September 20th, 2023

On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, former Capitol police chief Steven Sund was blamed by Nancy Pelosi for not securing the Capitol building on January 6. But the National Guard can’t deploy without Pelosi’s go-ahead. President Trump offered her 10K National Guardsmen and she said no, so did the D.C. mayor. Why is it that Pelosi and Mitch McConnell get a pass on not securing the Capitol? The January 6 committee protected Pelosi and pretended she had no role. Later, we have a rouge DOJ with a rouge Attorney General. AG Merrick Garland at a hearing today refused to answer any questions. The GOP needs to have a Constitutional battle. They need to subpoena the schedules and communications of Garland, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, and the head of the criminal division. They need to subpoena their notes from the various meetings that they’ve had with each other. They need to subpoena the emails and text messages they’ve had among each other. Then they can duke it out in the courts and get the information because they won’t get anything from these hearings. Afterward, as a government shutdown approaches, there are still 5 Republican holdouts. All these guys have personal ambitions and that’s what they are putting in front of everything else. What will happen is that the Democrats will get some RINOs to join them, then we will have a budget blowout. Also, what is it about the Constitution that the Democrat Party hates? It’s all in ‘The Democrat Party Hates America.’

Photo by Anna Moneymaker

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

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello, America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. I see President Trump endorse the book today, Mr. Producer. We want to thank President Trump. We’d like all Republican candidates, all Republican leaders to endorse the book. I mean, after all, it’s about the Democrat Party. But, you know, some of them seem more like Democrats than Republicans these days. They certainly do to me. They could benefit by reading the book, I believe. So They know how to respond to questions about race and abortion, the budget law and order, the Constitution. But hope springs eternal. But I don’t have a ton of hope on that that I can tell you as well. This is important to me. I think it’s important to you as well. Former Capitol Police chief Blames Pelosi for January six Security failures. They carry picket the Gregory Picket at the Washington Times. Representative Nancy Pelosi was among the key players who? Former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. Said was responsible for the breakdown and security that led to the riot at the Capitol on January six, 2021. Mr. Son testified before the House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Tuesday and told lawmakers that at the time of the attack, he learned that then Speaker Pelosi never wanted the National Guard deployed. According to Mr. Sun, on January three, 2021, he talked to House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving. And a Senate sergeant at arms, Michael Stanger, about calling in the National Guard. It was told by Mr. Stanger that he should ask Major General William Walker. Who was the commander? The D.C. National Guard, how quickly troops could deploy to the Capitol complex if necessary. Mr. Sun said at the hearing that. Four months after the riot. Mr. Stanger told Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, did not want the Guard on the Capitol grounds that day. Hmm. I said, Mr. Stanger, you came up with a response fairly quickly for me to call General Walker, and he told me Paul Irving had called him ahead of time and said, Son came here asking for the National Guard. We’ve got to come up with another plan. Pelosi will never go for it. I was floored by him saying that, According to Mr. Sund, on the day when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and disrupt the Congress certification of President Biden’s win, he contacted Mr. Irving. At 12:58 p.m.. And request that they call in the National Guard. He was fully aware of just how bad it was outside in Iraq. I did not get the approval, he said. Now. Mr. Sun resigned January 16, 2021, after Mrs. Pelosi called for him to step down from his post and blamed him for not securing the Capitol. Think about that. He maintains that he called the National Guard six times fatigued three days before the attack, but they didn’t apply. They can’t deploy, as the speaker says they should deploy. He maintains. They he did so six times for three days. Public and lawmakers excoriated Ms.. Pelosi and Mr. Irving for making Mr. Sun scapegoat the day of the Capitol was breached by pro-Trump protesters. Let’s stop here a minute. There’s a sergeant arms in the house, right, Mr. BLITZER. There’s a sergeant at arms at the Senate. This Mitch McConnell not have any role whatsoever. And whether the National Guard is accepted as President Trump offered or not. None of this was part of the January six Politburo hearing or investigated none of it. Pelosi gets. To play. Florence Nightingale. There’s something akin to that pointing fingers elsewhere, particularly Donald Trump. But she was in charge of security. She was offered 10,000 National Guardsmen, armed troops. She didn’t want them. The mayor, Democrat of D.C., she didn’t want them either. See, this