WMAL radio in Washington, DC, started announcing Friday night that Mark will be their 6-8 pm host starting on Jan 9! Wooo hooo! Mark is going to ROCK our nation’s capital! LOL!

The following message appears on WABC’s website.

***You may experience technical difficulties from 12/28-12/29 while we perform routine maintenance……….we apologize for any inconvenience***

During this time, you may have to link here http://abcrad.wm.llnwd.net/abcrad_wabc to hear the stream.

Here are all of Mark’s comments on NRO The Corner since the NY Times Dec 16 eavesdropping story first broke.
(more…)

Wednesday, Mark made some comments regarding a NY Times article on NRO’s The Corner.

WAR BY LAWYERS [Mark R. Levin]
There has never been a time when lawyers and courts have had so much influence over the conduct of war. This is where the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hamdi and Rasul have taken us, as many of us predicted. And now, when the president exercises his legitimate and traditional constitutional authority during war-time, including ordering the interception of enemy communications, he is said to be acting as an “imperial” president. And the lawyers representing the enemy are lining up for their court dates.
Posted at 08:09 AM.

Monday, Mark once again has to straighten out the MSM on NRO’s The Corner.

YOO AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER [Mark R. Levin]
John Yoo, a brilliant lawyer, played an important role in writing major aspects of the administration’s legal policies respecting detentions and surveillance. So, not surprisingly, he has been under attack for several years now. Today’s Washington Post has an article in which the first paragraph states: “John Yoo knows the epithets of the libertarians, the liberals and the lefties. Widely considered the intellectual architect of the most dramatic assertion of White House power since the Nixon era, he has seen constitutional scholars skewer his reasoning and students call for his ouster from the University of California at Berkeley.”

I reject completely the claim that the Bush administration has pursued “the most dramatic assertion of White House power since the Nixon era.” The fact is the Clinton administration asserted more power than either the Bush or Nixon administrations. Despite the Supreme Court’s precedent in United States v. Nixon, compelling President Nixon to turn over evidence relevant to a criminal investigation (including the tapes), Clinton threw up phony roadblock after phony roadblock claiming presidential authority to obstruct the Starr investigation, all of which ultimately failed. He claimed attorney-client privilege (even where he improperly used government lawyers to work on his private legal matters); executive privilege (again, to prevent prosecutors from gaining access to information surrounding his private activities); and Secret Service protective function privilege (a concoction of the Reno Justice Department to prevent the taking of testimony from Secret Service personnel who witnessed Clinton’s wrongdoing). In each case, courts at every level shot down these unprecedented claims.

And, as we know by now, the ECHELON project has been intercepting electronic communications of every sort, gathering them into a giant database and analyzing the communications, for years, including during the Clinton administration. Clinton bypassed FISA by extending warrantless searches to include physical searches. And he used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma after the Oklahoma City bombing. We didn’t hear word-one about threats to civil liberties. So much for the intellectual seriousness of the sanctimonious Left.

Since December 16, when the New York Times published the first NSA story, the big media have largely ignored the actions of past presidents in extending warrantless searches via executive orders; a Supreme Court and four circuit court decisions recognizing the president’s inherent constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to order the intercepts; a FISA Court of Review decision acknowledging presidential authority; and the Constitution itself in trying to portray the Bush administration’s NSA program as unlawful. Now, it ignores the Clinton administration’s abuse of power in an attempt to paint Bush as Nixon, i.e., to raise the specter of Watergate and the imperial presidency. And you thought things would get better when Dan Rather left?

John Yoo deserves a medal. He’s a patriot.
Posted at 12:24 PM

Friday, Mark spoke with Congressman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the chairman of House Intelligence Committee.

Well looky here! It appears that someone at the NY Times was listening to the show. Check out the article they published on Saturday!

Among Those Told of Program, Few Objected

Friday, Mark guest-hosted on the Sean Hannity Show. Mark told Sean’s national audience of over 500 stations that the NY Times has committed a felony by publishing leaked classified information.

So why should we accept lectures about the Constitution and the rule of law from a corporation that has committed a felony? Good question, Mark! I can’t think of a single reason to do so!

On this Christmas day, I thought that this would be a fitting tribute to those brave men and women in the United States Military. You’re in our thoughts and prayers. God Bless you all.

An adaptation of MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIEND

Hat tip to Tim Sumner.

