11/5/25 - The Hidden Agenda: Immigration and Marxism Unveiled

America's best days are yet to come. That's because conservatives like you know and live the values our great country was built on. The Heritage Foundation exists to make sure your voice is heard in the D.C. swamp each day, shining the light on a bright future. Heritage Foundation stands for your values and won't give up the fight because they know you never will. Paid for by the Heritage Foundation. He's here. He's here. Now, broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a non-discreet building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin. Here, our number, 877381, 3811, 877 381, 3811. You know, it's painful. More than frustrating. It's painful to listen to a lot of the analysts out there go on about what took place last night. What took place last night is not a surprise because what happened? In New York City, immigrants overwhelmingly voted. for a Marxist Islamist, who camouflaged himself as a democratic socialist, who used slogans about affordability and the rich. And this is not new. They've done it in Venezuela. They've done it in Cuba. They've done it all over the third world. And it works. The Democrat Party, their long-term immigration program, to change the demographics of the country, to change the population of the country, to change the citizenry of the country, is working. That's the bottom line. Even in Virginia, where most of the federal employees live, that is in Virginia, even more than in Maryland, that has an enormous effect. Please don't get me wrong. But still, the immigration issue. Virginia has been the recipient of an enormous number of immigrants. And remember, all this occurs without assimilation, which is exactly what the Democrats want. They don't want people coming into the country, loving the country, loving our economic system. They want people coming into the country who are dirt poor, largely illiterate in their own language, who will follow the crowd and vote for freebies. Since the 1965 Hart Cellar Act, this has been the game playing with the Democrats for 60 years. I wrote about this in Liberty and Turnium, one chapter called On Immigration. 60 years. And now it's paying off. The problem is the people are coming into the country, as we said are not being assimilated. And so they bring their own culture. They bring their own ideology. They bring their own habits. And so they're not Americanized. This whole notion, from many want, it's now just many. And so you have cultures and subcultures. Individuals can choose which culture they want to be in or just stay in their culture. You know, we talk about a nation divided. The real divide is...

There's no assimilation taking place, literally none, not in our public schools, certainly not in our colleges and universities, not on television, not in our politics, no. This organization, care, exists for the purpose of destroying our country, for the purpose of imposing Sharia law in the country. It has a tax-exempt status. It sets up a political action committee, raising tens of millions of dollars, including from George Soros. Who wants to destroy every republic or every democracy there is? I think for money reasons, for power reasons. But it doesn't matter why. That's what he's doing. And he's not alone. We've got foreign money pouring into this country like never before. It's a spiket from Qatar, from communist China, from Iran, from Hamas, for God's sake. And it's having an impact. Revolution by immigration, that's how I coined it. That's the phrase. The money pouring in, I've spent years here on TV, showing you the money line, the money connections. Both parties are in on it. The problem is the money's coming from entities that want to overthrow our government.

Islamists, that is radical Islam, jihadis. They want to overthrow our government. And they're now welcoming the Democrat Party. More than welcome in the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party is now relying on them, depending on them. First they fought it, tepidly. Then they tried to ignore it, and now they're part of it. Hokel, the governor of New York. Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrats in the House. Chuck Schumer, well, he didn't endorse it. He didn't oppose it. That's your Democrat leadership. They created this scenario. They created this situation. Going back to the great society. But what's taking place now is really a Barack Obama strategy. And it's working. You watch TV, you're listening. It was affordability. All these people, no, it wasn't. Maybe some of the vote was based on affordability. But socialism, Marxism, that's not about affordability. That's about a poverty. Poverty. I want to thank the New York Post. They did a hell of a job fighting this. They did everything they could in New York. I want to thank our affiliate WABC. They did everything they could to fight this damn thing. And other conservatives and Republicans. But it's here now. So the city is going to decline. The question only is how much? It's not a question of whether it declines. The question is how much? In Virginia, Virginia is now part of the federal government. Now, you'll pull out a Republican win every now and then, like you do in New Jersey. I'll get to that in a second. But Virginia is now an appendage of the federal government. Enormous number of federal employees. On top of that, you've got really another Silicon Valley. 80% of all the internet traffic comes through Loudoun County, Virginia. If you live in Loudoun County and you drive through particular neighborhoods and streets, you will see these massive buildings that are bigger than football fields. And they are lining these streets, one after another after another, to the point they don't know how they're going to get electricity to them. Terrible.

And many of these people are young liberals, apart from the immigrants, are young liberals. We had a caller into this program. I forget it was last evening or the evening before. Nice young man. He said, I'm 20 years old, and we really need to focus on the future in my generation. He said, isn't that right, Mr. Medusa? It was Monday. The problem is this younger generation, not to offend, and many of them do agree with me. They think they have a tough. They weren't drafted into World War II or the Korean War, the Vietnam War. They have access to technologies that people their age 25, 30 years ago, never had access to. They think they have it tough. They think they have a tough when they have to do things they don't want to do when people mistreat them. If they don't have money to buy a certain thing, if they want to live somewhere and they can't afford it, that's not tough. That's life. If you want something, you go out and get it. That's the great... That's the great answer that capitalism provides. If you want something, go get it. Work for it. Think about it. You don't have to be the smartest guy in the room. You don't even have to be the most hardworking guy in the room. But you have to be motivated. You have to have a desire. And your motivation and desire shouldn't be to legalize theft by saying, I want what that guy has, that guy's a billionaire, he shouldn't be. You don't even know what that guy who's a billionaire has done, how many jobs they've created, services they've created, and God knows what else. And what does that billionaire even matter in your life? Billionaire has nothing to do with you, and you have nothing to do with them. Live your own life. Nobody's stopping you. If there's economic worries... If there's economic worries, then why did the people in New Jersey, the majority, certainly, vote for a party that has imposed massive property taxes on them and massively has increased their electricity bill? This isn't even being discussed on TV today. Let me repeat it for the slow listeners. If the lecture was about economics and affordability, then why? Did a significant majority of the Democrats, perhaps some others, in the state of New Jersey, vote for the party that drove up their property taxes and drove up their energy bills? That doesn't make any sense, does it? You know, affordability was the issue. And why would they vote for the party that controlled the legislature for 20 years and the governorship for eight? What is that all about? So that is not the answer. It might be the answer for some people, but it's not the answer. So I'll go back to my premise.

The immigration strategy of the Democrats has worked. Their judges at the district court level know it. Their mayors know it. Their governors know it. That's why they refuse to support or cooperate on deportation, even if it means a serial killer, a rapist, or whatever. You know, as Mark said, a little bit of despotism, so be it. Because their bigger picture is this is their constituency. The number of people in the state determine the number of congressional districts. It should be citizens, but that's not the way it works right now. They're banking on the court, not having the guts to rule the right way on birthright citizenship, so every baby that's born to an illegal immigrant in this country and there are millions and millions of them. There were before, but now there's even more, thanks to the Democrats. Their border was open for a reason, folks. They count on them as being Democrats. They don't care if they're Islamists. They're pushing Sharia law. They don't care if there's a significant number of women who are sold in the sex slavery. They don't care if there's unaccompanied minors. They can't find 300,000 them. Hey, hey, hey, hey. It all comes out in the end. This is how they think. This is how they think. I'll be right back.

Folks, I have a question for you. Do you believe America's best days are still ahead? With the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence coming up in less than a year, my friends at the Heritage Foundation are taking stock of the current situation, and they need your input. They've launched a survey on America's future to gauge how America's feel right now about where we are as a nation and where we're headed in the next 250 years. You know, for decades, your American values have been under attack, but now where President Trump's administration in office, an opportunity to turn the tide and usher in a new golden age for America. But the Heritage Foundation needs to hear from you. What policies do patriots like you most care about? What do you believe are the defining principles of America? What legacy do you believe we should pass on to the next generation? Please visit heritage.org slash Levin today and share your feedback and help shape the future of America. That's heritage.org slash L-E-V-I-N. Paid for by the Heritage Foundation. I'm writing one of my friends, what I'm telling you folks. In New Jersey, the Republicans spoke a lot about affordability, didn't he, Mr. Producer? Electric bills, property taxes, which the Democrats were responsible for. You know, controlling the legislature for 20 years. Just bear with me. This is live.

