January 17th, 2023

On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show, the latest leak in the Biden classified documents scandal shows that rather than going in and searching Biden’s homes, the FBI decided against it. How do we know if Biden is properly handling classified documents now as President? We don’t know if Biden’s lawyers have any clearance to do searches for the FBI. The heart of the matter is much bigger than these classified documents – President Biden is a crook with multiple mansions and sports cars on a career politicians salary, and nobody is investigating how or why. There should have been a special counsel over a year ago to investigate the Biden crime family, but Merrick Garland is the AG to protect Biden. Also, The New York Times has a history of lying about Marxism, covering up for Stalin, Hitler and Castro and their atrocities. It’s no surprise why the NY Times are the favorite news outlet for far left Democrats. The NYTimes has played a central role in undermining liberty and trust. Later, if government can dictate things with respect to your home and climate, there are no limits to its power. COVID was the first round in seeing how far government will go in destroying your civil liberties and your privacy, and now they’re going to do it again in the name of climate change. The new taxes that are being proposed for climate change will give the government full control of our vehicles and spy on how much we drive so they can tax it. Finally, Mark speaks with Rep. Jim Banks about his 2024 run for the Senate.

The Blaze
Washington Post: Influential public health expert finally admits COVID-19 deaths are wildly overcounted, asks if people are dying ‘from’ or ‘with’ COVID

Fox News
A look back at every government shutdown in US history (February 2020)

