just because of that. The fact that this is all based in religion, it's a theocracy. They don't care about international law, putting kids around buildings or anything else. You know, then they'll shoot stuff into Israel. And like you said, you know, who cares about that? Who says anything? But in anywhere else, you know, they're hitting bases if they can, you know, and this is the. I don't think you can deal with these people. This Goes back to the Crusades, literally, or probably further. You know, this whole thing was they had to kill the infidel, and that was how they fulfilled what Muhammad wrote. How they take this fundamentally, you know, other maybe more peaceful Muslims say, yeah, maybe we shouldn't go out and kill people. These people do, you know, that's why they kill other Muslims. The biggest killer of Muslims is other Muslims.

Mark Levin (106:57)

Right? All right. Excellent. Excellent call. Appreciate it, Jim. Really good. Let's go to Steve and Georgia XM Satellite. Steve, how are you, brother?

Dr. Brian Cox (107:09)

Yes, Mark, thank you. I wanted to ask you a couple questions to kind of set up what I was calling about. Aren't we supposedly a government of, of, by and for the people? Or is that something that is an illusion or a myth, but is that something that actually exists in our country?

Mark Levin (107:32)

Well, oven buying for the people. Here's the bottom line. You don't want a direct democracy. You don't want people having to power the vote, your neighbor having the power of the vote. Whether you have free speech, whether you have the right to exercise your faith, whether you have a right to own and bear weapons, where they have a right to due process and equal protection, that's not up to the people. That is enshrined in our founding. So you don't want people to vote for it because look around you. Sometimes people are stupid. Sometimes they vote for stupid things. And so the framers feared both pure democracy, which they called mobocracy, and centralized authoritarianism. And so we have our constitutional system. So I get your point. And the more centralized the government is and the more bureaucratic it is, and the more of our private property it takes through taxation, the less we do have a say in what goes on. Basically, they should follow the Constitution or otherwise leave us the hell alone. That's why we're constitutional conservatives. All right, I would like to discuss it more, but I've got to go. Don't forget, I'm going on Hannity in a few minutes. I want to salute all you wonderful folks. I have the best audience, and that's you. Thanks to you. And I will see you tomorrow. Check out Liberty's Voice, my video podcast. I think you're gonna like it on rumble and on YouTube. And I'll see you tomorrow.