March 14, 2022

March 14, 2022

Joe Biden / Getty Images / Nicholas Kamm

On Monday’s Mark Levin Show, there have always been American enemies, but we’ve never seen our enemies treated as well as they are treated by President Biden. Even before they were invaded, Ukraine requested harpoon missiles from the Biden Administration and these supplies never materialized. Biden is a liar who lacks the temperament that is necessary to effectively lead our nation. Then, irrespective of the invasion of Ukraine one interview that all of the mainstream media will air is their interview with former Attorney General Bill Barr to trash Trump. This is a shameless distraction from an individual that was once respected by this program. Barr now happily sits for interviews with hosts and networks that once decreed him as long as he’s trashing Trump. Later, isolationism in the face of growing totalitarianism isn’t something we can hide behind. Biden being an isolationist make him more dangerous than FDR. Now the U.S is allowing Putin to decide what weapons can or can’t be used on the battlefield. Putin is a war criminal who has no problem killing civilians and has no issue with escalating the situation, so why do we? Afterward, author Craig Shirley calls in to discuss his new book April 1945: The Hinge of History and how America emerged as a superpower after WWII. Shirley added that our previous stance as isolationists is very reminiscent of what is happening in Europe today.

THIS IS FROM:

1945
We Might Know Why Joe Biden Is So Afraid To Give MiG-29 Fighters To Ukraine

Washington Free Beacon
Iran Claims Responsibility for Missile Strike on US Consulate

Office of the Historian
American Isolationism in the 1930s

AP
Iran fires missiles into northern Iraq in retaliation attack

Jewish Insider
All Republican senators except Rand Paul express opposition to looming Iran deal

Right Scoop
“Have we learned NOTHING?” Netanyahu blasts Biden for CONTINUING Iran nuke talks after ROCKET ATTACK

NY Post
‘Toxic behavior’: Norah O’Donnell’s attitude under fire at ‘CBS Evening News’

Wall St Journal
China Pursues Afghanistan’s Mineral Wealth After U.S. Exit

Yahoo News
Ginni Thomas confirms she attended Jan. 6 ‘Stop the Steal’ rally but says she left before Capitol riot

