Mark Levin Delivers Powerful Monologue on GOP Candidates, Where We Stand

January 20, 2016

Editor

Radio commentator Mark Levin articulated something in a monologue Glenn has been trying to say for a long time.

"You'll notice he's being much smarter than I am," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

In his monologue, Levin pointed out he defended Donald Trump when the "morons in the establishment" were attacking him. However, as a conservative, he said he'd never defend everything the candidate has done, given Trump's self-described "transitions."

"We're not making the transition," Glenn said. "Trump is the one making these transitions, or so he says. I thought that was really telling and very powerful coming from Mark Levin."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I want to play a little of this monologue from Mark Levin, who I have to tell you, listeners used to always say, "You and Mark have got to get together. You have so much in common." Blah, blah. And there was this bullcrap between us that somebody had, quite honestly, lied about me and was feeding him stuff that apparently that I was saying behind his back or whatever. And none of it happened. And the same person was trying to feed that garbage to me. And until we started talking, we realized, "Oh, my gosh, we have been played. We have been played." To keep us apart. And it was not just him. It was all of the talk radio people. Just try to keep us apart. Because if we would ever gather together, it would be -- it would be, you know -- political changes would be in the air.

So Mark and I over the past year or so have become very good friends. So we write to each other a few times a week. And I write to him. And he'll send me articles, et cetera, et cetera. And he's just wickedly smart. And he's right. I really, truly believe Mark Levin's idea of the Convention of States may be the last-ditch effort. It may be the only way to save the republic in the end. Because if one of three people get elected, I think we're headed for a dictatorship or dictatorship-lite. We're headed for something that does not resemble the republic because they will finish the transformation that Barack Obama started. And the Convention of the States will be the only way to reel it back in.

So, you know, I've been trying to pay attention to what he's saying because he's really super smart. I listen to a monologue this morning when I got up from a couple of days ago, that he gave. And I want you just to hear what he is now saying about the candidates and where we are.

MARK: I want to make it clear, when Trump was under attack by the morons in the establishment, I defended him. I didn't defend everything he said, and I'm never going to. I'm never going to defend everything that man's done, every contribution he's made, everything he's said, or I wouldn't be a conservative, now would I? It's he who has evolved or transitioned, he says. So that's worth looking at. What's different --

GLENN: Stop. Have you noticed that? He is being far more diplomatic than I have been. And we all know where Mark stands. Mark has been very, very clear on the past on Donald Trump. Not a conservative.

But you'll notice he's being much smarter than I am. He's trying to make the point to the Trump supporters, "He has said these things. He's the one. We're not making the transition. Cruz is not the one making the transition. Trump is the one making these transitions, or so he says." I thought that was really telling and very powerful coming from Mark Levin.

MARK: -- right now is that the attack on Cruz, in many ways is an attack on us. That's the problem.

He's nasty, nasty, nasty, Donald says. Why? Because Mitch McConnell thinks he's nasty? Because Bob Dole thinks he's nasty? Because the dug-in, ruling elite Republicans think he's nasty? Now we're all supposed to genuflect and say, "Yeah, he's nasty. That's right. We don't like Cruz. He doesn't get along with anybody."

Ladies and gentlemen, you're attacking yourself. I don't care who you like, it doesn't even make any sense. So all of a sudden --

GLENN: Stop. Listen to that. This is what I've been trying to say, but not nearly as eloquent as Mark has: It doesn't make any sense. The guy we prayed for -- I truly believe that the guy we prayed for is Ted Cruz. When we all got together and said, "We need a strong constitutionalist. We need someone who is going to return us to our values, but actually understand them. We need a guy who is going to go in to Washington and actually do everything he told us he would and not sell his soul out to the devil. Just remember where he came from. Be the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington that is willing to die on his desk on the floor." He's here. And now we're being told he's too mean, he's too nasty, nobody likes him, he can't win, he can't win even in his own party. That's a sign of, he's on the right track. And for us to attack him now, as Mark said, is an attack on ourselves.

MARK: What we thought was courage, what we thought was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you and I are supposed to believe this guy is bought out by the banks, this guy is nasty, this guy doesn't get along with anybody, screw him. Is that what we're supposed to do? I'm all in favor --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. I want you to ask yourself this: Has Mark Levin finally been bought off? Has Mark Levin finally betrayed the republic? Is Mark Levin a traitor? Has Mark Levin given up his principles? Has George Will given up his principles? Is George Will not really a conservative? Has Michelle Malkin given up her principles? Has Michelle Malkin, is she just doing this for money or for fame?

You know, when you look at special guests, you have to ask yourself, does that special guest have the same principles that we all said we were going for five years ago? Small government. No dictatorship. An end to the -- the -- the nonstop executive order after executive order. The not destroying your enemies.

How many times did we say, "I'm willing to sit down with Barack Obama. He won't listen to us. He's not listening to us?" And instead, he uses the IRS to destroy us. When you have a special guest, you have to ask yourself, "Is that special guest consistent, or are they now standing with somebody who would just as quickly use the IRS for an enemies' list on the other side?"

Is there a reason -- can you tell me, what reason does Michelle Malkin, how is Michelle Malkin going to get rich by standing up and saying, "This isn't right?" How is Mark Levin coming out and saying, "This doesn't even make sense. You're betraying yourself. We are attacking ourselves," how is he going to get rich? How am I going to suddenly become famous or rich by saying these things? It doesn't make any sense.

It's -- it's -- you've taken emotional gasoline. He's allowed -- Donald Trump has taken emotional gasoline and thrown it on everybody. It's the same tactic that Saul Alinsky talks about and that Barack Obama uses. It's just -- it's time to step back and be cool and say, "All right. Wait a minute. What is consistent?"

Now, a lot of people will immediately go to, "I want to win. We've got to win." And I understand that. I'm the guy who told you 20 minutes ago, the country is over. It is over. Catastrophic collapse is coming, and you're going to have to rebuild from the ground up.

So I know that. But who do we -- who do we become when we cross that Rubicon?

Featured Image: Conservative radio host Mark Levin acknowledges the crowd after speaking at a 'Cut Spending Now' rally at the conservative Americans for Prosperity (AFP) 'Defending the American Dream Summit' in Washington on November 5, 2011. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep