4/7/26 - These 'MAGA Influencers' Are Nothing But Media Plants

Hey folks, Mark Levin here. Before we dive into today's episode, I wanna talk about my go-to gold and silver company. Monetary gold is over 25 years helping Americans understand physical gold and silver with an education first, no pressure approach and support for IRA eligible options. Monetary gold has a complimentary guide, it's free, to help you understand precious metals. Call them right now, 877-NOW-GOLD, or visit marklovesgold.com and request the free guide. Make sure to ask for details, that's 877-NOW-GOLD, or visit marklovesgold.com. Performance may vary, you should always consult your financial and tax consultant. Now let's get to the show. He's here, he's here. Now broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the fowls of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Laban. Australian Australian Australian Hello America! Mark Levin here, our number, 877-381-3811-877-3813811. Wow! What's going on, man? Lots are going on, so let's start at the top. The latest news, of course, is the president's given an 8pm Eastern time deadline for Iran to surrender. Or reach some kind of an accommodation that the president thinks is legitimate. Excuse me. And there's some information, less than two hours away from that deadline. The times of Israel and other locations. Pakistan's prime minister. Well, of course, when I come on the air, it starts sneezing. Alright. Sneezing to the truth. Pakistan's prime minister asked US President Trump to postpone his deadline for Iran by two weeks. And implement a truce for that same period. Also urging Tehran to allow maritime traffic through the straight of Hormaz during the time. He said to allow diplomacy to run its course. I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks. Right Shabazz Sharif, whose government is serving as a mediator between Iran and the US. Man. Pakistan in all sincerity requests the Iranian brothers to open the straight of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as Goodwill gesture he writes on X. We also urge all warring parties to observe a ceasefire everywhere for two weeks to allow diplomacy to achieve conclusive termination of the war in the interest of long time peace and stability in the region. Now this is interesting. But I want to go on with the rest before I comment on it. The Pakistani premier says the efforts and the conflict are progressing steadily, strongly and powerfully. In an expletive, laden post earlier this week, the president warned the US would attack power plants and bridges in Iran. Starting Tuesday evening if the Islamic Republic failed to reopen the key waterway. And that deadline is in less than two hours. Now, we're going to have on the program a man I've been watching online. He's a professor. But more than that, he's an expert on international law and that would include so called war crimes. His name is Dr. Brian Cox. He's professor Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate. And you're hearing all these congressmen, especially Democrats, you're also hearing the woke right neo fascist. Out there and talking about war crimes, war crimes if you hit a bridge war crimes if you hit an oil depot war crimes war crimes. Most of the time we don't hear that kind of talk to me. My lifetime we've been in many military battles, even wars. And I don't remember all the stuff about war crimes. Anyway, he's going to explain it to us so we have an actual understanding next hour, which I think is very important. Now what about what the Pakistani prime minister said? Number one, I don't believe Mr. Producer that he would make that public unless it has a shot. You see what I mean? I believe it's somewhat orchestrated. Number two, there's language in here that did draw my attention. We also urge all warring parties to observe a ceasefire everywhere for two weeks. Hezbollah is raining missiles down on northern Israel every day and every night. Some of it's being reported here, some of it's not. So everywhere suggests to me that Iran wants Hezbollah to retain or maintain its position where the Israelis are trying to fight their way through Lebanon and create a buffer. So they're not free to just fire missiles down on northern Israel. So that to me would be interesting. We'll see how that goes. But I have to be honest with you, I've never seen a situation where we're absolutely beating the hell out of an enemy and then there's some kind of a negotiated agreement short of unconditional surrender. I'm not saying there won't be an agreement for unconditional surrender. I'm just saying this is very different. So we shall see. Now let's move on to more. We have an effort by the media to push certain individuals as MAGA, MAGA influencers. That's the name they use to define them. They're starting to get very troubled by the president and by the war effort and all this. Despite the fact that polls show 92% and one showed 100% of MAGA, that is the president's base, and 84% or maybe it was 86% of the Republican Party supports the president in what he's doing. So how can it be that these are MAGA influencers when they influence nobody? The answer is they're not. When you look at these people, these people have never been really involved in the conservative movement in any significant way. They've never been involved in Make America Great Again. Maybe they showed up at some events, mostly as hangers on, mostly to be seen, mostly as grifters. People didn't vote for Donald Trump because of Megyn Kelly. People didn't vote for Donald Trump because of Steve Bannon. People didn't vote for Donald Trump because of Tucker Carlson. People embrace and love Donald Trump who would have read it. It wasn't, oh wow, Steve Bannon endorses him, then I guess I'll vote for Donald Trump. You see my point, Mr. Producer? It doesn't make any sense. I'm just telling you the truth. I'm just laying it out. People voted for President Trump because they wanted Trump. It wasn't because somebody in the media or somebody they're familiar with told them to do it. That is very disrespectful of you out there in Mr. and Mrs. America. That you needed some would-be podcasters or you needed a podcaster or you needed a former host of this show or that show. That you needed them to convince you to vote for Trump. When I get behind this microphone and I endorse a candidate, I'm giving my opinion, but what I do on election night because I'm in a unique position is I urge people to go out and vote because they have their radios on in the car. I just keep encouraging people to vote, vote, vote. Not that they wouldn't vote for the candidate in the first place, but we want to encourage you to vote and not forget in some cases. But the media play into this. Now why do they play into it? Because the media is left-wing, it's pro-nemic, right? It's anti-Trump and they want to use the miscreants and malcontents and the reprobates who are now out there stabbing the president in the back, besmirching the president, stirring the pot, rejecting Americanism, embracing Sharia against the Constitution. Really some wacko nuts out there. They want the world to believe that this is real MAGA, MAGA influencers. When they represent what? If the president is 92% of MAGA supporting him, how are they influencers? They're not influencing anybody. And so NBC News, among the worst of course, MAGA influencers push back on Trump on Iran. It's time to say no. Time to say no, they say. Marjorie Taylor Green, AKA Marjorie Trader Gingreen. She's not even a congresswoman anymore. She's bouncing around on the social circuit. She's bouncing around on the left-wing media or identical kooks she's hanging out with. She's not influencing anybody about anything. Well, they mentioned her and they used to hate her when she was a conservative. But now they love her, of course. They have other. A fellow by the name of Michael Cernovich. They call him a right-wing influencer who has promoted Pizzagate and various other conspiracy theories, wrote to his 1.4 million ex-followers on Sunday at silly to claim Trump as MAGA. How many of you know who he is? Almost none of you. He's got 1.4 million followers. I think how many followers do I have, Mr. Reducer? Total. What is it? But how many? Five million in what? Do we know? Can you look that up? We'll check it out. How many do I have on Truth Social? 1.5 million. How many do we have on Rumble? Like 700,000? And millions and millions on talk radio that don't go on the Internet or sign up for social media or that sort of thing? It's funny, I'm not quoted in the NBC piece and I don't say that out of jealousy. I can care less. I say, look who they do quote. They're trying to create an impression. If you go on the Internet now, there's an enormous number of people backing the president, backing this war effort, supporting him. Many of whom have a great deal of influence, but they don't count them as influencers because it doesn't fit the narrative. Trump would not have won the primary 2016 that he run on Mitt Romney's platform, nor would he have won the 2024 election by running on New Wars, says Sernovich. He didn't run on Mitt Romney's platform. He's nothing like Mitt Romney in every respect. And he didn't run for or against wars. He ran peace through strength. And when a president takes office, he has to look at what's taking place and make determinations based on what he sees and what he digests and how he evaluates it. That's what a president does. So we have these people. Who else? I can't read them all. Mary, Projean, Boller, a formal model who served as a member of the Trump-appointed Federal Religious Liberty Commission. She was fired. She was fired because she was spewing the Palestinian line, the Hamas line. She was spewing the Piker line and she was removed. She's an influencer? Who does she influence? Absolutely nobody. She's a head case. Then there's Tucker Carlson. Who does he influence these days? Then they go to a liberal Republican, John Curtis in Utah. How's he a MAGA influencer? He's not. Then of course they go to Bannon. But this is how they cobble together the narrative. This is how they cobble together the argument. Nowhere do they mention that 92% in the recent poll of MAGA supports Trump and what he's doing. Nowhere. Nowhere. And one poll CNN mentioned their poll was 100%. But they bring out these individuals who most of you don't even know, one in particular who's absolutely a head case, Carlson, to try and make this case. To try and make this case. Now, the president's had about enough of Tucker Carlson, a.k.a. Trader Tucker, a.k.a. Katarleson. And he made a statement to a reporter from the New York Post when she asked him about it this morning. Her name is Caitlin Dombos and she wrote President Trump denied Tucker Carlson's bombastic reporting that he was considering nuclear war on Iran. Blasting the controversial commentator