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

Image used with permission of Getty Images / Nicholas Kamm

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

A couple of things and we’ll jump right in here. Something very odd is going on in the media here. We are in the middle of this war and it’s expanding this war that Russia started invading Ukraine now asking China for assistance. China denies it, just as China denied that it was the source of the China virus. It’s expanded to Iran. It’s expanded mostly because of this administration, quite frankly, we’ve always had enemies, there have always been evil leaders, genocidal maniacs. You can look throughout the history of mankind. The issue is how you deal with them. When you’re a free people, you don’t do what we’re doing out of this White House or this government. And you’ve also had shows preempted, if they’re not on target, talking about these various issues and so forth, including mine a couple of weeks ago, OK. And yet there’s one interview that is not preempted. There’s one interview that ubiquitous. On the Sunday shows, on the networks, on the cable shows. And that’s Bill Barr. Regardless of what’s going on in Ukraine, regardless of what’s going on in Iran. Regardless. Bill Barr’s interview. Is considered a priority. As he promotes his book. A 600 page book, Obama style book. When he writes about himself. And himself and himself. And his experience. From the CIA forward, pretty much. So why do they keep interviewing Bill Barr when we’re in the middle of a war here? And things are happening at breakneck speed. Why is that why is it that other shows are preempted? Other issues are preempted. And yet. And yet when it comes to Bill Barr. He gets marquee treatment. The is because, again, he’s trashing. Donald Trump, his former boss. And I have to say this about Bill Barr, somebody I used to respect greatly. What you’re doing is shameless. Absolutely shameless, what you’re doing is a distraction. A distraction from the focus the American people ought to have on the survivability of their country from threats foreign and domestic. And if you felt, as you say, you felt even prior to January six, even prior to that meeting you had with President Trump, where he admonished you about election fraud, you should have resigned a long time ago. And yet you didn’t. And then you write a book. A tell all book. Which is being promoted all over the place, you’re now appearing in front of hosts. And on television platforms, they used to decry you. They used to demand your impeachment. They used to claim that you were a corrupt fraud. And yet you you do so happily. You have certain ethical and moral obligations. Bill. When you decide to be attorney general of the United States, when you decide to be the top lawyer here, among other things, has to build a confidence with the president, you’re not the first and you’re not the last attorney general. You’ve created a terrible precedent here. U.N. John Bolton, but you have particular as the attorney general of the United States. In terms of election fraud and your. Your definitive statements, they’re really preposterous, particularly given the information that’s coming out now. Particularly the information that’s coming out now and particularly what took place in Pennsylvania, the unconstitutional activity there. Which a court in 2000 took up in Bush versus Gore, you may remember that. I was contacted by your former communications director. To promote you on my show, and of course, I said, is it a tell all book? Well, in part, well, I don’t do tell all books myself ever, because that doesn’t inform the public about a damn thing except your own point of view. I try to use the time I have to promote. Principles, faith, family. History, economics. And the survivability of this republic. And why would I waste my time interviewing you about your book? But particularly now when the nation should be focused. On the threats, domestic threats and foreign threats. You’re a distraction. You’re being quoted by the same media that you once had utter contempt for and had utter contempt for you, they’re just going to use you. And then spit you out and you even know that. But I guess you’re settling a score. I couldn’t be more disappointed. And I would discourage anybody in this audience from wasting their money and buying this book. It’s more of the same, pretty much. Now, I want to get back to the issues at hand. This issue of isolationism. Now, turns out. Not only did Joe Biden make the final decision on those MiGs, I surmised he did back in December, even before Putin invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainians had requested harpoon missiles because they assumed that if they’re attacked by the Russians, they’re also going to be attacked from Crimea in the Black Sea and they’ll work their way up the south. They’re getting slaughtered down there. Endless bombardments. Cities being wiped off the face of the earth, they had asked for a harpoon missiles. Which would at least give them a fighting chance to take out some of these Russian ships. In December before the Russians invaded. And Joe Biden denied them the harpoon missiles. They have no effective defense. Against these ships. No effective defense. And the cruise missiles that are being fired from them and the bomber. What you’re pounding into their buildings, pounding into their cities, all aimed at the citizens, not the military. Ten miles from Poland, they pounded a base there from which NATO was. Providing support to the Ukrainians, including including humanitarian support. Of course, our Defense Department announces that they don’t believe Russia intends that. As a threat to NATO, our Defense Department, the leadership, the brass, not the men and women in uniform, the leadership is a disgrace. They disgraced themselves after Afghanistan. Every one of them should have had their asses kicked out of the Pentagon at that point. Even now, a few weeks back, Milley said that he expected the fall in three days. Three days. It’s been three weeks. Has it fallen? It’s too bad he doesn’t have the ounce of courage that the president of Ukraine has I know is a combat vet, but that’s not his position now as a combat vet. He’s supposed to be a leader. He’s no leader. In his current position, he’s nothing more than a quisling. And speaking of quislings, is the man in the Oval Office. Who should never have been in the Oval Office, his wife knew that he was mentally unfit to be president. His party knew he was mentally unfit to be president. The media knew he was mentally unfit to be president. And I’m talking about before it became abundantly clear he was mentally unfit. As an old man and as a young man, he was mentally unfit. He doesn’t have the temperament to be president. He doesn’t have the judgment, he doesn’t have the intelligence. And he’s wrong all the time, and then he lies. He lies about the price of oil, blaming that on the oil companies who are begging to drill. He’s lying about inflation. As we said here, when there is spending like drunken Marxists, he’s going to create massive inflation and bring a recession. All predictable. When it comes down to it, economics is not that complicated, you print a lot more money, you get inflation. And now we have an. The Iranians just filed fired missiles. Ballistic missiles. At our consulate. What’s the response? Nothing yet. Maybe we’ll do something eventually, but the response should have been immediate and very hard hitting. A temporary. Hold on, negotiations over nuclear weapons, the insanity that surrounds us. By these phony leaders, these long in the tooth Washington acts. It’s really quite unbelievable. When we come back. The good and the bad and the ugly about isolationism in America in the 1930s. Because you are seeing the Putin wing of the Republican Party, you are seeing the Putin wing of the Democrat Party, the Putin wing of the media. And they are undermining this country. In my humble opinion, some of them are dressed up as conservatives. Well, now. Not to me. What they’re doing, what they’re selling, what they’re proselytizing has been tried before, and it’s led to World Wars. It’s led to World Wars, I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

