June 8th, 2023

On Thursday’s Mark Levin show, Donald Trump confirms he has been federally indicted over the classified documents case. All thanks to a corrupt FBI, and a rogue Soros-backed prosecutor, the timing of this is not lost on anyone and it’s intended to impact the outcome of the Republican primary. If this is because of illegal retention of classified documents then they must indict President Biden. Meanwhile, the Democrats are at it again – this time with redistricting in Alabama. Redistricting is supposed to be race-neutral but the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, abandoned that notion. We have the segregating of communities by a majority of the court in order to make an additional black majority district for more Democrat votes. Also, 15 years ago the Democrat party opposed same-sex marriage. Today, Biden and the Democrat party says if you object to the mutilation of children you’re a bigot. Later, China is establishing a ‘commanding lead’ with key military techniques and Iran has hypersonic missiles – courtesy of Chinese technology. Just wait til they put a nuclear warhead on top.

Twitter
Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore believes that the former president’s defense team will claim prosecutorial misconduct in the ongoing documents probe, telling @CBS_Herridge, “I witnessed a lot of misconduct.”

Photo by Scott Olson

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

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1

Hello, America. I hope you’re doing well today. Our number is 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Major topics today, lots of them. Pat Robertson passed away. Very. Very kind man, very decent man. Every time I spoke to him, loved his country, loved his faith, loved his fellow Americans, and was very, very concerned about the future of America. And did all he could in his lifetime to try and save us. But it’s going to take a lot more, isn’t it? I’m afraid. And when I talk about that Donald Trump situation, but before I do, you may have heard of a case that nobody was really following involving redistricting in Alabama, Louisiana, and it could affect the majority status down the road of the Republicans as well in the House. Redistricting is supposed to be race neutral. That’s what the Constitution compels. That’s what the Supreme Court up until today has compelled. Race neutral. If a state takes race into consideration. That in and of itself can be unconstitutional. We reject proportionate representation. That is, if you have 25, 27% of the population, let’s say, is black. And it represents one seventh of a state. Then blacks get two seats that are predominantly black. Community organizer Lani Guinier used to support that position. She was a radical leftist, and that has been rejected as racist. And yet that’s exactly what the Supreme Court did today. And incidentally, if you pack all blacks or Latinos or Jews or whatever into single districts, so they have a black congressman or Latino congressman or a Jewish congressman, you’re not doing them any favors. Why? Because that’s one, Congressman. If, in fact, that population is distributed more evenly in surrounding districts, they could have two or three congressmen. Two or three. But if they’re packed into one, they’re one district. This is something the Democrat Party. And minority organizations continue to fight for. They continue to insist that they want these packed districts. Proportional representation. Because typically they vote Democrat. Fact, almost always they vote Democrat. The Supreme Court today in a54 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts and supported by Kavanaugh, as well as the three lefties on the court, abandoned that that notion altogether. I want to give you an example of what actually what took place in Alabama. Because people who don’t live in the South or people don’t live in about in Alabama just go, you know, it’s racist. They don’t know It’s not. That’s not what happened here. Not in the least. The example I just gave you is Alabama. 26% of the voting population age is black. So the court determined that they ought to have two black seats. Now a seven. And that’s all they’ll get. Ever. But that doesn’t mean that black people are properly represented. Maybe they would have won other seats. As Democrats, not necessarily as blacks. So Clarence Thomas writes a scathing dissent, which is why the Democrats are constantly trying to destroy him as wife and have him removed from the court. The plaintiffs in these cases seek a proportional allocation of political power, according to race, he said. According to the 2020 census, black Alabamans account for 27% of the state’s population, 26% with the voting population. Both figures slightly less than two segments of Alabama’s seven existing congressional districts, one District seven is majority black. These cases were brought to compel, quote, the creation. Of two majority minority congressional districts roughly proportional control. Remarkably, the majority fails to acknowledge that two minority control districts would mean proportionality or even that black Alabamans are about 2/7 of the state. If that context is critical to the issues before us, not least because it explains the extent of the racist sorting the plaintiffs goal would require. In other words, it’s supposed to be race neutral. But Thomas is saying this will compel. Racial and racist sorting of the people in the state. As a matter of mathematics, single member districting tends to deal out representation far short a proportionality to virtually all minorities, from environmentalists in Alaska to Republicans in Massachusetts. As such, creating two majority black districts would require Alabama to aggressively sought voters on the basis of race and nothing more. He says the plaintiff’s 11 illustrated maps make that clear. All 11 maps refashion existing District two into a majority black district while preserving the current black majority in District seven. They all follow the same approach, starting with black majority areas and populations in Montgomery County. Montgomery, Alabama. They expand district to east and West to encompass predominantly majority-black areas throughout the rural black belt. In the process. The plants are careful to leave