gives the lie to the whole damn thing. Their January six committee, including the two reprobate Republicans. Protected Nancy Pelosi, protected Nancy Pelosi and pretended she didn’t have any role. All she had to do is say yes. And none of it would have happened. But it also gives the big lie to the fact that Donald Trump was leading an insurrection and committed sedition when he offered those troops. Right. Mike Pence. All right. Marc Short. Nikki Haley. Chris Christie. None of us in this room are saying what happened on January six was correct, says Representative Greg Murphy of North Carolina. But I absolutely believe the conditions for that to occur rests at the former speaker’s lap and those two sergeant at arms are complicit with other individuals, said Mr. Murphy. It’s one thing for something to occur, but it’s another thing to create the conditions for that to occur. Of course, he’s exactly right. But of course, Representative Norma Torres of California, the top Democrat on the panel, turned the panel’s attention to former President Trump’s involvement in spurring the attack. And then they go on with their talking points. But Donald Trump didn’t spare the attack. He never used words that spurred the attack. There’s not a scintilla of evidence in any phone calls, texts, emails that he spurred any attack. People, some of whom are making pleas and said they wouldn’t have done what they did, but for the fact of Trump, X, Y, Z. But that’s nothing. That’s not evidence of anything. Did Chuck Schumer spur the would be assassination of Brett Kavanaugh by the things he said when he turned around and pointed to the Supreme Court building and attacked those justices. How come he’s not tied to that? And he really did he really did threaten those justices. Donald Trump didn’t threaten anybody in that building. He didn’t threaten an insurrection of any kind, period. We all know it. We all saw it. We all heard it. We know all about it. It didn’t happen. This is a long history of the Democrat Party. And they’re never Trumper friends. But it’s the long history of the Democrat Party to make up history, to rewrite history. And they’ve done it about January six. I’ve been talking about whether you like, have Trump acted too soon, too slow to wear? It’s not what I’m talking about. It’s the Insurrection Day, January 6th. Does anybody remember the date the White House came under attack? And of course, the Democrats were very concerned about all the Secret Service personnel who were injured. No, they weren’t. And they never said a damn thing. And Donald Trump’s house sold off to the nuclear bunker under the White House, and they’re trying to breach the gate. And they have to call in. Police. Federal police. They have to call in. FBI and others for which. Fritchey and Bill Barr at the time was excoriated. And yet they needed to do that in order to put down the insurrection that occurred that day. Anybody know what date that was? No. So that’s circled on our calendar anywhere? No. It was BLM and Antifa, the Democrat Party militia wing. And that’s the other thing. It’s not like the Republican Party has a regular militia ready to roll at any time, but the Democrat Party does. They do. And so here we have an open statement. In testimony by the former U.S. Capitol police chief. Under Nancy Pelosi. And Mitch McConnell. Saying it was Pelosi’s fault. That that building was breached on January six. He lays it right at her feet. And so they mirror. She fires him and blames him. And that’s good enough for Washington, D.C. So it must be good enough for the country. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
Well, Meritless Garland was in Congress today testifying in the House Judiciary Committee. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. I speak to you as somebody who was chief of staff to a former attorney general. My attorney General Meese would never have done this constant rope a dope. It’s just outrageous, the complete lack of accountability. But let’s hear some of this and then I’ll have more to say about it. Here’s Jeff Van Drew. Republican New Jersey was a Democrat, switched because he saw how terrible they were and he’s been very solid to his credit. Cut one go. You know, following your confirmation, Americans were promised they were getting a focused, nonpartisan to lead their federal law enforcement. I had my doubts back then. And the last two years have more than confirmed in my mind those fears. Never in my life I would thought that I would see such a politicized DOJ. Never in my life would I thought I would see such a Department of Justice that didn’t obey their own rules. Never in my life did I think I would see the egregious investigations conducted on your watch, under your watch, or the blatant disregard of the First Amendment by FBI field offices under your watch. And never in my life that I think I would see our great DOJ turn into a politicized weapon to bewildered by an investigation to attack political rivals. I still hold the thousands of hardworking staff with high regard, but unfortunately, there are some within the department, in my mind, who have betrayed their oaths. And for that, you must be held accountable. I hold you accountable for the labeling of parents as domestic terrorists standing up for their proper. Education of their own children. I hold you accountable for the anti-Catholic memo. Imagine sending agents undercover