Live and what? An active. All right. Also, what's crucial here to understand is it gets back to organizing and bottom-up politics as far as I'm concerned. I was talking on WABC before this program, the cast of media show. By the way, it was a lot of fun, by the way. And my take on this is there was a gentleman, a former deputy mayor who made a great point. He said, you know, the Democrats are really suing to slow things down. And he's right. And the Republicans and conservatives and business people should sue like hell to slow things down. But the governor has some input on what a mayor is doing in New York. Hokel threw in with Zohran Mamdani. A lot of the state is repulsed by this. Not every town and city in New York is New York City. And so this gubernatorial race there, I think, is going to be very, very important. And a lot of potential there, particularly in my view of Elise Stefanik gets in, also to counter his anti-Semitism and so forth. And I will say this. We Jews have to be honest with each other.

70% of the Jewish population did not vote for Zohran Mamdani, so that's significant. Because most of the Jews in New York are Democrats. But 30% did. There's something wrong with that. There's something wrong with it. Now, by the way, same with Christians and same way, okay, fine, but I'm talking to Jews who were specifically targeted by this Islamist. and the things that he said in the recent past as an adult are really horrendous and my wife julie likes to say the problem is for these jews who are left wing is that the democrat party is their religion the religion is not the religion i think that's the answer and by the way that's also a left-wing catholics who vote for candidates who support abortion on demand and you can go down the list but But this is particularly irritating to me when you have a candidate that's pounding around with people who support terrorism, who support the mastermind behind the attempt to blow up the Twin Towers in 1993, who throw around terrorist slogans that are used and so forth and so on. There's something really wrong about this. The self-hating Jew, the self-hating people of other faith, there's something wrong with this. More when I return. We're coming upon the 250th birthday of the United States, and it has me thinking, what will America look like 250 years from now? My friends at the Heritage Foundation want to know what you think. What policy should America prioritize? What principles should carry us into the decades ahead? As America enters a new golden age, Heritage recognizes that this is the time to take stock and to be intentional about how we shape the future of America. And they can't do it without your input. So please go to heritage.org slash L-E-V-I-N and let them know what you think is important. Without patriots like you stepping up and speaking up for what you believe in, America, as we know, it can't. survive for another 250 years. Please go to heritage.org slash Levin. Heritage.com slash L-E-V-I-N. Take the survey on America's future. This survey takes less than 10 minutes to complete, but it is critical for making sure that the America we pass on to future generations is in America we're proud of. Go to heritage.org slash Levin today. That's heritage.org slash L-E-V-I-N. Paid for by the Heritage Foundation.

This is where Hollywood liberals come for rehab. The Mark Levin is back at 877-381-381. Now, ladies and gentlemen, here's the problem. We don't only have to fight these people on the left if we don't get the neo-Nazis, the Klansmen, and their ilk on the radical right, and push them out and denounce them. in the most and strongest way possible, we're not going to win anywhere, including in red states. I posted the following video. You can hear the audio on my social sites a few hours ago. I just want you to take a listen, if you will. Cut 25, Mr. Producer. Go. Hello, America, my fellow patriots. I don't normally do this. Post a video message, but I think the times require it. You saw Zohran Mamdani get elected mayor. You see what's taking place in our country right now. We are really at a very difficult point. A very difficult point. On the left, we have the Marxists, Islamists. They are organized. They are well funded. They're funded by Soros. They're funded by foreign money. They're bragging about it. They have this group CARE, which is a Hamas front group founded by Hamas. They're destroying our colleges and universities. People are not safe in the streets. The undermining of the cops is purposeful. And I could go on and on and on. And you see it taking place. And it's not just taking place in big cities anymore. It is spreading through the country like a metastasizing cancer. Then, conversely, you see on the extremist right side, not conservatives, not constitutionalists, not MAGA, not Reaganites, not Tea Party activists, goons and thugs of the old school 1930s. And they used the 1930s anti-Semitism. They use the 1950s racism and segregationism. These are very evil people. And we're dealing with very evil people on the extreme left and the extreme right. I'm here to say to you that we need to fight these forces, not join them, not make excuses for them. And if there are platforms that we've relied on on the past, whether they are media platforms, whether they are think tank platforms, whatever organizations they are, whatever individuals they are, if they are not out there right now, helping us save our country from these forces. on the radical left and the radical right, which are colluding, in effect, to take down this country, the greatest country in the face of the earth. Then we need to dismiss them. You can call it deplatforming them. I don't really care. It's the market system. We need to make sure that they don't get rich off of their hate, off of their Marxism, off their Islamism, off their anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity. These are bad people, and they mean bad things for our country. We should really step back and look at what we've inherited, in some cases fought for. This is the greatest, greatest culture, society, government ever created by human beings over thousands of years, ever. Ever. We're at the pinnacle of human existence.

I'm not talking about materialism. We could. I'm not talking about anything of that kind. I'm talking about freedom, diversity, tolerance, a just rule of law, power that is diverse and not centralized in order to ensure that we live in an open society. Look at the Bill of Rights. Just look at this country. Look at what we have. We've had men who have fought for this country, given their lives for this country in one war after another, to ensure that we inherit what we have today. We have a hell of a great country, despite the efforts by the Marxist Islamists, despite the efforts by the extreme right thugs, despite their efforts to tear us down, to turn us into a third world country, if you will. to impose a religion on us, or impose an ideology on us, or to attack, attack what this country has fought for in World War II. They're now embracing Hitler. And post-war, they're now embracing Stalin. Or they're embracing the leadership of Qatar, or they're embracing the leadership of Iran, or they're embracing Vladimir Putin. Now, these people are screwed up, and they mean us evil. No, they're not to be entertained. They're not to be intellectualized. We should have nothing but contempt for them. They may not be physically burning our flag on the extreme right, but they're burning our country. On the extreme left, they're out there burning our flag and raising the flags of other countries and terrorist movements. The only thing that can stop this is you and me, we the people, united and strong. demanding from our politicians that they speak out, stop hiding. Their silence is deafening all but a few. It shouldn't be left to a few. This is our country. It doesn't belong to people who come here and seek to impose their ideology or their faith on the rest of us. It belongs to us. It belongs to our ancestors who fought for this country. Nor should we tolerate in our ranks, in our house, reprobates. Real loathsome people who are out there foul-mouthing our country, lying about our history, lying about our greatest generation, who are embracing people who put other human beings in ovens and gas chambers, now trashing Christians, practicing faithful Christians, tens of millions of this country, claiming basically the Old Testament and the New Testament when it comes to the Christian Bible. are to be read separately. In fact, take the Old Testament and burn it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge point in our existence as a free country. There is an enemy within. Lincoln warned us about it, and he wasn't the only one. President Trump has warned us about it. And he's not the only one. There's an enemy within. In fact, there are enemies within. This isn't about free speech, different point of views. This isn't about an old Democrat Party and Republican Party dispute. This isn't about any of this. We're talking about extremist radicals, heavily funded, funded by people who hate this country, who want to destroy this country. Most of it's under the radar. Most of it you don't see. Our media is pathetic. They're apparently incapable of reporting on this honestly. In fact, they give platform to many of these people. It's up to us.

Now, what do you say you join me in fighting this? Well, I'm not talking about violence. That's them. Speak out. Address them. Don't be silent. Demand that your government, state, local, federal, do something about this. Demand that foreign money that comes into this country and funds these movements. Be stopped. Demand that the tax code not be used to give these movements cover. Demand that these podcasters be held to account by those who are funding them and those who are platforming them. Demand that we protect our country from these individuals who are stealing our liberty, who are stealing our free speech rights, who are using the benefits of this country to try and destroy this country. We need to join together. What do you do, you ask? The dinner table is a good place to start with your kids and your grandkids. Your neighborhood's a good place to start. Your church, your synagogue, your mosque is a good place to start. Making your views known to mass media is a good place to start. Look at what these other people are doing. Show up at the school board meetings. Show up at the meetings with the mayors. Show up at town hall meetings with members of Congress. Ladies and gentlemen, I was involved in the Reagan Revolution. I was involved in the Tea Party Revolution. I'm involving conventionist states. I've been involved in the Trump Revolution. The point is, we know how to do this. We must do this. We need to have the guts of some of the great men of the past, like William F. Buckley, Jr., who did in fact. who did, in fact, look at the John Birch society, and Pap Buchanan and Joseph Sobrin and others, and said, you know what? Anti-Semitism, and in some cases even anti-Americanism, we reject it, full-throated, and loudly. You're not part of the conservative movement. You're part of some fringe, thug belief system that we want nothing to do with. And the people on the left, we won the Cold War. Did we not? We thought we did. The Soviet Union was destroyed without firing a bullet. Now it's worse. It's more complicated. It's more daunting. The Marxists are among us. They're in our universities. They're in our teachers unions. They're in the Democratic Party. They're there. The Islamists. I'm not talking about Muslims. The Islamists. The jihadis. They're here. They're organized. They're heavily funded. They're winning elections. And they're going to win more. The Democrat Party leadership has failed us. We the people are in charge. We are virtuous people. John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, all said that we are virtuous people. And we cease being virtuous. We're going to lose everything. That's what makes us the best country in the face of the earth, not just an also-ram. Athens fell, Persia fell, Rome fell. They're all gone. The British Empire doesn't exist anymore. They're collapsing from within. France is falling. Europe is falling. And if we don't fight back, if our voices aren't heard,