In one of his best shows ever, Mark dedicated the last hour to our military troops. Here is the last hour in it’s entirety.

As we celebrate our holiday weekend, let us not forget the thousands of military troops that are deployed around the world that cannot be with their families during this time. May God bless them and we pray for their safe return.

As heard on the Sean Hannity Show, Mark Levin gave the address for those who wish to extend their thanks to Sgt. Eddie Ryan who was severely injured while fighting in Iraq.

Note: There was a last minute correction on the address. Confirmed with the hospital. Unit 4A, Room 412.

Helen Hayes Hospital
Route 9W
West Haverstraw, NY 10993

ATTN: Sgt. Eddie Ryan
Unit 4A, Room 412

Link to pictures of Sgt. Ryan and his family

Thursday, Mark spoke read the following articles.

Revoke Helen Thomas’ White House Press Pass

Where’s the Outrage?

Now these kook Libs are comparing the Bush administration to Apartheid! Can you believe that? Well, sadly yes, I can believe it. Only because I know what a bunch of nut cases these Libs are! Bush needs to start fighting back because these accusations are totally outrageous!

Today, Mark is filling in for Sean Hannity. The whole country will be treated to 3 hours of the Great One!

Hopefully, this is a preview of things to come! Rumors abound that Mark could be nearing a national syndication deal! Nothing new to report, but you can be sure I will keep you posted as soon as I hear anything!

As a result, however, Mark will not do his regular show today. Andrew Wilkow will fill in for Mark, instead. Mark will also be off on vacation next week, between Christmas & New Years!

Thursday, Mark spoke with Al in Chappaqua.

Al always has a way with words! LOL!

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Wednesday, Mark spoke about the NYC Transit strike. He also mentioned the filibuster on ANWR and the Clinton appointed FISA judge, as well.

It’s curious that we’ve heard nothing from Hillary or Schumer, isn’t it?

Wednesday, Mark discussed George Conway’s NRO post about FISA on NRO’s The Corner.

RE: CONWAY & FISA [Mark R. Levin]
Let’s look at George Conway’s excellent post. He cites this for Congress’s authority pass FISA and set forth the conditions under which the president, as commander-in-chief, is to prosecute the war: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, . . . To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

George appears to argue that Congress has much broader power over the conduct of war than the Constitution provides through the necesssary and proper clause. But it is well settled that Congress does not have the authority to micro-manage military operations, and there’s no reason intercepting foreign intelligence should be any different. This is an excessive view of the clause. Respecting the issues relevant to this debate, Congress’s authority includes the power to declare war; to make laws relating to POWs and detainess; to raise and fund a military; and to make laws regulating the armed forces. These are the powers to which the necessary and proper clause applies in the context of our debate. George appears to focus on the language dealing with regulating the armed forces.

Congress does, in fact, regulate the armed forces in many respects. It can decide on uniforms, salaries and pensions, age requirements, set up a military justice system, etc. But Congress has no authority to command the armed forces. That is clearly an Art. II, Sec. 2 power conferred on the executive. And the way these clauses have been squared, and can only be squared, is fairly straightforward — military tactics and techniques, including, I would argue, the collection of intelligence on the enemy, are left to the executive branch. They always have been. Indeed, FISA is a relatively new (1978) and rare effort by Congress to regulate an activity that, in my view, belongs within the president’s broad authority. See Federalist No. 69.

The necessary and proper clause does not, and cannot, be read as excessively as George suggests without neutralizing to a significant extent the president’s commander-in-chief authority. The framers understood that in Congress they were creating a legislative body incapable of making timely and flexible military decisions especially during war. So, yes, Congress can regulate the military, but it cannot lead it.
Posted at 04:39 PM

Here’s an hypothetical question by our friend, Tim Sumner. Check it out and email your answer!

December 22, 2005 – commentary (a hypothetical question) by Tim Sumner

You are now the Commander-in-Chief and you get to make this decision…

Visualize yourself in the chair behind that desk in the Oval Office. As the President of the United States, it is your duty to protect the nation and its people. Within the United States, billions of phone calls are made each day. Additionally, hundreds or millions of internet communications (email messages and online ‘chats’) take place, from one person to another, with both parties to those communications being within the United States. Knowing that, consider this hypothetical intelligence report:
(more…)

Wednesday, Mark spoke with a Lib caller that asked him what his qualifications were.

Well, let’s see now. This is direct from Mark’s Bio Page.

