January 18, 2021

January 18, 2021

Pennsylvania Avenue / Getty Images / Andrew Caballero-Reynolds

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, In Marx’s time, some thinkers challenged his views, such as philosopher Richard M. Weaver author of “Ideas Have Consequences.” In today’s times, we have pseudo-scholars who prolong conflict for the sake of argument. One example is the current push to continue President Trump’s impeachment beyond his time in office. This is unconstitutional and reminiscent of Stalin and Trotsky who punitively chased down former government officials. This is not justice, it’s the type of political stunt one typically sees in third-world countries. Then, the media is ignoring the anti-trust violations alleged against Big Tech. The press hasn’t mentioned tech censorship against one’s speech. They simply don’t care because Marxist corporatists only push a political agenda that eliminates their competition, even it if comes at the cost of ‘We The People.’ Finally, Daniel Horowitz calls in to why he thinks free speech is about to criminalized.

THIS IS FROM:

Hot Air
Bracing For The “Flurry” Of Biden’s Day One Executive Orders

LA Times
Make America California Again? That’s Biden’s plan

Daily Wire
Democrat Steve Cohen Suggests White Male National Guardsmen Could Pose Threat To Biden’s Life

The Blaze
Katie Couric wants to know how we will ‘deprogram people who signed up for the cult of Trump’

The Blaze
Horowitz: For the first time in our lives, free speech is about to be criminalized

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Image used with permission of Getty Images / Andrew Caballero-Reynolds

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour1 Segment 1

As I watch, an individual has to be like 28 years old, telling us about the president and Pence and Washington and the future of the nation, somebody with about 14 minutes of experience. It reminds me as I do research. About a brilliant man by the name of Richard M. Weaver, who almost none of you ever heard of. Everybody’s heard of Marx. And so but they’re great thinkers. Who would reject Marx? He wrote a book, Ideas Have Consequences. And the efforts by our good friend Roger Kimball and among other things, he writes this before I jump in with both feet. The more firmly an utterance is stereotyped, the more likely it is to win credit. It is assumed that engines as expensive and as powerful as the modern printing press will naturally be placed in the hands of men of knowledge. Faith in the printed word has raised journalists to the rank of oracles. It could there be better descriptions of them than these lines from the authorities, they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing. They will be tiresome having the reputation of knowledge without the reality. If the realization of truth is the product of a meeting of minds, we may be skeptical of the physical ability of the mechanism to propagate it as long as the propagation is limited to the printing and distribution of stories which give one unvarying answer, quote unquote. And this circumstance brings up at once the question of the intention of the rulers of the press. There’s much to indicate that modern publication wishes to minimize discussion. Despite many artful pretensions to the contrary, it does not want an exchange of views, say perhaps on academic matters. Instead, it encourages men to read in the hope that they will absorb. For one thing, there’s the technique of display with its implied evaluations. This does more of the average man’s thinking for him than he suspects. For another, there is the stereotyping of whole phrases. There are carefully chosen not to stimulate reflection, but to evoke stock responses, approbation and disapprobation. Headlines and advertising team with them, we seem to approach a point at which failure to make the stock response is regarded as faintly treasonable, like refusal to salute the flag. This was written in 1948. Especially the journals of mass circulation exploit the automatic response so journalism becomes a monstrous discourse, a Protagoras which charms by hypnotising and thwarts that participation without which one is not a thinking man. If our newspaper reader were trained to look for assumptions, if you were conscience of the rhetoric and lively reporting, we might not fear this product of the printer’s art. But that would be to grant that he is educated as the modern world is organize. The ordinary readers seems to lose means of private judgment. The decay of conversation has about destroyed the practice of Dilek. Consequently, the habit of credulity grows. There’s yet another circumstance which raises grave doubts about the contribution of journalism to the public while newspapers and by this we mean today cable and so forth, social media are under strong pressure to destroy, to distort in the interest of holding attention. I think we might well afford to overlook the pressure of advertisers upon news and editorial policy, this source of distortion has been fully described as perhaps sufficiently discounted. But there is at work far more insidious urge to exaggerate and the color beyond necessity. It is an inescapable fact that newspapers thrive on friction and conflict. One is only to survey the headlines of some popular journal often presented symbolically and red to note that kind of thing, which is considered news behind the big story, there nearly always lies a battle of some sort. Conflict, after all, is the essence of drama. And it is a truism that newspapers deliberately start and prolong quarrels by allegation, by artful quotation, by the accentuation of unimportant differences. They create antagonisms where none was felt to exist before, and this is profitable practically for the opportunity to dramatize a fight as an opportunity for news. Journalism, on the whole, is glad to see a start and sorry to see it end in the more sensational publications, the spirit of passion and violence manifested in a certain recklessness of diction with vivid verbs and and adjectives creeps into the very language. By the attention it gives their misdeeds, it makes criminals heroic and politicians larger than life. And he goes on. I think he perfectly describes what we’re dealing with in the American media. It’s actually even worse. There is no self policing anymore. And in fact, they work hand in hand. With the most diabolical of political parties, the Democrat Party. I want to say a few things about what’s happening in this country. We have individuals who pose as legal scholars and constitutional scholars who are no such thing. They burp up a book here and there and an essay here and there, you can read from your books as I do. You can read from your account, but you don’t cite yourself as a scholar. Let others cite you if you are a scholar. We see in the. Aggregation of publications like The Wall Street Journal, National Review and others, how bizarre they have become and this has become. We won author of their National Review who who makes a truly incoherent argument not just for impeachment, but for conviction of the president, the United States. The media pretend there’s a dispute over the issue of whether you can try a president after the president has become a private citizen. There’s no dispute at all, you can cherry pick whatever knucklehead law