into Roman Catholic churches because they were supposedly domestic terrorists. And I hold you accountable for unleashing a special counsel with a history of botched investigations on our current president’s political rival, the Department of. Under your leadership, I am sorry to say, and I am sorry to say, has become an enforcement arm of the Democratic National Committee. If there is a perceived threat to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party, this DOJ attacks every single time. But when there are actionable threats against conservatives, this DOJ stays put. Protesters outside, violent protesters outside the Supreme Court. Justices home. Unpunished attacks on pro-life centers unpunished. The two tiered system of justice is clear and it’s clear to the American public. And the buck stops with the man in charge. That man is you. The actions of the DOJ are on you. The decline of Americans trust in our federal law enforcement is on you. The political weaponization of the DOJ is on you. That is fantastic. Now, the guy is a former Democrat. I notice he doesn’t draw any attention from me to depressed Deface the nation. Any of the major networks. Chris Arnold interested in what a former Democrat, now Republican, has to say about current Democrats. If his name were Adam Kinzinger and he was trashing. McCarthy and Trump. Obviously, they’d be offering him a job. On these networks or if his name was Liz Cheney. While she’d be getting awards from the Kennedy. Have foundation. But here he is. He flipped from a Democrat to a Republican. And by the way, one of the better Republicans, I might add. And listen to what he says. And they act like he doesn’t exist. I know exists. He represents a beautiful part of New Jersey. And he represents it well. And I just wanted to point this out. This gentleman had been elected as a Democrat. To various state offices in New Jersey. He was elected to Congress as a Democrat. And then he said, Wait a minute. What the hell am I doing? And he switched parties. He did the unthinkable. And so he gets the Scarlet letter rather than any, in effect, a media ticker tape parade. But he was outstanding. Now, one of the questions I’m getting, I’ve done maybe already 30 interviews on this book. The Democrat Party hates America. And I bring up this gentleman, Jeff Van Drew, for a reason. I really believe the more people who really understand. What the Democrat Party stands for, including Democrats who aren’t, you know, zombies. Democrats really aren’t sure why they’re Democrats. I really believe if they read this, they will distance himself from that party. But one of the questions I’m getting a lot about is the Constitution and slavery. And so I really need to dig into this in the context of what Mr. Van Drew just said.

Segment 3
I want to thank President Trump for very kind words, kind words and person kind words in public posting the book linking to it. And I have to tell you, I’m kind of shocked right now. On the Drudge Report. Matt Drudge has prominently posted my book incorrectly so that we’ve skyrocketed past the Elon Musk book. And I happen to like Elon Musk, by the way. So credit where credit is due. And he’s treated the book, I think, the way it ought to be treated. But it is amazing because he has nothing but contempt for Trump. So there’s Trump promoting the book and there’s Drudge is promoting the book, ladies and gentlemen, honestly. This book is written for you. My hope is it will change things or begin the process of changing things. But the repeated question I kept getting and so I want to address it nationally to a point I won’t overdo. It is something we talked about several months ago. But look, people come and go and memories fade and you’ve got other things to do. What is it about this Constitution that the Democrat Party hates so thoroughly? Well, first of all, the constitution this constitution was written to prevent tyranny and totalitarianism of the sort the Democrat Party promotes. And they lie about the Constitution. They lie about it. Former law professor Robert Neilsen. Now the independent institute says to begin with, the dominant view among the founders was that slavery was absolutely not fine. The prevailing view was that slavery violated natural law. That is the declaration. It was doomed to extinction. Indeed, by 1787, several states had begun the journey toward abolition. Nor did the Constitution creator mandate slavery or racial discrimination. These were creations of state law and they varied from state to state. The founders were forced to accept that situation to prevent America from fracturing into a multitude of nations constantly at war with each other, as in Europe. Or so. Also false is the common claim that slaveholders adopted the constitution of the public that ratified it. Some states the public voted only a small percentage owned slaves. Perhaps as many slaveholders oppose the Constitution as favored it in at least five states. The ratifying electorate included free African-Americans. Interesting how many of those who insist that all our history must be taught when promoting the non historical CRT? I write but refuse to do just that as they relentlessly smear our country? They perversely named American Constitution Society, whose president is former radical Wisconsin Democrat Senator Russ Feingold had a conference titled Founding Failures Reckoning with our