I think it’s very important, folks, you have to understand in many, many ways I’m swimming against the tide and yet I’m swimming with the tide of history against the tide of the mob mentality. Years ago, the State Department put out an excellent piece, wasn’t political from their historical unit about isolationism in the 1930s in the lead up to World War Two. So I’ll begin this now and continue it after the break. During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War One contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated noninvolvement in European and Asian conflicts and not entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America. The leaders of the isolation room would draw upon history to bolster their position. In his farewell address, President George Washington and advocated non involvement in European wars and politics. That is a misreading of what he said, but will go along with it for now. For much of the 19th century, the expanse of the Atlantic Pacific Oceans had made it possible for the U.S. to enjoy a kind of free security, remain largely detached from old world conflicts during World War Two. However, President Woodrow Wilson made a case for U.S. intervention in the conflict and a U.S. interest in maintaining a peaceful world order. Nevertheless, the American experience in the war served to bolster the arguments of isolationists. They argue that marginal U.S. interests in that conflict did not justify the number of U.S. casualties in the wake of World War One. A report by Senator Gerald Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, fed this belief by claiming that American bankers and arms manufacturers had pushed for U.S. involvement for their own profit. We hear some of this today, by the way, along with neocons. Their 1934 publication of the Book of Merchants of Death by H.C. Engelbrecht and FC Hanigan, followed by the 1935 tracked War, is a racket by decorated Marine Corps General Smedley Butler. Both served to increase popular suspicions of wartime profiteering and influence public opinion in the direction of neutrality. And many Americans became determined not to be tricked by banks and and industries in the making. Such great sacrifices. Again, the reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the U.S. should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe and during the interwar period. The U.S. government repeatedly chose not entanglement over participation or intervention as the appropriate response to international questions. Immediately following the First World War, Congress rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations. Some members of Congress, by the way, I would have to for a different reason. Some members of Congress oppose membership in the league out of concern that it would draw the United States in the European conflicts, though ultimately the collective security clause sank the possibility of U.S. participation. Well, a lot of people were concerned that we would lose our unique Republicanism, which I feel today even with the United Nations. But I’m not saying you should agree with all this, but there’s more in here that’s important, very important. Like the bankers and the profiteers and so forth, the neocons, meaning the Jews and so forth. But I want to go on. So stick with me. There’s more to this. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 3