Mark R. Levin
Mark Levin is a conservative talk radio host on WABC in NY City and WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth.

You can listen live to Mark Levin from 6:00 to 8:00 PM EST, Monday through Friday.

Mark is president of Landmark Legal Foundation. Previously he served as Landmark’s director of legal policy for more than three years. He has worked as an attorney in the private sector and as a top adviser and administrator to several members of President Reagan’s cabinet. Levin served as chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General, Edwin Meese; deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education; and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of Interior. He holds a B.A. from Temple University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude, and a J.D. from Temple University School of Law.

Is that qualifications enough for you, Mr. Lib? Oh yes, there’s the thing Mark mentioned. Ratings! LOL!

Wednesday, Mark dug further into the recent actions of President Bush in his post on NRO’s The Corner.

LEADERSHIP [Mark R. Levin]
I think we’ve been looking at this NSA thing the wrong way. I have a question for Specter, Snowe, Hagel, Boxer, Kerry, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, and Vixen: Other than declaring war (which it did in two joint resolutions) and raising money to fund an army (which it also has done), what is the role of CONGRESS or the JUDICIARY in making decisions about the prosecution of a war? They certainly don’t have the constitutional authority to seize war-making powers from the president. And the Fourth Amendment, which the president’s and the war’s detractors seek to apply to military operations, is inapplicable as it applies to criminal justice matters. Indeed, every court (for those who demand judicial review) that has opined on these authorities has said that the president has inherent constitutional power when it comes to foreign-intelligence gathering and the prosecution of war. And they are right. Is any senator familiar with the separation of powers doctrine? Neither Congress nor the courts have inherent or any other kind of constitutional power to wage war. And, yes, waging war includes securing intelligence against the enemy, as it always has.

Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities. (Perhaps John McCain will add the Fourth to the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees in his al-Qaeda bill of rights. Far-fetched, you say? Don’t believe it.) Frankly, I can hardly believe we are having this absurd debate.

I am also troubled by some very radical and incoherent arguments (or should I say, allegations) put forth by certain law professors and lawyers. If I heard correctly, on the Fox News Channel the other night Jonathan Turley accused the president of committing a federal crime and an impeachable offense by failing to comply with FISA. So, presumably, every president who has exercised his inherent constitutional powers during war (and, by the way, President Bush has done so in an extremely limited way compared to many past presidents in past wars) exercised power they didn’t have? And it’s only after the creation of the FISC in 1978 that intercepting enemy communications became lawful? You have to be kidding. Bruce Fein has things so backwards that he accuses the president of seizing congressional authority when, in fact, it’s the other way around.

As for the politics of all of this, I will leave that to others. To write, as George Will did recently, that the president should have gone to Congress for authority to do what he already had the power to do is all well and good. But the suggestion that doing so would have, in this case, limited the political fallout is, I believe, simply wrong. This is a Congress, particularly a Senate, which is growing increasingly irresponsible when it comes to keeping our nation’s secrets (Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin, Ron Wyden, Richard Shelby, and Patrick Leahy have all been involved in leaks and leak investigations). And it includes among its big accomplishments the al-Qaeda bill of rights and gutting the Patriot Act. Let me go so far as to say that this Senate is weak on national security. No, it hasn’t cut-off funding for the war. And it won’t because the American people support their troops. However, it is chipping away at the tools the president is using to fight the enemy, bit by bit, as if implementing the ACLU’s legal strategy against the war. More and more aspects of the war are being litigated and decided by judges, and the present demand that the president bow to the judiciary is part of the effort.

The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.
Posted at 09:47 AM

Tuesday, Mark spoke about Jay Rockefeller and the letter he said he sealed and locked away!

Sealed and locked away? Yah, right! And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you! LOL!

Tuesday, Mark noted the holes he sees in Jay Rockefeller’s wild story on NRO’s The Corner.