If we reject people who give us word salads or on both sides of the line, if we don't reject them, then we're going to lose. We have a blessing in this country, our family, our way of life. We need to defend it. We need to speak out. We need to be an army of hundreds of millions of people. It doesn't matter how much dark money the Democrats spend. It doesn't matter how much dark money fund these podcasters. It doesn't matter how low they get. We need to steamroll them. And we need to start today. I'll be right back. Mark. Love in. Folks, I have a question for you. Do you believe America's best days are still ahead? With the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence coming up in less than a year, my friends at the Heritage Foundation are taking stock of the current situation, and they need your input. They've launched a survey on America's future to gauge how America's feel right now about where we are as a nation and where we're headed in the next 250 years. You know, for decades, your American values have been under attack, but now where President Trump's administration in office, we have an opportunity to turn the tide and usher in a new golden age for America. But the Heritage Foundation needs to hear from you. What policies do patriots like you most care about? What do you believe are the defining principles of America? What legacy do you believe we should pass on to the next generation? Please visit heritage.org slash Levin today and share your feedback and help shape the future of America. That's heritage.org slash L-E-V-I-N. Paid for by the Heritage Foundation.

Victor Davis Hansen came out today, both guns, barrels blasting against Tucker Carlson in this right wing, he called it, new anti-Semitism that is a disgrace to civilization. It will lead to the absolute destruction of the conservative movement in the Republican Party. If it's not addressed and called out a significant way, Dinesh D'Souza, a good friend, has been very courageous over the last many weeks. has called out Tucker Carlson and others directly and relentlessly for the same exact reason. People are speaking out who you respect, who you know, because this can't stand. It's going to be hard enough to beat off the Marxists and Islamists, the anti-Semites and anti-Christians on their side. We cannot have them stabbing us in the back, distracting the voters. and trying to devour our movement, the conservative movement, the constitutionalist movement, and so forth. Also, I want to address this issue of tariffs. You're going to hear a little bit from Supreme Court justices. I just want to make clear, here's the bumper sticker. There's nothing in the law or the Constitution that prevents the President to use tariffs. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. People can talk about, you know, the power of the purse. But the power of the purse, that line is not so clear. When the president says, I'm using tariffs to rebuild our industries, I'm using tariffs to fight off the tariffs of foreign countries, I'm using tariffs for national security reasons. And if all that's true, and it is. They can't then say, well, we the court have decided only Congress can do this. Congress has the power to use the power of the press. Congress can pass the statute trying to limit the president's tariff powers. I would argue that that is a separation of powers battle, but nonetheless they can try. But they haven't. They haven't. And they don't need help from the court to figure out how to do it. So the court should stay the hell out of it, which would require one side or the other. To do something or not? I believe one of the justices said, where does this end? It ends if the Congress passes a law. That's what do you mean? Where does it end? It ends with the voter. If the voter doesn't like it, what do you mean? Where does this end? I see John Roberts said it's a tax. Even if you believe it's a tax, it's more than a tax and it's less than a tax. That is... Any regulation that the executive branch issues can be called a tax. Any regulation can be called a tax. Does that mean every regulation has to take the form of a statute? Has to be passed by Congress? I'm all for that, but the court has to be consistent, doesn't it? So when I hear John Roberts saying a tariff is a tax, that is, of course, a political line. May well be true. But a regulation is a tax too. And environmental law is a tax too. And I can go down the list of the, God knows, infinite number of regulations that are out there that cause people to spend money or to lose money, making them...

hence a tax so throwing around slogans and shibbolists and all the rest isn't going to get you anywhere not if you're really serious about analyzing this on constitutional grounds whether you like tariffs or not is not the point the point is what is the tariff for and if the president makes the case the tariffs for a whole bunch of stuff Then it's not purely a quote unquote tax, is it? It's not purely a power the purse issue, is it? No, it's not. Gee, I just did the whole hour, Mr. Producer, but I'll get into it a little bit more. President Trump on Zohran Mamdani. How much time do we have, Rich? Okay, not enough time. You'll want to hear some of the things you have to say they're great and very important. And again, we will jump into the tariff issue, and we do have Dinesh D'Souza coming on, and we will expand on this issue what's happening to undermine us from within. We cannot have saboteurs. We cannot have Benedict Arnold's in our midst, whether it's Tucker Carlson, whether it's Leladoff, whether it's Steve Bannon, whether it's Headcase Owens, whoever it is, and their followers, the gropers, and others. We cannot allow them to destroy the only thing that stands between the Democrat Party, the Marxist Islamists, and our liberty. That's you and me. That's it. That's all there is. 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, Pure Talk. He's here. He's here. Now, broadcasting from the underground command post. Deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a non-district building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll have Dinesh to Susan a little bit, but I want to jump in with both feet on this tariff argument. First, we have the Chief Justice of the United States. That's the official title, under Constitution. John Roberts, cut 19, go. I think this is a question for the other side as well. It's too facing. Yes, of course, tariffs in dealings with foreign powers. But the vehicle is in position of taxes on Americans. And that has always been the core power of Congress. So to have the president's foreign affairs power trump that that. basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. Let me say two things in response. At first, the notion that these are the taxes are all borne by Americas and are not born by foreign producers. All right, let me slow down. Let's stop here. To me, the answer to this is quite simple.

We have situations where Congress has delegated the authority of the president. You know, we've had tariffs since the beginning of the republic. And they've delegated authority to the president of the United States to determine tariff levels. And that's relatively recent as well. So according to John Roberts' logic, every time that happened, that was an unconstitutional delegation of the taxing authority. Power the purse. Where does he draw the line on that? If he's going to stick purely in the taxation lane, it's much more complicated than that, what a tariff is and what it's for and the impact of it. And then that's my question. How does Congress delegate that core power? He just said it's a core power. He's not wrong about that. How does Congress delegate that power? And it has through past tariff acts of which there have been many, scores of them. to a president of the united states to make the decision to have the discretion to determine whether powers will apply or how much they'll apply in certain circumstances beyond emergencies that's number one number two what did i just say about regulations regulations are attacks and yet every regulation doesn't go through congress Well, then, John Roberts would say, but Congress is delegated at authority to agencies and departments. Well, Mr. Chief Justice of the United States, you just said that's a core power of Congress. Therefore, Congress cannot delegate to another branch of government, whether it's a judge or a president, the power to raise taxes. And yet that's what regulations do. No? And even more so than tariffs. because the people who pay the regulation are American citizens, American businesses. No question about that. In the case of tariffs, Americans might pay them, foreigners might pay them, other countries might pay them, and so forth and so on. So it seems to me this is a black hole that he's trying to go through. Go ahead, Mr. Biduze. Is empirically, there's no basis for that in the record. It's actually a mix. Well, who pays the tariffs? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles. Well, who pays for the regulations? Hmm? Who pays for the regulations? When a business is regulated in America, and they have to spend money, which they almost always do with a regulation, And there are tens of thousands of regulations. In fact, the Heritage Foundation many years ago did an analysis and said regulations are more expensive than taxation. A trillion dollars worth of regulations virtually every year. And those regulations are issued by the executive branch agencies while they've been delegated there. Well, if that's a core function... You can't delegate the power to tax, not just to a president. You're delegating it to bureaucrats. That would be my reply. Now we have just a Sotomayor, one of the dumbest. Cut 20, go. I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax.

