On Wednesday’s Mark Levin Show, Kyle Rittenhouse should have never been charged with murder of any kind. When charging someone with murder a prosecutor should move slowly and carefully; Rittenhouse was charged with homicide within 36-48 hours. This was clearly self-defense but the media wants to villainize him. If Rittenhouse would not have defended himself while being attacked he might be dead. The prosecution’s actions bordered on contempt and earned a scolding from the judge. Prosecutors ridiculed Rittenhouse for exercising his fifth amendment right immediately following his arrest and trying to taint the jury with unrelated comments that the judge had precluded from the case. Then, there is a problem with justice in America and just as we saw it with Donald Trump, we’re seeing it with Kyle Rittenhouse. The Congressional committee entirely selected by Nancy Pelosi and their lawyers and judges saying that President Biden is best equipped to assert executive privilege over documents from the Trump Administration is a political consideration that does not follow the Constitution. One could argue that Trump is the likely 2024 front-runner and that this judicial maneuver is one more way to try and thwart his candidacy. Later, the radical Marxist infrastructure bill is code for a fundamental transformation of our economy focused on the degrowth movement disguised as the Green New Deal. A movement that has become anti-car would move America toward economic dislocation. These anti-capitalist theories based on abstractions would be disastrous to society. Meanwhile, Biden says he fixed the supply chain months ago and he did, but he fixed them for the drug cartels. Afterward, Aaron Rodgers is not invading the border, violating the separation of powers, or spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken Marxist, so the media needs to lay off. Perhaps the media should look at all the damage being caused by the racialized Marxist teachings in our classrooms. Fauci, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer lie for a living and the media does nothing about it.
THIS IS FROM:
Reuters
Trump cannot block congressional probe of attack on U.S. Capitol, judge rules
Americans For Tax Reform
50-State List of Top Tax Rates Under Democrat Bill
Wisconsin Right Now
These 8 Bombshell Moments Torpedoed the State’s Rittenhouse Case
Washington Free Beacon
FTC Appointee Was Pushed Out of Google for Political Activism
Washington Free Beacon
Biden Admin Amassing Millions of Records on US Gun Owners Amid New Crackdown on Firearms
The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.
Image used with permission of Getty Images
Rough transcript of Hour 1
Hour 1 Segment 1
I am operating tonight without a computer course and iPhones a computer. But that’s it. My laptop has gone belly up. It’s no longer a laptop. It’s a belly up top. And we’ll see what we can do with this overnight and tomorrow, so I’m working with an iPhone of my own cranium, which is good enough for me. What did Rush used to say? Half my brain tied behind my back? Well, that’s that’s where we’re coming from right now. No question about it. I spent a good part of the day watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. And I want to make several conclusions here. Number one, this young man should never have been charged with murder of any kind of any kind. Number two, this young man should never have been charged with anything. I watched this assistant D.A. who wants to become the elected D.A., and he’s a disgrace. These charges were leveled against Rittenhouse within 36 or 48 hours of the events. But you’re going to charge somebody with murder. You need to have a little bit more time to go through the facts, particularly in this case, where even if you didn’t have all the facts, you knew there was the potential for a reasonable self-defense argument. And that’s why you take your time, but this is what the mob has done in this country. People are being charged and they’re being charged quickly when they shouldn’t be charged quickly and in some cases shouldn’t be charged at all. Kyle Rittenhouse. Shot three people. The first two died and the second had his right bicep. Shot and really turned into dust. In each case, they either assaulted him or are going to assault him. And in the latter case, he had every reason to believe if he didn’t shoot, he would be shot. No question about it. And it is amazing to me how the media have turned this on its head, as if this young man is guilty, as if he had to be shot in the head. As if he had to be hit again in the head with a skateboard. As if he had a way to be brutally assaulted. In order to defend himself, but that’s not the law, it’s not the law in Wisconsin, it’s not the law anywhere. Not the law anywhere. Now, the prosecution committed several unethical acts for which some judges would have held this prosecutor, Thomas Fingar, in contempt, including starting down the road with the jury. That Rittenhouse, after his arrest, after being charged, chose to be silent and not talk about the case, giving the implication that he must be guilty. And of course, everybody knows you have the right to be silent. And the fact that you’re quiet after you’re charged is what any lawyer would advise you so that the court was furious and should have been. It was outrageous. And on the second occasion, the is trying to bring in really