THE ROCKEFELLER FILES [Mark R. Levin]
I am curious about something. Jay Rockefeller has released a letter in which he complains about the NSA program on which he’d been briefed. He said the July 17, 2003 letter had been sealed and secured in the offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So, he goes to great lengths concealing his views for to voice them might reveal classified information. In his letter he expresses frustration that he can’t even consult with staff or counsel, and he can’t draw on independent legal or technical expertise. Dianne Feinstein said last night that she has not discussed this matter with Rockefeller because she’s not on the Senate Intelligence Committee and it would be inappropriate for her to do so. Fine so far. But if Rockefeller went to such lengths to conceal his views, and if even Feinstein (a fellow senator) insists that she can’t discuss this with Rockefeller (presumably, then, Rockefeller can’t discuss it with her and other colleagues who weren’t briefed), then from where might the New York Times have reported this tidbit in its original story:

“According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee …”

I can’t imagine this trail would be difficult for leak investigators to follow. Who knew that Rockefeller had reservations? Maybe they should start with, say, Rockefeller?
Posted at 05:14 PM

Monday, Mark spoke about “BJ” Clinton’s Echelon system.

I knew Mark would have a thing or two to say about this! LOL!

Monday, Mark spoke about the Lib’s latest attempt to smear the President; the NSA surveillance issue.

I swear we have to get these Libs out of office soon before they get us all killed!

Mark Levin was on with “Super-Sub” Mark Simone today while he was filling in for Sean Hannity. The Chief Justice of the Airwaves gives all libs, slip and fall lawyers, and all of you normal people a lesson on the Fourth Amendment and legalities of intelligence gathering during a time of war.

Our friend, Tim Sumner, has posted this great commentary regarding President Bush and the NSA on his site.

Why does the NY Times want to extend civil liberties to America’s enemies?

I believe, the NY Times, to further its political agenda, will do all that they can to undermine President Bush’s presidency, even if it means more of us die here on our soil. What else explains the Times being both the leading critic of the Bush administration’s failure to “connect the [intelligence] dots” that might have prevented 9/11 and advocating for our enemies to be extended civil liberties – during wartime – that inhibit the effective gathering of intelligence to wage the War on Terror?

Read the rest here.

Check out this interesting 60 Minutes transcript about Clinton’s Echelon system!

60 MINUTES

Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY FALL INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES

STEVE KROFT, co-host:

If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency and four English-speaking allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon’s computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.

How does it work, and what happens to all the information that’s gathered? A lot of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the information is being used for more than just catching bad guys.
(more…)

Here’s a great article in NewsMax.com. I’ll bet Mark will have a thing or two to say about this! LOL!

Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST
Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls

During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon.

On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted “a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices” when it “secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants.”

But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

“If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.”

NSA computers, said Kroft, “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.”
(more…)

Sunday, Mark had more to say about the latest intelligence leak on NRO’s The Corner.

NSA, CONGRESS, RESPONSIBILITY & WAR [Mark R. Levin]
So we now know that congressional leaders and the intelligence committees were, in fact, informed of the NSA’s activities. However, Nancy Pelosi says she was reluctant about it, just as Rockefeller reportedly claims to have been, according to the New York Times’s original story. Harry Reid on FOX said he was briefed, but now demands an investigation. I assume there will soon be calls for a special prosecutor–not to investigate serial and damaging national-security leaks to the Times and Washington Post, but the president.

What is the point of briefing congressional leaders and relevant committees about executive-branch operations if they refuse any responsibility for the information they receive, and if they believe the information discloses constitutional, legal, and civil-liberties violations on which they refuse to act? As I watched Meet the Press this morning, I was appalled at the lack of seriousness of the coverage. Within five minutes of the program’s start, Tim Russert invoked Richard Nixon. Sen. Carl Levin was asked if the president might have broken the law. He answered that if he didn’t follow FISA he did. Levin earlier complained that he didn’t know what laws the president may be using to justify the NSA program. Keep in mind; at this point we don’t know what violations are even being asserted in any of this discussion. (This is the same Levin who has led efforts to conceal the Barrett Report, which allegedly includes stunning findings about the misuse of the IRS by the Clinton administration. I noticed Russert didn’t bring this up.)

Russert continually referred to domestic spying on U.S. citizens. Neither he nor we know what’s involved here. Some of those monitored may be citizens, they may not be. Some may also be receiving communications from al Qaeda operatives abroad, in which case warrants aren’t required and their citizenship is irrelevant. Some may be covered by the warrant requirements of FISA, some of the operations may not be. My guess, and that’s all it is, is that the NSA ran into difficulties tracking individuals who were able to elude surveillance (and the FISA warrant requirement, if applicable) by moving from place to place and switching between and among various communication technologies. The secret FISA court, and many of its procedures, isn’t exactly secret to anyone, including the enemy. If so, or if I’m close, the claims that the president authorized domestic eavesdropping on U.S. citizens is the most hysterical and, frankly, reckless face to put on this. Moreover, the likelihood that top lawyers at the Justice Department (including career attorneys) and other agencies would have conspired to break the law, and kept it secret for years, for the purpose of intercepting communications among law-abiding U.S. citizens is truly far-fetched.