in a phone call with the Post. Quote, Tucker's a low IQ person that is absolutely no idea what's going on, said the president. He calls me all the time. I don't respond to his calls. I don't deal with him. I like dealing with smart people, not fools. On Monday, Carlson, Monday night posted on Twitter X, he claimed that President Trump's expletive, late in Easter morning, true social post that the U.S. would soon bomb Iran's power plants and bridges was the first step toward nuclear war. Every war for him is a nuclear war. But denying Iran of nuclear weapons apparently is not worth it. Christians need to understand where Trump is taking us, Carlson wrote. Well, where is he taking us? This is the guy that trashes Christians, trashes Jews, trashes America, trashes the Constitution, embraces Sharia, embraces Katar. This is a man whose programs are aired by state-run media in Qatar, in Iran, in Russia, in Saudi Arabia. Unbelievable. When it goes on, and it goes on. Now Carlson is not just stabbing the president in the back, he's stabbing him in the chest. It's only a matter of time when you read his texts and that litigation. He's never had respect for Trump. These are all hangers on, these are all grifters. That's what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. And I point it out because it's all on the media today, and it's very, very important. I'll be right back. Love in. I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that I Buddy Tommy Massey, both supported by George Soros, no doubt, revealing names of individuals who did absolutely nothing but have been providing support and help to the government's case and all but ruin their lives. He's an utterly irresponsible individual. This is a guy who pretends he doesn't know who I am, a morallic of the past. Isn't it funny, Mr. Producer? All these middle-aged people going through their middle-aged crises, nobody knows who I am, but they won't leave me alone. So when I speak out, I'm in charge of the war with Iran, I'm in charge of this, Levin is that, Levin's got too much power, Levin, but nobody listens to Levin, his audience. I don't even look at these people straight, folks. They're just nuts. They're crazy. They can't even get their BS straight. This guy's all over the media. He's got nothing else to do, pushing impeachment of the President of the United States, pushing the 25th Amendment against the President of the United States, throwing around the term war crimes. War crimes are going on. He's a complete head case. And then he pretends he was a moderate or is a moderate, and now he favors a wealth tax, and on and on and on. He's a complete fraud and phony. That's what he is. And he reached out to me in 2023, wanted to engage. Silver is now in its sixth consecutive year of structural supply deficit, meaning demand is outpacing supply of silver every single year. Solar energy alone is projected to consume 160 to 194 million ounces of silver this year because silver is irreplaceable in solar cell technology. And the world is using more and more silver. There's no substitute. Folks, silver is currently trading at a great price, $71 to $80 per ounce after hitting $121 earlier this year. That's the zigzag I talk about, but the trajectory is up, meaning the industrial demand story hasn't even fully played out yet. Call monetary gold today. Get your complimentary gold and silver guide. The number one requested guide in America for more than 25 years, absolutely free. Call monetary gold at 877-NOW-GOLD or go to marklovesgold.com. That's 877-NOW-GOLD or marklovesgold.com. Performance may vary. You should always consult your financial tax professional. Call in now. 877-381-3811. It's a long piece about the lead up to the decision by the president to unleash the military operation against Iran. And the reporters are Jonathan Swan, who's a decent reporter, Maggie Haberman, who in my view is not. But nonetheless, in the midst of this long article, it says nobody in Mr. Trump's inner circle was more worried about the prospect of war with Iran or did more to try to stop it than the vice president. Mr. Vance had built his political career opposing precisely the, I'm reading from the article, the kind of military adventurism that was now under serious consideration. It's not adventurism. I would say to the slimes. Let's see here. He had described a war with Iran as quote, a huge distraction of resources, unquote, and quote, massively expensive, unquote, for who's leaking all this stuff. I mean, they're actually quoting from meetings. And he's not the only one they're quoting. Now say what you will, a vice president or a secretary of defense or secretary state or a CIA director, they need to be able to give advice to the president in absolute confidence. There's a constant leaking problem. Oh, trouble. Okay, breaking news. All right, from from my true sources, brand new. And it is 635 p.m. just shy of the 8 p.m. witching hour. Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shabazz Sharif, that would be Pakistan, and Field Marshal Asim Muneer of Pakistan. And wherein they requested that I hold off the destruction, the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran. And subject to the Islamic Republican of Iran agreeing to the complete immediate he capitalizes in safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz. I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided ceasefire. The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all military objectives. And are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning long term peace with Iran and peace in the Middle East. We received a 10 point proposal from Iran. Believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran. But a two week period will allow the agreement to be finalized and consummated. On behalf of the United States of America's president, and also representing the countries of the Middle East, it is an honor to have this log this rather long term problem close to resolution. Thank you for your attention to this matter. That's all I know. That's all we have right now. That's all I know. I don't know what the 10 points are. I don't have any of that. I don't think it's public yet. Is it Mr. Producer? No, the 10 point plan. Yeah, not yet. So we don't have that yet. This was literally just released by the president in the White House. And so we'll see where that goes. Now the people negotiating on our side are the two envoys Whitcoff and Kushner and apparently the vice president. So we'll see how that goes. But let me go on with this article. Vice president thought a regime change war with Iran would be a disaster. His preference was for no strikes at all. But knowing that Mr. Trump was likely to intervene in some fashion, he tried to steer toward more limited action later when it seemed certain the president was set on a large scale campaign. Mr. Vance argued that he should do so with overwhelming force in the hope of achieving his objective quickly. In front of his colleagues, Mr. Vance warned Mr. Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. He could also break apart Mr. Trump's political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who bought into the promise of no new wars. Mr. Vance raised other concerns too. As vice president, he was aware of the scope of America's munitions problem. A war against the regime with enormous will for survival could leave the United States in far worse position to fight conflicts for some years. He told associates that no amount of military insight could truly gauge what Iran would do in retaliation when survival of the regime was at stake. He could go into unpredictable directions, he thought there seemed to be little chance of building a peaceful Iran in the aftermath. And it goes on. Tucker Carlson, the commentator who had emerged as another prominent skeptic of intervention on the right, how can you call him of the right now? By right they mean conservative. That's been abandoned. That was abandoned a long time ago. He'd come to the Oval Office several times over the previous year to warn Mr. Trump that a war with Iran would destroy his presidency a couple of weeks before the war began. Mr. Trump, who had known Carlson for years, tried to reassure him over the phone. I know you're worried about it, but it's going to be okay. The president said Carlson asked how he knew because it always is, Mr. Trump replied. Well, then we know that was a two-way conversation, right, Mr. Reducer? So we know one of the leakers is Tucker Carlson. In the final days of February, and it goes on, it's a very long piece, but I thought that aspect of it might interest you. It also turns out that the general who was the most gun-hoofed of the generals was not Raising Cain. It was Admiral Cooper. Admiral Cooper apparently has, in each aspect of this, informed the president that our military could in fact achieve what it is achieving. So it seems like Admiral Cooper is more of a Raising Cain than Raising Cain, if I read between the lines here properly. But the most important voice was also the most committed voice to taking on Iran, the president of the United States. More so than the CIA director, more so than the Secretary of State. There's not much here about the Secretary of Defense in this article. Again, if the article is accurate, who the hell knows? I sure as don't. I mean, who knows? But the president is apparently the most conservative of the group, Mr. Producer. He's also the most security conscience, apparently. Again, there's nothing in here that I can see nothing much anyway about Hakeseth, only a little about Rubio. And this is part of a book that they're writing, by the way. So they must be gaining a crap load of leaks. And what happens is this. Almost everybody's leaking. I don't know who's not. I don't know who is, but almost all of them are leaking because they want to appear very well in the book. They want to appear to be, quote unquote, a good guy or a position themselves. And so they leak. I've seen this. I said it was in the Reagan administration, other administrations, because they all have interests beyond government, right? Vice president wants to be present. Secretary of State may want to be something else. I don't know. But the point is, if the book's going to be written by journalists with the New York Times, and that's going to be viewed by the rest of the media as definitive, even though it certainly won't be, the fact of the matter is the individuals try to position themselves. Again, I don't know who's leaked and who hasn't leaked, but most of the individuals try to position themselves and put themselves in a good light, maybe somebody else and not such a good light, especially if they're seeking a higher office one day. That's how you get articles like this with all these leaks and so forth. Now, while we're on this topic, I will be on Hannity tonight, 9 