information that’s not determinative of anything while you had the gun illegally, you’re running around like you’re a superhero, putting out fires with an extinguisher. You said earlier that if you had your rifle, you would have shot shoplifters. That has nothing to do with what took place in those three shootings. Nothing. And you might say, well, it shows a pattern, a mentality. It turns a pattern of nothing. If, in fact, it actually showed a pattern, if it was illustrative of a pattern, that’s one thing. But it didn’t because under the circumstances of the shootings, they weren’t premeditated. His decisions were made within nanoseconds and has nothing to do with what he was saying to somebody else before. Period. I think the defense has done an outstanding job on the last case, the individual who lived, who had his bicep shot, as you know, yesterday, he wound up confirming that when his hands were down, Rittenhouse did not shoot him. But when he started lunging at him with his gun in his hand aimed at Rittenhouse, his body, his head, that’s when Rittenhouse shot. We have a serious problem with justice in this country, ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to give you another case, a case that involves the president of the United States, Donald Trump, and many people who surround him with a federal district judge in the District of Columbia, like too many, quite frankly, who was appointed by Obama. This judge was appointed by Obama. And her name is Judge. Hold on, I’m on my iPhone here, Tanya Shatkin, and she has the typical left wing credentials. And the core of her ruling was, well, Donald Trump is not president anymore, and it’s really not his responsibility to protect the executive branch from the legislative branch. That’s the responsibility of the sitting president of the United States and the sitting president of the United States has decided not not to argue executive privilege. Quite the contrary. He decided that whatever documents the Congress wants in this case, Nancy Pelosi, select committee of Politburo members, they can have. And so here she said, you have the fusion of the executive branch and the legislative branch. And who is Donald Trump, the next president to intervene because he doesn’t want certain documents turned over? That’s one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard. First of all, just so you know, there is no definitive Supreme Court decision broad enough to to use as precedent in this case. But I want to make a point to you. If Congress has the power to subpoena the presidential documents of a former president, they want texts and emails and documents at the National Archives and so forth and so on, particularly a committee like this where the Democrat speaker of the House decided on who the Republican members were and rejected every single proposal by Kevin McCarthy, the Republican leader. She decided who every member of this select committee would be, including the reprobates and never Trump. But that aside. Clearly. Clearly, you’re protecting the executive branch when an ex-president asserts that he has the power, the authority to assert privilege over certain of the pieces of information being demanded by the House Democrats. And these two reprobates. Because that information doesn’t suddenly become available to Congress because we’re talking about an ex-president, it doesn’t suddenly become Congress’s right to collect whatever they want, how much they want from an ex-president of the United States by going into the archives and going after his official documents and electronic communications now that he’s out of office. And this argument that Joe Biden is best positioned to determine how to protect the executive branch is preposterous. It’s his party that’s leading the charge in the house, moreover, not that it will happen. But the fact is, at least now Donald Trump is a potential competitor for him in the next election. I’m not arguing that Biden will run, but I’m making the point that what the judge said isn’t is idiotic. So these political considerations are what the judge took into any consideration and not the Constitution and separation of powers. Joe Biden isn’t going to assert executive privilege over these documents during the Trump presidency because he hates Trump. He’s not going to assert executive privilege over the documents, even if it means protecting the executive branch because Trump’s and the other party in his party wants the documents. He’s not going to assert executive privilege in this case because at least he might be thinking he’ll be running against Trump. And so whatever dirt come out, whatever this this Stalinist committee can pull together and use against Trump and his administration, all the better. That is what’s going on. This is the idea of justice. This would be the same president, Donald Trump. Who was the victim of the same Democrat Party? The same Obama Biden administration, the Hillary Clinton campaign in this Russia collusion farce, it is the greatest fraud ever committed against the American people politically ever. And the Democrat Party joined forces. The Democrat Party joined forces with the FBI, intelligence agencies and even the Russians. To try and destroy candidate Trump, President elect Trump and President Trump, it is my contention that Obama, Biden, the attorney general of the United States back then, Comey, we