I said yesterday that it would probably serve the president’s political interests if he could release his executive order; however, doing so might endanger certain national-security operations. Russert and Levin demanded repeatedly that Condi Rice spell out the legal basis for the president’s authority. I expect, sadly, that national security will give way, once again, to public disclosure, as the only way to get past this latest attempt at scandal.

(Booking suggestion to Meet the Press: If you want to ask for administration officials familiar with FISA, book Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is apparently thoroughly competent to discuss it; if you want to ask senators about the NSA program, book senators who were actually briefed and are aware of the program, not the likes of Levin, who is as clueless as Arlen Specter, for neither sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee).

Finally, with allegations of lying about pre-war intelligence, exposing prison “rendition” in Europe, demanding withdrawal from Iraq, undermining aggressive interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorists, killing key aspects of the Patriot Act, and now eavesdropping, is it just me, or is there an unrelenting attack on core aspects of our post-9/11 homeland security efforts? I have no doubt we will win the war on terrorism overseas, as long as we succeed in overcoming the same domestic elements–among them, media, academia, anti-war left–which brought defeat in Vietnam. After all, 9/11 was no distant act of war, the polls indicate the American people see much of this as partisan politics by the Democrats, and it reinforces the view that Democrats are weak on national security.

Perhaps it’s time to more aggressively scrutinize the motives and tactics of the war’s opponents–rather than mostly react to their allegations. So far, the opponents have largely received a pass. It is often assumed that they mean well, that they want us to win the war, that they would never put politics before country, and so forth. Yet, many on the Left–including Democrat leaders in Congress–feel no similar obligation when they accuse the president of lying, authorizing torture, and violating the Constitution. Besides, they are undermining our war effort.
Posted at 02:11 PM

Friday, Mark spoke with our buddy John in Dublin California.

‘Tis the season to be jolly and I’m ready to party! I’m hoping Mark has a big announcement for us real soon!

Friday, Mark spoke about how recent intelligence leaks have severely damaged our national security!

Now, what are we going to do about it? Good question!

Mark stopped by to say hello on Hannity’s last show of the year. Hannity eludes to a big announcement coming up. Looks like The Great One may be on the air in San Francisco soon!

Hello San Francisco! ANY LIBS OUT THERE??

Friday, Mark discussed the Foreign Intelligence Security Act on NRO’s The Corner.

EAVESDROPPING INS AND OUTS [Mark R. Levin]
Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens — 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

The reason the President probably had to sign an executive order is that the Justice Department office that processes FISA requests, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR), can take over 6 months to get a standard FISA request approved. It can become extremely bureaucratic, depending on who is handling the request. His executive order is not contrary to FISA if he believed, as he clearly did, that he needed to act quickly. The president has constitutional powers, too.

It’s also clear from the Times piece that Rockefeller knew about the government’s eavesdropping, as did the FISA court. By the time this story is fully fleshed out, we’ll learn that many others knew about it, too. To the best of my knowledge, Rockefeller didn’t take any steps to stop the eavesdropping. And he’s no friend of this administration. Nor is he above using intelligence for political purposes, as his now infamous memorandum demonstrates.

But these leaks — about secret prisons in Europe, CIA front companies, and now secret wiretaps, are egregious violations of law and extremely detrimental to our national security. They are far worse than any aspect of the Plame matter. The question is whether our government is capable of tracking down these perpetrators and punishing them, or will we continue to allow the Times and Washington Post determine national security policy. And if these wiretaps are violative of our civil liberties, it’s curious that the Times would wait a year to report about it. I cannot remember the last time, or first time, this newspaper reported a leak that was helpful to our war effort.
Posted at 12:06 PM

So which is worse, our government eavesdropping on suspicious foreign communications or classified national security intelligence leaking? With terrorists who will stop at nothing to kill us, the answer is obvious.

Thursday, Mark spoke about liberal senator, John McCain, with his friend, Andy McCarthy.

Miranda rights for terrorists! Thanks a lot John McCain! Idiot!

Thursday, Mark read the following article about Bush caving to the demands of liberal senator John McCain.

