September 30th, 2022

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, there’s a pattern at the Justice Department under President Biden of unequal application of the law, this time with the FBI harassing pro-life groups. The left does not believe in freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, your second amendment rights, and in many cases they do not believe in due process rights or probable cause. Also, every major civil rights bill post civil war was supported by Republicans, and either flat out opposed by all or most of the Democrats. How is it possible for someone like Robert Byrd, who filibustered the Civil Rights act for 14 hours, to be a leader in the Democrat party? People like Maya Wiley and Eric Holder are Democrats because they love big radical socialist government, not because of the party’s history. Next, Biden is destroying America from within while handing Iran the keys to a nuclear weapon, but he did not sabotage the Nordstream pipeline. Russia on the other hand has every reason to do it. Putin is not a victim; he is a monster in every respect. Later, Ainsley Earhardt joins Mark to talk about her new book “I’m So Glad You Were Born: Celebrating Who You Are.”

Photo by: Joe Sohm/Visions of America

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

Rough transcript of Hour 1

Hour 1 Segment 1

While there are American citizens, there are people in this country who are treated as second class citizens. And I want to talk about some of them, you know, about that case that we discussed and have discussed at some length about Mr. Houk. A pro-life activist and he how he was abused by the American Stassi. By the FBI at his home. Well, here we have another case, so this is now an organized pattern by the Department of Justice. From the daily signal, never had FBI agents shown up on the sidewalk before, pro-life group claims FBI questioned volunteer by Planned Parenthood. A pro-life sidewalk counseling group warned members Tuesday that President Joe Biden’s Justice Department is determined to intimidate pro-life organizations, claiming that two FBI agents showed up. The question, a pro-life activist praying outside Planned Parenthood, St. Paul, Vandalia Health Center. In an email obtained by the Daily Signal, Pro-life Action Ministries, executive director Brian Gibson put members on high alert about a new effort by the Biden Justice Department to intimidate us all from the important work we do to save lives, unquote. Gibson reference the episode Friday arrested Mark Halk, a Catholic father and pro-life activist accused of pushing an abortion clinic volunteer in Pennsylvania, though a spokesperson for the family told the daily signal that he was defending his son from a man was verbally abusing his son. We’ve had a couple recent incidents locally in which a sidewalk counselor or prayer supporter had a physical altercation on the sidewalk, Gibson told members in the Tuesday email. So this is another case. Two FBI agents came out to the sidewalk outside Planned Parenthood in St. Paul today to talk to the prayer supporter involved in one of these incidents in a Wednesday phone interview with The Daily Signal. Gibson shared that on May 16, a female Planned Parenthood client allegedly began cutting up a pro-life sign outside the clinic with a box cutter, and activists urged her to stop, he said, and she went back into the clinic. When she came back out probably an hour later, there was a man who comes and prays every day kneeling down, and he was kneeling down near the sign, praying, the pro-life leader explained. And the woman went back after this sign to finish what she started with a box cutter. The activist pushed her away, Gibson said. In the abortion clinic, escort fell down. He got charged with assault in state court and many in Minnesota, Gibson continued. All charges were dismissed because they didn’t have a case. I mean, she was a woman wielding a weapon and he’s trying to prevent her from doing physical harm. And that’s the individual the two FBI agents wanted to speak to yesterday, came on our sidewalks. And I’ve been doing this for more than 40 years, I’ve never had FBI agents show up on the sidewalk before. So the provocateurs in each one of these cases are individuals volunteering for or working for or promoting abortion. The daily signal was not able to independently confirm the assault charges, other charges that were dropped, Gibson told the Daily Signal he learned about the incident from another activists, either Planned Parenthood nor the St. Paul Police Department immediately responded to requests for comment. They didn’t talk to me, Gibson said, or the other sidewalk counselor excuse me, this is Maloney, who is another pro-life activist. After the agents left, the prayer supporter told her friend that they were FBI. She also said she did not witness the boxcutter incident. But now you can see this is taking place, there’s a pattern here, Catholic vote president Brian Burch told the Daily Signal this week. The Justice Department has made clear that partisan political ideology is now driving its decision making that equal justice under the law. Burch noted his organization has repeatedly called on both the Justice Department and the FBI to protect religious institutions and pro-life groups from pro-abortion domestic terrorism is more than 150 attacks on Catholic churches and pro-life organizations. Justice may. Have gone unanswered. Have gone unanswered. There you have it. Now I want you to listen to another one. This should send chills down your spine. By Kenneth Marcus. If it wasn’t so frightening, one might be able to recognize the irony in the sight of campus progressives trying so hard to signal progressive virtue that they fall victim to a deeper moral shame. What’s he talking about? Nine different law student groups at the University of California Berkeley School of Law. He says my own alma mater. Have begun this academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism, Zionism is simply the support for the Jewish state of Israel. These are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include women of Berkeley law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, law students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus Berkeley Laws. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as with 90 percent of his Jewish students. That is now a century since Jewish free zones first spread the San Francisco Bay Area with signs like no dogs, no Jews. Nevertheless, this move seems frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night. Berkeley law students are not the first to exclude Zionists. At the State University of New York at New Paltz, activists drove to sexual assault victims out of a survivor group for being Zionists again, Zionists or people who believe in the Jewish state of Israel at the University of Southern California. They drove Jewish student government vice president Rose Rich out of office, threatening to, quote, impeach her Zionist ass, unquote. At Tufts, they tried to oust Student Judiciary Committee member Max Price from the Student Government Judiciary Committee because of his support for Israel. These exclusions reflect the changing face of campus anti-Semitism. The highest profile incidents are no longer just toxic speech, which poisons the campus environment, now 80 Zionist groups target Jewish Americans directly. Anti Zionism is flatly anti-Semitic, using, quote unquote, Zionist as a euphemism for Jew is nothing more than a confidence trick. Like other forms of Judaea phobia, it is an ideology of hate, treating Israel as the collective Jew and smearing the Jewish state with defamation similar to those used for centuries to vilify individual Jews. Some commentators defend this exclusion on speech grounds, arguing that groups also have a right to be selective. Dean Romanski explains the free speech arguments run in the other direction. And let me explain, as a constitutionalist, University of California, Berkeley law school is part of the state. It receives federal funding, it receives state funding. It’s got state actor slapped all over. This is a quintessential First Amendment issue, not for the antisemite, but for the Jewish students attending the school or the Jewish speakers that they want to invite to the school or the gentiles. They want to write to the school who support the state of Israel. The students have no right. It’s not free speech. And it might violate Title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are Supreme Court decisions and so forth and so on, and notice their goal here isn’t to expand speech, it’s to prevent speech if you’re a Jewish activist or if you support Judaism. You’ve got law students for justice in Palestine who are often behind a lot of these movements, and I just wanted to point that out. So there you have pro lifers who are under attack and Jews who are under attack. Does this concern you? Smells like the 1930s to me, knowing it’s not an overstatement, I notice say come under attack when I point something like this out. Now, the hard left can call everybody Hitler. They don’t even know what Hitler did, but they do it anyway. I don’t go around calling everybody Hitler. But when I smell, see and taste what’s going on, particularly in these universities and colleges. Particularly when New York City doesn’t protect certain members of its population in Brooklyn. The Orthodox Jews, particularly when the FBI is going after pro-life individuals. And refusing to go after pro-abortion individuals who are doing grave damage to Catholic churches, other churches and pro-life facilities. Yeah, tell me about it. When you have. A corrupt FBI and a corrupt the Department of Justice doing the bidding of a political party that controls the executive branch that controls the media. Yeah, it smells a lot like the 1930s to me. The early 30s. I don’t like what’s going on in this country is gravely concerning to me. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 2