professor you wish. You can find nothing. Nothing in Madison’s notes or the Constitution that reaches post public office. In fact, the contrary, they say one individual has created what’s. The equivalent of a crime, they can be sued afterwards through the criminal justice system, but impeachment? Is purely an act. Of the Constitution created by the Constitution based on the British approach to impeachment, almost identical, but not exact. And it is for the purpose of removing somebody from office number one and once removed from office, forbidding them from holding office again. It’s a two step process. So once somebody is a private citizen. It’s irrational and in fact, unconstitutional, continue to pursue them. Outside of the criminal or civil justice systems. It is an act of politics. We say that impeachment is a political process, but the political process doesn’t reach outside public office into private life. If it does, then we need to go back and look at some of these retired presidents and see if they can be impeached and punished. If we can put the scarlet letter on their foreheads. You see, they do this in some societies, you know. Once somebody has left office, they chase him down to the ends of the earth. Stalin was good at that. He chased down Trotsky and Trotsky wound up on a meat hanger hook. Others have done that. When they take office, they go after the the prior administration, the prior president, the prior party, and they tried to destroy it. And what we get from this are police states. Fascistic or Marxist doesn’t much matter. The end result is the same. In America, we don’t do this so they can point to a senator as some bizarre act in our history, but in America we don’t do this. We don’t keep chasing down presidents who are no longer in office or vice presidents who are no longer in office. We leave that to Third World banana republics. And so that’s what the Democrat Party in the never Trump has and their mouthpieces have become. Third World banana mouthpieces. Now, as to the president of the United States, the president of the United States didn’t incite anything, and you know how I know, because they can’t even get their argument straight. The people who say he incited an insurrection against the government, how did he do it? Well, the way he whipped up the crowd, how else did he do it? Well, he he rejected the election results. How else did he do it? And they have 15 different answers for how he did it. And then they had the impeachment process, which consisted of two hours of debate, one hour for each party, no hearing, no investigation, no witnesses, no nothing. Because you see, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that the president incited an insurrection against his own government is so crystal clear by every clear thinking, objective human being on the planet that we don’t have to make the case. Another. Soviet style justice apparatus. But you know what, it’s not even that because even Stalin at least went through the motions. Mao went through the motions if they didn’t take people behind the building and deal with them. And now we’re going to have a trial, you see. We’re going to wait till after Joe Biden is president of the United States and the next day, we’re told. There’s going to be a trial. A private citizen, Trump. What is the point of the trial? We’re going to prove, you see? That he led an insurrection. I’m going to prove anything that’s not what a Senate trial will do. It won’t prove anything. You have no record, you have nothing. You have a 76 page report, 26 pages of which are an appendix. I read the other 50 pages. They’re a joke. You have nothing. You have no standards. We’ve never done this before. Well, he deserves to be convicted and followed to the private sector and Mar a Lago and wherever else we can chase him down a really. Most of the people speaking this way and talking this way are columnists. Our television hosts. Our guest commentators. Are Democrats for whom the Constitution is irrelevant anyway? It’s amusing in a sick kind of way to hear people who reject the Constitution. Embrace the 1619 project. Trash our founders, trash our founding document, trash our governing document. And then they wave it around like they’re the ones defending it. It would have been nice if Mr. Raschein and the other Democrats on Capitol Hill. Had been vociferous in defending the White House and the president when that facility and that man were under attack by violent rioters. Now, that was excused, in fact, that was righteous in any response to that. Was to be condemned. Same with the Portland courthouse, same with police precincts. Apparently, we’ve now figured out where the media and the Democrats draw their line. We have 25000 National Guardsmen in Washington, D.C.. With loaded weapons. Our nation’s capital is now an armed. That doesn’t even count law enforcement from all over the country. Law enforcement from all over the country. Joe Biden only at the end of this summer decided to meekly and passively condemn the rioting and the violence that took place in this country. Same with his party. Same with the speaker of the House who called them storm troopers on more than one occasion, James Clyburn, who called them storm troopers all more than one occasion. I believe in putting down rioters, putting down violence, protecting our public officials, protecting our public buildings. But to hear the hear the left today in the media out. Beating their chests is really quite beyond the pale. And now the repression, which I’ve always warned you about, without our Constitution, without our bill of Rights, the repression. Is spreading. And I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