Bush, in Reversal, Backs Torture Ban

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Wednesday, Mark once again started his show with a rant aimed at liberal senator, John McCain.

Men in Black - How the Supreme Court is Destroying America
Autographed by Mark Levin, introduction by Rush Limbaugh

Go to marklevin.us and order your copy today!

Tuesday, Mark Levin had the day off. Filling in was the other Mark, Mark Simone, who did a terrific job. Our friend, John in Dublin CA called in and gave us a great plug!

That homebrew John makes sounds pretty good, too! LOL!

There’s a war of words between Mark Levin and Andrew Sullivan on the web! Check out this exchange. (more…)

Monday, Mark made some comments on NRO’s The Corner. His comments referred to others made by Andy McCarthy’s comments here.

LET’S CALL IT “THE MCCAIN TREATY WITH AL QAEDA [Andy McCarthy]”

TREATY NAMES [Mark R. Levin]
A minor suggestion to Andy’s idea that we call the McCain Amendment the “McCain Amendment with al-Qaeda”: since al-Qaeda has no intention of signing any treaty, and we would be unilaterlly conferring rights on these killers, we might want to call it the “McCain Bill of Rights for al-Qaeda.” And perhaps those who support it might form a group, with the help of George Soros, called “People for the Ethical Treatment of Terrorists.” (Hat tip to the person who suggested this name to me, whose identity I don’t recall.)

While I’m on the subject of terrorists’ rights, back to Andrew Sullivan. As he’s into links, as opposed to crafting his own case for terrorists’ rights, in October the State Department issued a balanced and useful report . Moreover, if Andrew’s characterization of U.S. armed forces treatment of detainees is accurate, i.e., if they perform widespread torture, and if they have been authorized to inflict torture by the highest levels of our government, then I suppose he would conclude that Dick Durbin’s reprehensible accusation against our troops is accurate too. For those who forgot, Durbin said, in part:

“If I read this [email] to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings.”

Frankly, I see little difference between Durbin’s and Andrew’s characterizations. So caught up in their own pseudo-moralizing that they sound foolish. The problem with McCain, however, is that his pseudo-moralizing has become the basis of law-making, which will harm our national security.
Posted at 03:57 PM

Monday, Mark discussed the scheduled Tookie Williams execution and the liberal nuts that are defending him.

These anti-death penalty Libs are living in their own little reality. Mark’s right! If their views became our reality, we would be in serious trouble!

Monday, Mark made replied to Andrew Sullivan comments about torture on NRO’s The Corner.

Andrew Sullivan
Thursday, December 08, 2005
WAKEY WAKEY: National Review’s Mark Levin wakes up, stretches, rubs his eyes and asks:

And where is all the evidence that U.S. armed forces and intelligence serves are engaged in torture? Is it widespread? Where is this occurring? McCain hasn’t made the case. We get mostly the same kind of platitudes he was famous for during the campaign-finance reform debate, e.g., the system is “corrupt,” money equals corruption, and so forth. Shouldn’t we stop beating up ourselves over this until such evidence is presented? We seem to be making law here based on hypothetical arguments, or worse — left-wing and enemy propaganda.

I refer Levin to the Schmidt Report, the Taguba Report, the Jones-Fay Report, the Schlesinger Report, the mounds of evidence collected by the International Red Cross, the hundreds of carefully checked newspaper reports documenting torture, abuse, murder, rape, and beatings in every single theater of this war by every branch of the armed services against defenseless military detainees. I refer him to the testimony of West Point graduate Ian Fishback and countless others. I refer him to the many memos constructed by the Bush administration defining and redefining “torture” to the point of meaninglessness. May I offer him a cup of coffee and a warm welcome to reality as well?

Here’s Mark’s response:

RE: TORTURE [Mark R. Levin]
Andrew Sullivan responds to my latest post, in which, among other things, I ask for evidence of widespread torture by American forces, by referencing 3 investigations/reports and the International Red Cross. The investigations/reports all deal with Abu Ghraib, and since the International Red Cross issues lots of reports and statements, I assume upon reading this post he’ll provide more specifics. If this is the best Sullivan can do, it’s not very good. The contemptible acts committed by a handful of soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in their prosecution and punishment. It resulted in career-ending reassignments of senior military personnel. But the prisoners were not unlawful enemy combatants, they were not detainees of the sort we’re debating, they were not interrogated for intelligence information, and the acts were not torture as understood under existing U.S. policy. Sullivan needs to follow the debate, U.S. policy, and U.S. law a little more carefully. Part of his problem is the sloppy use of terms and misdirection.