Constitution’s Generational Impacts on Health and Well-Being. Which opened with this assertion, quote, Our Constitution’s establishment of a racial caste system left a legacy that could be seen generations later and its impact on the health and well-being of communities of color. Exploitative scientific studies, inferior medical care and discriminatory designed infrastructure and environmental policy have wreaked havoc on the bodies of black, indigenous and Latin Americans. And of course, the party directly responsible for slavery, segregation and racism in their perpetuation is the Democrat Party. Which the American Marxists are aligned with as members and advocates. For example, Bernie Sanders is a so-called Democratic socialist eddy caucuses with the Senate Democrats, and it’s run more than once for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, nearly winning it. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is part of a group called Democratic Socialists of America. As are several House Democrats, but she associates with the Democrat Party. Old time Marxist Frances Fox Piven. Still plays a major role in recruiting, training and promoting fellow Marxists who work within the Democrat Party. And it goes on. The Democrat Party has devolved into the political arm of the various American Marxist movements which they agree and identify with. Hence, they are not so repulsed by America’s past or more accurately, the Democrat Party’s past. As to forever condemn the Democrat Party and refuse any association with it. There are members of it. They ignored downplay its links to the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, lynchings, etc.. Instead, they target and blame the entire society and culture and country for the Democrat Party’s contemptible past. To underscore the point, the American Marxists are supportive of the Democrat Party’s modern day promotion of economic socialism, cultural Marxism and anti-Americanism generally. In truth, their contempt for the Constitution, its routine condemnation, not so much because of some of the framers biographies, but because the Constitution’s firewalls remain an impediment to or at least slow their revolutionary aims in the speed with which they seek to make them. Indeed, the birth of the Republican Party in 1854 occurred in response and opposition to efforts to expand slavery in the territories by the Democrats. Again, this proves the real intentions of the American Marxist that is, history is not so much what drives them. They would either be Republicans today or at least not associate with the Democrat Party. Their revolution against Americanism and for economic socialism and cultural Marxism is their real motivation. Still Marxist. Hypocrisy aside, there’s certainly no excuse for slavery. Quote, Everybody did it, which is mostly true, obviously does not make it right. But unfortunately, it’s a historical fact. But it is beyond debate that it was not unique to the early days of certain American colonies in the United States, for example. Cornell professor of African history Sandra Green explains that not only was slavery common throughout the world, but in Africa as well. She writes, Slavery in the United States ended in 1865, but in West Africa, it was not legally ended until 1875, and then it stretched on unofficially until almost World War One in Africa. Slavery continued, she writes, because many people weren’t aware that it had ended similar to what happened in Texas after the U.S. Civil War. He says while 11 to 12 million people are estimated to have been exported as slaves from West Africa during the years of the slave trade, millions more were retained in Africa. Quoting her, It’s not something that many West African countries talk about, says Green, who is black herself. It’s not exactly a proud moment because everyone now realizes that slavery is not acceptable. The broader point is that all cultures suffer from serious imperfections. I write. Some can acknowledge and effectively address them reforming along the way, and others do not or are less successful in doing so. The constant degrading of the American system, including the distortion of history, capitalism and modern day race relations, is a purposeful effort by the Democrat Party not to improve society but to ruin and eradicate it. Like Robert Neilsen, assistant professor at Hillsdale College, Dr. David Axelrod makes a good and succinct defense of the framers of the Constitution. He writes The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw The concept of race does not exist in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter, he writes, Are human beings classified according to race, skin color, ethnicity. Sex religion. Or any other of the Democrat Party’s favorite groupings. Our founding principles are actually colorblind, although he says our history, regrettably, has not been. The Constitution speaks of people, citizens, persons, other persons. A euphemism for slaves and Indians not taxed, in which case it is their tax exempt status and not their skin color that matters. The first reference to race and color occur in the 15th Amendment and its guarantee the right to vote ratified in 1870. As Rad points out that the infamous 3/5 clause we’ve talked about this, which more nonsense has been written about than any other clause, doesn’t declare that a black person is worth 60% of a white person. It says