enough of the Black belt for District seven to maintain its black majority. Then critically, the plants of districts are talking about District two and seven extend a Southwestern tendril in the Mobile County. To capture a dense, highly populated majority black cluster cluster in urban mobile. Those black MO billions currently reside in the urban heart of District one. For 50 years, District one has occupied the southwest pocket of Alabama, consisting of the state’s two populous Gulf Coast counties, Mobile and Baldwin, as well as some less populated areas to the immediate north and east. It is indisputable that the Gulf Coast region is the sort of community of interest that the Alabama legislature might reasonably think a congressional district should be built around. So they’re saying. What he’s saying really is. The Alabama legislature was race neutral. Because you have a community along the Gulf Coast. And so this will boost up that community. It contains Alabama’s only coastline, its fourth largest city, and the port of Mobile. It’s physically it’s fiscal. Geography runs north along Alabama mobile Rivers, whose past District one follows its economy is tied to the Gulf, to shipping, shipbuilding, tourism, commercial fishing and so forth. So here you have the state of Alabama. Not turning these districts into, you know. Spaghetti and all the raspberries, all twisting here in their following logical population and geographic lines. But for the plaintiffs, Thomas writes, to secure the majority black district to this long standing compact, an eminently sensible district must be radically transformed. In the Gulf Coast region, the newly drawn district one would retain only the majority white areas. That district, too, did not absorb on its part to mobilize large majority black population to make up the lost population. District one would have to extend eastward through largely majority of white rural counties along the length of Alabama’s border with the Florida Panhandle. The plaintiffs do not assert that white residents on the Gulf Coast have anything special in common with the white residents in those communities, and the district made no such finding. The plaintiffs match with this district one to the left over white communities or the southern fringe of the state. It’s shaping constituents defined almost entirely by the need to make District two majority black, while also retaining a majority black District seven. So what you have here is the segregating of communities by John Roberts, Kavanaugh and the Liberals on the Court. The Segregating of Communities. In order to make an additional black majority district. And the stereotypical view that a traditional black majority district therefore will elect a black who uniquely can represent the district. Statistical evidence also underscored the illustrate the illustrative maps extreme racial sorting. Now there are the plaintiffs experts. Dr. Cousy and my computer generated 10,000 district plans using a race blind algorithm program to observe several objective district criteria. None of those plans contained even one majority black district. So this guy uses a computer. He goes through it. Every conceivable combination of interests for a community other than race. 10,000 district plans. Not one of them is black. Doctor, am I generating another 20,000 plans using the same algorithm, but with the additional constraint that they must contain at least one Majority-black district? None of those plans contained a second majority black district or even a second district with a black voting age population above 40%. He’s saying this is how it would work if it was actually neutral. The plurality of justices appear to agree with the plaintiffs. They could not prove the first pre-condition of their statewide vote dilution claim. And he goes on. So rather than being race neutral. They must be race conscious. And just because you put people of the same skin pigmentation together doesn’t mean they have the same interests. All these were all black blacks with urban blacks. And same with whites or anybody else, for that matter. And so what the Supreme Court did and what the media promotes and what the Democrat Party and various ethnic front groups promote are these. Districts. Which are based on race and race alone. Even though it’s unconstitutional. And if you don’t have it in Alabama as an example, to then obviously the legislatures filled with white racists and yet they couldn’t prove racism at all. Because what the legislature did and what the governor signed off on had nothing to do with race. It had to do with logical geographic community and commercial line drawn. But John Roberts is desperate. Desperate. To receive a pat on the head from the left in The New York Times. CAVANAUGH As I told you, when he was nominated, is not a constitutionalist. As I told a friend of mine, a judge who kept calling me and. Telling me how wonderful Kavanaugh was that he’s not. And this is what happens. This is what happens. And so you have issues now being raised in Louisiana. You have issues now being raised in Florida. Issues being raised with a legislature’s are not accused other than by knuckleheads in the media and so forth, are not accused of race based. Gerrymander. In fact, quite the contrary, they’re being condemned for not considering race. When they created new districts. Which they’re prohibited from doing. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2

Trust me. Trust me. Trust me. I’m going to get to this prosecution stuff as I did yesterday. And there’s more to expand on. But before I do. 15 years ago. Was it 15 years ago? 28. How long ago was that? Most of it is. 15 years ago, Barack Obama declared in a televised discussion that he opposed same sex marriage. Remember that American? You said marriage is between a man and a woman. But there are other ways to address this. Civil unions and so forth. But he was emphatic. In his opposition to same sex marriage. Today, Joe Biden said essentially that if you object to the mutilation of children. You’re a bigot. So we’ve gone from Obama opposed to same sex marriage to the Democrats saying if you don’t support the mutilation of a child, you’re a bigot in 15 short years. I want to discuss this in a little bit more detail when we return. We’ll be right back.