know Brennan and Clapper no knew that Hillary Clinton and her campaign were pushing for this Russia collusion issue. They know. How do we know? Because last October make that October 2020. Radcliffe, the then director of national intelligence, declassified and released documents that demonstrated that demonstrated so you had the Obama administration, Obama, Biden, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the FBI, the intel agencies, and, of course, our corrupt, corrupt media colluding. Conspiring to do what? To destroy candidate Trump and then to destroy Trump. And they never they never stopped. They were unrelenting. We had a criminal investigation triggered as a result of what Hillary Clinton and the Democrats did. And not a single syllable in this still dossier was factual there, a single source was their. Russian expat, an analyst at the left wing pro Clinton Brookings Institute. That was the source. Everything else was a lie, and yet comi knowing it was a lie. That’s my contention goes meets with Trump before he’s sworn in, meets with Trump and basically shows him what he has, effectively blackmailing him, threatening him. And you wonder why Trump was furious. You wonder why he tweeted. You wonder why he fought back. There’s no reason to wonder anymore. So when you hear people like Chris Christie at the Reagan Library or the Republican Jewish Coalition or other places trashing Trump. Or the likes of some backbencher, reprobate Republican Abboushi, a Cheney or any of the others. Now you know where their heads are, by the way, isn’t it amazing that you don’t hear much from these never trumpets now that the entire Russia collusion, farce and fraud is collapsing? You notice you don’t hear them apologize and you don’t hear them saying anything. Same with the American media, the liars, the propagandists. And they’re not returning the Pulitzer Prizes either, I notice. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 2
Justice Rehnquist, January six committee, they just issued a whole bunch of more subpoenas and they’re going after a lot of little people, too, that’s because of this Obama judge in Washington, D.C., that basically said go for whatever you want. And, of course, you have the the mentally unhinged Joe Biden that says, yeah, go after Trump, do whatever you need to do. There’s not a single person on this committee, not one who respects separation of powers, not one who actually cares about any form of due process. They’re throwing the broadest net possible, taking in secretaries and press secretaries and everybody else. We want to know we want to know that Trump we want to know if you already know what their conclusion is. That’s why they’re Stalinist. You already know what their conclusion is. Their conclusion is that Trump incited an insurrection. Trump incited an insurrection no, Bill Clinton incited an erection, Trump incited it insurrection, no, I don’t think so, folks. The insurrection, well, it’s taking place now.
Hour 1 Segment 3
The prosecution in the Rittenhouse case. My theory is the reason why they defied this judge in two instances. Is they wanted a mistrial because they’re losing so badly because their key witness was a disaster and Kyle Rittenhouse, who took the stand in his own defense, was absolutely outstanding. He was calm, cool, collected. He answered the questions, but he didn’t fall for any of the traps. Actually, quite an intelligent young man, quite an intelligent young man. As I look through the horizon of issues out there, look at the different websites and so forth, this is what talk show host of. I’ve decided that what I’m about to talk about is a bigger priority. It’s a bigger priority than repetition on radio and TV, that’s for sure. Some of the biggest amounts of money that were in this recent so-called infrastructure bill, bipartisan, don’t you know? And and the and the and the sort of Stalinist playing the Democrats want to pass involves climate change and the green New Deal, because these will have a dire effect on the capitalist system. And as Biden himself said, a fundamental transition in our economy. I want to take a little bit of time on this, if we may. And we may. The so-called environmental movement of the 1970s, 143 American Marxism has devolved into another avenue to attack American constitutional Republicanism and, of course, capitalism. From clean air and clean water to global cooling, warming and climate change, the goal of many of the leading intellectuals behind this effort has been the introduction of Marxist thinking and objectives through the guise of environmentalism. As the Green New Deal. Which promotes economic regression, radical egalitarianism and autocratic rule. But the movement has expanded well beyond that to include virtually every programmatic and agenda driven goal of the American Marxism movement, which has been embraced to one degree or another by the Democratic Party, among others. The environmental movement has developed numerous areas of overlap with other Marxist centric ideologies and movements, such as critical race theory via environmental justice, which declares the existence of environmental racism targeting minority communities. Some of the movement’s masterminds insist that Marxism does not go far enough in establishing their degrowth utopianism as they imagine life in a perpetual state of nature where productivity growth