And you want to say... So here we have a debate over separation of powers, which is why I began this in the last hour by saying, if it's a debate over which political entity has this power, they're insisting these two that it's Congress. I'm insisting that Congress has delegated certain authorities to the executive branch, and this court has never ruled them unconstitutional, not in any significant way. Or we wouldn't have a bureaucracy, now would we? They can regulate. They're not really making intelligent substantive arguments to me. Go ahead. Taxes, but that's exactly what they are. Degenerating money from American citizens, revenue. And you say it's incidental to the regulatory. Now, that's particularly interesting. So I guess that means when the Interior Department leases land. It makes an independent determination on what that cost is going to be to oil companies, to ranchers, to farmers, and so forth and so on. That's clearly unconstitutional, right, Mr. Producer? I mean, where are they going with this? And again, I said the overlay is, these are not purely, quote-unquote, taxes, as these two justices imply or assert. Of course, they have national security implications. Of course, they have economic implications, negotiating ability of a president with Communist China or with the European Union and other countries with the threat of tariffs or the actual implementation of tariffs in the short run or long run. Again, tariffs have been with us since the beginning of the Republic. Tariffs are used for multiple, you know, multiple reasons.

Robert says yes, but at bottom there are tax. Yes, at bottom a regulation is a tax. Go ahead. But I don't see how a quota is equivalent to revenue raising. A quota sets a limit to what you can import in, but it doesn't... Well, I guess you're not familiar with your great hero, that court in the Roger Wicker decision that said the... This was a crazy-ass decision, but the left loves it. because it massively expanded the power of the central government, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. It saved it, effectively. This wicked decision was a decision by the Supreme Court. It's infamous. For the left, it's celebrated and famous, where they said the lack of commerce means commerce. So if a farmer withholds interstate commerce, that farmer is affecting commerce. And so what Sotomayor is saying here is, go ahead, play it. I don't understand this argument that it's equivalent or that foreign powers. So in other words, if you put a block on the amount of products that a country can sell into this country, she's saying, that's not the same as a tax. Well, let me ask you folks a question. If we limit the importation of goods into the country, doesn't that increase prices, Mr. Medusa? The whole point. The whole point of having quotas on products from, let's say, Japan motorcycles during President Reagan's term, or electronics from President Reagan's terms or computers from President Reagan's term, is to drive up the price domestically in order to build up the industry or to expand the industry. Isn't that a tax? But isn't that also important?

There's no fine line between the two. Now, Congress can try and draw it. They haven't. Most of these tariff acts are quite ambiguous. And so for the court to step in here and say, yes, but taxing is it? That doesn't answer any questions. And now she's saying, if you have a quota, that's not the same thing as a tariff. Well, a quota isn't the same thing as a tariff, technically speaking. But the, depending on the use of the tariff and the nature of the quota, they can be absolutely the same thing in terms of the consumer attacks. Again, what's the point of a quota? Let's say it's a quote on motorcycles. It was to help Harley Davidson survive. That's why Reagan did it. They were dumping motorcycles in the country. So the price of Harley Davidson's went up. That's a tax technically, right? The purpose was not the tax. Their purpose was to improve the motorcycle market for motorcycle production, not necessarily the consumer. So you would save Harley Davidson. Now, I'm going to get into more of these points. Maybe I should argue this case, Mr. We'll be right back.

There's a reason I'm proud to say Pure Talk is my wireless company. because they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, Pure Talk is choosing to support canines for warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with PTSD. These are men and women who serve with honor. But when they come home, their brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often disappears. Canines for warrior steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship, and healing. That's exactly why. Pure Talk, a veteran-led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values. And with talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $25 bucks a month, you could also be saving a ton of money. Go to puretalk.com slash Levine to make the switch today. Again, go to puretalk.com slash L-E-V-I-N and switch to America's wireless company, my wireless company, Pure Talk.

You know, it's a pleasure to have Dinesh D'Souza. This guy is a great patriot. He's a superb, scholar, filmmaker, thinker, writer. My wife and I have gotten to know him and his wife a little bit, and we really do find him to be fantastic. And he's got this great film out there. You can still see it online. The Dragons Prophecy Film.com. The Dragons Prophecy Film.com. We will post that on all our social sites. It's about October 7th. And much of it is from a biblical perspective. And so I wanted to ask Dinesh D'Souza, who has been friends with Tucker Carlson, like most of us, the danger that he... in particular, but people who are attached to him and promoted by him, are presenting to our society, to our culture, to the survivability of the conservative movement. And does this not also provide an enormous opportunity for these Marxist Islamists on the left? Yes. The danger of Tucker Carlson is that he is driving a wedge between Jews and Christians, between America and Israel, between, in a sense, the two foundational pillars of Western civilization, which are Athens and Jerusalem. And so this is bad for Trump. It's bad for MAGA. It gives a terrible brand to the Republican Party because it seems to open the door to all kinds of bigotries that are now pouring into the Republican side, not just anti-Semitism, but hatred toward blacks, hatred toward Indians like Armist Dillon and Vivek Ramaswamy. It is actually giving us a terrible image. I noticed in New Jersey, for example, yesterday. There's a community that is very heavily Indian that went by about 20 points for Trump. And now it went by 20 points or more for the Democrat. So a massive shift. How do you explain that except for the fact that Indian Americans who felt more and more welcome in the Republican Party are now being made to feel like they need to go back to India? Isn't part of the problem, a guy like him and him and people like him? They don't have to really... deal with the consequences of what they're doing and they're not really feeling the consequences of what they're doing or care about them because they have this niche even if it's a few million people it's still a tiny percentage of fraction of the population generally and if they're paying $99 a month or whatever it is they still become incredibly wealthy and they have to continue to become increasingly outrageous to draw attention to themselves I've been thinking about this

This is what so many of the podcasters have to do. They have to separate themselves from the rest. And this particular type of podcast, they're not about informing, educating. They're not about interesting topics, profound topic. They're about the crazier you can be. The more rogue and unhinged you can be, if you attract that niche, even a growing niche, you enrich yourself. I do think that that is part of the story, particularly with some of the other influencers who have. attach themselves to this Groyper movement and Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes. I think with Tucker Carlson however, he is playing a darker and a bigger game. And that is to institutionalize himself within powerful institutions like the Heritage Foundation, like TPUSA. He's obviously got an inn at the White House. He's got a son working for JD Vance. So I think for Tucker Carlson, it is ultimately about steering the entire MAGA movement and the Republican Party post-Trump. They can't do very much with Trump. Trump is sort of not on their side and they recognize that. But they're looking at a post-Trump future. And I think Tucker Carlson is using this kind of army of angry young men who are sitting in their basement. They hate their life. These are people who are on social media eight or nine hours a day. and he's using them as a kind of online militia to browbeat other people into submission. This is why for a long time no one dared to criticize Tucker Carlson. So in some ways, I think Tucker Carlson's plan is tiring because the wall of criticism has now mounted against him. I don't think he fully expected that. But I think his goal is nothing less than to ultimately be at the steering wheel of the MAGA movement post-Trump. A lot of people are attacking him now, and I can tell you when I effectively started this battle, you were working on your documentary at the time. I guess it was in May, because he took the first swipe when I met the president. I told Mr. producer, and I told my wife, I think I told you the other week. I said, I'm going into the swamp. I'm going to get into the gutter with these guys, because that's where they are. I can't debate them. I'm not interested in debating them. I'm interested in exposing them. And I said, and I'll see hopefully in six months. And yet, I still have one leg in the swamp. But I have noticed that there is an enormous amount of pushback now. And I think this is crucially, crucially important, particularly from conservative institutions, people of faith. I mean, he actually attacked evangelical Christians, saying that they, that he viewed them as he despised them more than any other people, more than any terrorist, more than, he despised these evangelical Christian Christian Zionists. I think you're a Christian Zionist, are you?