Photo by Chip Somodevilla

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

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

We’ll start with the actual breaking news here, which is. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. In Garland. Something underscores just how so thoroughly corrupt these people are. Wall Street Journal 4:36 p.m. Eastern Time. The Justice Department considered having FBI agents monitor a search by President Biden’s lawyers for classified documents at his homes, but decided against it both to avoid complicating later stages of the investigation. And because Mr. Biden’s attorneys had quickly turned over a first batch and were cooperating, according to people familiar with the matter. Alright, so this is the next leak. This is the next leap because they know James Comey and his committee and others. And Jim Jordan and his committee and others are focused now like a laser on this. And they want to put the information out. This is a question I’ve been asking here since day one. And all of you understand the the disparate treatment between Biden and Trump, despite all the the excuses that even the media regurgitate. And that’s how I know this is yet another leak. That? Well, the lawyers were cooperating. That has nothing to do with anything. If these are classified documents, there might be more. Then the FBI should have gone in and searched his homes as well as any other places where Biden has been. They should have issued a subpoena. The prosecutors are the the lawyers at the Department of Justice to put a marker down immediately. And there’s a lot of questions associated with this story excuse me, which include did the FBI know if these lawyers who were doing the searches? Had the appropriate clearances. To look for or actually find. Classified information. And who made this final determination? I mean, Joe Biden is the president of the United States, folks. They’re focused like a like a bunch a nutjobs on a former president of the United States. He’s the president of the United States. How do we know he’s properly handling classified materials today right now? And the problem is he has this habit of rambling on and on and on. How do we know he keeps his mouth shut? When he looks at materials, we have no idea. Now as president, he doesn’t have to. But either we have standards, now we don’t. They created these standards for Trump. Now they should be applied to Biden. So the attorney general of the United States. And his comrades, the deputy attorney general and the other left wing Obama hack lawyers that they brought in these activists. They decided that the lawyers were cooperating so they could handle the search that the FBI should be doing. Sounds like Hillary Clinton all over again, does it not? They didn’t have a search warrant with Hillary Clinton. They didn’t send the FBI in, let alone an FBI SWAT team. Did they? Despite the thousands of emails that she had. Thousands. It’s really quite amazing, don’t you think? But in this instance. No, no, no. After Mr. Biden’s lawyers discovered documents marked as classified dating from his term as vice president in office, he used an a Washington based think tank on November two. The Justice Department opened an inquiry into why and how they got there. So I assume they know why and how they got there. But the rest of us don’t know why and how they got there. Joe Biden can tell us. His marble mouth. Press secretary, you can tell us. HAYES Phony council can tell us, but they don’t. So they’re still covering up. Something is going on. They’re still covering up. The two sides agreed that Mr. Biden’s personal attorneys would inspect the homes, notify the Justice Department as soon as they identified any other potentially classified records and arrange for law enforcement authorities to take them. And that’s what they did, apparently. Wow. Completely different treatment than the Trump treatment. They didn’t give Biden the Trump treatment, did they? No, they didn’t. So this is just it’s just incredible. What a corrupt. Corrupt system. It is. And it’s so important that the Republicans won the House. So critically important. That James Comer is where he is. The Jim Jordan is where he is. Now the others are where they are. It’s just incredible. And it’s sickening to somebody like me who’s. Spent many years at the Department of Justice at the highest levels to see this sort of thing. But I want to go on. Sheila Jackson Lee has been for a long time a buffoon. In a racialist. A buffoon and a racialist. She, as well as a handful of others, are always rated the worst boss to work for on Capitol Hill. Apparently she abuses her staffers, but she’s for the people, don’t you know? And I’m going to talk a little bit more about the Biden Easter Bunny right now. Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a House bill, writes Breitbart. Joshua Klein Criminalizing Conspiracy to commit white supremacy, unquote. Which includes criticism of non-white people, which influences an individual to commit a hate crime. Now since white supremacy is defined under critical race theory. And such as the existence of your pigmentation, not actual actions that demonstrate your white supremacist the fact of your birth. As a white person demonstrate that you can’t help it. It’s in your DNA. That you are a white supremacist. You are privileged and you live in a white dominated society. So imagine what they could do with us criminalizing conspiracy to commit white supremacy. Which includes criticism of non-white people, which influences an individual to commit a hate crime. How are you going to pull that all together? I guess we’ll have to wait for media matters and mediate to tell us. Just think about this. If somebody commits a crime or encourages the commission of a crime, you deal with those individual cases and the individual factors involved. That’s what you do under our society. Conspiracy to commit white supremacy under critical race theory means anybody who’s white is guilty. Because you’re a white supremacist. Now, you don’t have to be a Klansman or a neo-Nazi or that stuff. No, no. Your existence as a Caucasian is enough. That’s how hideous and unconscionable all this is. You’re a racist by birth. The legislation, H.R. 61, quote, Leading against White Supremacy Act of 2023, unquote, was introduced last Monday by Sheila Jackson Lee Seeks to prevent and prosecute white supremacy, inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime. The bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, states that someone engages in a white supremacy inspired hate crime. Quote, When white supremacy ideology has motivated the planning, development, preparation or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime or were undertaken in furtherance of activity, that, if effectuated, would have constituted a crime. Accordingly, conspiracy to engage in white supremacy inspired hate crime and entails the publishing and material code advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on replacement theory or a hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-white person or group. Replacement theory. Anybody who opposes what’s happening on the border apparently supports a replacement theory. Right. This is tyranny. This is totalitarianism. And you might say, that’s all right, We’re in the majority. We’re not always going to be in the majority. And things that sound insane five years later have a way. Of making their way into the culture. Being baseline. And into the law. It also calls for the Department of Justice to gain a, quote, authority to conduct operations and active and activities pursuant to what it deems necessary and appropriate to interdict, mitigate or prevent such action from culminating in violent activity. The bill would grant the department authority to prosecute persons engaged in such actions with records of white supremacy, inspired hate crimes maintained and annual reports provided. So the First Amendment’s can’t. But you can see these phrases have already been used. By radical racists who’ve written many books who promote critical race theory and racism. Have already been used in the broadest and most nebulous ways. Against an entire population. Against an entire population. And so here you have a Democrat. Who would use this? Who would use this? To go after many of you. And you can imagine how they would. How the word hold hearings, how they would demand grand juries on the left, how they would use this to destroy you. And many of you might say, well, I’m not white. It wouldn’t matter. If you support America. If you support liberty, if you oppose these Marxists. You believe in white supremacy? So there’s no winning. You see, this is Marxism. There’s no there’s no way out. You know. Language. Language. When you have free speech. Language cannot be used. Cannot be used to control the population. That’s why free speech is so important. That’s why the First Amendment is so important. And yet you see the manipulation of language. Today you hear Sheila Jackson Lee. White supremacy, white dominance, society. It’s not just that. What’s a male? What’s a female? And so what happens with the Marxists or any totalitarian does? If they want to control the language and by controlling the language, they hope to control the thought process. They give words meanings. That advance their agenda. They try to. Whole thought by controlling what you are able to say or how you say it, or when you say it or where you say it. It’s about intimidation. It’s about brainwashing and groupthink. Control over communication. Between and among people citizens. It distorts reality. It compels compliance and uniformity. It’s censorship. And it’s being used right now to resegregate our country. Along different lines to resegregate our country, along different lines, to advance racism as a righteous cause, and in the end to promote totalitarianism, like Sheila Jackson Lee here. Why the Biden administration and his bureaucracy was working with Twitter and others Facebook, Google to limit speech, to limit what could be heard. Because speech, competition of ideas. The thinking process individualism. Is what makes our society so fantastic. In the Democrat Party opposes all that. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

Now, many of you know this your civil liberties are under attack as well as your your physical existence is under attack. When they’re going after stoves or they’re going after automobiles, they’re going over what kind of this, that or the other. You can have your children are being brainwashed when they’re not with you by the state, by the government. This whole climate change thing. You need to think of it this way. If the government can dictate matters with respect to water and air, with respect to whether the climate. There are no limits to its power. The virus was a first run to show how far government blue states could act to destroy your civil liberties, your private property rights, to destroy your your privacy. That was a first run. Now they’re going to make a much bigger run at you. I’ll explain when we return.