p.m. Eastern time. To discuss this, I assume, but maybe birthright citizenship, I don't know. But he asked me to come on and I will be there, of course. But then there's this story in the New York Post. Yasemin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, the first Iranian-American Democrat elected to Congress, raged against Donald Trump for his jaw-dropping threats to Iran, including to end the country, quote, in one night, unquote, and called impeaching Heg said, a necessary step to prevent a catastrophe. So online, you had the woke, right, neo-fascist isolationist just trashing the president for his statement that he put out that he's going to destroy the civilization of Iran or something like that. You had little Adolfo Ventus, Tucker, Trader Kataros and Gorn Nuts. Pierce Morgan was very upset. They were all very, very upset. When all the rest of us knew, millions and millions of us knew this is how the president operates to try and bring maximum pressure against an enemy like Iran. And so I put out a thing out there and online to Morgan, and I said, okay, how much you would have bet he doesn't destroy the Iranian civilization? Because it's absurd. We know what he was doing. He is using psychological warfare. And he does this sort of thing fairly frequently. So the idea that people miss it is really ridiculous. And so the Democrats are saying what he said would be a war crime. So we need to impeach him. What he said shows that he's mentally unhinged. So we need to trigger it and they don't even understand how that works. But this was going on all day and all last night. All day and all last night. She says, now this is an Iranian American Democrat. And by the way, she does not speak for most Iranian Americans, I assure you, I'm introducing articles of impeachment against Pete Hague Seth. Pete Hague Seth for repeatedly violating his oath of office and his duty to the Constitution. Only Congress has the power to declare war, not a rogue president or his lackeys. Hague Seth's reckless endanger. Okay. So factually, Hague Seth hasn't made any decisions. The president makes the decisions. That's number one. And the secretary of war carries them out. That's number two. And number three, this whole idea of declaration of war has been explained by me repeatedly. And I'm not going to explain it again. But she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. What's happening here in America is they're trying to use impeachment and the 25th Amendment, not because the president has committed a high crime or misdemeanor, not because Hague Seth has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. They want to use the 25th Amendment, they, again, they don't even know how that works, not because the president is senile and can't function. He's not Biden, but because they disagree with him on this military operation in Iran. That's not what impeachment is for. That's not, that's not what the 25th Amendment is for. The 25th Amendment is for whether a president can actually complete his responsibilities and undertake his responsibilities, which this president can, they just disagree with him. And impeachment is for a high crime and misdemeanor, which has a very specific meaning and understanding. This is not that. She says, only Congress has the power to declare war, not a rogue president or his lackeys. Now, here we are in the middle of a war. This is how the Democrats conduct themselves, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This is how Trader Tucker conducts himself. This is how all the other little, little pussians conduct themselves in the middle of a war. Yes, in the middle of a war. Her singling out Hakeseth comes weeks after Trump revealed last month that his secretary of war was the first to call for war against Iran. Hakeseth's team brushed off the impeachment push with Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson telling the Post, it's just another Democrat trying to make headlines, which is true. Hakeseth has done a fantastic job. He's in charge of the nuts and bolts. He's in charge of overseeing much of this. Nuts and bolts. And of course, they want to impeach him. I'll be right back. I'd like to tell you about a man named Phineas, who as a child survived the Holocaust. Phineas survived because Christians hid him from the Nazis, risking everything to save his life. Today, he's in his 80s. He can no longer stand on his own or leave his home to receive medical care. And when sirens sound and missiles fall, he doesn't have time or strength to reach safety. But once again, Christians are helping save his life. Through the international fellowship of Christians and Jews, a mobile clinic brings doctors and medicine right to his home, providing care he wouldn't receive, especially in wartime. Christians save my life during the Holocaust, Phineas says. And now again, they're helping me. As Israel's Holocaust Remembrance Day approach, as we honor survivors like Phineas, not just with words, but with action, please give $45 a tax deductible gift right now to the international fellowship of Christians and Jews to rush life saving essentials to the most vulnerable under fire in the Holy Land. Call 888-585-IFCJ. That's 888-585-IFCJ or online at Levin for the fellowship.org. That's Levin for the fellowship.org. Man, we have a great video podcast up there today that we just did. I want to encourage you to check it out on Rumble or YouTube. And we have it on all our social sites too, if you want to check it out as well. It's all free, all available, all very easy to access and use. If you're not used to it, it's very easy. Liberty's Voice over at Rumble and Liberty's Voice over at YouTube. We want to thank Rumble in particular is doing a fantastic job at YouTube too. We have no billionaires funding this. We don't have a big marketing budget. We don't have all that stuff going on, no foreign governments behind and nothing like that. It's me, myself, and I with a crew of two who are fantastic. David and Josh and a big helping hand from Rich here and that's what we do. So I know you're going to like it. Check it out. Some of you who don't normally listen to podcasts or video or don't watch video podcasts, you ought to check it out. It's Liberty's Voice over at Rumble and YouTube. And I'm trying to bring as many radio folks into that world and as many people in that world to radio because there's a minimal overlap, minimal. We did our own checking at 7%. That's it. Did you know that, Mr. Producer? 7% of the people who listen to this program on talk radio, 7% go on the internet and vice versa. So that's why we run our radio program on the internet, delayed. And that's why I'm doing this to have multiple platforms, one to build on top of the other. That is to encourage more radio listeners, encourage more viewers and so forth and so on. It's the only way these different platforms are going to grow. It's the only way. So in other words, I'm saying for me, I don't need to compete against myself. I don't want to compete against these different platforms. I want to use the platforms together, one to build the other, which nobody does, but we will do it. We will do it. I'll be right back. Now, broadcasting from the underground command post, deep in the bowels of a hidden bunker, somewhere under the brick and steel of a non-descript building, we've once again made contact with our leader, Mark Levin. Hello, America. Mark Levin here, our number, 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. Well, unfortunately, I have to go into that toxic pool from time to time called the internet. But we do find pearls in there. And I think I've found one, Dr. Brian Cox, professor at Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate. And I was reading things he was saying about so-called war crimes, because the Democrats are beating their chests about, oh, this is a war crime, and that's a war crime. They think the very existence of Donald Trump is a war crime, of course. They don't understand the declaration of war provision in the Constitution. I've been through that, oh, about 400,000 times. But there's war crime issues and new one that they bring up. They didn't bring it up when Clinton was bombing away. They didn't bring it up when Obama was bombing away and so forth and so on. But they think they have something now, and they really don't. So I wanted to bring Dr. Brian Cox on. How are you, sir? Very well. Thanks. How are you doing this evening? I'm doing very well. Now, you're a veteran, I just mentioned, right? You're retired U.S. Army. That's right. Yeah. So I joined the Army right out of high school. I was 18 years old in 1996. And then I was in various occupations in the military for 22 years. In the last seven, I was a judge advocate or a military lawyer. So what exactly, what kind of law do you teach? So every fall, my staple class is law and ethics of armed conflict. So, you know, law of armed conflicts, law involving the resort to force. So it really focuses on international law related to armed conflict. And then every spring, when I do teach, is just kind of a wild card. Usually, whatever I teach, usually focuses on some sort of national security aspect or military law, foreign policy, things like that. Well, there you are. You're reading all these claims and listening to all these claims that if we hit a bridge or if we hit an oil depot or if we do that, it's an absolute war crime. What makes something a war crime? Because I know we've hit bridges in other infrastructure before in other battles. Yeah, so this is something that unfortunately this rhetoric has existed for a long time. It's something that I noticed and I paid attention to even before I retired from military in 2018, that there's in public perception what actually is a war crime. You know, those two don't really connect. So the public perception of what it is versus what we actually practice in law in the military. So what it requires in so the United States hasn't ratified the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court for various jurisdictional concerns and all that. But we were involved with developing the substance like the text of the treaty and everything really that's in there, almost everything. And the war crime section is consistent with the United States interpretation of law of armed conflict, even though we haven't ratified it. And so if we look at that, it's kind of a template. And again, it's consistent with with US doctrine. It requires the intent to so intentionally directing an attack against a civilian object or a civilian person. So the civilian person has to be something that, you know, a civilian who is not taking direct part in hostilities. And it requires intent. And this is the part where most not know about will actually probably most commenters tend to get their the evaluation of war crime wrong as it requires actual evidence of the