and material acquisition are toxic to the human spirit. And of course, in the end, it all involves a form of repression and autocracy. Now, at the core of this mind numbing, amalgamated, Marxist centric or Marxist like crusade is the degrowth movement. Mankind consumes and produces too much, and the blame resides with capitalism in America again. There are a variety of movements within movements targeting one or another approach, but there are basic tenants. And the best way to explain this is to expose what certain of its leading advocates have to say in their essay. What is degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement leading to Grothus Frederico Demario, Francois Schnieder, Fielke Sokolova and Joan Martin Allier write that and I quote Degrowth was launched in the beginning of the twenty first century excuse me. As a project, a voluntary societal shrinking of production and consumption aimed at social and ecological sustainability, I want you to think about this as you consider the shutting down of pipelines, the upending of what was an energy independent nation, our country, and these various attacks on growth in this country, because this is what it is. It’s a degrowth movement. It quickly became a slogan against economic growth and developed into a social movement. Now, these are these four authors are advocates for this, by the way, unlike sustainable development. Which is a concept based on false consensus, degrowth does not aspire to be adopted at a as a common goal by the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development or the European Commission. The idea of socially sustainable degrowth are simply degrowth, they write, was born as a proposal for radical change. The contemporary context of neo liberal capitalism appears as a post political condition, meaning a political formation that forecloses the political and prevents the politicization of particular demands. Within this context, they write, degrowth is an attempt to re politicize the debate on much needed socio ecological transformation, affirming dissidence with the current world representations in search for alternative ones. In other words, reject what is the status quo. Degrowth challenges the ideas of green growth or green economy. And the associated belief in economic growth is a desirable path and political agendas. Now, as a footnote. Ladies and gentlemen, even Marx wanted economic growth. Even Karl Marx wanted economic growth. But he was focused on labor and distribution. But degrowth is even more radical, but it is part of this Marxist movement, degrowth is not just an economic concept. They write it as a frame constituted by a large array of concerns and goals, strategies and actions. As a result, degrowth has now become a confluence point where streams of critical ideas and political action converge. This is what is in this radical Marxist package that the Democrat Party wants to pass. And then I point out, hence, the goal is to reverse the massive economic progress resulting from, among other things, the industrial revolution, which created a huge, vibrant middle class and infinite technological, scientific and medical advances that have overwhelmingly improved the human condition. Now this quartet of authors continues, and these are professors. degrowth has evolved into an interpretive frame for a social movement understood as the mechanism through which actors engage in a collective action. For instance, antique car and anti advertising activists, cyclists and pedestrian rights campaigners, partisans of organic agriculture, critics of urban sprawl and promoters of solar energy and local currencies have started seeing degrowth as an appropriate common representative frame for their worldview. And they have. Antique car. Think about what’s going on in our country today. Anti car, pedestrian rights, urban sprawl, solar energy, so forth. Now, the social movement envisioned by these utopians would drag America into a regressive, impoverished society with widespread economic and social dislocation. That is a pre industrialized environment where progress comes to an end. And for that is the goal antique car, which is anytime mobility A.I. advertising, which is Hatti speech, anti modern agriculture, which is anti abundant food, anti fossil fuel, which is anti abundant energy cetera. And I write, one wonders, what have scientific and medical advances, how would they be developed and broadly applied for the benefit of the general population like Marxism? Generally, this movement is based on theories and abstractions. Then when forcibly applied to the real world, particularly in a widely successful and advanced society like ours, have a result. It is disastrous for the population and you’re starting to see it now. The experience shows that for those among them who are famous, wealthy and or powerful, they will continue to luxuriate in a lifestyle created by capitalism. Am I boring everyone, Mr but as they go on and I’m telling you these things because this is what’s taking place today in the United States of America, it’s not about climate change. It’s not about managing growth. It is anti growth, degrowth anticapitalism. They go on. Degrowth is also an interpretive frame. Diagnoses that disparate social phenomenon such as the social and environmental crises are related to economic growth. Gay growth actors are thus