You know, you think about this, Bill Clinton pardoned a number of domestic terrorists, foreign terrorists, Barack Obama pardoned the head of the FLN terrorists and he wouldn’t show any remorse whatsoever. Eres and. And Dawn, who were close friends with Obama, you see who they associated with, right? Never hurt their careers. Utterly unaffected. There’s no intelligence of any kind, according to the secretary of defense, that any National Guardsman wants to do any injury to anybody on Capitol Hill, let alone Joe Biden. He said that several hours ago. And yet the FBI is determining if any of the 25,000 guardsmen who are. Presently, occupying Washington, D.C. are a potential threat. I don’t know what is happening to our country, and then, of course, there’s an attack on free speech, every aspect of free speech, the technology which. Is the the the undergirding free speech in this country through social media and so forth? I want to discuss that, too. We have already, but I want to emphasize certain aspects of it when we return.

Hour 1 Segment 3

Let me explain one other point on this impeachment trial issue. The framers never, ever set up a system intended to apply outside the governmental structure. These are the same people who would later circle back and pass the Bill of Rights. Well, the offenses that occurred, Mark, were when he was a public official, but they’re not offenses that apply to a private official unless they are criminal in nature. And we know that the elements of insurrection are not and cannot be met in a criminal prosecution. That is why they want to reach into the private sector and go after Donald Trump under the very vague notion of a Senate trial for impeachment based on a preposterous impeachment claim with a preposterous document to back it up with no semblance of any kind of justice whatsoever. We call this what would happen in the Senate, a kangaroo court. The framers were anything but supporters of a kangaroo court. So when I read McCarthy and Bush and all these other people. It’s really embarrassing. How little they comprehend what’s taken place here. These men. That is, our framers would never have supported the political constitutional impeachment process. Being used in the private sector against a private citizen at that point. Look at it this way, public officials who at least theoretically violate their oath of office and so forth, if they resign the resign and they’re gone, if they committed a crime, they can be pursued after they leave public office. But Trump didn’t commit a crime. Panera even says he didn’t commit a crime, that’s not the test, okay? It’s not the test. And so impeachment in the Senate excuse me, trial in the Senate is intended to not just lower the standards, but to have no standards at all. To reach a private citizen who was president. So Donald Trump is not being treated as a second class citizen, he’s being treated. Like no citizen I can ever think of, quite frankly. And this is gravely concerning in his case and it’s gravely concerning for future cases, but here is the other problem we have as constitutional conservatives and most of us Republicans. The Republican Party in situations like this is worse than useless. It’s contributory, that is it’s part of the problem. They don’t have a sense of the big picture. They live for the here and now, they do not represent much of their base. In fact, they despise most of their base and they do not comprehend what they’re up against. Neither do their surrogates and their mouthpieces in the fledgling conservative media. They don’t get it. And while we’re dealing with that, what’s about to happen? Joe Biden Cornetta reports that bragging about it now has a slew of executive orders ready to go. A massive legislative agenda to do what? What I said over the years, they want to turn the nation into California and there’s a piece in the L.A. Times today they want to turn the nation into California. What does that mean? Massive redistribution of wealth, an election and electoral system that only elects Democrats nationwide, as they do statewide. All kinds of. Social engineering programs and so forth, and so people are fleeing California. Fleeing California, and that’s their model. California is their model. This is a very, very low period in our history, and it will always be viewed that way, assuming we. We survive in the long haul. And I want to turn to the media in this country, open with the media, I want to turn to the media. We have newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times. That despise half this country. That work actively to undermine certain politicians. That work actively to undermine our constitutional structure. New York Times, a 16 19 project, is perfect. What else do they do? They’re worse than yellow journalism. They are Linskey ITZ. So whether it’s me or the conservative hosts or people do not believe in violence who are not right wingers, quote unquote. They seek to personally destroy you. Because they disagree with your message. They want to silence you. So they have a fascistic totalitarian mindset, a group think. There’s no diversity of thought at The Washington Post or the New York Times, period. Period. And so what do they want to do? Do you notice how little opposition you’re getting from big media to a big tech is doing? How little you hear about civil liberties? How little you hear about free speech, I’m not talking about the First Amendment, I’m talking about free speech. How little you hear about monopolies and antitrust and the Federal Trade Commission here, almost none of it. On the pages of the. Big media or big media broadcasts? Why? Because they’ve made the big leap forward. And the big leap forward for them is they’ve thrown in with the centralized, iron fisted state. Not a Republican administration. Don’t get me wrong, the permanent centralized, iron fisted state, which they want to see expanded now, why would they want to do that? Well, look at what’s going on today. They’re utterly unaffected by the war on free speech. Nobody’s even talking about Target in The Washington Post or The New York Times or CNN or MSNBC or NBC, ABC, CBS, they’re not even threatened. They have no problem at all. It’s the parlor’s and the rumbles. And Fox and conservative talk radio, and pretty much that’s it. In other words, whatever little opposition there is. To that ideology on the left has to be destroyed. Now, why is that? Because the truth is they are neo Marxists, they are statists. They are whatever you want to call them. They do not believe. In the debate of ideas they rejected. So the Wolinsky you, that is personal attack. And they try and smother you. And crush you or have your employer fire you. So it’s not so much a press as it is a corporate mindset, these are major corporations with an ideological mindset. They push a political and governing agenda. Nobody seriously believes The Washington Post is reporting news, nobody seriously believes The New York Times is reporting news or Jake Tapper and and the baño dummies over there, actually news reporters and same with the lightweights at MSNBC. Nobody really believes that has anything to do with news. So they’ve already sold out. So what do they have to do? They have to destroy the little pockets. Little pockets of opposition because the real resistance. Has always been us. It’s you and me what exactly? What exactly are the neo Marxist status so far? What are they resisting? They’re resisting those of us who get elected. Those of us who speak out. Those of us who who reject this this effort to change our lives and change our country and change our constitution. You and I basically want to be left alone. We want to live under the under the status quo. That’s intolerable to these people. It’s unacceptable. And so they wish to destroy any opposition, one of the things about Marxism, neo Marxism and all the rest of it. There must be conformity. Can anybody tell me the difference between The New York Times and The Washington Post? Can anybody tell me the difference between MSNBC and CNN? CBS and ABC, ABC and NBC know there is no difference. They all say the same thing. I don’t know how many more. We played over the decades, they say exactly the same thing, it’s group think. And they demand conformity and they demand it from you. And so when they see riots, fires, death in one part of society. If it advances in ideological or racial or whatever narrative that they want. They downplay it, they ignore it, they even celebrate it. If they see it somewhere else, it’s not at the White House, but it’s at the Capitol Building. That’s an insurrection. You and I, we denounce it all, and because we denounce at all, we’re denounced. Don’t you see the differences? One is a fight against injustice, the other is a bunch of white supremacists. I don’t know somebody with a Molotov cocktail throwing it at a federal building, that that’s seems to me their politics is of no consequence to me. Person needs to be taken off the streets for a very, very long time.

Hour 1 Segment 4

All right, America, welcome back, I am Rich. That’s Mr. Call Screener. Mark is working on some deep state gremlins that are attacking his microphone. Now, Mark was just talking about censorship, tech censorship. And this is something that I don’t think we can really stomach, Americans are sick and tired of being censored and silenced every time we have an opposing viewpoint. It used to be we had an opposing viewpoint on television and they had to create a network, FOX. Now, any time you start to grow a little bit like parler, you get out there and you have an opinion people are trying to get at you, silence. You sense censor sensory. This to me, this idea, it’s based on hate, the idea that we should drive our politics based on hate is truly a Bolshevik concept. So I’m here to incite patriotism, radical patriotism. Because when you look at what the people have to say and when I talk about the people, I’m talking about Congress, the media, you know, birds of a feather, honestly, they’re indistinguishable at times. But Phil Mudd was on CNN yesterday talking about Twitter censoring President Trump and how that means fewer Americans are going to be radicalized now, not radicalized as radical patriots like I just alluded to, but radicalized. Like ISIS was, check this out. Now, as we get that cued up, this is truly the height of rhetoric, right? This is the height of people going off the deep end. So eight so one of these things where you have a differing opinion now, all of a sudden we’re like ISIS because we’re conservatives, because we believe in liberty, because we believe in limited government. You’ve got to be kidding me. Anyway, I’m getting the message that the cut is ready. Check this out. So what do we know specifically about these right wing extremists? We know a few things. No one I mentioned earlier expressed the willingness to do. Violence is a second key element. The thing that I think about most is propaganda. It is very hard to persuade someone to join a movement that potentially is going to get them in jail. We now have this movement, president, all 50 states, the ability to turn someone’s mind off. I think what you were talking about about 15 minutes ago about the decline after President Trump led a the decline in extremist content is really critical. That means people’s brains aren’t being turned on. So I think that propaganda piece that I use that word advisedly, people talk about political sort of debate in this country. This is propaganda at the same time that ISIS used in the decline of that. It’s really important. There’s somebody who is not going to be recruited today because there’s less propaganda out there. So the key word for me, what stood out was people’s brains aren’t turned on, so he’s literally insinuating that he wants people to not think, join the group, think and be a part of the hegemony to that. I say, hell no. Who wants to be a part of something that they don’t want to be a part of as Americans, as patriots. We know what we believe. We know what we love. This is a country that we know that we believe in and we want to preserve and protect and offer to the future. And that’s what’s at stake. And everybody’s like, you know, how do we move forward? What are we going to do? How are we going to move forward? What is the future going to look like? And to that, I say we’ve been through many tumultuous times in American history. And I’m going to go out in the deep end not having a crystal ball, but I’m going to say I think we’re going to go into some other difficult times in the future. But the one thing that we can’t do is give in, the one thing we can’t do is give up our pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because that’s the minute that that were done. We’ve got to go forward. So, yeah, they’re going to continue to try and censor us and we’re going to continue to do things like patriots like John meIt’s, Dan Bongino and others gotten together and created Parler and Rumball and other alternatives. Because that’s what the free market allows us to do. That’s what our liberty allows us to do. So keep it like right there. There’s more to come. I’ve got the cheat sheet here. I’ve got Mark Levin’s notes. I got all the cuts for today. Mr. Producer did a wonderful job. So keep it locked right there. Plus, wait till you hear this flashback from the media pundits. Rich Valdés informationally.