The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and subsequent push to gain control over larger expanses of northeast China in 1931, led President Herbert Hoover and his Secretary of State, Henry Stimson, to establish the Stimson doctrine, which stated that the United States would not recognize the territory gained by aggression and in violation of international agreements with the Stimson doctrine. The United States expressed concern over the aggressive action without committing itself to any direct involvement or intervention in other conflicts, including the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War also resulted in virtually no official commitment or action from the United States government. Upon taking office, President Franklin Roosevelt tended to see a necessity for the U.S. to participate more actively in international affairs. But its ability to apply his personal outlook to foreign policy was limited by the strength of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Congress. In 1933, Roosevelt proposed a congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts. The bill ran into strong opposition from the leading isolationists in Congress, including their writing progressive politicians such as Senators Hiram Johnson of California, William Borah of Idaho and Robert Foley of Wisconsin. He was a socialist. In 1935, controversy over US participation in the World Court elicited similar opposition as tensions rose in Europe over Nazi Germany’s aggressive maneuvers. Congress pushed through a series of neutrality acts which served to prevent American ships and citizens from becoming entangled in outside conflicts. Roosevelt lamented the restrictive nature of the act, but because he still required congressional support for his domestic New Deal policies, he reluctantly acquiesced. The isolationists were diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists. This is why I call the Putin wing of the Republican Party, the Putin wing of the Democrat Party and on and on. But because they face no consistent, organized opposition, their ideology triumphed. Time and again, Roosevelt appeared to accept the strength of the isolationist elements in Congress until 1937. In that year, as the situation in Europe continued to grow worse in the second Sino Japanese war began in Asia. The president gave a speech in which he linked international aggression to disease that other countries must work to quarantine. That time, however, Americans were still not prepared to risk their lives and livelihoods for peace abroad. Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly defuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the allies short of actual intervention. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December. Forty one served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the allies. And of course, by then, the stakes were incredibly high and the casualties would be incredibly high. This is not an argument for reckless interventionism, we have some politicians who preach that. This is not an argument for sending ground troops into every battle and every scenario. This is not an argument for that. This is not an argument to throw aside prudence and rationality and reason. That’s not an argument that I’m making, but isolationism. In the face of growing totalitarianism. That knows few bounds. It’s not something that you can hide from. And look how fast events are moving now, ladies and gentlemen. Under a week. Deficient president and administration, as much as I despise Franklin Roosevelt, he was not that. Joe Biden is so in some ways, we’re in a worse position today than the United States was. Eighty, eighty five years ago. We have Joe Biden with Obama’s staff. That’s a frightening combination of incompetence and radical left ideology. And what we also have is, I would argue, leadership at the Pentagon, that is among the weakest we’ve seen. Since Lincoln was firing general after general during the Civil War, obviously there was no so-called Pentagon back then but the Department of War. So we’re not exactly in the strongest position. And this is a huge problem. We have among us also propagandists. Who told us just because Putin was. Building an invasion force right in front of our eyes, you don’t even need satellites to see it was so big. Almost 200,000 troops, hundreds of tanks and personnel carriers. The movement of aircraft. That that doesn’t mean he’s going to invade Ukraine. No, we had to deal with that on this program, Mr. Producer. How preposterous that was. Well, they were wrong, weren’t they? Failure, diplomacy may be so, but Putin was not going to be denied because of diplomacy anyway, not after he saw what happened in Afghanistan. Not after he saw the capitulations to him, even before one group was put on the border. Whether it’s gas pipeline or anything else. Not after he saw this administration bending over backwards to appease the Islamic Nazi regime in Tehran. Not after they heard that M.E. had called his counterpart in communist China. To warn them, don’t worry, don’t worry, we’re not going to attack you, undermining our own commander in chief, they saw it all. Afghanistan and all the rest, they took a measure of Biden and his team and they said, now’s the time. They looked at Trump and his team and they said we better not. Those are facts, Bilborough Those are facts. John Bolton. Those are facts, the American media. And now we have a man, the McSpadden himself, that never made any sense. First we were in, then we were out, then we were in. Then we’re out again. They blamed it on the polls, the polls. The polls. Who’ve taken out almost two million Ukrainians who are right on the border where a strike took place today with Russian missiles. Ten miles from their border. Poles know exactly what’s going on, the Balkan states know, they all know what’s going on, these eastern European countries are allies. They’ve been our strongest allies since they were freed under the collapse of the Soviet Union under Reagan. As a result of Reagan’s policies. And as I discussed. On Sunday, Sean Fox and I’ve discussed here and I discuss all the time on live in TV. The fact of the matter is we’ve allowed Putin to decide what the battlefield will look like. We have allowed Putin to decide what weapons can and cannot be used. By his opponents. And that’s what he’s doing. Moreover, China. China is going to get involved potentially. Potentially. China will get involved. And already Syria. 16000. 16000 Syrian troops are headed to the Ukraine. Putin doesn’t worry about escalation. Putin doesn’t worry about escalation or he’s trying to assassinate the president of Ukraine, where he’s targeting citizens who are pregnant, woman and her baby were killed today. Where? Where thousands of Ukrainians have lost their lives, 10 percent of the population now is escaping its own country with more trying to get out. This is a big country of over 40 million people. It’s got more people than the state of California. And we wring our hands. Isn’t this awful? Somebody has to do something. Well, we need to do something to save for the four billionth time I don’t mean send troops into Ukraine. Nobody’s proposing that. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t mean U.S. air power over Ukraine for a no fly zone. So why do people keep arguing this point? I know it’s been raised over and over, but but the MiGs, those were critical. Why are they stuck there, 40 mile convoy of tanks and so where they could have been obliterated if the Ukrainians had more jet fighters, they could have been strafed. And it could have made a difference, and why is it, as I keep saying, this is important, it’s important when you listen to the commentators, this is very important. Why is it? Yet Ukraine is not allowed to win. Why is it? That Ukraine is not even allowed to hold the Russians to a stalemate. Why is it that they have to be under armed? In other words, why is it that those people there have to be brutalized and that country has to lose? We hear the generals come on TV. Putin isn’t making the progress he hoped. Putin’s military doesn’t seem well coordinated, don’t seem to be communicating well with each other, it doesn’t take a lot of coordination to encircle a city and unload your artillery. Which is one of the things they’re doing, of course, because he wants to take down the country from the bottom up in the middle out, that doesn’t take a lot of military skill. That’s just heavy duty. Brutality and so Putin is a war criminal. There’s no question about it, he’s a war criminal. The things they are doing, they’re. Are unacceptable, they’re unbelievable. And so it said that he should be taken out, not just by Lindsey Graham, we said that here behind the microphone, too, and then all of a sudden that’s provocative. So it’s a war criminal. He’s committing acts of genocide and atrocities. The people, they’re being brutalized, he sends in militia from Africa, the Viognier group, to try and assassinate the president of that country, sends in Chechnyans to try and assassinate the president of that country, 16,000 Syrian troops. He’s asking China for support. And, you know, China will help them, but don’t let it escalate because he’s got nuclear weapons and he’s mentioned that he has nuclear weapons. Well, they’ve had nuclear weapons for half a century. But we have them to. And he’s not going to use nuclear weapons because he’s a coward, he’s doing this because he wants power. He’s doing this because he wants to expand Russia. He thinks he starlin he thinks he Catherine the Great. That’s what he thinks he is. How do we know? Because he said so, not using the names in particular, but he talks about Russian lands that these are not separate country Russian lands. Even the old Soviet Union understood they weren’t Russian lands. They captured them after World War Two. Putin’s looking pre world war to. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4

