On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, At America’s constitutional convention the framers spent five months brainstorming how to make and keep a republic. The Democrats have spent this entire election trying to remake America. It would help America if citizens could get information and decide for themselves on the various election cases, but the dishonest media says that everything is frivolous. The Pennsylvania case before the Supreme Court is solid and important. No one knows how the court will handle the case, but it remains extremely important nonetheless. Then, the plenary power of states must be defined so that its limits are clear otherwise a lawful election process will remain unknown. Plenary power does not mean a state can violate its own state constitution in order to influence or affect an election. This case is not about disenfranchising 2.4 million mail-in voters, it’s about disenfranchising the more than 4 million other PA voters and more than 70 million other American voters who are negatively impacted by the decisions of the state in this case. Also, if this PA case arrives in Congress they will sort it out because they have a job to do, just like the US Supreme Court has a job to do too. Beyond chiming in on the next cultural case where they can stifle religious liberty. Ultimately, the mob will not rule. Outside of the abortion issue, the left doesn’t advocate for choice because ultimately they’re totalitarians. Additionally, it’s the anniversary of Pearl Harbor and it’s important to recognize it. If a people lose their history, they will lose their country. Later, some establishment Republicans and publications like National Review no longer have any purpose. They compare Constitutionalists to the extreme radical left. Yet, how many constitutional conservative patriots have burned down a storefront, punched a police officer, or condoned ballot fraud? Imagine if George Washington or Abraham Lincoln listened to critics saying he’s lost the confidence of the troops and that they should just move on. These pseudo-conservatives are more concerned with positioning themselves for the future and how newsrooms will view them. Afterward, Mitt Romney says that Washington needs to plead for people to wear masks and social distance. Meanwhile, other countries have become complete police states and it has not impacted the spread of the virus. However, the fascistic media makes viewers believe that you’re either for Anthony Fauci or against him, or that you’re either for Trump or against him.
THIS IS FROM:
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / William Thomas Cain
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
Man, I’m glad you’re here. We’ve got a lot to discuss and I have to decide what comes first. And so here we go. The election. The virus. I’m going to pick the election first. The media are so corrupt. So vile. So partisan and utterly stupid, you just don’t get the news and the facts from the media, all you get every day now is that the president won’t concede. The president said he won. For most of you, you know, their case is swirling around, but you don’t know exactly what cases are swirling around, exactly what the arguments are and who’s saying what. You’re just being told it’s all frivolous. And there’s no way out. Wouldn’t it be helpful for you to draw your own conclusions and get the facts of the various cases, even when you rely on some of these legal analysts? They have no idea what they’re talking about. They’ve gone Hollywood to even some of my former friends. They have no idea what they’re talking about. And I spoke at length behind this microphone over the course of weeks and have spoke at length on Fox, my show last night, let me tell you this case in Pennsylvania. I know the lawyers who are working on this case. They’re great lawyers, one of them is my wife. I know the lawyers who are providing constitutional advice on this case. One of them is behind this microphone. I told you about this several weeks ago. And I told you this was an important case, if the Supreme Court decides to give it 14 seconds, attention and then blow it out. That doesn’t mean it’s not an important case. There’s a lot of important cases that go to the Supreme Court that deserve better than the Supreme Court gives them. So you can’t control the outcomes. And there are people out there who are gleeful when we lose cases, including important cases. This case in Pennsylvania is not being explained by the press. All they say is that the petitioners litigating this case want to disenfranchise two point six million people who voted by mail in ballot. That’s not what’s going on here. Not Ted Cruz. Has asked that if the case goes to oral argument. For a hearing before the Supreme Court, I doubt it would given the timelines, but if it does, he’d like to argue the case. The petitioners have said yes. And I think that would be great. Can you think of a better advocate? I can’t. But I suspect this will be decided on the filings. But who knows? The other thing that’s very frustrating is how people write and surmise, what is Justice Alito up to? I have no idea what Justice Alito is up to. I hope he’s up to. Upholding the United States Constitution. Now, without