NRO’s excellent editorial on the subject of torture criticizes John McCain for doing exactly what Sullivan is guilty of — failing to define their terms while baying about how morally and ethically superior they are. Psuedo-moral platitudes play into the hands of the anti-war movement and the enemy. Changing course in a way that weakens our ability to prevent future attacks on our cities is, in my view, the immoral position. And the sophomoric constructs of many who embrace the McCain Amendment, e.g., that those of us who oppose it support the liberal use of torture, that Abu Ghraib is evidence of systemic torture, and so forth, are absurd. Notice, however, how little attention the proponents pay to the national and homeland security consequences of their position — which brings us back to their unwillingness to define terms.
Posted at 02:35 PM

Another Lib trying to match wits with the Great One! LOL!

Here are a couple of sites Mark has mentioned on his show that are for worthy causes.

Purple Finger for Freedom
Show Your Support For Free Iraqis:

1. Ink your finger purple from Dec. 12 - 15
2. Email Us a photo of you or your group with your hand raised in a V-for-Victory sign like the Iraqi Voter
3. Download the model lesson plan for teachers
4. Help Spread the Word
5. Add your organization to the Solidarity with Free Iraqis ad hoc committee
6. Show your purple finger: At work, at school, while walking jogging and shopping: Flash the V-for-Victory sign with your purpled index finger
7. Email and tell us what you are doing to show solidarity with free Iraqis
8. Wear a purple ribbon or hang them about.
9. Download this flyer and distribute at work and church.

and

Operation Gratitude
Hundreds of thousands of American troops are deployed indefinitely in remote parts of the world, including the Middle East, Afghanistan, Africa, the Korean Peninsula and on ships throughout international waters. The physical conditions they must endure are difficult and they may be separated from loved ones for long periods of time. OPERATION GRATITUDE, together with the California Army National Guard, 746th QM BN, Van Nuys, seek to lift troops’ morale, and bring a smile to their faces by sending care packages to service members overseas. OPERATION GRATITUDE care packages contain food, toiletries, entertainment items and personal letters of appreciation, all wrapped with good wishes of love and support.

Friday, Mark spoke with Don from Lake Ronkonkoma who had a great observation about John McCain.

Yes, McCain is consistent. Consistently whacked!

Friday, Mark spoke about John McCain’s efforts to destroy our country’s ability to protect us.

This is why Mark Levin is so great! When he discovers a topic of great importance like this, he hammers away until it is fixed!

Friday, Mark made some comments about torture on NRO’s The Corner.

MCCAIN AND THE CHURCH EFFECT [Mark R. Levin]
Ok, let me throw this out there. I actually believe that John McCain is about to do as much damage to the CIA’s ability to function as Frank Church did in the 1970s.

I was prodded to do a little more research on the subject of the UN Convention Against Torture and the rest, and the Congressional Research Service noted that in his transmittal of the Convention for ratification, President Reagan provided that the definition of torture was to be interpreted in a “relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.” “… the State Department suggested that rough treatment falling into the category of police brutality, ‘while deplorable, does not amount to ‘torture’ for purposes of the Convention, which is ‘usually reserved for extreme, deliberate, and unusually cruel practices … [such as] sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging positions that cause extreme pain.’”
McCain’s Amendment flies in the face of the concerns President Reagan himself had with defining torture down–and in McCain’s case, defining it to include “undignified” treatment. Anyone who’s dealt with the DMV has been subjected to “undignified” treatment. I think Reagan was right, and McCain is wrong. There is no compelling reason to change course here. Indeed, the compelling case is to leave well enough alone. Our government is reacting to the false allegations of European bureaucrats, phony human rights groups, and the like. These are the same people who refused to lift a finger to help stop the widespread murder, torture and rape of untold numbers of Iraqis. They are in no position to lecture us–or more accurately, we ought not be taking direction from them.
McCain is putting our military and intelligence interrogators in an impossible position. He seeks to expand the definition of torture without defining it (leaving it first to the interrogator to make a best guess, and then a court to make the final call) and he seeks to apply the law outside U.S. territory–exactly what Reagan rejected. And as I’ve said repeatedly, where is the evidence of widespread “torture” which is presumably the basis for changing course? I remain mystified how we’ve reached this point. But, then again, I was mystified by the great rush to pass unconstitutional limits on political speech, too. McCain was the driving force behind that, and if anything, we should be more skeptical about his “reform” agenda, not less.
Posted at 12:40 PM

Friday, Mark spoke about BJ Bill Clinton.