that for purposes of determining the number of representatives for each state in the House and direct taxes, the government would count only 3/5 of the slaves and not all of them. As the southern states who wanted to gain more seats had insisted. The southern states insisted that although blacks were property. But they should be counted as people for the purpose of assigning House seats. Because they wanted more power in Congress. It was the North that said no. No, you only get 3/5. The 60,000 or so free blacks in the North and the South were counted on par with whites. The Constitution defers to the states to determine who shall be eligible to vote. It is a little known fact of American history that black citizens were voting at perhaps as many as ten states at the time of their founding. The precise number is unclear, but only Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia explicitly restricted suffrage to whites. Now. On July five, 1852, Frederick Douglass. Who escaped slavery. Came to the north. Was not. Educated in any school was self-educated. An intellectual, a genius. A leader of the abolition movement. Who eventually befriended Lincoln, although initially he was skeptical. He became close friends with Lincoln. Who did more. To help free the slaves advance the cause of a colorblind society. And then any black person alive today who’s teaching at any college or university or is on any cable show. In July five, 1852, before the outbreak of the Civil War, Douglass gave a fierce speech condemning slavery and endorsing abolition. And in that speech, Douglas also strongly defended the Constitution of the United States and those who drafted it. Among other things, Douglas declared that those who replied to him by charging the framers of the Constitution for, quote, precisely what I have now denounced are in fact, this is him, not me. Guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is part of the Constitution framed by the illustrious fathers of this republic. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least so I believe fellow citizens. There is no matter in respect to which the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon and that of the pro-slavery character, the Constitution. And that instrument I hold there is neither warrant license nor sanction of the hateful thing that is slavery, but interpret it as it ought to be interpreted that Constitution is a glorious liberty document. Read its preamble. Consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway or is it in the temple? It is neither. Well, I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion. Let me ask if it be not somewhat singular, that if the Constitution were intended to be by its framers and adopters a slaveholding document, why neither slavery, slaveholding nor slave can anywhere be found in it? What would be thought of an instrument drawn up, legally drawn up for the purpose of entitling the City of Rochester to a track of land in which no mention of land was made? Now take the Constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand, it will be found to contain principles and purposes entirely hostile to the existence of slavery. They’re pulling more statues down in New York City. One of them is George Washington. Who was the president of the Constitutional Convention. And I point out if Douglas were alive today and made this statement on nearly any media platform or virtually any Democrat Party event, he’d be booed off the platform. In other words, he would be abused and smeared, as Clarence Thomas has today. Now, there’s much more in the book, but I wanted you to have a little tidbit of it, so at least you have a little general knowledge of how to push back. I’ll be right back.

Segment 4
And I definitely want to get into this hearing today more deeply because we have a rogue Department of Justice under a rogue attorney general. And he he did his rope a dope thing. I don’t believe he’s running that department any more than I believe Biden’s running the government. I believe it’s Lisa monaco, the deputy attorney general who truly is a marxist bomb thrower. And the other senior officials there who are of the Marxist mindset as well. There’s simply no question about the extent. And the depth of the corruption. And the police state abuses that the Department of Justice and their prosecutors. There’s simply no question about it. So we’re going to get into this hearing more deeply. I mean, I’ve got a ton to discuss, but I’m not going to get all of it. There’s always tomorrow and the day after that. Well, almost always. But the truth is, what Merrick Garland is doing to this country with the Department of Justice is doing. I’m seeing now that there’s a report out there, of course, leaked by the the government, by Jack the Ripper, Smith’s office, that they now have an individual, they say, who has turned on Trump. They had it at Mar a Lago who says he was told if asked about the boxes to play dumb and a moment of the boxes. So everybody is out there, including the legal analysts and including the biggest analyst of them all. Chris Christie. Can you imagine, Mr. MATTHEWS? The sperm whale of the candidates that this is open and shut evidence. Witness tampering. Ladies and gentlemen, just because the prosecution leaked something doesn’t make it true. Where the hell are we live anymore here? It’s just unbelievable. I’ll be right back.