Yeah, I've never used that label, but especially now that it's being used as an accusation, I all the more enthusiastically embrace it. I embrace it almost as an epithet that I'm going to wear as a badge of honor. But look with Tucker Carlson, you have now an ensemble of views that goes actually even beyond platforming Nick Fuentes. I mean, here's a guy just recently who has offered the following ideas. Number one. In World War II, we perhaps should have allied with Hitler. Hamas is not a terrorist organization as much as it is a normal political movement, maybe somewhat like the Labor Party. He's gone on to say, Sharia law is not all that bad. The socialist, narco-terrorist leader of Venezuela, he said, is basically somebody who is, quote, socially conservative. So you just put all of this together, and there's a lot more where this came from, and you ask, is this really MAGA? Is this where MAGA wants to be? This is not about canceling Tucker Carlson. This is about defining who we are as America-first conservatives. When we come back, Dinesh to Susan, he's got this great film out. I want to encourage you to hit it online there. It's the Dragons Prophecy Film.com, and you can link right directly from my social sites. Do you think this is oriented toward the people he surrounds himself with, the people who support his enterprise? You think it's truly a cerebral and mental thing? What do you think it is that's driving him? You know, my attitude toward this is it probably doesn't matter. It just needs to be exposed and countered. But apart from that, what do you think? We'll be right back. There's a reason I'm proud to say Pure Talk is my wireless company because they don't just talk the talk. They walk the walk, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, Pure Talk is choosing to support canines for warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with PTSD. These are men and women who serve with honor. But when they come home, their brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often disappears. Canines for Warrior steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship, and healing. That's exactly why Pure Talk, a veteran-led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values. And with talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $25 a month, you could also be saving a ton of money. Go to puretalk.com slash Levin to make the switch today. Again, go to puretalk.com slash L-E-V-I-N and switch to America's wireless company, my wireless company, Pure Talk. Mark Levin, the thunder on the right. Call him now, 877-381-3811. By the way, I want to thank Jeffrey Lord and Paul Kengor, Bob Terrell, old buddies of mine.

denesh i think you wrote for that american spectator at one point maybe you still do um beautiful piece they wrote about me i want to thank them very very much that rarely happens trust me so denesh de suza i know you're not a psychiatrist either but let's give it a shot why is Tucker Carlson unhinged I cannot say that I know for sure. Of course, there are a lot of people who say this is for the money. There's a giant river of Islamic cash that is pouring into the American institutions to try to buy them off. I did notice that right about the time that I saw in a New York Times article that Qatar is launching a major campaign to try to dissuade Trump from using force. to overthrow the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Tucker Carlson, like right on cue, comes out with a kind of defense of Maduro, a defense of socialist Venezuela making the peculiar claim that they are somehow a, quote, conservative society. Now, that was very eerie to me. I've always thought it odd. Tucker Carlson's a wealthy guy. He comes from a wealthy family. It's hard for me to believe that he's solely motivated by money. I don't think he needs Qatar to pay the mortgage. So I've never been content with that kind of explanation. At one point, as you probably know, Mark Tucker Carlson made the very strange claim that he had been physically attacked by a demon. I don't know if you've heard about this. I've actually watched the video. He's not joking. He claims that a demon attacked him in his bed and bloodied him and actually bruised him and left blood on the sheets. And he, Tucker Carlson, seemed very bewildered by this. But this is, I would not write this off and dismiss it completely. I'll call this the demonic explanation. I was on Roseanne Barr's podcast. And she said, she said, I even know the name of the demon that attacked Tucker Carlson. And I was like, Roseanne, what is it? And she goes, well. in the hebrew scriptures and in the talmud there is a name for the demon of anti-semitism and she told me the name which i which i now forget so look we're flailing here at trying to give an adequate psychological explanation i agree with you that we should focus really on the effects and the actual content of what Tucker Carlson is saying now um if politicians I mean, let me put it to you this way, Dinesh. If you're going to run for the Republican nomination of President of the United States, this is going to come up. You're going to have to make a decision. If you stand with the bigots and the racists, the Jew haters and the Christian haters, basically American haters, you point out the founding of Judeo-Christian values and so forth, or stand with the rest of us. These politicians are going to have to make that decision. They're going to have to decide whether he and his little buddy Nick Fuentes and that whole crowd of many of them are just bizarre podcasters, whether they're going to stand with them or staying with everybody else, right? They're going to have to make a decision. Absolutely. I mean, it seems to me that any aspiring presidential candidate or maybe even candidate for other offers.

who kind of embraces this kind of groiper, white, identitarian agenda. We don't need the Jews. We don't need the blacks. We don't need the Asian Indians. I mean, they have, not only do they have no future, but if they do have a future, they will drag the Republican Party right off the cliff, right off the precipice. I think the encouraging news is that I don't think that's going to happen. I think right now there is a kind of almost unanimous. There was a time when I said to myself, I don't see Tucker Carlson having even a single, like, very... prominent public critic. And now I would say the opposite. I don't see Tucker Carlson having a single public defender. Even the Heritage Foundation has backed off completely from their earlier and unwise kind of embrace of him. And so I think that the message has gone through to the Republican Party and MAGA, that this stuff is really toxic, that no one is talking about banning these people, but they have platforms already. We don't, we are. They're going to continue to have this big platforms. And like you say, there's an incentive for them to put out this salacious material, one on top of the other, because maybe it has in a perverse way a kind of entertainment value, but it's something entirely different to embrace it as a position, either for MAGA or for America First or for the Republican Party. All right, my friend, I appreciate you very much. You take care of yourself. Thank you. Very well done. Thank you very much. All right, you take care. I'm not sure Ganesh listens to this show. I'm just saying. You think I'm wrong, Mr. Producer? Radio. I know he watches the TV show. Everybody watches that. But I got to get him to listen to the radio show. Oh, I know what I meant to tell him, but I'll reiterate it because people come and go, which is Victor Davis Hansen has quite an extensive piece in the free press, really taking this subject on in every angle, historic, cultural, present day, the impact on the Republicans, the conservative movement, how this also is of great assistance to our opponents. He takes on Tucker Carlson directly. He used to, of course, platform and invite Victor on as one of his favorite scholars. But, you know, somebody who conducts themselves the way this guy does, Tucker Carlson and the rest of them. You know, you've got to live with yourself. And you've got children, you've got grandchildren, you have a spouse, and something like that, you would never tolerate this done to your family, said to your family, said in your house. And if you do, for all the gropers out there, what do they call themselves, groopers? So we'll call them gropers for now on. All the gropers out there. And all the, I'll figure out a name for the followers of Cotarleson, and the rest of them.

That's going to be your legacy. When you're gone, that's going to be your legacy. Those who apologize for him. Look, I don't agree with everything he says. But he's a good guy. Who's that? Megan, Megyn Kelly, people like that. Pierce, Morgan. I don't know. Honestly, I don't listen to them. Megan, I've seen her stuff online. Pierce, I don't see much of his stuff. I don't care about these people. I really don't. I really don't. I don't wake up in the morning. What does this one thing? I don't care. But if I get information, it demonstrates to me that they're doing things, that they're conniving, that they're misleading their audience, that they're trying to do things for a buck. Because you see, ladies in general, when I've been involved in these various efforts, activism, mission-oriented, door-to-door, street-to-street, election after election. movement to challenge the republican establishment after movement to challenge the republican establishment up to my eyeballs in it i don't remember Tucker Carlson carousin or Megyn Kelly or the fraudster who confessed to stealing money perhaps for many of you to but a wall that never existed and by the way while we're on bloated Steve Bannon a.k.a. third right banon a.k.a. the fraud room banon. He said the other day he was very explicit. He says a lot of things. He eats a lot of things, too. Have you noticed that, Mr. Medusa? Nonetheless, he says a lot of things. Like, we're going to denaturalize Zohran Mamdani. No, he's not. He's a buffoon. He's a liar. So he's elected now. He's elected now, Banner. Are you going to denaturalize him? How are you going to denaturalize him after you finish building the wall? Is that it? After the president runs for a third term, which, of course, the court would never allow that. He's not going to do it anyway. This is a guy as a buffoon. Oh, and our friend, Marjorie Taylor Greene, did you see this one, Mr. Producer? She wants to run for president in 2028. So immediately, you know what came to mind? Which country? Turns out she wants to be our nominee for President of the United States. Man, oh man, is there plenty that she has said, too? Who's going to be her running mate? Nick Fuentes? Who's going to be her running me? I'm just curious. Maybe our buddy Eric Bowling. Maybe he'll be the running mate. Nah. I won't get into it, but that's not going to work. I'll be right back. There's a reason I'm proud to say Pure Talk is my wireless company. because they don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk, especially when it comes to supporting our veterans. This month, Pure Talk is choosing to support canines for warriors, an incredible organization that rescues and trains dogs, then pairs them with veterans struggling with PTSD. These are men and women who serve with honor. But when they come home, their brotherhood and support network they had in the military too often disappears. Canines for warrior steps up to fill the gap, giving these heroes purpose, companionship, and healing. That's exactly why.