intent of the person who was involved, that the intent of the person who was responsible for the attack. And as you mentioned, we can talk more about it. There was a recent attack against the B1 bridge in Iran that was very widely denounced as a war crime. But that that doesn't actually qualify as a war crime because that bridge based on at least public reporting was served a dual purpose. And so if there's a military utility into attack that goes into attacking a bridge or a power station or whatever, then that qualifies as a military objective. And so attacking it wouldn't automatically be a war crime. Let me let me focus in more even more on this. Yeah. So in other words, if you're just destroying a civilian structure to destroy a civilian structure, that's one issue. But if you're destroying a structure that can be used by the military has been used by the military and so forth and so on in the middle of a war, that's not a war crime, correct? Absolutely. Yeah. So the definition, the doctrinal definition for what a military objective is is something that by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to the military action of the opposing party of the adversary. And so if let's say a bridge has some sort of military utility that's been identified by the attacking party, then it qualifies as a military objective. And by definition, directing an attack against a military objective is not a war crime. So the actual like the the an actual war crime would be, you know, I'm looking through, you know, the scope or the sites or whatever it is. I know this is a civilian, you know, building or bridge or whatever. I know that it has no military utility. And I'm going to strike it anyways, even though there's no military value in attacking, you know, that's what war crimes provisions are and they are intended to prohibit. Now the Iranians on the other hand are targeting civilians. They're using weaponry that is actually outlawed as a matter of the laws of war. And they're hitting many, many towns, homes, and other non military structures and individuals, correct? Yeah, so this is part of the frustrating part about about kind of removing the the doctrinal meeting for a war crime is a party like Iran. So when Iran attacks Israel, for example, they attack with weapons with munitions that can't be directed against a specific military objective, they're just launching them into Israel, not carrying where they were the munitions land, right? So they have they've been launching, for example, high altitude cluster munitions that are designed to try to get around Israel's missile defenses. And so by dispersing at a high altitude, the clusters, the sub munitions can go wherever they can scatter wherever, and they can land indiscriminately within the civilian population, not even trying to direct it against a military objective, just trying to get it into Israel to cause damage wherever they can and try to get around Israel's missile defenses. But that is the definition of a war crime, one of the definitions. So launching an attack without trying even to direct your munition against a military objective, that is legitimately a war crime. Whereas when the United States and Israel launch attacks against Iran, they're they're trying to they're identifying military objectives, they are directing their their attacks against military objectives. That is not a war crime. But because of social and political preferences of commentators who weigh in or propaganda from the Iranian government, everything that basically everything that United States or Israel does, this characterizes a war crime, even when it's not. And everything that Iran does basically is a war crime. And that gets largely unnoticed or, you know, doesn't really get attention. How long have these rules been in place, for instance, when we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, those were focused on civilian populations. But the goal was to end the war. So how would that be interpreted today? Yeah, so the the law of armed conflicts, it applies to weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons. But it ends up the calculation is different. And so the the rules have existed for a long time, they started really getting codified in say the 1860s or so. But in over time, they've gradually developed and become more specific. But the decision to launch nuclear weapons, it would probably be different today than it was in 1945. But the rules have have advanced the law of armed conflict has advanced a bit since World War Two. But really, the the the main provisions of the law of armed conflict that we deal with, especially in the military day in and day out, those are really focused on conventional weapons. And then something that has a weapon of mass destruction like that type of the capacity for destruction, typically, that's going to be reserved at the political level. And it's going to be same rules, but kind of different calculation and different people making those judgments. What about, well, let's take Dresden, then that was all conventional. Yeah, what do you think? Yeah, so we the the law that has developed a bit now. So that level of destruction would would be regarded differently. But at the same time, you know, it was that that that campaign was launched in the context of World War Two, based on the rules that exist at the time. So the the law of war, law of armed conflict, since its inception, has always allowed for extensive destruction. I mean, that's what war is about. It like if I were to to boil down to its essence, what the law of armed conflict really is about, it's to make sure that if a party is using force, that there's some military utility in doing so that it's not, we're not engaged in just wanton destruction, that we're not, I mean, basically doing what Iran is doing, it's just like, you know, launching munitions without really caring where they go and without any regard whatsoever to trying to identify and attack a military objective. That is what the law of war is designed to prohibit. But, you know, the the level of destruction isn't really the measure for whether something is a war crime, whether something implies law of armed conflict. It really is, you know, the intent of the person, was there some sort of identifiable military utility that was identified for engaging that attack. And if so, now the law of war, of course, is more specific than that. But that's kind of at its essence, what it exists to to make sure that we're we're achieving. I have to take a break. I'd like to hold you over. We're talking to Dr. Brian Cox, who teaches international law at Cornell Law, retired army judge advocate, served 22 years, if I recall correctly, in the United States Army. And really, really very helpful in walking us through this. I have several more questions if you don't mind, professor. So we'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran led company. So helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a U.S. only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, same network, same 5G coverage is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values, your value, helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you go to pure talk dot com slash live in the switch to pure talk. That's pure talk dot com slash L E V I N the switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company pure talk. We're here with the professor Dr Brian Cox Cornell Law retired Army judge advocate actually knows this stuff about war crimes. This is an area of his expertise. Let me ask you this question. We had people putting out statements from Congress who said the mere fact that the President of the United States talked about eliminating the Iranian. What was it? The civilization of Iran or something of that sort. That in and of itself was a war crime. That's nonsense. Is that that's right. Yeah. So it's definitely it doesn't qualify as a war crime. So again, war crime is intentionally directing attack against civilian persons or objects. You know, the if the United States ends up identifying the military ends up identifying military targets that also have a civilian component and attacking those like so bridges, roadways, electrical outlet or electrical power generation facilities. Those are that's not going to be a war crime because there is some sort of military utility. But what they're really talking about is the threat to essentially commit genocide. Right. So the genocide convention prohibits killing or doing other actions when the intent is to destroy in whole or in part, in this case, a national group, right. So the national group would be Iranian. So if we just go by President Trump's truth social post, he starts off by saying, you know, a civilization will die tonight or will kill be killed tonight or whatever it is. And so, you know, this is this is kind of typical Trump president Trump messaging. He's this this message isn't directed necessarily just to the American people, but it's really directed to the Iranian government trying to impose pressure on them to basically say like, listen, we mean business. So, you know, if you don't follow, if you don't make a deal with us basically, then expect extensive destruction. So he ends the true social post by saying something along the lines of God bless the people of Iran. So if you're if you're planning to commit genocide against a people, you don't have closed by saying God bless you guys. So it's really they're taking what President Trump said out of context. And they're trying to build really social and political rhetoric out of it to, you know, to find some way to criticize President Trump when really what he's he's engaged in is just he's messaging to the Iranian government. I mean business. So let's let's let's strike a deal. And it seems at least and I was listening in before I joined, you know, that that you read the the true social post from President Trump saying it looks like we've we've got a tentative deal. So it seems to have worked. Yeah. Now I do have some questions about this because we don't know what these 10 points are. Like how are you going to enforce any deal against that regime? How are you going to stop them from committing terrorism? There's nothing about Hezbollah in here. So there you know, there's there's still some sticky wickets out there. But for all that said, and yet this is a regime that kills, I would say around 50,000 of their own people, they're still executing away like nothing's happened. In fact, they've accelerated their executions and so forth. So you have a terror regime that's sloring its own people. That's close to getting nuclear weapons. They have the enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. They're building thousands of ballistic missiles which can do massive damage in and of themselves. And by the way, the more I'm expressing this to you, Professor, the