On Friday’s Mark Levin show, America is only about 20 years behind other countries that have embraced autocratic policies to eliminate cars and single-family homes in suburban neighborhoods. Suburbs will be threatened by urban planning and zoning changes by American Marxists so that they can control highly populated areas with video surveillance and social credit scores. The radical left will soon have people thinking that it’s racist to even own a single-family home. Then, Congress can only conduct investigations for legislative functions and oversight, not for law enforcement purposes. The January 6th select committee is operating beyond its Constitutional authority. The judiciary has become weak and feckless allowing Washington Bureaucrats to use the same Houdini tricks they used to ignore the egregious Constitutional violations of the 2020 election. Later, Democrats have failed to eliminate the filibuster however many of them have reversed course. In 2017 so many of these same critiques defended the filibuster. Apparently back then, it wasn’t the racist Jim Crow 2.0 that they now claim it is. Afterward, two New York Police Department officers were ambushed and killed in cold blood. Crime is out of control in many big cities run by Democrats and it’s in part because Billionaire activist George Soros has gotten many pro-crime district attorneys elected.
THIS IS FROM:
Slate
Can You Force the Suburbs to Build Apartments? Massachusetts Is Trying.
Glenn Greenwald
Congress’s 1/6 Committee Claims Absolute Power as it Investigates Citizens With No Judicial Limits
The Federalist
Only 10 Percent Of J6 Committee Subpoenas Relate To The Capitol Riot
Collins.Senate
Senators Collins, Coons Lead Effort to Preserve 60 Vote Threshold for Legislation (2017)
Twitter
” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Northern Virginia father tells school board his daughter was “sexually assaulted,” claims the assailant was only suspended for “one
https://twitter.com/NatBrinkman/status/1484277459407228936?s=20
Real Clear Politics
Biden Is Not Alone. Democrats Have Been Delegitimizing Elections for Years
Fox News
New York City cops shot dead in Harlem, sources say
NY Post
Two NYPD officers killed, suspect also dead after shooting in Harlem apartment
Breitbart
The Soros Dozen: Big City Prosecutors Backed by George Soros
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images / Robert Knopes/UCG/Universal Images Group
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
It’s Friday. Some people kick back. They come up with gimmicks. Our foot’s on the gas pedal, baby. We plow right into the weekend. That’s what we do. Well, folks, the suburbs, we spent a lot of time over the years talking about the suburbs with the suburbs be destroyed with the central planners. By expanding the development, expanding the reach, expanding the politics and economics of our cities run very, very poorly, of course, to the suburbs, the inner suburbs and then the outer suburbs, starting with schooling and zoning, taxing. This is the goal. This is the goal of the American Marxist. They do not like single family homes, they do not like people driving cars. They have all kinds of plans in mind, like the old Soviet Union. They want weren’t very dense area, so they can control the people. Control what they do, control what they eat, control what they wear. Do you have your mask on? With their video cameras and their social credit scores and all the rest. We’re only about 20 years behind some of these more autocratic regimes. Because these ideas that the American Marxist comes up with, they’re not new. You’re just marketed differently to the American public. And what else is not new is they have basically a monopolistic media, that mouth is what they want and supports what they want. So even in this radical Web site, Slate, truly radical, Henry, grab our rights, can you force the suburbs to build apartments? Massachusetts is trying. You know, somebody who studies history a lot, it really is a sickening irony that so many of these ideas come out of the original colonies and so many more come out of Massachusetts in Boston. Which was the center, the beginning of the revolution. Even if some towns have to go kicking and screaming, they write. Build up or pay up. That’s the message Massachusetts is sending to one hundred and seventy five cities and suburbs in the Boston area as a bill passed last year to boost housing production begins to take effect almost every jurisdiction in eastern Massachusetts from the New Hampshire border to Wurster to the Cape Cod Canal. We’ll have to do its part zoning for three hundred and forty four thousand new units of as of right multifamily housing. Or lose access to some state grant programs, that means allowing apartments in many Tony subdivisions currently reserved for single family homes. For perspective, all of Massachusetts currently builds just 15000 new units a year, a huge drop off from the 20th century. One reason the Boston area has some of the highest rents and home prices in the country. Well, who cares? That’s the way it goes. Massachusetts is the first state to actually get a policy like this, said Jesse Grogan at the Cambridge based Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Are the incentive strong enough? Probably not, but it will have some impact and more than the other housing tolls we’ve tried. The great central planners see, ladies and gentlemen. In some ways, Massachusetts, it’s thriving, employment has high incomes are among the highest in the nation in spite of that population decline between 2020, 2020, one trend that reflects the state’s crushing housing shortage. Now it reflects the state’s radicalism, massive tax increases and regulations. As in California and Oregon, policymakers in Massachusetts have realized that splintered metropolitan governments are