signa. Agents engaged in the production of alternative and contentious meaning’s, which differ from the ones defended by the mainstream, in other words, it’s anticapitalism. The prognosis usually characterized by a strong utopian dimension, man, I wrote that book seeks solutions and hypotheses and new social patterns, Marxism, that’s what it seeks, Marxism beyond practical goals. This process opens new spaces and prospects for actions. Strategies associated with the prognosis tend to be multiple in terms of approaches. These can be alternative buildings, opposition research, and in relation to capitalism, they can be anticapitalist. Post capoulas and despite capitalism. So there you have it, as I write for many of the so-called environmental intellectuals behind this amorphous yet widespread movement, the goal is to spawn myriad sub movements aimed at taking down the capitalist system. A little bit more surgey, Latouche. A French emeritus professor of economics at the University of Paris said is among the leading degrowth in the 1970s. He spent several years in South Africa where he conducted extensive research on traditional Marxism, where he formed his own ideology based on Progress’s and development is among the pioneers of the degrowth theory. He emphasizes a utopian type doctrine in which even Marxism fails to make the grade. Latouche writes that because it cannot integrate ecological constraints, the Marxist critique of modernity and modernity remains terribly ambiguous. Ultimately, he says, growth in terms of the production jobs, consumption, trade is credited with every year almost every virtue, even though when seen in terms of accumulation of capital, it is held responsible for every skorgen. He growth is fundamentally anticapitalist. He goes on not so much because it denounces the contradictions in ecological and social limitations of capitalism as because it challenges its spirit. A generalized capitalism cannot but destroy the planet in the same way that it is destroying society and anything else that is collective moreso than ever before, he says. Development is sacrificing populations and their concrete local well-being on the altar of an abstract to terrorized well-being, the sacrifices made to honor a mythical and disembodied people. And it works, of course, to the advantage of the developers. Growth is now a profitable business only if it costs are born by nature future generations, consumers, health, wage earners, working conditions and above all, the countries of the South. Actually, that’s the way I view big government. That is why we have to abandon the idea of growth. All modern regimes have been productive ests republics, dictatorships, authoritarian authoritarian systems, no matter whether their governments were of the right or the left, no matter whether they were liberal socialist populists, social liberal, social democratic, centrist, radical or communist, they all consumed that economic growth was the unquestionable cornerstone of their systems. That change of direction that is needed is not one that can be resolved merely by an election that brings in a new government or votes in a new majority. What is needed is much more radical. A cultural revolution, nothing more and nothing less that re-establishes politics on a new basis. The degrowth project is therefore a utopia, or, in other words, a source of hope and dreams. And it goes on and on and on. What I’ve been saying from day one, this is why the Stalinists within the American Marxist movement, that is the Democrat Party on the Hill, they don’t care about elections. They don’t really care if they lose, if they can have one or two or four good years to institute and enshrine forever their ideology. That’s a victory. That’s a huge victory. So they don’t care what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, in New York or Colorado or Texas or Pennsylvania or Kansas, doesn’t matter to them. This is a degrowth movement, and as a result, what do you think these degrowth movements result in big growth for centralized government in the police state, redistribution of taxes, redistribution of wealth redistribution through regulation, through law, through edict. That is what’s taking place here, ladies and gentlemen, that’s what’s in this bill, that’s what’s in this bill, a disaster. I’ll be right back.
Hour 1 Segment 4
American Marxism has been on the New York Times bestseller list for four months, straight was number one for 10 weeks straight. It fell off the list today, Mr. Producer, despite the fact that we sold more last week than for other authors who are on the top 15 list is just a matter of time. Ladies and gentlemen, you know how The New York Times conducts itself. They could not stand the fact that this book was on their list for 16 weeks. And so they figured this the. To try and create the impression that so many other books sold more than American Marxism, it’s a lie. They say they have a special system in which they make determinations. You know, they give heavier weight to independent bookstores and so forth. I don’t buy any of that crap, none of it whatsoever. They treat it like it’s some kind of nuclear secret. We should have been on the list this week, this past week. We’re not I don’t care anymore. The fact is the message is out there and thousands and thousands of you are still purchasing the book every week. I’ll be right.