Pure Talk, a veteran-led company, supports them. Choose a wireless company that shares your values. And with talk, text, and plenty of 5G data for just $25 a month, you could also be saving a ton of money. Go to puretalk.com slash Levine to make the switch today. Again, go to puretalk.com slash L-E-V-I-N and switch to America's wireless company, my wireless company, Pure Talk. You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm blessed. I've been around many, many great men and women. People who've been so important in advancing the cause of liberty and civilization. They've written brilliant things, who have said brilliant things, have created organizations. As a first line of defense for our liberty, I've been around these people. I've done many of these things myself. So I know great men and women when I see them, when I hear them, when I work with them. And I know punks and low lives and losers when I see them too. Thugs. And I also notice these punks, low-lives, losers, and thugs, they're always trashing the people on whose shoulders we stand. Ronald Reagan was not good enough for them. Winston Churchill was not good enough for them. More and more, Donald Trump's not good enough for them. Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu, he's the worst of the worst. As they celebrate Stalin and Hitler, As they celebrate phony historians and Holocaust deniers, as they embrace Sharia law and repudiate Christianity, as they embrace Hamas as a political organization and repudiate Judaism. I mean, folks, how hard is this? We all know right from wrong and good from evil. These are evil people. Catarsen is an evil person. He's nothing like you remember from Fox. He's an extremely wealthy person. He grew up with a platinum foot in his mouth. The Swanson family. If you've ever had any Swanson frozen foods. I'm not attacking his family. They're successful. I'm addressing him directly. His father was a neocon. The foundation for the defense of democracies, which he trashes now. I told you, I met his father's twice. What a class hack. What a really nice man. And a hawk. And hawkishly pro-Israel. But it is what it is, isn't it? It is what it is. He's sort of the Tokyo Rose of the... isolation of movement. I mean, how are these people any different than neo-Nazis and Klansmen, really? What they say about blacks, what they say about evangelical Christians, what they say about Jews, what they say about our country, like we're the colonialists and we're the imperialists, how they embrace some of the very entities that would have embraced Hitler, and some of them did.

Do any of you have people in your family who've served in the military or serving in the military now? What do you think of this? What do you think they would think of this? Any of you affected by 9-11 directly, a family member? What do you think? You're family members. What do you think they would think of this? Seriously. I mean, if you want to live under Sharia law, it's very simple. There's a zillion countries that have it. Then go enjoy it. They would take the likes of a Cotarlson, and they would publicly dismember him. Seriously, if he went to Gaza, he'd find out who his friends really are. But he's not going to do that. Even Vladimir Putin mocked him after the interview. Thought he's going to ask me some tough questions. Nick Fuentes had to be laughing, Nick Fuentes, pre-bubescent little punk, had to be mocking and laughing at Gatarlson. And there's other people who are in his orbit and tend to remain in his orbit, making Kelly's one of them.

She doesn't say the things he says, that's for sure. But it's not that clever. And she's expanding her media company now. Very big, independent, you know. It's another one who I don't remember in any of these battles whatsoever. But she's irrelevant to me. Irrelevant. And so... If we don't get our act together, we're going to get crushed politically. If we don't get our act together, we're going to lose our culture and our society. There's no question about it. Why is Tucker Carlson being quoted by care, the Hamas-related organization? They've been quoting him because he's a useful idiot. That's why. Actually a useless idiot, but nonetheless. Just telling you the truth. You know, history has a way repeating itself. Next hour will continue with these clips from the Supreme Court justices on tariffs. I look forward to answering even more of it. I'll be right back.

Folks, Mark Levin here with a new episode of On the Frontlines, my original podcast series and partnership with the great international fellowship of Christians and Jews. This week's episode, Nations Under God, comes at a remarkable moment. America's 250th anniversary. and a decades-long friendship with the state of Israel that remains as vital as ever. Joining me is Yalel Eckstein, the great president and CEO of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, as we explore how this alliance was built. From Truman's recognition of Israel to the leaders and moments that shaped a partnership rooted not just in strategy, but in shared faith and values. We'll look at how that bond is endured through the decades, why it still matters at a time of global uncertainty, and what's at stake if the next generation forgets the history and principles behind it. On the Frontlines isn't about looking back, it's about understanding what must be carried forward. Find the latest episode of On the Frontlines on the Mark Levin show podcast feed wherever you get your podcast. Subscribe now and join us on the front lines of freedom, faith, and fellowship. He's here. He's here. Now, broadcasting them from the underground command post. Deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a non-district building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin.

Hello, America. Mark Levin here, our number 877381-3811-877-381-3811. Again, thank you to the American Spectator, Jeff Lord, Paul Kengor, Bob Terrell in the group there for your very, very kind article. I also want to thank Newsmax and Chris Ruddy for their... for their very complimentary coverage, too. Very, very kind of them. And many others out there, I want to thank. But actually, not many others, are there, Mr. Producer? But those that are, I just want to thank you very much. I want to get back to this Supreme Court issue on tariffs. I think I've answered the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts. I've answered Sonia Sonia Sonia Monior. Let's give a shot here. Amy Coney Barrett. Cut 21 go. Can I just ask you a question? Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase together, regulate importation, has been used to confer tariff imposing authority? Well, as to regulate importation? That was held in TWA. So obviously, and that's... Okay, okay. So an intermediate appellate court held it in TWA, but you just told Brett Kavanaugh that wasn't your lead argument, that your lead argument was this long history of the phrase regulate importation being understood to include tariff authorities. So my question is, has there ever been another instance in which a statute has confered, used that language to confer the... Why does that matter? Why does that matter? Let's say there's not. Why is that controlling? That doesn't mean an affirmative decision was made not to use it because you couldn't use it. I would say to the justice, of course you're not allowed to, but what I would say to the justice is, okay, well, let me ask you this. Are you aware of any case in which it actually came up and it was rejected? And the answer is no. So it's a red herring. Go ahead. I mean, obviously, other statutory example is just imports. The cases we rely on our cases where, for example, in Gibbons and Justice Stories. But that just shows the word can be used that way. None of those cases talked about it as conferring tariffs. You see, that's actually even weirder. That just means it can be used that way, not that it confers that authority necessarily in the president. I don't understand. So you're president in the United States. You're making decisions about tariffs, and you've got to decide if language. can be used a certain way, but whether it actually confers it on you. Now, why would a president do that? And why is that so important? That is, does it conferred on him? I don't know. Justice does it? Well, it's never been used that way before, but it's never been tried that way before. You see what I mean, ladies and gentlemen, the separation of powers issue, the way this is being dealt with to me is almost comical, if not childish. Go ahead. I understood you to be citing McGoldrick and Gibbons in those cases just to show that it's possible to say that regulating commerce includes the power to tariff. I think our argument goes a bit further than that as interpretive matter because if you look at that history, the history of delegation. Could you just answer the justices question? Isn't that nice? Somebody woke up Sotomayor.

somebody woke her out would you just answer the question please where are we first of all your question was as dumb as they come justice go ahead Can you identify any statute that use that phrase to confer tariff? Yeah, the only two statutes I can identify now are Twia as interpreted in Yoshida and then closely related, not regulated importation, but adjust imports in Section 232. Well, I think adjust imports is differently. So the answer is the contested application in Tuia and then now in IEPA. And then, of course, I mean, let's stop a second. But there's no counter. cases in which it says a president cannot. I'm trying not to get too much in the weeds here. There's no countercases that says a president cannot. I looked at this. So can you tell him justice where there's countercases where it says a president can't interpret it that way? Go ahead. Yeah, I understand that. But then more fundamentally, we rely on historical socialists to show there's this long historical pedigree of broad delegations of the foreign commerce power, not the power to tax that we're not asserting here, delegations of the foreign commerce power to the president going back to Gibbons against Ogden. So here's what's going to let me slurry down because it may be confusing everybody, and I don't blame me if you are. He's asserting that this is a foreign policy issue, in some cases a national security issue, that it's not viewed as a tax issue per se. I would argue that maybe it has a taxing effect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a foreign policy and national security issue as well, just like a regulation. Regulation has a taxic effect, but then on the other hand, who's going to enforce regulations, who's going to write regulations if the executive branch does not? But just because people talk fast doesn't mean they're actually making any sense. And she says, look, maybe he can do it, but can you show me any basically precedential court? And by that she means a significant court, like her court or just under her court. that interprets it the way you do and my answer to that is why does it matter if it's never been presented before why does it matter go ahead And board of trustees where this court and founding air sources say the power to, in other words, the power to tariff is kind of this natural, you know, as everyone knows, that includes. Just ask you one other question about the plain text, General John Sauer. First, they never listen to the answer. They just blow right through. Go ahead.