more I'm concerned that we got to make sure however we have a deal that we really screw it down tightly somehow. And but but all that said, so they do whatever they want. We don't because we claim we're civilized. Okay, great. Right. If somebody wants to bring a charge against the Secretary of War, the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, where do they even go? And we're not part of this. You pointed out we're not part of these international courts or anything like that. So where do they go? That's right. So we have not ratified the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute in part out of jurisdiction will considerate concerns. So what we've seen and this was back in, I think it was the year 2000, maybe 2001, when President Clinton on his way out of office, this would have been 2000, he signed the Rome Statute but not did not ratify it. But when he signed it, he expressed, you know, I am concerned that because of the jurisdictional structure that was created in 1998, that we may end up getting a rogue court in the court may go after parties of personnel out of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute. And that's exactly what has happened, right? So these the concerns that we we saw in 1998 in Rome that led us not to to endorse the treaty then, or to ratify it, you know, those have played out to be accurate. And so really the only place that that they that there would be an option to do anything would be to introduce articles on impeachment. And so I heard you were talking about that, that's one of the Democratic, I think was a senator has announced Congresswoman who is an Iranian American. If you don't, if you'll bear with me, if we can hold on to you one more time, I'd appreciate it. Dr. Brian Cox, Professor Cornell Law, retired Army Judge Advocate. And of course, I find these great, these great talents like this professor. So now he'll be in great demand. I hope he is. We'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran led company. So helping veterans is their North Star. Now they've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a US only workforce. Sure to be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk service. They give you the same towers, same network, same 5G coverage is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values, your value, helping support veterans every single day and creating American jobs. How about you? Go to puretalk.com slash levin to switch to pure talk. That's pure talk.com slash levin to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. The cost of freedom is high, but this phone call is not call Montlavin toll free at 877-381-3811. All right, we're here with Dr. Brian Cox, who teaches international law at Cornell Law, retired Army judge advocate. We walk through briefly what is and what is not a war crime. As you see it, Professor, I mean, are we going to great lengths to make sure we don't commit war crimes much like the Israelis and Gaza and so forth and so on? Because we have the weaponry where we can do far more damage as do the Israelis. Yeah, so that's actually a really great point because the concern that I've seen about the way that the public tends to evaluate law of armed conflict compliance is we look at the public tends to look at the outcome of an attack. So the Minab school incident in Iran is a good example of that. So it looks, assuming that the United States was responsible for that incidental damage, and assuming that it did not qualify as a military objective at the time, it was not intentional. Right? So because the way that we fight is there's, we get no military utility out of attacking a school that has, that's not a military objective, so we're not going to do it at least not on purpose. And so that would be a war crime. And, you know, I've seen this, I've studied it for the last couple of years with the conflict in Gaza and the region that the same rhetoric that's being used against the United States military has also been used against the IDF, Israel Defense Force, for the last couple of years as well, where there's incidental damage that happens. There's reports of civilian casualties, and automatically there's the rhetoric becomes, well, you can't attack civilians, civilians were attacked, and so this is a war crime. But in practice, in military doctrine, that's not how we evaluate law of armed conflict compliance. And to be quite frank, this is not how we fight. We don't, there's no reason to look down and see a school that has not a military objective and say, I'm just going to go attack this thing anyway. So there's just no, we get no military utility out of that. That would be a war crime, but we don't fight like that. We go through great lengths, as you said, not only in the equipment that we bring to the conflict, the munitions that we bring, but also the processes, the targeting processes that we engage in. We go to great lengths to make sure that we're not committing war crimes. And we do that by ensuring that if we are directing an attack against a person or an object, it is at least identified by us at the time as a military objective. I mean, civilized nations do this, and terrorist nations do not. And so by adhering to these rules, we do kind of have one hand tied behind our back against these enemies, but that's who we are, and that's what we do. So let me ask you this. That's right. When you, when you look at a regime like Iran, or when you look at Hamas or Hezbollah and these sorts of things, if we have an agreement with them, and I don't have any idea what this agreement, this proposed agreement, or earlier agreement, or so forth is, but when you look at it, yeah, to me, the big problem is how do you enforce this? That is, this, this, this is a regime that by its very nature, doesn't believe in the West, doesn't believe in Western rules and laws, and is perfectly happy to deceive you and maybe wait to the next president, the president after that. It's a very difficult thing, isn't it? It is, yeah. And so what I think it's going to come down to is, you know, President Trump has, has shown to the country and to Iran and to the world that he is willing to take a different approach because previous approaches to the Iranian government have failed. And so, you know, he, he, this comes out a lot in public messaging, this focus on peace through strength, right? But the strength element is, I think, what it really comes down to for, for enforcement is to, to stand behind a peace agreement with the threat that if you do not, the, you know, to the Iranian government, if you do not comply with obligations that you've committed to based on this ceasefire agreement, we will go right back to armed conflict. That's, so that's, you know, the definition of peace, maintaining peace through the, the realistic proposal of strength standing behind it. And that may mean we have to rearrange or alter or improve or however. Yeah. Our presence there so we can monitor and quickly, I guess, hit them in a pinpointed way if necessary. I think so, yeah. So in one of the things that, that made this particular operation during Fier, yeah, sorry, the OES, the, the, this operation, Epic Fury against Iran, possible now is very recently through Midnight Hammer and Rising Lion by Israel. The, you know, we have taken out a lot of the air defense capabilities of Iran. And so, they were already in a militarily weakened position. You know, based on these operations that have been going on for the last several weeks, they're going to be even more so. And so I, I expect that President Trump will maintain a robust military presence in the region and be prepared to, to reengage if necessary. That, I think that's the only way that we can, that he will be able to maintain any semblance of, of agreement from the Iranian government and actually having them stick to it is the threat of very real threat of overwhelming military force standing behind it if they don't. Well, what'll be interesting to me is what will be on the list that they can do and what won't be on the list. In other words, what can they do? I mean, there's a lot of weapons you can build and a lot of very powerful weapons that aren't nuclear, that aren't necessarily ballistic missiles, but even that ballistic missiles, I mean, they had more than we thought, I think, they were able to hide them and so forth and so on. So yeah, it could get a little complicated. In the range, we've now identified that the range is a lot further than we expected as well. So if you were advising somebody, I know it's not your area, but Stump Curious, given your military background, what is it that you would really want to lock down and how would you lock it down in addition to sort of arranging our force structure so we can hit them if we need to hit them? Yeah, it's really going to come down to, I think, maintaining the political will here at home. Militarily, we have the strongest military in the world, the United States does, and there's everybody in the world knows that. It's an openly acknowledged. And so the military will be able to achieve strategic objectives through force if we need to, what it's really going to come down to, I think, more than anything for President Trump is maintaining the political will at home to be able to back up this threat of peace through strength and the threat of reengaging if he needs to. It needs to be politically tenable here at home, and that's going to be the biggest challenge, I think, for President Trump moving forward. And it's really tough. You don't have to answer this. When you have one party that's trying to sabotage every damn step of the way, don't answer that. I don't want to get in trouble. I can say that. You can't say that. But that's my view. You've been a tremendous help, and I've just told our producer that does my Sean Fox to reach out to you. Don't do anybody else yet and see if we can get you set up, because I think this is very, very useful and helpful. So I want to thank you. Absolutely. Well, thank you very much for reaching out. I'm really glad to be able to join you, and it's been a really great conversation. Yeah, no, I've enjoyed it a lot. That's Brian Cox. Thank you, Professor. Cornell Law, retired Army Judge Advocate, a veteran, 22 years in the Army. Good man. You can see how sharp he is, and very patriotic, of course. I'll be right back. You know, folks, I've been working with Pure Talk for six years now. Boy, time flies. I wanted to work with a wireless company that shares my values. Pure Talk is a veteran-led company, so helping veterans is their North Star. Now, they've donated over half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of helping to prevent veteran suicide. And Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a U.S.