structurally incapable of effectively addressing the issue. Few towns want to change and nobody wants to go first. And so what do you do about it? You centralize decision making. And give control to people who don’t live in the communities. So far, West Coast states have had more success breaking down apartment bans than East Coast peers like Maryland and Connecticut, notices are all blue states, but the east is catching up pro housing reforms. Everything’s a reform when you’re a Marxist suddenly seem viable in Albany. Some are modeled after Massachusetts, where, unlike most Republicans Governor Charlie Baker, utter disaster has not let contempt for the poor outweigh pro-growth instinct. Contempt for the poor. My God, the vast amount of redistribution of wealth, what is that for the poor? Baker thinks the Bay State’s cramped housing production is at the root of its affordability crisis. It’s an equity problem, an economic development problem. It’s a community development problem, he told reporters last spring. Makes huge differences with respect to where people can actually afford to live here in the Commonwealth, whether or not they could stay and where they may make decisions about where to start a family. Liberal housing experts agree and add that it’s an environmental problem. Building restrictions in central areas forced families to relocate into car dependent sprawl. What did they tell you? And I’ve also said on the airwaves here, probably over the last 20 years, it’s only a matter of time, only a matter of time when they limit how big your house can be and how many cars you can have and how far you can drive. It’s only a matter of time, so they ration fuel to force you into public transportation in more dense areas. And yet. We learned even from the pandemic that density can be a very bad thing, a very bad thing. But this is, again, an attack on growth. It’s an attack on success, it’s not even an attack on rich people. There are many suburban areas that aren’t filled with rich people, they’re filled with people who pay for their pay their own way, pay for themselves, who’ve worked hard. Who’ve left? Dangerous neighborhoods, poor neighborhoods, wherever they may be, and they wanted their own home, they wanted a plot of land, they wanted private property. And you see this is a war on private property. Folks, I say said over and over again. So when you have riots two years ago in the inner cities. People stores are being destroyed and their homes and whatnot. The left doesn’t care about that private property is not a not an issue to them unless it’s their private property. Baker’s twenty twenty one economic development bill included zoning and permitting reform. Now this is a Republican. But the biggest gamble was the multifamily housing mandate for the Boston suburbs. As Michael Kennealy, Massachusetts secretary of housing and Economic Development, said in a webinar this month, quote, Our housing strategy could be simply summarized as more types of housing everywhere. The mandate applies to places served by or adjacent to stations, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Oh, really? I think we figured this out. The state agency that operates the buses and trains that fan out of Boston, the so-called MBT communities, include fishing towns, post-industrial cities and rural outposts. But the highest burden falls on Boston’s bedroom communities such as Quincy and Newton, whose excellent transit infrastructure is compromised by complicated and exclude exclusionary zoning rules. So now it’s exclusionary if you want to have a suburb. The existence of a suburb, the fact of a suburb is racist. In and of itself. In and of itself. If you want a single family home. That’s racist in and of itself, it’s unequal. Folks. I haven’t been kidding about any of this, and it’s not just housing, the whole purpose of the book American Marxism is to explain what’s taking place in this society, the mindset, the policies, the agenda. How they’re changing laws and imposing their will against the rest of us, take Newton, where the median home sells for one point four million. Well, what’s the right price? Six hundred thousand eight hundred thousand one point two million. What’s the right price? It’s a large suburb of eighty eight thousand souls, seven miles from Boston Common, it has 10 stations of light rail and commuter rail. But the residency density around those stops, according to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, transit oriented development explorer who never exceeds five units on an acre. Now, you’ve had suburbs that have not won a lot of density over half century, and so they’ll say, like, you can only develop that land, that maybe it was farmland or land near a park or historic areas, you know, one house per two acres, four acres, five acres. It’s done all the time. But that’s the problem, they don’t like it, the medium across all member stations is six point two homes per acre. The state now requires NBPA communities include at least one district with 15 homes per acre, 15 homes per acre. You know what that is? It’s an apartment building. Our very small townhouse community. That corresponds to a relatively dense but recognizably suburban fabric such as town homes or duplexes around shared yards, writes the author. There was a time in this country when the mindset was. Go to school, work hard. Make something of yourself become a success. And you could you could buy a single family home and raise your family. That was the American dream. Now, the American dream is said to be a nightmare for the central planners. By the politicians, where do they get off deciding what kind of a home somebody can live on, where do they get off trying to take aim at the suburbs or rural areas? Where do they get off using public transit, which you and I are forced to pay for? As a hook. The change communities. Under compliance with the new law, Newton would realistically need more than one district, since the state is requiring it to create by right zoning capacity for 8000 330 apartments. So it’s a suburb of 88,000 people. And now they’re compelling them to create eight thousand three hundred and thirty apartments, that’s overwhelming. That’s overwhelming. It’s. Outrageous. And. I predict. They think they’re losing a population now just wait. But where did government get this power? To compel people to live this way. These are frightening times. States aren’t pushing liberty, localities aren’t pushing liberty, the feds certainly aren’t pushing liberty, the courts aren’t. Upholding liberty. These are frightening, frightening times, what goes on in these classrooms. Our children are being indoctrinated about the most perverted and hateful things imaginable. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
It is amazing. What’s considered progress in this country these days? It’s amazing how much people will tolerate. It’s amazing what people will vote for. I think. There’s been a war going on now in the suburbs for the suburbs, and it’s, of course, being led by the Democrats. It’s a war against the suburbs. Why? Because the Democrat Party and the American Marxists see a lot of opportunity there. Money, money. They have failed in the inner cities. They have failed because their entire investment, their entire profit, their entire private property. I’m talking about the leadership there and Ty Law and order there, anti competition, particularly when it comes to schools, they run these cities with an iron fist. They embrace a Soviet style of management and economy as opposed to an American style. And then they use propaganda. With a Marxist do to deflect from what they’re doing, in fact, even worse, to redefine what they’re doing is humane and compassionate, and then they create enemies, the white, dominant culture, the suburbs, capitalism. You name it, the private sector, private schools, parochial schools. Profit. Wealth. And so what you have in many of these cities. And I’m not talking where all the big office buildings are, but a lot of the communities. Is what you have in the third world in terms of buildings. The lack of services, the lack of restaurants, the lack of fresh food supermarkets. And so the very people who’ve created these conditions say, OK, we have an idea, we’re not going to give up power, we’re not going to give up our ideology, we’ve benefited from this many respects. We want to expand our reach. And they look over the border. It’s the same thing with the national central government, the Democrats say we’ve destroyed New York and California and Illinois and these other states and we’ve destroyed New Jersey and Massachusetts and we’re destroying them more. Let’s rob from the red states. Let’s force them, force them to comply with what we tell them to do. That’s what’s going on here in Massachusetts with zoning, with a fool like this guy.
Hour 1 Segment 3
Glenn Greenwald is an interesting gentleman. He’s fairly radical. He’s hard left. But his principal. He’s very interesting, he’s sort of a mix of a hardcore leftist and a libertarian, if you ask me. But he’s intellectually honest, man, manners, integrity. He doesn’t care about party. Doesn’t care what team you’re on, and that’s what makes him. I think more than interesting, even influential. And on his own blog site, he’s written a fantastic piece, Congress’s January 6th committee claims absolute power as it investigates citizens with no judicial limits. We’ve talked about this. The committee plotted with JPMorgan and its lawyer, former Obama AG Loretta Lynch, to obtain a citizen’s financial records with no possibility of judicial review. Now, let’s take a little bit of time going over this, because the corrupt Democrat Party media won’t in its ongoing attempt to investigate and gather information about private U.S. citizens. The congressional January six committee is claiming virtually absolute powers that aren’t even the FBI or other law enforcement agencies enjoy. Indeed, lawyers for the committee have been explicitly arguing that nothing proscribes or limits their authority to obtain data regarding whichever’s citizens they target. And even more radically, that the checks imposed on the FBI, such as the requirement to obtain judicial authorization for secret subpoenas, do not apply to the committee. There are serious constitutional doubts about the existence of the committee itself. We’ve talked about that under the Constitution and McCarthy era Supreme Court cases interpreting it, the power to investigate crimes lies with the executive branch supervised by the judiciary and not with Congress. Congress does not have the power to conduct investigations, but that power excuse me, power. Congress does have the power to conduct investigations, but that power is limited to two narrow categories. One, when doing so, it is designed to assist in its lawmaking duties and to in order to exert oversight over the executive branch. What Congress is barred from doing as to the McCarthy era Supreme Court cases ruled is exactly what the January 6th committee is now doing, conducting a separate parallel criminal investigation in order to uncover political crimes committed by private citizens. Such powers are dangerous precisely because Congress’s investigative powers are not subject to the same safeguards as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. And just as was true of the 1950s House un-American Activities Committee. Now, again, I told you who the gentleman is and why he’s writing this. And yet, interestingly enough, I think I pointed this out last week, did I not? Rich, that prompted those Supreme Court rulings. The January six committee is not confining its invasive investigative activities to