You've referred to the other verbs in IEPA as capacious. Would you really describe them as capacious? Because to me, things like nullify and void have definite meanings. I agree with you that regulate is a broader term, but those words I think are powerful. They give, they pack a punch, but I wouldn't describe them as capacious in the sense that they have a wide range of meaning. So can you describe what you mean by capacious? Let me put it this way. You look at all nine verbs together and you're looking at a spectrum of powers from the most sort of negative, nullify block, prohibit, void, to the most affirmative, direct, compel. This guy's no dummy. Go ahead. ...that are more intermediate, regulate, investigate, and so forth. So the natural common sense inference from that grammatical structure is the intention of Congress to sort of cover the waterfront. Yeah, very well said. So what she does, she pulls two words out of it. The, I'll put it my way, the most aggressive words and says, these seem to me to be very clear. And he's saying, well, okay, but what about the other eight words that are in the same sentence? You know, it's like reading the First Amendment, but cutting a big chunk of it out. No, that's not what the First Amendment says, and that's not what the author's intended. So my question to you, America, is this, why is she being so hostile? Why is she asking questions? To me, they were pretty stupid. Like, why is there no precedent in this area? Well, because there's no precedent in this area. And these two words seem pretty... aggressive, pretty hard hitting. Well, maybe they are, but what about all the other words that are in the same sentence? So why is she doing that? I'm just curious. You know, Clarence Thomas is really a genius, because you figure if I have nothing to say, let me listen, see how this works out. But I feel like some of these justices feel they have to speak, even honestly. They sound stupid. We've seen Jackson, we've seen Sotomayor, and I have to say. In this instance, anyway, Amy Coney Barrett to me sounds very foolish. Robert sounds foolish. Sotomayor sounds like a thug. But let's keep going. Here's Justice Gorsuch. Cut 22 ago. You say that we shouldn't be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the president's inherent powers. That's the gist of it, as I understand it, why we should disregard both major questions and non-delegation. So could Congress delegate to the president the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit? To lay and collect duties as he sees fit? We don't assert that here. That would be a much harder case now in 179. Isn't that the logic of your view, though? I don't think so, because we're dealing with a statute that was a carefully crafted compromise. It does have all the limitations that I just talked about. We're saying we shouldn't be concerned with, I want to explain to me how you draw the line because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has. And it's interesting Gorsuch is saying this, because.

What I had been thinking is this. How do you draw the line? If this court draws the line against the President of the United States, then all these tariffs, all these negotiations, all these foreign policy and national security implications, whether it's China or some other country, collapse. They just collapse. They've neutered him. They collapse. And yet that's not compelled by the Constitution or any statute that I'm aware of. Which is exactly what I said early on in this. Remember I said, Mr. Producer? They should stay out of it and let the two branches duke it out. And Congress can use the power of the purse and make a much more affirmative and definitive statement about what they believe the president can and cannot do. And then the president makes a far more definitive statement about his powers under the Constitution. Their Article I powers, his Article 2 powers. then it might be right for the court once the two sides have been very clear about it but they should never have taken this case except to take it overturn the the lower courts made it clear that this is a political doctrine question, meaning the two political entities, the two branches are going to duke it out. And it's really not right for us to be sitting here and making such a thin, straight line delineating what's on one side and what's on the other, because it's not that easy. It's not that easy. The tariffs on China were used to stop China from raising tariffs on these critical raw materials that we need for our computers, for our defense, and so forth and so on, and they worked. So I would ask John Roberts, is that a tax? I would ask Neil Gorsuch. Was that a misapplication of the president's powers? What was it? You kind of need to have that arrow.

as to use against other countries. I don't understand what the hostility is. They're afraid the president's going to become too powerful. They're going to take the taxing authority. Let's try it this way. The President of the United States says, I'm going to raise the income tax. Everybody knows. No, you can't. I'm going to slash your taxes. No, you can't. And this president knows that. How do we know? Because the beautiful big bill. had to be passed in order to cut taxes. He didn't say he had that independent authority if they're worried about taxes. Well, what about taxes through the back door? Well, nobody does more taxes through the back door than the bureaucracy. Ask yourselves. Many of you have had to deal with this. And the costs throughout the economy are massive. Massive. All right, let's keep going. Go ahead. And so... delegation off the books more or less. If that's true, what would... Well, delegation is off the books. Because to me, that's the least of the arguments. The least of the arguments. Because they're not asserting a taxing power. They're asserting a foreign policy national security power under the second article of the Constitution. That's what they're asserting. If they're up there asserting a taxing power, there'd be a whole different thing. Now, people want to say, well, they're taxing. Isn't that the core of it? That's what Robert says. And he says, no, that's not the core of what we're doing. We're negotiating to lower somebody else's tariffs. We're negotiating for a better economic situation for our people. We're negotiating in a way that we can protect and build up our industries. It's not a matter if you agree with the president's policies. I'm talking about the Constitution.

And I think if I'm the justices, what I'd say to Congress, if not directly, but even through this answering question session, this hearing is, has Congress ever passed X, Y, Z? No. Has Congress passed anything since Donald Trump has been president this term to try and limit what he can do? No, because they don't have a majority. Exactly. The Democrats. So we have what's called elections. Go ahead. Just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the president. All right, stop. That's kind of absurd. I don't mean to be rude because I like Gorsuch. These kind of questions that reach to absurd levels, I'm not impressed by them. We'll be right back. As America celebrates 250 years of independence, we're reminded that freedom is a blessing and a responsibility. American Israel share a unique bond of friendship rooted in faith, freedom, democracy, and the belief that every person is created with dignity and purpose. Today, that friendship matters more than ever. At this very hour, the people of Israel face ongoing deadly attacks from all sides. Jewish families live in fear and constant uncertainty. Yet through the international fellowship of Christians and Jews, Christians across America now have an opportunity to stand strong on behalf of our Jewish brothers and sisters. To commemorate this historic moment and show your support for the enduring friendship between America and Israel, you can request your free U.S. Israel flagpin today from the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. It's a simple reminder of the two nations united by shared values and of your commitment to stand with Israel. Visit levin for thefellowship.org, that's L-E-V-I-N for the fellowship.org, to request your U.S.-Israel flagpin today. That's Levine for thefellowship.org, L-E-V-I-N for the fellowship.org. Notice Curtis Sliwa was not a spoiler, was he, Mr. Produce. So all the attacks on him were really pretty outrageous. In fact, I thought he was the most articulate in the whole damn campaign. What do you think of that? We'll be right back. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it 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 front 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. We're back, America. I'm here with a very, very special guest. Ellie Shirabi. One of the hostages taken by Hamas, and he's written a fantastic book called Hostage. And Ellie Shrabi, welcome to the program. America and the whole world is sitting on the edge of its chair in order to hear a little bit of your story. It's very, very important with all the static out there and so forth. And so I wanted to start at the beginning. We'll break this in the little pieces.

Tell us about your life before October 7th and your family. I've been, you know, in Kibbutzbury for 35 years. 28 of them with Leanne that arrived from UK as a volunteer. She intended to be there for three months. We fell in love. We lived together. We raised two beautiful daughters, Noia and Jehel, that had great childhood like we dreamt for them. Lots of friends, lots of activities. You know, me and Leanne, each one of us was concentrated our, you know, career. I used to be a CFO of the kibbutz and other companies outside of the kibbutz. And Leanne was the last year, she's been a dentist assistant, and she was very happy from this work. And your daughters... We're how old on October 6th, October 7th? How old were your daughters? Noia and the Hell, both of them born in October 1st and October 3rd. So just the week of October 7th, we just celebrate them a birthday with lots of friends at the house and balloons and cakes. And really, it was a great celebration. They were very happy about that. That's it. So they were teenagers. Noya was 16 and their head was 13. Yeah, 16 and 13. Yes. Tell us a little bit about each of your daughters. Noia used to first of all she liked music a lot and it was one of the things that we we did together we went to concerts of singers and she really liked that she liked her friends and most she liked to help you know, disabled kids with the autism and she did it for three years before October 7th. And Jehel liked the extreme life. She liked to jump from airplanes, skydiving, scuba diving. She played football. That was her passion. And... you know you write about it in the book so i know it's hard but october seventh what happened october seventh to you and your and your girls your wife

We just woke up 6.30 in the morning from alarm in the kibbutz. We pick up the girls to the safe room, stay there for four hours. In the meantime, we've seen some, first of all, we got the message to stay in the safe room because there is possibility of terrorist infiltrated Barii. So we stayed, we've waited there for four hours. In the meantime, we've seen films on the television from Zderot and Ofakim and the Nova Festival. And we understood the situation is not in control at all. The few hours after that, we start to hear the fighting in the kibbutz. We start to hear some, you know, shootings. And we start to hear the fight. And we got some messages from kids that said, somebody shot dead, somebody shot mom. And our house is there setting on fire and things like that. Leanne and I made a decision that we are not going to fight with them. We are going to say exactly what they're asking from us. We presume I'll be kidnapped, but for them, the British passport will protect them. And that was our plan. And when they arrived more than four hours after we got in the safe room, we did exactly the same. They understood they have British passport. Five minutes later, they took me out of the house. That was the last time I've seen them. Unfortunately, these monsters didn't have any boundaries. They didn't care about their British passports. And they murdered them five minutes after I was kidnapped. My God. Now, prior to coming out of the safe room and presenting them with the passports and so forth, I assume... And as you explained, you had a discussion with your wife about what you were going to do, and you had a discussion with your daughters, too, correct? Not really. We try to be very quiet about that. We understood each other about the passport. That's the first thing we've sent that to them. After they stopped shooting in the safe room, we shout that they have British passport. And that's it. That's the last time I've seen them because they took me out of the house. And they just shouted to my girls that have been in the kitchen area. I shout them, I'll come back. And that was the last time I've seen them. And then what happens to you? They kidnapped me, you know, pushed me in the car. On the way of the car, I've seen something like 150 terrorists in our neighborhood, coming in and out from every house, celebrating, smiling, filming themselves.