-only workforce. Sure, it'd be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers here in the United States. And yes, I love Pure Talk's service. They give you the same towers, same network, same 5G coverage, is one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. And I choose to do business with a company that shares my values, your values, helping support veterans every single day in creating American jobs. How about you? Go to puretalk.com slash levine to switch to Pure Talk. That's puretalk.com slash levin to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. Lots going on. I hope you find it compelling. I think it's compelling. Joe Kernan is a very good host at CNBC. And he has a guy on by the name of Representative Roe Kahana. Representative Roe Kahana reached out to us in the summer of 2023. He felt there were a lot of issues of overlap between he and I, and he'd like to engage and discuss them. And I thought he was full of crap then, and he's really full of crap now. He's moved to the extreme left from the left. He's obviously interested in a higher office or whatever he is. He's all over the media right now. He's demanding the 25th Amendment be used to remove Trump. He's demanding that if they take over the House, the Democrats, he will lead an impeachment effort against Trump. He's accused Trump of committing war crimes, of violating the Declaration of War Clause of the Constitution. The guys are nuts. But he's a radical. Whereas he was fairly moderate when it comes to the state of Israel, he's now turned on Israel. He's attacking them and A-PAC and the usual. He's trying to out kook, AOC, and so forth. Man's turned into a bigot in my view. He's one of the guys and went to the House floor with Tom Massi and revealed the names of individuals who were actually helping the prosecution of Epstein. In many cases, ruined their lives, ruined their, the reputations, but he's protected by the immunity clause of the Constitution. But Joe Kernan was very, very good. He said this, to Roy, to Roe, Kana. Cut five, go. You have Hassan Piker. You don't dissociate yourself from a clear anti-Semite. You go on his Twitch feeds all the time. You have no problem with shutting down. Now you're for a wealth tax, which you were never before. All your constituents counted on you not to go there. And you're going it just looks like you are appeasing the left flank of the Democratic Party right now, just for votes, just for ends to justify the means. So go over each one. Why would you not dissociate yourself from Hassan Piker? Why? Well, first of all, I have gone on every media podcast. And he goes on like that's like that's a legitimate answer, right? Hassan Piker also said that we, the American people, deserve 9-11. That we deserve 9-11. He also talked about shooting senators like Rick Scott. To me, the guy ought to be investigated for making threats like this. He's obviously part of the enemy within. He's made it clear. But the point is you have a congressman, this guy, Kahanah. And he's not the only one. You have a mayor, Mandami. You have AOC. You have a senator, Bernie Sanders. And there are more of them who embrace this guy. You have a guy running for the Senate, the Democrat nomination, likely to get it in the state of Michigan, who also is a front man and a defender for terror groups like Hamas. As I believe this guy, Piker is. That's right, Piker, not Piker. Piker. The fact here is Hassan Piker, Piker right now, what he said today, cut six, go. If you cared about Medicare fraud or Medicaid fraud, you would kill Rick Scott. Okay? You wouldn't make Rick Scott, former governor of Florida, Rick Scott. You wouldn't make him the current, what is his current office with? That's enough. He said, I don't know why we bleep it out, but he said you will kill Rick Scott. Kill him. So 9-11, we deserved it. Kill Rick Scott. He said October 7th, the rape and the, what was done to the women and others on October 7th, really doesn't bother him. One iota. Now one iota. Given what, what else is taking place there. And so you literally have elected Democrats and Democrats seeking election, embracing this guy, Piker, aka Puker, embracing him. And you have the media, the New York Times was promoting this guy, dressing him up as some kind of a serious commentator. And yet his views in many respects and certain respects are not all that different from the woke right neo-fascists. Are they? No, they're not. That's who he is. And this guy, Khan is all over the place. Cut three. Go. If the United States Congress has any life left in it, every member of Congress and Senator must be calling for Trump's removal today based on the 25th Amendment. He's threatening the entire destruction of a civilization. He is calling Iranians animals. He is showing a total disregard. All right, shut up. He called the regime that slaughtered 50,000 people, animals. What do you call them? You jerk. You twist his words. Everybody knows that the president put out that statement to put pressure on the regime except for the woke right neo-fascists, the Marxists, the Islamists, and the frauds who are hosts, many of them. This is a big issue. It's not an issue in the least. And so he believes the 25th Amendment should be used because he disagrees with Trump in his style. They don't believe in elections. They really don't. They've tried to stop Trump by illegitimately, in fact, unlawfully using the legal system, the so-called justice system, to try and destroy him. They tried to use the 14th Amendment and twist it into a pretzel to keep him off ballots. And the list goes on and on and on. And now they're going to try again to impeach him a third time, a fourth time. They certainly don't have the votes to remove them. You need 60 votes to remove a president or somebody who's impeached in the Senate. But they're going to drag the country down into their hell. They're going to be joined by the Tucker Carlson's, by the Steve Bannon, by the little Adolf Nick Poenterson, by the Ann Coulter. She's back. I don't know where the hell she's been, but she ought to go back. I'll be right back. His operation, Epic Fury, intensive us. The world braces for what's to come next, and people of faith pray for freedom and for God's people in the Holy Land to be protected. And in the Holy Land, red alert sirens fill the air, sirens that give you only 15 seconds to reach the nearest bomb shelter. The situation is serious. The threat is real. And in times like this, freedom and faith aren't just abstract ideas. They are what we depend upon. And the international fellowship of Christians and Jews is on the ground, preparing large-scale distributions of life-saving food, first aid, emergency essentials for security personnel, while helping ensure hospitals and emergency rooms and shelters are stocked with critical medical supplies. This aid is focused on Israel's most vulnerable, the sick, the elderly, children, families in great need. But the international fellowship of Christians and Jews needs your most generous gift today to make this work possible. So please, rush your gift, which is tax deductible, by calling right away 888-585-IFCJ, that's 888-585-IFCJ, or online at Levin for the fellowship.org, that's L-E-V-I-N for the fellowship.org. Now the Iranian negotiators put out a statement. So let me read this to you. Give me one second to pull it up here. And the President posted on true social. It goes as follows, I'm reading a cold. On behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I express gratitude and appreciation for my dear brothers, the Prime Minister of Pakistan Sharif and Field Marshal Munir for their tireless efforts to end the war in the region. In response to the brotherly request of the Prime Minister in his tweet, considering the request by the United States for negotiations based on its 15-point proposal, as well as an announcement by POTUS, they write, about acceptance of the general framework of Iran's 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations, I hereby declare on behalf of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, if attacks against Iran are halted, our powerful armed forces will cease their defensive operations. For a period of two weeks, a passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran's armed forces and would do consideration of technical limitations. Minister of Foreign Affairs Sayeed Abbas Yabba Dhabadu. So I have here, multiple missiles have been fired by Iran in the last 30 minutes. At Israel, maybe some of the Arab countries too. So now what happens if that continues, Mr. Abbas? It seems to me if that continues, other countries, Israel, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, whomever, they're not going to sit there as sitting ducks. So this will be a very good test early on. Because what do you do about a terrorist regime that cheats on lives and conceals what it's doing? Like we didn't know about the distance their ballistic missiles might go. Now we do. We didn't know how many they had. They have a lot. Now we know. And when Wyckoff met with them, I guess a couple months ago, we learned that they could build 11 nukes in 10 days according to them. So the question is going to be how are we going to enforce this thing? Are we going to rearrange our forces? Are we going to be able to reengage quickly? How about can they rebuild? What can they rebuild? Can they rebuild their massive inventory of ballistic missiles? How do we make sure they can't reach our country? And what about their proxies like Hezbollah? So in other words, all the things that they use, their tentacles, their methodologies and so forth, how is this going to be observable? I think that's important because since 1979, they've signed all kinds of agreements and they violate it every day on one of them. Now it's not about underestimating President Trump. I think they do that and they get whacked. The problem is who comes next, particularly a Democrat. They're not likely to use military force, I fear. That's one of the concerns. But we'll see. We'll see what happens. The right man is in the right place at the right time. That's Donald Trump. And he's taking a lot of heat from his enemies in the Democrat Party and his enemies that are stabbing him in the back from the woke, ripe neo-fascists. But we can't yell peace in our time yet because we don't know exactly what this looks like. But I think we can be very pleased that it looks like there's some positive movement. I have some other questions too. What about the people of Iran? What about them? They're still executing. Executions and so forth. It's hard. Are they going to give that up? I'm quite serious about that. What about the proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis? But especially Hezbollah. Hezbollah has done a lot of damage to we the people in America here. A lot of damage. What happens there? So I do have a lot of questions. But I think it's a process and the time will come when these questions are