The Best Of Mark Levin - 8/1/26

It's all quiet in the underground bunker. Doys 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. This is the best of Mark Levin. You see a lot going on with these Marxists and these Islamists and the woke right, you know, 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 or 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, where they're 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 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 and support of the exercise of a soft negative power. This is what I term, excuse me, this is what I term 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, 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 jury's 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's 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's 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 basic needs of a civil society, and they justify what would otherwise be considered theory 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 of this online. I wish I knew who. I'd give them credit. One successful person. You take their money and you give it the 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 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 to 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. Whereas 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'd like to say Marxists. 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 that 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've embraced the 1619 project. And they've embraced all of these attacks on our founders. You better believe it. And they've embraced attacks on our constitutional construct. They've embraced attacks on the Declaration. We've 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. producers reached out multiple times to the Democratic Socialists of American. 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 as she is, Megan Romer, DSA, one of the senior people there on Fox News Sunday. Cut one, go. 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 U.S. 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, 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, but 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, or not that everybody gets a vote, it was to ensure that. First, well, 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. The Senate was part of the system that was made to make sure that the people didn't have too much of a say. So we want to expand the Congress. It 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. Go ahead. Significantly, but make it a unicameral. If we made a unit camel...

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 and 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. Mark Levin. Making your weekend even better. This is the best of Mark Levin. 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 the 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, at 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 lines here, I have an older brother who's quite ill, and he is in Florida. And I don't get down to 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 would be very impressed with what he's saying. You know, when I endorsed Lindsay for the Senate, I said to him off the air before he came on the air, is they going to help you or hurt you? He said, Mark, it's South Carolina. It's going to help me. But 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.

came to really admire this man and 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 is good, Ukraine's good, and Taiwan is good. I believe the Islaman Nazis are bad. I believe Russia is bad, and I believe communist China and Xi Jinping 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 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 would 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 them on the program about an hour before the polls closed in South Carolina. I have 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 she? He said, absolutely not. So they actually used it or he did in a number of his speeches.

It was a great honor. It was 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 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 emacolates three weeks ago. Where they kept labeling him a warmonger. He was never a war monger. He believed in standing up for our allies and standing up against evil. I call that a peacemonger. A peacemonger. Of course, we had our disagreements early on. When he was a congressman, he was sitting on the House Judiciary Committee. This 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 Lamarck Lingo 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 I used the sites 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. And 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 them 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 Marco Rubio and others. And I was being lobbied very, very heavily by Marco 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 were 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 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. Keep on them. I said, okay, well, I'm just giving my opinion, things of that sort. So I, I'm sorry I miss 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. But I have some Republicans that, well, why don't we hit them harder? So, you know, at some point, so I have, you have a lot of competing factions. You have a group. 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 once 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. But I have some Republicans said, well, why don't we hit them harder? So, you know, 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 says, 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 them many years to ever rebuild. And if 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 them 10 years to build a bridge. Bridges take the longest and power plants a 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'd 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. 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 the rebuild, that sort of thing. And same with the Cold War and these other things. These are things that you try to do 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 where I'm coming from. So it's not just a matter of bombing them harder and harder. It's a matter of bombing the right things 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. 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 a, I would say in two hours, most of the bridges. 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 back off, they want to negotiate. The next day we're going to blow them off the face the earth. The next day we're going to blow them off the face the earth. 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. And the power plants in one day. Mm-hmm. 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. It's 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 Jim Jordan, which were intercepted. Okay. Is that okay? I don't think it's okay. Do you think it's okay? Go ahead. We have a blockade up there right now, and only ships that we want to get through, get through. Iran doesn't control the straight. 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. Now, 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 far away. But 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 C. Mr. President, are we right 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. 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 will continue as it continues, I suppose. And we shall see.

I just feel when you start something like this, you've got to finish it, that this is not a regime. This is not a normal regime. This is a regime that's built in 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, you know, 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, 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 direct action by God to empower them to defeat us. That's how they view it.

They're surviving, and tonight they just fired missiles at our base in Jim Jordan. We had to take them out. And so they're very cocky. They remain cocky. Mark Levin. You're listening to the best of Mark Levin. Elaine Healy. It's a wonderful lady. We've since gotten to know or better over the years. She called into this program on March 26th, 2020, called into the radio show right here, and conveyed to us some shocking news. Now, apparently it appeared earlier that day in the Wall Street Journal. I had not seen it. But nonetheless, here's what she said, and this was a big, big deal, and it went nationwide very, very quickly as a result of this radio show. Cut one, go. Elaine, New Rochelle, New York, the great WABC, go. Now, that's the epa of epicenters. Go ahead. Yes, hello. Thank you very much for taking my call. I wanted to bring to your attention and the listeners' attention of 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. Why, blah, blah, blah. Are you pulling my leg seriously? No. Why would you send somebody who has this virus into a population that can kill people? Thank you. No, no, are you serious? I'm serious. Well, why would he order this? It doesn't make any sense. Memo, well, because, because the hospitals, 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... 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? 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. 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. Have you, have you given this information to local media? That's why I'm calling you. But I'm not local media. Have you given this information? Hold on now. To information, these reporters show up at these press events where Andrew Cuomo does these, you know, kind of dance, song and dance moves there, always demanding that somebody else do something else. This needs to be in the hands of a reporter who is at that conference in Albany. and reads it to him and asks him how he can explain this. Yeah. That's a good idea. I mean, it's not my line of work, but I got it to, we got this information to the Wall Street Journal who published something today. So that's the first time we've got it out to the media. And, you know, it's not what we generally do. 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. Well, if they read that article, I don't know who else picked up on the story. 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. If we wanted to find that, do you know, where would we go to find the link? 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-Ecute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Just go on my Facebook site and post it. Post the link.