And the attack by those who claim to defend democracy goes on as we autocrats who defend the Constitution, individual liberty. And American principles there, apparently the democracy wing of the population as they try and burn down all of it. Maya Wiley is said to be a civil rights activist at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Voting Rights Forum today, and you can see what they take aim at on the left. The radicals, the so-called independent state legislature theory, and we’ve been through this a thousand times. The Constitution doesn’t talk about an independent state legislature theory. It states in black and white. Even a relatively illiterate person can read that the state legislatures, specifically the legislature. Their term in the election processes by which electors are chosen to be president and vice president, it’s specific. Does it say the governor doesn’t say the courts doesn’t say the state says the legislature’s. Now, when our Constitution was adopted, most of the states didn’t even excuse me, some of the states just had their own brand new constitution. Some didn’t have any constitution yet at all. They recolonise. And so it’s very important that the state legislatures have power. That’s why when the Congress was established, there had been no Congress before was a bicameral Congress with a Senate whose members were chosen by the methods for choosing them, were determined by the state legislature, not the governor, not anybody else. The only direct election that occurred was for the House of Representatives. While a little over 100 years ago, the 17th Amendment, they abolished the state legislature’s involvement in the congressional process as part of the so-called progressive movement. But they didn’t abolish the 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, which leaves power to the state legislatures and they act like the state legislatures and states rights is where all the danger occurs, really. Who do they think ratified the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution? It was three fourths of the state legislatures. Who do they think did that? And who do they think fought half the civil war? States fighting state. The federal government, which court issued the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision, the federal Supreme Court, which court issued the Dred Scott decision, the federal Supreme Court, which court issued the Korematsu decision upholding the. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, internment of Japanese Americans, that would be the federal Supreme Court to. Now, I wanted to express a little bit more about this as we get into it, because this is going to be the battle, the effort to intimidate the Supreme Court. John Roberts is very easily intimidated and I’m concerned about Kavanaugh, but we’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 3