So I understood that the army is not around because nobody fought with them in our neighborhood. They pushed me in the back of the car that they stole from Barry, and we driven towards Gaza, something like half an hour, and we stopped in a mosque. Before we get to that, let me ask you this. Yes, which is... What did they say to you in the car? Anything? What did they do to you in the car? Anything? Was it silent? Just from time to time, no, they haven't been silent. From time to time, they beat me. They talk with themselves about how millionaires we are in the kibbutz, because they've seen the neighborhood. It was the newest neighborhood in the kibbutzbury. We only have been there five years in our house. That's it, and they were very stressed if the army is going to bomb the car or not. But again, after half an hour, we stop in the mosque. They tried to take me out of the car. A mob of civilians were outside, and they succeeded to take me away from them, from the terrorists, start to lynch me. It was kids on top of me would choose, start to hit me. Fortunately, again, the terrorists that have been with me in the car, succeed to take me into the mosque. They undressed me, start to interrogate me for 10 minutes. Let me ask you a question. Before we get in the mosque, the book is hostage, by the way. You really ought to grab this book on Amazon.com. It's available now. Amazon.com hostage. You really ought to read this book and get the facts. It's just unbelievable. But the population there, including the kids, they wanted to string you up. They wanted to lint you right there, correct? Yes, yes. Most of the time, when I've been in the house of the Palestinian house of the family, that I was there 52 days, the first 52 days, and the terrorist of Hamas was scared from the civilians outside that will hear me or see me. and they will come to the inside the house and they will lynch all of us, include them. It was when we walk at the streets in Gaza, it was the most scary thing I've ever done. So the population wanted you dead. They wanted to hang you. So this idea that there's a big separation between the terrorists and the population. Yes, the civilians that was so-called uninvolved. We afraid them the most, yes. So you're dragged into this mosque, and you were saying what happened? They started to interrogate me, and I said to them, I know I answered that I'm in Arabic, and they were very surprised I know Arabic. So I said they were shown from the Secret Service from Israel, from the IDF, and I said to them, I'm 51 years old, I'm a civilian.

and they didn't really believe me. And they took me from there to a family, Palestinian house. And we've been there for 52 days, chained on our legs and hands. And, of course, you need the permission to speak and to eat and to go to the toilet. This is what we've done in 52 days. And then what happens after 52 days? It was the first ceasefire that they changed the women and the children, Israeli hostages, with their prisoners. and we were sure it will come our turn as well. Instead of that, they took us, me and another guy that arrived the day before, another Israeli hostage, they took us to a tunnel. And in the tunnels that was in the mosque, we've been 50 meters underground. And I met another six hostages, Israeli hostages there. One of them included was Hirsch Goldberg, there was American citizen, and... I knew an amazing man. Unfortunately, they separate us after three days. They took Hirsch Goldberg, Oridanino, and Dalmog, Sarusi, to other place. They said to them they are going home, but unfortunately they didn't arrive home. And they were murdered 10 months later in other tunnel. Yeah, it's unbelievable. Again, this is all important. This book is very, very important. Remind everybody how many days you were held as a hostage? I was 491 days, 440 days from them. It was under, you know, in the tunnels, 50 meters underground. humiliated, the humiliation was on daily basis, violence from time to time, chained of course 24-7 for all these 440 days. You know, the hygienic condition was very, very poor. We got to shower every six weeks with half a bucket of cold water. Soap or two space were luxury for us that we've seen every three or four months.

This is our life, but the worst thing, we didn't care about all these things. We could, you know, it was bearable for us. It was a part of our survival, but the worst thing was the starvation. We used to eat one meal a day. It was a bowl of pasta or a bowl of rice or one and a half pita bread, usually dry. That was the worst thing. I was weighted on October 7. I was more than 70 kilos. And when I was released, 16 months later, I was 44 kilos. Well, without going to Google, that's how many pounds when you were released, do you know? I don't know when pounds and I know just in kilos. I'm looking it up right now. Stick with me. Okay, that's 2.2 pounds. So you lost over 60 pounds. That's a lot. Yes, of course. Yes. That's a lot. Did you get close to her friendly with any of the others who were kidnapped? Were you with them long enough to really get to know who they were and were you able to speak to each other? I've been for 14 months 24-7 with Elia Cohen, Orlevi, and Alon O'Neill. We've been together in the tunnels. We need to survive together. So, of course, we talk every day. We knew about each other, everything about our childhood, family, friends, hobbies, whatever. You name it. I know everything about everyone. And that was good because it helped us to survive together and we've been really united. We made lots of process between us and we had lots of strategies about the relationship that we had with our captors and we analyzed them 24-7 and it helped us to survive. Did you talk to each other about whether or not you would get out? Did you have hope or no? Oh, we didn't lose our hope, our face for one minute. I used to repeat that, that it's only a matter of time until we are going to be released. I don't know if it would be another month, another eight months. We are going to be released, that's for sure, because I knew how Israel acting about the civilians. And I knew that the idea for all the secret services and our leadership as well. and doing everything they can to take us out from there. You know, I'd like to have you back one day. I know it's not easy given the time and so forth. I feel like we've touched barely the surface here. Folks, if you want to get all the information, and I encourage you to do it, because this is a real story of humanity versus this monstrous terrorism. The book is called Hostage. And we're talking to a very, very brave man, Eli Sharabi. Eli, I cannot thank you enough for your time. I want to encourage everybody listening. Grab this book. You can get it on Amazon.com, hostage or any major bookstore, but you can get it tomorrow right there on Amazon.com. I definitely want to try and get you back in three or four weeks. I won't put you on the spot, but there's so much more to talk about it. I just want you to know, thank God you're back.

We are extremely and sincerely sorry about the loss of your beautiful girls, your wife, and we wish you all the best in the future, my friend. Thank you very much, Mark. Thank you for having me. It was a big honor. Thank you. The honor is mine. God bless. We'll be right back. Mark Levin. Justice Brett Kavanaugh cut 24 ago. Mr. Katyal referred to common sense several times, and I want to pick up on Amy Coney Barrett's question, because your interpretation of the statute, as she pointed out, would allow the president to shut down all trade. with every other country in the world, or to impose some significant quota on imports from every other country in the world, but would not allow a 1% tariff. And that leaves, in the government's words in its brief, an odd donut hole in the statute. Why would a rational Congress say, yeah, we're going to give the president the power to shut down trade? I mean, think about the effects. But you're admitting that power's in there. Yeah, I've got to say one thing, folks. That seems very esoteric to me and not even on point. I'm just saying.

This gives the power of the ability of the president to just shut down all trade. Don't you think they'd impeach the president, Mr. Producer, if they did that, and remove him from office, any president. Shut down all trade? The answer is yes, that's what they would do. But that said, there's no president who's going to shut down all trade. There has to be some level of common sense here, the application of the real world here. And... Of course, if that's the position of Amy Coney Barrett, and that's the position of even Cavanaugh, they really fear something like that potentially could happen, or through their logic stream they look at this. I still don't see why Congress couldn't act, either through impeachment or even the power of the purse, a statute, something of that sort. I just don't get it. So if a president were to shut down all commerce, you think Congress would sit there in thumb or no? No, they wouldn't. I want to salute all your heroes out there. I want to thank you. And I look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Same place, same time. God bless you.