Hour 1 Segment 3

Along the lines of which I’ve been speaking, I think we can all agree that The New York Times is a very, very dishonest corporation with blood on its hands. I don’t believe there’s been anyone who has exposed this and discuss it more than I and have written about in at least two books. In The New York Times in 1932, really for a good decade was celebrating Joseph Stalin and covered up. The mass starvation of the Ukrainians. Where millions, millions were killed. With The New York Times, their bureau chief in Moscow, Walter Durante, was. A Stalin. I get special food, special car girlfriend who he impregnated. Some people thought he was on his payroll. Whatever. Other reporters, particularly in the British tabloids, were furious with him, thought he was a complete. Disgrace and disaster. Because they actually went to Ukraine and saw what was going on. This thing about sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. That was a quote from Walter Durante defending Stalin. The New York Times kept publishing durante’s articles in the news section, even though its executives had reason to know he was lying. But they did it anyway. And he and they received a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting. And they’ve never returned to The New York Times. Not much later. The New York Times censored. Should say censured. Reporting about the Holocaust. The extermination of the European Jews. You see, the Sulzberger family was Jewish, but they were embarrassed by. And old man Sulzberger very much wanted to be. The Democrat accepted. Outside the Jewish community. So even though the paper at that point was already considered really a marquee newspaper. He complied with the dictates. From FDR to try and cover up the Holocaust. But he also did it on his own. And any stories they did about it. They pushed to the back pages and there were very limited. And so the American people didn’t really have a feel for what was taking place until 1943 or four. But other papers reported on it in Europe. Sulzberger worked hard to get his family members out of Germany during the Third Reich. And got most of them out. But it was the others he didn’t give a damn about. The bureau chief in Berlin was a sympathizer to the Third Reich. Another one? In the late 1950s. Fidel Castro. Was on the losing end of a so-called civil war. The Batista army had basically destroyed them. He and his communist guerrillas, even though they claim to be little Democrats and freedom fighters. Castro and his brother Raul escaped to the the jungles of Cuba. He didn’t have more than about 35 men with him at that point. He was finished. Along came another reporter for the New York Times who met with him. It was taken by him. I mean, he viewed Castro as a romantic figure, a revolutionary. The little the Democrat. So he wrote a massively dishonest piece about Castro and his intentions. He lied about the strength of Castro’s so-called militia, claiming there were thousands. When there were, at most three dozen. Well, that helped Castro raise his army. Also caused Batista’s army to begin to dwindle. The rest is history. Castro took over Cuba. They started executing people left and right, as they all do. And that was the New York Times’s role in promoting communism in Cuba. Covering up the Holocaust in Europe. And covering up the genocide of Ukrainians by Stalin. Also in your. The New York Times today is virulently anti-American. Pushing the 1619 project into a third of our school systems may be more. Promoting critical race theory. Rewriting American history. Trying to destroy the Republican Party and Republican presidents. Acting as a battering guard to the left and the Democrat Party wherever possible and whenever they can. Sulzberger. He didn’t earn his position as the head of The New York Times, ultimately inherited it. It’s a newspaper that’s been owned by the same two families. For about 150 years. New York Times Corporation. It’s a corporation, mind you. Any corporation with a record like that. That wasn’t in publishing, but may be a steel industry or coal or whatever. Would be viewed as an abomination. But The New York Times is the favorite media outlet of the Democrat Party. And the radical left. Why is that? Why is that? It’s the same reason the Democrat Party as a name as an institution. Survives. Where monuments don’t. American history doesn’t wear books. Don’t. The Democrat Party. Has existed for most of the time. To undermine the American experiment. And racism has always been the core of the Democrat Party. anti-Black racism, now anti-White racism, anti-Asian racism. So ag Sulzberger the latest of the Salzburg miscreants to run the New York Times. He’s now chairman of the New York Times Corporation. He’s at the World Economic Forum today, and he’s worried about disinformation as a threat to the very existence of society. Can imagine that. America’s Pravda. Cut to go. So I think if you look at this question of disinformation, I think it maps basically to every other major challenge that we are grappling with as a society, and particularly the most existential among them. So disinformation and the broader set of misinformation, conspiracy, propaganda, click bait, you know, the the broader mix of bad information that’s corrupting the information ecosystem. What it attacks is trust. And once you see trust decline, what you then see is societies start to fracture. And so you see people fracture along tribal lands. And and and, you know, that immediately undermines pluralism. And, you know, the undermining of pluralism is probably the most dangerous thing that can happen to a democracy. So I really I think if you know, if you’re spending this week thinking about the health of democracies and democratic erosion, I think it’s really important to work your way back up to where this starts. Pluralism is where it starts, he said. Pluralism. It’s where it starts. Of course, that’s not where it starts. Liberty is where it starts. Liberty. Pluralism is a subset of liberty, and he doesn’t use the word liberty because Democrats don’t believe in the. Individual right to liberty. They only believe in their own liberty, but they don’t believe in liberty. Or they wouldn’t be promoting the centralization of government, this American Marxism from the Progressive era. They wouldn’t be promoting the banning of this, that and that. And the compelling of this, that and that. They never talk about liberty. Do they ever? Liberty begets a lot of things, including pluralism. The New York Times has played a central role in undermining liberty. And trust. And trust. And he’s not done. And the person asking him the question, of course, is Brian Stelter, who was removed from CNN. Because he is. A journalistic fraud and phony. It’s amazing. The bubble in which these people live, is it not? Cut three, go and turn term fake news and then disinformation. It was popularized six years ago at this point. Where are we today versus them? What do you mean, where are we today versus where we are? So this was a hot popular topic. Yeah, there was an awakening about it. The social networks felt pressure, but now where are we? And same question, Virginia. But where are we today? He doesn’t ask about. The New York Times covering up the Biden laptop as an ask about various reporters and newspapers, working with social media in turn, working with the FBI, the intelligence agencies to push an agenda that he’s not concerned about that he doesn’t talk about. Go ahead. You know, and to be clear, actually, terms like fake news and enemies of the people have been popularized cyclically in society. And in some of the most, you know, you know, repressive and dangerous moments, you know, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia. Right. Yeah. Yeah, right. In The New York Times. She knows something about that. Because The New York Times was fake news during Stalinist Russia. The New York Times was fake news during much of Hitler’s Third Reich and the Holocaust. It was fake news. It was worse than fake news. It was propaganda. It was doing the business of the Third Reich. It was doing the business of Stalin and the communist Castro terrorists. They hear this guy sanctimoniously. Sanctimoniously point his finger elsewhere. It’s really grotesque. Absolutely grotesque. Go ahead. Oh, so I think any time we’re hearing language like that applied to, you know, a free press, you know, or more broadly free expression, I think I think we should be really worried. I am worried about that. For the reasons I explained earlier in this hour. About how tyrants and totalitarians use the language. Change the language. Change the meaning of words. Intimidate you, thought, control, demand that you comply. With their distortion of reality. When’s the last time A.G. Sulzberger denounced that? Once the first time he denounced. He hasn’t. He’s part of it. This is what’s going on. And. The World Economic Forum in Davos. They all take their private jets. And then preach climate change. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4