So the party that believes in democracy doesn’t even care or comprehend that we’re not a democracy, that we’re a republic, constitutional republic, not a democracy. And the framers were very clear about that. You cannot have a majority vote on whether you have alienable rights or whether natural law exists or whether your individual liberty should be expanded or shrunk. That’s just voting. Voting is certainly an important aspect of a republic, but it’s not the end all and be all is. And a civil society, and so we have Maya Wiley, civil rights activists at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Voting Rights Forum today, and Roland Martin. So you see, when they say they believe in democracy, they don’t even believe in our Constitution. Let me just say this briefly before I get to this. They oppose the Electoral College. They oppose the filibuster, which really is the defining process in the United States Senate. They attack the founding, which means they attack the Constitution, which followed the founding. They attacked separation of powers. They attacked the Supreme Court, they want to packett, they’ve tried multiple times through their history. They do not believe in this system. They wanted to pass a national voting system that would have violated at least three provisions of the Constitution. And this is what I’m talking about. They do not believe in freedom of speech, certainly not yours. They do not believe in the free exercise of religion as they try and not only excluded from the public square, but excluded period, depending on if you want to bake a cake for a certain ceremony, you don’t have the right to make that decision. Or if your religious institution you don’t have a right to say that this club cannot be here because it’s its foundational principles, conflict with the entire purpose of the university. And you go on and on and on. They do not believe in your Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms. In many cases they do not believe they do not believe in and due process rights. They do not believe in probable cause in many cases as they continue to surveil citizens and collect data about you and of course, federalism, the 10th Amendment is out the window except what they want to wave it around from time to time to advance a cause. And so now they’re saying that we should read another provision out of the Constitution, Mihály, civil rights activist, Congressional Black Caucus cut, forego spotz states rights. I mean, let’s call it what it is. It’s a states rights argument. That’s the slave state argument. That’s like and let’s stop and let’s use plain language, what the Supreme Court’s trying to bring us to states rights. And they mean eighteen, seventeen, sixty seven. But you’re mumbling. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I don’t care for your so-called civil rights activist or not. This inflammatory propaganda is destroying this country. It’s destroying this country. And for them to go on like this is just it’s just sickening, it’s pathetic states rights. I mean, when it’s cold, I mean 1767. But the Supreme Court is trying to bring a state’s rights. It’s in the federal constitution, Supreme Court’s not trying to bring anything. Two Democrat states not have state legislatures, Mr. Bruce. Or they’re not Democrats elected to state legislatures, America. So a month or so ago, we were told that the Supreme Court. Was rogue, that the Supreme Court was run by a bunch of white racists when it ruled and they dobs case, now we’re told that the state legislatures. Are a bunch of racists, so the state legislatures are filled with a bunch of racists, they can’t be trusted. The Supreme Court majority’s a bunch of racists. They can’t be trusted. We’ve got to change the court to accommodate the Democrats. We’ve got to change the Constitution to accommodate the Democrats. We have to change the state legislatures and their power to accommodate the Democrats. That’s what she’s saying. Notice they don’t have anybody like me at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Voting Rights Forum today. I’d love to appear there. I would love to debate my Awali. Love it. Love it. Love it. But now instead of Teran, Roland Martin. Who knows nothing about anything? He’s a provocateur. 1767. The Supreme Court’s trying to bring states rights, and they mean 1767. I don’t know why. Seventeen, sixty seven different than seventeen sixty six or seventeen sixty eight when it comes to quote unquote states rights. What we didn’t have a constitution in seventeen sixty seven is to bring this civil rights activists on. There wasn’t one. Seventeen sixty seven doesn’t have anything to do with anything. The federal constitution gives the power to the state legislatures. Go ahead. The state’s rights is it’s it’s because this what they’re saying, state supreme courts, we want to listen to you. It’s like the rights of white majorities in those states, in the state legislature, which is why I tell you this. There are white majorities in most state. The white majorities in most states. So I guess we were supposed to hate the states and hate the people here. What does that mean, it’s the rights of white majorities in those states. What does that mean? What of the black majorities in those states? And black people are voting for the people in the state legislature, would you still want the state legislature? To have done both the initial and final say in the election rules now the rules in place to deal with a state legislature that violates the federal constitution. We have a Voting Rights Act of 1965. And subsequent amendments. A variety of Supreme Court decisions. A state legislature cannot simply act to discriminate against minorities. And this Justice Department has the power to act immediately, as any Justice Department does, if that can be shown, if that can be proven. But that’s not what took place. In Pennsylvania and these other states, what took place is the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania destroyed the federal constitutional provision, destroyed the Pennsylvania constitution. And said that. The white candidate running for president on the Democrat Party. With a white governor in Pennsylvania and the white secretary of state in Pennsylvania. Could change the Constitution with a white Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, all of whom are Democrats. Go ahead. Yes, that’s my yeah, they don’t want to listen to their own court. Well, so but this is the point, though, is, you know, a lot of times, Roland, we don’t necessarily want to listen to a court. Perhaps you’re familiar with some of these cases that I mentioned earlier in the program. Right. Men and women of the court are men and women of blood and skin and bones. Some are smarter than others. Some are racist. Some are righteous. Some are morons, some are brilliant. Just like people everywhere in all walks of life. They won’t even listen to the court. He says. OK, Dred Scott. Shall we listen to that court? Now, we shouldn’t. So far, these two make no sense whatsoever. But it doesn’t matter. They’re raising their voices. Their emotional. An utterly irrational go ahead and I want to go back to what Roland said, what we do in states matters. Mm hmm. Why? Why why does it matter anyway? This is the kind of idiocy that we confront. When it comes to the Constitution, if I were to question Maya Wiley and she’s welcome to come on this program, Mr. Producer, if she contacts us, first thing I would ask her, is the Constitution legitimate? Is the Constitution legitimate because we know who wrote it and adopted it and we know who ratified it. Is it legitimate? And let’s take it from there. Are all court decisions. Righteous, let’s take it from there. Are all state legislatures racist, are they racist in California and New York and other places? Let’s take it from there. And how about the federal state the federal legislature controlled by the Democrats, is it racist? Now, what she’s really arguing isn’t about race, but they always camouflage it on race on the left. They always camouflaged and race, it’s not about race, it’s about ideology, it’s about power, it’s about the Democrat Party. She’s a Democrat. Roland Martin is a Democrat. They’re radical Democrats. That’s what they’re arguing for. That’s who they are. And given the history, the Democrat Party, Maya Wiley and Roland Martin, would you like to debate that? Would you like to debate it? From the Civil War. To Jim Crow. The post Plessy vs. Ferguson to nineteen twenty four in the convention and in New York. The 1930s, how about Woodrow Wilson and his eight years of terror against black men and women? You want to debate that? How about Franklin Roosevelt and his racism, you even know about that? Let’s do it. Now, but they won’t. That they won’t do. I’ll be right back.