Well, the axis of evil. The axis of evil is in existence. It’s not it’s not a myth, as I pointed out now for several weeks, it’s Moscow, Beijing and Tehran. China is warning. That should it join Russia, but of course, it won’t. That’s just American propaganda. That these countries that might apply economic sanctions to China better worry, and by the way, they better stay really clear if we decide to invade Taiwan. They said so much in the last 24 hours. Now, Russia’s economy is the size of Texas. China’s economy represents 15 to 20 percent of the world economy. You wouldn’t know that if you listen to the American media or the Putin wing. The Republican Party and the others, and maybe I shouldn’t call it the puton wing, maybe I should call it the axis of evil wing. For months, people have been trying to buy for Kate the relationship between Russia and China and Russia and China in Iran, but that’s their. They schemed together, they collude together. That is what they are doing. Why do you think Putin has asked China for help? Why do you think? And we cannot let this spill. Beyond Ukraine. Which is why the Ukrainians want to fight the Russians, they want to survive, they want to they want to keep what’s theirs, they want their liberty, the easiest thing that we could have done, the least contentious thing we could have done. The least escalatory, that’s right, escalatory thing we could have done was to give them the damn makes. And throw in maybe a few F-16 while we’re at it. But definitely the makes. What do you think will happen or what happen if Putin was bogged down or lost in Ukraine? All you hear is his back will be up against the wall, you know, he wrote in his own memoir about rats, he watched rats as a kid. He watched rats. Did you read this? He watched rats as a kid. And he saw one big one. And he had a stick once. And they were in these, you know, these filthy apartment complexes where they grew up with several families. And he went after this big rat with a stick and eventually the rats that was against the wall and it turned on him. And charged him and Putin said he always remembered that. Really? What would happen to Putin is somebody would remove Putin. That’s what would happen here, and they have that history in Russia, too, as Khrushchev. Well, I guess we can. I’ll be right back.