Okay. All right. Mark Levin show Facebook or Mark Levin show Twitter, either one. Yeah. And then the whole country can look at it and draw conclusions from it. And I just want to say if I could, you know, nursing homes and people that work at nursing homes are such a dedicated group of professionals. Oh, yes. And we really want to help. So you're a doctor. I'm a medical director. I'm a physician and medical director. I'm both. 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. Well, if this is, if this is right, this is exactly the wrong thing that he's doing. Yeah, I mean, understand. And he backed himself into a corner here. And all of this should have been planned out, as I believe you... 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 sometime now. Why didn't he at least prioritize health services in case there's a pandemic? He was aware of it. There's been reports put out that New York is sorely unprepared. He's had opportunities to order significantly more beds and ventilators over the years. But he hasn't done it. He hasn't. Not only that he's closed, I mean, in my neighborhood. And you're telling me you can't even get to him. Oh, we can't get to anybody. You can't get to anybody. There's supposed to be somebody at the county level. But wait a minute. 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. You 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... I only have 30 seconds. All right. There's no coordination of the response here in Westchester. It's just a series of directive. He's behaving like a dictator. Executive director's orders for... Well, he wanted Trump the nationalized 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 issue to go national with our Fox interview. This was our radio program right here. She called into WABC or called into the show, and she heard it on WABC. And we got into this issue, and it went viral, and it should have. And she's a great hero. For having done that. Very courageous. Mark Levin. 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 it 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 ago. If a commission studying reparations in this city recommended cash reparations for people impacted in New York City, would you support that recommendation? Let's stop right there. What does that mean? What does that mean? The Civil War was over in 1865, right? It's 161 years ago. So who are we talking about here? You've had immigrants coming in from all over the world, including people who are black and brown, coming in from all over the world, who had no relationship whatsoever to slavery in America. But even so, you're three, four, five generations away. What does that mean? Literally, what does that mean? And this is the constant effort by the communists and the Democrat Party, the hardcore left, to continue to divide us, to continue to picket scabs. We are probably the most diverse country in the face of the earth and the most beneficent country on the face of the earth. It seems to me reparations, if they're going to be paid, should be paid for by people whose lineage go back to Democrats. New York was not a slave city. New York was part of the union that fought slavery. I mean, I suppose you can go back to the earliest times. But, you know, if you're going to have an honest discussion about slavery, you have to have an honest discussion about Africa, you have to have an honest discussion about African tribes. You have to have an honest description about slavery in Africa and how slaves were sold to Europeans and others to be sent abroad. But we're the only country in the face of the earth that actually fought a civil war and 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 were still resistance in the countries, we well know, including from the Supreme Court, Plessy v. Verkson, and we took 58 years to overturn that with Brown v. Board of Education. We're well aware of Jim Crow. Again, the Democrats with Jim Crow and 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 and we have more equality under the law than any other country in 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. Proposterous. 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, 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 stop. Guys like Charles Blow. And, of course, Zohran Mamdani. Well, what did Zohran Mamdani say? Go. It's the truth. It's not a personal assessment. And we often think about slavery and... The complicity in slavery. There is a guy from Uganda. Comes to our country when he's 7. He's a naturalized citizen when he's 18. He's 34, 35 years old. He comes from our country from our country. Now he's going to lecture the American people on our history. On our history. His family did nothing to prevent slavery in this country. His family wasn't involved in our civil war. come into our country and start lecturing us about reparations. I resent this. This disgusts me. Absolutely disgust me. I totally resent this. Go ahead. Certain geographic areas of the country here in New York City, we were very complicit. And so I look forward to whatever... Hold on. How are we very complicit in New York City? Very complicit. It's just a constant put-down of American history And when you put down American history, you're putting down Americans. It is a constant put down of we the people, 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 they come here as an immigrant, become a naturalized citizen, and to start lecturing all the people in New York, see all the people all over the country. It just disgusts me. It turns my stomach. In New York, we were very complicit. Why don't you spell out exactly how New York was complicit? Why not better yet, you tell us how many men were sent to the Civil War from the north out of New York City, a bunch, a bunch to fight the Confederacy and to fight for the freedom of black slaves. New York City. I don't know where these guys get their idiocy from. Go ahead. I can't give you an answer in advance of them, but I can tell you that this is critically important because this is also what it looks like to acknowledge what history truly was. You see what I mean? What was history like in Uganda? Does anybody remember Idi Amin? Remember that name, Mr. Medusa? Ediamin 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, a guy died from a sexual disease because he had like 100 children. You know, he was a pig. He was a real pig. Turns out he became a communist. 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. I 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 trash our history. They demand that we provide for reparations. And I'm going to who the hell is this guy? To be lecturing you and me. To be lecturing you and me. Sickening. Mark the Vin.

We're giving you nothing but the best, the best of Mark Levin. Many of you've been working all day. You may not be aware of this. Some of you have been online. Have you seen the mass of 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. Zero. 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, isn't 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 it's taking place here right under our eyes, right under our nose, as 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 Wiling Jerome Powell was?

But when Elizabeth Wiling Jerome Powell, who was a prominent activist during the early days of our country, actually was an advisor to George Washington, she asked Benjamin Netanyahu 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, who was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and he was outside Independence Hall on that last day, September 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 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 their 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 workers' 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 in 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.

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for MintMobil. 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 would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up from payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for $12-month plan required, $15 per month equivalent, taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.