Segment 3

So 15 years ago, the official position of the leading Democrat in America, Barack Obama, was he opposes same sex marriage. Today. The position of Joe Biden is if you oppose the mutilation of children without even parents knowledge, then you’re a bigot. Joe Biden is also putting together a task force to prevent governors. From removing pornographic books. From the shelves of elementary school libraries. Something about the Democrat Party and Joe Biden in particular that gets a sick. Excitement from sexualising children. There is a perversity here. I don’t expect them to admit it or the media to agree with it since they are of the same mindset. But here he is at a news conference with the British Prime Minister. Let’s go to one Mr. Producer, and he’s asked a question by Laura Baron Lopez, PBS NewsHour, in which she lives. In which she alleges that the anti LGBTQ protesters turned violent in California. We all saw what happened. They weren’t violent. This was an Armenian community, mostly in Glendale, California. Sticking up for their children. Rallying at a school board meeting. They weren’t violent in the least. They were attacked by Antifa. And they don’t want their kids to be exposed. To sexualizing to perversion. To this ideology, to this mindset. They want them to be taught. Not indoctrinated. Cut one go all over the country. Mr. President, republican led states are passing laws passing anti-lgbtq cu anti-transgender laws that restrict rights and medical care intimidate. If this is so outrageous, if there’s an adult out there who wants to have their physical appearance, their genitalia changed. Then change it. Do what you want. Pension. Not the issue here, ladies and gentlemen. The issue here is children. Parental involvement and notification. When you have the state that is the government governmental authorities in the form of teacher union members. Educational bureaucrats and others making decisions for children. That is not acceptable, nor is it acceptable that a minority of the population. People who transgender or even LGBTQ impose their views on children any more than sexuality should be taught to little kids by anybody about anything. The big debate used to be sex education. And by sex education, what was meant was straight sex. Right. People objected to it. They objected to it in elementary schools. I object to it in elementary schools, having nothing to do with LGBTQ or anything of the sort. Now. I seem pretty old fashioned, don’t I, Mr. Producer? So people are trying to impose this on our families, on our little ones who do not have the brain function, the capacity to address it, to deal with it. You know, when you look at the Democrat Party and I will say this. Their push for abortion on demand at any time. Right up to birth. And they don’t even want to protect a baby that’s born from a botched abortion. They voted against it. But right up to birth, they say follow the science. Is that a baby in the womb? Yes. A fully functioning baby. But abortion on demand. Partial birth abortion. Is said to be a right. The mutilation of a child without their parent’s knowledge at the direction of the state. Is said to be a right. I want to remind you. This is the same political party a hundred years ago that embraced eugenics. I want to remind you. They call themselves progressive. It was the Progressive era, but they were American Marxists back then. The progeny, Marxist ideology and doctrine. And they supported eugenics to call the population of blacks and other minorities and people who they considered inferior. And the Democrat Party today stands behind abortion on demand per every one. They don’t even have a limiting criteria. And now we’ve moved from that to this. So if we want to defend children, our own and others. From drugs and surgical procedures that will ruin their lives or change their lives forever more without any recourse. We’re now standing up against Biden and the Democrats in the state. And let me be further clear. It’s only Republican governors who are opposing this. Not one damn Democrat governor has stood up. Not one. Where are the Democrat senators? Nowhere were the Democrat House members. Nowhere. And then their surrogates, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Moms for Liberty, parents for Education. Domestic terrorist groups, hate groups. Because that’s what the Democrat Party and their surrogates do. When Obama opposed same sex marriage 15 years ago, they didn’t call them these things. Cut one. Go. Is this week. Anti LGBTQ protesters turned violent in California. And also recently, I spoke to the parents of a transgender girl in Texas who told me that they’re afraid and that they are considering leaving not just their state, but the country. Sir, why do you think this is happening? And she spoke to one person who’s thinking about leaving the country. I can tell you about people who’ve left the country for a lot of reasons. But this is not a question. This is a statement. This is PBS. This is what you’re subsidizing. It’s sickening how they all circle around the state. That is the government. And support this. Go ahead. It’s like the ones that I spoke to to those families who are contemplating leaving the country because they don’t feel safe anymore. First of all, maybe quietly, when we finish this, you can give me the number of that family and I will call them and let them know that the president and this administration has their back. And I mean, that really is really cool. And he went the number quietly, while the people who have suffered. From murder, rape and mayhem as a result of your immigration policies. Do you want their numbers to? I don’t think you’ll have time to call them out, Mr. President, even during your three day weekends in Wilmington or Hope Beach. You want their numbers. What the numbers of. People who rage the breach, the age of majority who went through these processes and wish they never did. You want to call them and tell them the administration has their back, too? Of course not. It’s disgusting. In fact, you’re disgusting the way you lie, the way you exploit. Disgusting. Cut to go. As president, I was proud to hand the band on to the transgender troops in our military. How many transgender troops are in our military? Anybody now? Tiny, tiny number. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re having trouble getting troops. Our numbers are way down. We’re not making our. Our numbers for the number we need in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines were way below our numbers. These are destroying the military. Go ahead. For Marriage Act. Strengthen the civil rights protections from reaching liberty to Americans. Come on, spit it out, moron. Go ahead and say LGBT human rights around the globe. But our fight is far from Is there a problem with this? I’m missing something. I looked, the FBI says over 50% of the hate crimes in this country are against Jews, not LGBTQ. Somebody is walking down the street and they’re gay. How do I know if they’re by? How do I know? If they’re transgender. How the hell do I know? All right. I saw on the five today, they were wondering what the word woke means. They said Ron DeSantis better have a definition for the word woke since, he says. Wokeism has died in Florida, so let me help them out. My friends there. And what I sent to one of them. Woke is the advancement of the American Marxist agenda. Whether sexualisation of children, transgender ideology, CRT anti free speech. The list is a long one. Through the prism of Marxism that’s explained in American Marxism. That’s oppressor versus oppressed. Our friend GUTFELD likes to use that phrase. That’s where it comes from, Marxism. And that’s what I wrote in my book. So if you don’t embrace. Their agenda. You will be punished in one form or another. You will be labeled. You’ll be censored. So Marxism is wokeism. Wokeism is a very passive word. The original use of wokeism like half a century ago was. An urban term involving blacks and race. But it’s certainly not that today. It’s much bigger and much broader to this whole Marxist agenda. And one day people will wake up and realize that Marxism is anti-black as it is anti everything else in this society. It opposes individualism, the opposes the ability to rise up, individuals to rise up. Become successful. So that’s wokeism. Wokeism is the advancement. Of American Marxism on all fronts. There now. I’ve defined it. Now the back benchers can regurgitate it. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4