answered. And we'll have the answers that I hope we need. Now on the, this guy wrote, I want to finish one more point with him. This guy is a bad guy. He's a phony and a fraud in my opinion. He's been on CNN. He's been on CNBC. He's been on Fox. He's been on the Piker podcast. I mean the guy is obviously doing something very aggressively. He's trying to break out from the pack. And by breaking out from the pack, he's becoming insanely left wing. That's what he's become. That's what he is. Insanely left wing. Here he is on CNN yesterday, cut four ago. The second one is that yes Iran should not be nuclear, but we know that they are, they don't have the capacity to put the enriched uranium on ballistic missiles. And they, we know that it would be a negotiation to get the enriched uranium. The enriched uranium is underground. The person who got the enriched uranium out was President Obama in 97% of it out. Then Donald Trump. This guy's such a, such a fraud. I mean, he shouldn't be anywhere near public office. We know now how much enriched uranium they had. We know that they violated the agreement even though they were obligated to comply with it by the UN and by the Europeans. And we know by the end of that agreement, they'd be able to have a breakout for a nuclear weapon, but it wasn't fast enough for them. This guy, Ro Kahana, is a dangerous man in my view. And if he and his ilk, wherever to take back the White House, and I fear one day, of course, they will, you'll have a North Korea situation on your hands. That is, they'll run for the, for the finish line and they'll finish with a nuclear weapon. I truly believe that. All right. So on today's Liberty's Voice, which I hope you folks will check out after the radio program, I always give you a little taste of it. I had to take a look at what the woke right is doing to the president, how they're stabbing him in the back and what they really stand for because the media like NBC and these other media outlets are trying to project upon you and me, red-blooded, patriotic Americans who support the president, who support this effort and are not racist and bigots and anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, and we don't embrace Sharia law as a replacement to the Constitution. All things that Tucker Carlson has said or guests have said, and the president's had enough of them, calls them low IQ, that he is, and more. The fact of the matter is, Tucker's now attacking MAGA and everybody else. From Liberty's Voice today, cut one go. What's happened to Tucker? He's lost it. Now, he may have lost it for a lot of reasons. Money, foreign influence. Maybe he is just a psychopath, in my view. He's attacked MAGA. He's attacked Christians. He's attacked the people. He's attacked the people. He's attacked MAGA. He's attacked Christians. He's attacked Jews. He's attacked the whole value system of Judeo-Christian beliefs. He's promoting Sharia. He promotes Putin. He's endlessly trashing our military, our war efforts, our right to self-defense, our history as colonialists. He brings on guests who basically reinforce the views of the enemy. Guys like Fuentes who's out there who is a rambling, incessant, racist, bigot, Jew-hater, Christian-hater, America-hater. Let's go to cut two also from Liberty's Voice today. Go. We as conservatives, as constitutionalists, as make America great again, MAGA, whether it's under Reagan or whether it's under Trump. Are these podcasters, and is this new medium serving us well or poorly? Well, obviously there are some hosts who are fantastic, and they're serious about having substantive discussions about what's going on in the country, domestically and in foreign policy. I mean, we're in the middle of a war, that seems to me very relevant, as well as the 250th anniversary, using our platforms to teach, to learn, to educate, to be educated about our history. Because what we know for sure is that our government schools don't teach our history. They teach what I call anti-history, that is, to undermine our founding. So we have to use the new media, right? Which isn't that new, it's about 20, 25 years old, but new in the context of things, to advance the cause of what? Americanism. And that's why I do Liberty's Voice. We'll be right back. Mutt Loven. Well, they keep firing missiles into Israel, Mr. Producer. I thought that was going to all stop, right? I mean, not a few either, a lot. I'm just wondering how this is supposed to play out. How's this supposed to play out? You know, Israel's a democracy, so that government can fall too, if they just sit there and take incoming missiles. So I'm just curious how this is going to play out. I know there's people who say, I don't really care. Damn them. Well, I don't worry about people who talk like that. But we have Mike Tobin and Tel Aviv, he's saying, hey, look, moments ago, they fired missiles into Tel Aviv. That's their second biggest city. People like to talk about war crimes. That's a war crime. But it doesn't matter, does it? Yeah. Abdul El Said Yavadaba, he's the Democrat Senate candidate in Michigan. He was on Fox News today. This guy's another, another genius, another problem. He's campaigned with Hassan Puker, Piker, that same guy, that same guy who said we deserve 9-11. And he was questioned by Lawrence Jones, who's absolutely outstanding, by the way. Cut seven, go. I want to get to your big event that you're going to have with Hassan Piker. He has said some things about 9-11. What do you stand on this October 7th? He has blamed Israel for that. We know that they were attacked. Do you agree with him? Of course I oppose rape. Of course I don't think 9-11 was justified. But because you appear with somebody, doesn't mean you agree with them on everything. Think about this. You have the president on the show all the time. He talks about grabbing people by parts of their bodies. I don't think you would ever consider. And that doesn't mean that you wouldn't appear with him. My question to you is, when did we start bending to cancel culture? When did we start saying that cancel culture was okay? Because clearly on your show, this guy has practiced all these one-liners, cancel culture. When did we bend to it? I've always believed in not cancel culture, but cancel a-holes and Nazis and Islamists and their ilk. I've always believed in that. We're supposed to embrace them or just pretend they don't exist. And of course they bring up Trump, this guy. He brings up Trump grabbing people's parts by their bodies. But he didn't do that. And you can compare that to somebody who says, we in America deserve 9-11. Is that where you're going to compare it to? Cut eight, Mr. Producer. Go. But specifically, who are the people within the community that are sad about the Ayatollah being dead? Because the peaceful Muslims that I know, including those that are in the Gulf state that are supporting this action right now, they reject him and they wanted him dead. So who are those people that you know that are sad and why? Well, look, I'm no apologist for any regime, including our own. And at the end of the day, the question is whether or not a leader focuses on his or her people. Clearly, the Ayatollah did not. And clearly, Donald Trump and this administration is not either. So again, I'm going to tell you, they are white. They are black. They are Arab. They are non-Arab. They are Muslim. They're not Muslim. They're all the people who had to pump gas this morning to get to work and realize that they were going to have to end up paying tremendously more money because of an illegal unjustifiable war. So the notion that the Ayatollah is dead is one thing. But the notion by which our country did it, fighting a third conflagration in a third country in this year alone, that there is the problem. And I think we have to understand that in politics, in government, the means don't always justify the end. The end doesn't always justify the means. And I think Americans of all stripes right now are unified by asking, what is the aim here and what are we doing? Okay, this guy is a real slime ball, don't you think, America? Did you think you'd see the day when somebody like this, not only Muslim, I mean Islamist, has a shot at being a United States Senator? This has been CARES' wildest dream. This is what they've been working for, CARE being the front group to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I mean, we got to take care of the home front as well as overseas threats, nuclear missiles by the enemy. But what about even here at home? What about the home front? Where these people are threatening us? And this Islamist, Marxist, Axis, I've been talking about, people call it green and red. I don't use the colors because I think a lot of people don't even know what I'm talking about if I do that. It exists, it's real. And the umbrella organization is the Democrat Party. The Muslim Brotherhood's welcome, CARE is welcome. These candidates are welcome, they run as Democrats and none of them run as Republicans, have you noticed? Bernie Sanders of Marxist embraces Piker and Islamist. And now this guy, Ro Khanna, who I'm going to been exposing all day and will continue to do so. And Islamist, if you will, and Marxist embraces all that, then pretends he's none of those things. He's all those things. We'll be right back. 7-7-3-8-1-3-8-1-1 So I have a question. Hold on, let me look at one thing here, folks, because news is on the move here. I have a question. And, hold on here, just bear with me, folks. We're live and national. We've got this two weeks, Marxist fire. It's already being violated right now by the Iranian Nazi regime. Missiles are being fired into Israel and perhaps other countries in the region. Are they able to defend themselves? Can you change that word itself to themselves, Mr. Producer? And we have the right man as president, and I bet he's furious about this. I don't personally know, but this will be the question throughout. That is, do we expect the Iranian regime to honor a deal? How will we monitor it and how will we enforce it? These will all be very difficult issues to resolve. I do believe if anyone can resolve them, the president can. But they're not going to change their spots and they're not going to change their stripes. They're just not. That's why they're called terrorists, because they're terrorists. What a way, you're rich. Got a few calls here. People want to get in. We'll take a few. Let's go to Wade, Roland Park, Kansas on the Mark Levin app. How are you? Mark, how you doing? Okay. It's a big honor to talk to you. Thank you, bro. Yeah. I thought I was a conservative back in the ring in here until I started listening to Mark Levin and then I realized I needed some work on that. I want to thank you, you know, just for everybody out there that it's just, it's so anchoring to hear the nuance, the details, the explanations. Thank you, brother. And the passion that