going through the weeds and the detail of this case again. Let me put it to you this way. The bottom line here is whether or not we are a nation that believes in our constitutional system or not. Not the number of voters, not who the voters are. But if we believe in our constitutional system or not, we’re obviously on a glide path. In a post constitutional republic. That’s the glide path. The question is whether the United States Supreme Court is going to participate in this. Or step up. This is one of those cases, this is a seminal case. I can’t speak to the other cases, I’m not. This nearly informed about the other cases. But this is one of those cases, and let me tell you why. When our framers met in Philadelphia. They spent five and a half months there trying to figure out how to create a Republican. And keep a republic. The Democrats are trying to figure out how to create. A utopia, which is really a hell on earth and how to destroy republic. And replace it with a people’s regime and you’ve heard of those before. A people’s regime, in other words, an autocratic, iron fisted society where there’s uniformity and conformity. This case relates to all of the, you know, many of us support federalism, we say, OK, what the state does, you know, we want to defend it and so forth. Well, of course we want to defend it. What it deserves defending. But if a state legislature, regardless of party control. Intentionally violates its only constitution for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections at the federal level. That’s unacceptable. I don’t care what party controls the state legislature. My friend John Eastman is a professor, he’s a brilliant man. He says they give him plenary power under Article two, Section one clause to plenary power means. They get to run the table. But they don’t get to run off the table. The framers were believers. In their state constitutions, they were creating a federal constitution. Can anybody here imagine that they would create a federal constitution that tells the states you have plenary power and that includes unlawful power? So you need to use common sense, you need to use some experience, some understanding of the founding of this nation. Plenary power has broad power within the confines of the law. If the Pennsylvania legislature were controlled by all Democrats. And they passed. Election law states that only Democrats. Can win elections. I think we’d all agree that that’s outrageous and unconstitutional will be not Mr. Producer. So there are limits, and if the Supreme Court doesn’t draw a line here, I’m predicting to your right now and I’m not even in the prediction business, there will be no end to this. It’ll get worse and worse and worse and worse. The more powerful. A single party is in a state. The more they will distance themselves. From a lawful election process, we’re already moving down that road. And for those who say, well, what’s the federal question, the Supreme Court’s reaching into the states? The Constitution doesn’t prevent the Supreme Court from reaching into the states. Depending on the facts and the circumstances, and it certainly doesn’t prevent the the Supreme Court from reaching into the states when the states are reaching into the federal government. If a state is conducting itself in a certain way, that’s unlawful under its own laws to influence the outcome. Of the federal presidential and vice president elections, if that’s not a super-duper federal question, I don’t know what is and I don’t even mean influencing Republican or Democrat. I mean poison it. Effect it. So it’s easy to say we don’t want to disenfranchise two point six million people, so I have come on this program, I’ve gone on TV, I’ve posted on my social sites. If the Supreme Court fears the outcome of upholding both the federal constitution and by upholding the federal constitution, actually doing the people of Pennsylvania favor by upholding their constitution. If they fear the consequences of that. By selecting a remedy. Then don’t select the remedy. Just roll that, it is unconstitutional. For the obvious reasons, I mean, the reasons are punched right in another so obvious. But we are going to leave it to the political branches to fashion a remedy. Whether the state legislature, which is out, has to come in an emergency session or Congress has to sort it out. The state legislature created this problem. The state created this problem, let the state figure out how to resolve it, but the court must resolve the constitutional question. Resolve the constitutional question. And it must resolve at the right way. None of these games that were put out by the Democrats that have ruined the state Supreme Court. And have eviscerated the state constitution and in turn parts of the federal constitution, we can’t have a rogue state supreme court being the tail that wags the dog or I have scores of rogue supreme courts in the states. That poison the system that destroyed the integrity of the system. Yes, state legislatures, you have plenary power. But there is a bridge too far. The people of Pennsylvania were actually disenfranchised at the front end under their constitution, they get to vote on amendments to their constitution and under their constitution, when you change the election laws, it has to be done by amendment. And to make matters worse. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is elected. The justices on that court. Have abused their power like few others. It’s as if you’re in the Soviet Union. With one party rule. Our California. They take an unconstitutional act and then they conduct themselves in an unconstitutional way under the same article, Article two. They take it and they add to it. Shortly before the general election, they’re changing that, they’re rewriting it. How the Supreme Court. Can bypass this or ignore it or rule the wrong way, especially after Bush versus Gore in 2000, would be shocking to me. If this isn’t fixed at this stage, it’s never going to be fixed. And they will be encouraging lawlessness. As long as his country survives. That court finds a federal issue and in a thousand different ways where no federal issue exists. You have to work hard. You have to work hard not to find a federal issue here. You have to work hard. To do with the state Supreme Court in Pennsylvania did. Which is violate all norms. And come up with a cockamamie laches argument, a process argument. Well, they crushed the lower appellate court. Well, that judge was prepared. They conduct a hearing, put in place an injunction in which she said the petitioners are more than likely. To succeed on the merits, that’s what she said, and she was right. And she was right. Just so you know, there are members of Congress who are friends of mine. Who don’t want to get involved in this. I want you to know Ted Cruz really is a stand-up guy. He sees this case for what it is. He’s offered his services should there be oral argument? I can’t think of a better, more superb Supreme Court advocate if there’s oral argument, which likely. Not to be, but what do I know? But there are individuals in the Senate and the House who would shock you. Who claim to be constitutionalists. Revolt against all kinds of stuff, claiming to be constitutional, but this one has them nervous. Frightened even. Because they don’t want to be accused, because the headlines of the media of disenfranchising. Two point six million people said they’d rather disenfranchised over six million people. But they needn’t be afraid I’ve given them an out. I’ve told them right here behind this microphone. They don’t have to fashion a remedy. But, Ali, stand up for the Constitution, for God’s sake. They won’t do it. And I won’t forget. And I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
It’s up to Pennsylvania to fix, with Pennsylvania broken. And that’s really an easy an easy decision, if you think about it, for the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania legislature broke the system. The state Supreme Court broke the system, the governor and the secretary of state broke the system, both parties broke the system. But it wasn’t good enough for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not only did it agree to breaking the system, it then went about rewriting the law. These are abuses of power. Abuses of power for the purpose of influencing the Electoral College. Now, why why is that? Because you have local elections there, too. Well, they did it on October twenty nineteen. They did it in October 2019 to affect the election and to protect themselves. A big push for mail in voting. OK, then follow the rules you want to do Masland voting, follow your Constitution, if it’s so widely popular, then it won’t be a problem. But they wouldn’t do it. Now, I say this to the Supreme Court and all the others is people are not going to abide by the U.S. Constitution in the state constitution. Why should we abide a Supreme Court decision, state or federal, if they won’t comply with the constitutions of this country? Why should we comply with their opinions which failed to properly interpret them? I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 3
You know, the Democrats are out of the closet now. They’re Marxists and neo-Marxist roots are showing. Look at this guy, Thomas Friedman. Thomas Friedman over the years has praised one party autocratic rule in communist China because they get things done. And he claims to support democracy. The Democrats talk democracy and practice autocracy. They talk democracy and they practice autocracy just like their Marxist forebears. Yes, they’re the progeny. Of the Marxist ideology, the progressives are. And I can prove that to anybody who seeks to challenge it. John, doing the others used to praise Mark’s fact. John Dewey praised Stalin. And Russia took a trip there and then in December, I think it was December 5th, give or take 1928, he wrote a piece in The New Republic praising them. The collectivism and the collectivism of thought, he needed unity. He was very critical of the peasants and their little track of land, and they wouldn’t surrender it. And four years later. Stalin sent his military in the Ukraine, cut it off because of the peasants, they wouldn’t surrender their little tracts of land. And he slaughtered them through genocide, starvation. See, these progressives, their ideology has consequences. It’s the progressives and the Democrat Party and their teacher’s union. That have set back your children in