You remember what they say? My low and sell high. I have an idea, America. I’ll put together a few other people and maybe we’ll buy CNN. Mr. Producer, I understand there’s a billionaire in New York, has a grocery chain and owns ABC that he’s thinking about buying CNN as well. Have you heard that? Somehow it managed to show up in the New York Post. But I think I can do it. Pull together a few billionaire buddies of mine. We could buy CNN. I won’t even charge a dollar a year to run it. I’ll do it gratis. And then I’ll put all my friends in as hosts. What do you think of that? I put all my friends in as hosts. I’ll bring back another Cuomo, even though he’s not my friend. I’ll run him at three in the morning. Three in the morning. Just because I could humiliate him. But can you imagine the lineup? Solid conservatives. Yes. Yes. I mean, I’ve been around broadcasting a long time, America. Be a fantastic lineup. But you never know. Maybe I’ll buy WOR in New York. Put together a consortium. You never know the world out there. It’s tremendous possibility. And I am very fortunate to have many allies and friends. We could do this. I’m not the poorest guy in the world either. Just to be honest with you. Something. I’ll play with something. I’ll think about Mr. Producer. I don’t want to get everybody’s hopes up. You never know. So, Joe Biden. Joe Biden, Are you a crook? Joe Biden basically said what Nixon said, I am not a crook. But the truth is, Nixon wasn’t a crook. And the truth is Biden is. Cat three. Go. Bribery allegation. Congresswoman Nancy makes a substantial evidence that we had filed in Soledad country in response to congressional Republicans. Where’s the money? I’m joking with you, Mr. President. I try to do too much in the malarkey. It’s a bunch of malarkey. Where’s the money? Cut for a go. Mr. President, what do you say to Americans to convince them that they should trust the independence and fairness of the Justice Department? Donald Trump repeatedly attacks. Because you know this, I have never once, not one single time suggested the Justice Department what they should do or not do well to bring any charge and operate a charge. I’m honest. No, you’re not honest. And that’s not what you’ve done. You brought up January six and thought that Trump should be pursued. So you’re a liar, number one. Number two, you don’t even have to say anything. You have picked an attorney general who’s as corrupt as they come. He’s like a mob lawyer. And I’m going to get into this next hour in great detail. We’ll be right back.