This guy, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, has Democrats posed to be some kind of moderate, but there are no moderate Democrats left, certainly not in Congress, not on the national scene. Moderate is a phony word now. Everything’s moved left. And he’s at the World Economic Forum in Davos as well. Cut five. Go. Congressman, should we learn in the US something from the structures that the Europeans have adopted? Well, look, I think in general, the U.S. has a lot to learn in terms of data regulation and Internet regulation. And you’re way ahead of us in that regard. But we believe very strongly in free speech and I believe very strongly in free speech. And I think there is a healthy concern in the United States that the EU might be going a little too far. So. So, I mean, I think you look at this from both perspectives. Yes, they’re ahead of us and they’re doing some smart things that I know when I use the Internet in in Europe and I get all the warnings about cookies and whatnot, that actually makes me feel safer. That makes me feel better. And a lot of American consumers want that level of security on the Internet for your own data privacy and whatnot. But we also have a healthy concern that that, you know, we’re not going to be we’re not going to be censored. And and and that’s the world that we live in. And I don’t think anyone in America. Well, I don’t think lawmakers in America want to give up on the fundamental principle of free speech. You see, this is the problem with a guy like this. Here he is in Europe says, you know, we can’t really be like the Europeans. And he just listened to the guy at The New York Times, the chairman. He just heard what Sheila Jackson Lee has proposed or should have heard. And he should speak out against this thing. You know, they’re ahead on, he says, data regulations, Internet regulation. But he wants free speech. What does that mean? Internet regulation. You open the door a little bit, then you wind up opening the door a lot. The government is not satisfied with a little. It wants everything. We just had an example of this in the last election with the Democrat Party and Biden. We had an example of this. The Hunter Biden laptop. There’s many, many examples. Elon Musk is a hero for what he’s done. These reporters who have gone through painstakingly all this information and have revealed it to us and the entire world. They’re heroes, too, even though I don’t like some of them. They’re heroes. But that’s not an issue here. That’s not the main focus. That’s not a discussion, a government manipulation. Of information, government intimidation. You have in California as I speak. Doctors can lose their licenses if they don’t regurgitate the government line on health issues. So doctors are leaving. Isn’t anybody concerned about that. I’m concerned about it. It’s a big deal. We’ve got a lot more, folks. I hope you’ll stick with us. I’ll be right back.