you give to the founders and the whole nine yards. It's just incredible. My question for you today. You know, I wrote, Ro Khanna said today that I'm a relic with very few listeners. Plus, yeah, I think you're a relic 3.0. Well, wait, let me, if I'm a relic with a few listeners, why do they keep trying to battle me? Why do they think I control the war effort? If I could answer that, I could answer how this senator that's Islamic is thinking he's going to win. I don't know. I really don't know. But here's my question to you is that as part of this Iran deal, I just kind of wanted to get your opinion on this is that, you know, Trump, President Trump is, is, you know, always talking about a deal. And I was just thinking that if there's any way possible that the United States could annex a territory in Iran for military base and also have access to the poor homelands for our, you know, for our naval 100 year lease, 200 year lease, something along those lines, but we control that area. And this way, just like we did in Europe, just like we did in Japan, with these air force bases, it's brought a lot of stability to these areas. Now, the idea is very interesting, but we literally leveled those countries. And they were, they had an unconditional surrender. We haven't reached that point. We've leveled their military 95% of it. But the, the regime will continue to exist. And if I'm hearing correctly, our goal was not regime change. I think people are saying so that would be like defeating the Nazi military operation, taking out Hitler and the top generals and people like that. But the Nazi regime per se still exists. And of course, I know what you're thinking, you're thinking, well, they're going to rebuild. There's going to be other people that come to the front and how we're going to control this and handle this. It's very interesting. I'm not sure. Well, haven't, haven't, haven't our presence there is going to do a couple of things. Yeah. And of course, people are going to try to get on the, the Netanyahu thing that Trump's just doing this for Israel. No, we would be doing it for the safety of the region. And in addition to that, Trump had mentioned, I think in the last week or so, that he's pretty frustrated with Spain and having an air force base out there. And I thought if, if we could just have the gumption to go ahead and build a compound negotiated in, and you know, we're going to have to throw around some kind of a bone over the years. But I think that bone is way less expensive in the long run for what is going to get gained. And, you know, you brought it to the forefront about, you know, Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, which I call kind of the new Bermuda triangle of the conservative side. But I think that having this presence there and getting that in this negotiated, negotiation at this time, somehow, some way that that will enable, you know, the Arab nations around us that already like us, and they all, like you mentioned earlier, they don't all get along, but they're kind of united right now. And I see something along the lines of having, having that security there. And, and yeah, is, is, is we're going to benefit from this? You bet they you bet they will then. And rightly they should. But that way they don't have, depending on the next presidency or anything that comes up, we've already got an anchored presence there. All right, Duncan, man, I got to move. Yeah, excellent call and very, very interesting idea. Definitely worth discussing. I mean, the administration discussing. Thanks for your call. Excellent call. I've got to try and slip in one more person before the heartbreak here. Let's see. Let's go to Ray in Grand Prairie, Texas, the great WVAP. How are you? I'm Mr. Levin. Thank you for taking my call. Thank you. I have three points that I really need to hear your wise words of which to mon. Number one, why did Trump give another extension to enter into another agreement? Iran's never kept their word on any other treaty we've ever and during these two weeks, they're only going to build up more missiles and missile launchers. Number two, Iran brags that it's okay to lie to non-Muslims in order to get what they want. They brag about death to the big Satan, which is the United States and death to the little Satan, which is Israel. When are we going to believe them? And number three, why did our government say we're short on weapons to carry out another attack? Why broadcast our weaknesses to the rest of the world? You have three excellent questions there. Now, I don't have an answer necessarily other than I'm thinking, trying to think logically. One and three may be linked. That is, maybe there needs to be a break because we need to rearm. I'm not talking about production. There's not enough time for that. But our supply chain, perhaps, I don't know. Your point about how do we trust them, I think that is the biggest point. They've signed deals before. Trump only president in three years. So what do we do about a terrorist regime that cheats, lies, and conceals what it's doing? And so that's going to be the biggest question, I think. What are we going to do to enforce it? Are we going to have to rearrange our forces, our force structure to be able to reengage if we need to? What about ballistic missiles? How are those going to be treated? The range of the missiles? And what about the proxies, especially Hezbollah? I haven't heard anybody talk about that. And what about the people of Iran? They're still executing them. So there's a lot on the table. And look, the president isn't God. He's not a magician. There's only so many things we can do. But these are important things. And so I think they're fair to ask. And it's something that I'm sure is going to have to be considered by the administration. Thank you for your call. Excellent call. We'll be right back. Keep reading these headlines. Two weeks, these fire. They're firing missiles into Israel. And again, they might be sending fire in the Arab countries, too. I don't know. And I suppose the response is going to be they don't have complete control of the various elements there. Well, they got to get control of various elements there. Jim loves Park, Illinois. W are okay. Go. Oh my gosh, man. I am so happy to get on this show, Mark. I love you. I love everything that you're everything. But I want to just say, you know, I want to interject into this whole thing that into your audience that, you know, we can kill wave after wave in Iran, you know, as this regime dies off. But the thing is, is that they're all doing this for a religious reason. They, you know, their whole jihad is Sharia law. That's the difference between all those other Muslim countries around them. Those women are walking around without headdress, without anything, because that's Sharia law. So whoever is pulling the trigger, I mean, no matter who we kill in there, it seems like the next person in the IRGC is just going to keep shooting those missiles because that's what they have to do to fulfill their belief in God. And all the other Muslims around them are different because they don't follow Sharia law. And I don't know where this ends, but I don't know where this ends. Well, here's the thing. Here's what I'm thinking. I'm thinking it throughout loud with you and everybody else. Two weeks. Do you think this regime is capable of honoring the ceasefire for two weeks? They've already violated it. They're still firing missiles off. So the question is, do we actually think that they will now time will tell? Maybe they're the more clever than we think that they'll they'll hold off for two weeks or something of that. But isn't that the bottom line? We don't trust them, do we? No, Mark, I'm going to tell you right now, this is all to buy time, everything they do. And I think that Trump and his administration know this and he doesn't telegraph his moves, you know, just like any other time, you know, just like this whole thing is we're going to eliminate a civilization, you know, that's like the art of the deal kind of talk, where you go in with this, you know, crazy offer and then you settle for what you need, you know, but I think there is no dealing with these people just because of that. The fact that this is all based in religion, it's a theocracy, they don't care about international law, putting kids around buildings or anything else, you know, then they'll shoot stuff into Israel. And like you said, you know, who cares about that? Who says anything but in anywhere else, you know, they're hitting bases, if they can, you know, this is the I don't think you can deal with these people. This goes back to the Crusades literally or probably further, you know, this whole thing was they had to kill the infidel and that was how they fulfilled what Mohammed wrote how they take this fundamentally, you know, other maybe more peaceful Muslims say, yeah, maybe we shouldn't go out and kill people. These people do, you know, that's why they kill other Muslims. The biggest killer of Muslims is other Muslims. Right. All right. Excellent, excellent call. Appreciate it, Jim, really good. Let's go to Steve in Georgia XM satellite. Steve, how are you, brother? Yes, Mark, thank you. I wanted to ask you a couple questions to kind of set up what I was calling about. Aren't we supposedly a government of of by and for the people or is that something that is an illusion or a myth or is that something that actually exists in our country? Well, I've been buying for the people. Here's the bottom line. You don't want to direct democracy. You don't want people having to power the vote, your neighbor having to power the vote, whether you have free speech, whether you have the right to exercise your faith, whether you have a right to to own and bear weapons, whether they have a right to do process and equal protection. That's not up to the people. That is enshrined in our founding. So you don't want people to vote for it because look around you. Sometimes people are stupid. Sometimes they vote for stupid things. And so the framers feared both pure democracy, which they called mobocracy, and centralized authoritarianism. And so we have our constitutional system. So I get your point. And the more centralized the government is and the more bureaucratic it is and the more of our private property it takes through taxation, the less we do have a say in what goes on. Basically, they should follow the Constitution or otherwise leave us the hell alone. That's why we're constitutional conservatives. All right, I would like to discuss it more, but I've got to go, don't forget I'm going on Hannity in a few minutes. I want to salute all you wonderful folks. I have the best audience and that's you. Thanks to you. And I will see you tomorrow. Check out Liberty's Voice, my video podcast. I think you're going to like it on rumble and on YouTube and I'll see you tomorrow.