executive branch officials or even citizens who engaged in violence or other illegality on January six, but instead is investigating anyone and everyone who exercised their constitutional rights to express views about an organized protests over their belief that the 2020 presidential election contained fraud. Indeed, the committee’s initial targets appear to be taken from the list of those who applied for protest permits in Washington. A perfectly legal. Indeed constitutionally protected at. This abuse of power is not merely abstract, the congressional January six committee has been secretly obtaining private information about American citizens and mass telephone records, email logs, Internet and browsing history and banking transaction. And it has done so without any limitations or safeguards, no judicial oversight, no need for warrants, no legal limits of any kind. Any so-called journalist listening out there, any. Indeed, the committee has been purposely attempting to prevent citizens who are the targets of their investigative orders to have any opportunity to contest the legality of this behavior in a court. In October, the committee sent dozens, if not hundreds of subpoenas to telecom companies demanding a wide range of email and other Internet records and without any legal basis requested that those companies not only turn over those documents, but refrain from notifying their own customers of the request. If the companies were unwilling to comply with this so-called request, then the committee requested that they either contact the committee directly or just disregard the request. In other words, the last thing they wanted was to enable one of their targets to learn that they were actually being investigated because that would enable them to seek a judicial ruling about the legality of the committee’s actions. But now. The committee is escalating its aggressive investigative actions, they’ve begun sending subpoenas to private banks, demanding that banking records of private citizens and doing so such that either the person never finds out or finds out too late to obtain a judicial order about the legality, the committee’s behavior. Now they talk. He talks about a case. I want you to listen to this. And one case, they targeted JPMorgan Morgan with these subpoenas while knowing that the bank is being represented by former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Lynch unsurprisingly then directed her client, that’s again, JP Morgan, not to accommodate any requests from its own customers to ensure that they can seek judicial review. On November 22 this year, excuse me, last year, a few months back, the January six committee served a subpoena on Taylor Budha, which Taylor Arbatov, which I should say Taylor, by which a former spokesman for the Trump campaign who never worked for the United States government. That requested a wide range of documents, as well as his deposition testimony on December 14 last month, but of which voluntarily complied by handing over a large amount of his personal records. And then on December 22, he flew to Washington, D.C., at his own expense and submitted to questioning. There is no suggestion that Butler, which was engaged in any violence or other illegal acts at the Capitol on January six, their only interest in this private citizen is his connection to the Trump campaign and his stated view that he believed the 2020 election was marred by fraud. After he finished the committee with those documents and then testified, a witch learned from others that the committee was issuing subpoenas directly to the banks used by other individuals for their personal accounts, he has requested that his lawyer notify his own bank, JP Morgan Chase, that he would object to their cooperation with any subpoena without first providing notice to him so that he can have time to seek a legal ruling in court. I want you to think about this. You object to the election, you question the results of the election. You’re not even at this event. They have no predicate whatsoever. Except that you work with the Trump campaign or, you know, Donald Trump. You’re a relative of Donald Trump. So your friend, a Donald Trump. So you work for Donald Trump or or he carried a sign for Donald Trump. They’re going after tax records, emails, your bank records and I suppose your tax records. They’re not doing that to protect Congress and the Capitol building. They’re trying to unload criminal investigations against individuals on any pretext whatsoever. We have never seen this in American history, nothing like this, nothing. Typically, citizens learn when law enforcement agencies, he writes, such as the FBI, serve subpoenas to third party providers such as banks or Internet companies, that allows a crucial right to contest the legality of the action in court before the documents are supplied. But when such a subpoena is concealed from the person, it prevents them from obtaining judicial review. In general, citizens learn of FBI subpoenas, and the FBI, with rare exceptions, has the power to impose a gag order or otherwise prevent the person from learning about it. Only if they first persuade a court that such an extreme measure is warranted by arguing, for instance, that terrorist suspect will flee or whatever, that safeguard ensures that in most cases a citizen has the right to seek judicial protection and I would argue judicial review from an illegal act by an investigative body. But the January 6th committee recognizes no right of any kind of no limits on its power. Listen to this. On November 23, the day after it served a subpoena on Porter, which himself it served a subpoena, part of which is bank JP Morgan. The original date for the bank to produce the records was December 7th. But J.P. Morgan, advised by letter Lynch, as its legal counsel, bizarrely requested that the deadline be