public education for at least a year in significant and gross ways, the science didn’t support what they did, but they did it anyway. It’s the progressives and the Democrats. That are implementing policies that have nothing to do with science, the HHS secretary, a doctor himself who has access to all the science, said there’s no evidence to support. The closing of outside dining, and yet that’s exactly what the governor of California and others have done. There was no evidence to support. In fact, contrary. Putting people where the. Chinese virus in the nursing homes that that would be saved. Quite the contrary, killed people. And they tell us to follow the science. OK, let’s follow the science, what’s abortion? It’s a choice, Mark, oh, all of a sudden we abandon the science. We abandon the science. These people are full of crap and they’re full of an insatiable appetite for power. And when you look at Thomas Friedman. He and his ilk are the tip of the iceberg or the tip of the iceberg? Count every vote, they say, so long as they can fix the system, and I mean that in a negative way. So that certain people are voting that maybe shouldn’t vote or certain voting conditions exist that shouldn’t exist, and if they don’t get the outcome they like, what do they do, what they do to Donald Trump, what they do to Ronald Reagan? What they do to Richard Nixon. Who didn’t do anything compared to Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson? And even John Kennedy. If you want to know the truth. The coronavirus didn’t ruin education. The government ruined education, the mayors, the governors, the teacher’s unions, the Democrats. You have certain governors like Newsom now. We’re exercising powers as if they’re running North Korea or Cuba or Venezuela. You have these science fascists all over TV. Who run these massive bureaucracies, who are heralded as experts, experts. Tonight, you’re hearing over and over again the massive increase in coronavirus cases. The massive increases. This country has been following the vast majority of us have been following. The guidelines that have been put out by these so-called experts in our government, they have failed us. They have failed us miserably because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. And then they blame us. They blame tonight Rudy Giuliani. This is what they do with a compliant press. And yet Donald Trump the sort through all this crap. He’s the one that pushed the same bureaucracy to work with corporate America. To come up with therapeutics and vaccines, and that’s what’s going to save us therapeutics and vaccines, not masks, not gloves. But I want you to think about a couple of things. On the radical left, which is represented by websites like Mediaite. Media Matters. Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Slate, Salon, whatever. All these sites and. Big media, which has turned hard left. They believe. In the regressive. Policies that make America weaker. That make Americans poorer. They oppose energy independence. How many times did you hear Obama and his ilk say we’re five percent of the population out of 25 percent of the world’s wealth? Meanwhile, look how filthy rich he is from doing nothing. From smiling and saying stupid things. They want us poor. They want us less independent. Because they have plans for us. And we can’t be too successful. We can’t be. We can’t be exercising our freewill, we can’t be self-motivated. Look at the base of the Democrat Party. With exceptions, of course, but the base of the Democrat Party is built on what? Redistribution of wealth. Welfare for the rich, the poor and the middle class. The base of the Democrat Party is not built on American principles. They reject it. Look in the streets and so forth, that the what took place this summer. And our voting system is collapsing. It’s collapsing on the Supreme Court needs to help. They have their eyes on the Supreme Court, they want to destroy the Supreme Court, will the Supreme Court support the Constitution or not? By the way, can I tell you a little secret? And I’m not supporting this. Hello. I want to tell you all a little secret. If God forbid, but it’s possible. The two radicals, and they are as radical kook, unhinged as they come, the two Democrats running for the Senate in Georgia and lying through their teeth about who they are, lying through their teeth. My dad was a small businessman. That’s fine. But you’re a radical Marxist, anti-Semite, whatever your dad was, he was, but that’s you anyway. I want you to listen to this. This is just interesting. It’s not going to happen. If there’s a dispute over elector’s. When Congress meets on January 6th. The Senate. The Senate can determine in the end who the vice president is, and the House, in the end can determine who the president is by the vote of the delegations. Each delegation gets one vote. The problem is. And I think Mo Brooks needs to understand this, I’m not opposed to fighting it out on the floor of the Senate, particularly over the Pennsylvania lectors. Not opposed at all. We’ll get to that in a minute. But you got to get to the point where you can get it to the floor with a vote, and that takes a majority in the House, we don’t have a majority. We came very, very