Hour 1 Segment 4 I would ask Mihály, why are you a Democrat? Why are you Democrat? Why are you a Democrat? Well, because the Democrats pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, No. Some Democrats pushed it. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted for it or wouldn’t be the law today. Same with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It was Eisenhower who pushed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, and it was Lyndon Johnson who watered it down. It was also Eisenhower who pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and again, the Democrats watered it down. In fact, every major civil rights bill ever proposed and voted on post civil war. Post Civil War. Was supported by the Republicans. And either oppose flat out by the Democrats or a significant percentage of the Democrats. How is it that the Democrat Party can make Robert Byrd their leader? Both their majority leader in the minority leader. How is that possible? It was not only a member of the clan, he was a grand keigo, he he helped sign up 150 individuals in West Virginia to join him in the Klan. He was a young man. He wasn’t a child. And he did that in order to run for the. For the state house in West Virginia. The state Senate and then Congress and then the Senate longest serving senator in American history. Well, Robert Byrd. Filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for over 14 hours as a last ditch effort. Of a filibuster that went on for 70 days, led by William Fulbright, mentor to Bill Clinton, led by Al Gore Jr., a senior Al Gore Junior’s father. Led by Robert Byrd, led by James Eastman, Easton Eastland, the senator from Mississippi who was a early mentor of Joe Biden’s. So I’m asking you. Is widely. Why are you Democrat, but because the Democrats, they don’t support anything. Because you’re a radical leftist, you believe in big government. You believe in big spending programs, you believe in redistribution of wealth. Why is it that everything linked to the Confederacy? Is to be burned, destroyed, pulled down. Written out of history, except the actual Democrat Party itself. When that’s the funnel through which the political party, through which the force through which it all happened. Why aren’t there any demands to change the name of the Democratic Party? Why aren’t there any demands for the Democratic Party to pay the reparations that people demand? A lot of people paid with their lives, their ancestor pay with their lives in the civil war to try and defeat the Confederacy, slavery and the Democratic Party. The Republican Party had nothing to do with the Klan. That would become a marriage between the Democrat Party and the clan. Why is it that in 1940. FDR refused to support a bill to outlaw. Lunching. The Republican Party was fully behind it. Why is that, Miss Wiley? I’m just curious, since you seem to know so much, actually, you know nothing. Zero. You and your buddy Roland Martin or whatever his name is. There’s a ton more, but I’ll move on. The reason people aren’t taught about the history of the Democratic Party because it would undermine the ideological radicals of today. We’ll be right back.