extended until December 24th. The day before Christmas. Knowing full well that courts would be closed that day and the next day. It was only on December 21, one party which was in Washington for his testimony before. The committee did JPMorgan send him notice at his home that it had received a subpoena intended to produce the requested documents on December 24, just three days later, as JP Morgan and Lynch knew what happened, but which did not see the letter until he arrived home on the evening of December 22nd, less than 48 hours before the bank told him they were going to give up all of his financial records to the committee upon discovering the committee had subpoenaed his bank, but which his lawyers immediately advised JP Morgan they had legal objections to the subpoena and requested that given it was about to be Christmas, even the courts would be closed. The courts would be closed. The bad the banks seek an extension from the committee to enable better which to seek a judicial ruling, but that bank, advised by Loretta Lynch, refused and told them they intended to turn the documents over on Christmas, regardless of whether that gave them time to request judicial intervention. The bank even refused to provide a copy of the subpoena they received from the committee for his records. Which Berkovich to this very day has not seen. But which his lawyers did everything possible to seek judicial intervention before JPMorgan gave all its financial records to the committee, but the timing agreed to by the committee, by Loretta Lynch and by his bank documents produced on Christmas Eve would notice him arriving just a couple of days before when he was testifying in Washington, made it impossible by design to get judicial review. As a result, J.P. Morgan gave all of his banking records to the committee without even seeking an extension, but which was therefore left with no alternative but to file an after the fact lawsuits against House Speaker Pelosi and the committee members seeking an emergency injunction against the committee’s use of his banking records. In response, both the committee and J.P. Morgan argued the entire question was now moot. Why? Because they already handed over the records. In other words, lawyers for the committee and Loretta Lynch created a plot whereby J.P. Morgan would notify Butta, which of its intent to hand over the documents right before Christmas so as to purposely deny him time to seek a court ruling and then use that fact that he was too late in filing as a ground for arguing that the court should shut its doors to him and refused to even give him a hearing. The court agreed that Berkowitz’s request for an emergency injunction was moot. Given that the bank already supplied the documents but agreed to rule on the merits of the arguments about whether the subpoena was legal. The parties briefs on this question were submitted to an Obama appointed federal judge, James Boasberg. The oral argument on which is request to enjoin the use of his bank records by the committee was held earlier on Thursday, and Judge Boasberg, quickly rejected by the witches. Objections to the subpoena will now be appealed to the Court of Appeals. But the issues presented by the committee’s arguments are chilling. The committee’s lawyers essentially repeated the same argument they advanced in their legal brief, namely that none of the legal safeguards imposed on the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to guard against abuse of power apply to this congressional committee, which therefore enjoys virtually absolute power to do what it wants. What do you think of that Phelan’s? That’s what’s taking place with Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Adam Schiff. Eric Swalwell, Jamie Raskin. Benny Hill, Thompson, that’s what’s going on, on this committee. This is an abuse of power. This is unconstitutional and it’s illegal, but Washington, D.C. is not populated by Obama judges. And Biden judges. And we have a Supreme Court that’s weak and feckless. And by the way. The same argument and one of those constitutional cases that went to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania challenging what took place in Pennsylvania. Challenging the changing of the voting rules before the election. The Supreme Court of that state also ruled the matter was moot. Using the same. The same Whodini trex. As did this committee creating the scenario. And then ruling that as a result of the scenario. The matter was moot. You should have raised that before the court said, but the plaintiff said you wouldn’t allow us. OK. So you couldn’t raise it, no, you wouldn’t allow. OK, so you didn’t raise it now? That’s right. OK, you should have. Case closed. Think about that. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
Sickening, isn’t it? Sickening and evil. Sickening and evil, and if I didn’t. Refer to and read from what Greenwald has written, you wouldn’t know about any of them, and they’re counting on this. They’re counting on it, sickening. It’s like the people in jail in Washington, D.C., what’s happening to them if a media can’t can’t report on things like this, can’t even. Acknowledge some of these things that are taking place, then what good is the media? Excuse me, what good are the media? No good. No good. And when we return. Over at the Federalist. This same committee. This Pelosi Stalinist committee. With these thugs and goons on this committee. And the thugs and goons who regurgitate what this committee leaks. Treston justice, only 10 percent of the January 6th committee subpoenas relate to the capital riot, the sort of underscores Greenwald’s point. Only 10 percent of the subpoenas relate to the Capitol Hill riot. And now one of the people they want to talk to is Ivanka Trump. They want her to testify under oath about a meeting or meeting she was in with her father.