close. And ultimately, that’s why I was pushing hard for us to win the house. But let’s say listen to this, Mr. Producer. Let’s say, God forbid, the Democrats win those two seats in Georgia. That means it’s 50/50. In the Senate, correct? Who’s the tie breaking vote until January 20th, it’s Mike Pence. You see, Kamala Harris isn’t sworn in until January 20th. It’s Mike Pence. Theoretically, not only would it never happen, but the Republicans would never stand in line for this, the Democrats would do this. Theoretically, the Republicans could vote 50. Four pence to be vice president and then the tie breaker in the vote is who Mr. Bush is. Mike Pence. It’s January 6th, it’s a new Congress, but it’s not a new administration. I just thought I’d point that out to you just to drive that the crazies crazier than they are on the left. Does anybody know why we have an electoral college? Hopefully, the Supreme Court knows why. We have an electoral college for exactly the reasons that we need one today, for exactly the reasons of what took place in the state of Pennsylvania and some of these other states. So after all the votes are cast. And all the battles are over. It arrives in Congress. We have an electoral college, so in the end, Congress can sort things out, it’s not a rubber stamp. So when you hear House members and senators running for the Hill, we would never do that. We’d never know that they have a job to do. The United States Supreme Court has a job to do to. Since the days of Chief Justice Marshall. They have a job to do, too, and not just sit on the sidelines and wait for the next cultural case to come up where they can. Attacked people of faith in five to four votes. They have a job to do, too, and it’s such a crucial matter, they need to draw a line now like they did with the Florida Supreme Court and say now, boys and girls, that’s not how we do it here. Otherwise, this whole thing’s going to be out of control. So the Supreme Court has a job to do. And the Electoral College is there for a reason. And no, no, the mob doesn’t get to rule, the Democrats want the mob to rule, but when they lose elections, they want the ironfist. Why? Because they’re in so many ways totalitarians. That’s what they are. When’s the last time, other than abortion, they talked about choice? Health care choice, real choice. School choice. They hate it, all of it. They hate it, all of it. We’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Tell me, do you think any school age child knows what happened 79 years ago, that they think any fifth grader knows? I think in 11th grade or knows. Richie Torretta, a son, that’s right. Wonder how many schools thought that, even virtually. If Jesse Watters went around like he used to and asked a bunch of college students what happened 79 years ago today, I’ll bet almost none of them had any idea. The white supremacist march on Washington No. Imperial Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor 79 years ago. Today. December 7th. Has there been much talk about this today, Mr. Bruce? I’ve been working, I don’t think so. All right. No, of course not. Quesnel. Just disgusting, absolutely disgusting to me. You lose your history, you lose your country, you defame your history, you lose your country, that’s what’s going on here. God knows we pay almost to the level of bankruptcy at the local level. How much in property taxes and other taxes for these schools that won’t even allow our children to attend them in many parts of the country because the unions don’t want them there. The science says they can go, but the unions and the Democrats say no. And then they just keep saying wear masks, stay home at Thanksgiving, stay home at Christmas. You’re looking at fascism. Look at it, look at it. Look at it, I don’t care if it’s the Marxist kind or the Democrat Party kind, look at it. The hell that could take a year ago, this was even possible. I understand there’s a virus. I understand it’s serious and we Americans have dealt with serious viruses and all kinds of serious things. To have a governor lock down a state as if it’s North Korea that’s unacceptable to destroy their own energy capacity, so you have brownouts and blackouts. Massive forest fires totally out of control. A state destroying itself. And yet he’s popular as hell. Unbelievable. But these politicians should conduct themselves in this fascistic manner. Now, you know why around the world we would never do that, no, we would never do that. What? We’re doing it. Most of you don’t own restaurants. Most of you don’t own gyms. Unbelievable. The number of restaurants that have gone out of business, people have lost their shirts off their back and you what are you going to hang them? Two thousand dollars? Oh, here you go. Well, they drag us into enormous debt. And what do I have to read on these damn conservative websites, most of them? Oh, Trump is a disgrace. Oh, why are they bringing this case? Oh, woe is me. Woe is me. They’re so out of touch. It’s unbelievable. You would think every damn conservative commentator in America would get behind this Pennsylvania case, but no one only latches USC latches is the key issue here. And if that’s what the court does, shame on the court. Shame on the court. We’ll be right.