Yes, the Clintons are bad for the Democrat Party. Although I’m in favor of all thinks bad for Democrats, I still can’t get myself to root for Hillary!

Here’s the poem Mark read Friday night!

‘Twas the night before “Holiday”
And all through the House
The Democrats were whining
“George Bush is a louse”

Their voters were all nestled
In their cold little bed
You see, those voters were actually dead.

When up from the clattering voices I heard
The sound of the KKK,
So I knew it was Senator Byrd.

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear
But Senator Kennedy, clutching a beer.
With words all a-slurred and eyes all a-red,
I know in a moment it must be ‘Ol Ted.

More rapid than eagles his curses they came,
He grimaced and called Bush a bad name.
Now Pelosi, now Boxer, now Gore and Hillary
Get off your fat duffs and find me a distillery.

He was joined all at once by a face so scary,
I knew in a flash that it was old John Kerry.
His visage was drawn out like a face on a horse,
He was holding a flag, with hammer and sickle, of course.

He was tall and cadaverous, a right scary ‘ol sight,
I screamed to myself with all of my might.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his job,
Looking for more taxpayers he intended to rob.

So I smacked him a good one across his big nose,
And up in the air like an arrow he rose.

But I heard him explain “Despite all our splendor
America’s terrorist troops need to surrender”
So I closed all the windows and locked the front door,
I’m not letting in any Democrats, not never no more!

Thursday, Mark received a couple of liberal calls.

As Mark says, we don’t hate liberal callers on this show. We view them as entertainment! LOL!!

Thursday, Mark played some audio of John Kerry flip-flopping about the war.

Mark’s right, he is a dim bulb! LOL!

crossposted on The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Thursday, Mark made a couple comments about torture on NRO’s The Corner.

THE TORTURED DEBATE [Mark R. Levin]
Why should we pass a law that forces someone to choose between breaking the law (thereby risking his/her own freedom) and saving a city? How absurd? John McCain argues his law should be broken if it might prevent the successful interrogation of a detainee and protection of a city. There are a number of practical problems with this as well. How does an interrogator know in advance that a detainee has information about a ticking time bomb? He may or he may not. If he believes he may, what then? Torture? Aggressive interrogation? How does an interrogator know the difference between torture and aggressive interrogation since McCain provides the interrogator with no guidance of any kind. (As Rich has said, where are McCain’s definitions?) And yet, doesn’t the McCain Amendment outlaw both torture and aggressive interrogation by including such phrases as “undignified treatment,” whatever that means? And won’t these terms be defined after-the-fact, when some lawyer representing a detainee sues an interrogator and ultimately drags him/her before a civilian court? And is there any evidence demonstrating that existing (military) law and adjudicative processes are unsound or ineffective? If so, let’s see it.

And where is all the evidence that U.S. armed forces and intelligence serves are engaged in torture? Is it widespread? Where is this occurring? McCain hasn’t made the case. We get mostly the same kind of platitudes he was famous for during the campaign-finance reform debate, e.g., the system is “corrupt,” money equals corruption, and so forth. Shouldn’t we stop beating up ourselves over this until such evidence is presented? We seem to be making law here based on hypothetical arguments, or worse — left-wing and enemy propaganda.
Posted at 02:05 PM

Wednesday, Mark talked about the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and played audio of the speech FDR gave the next day.

That was one Democrat that knew how to fight a war!

We must never forget the great sacrifice of brave American men and women on this day 64 years ago. On her blog, Michelle Malkin has a post showing instances of Americans neglecting to remember this fateful day.

Two months ago, I was able to see the Arizona and the wonderful memorial they have put there to honor our fallen heroes. I can’t describe in words the feelings I had standing there knowing what had taken place in that very spot. None of us should ever forget.

Later on, I stood on the deck of the Battleship Missouri. Standing there on a ship right along where battleship row was 64 years earlier was eery. When a prop plane flew overhead it got everyone’s attention.

I think tonight I will go home, throw in my dvd of “The Final Countdown” and enjoy watching the F-14’s shoot down a couple of Japanese zero’s. I always liked this movie, except for the ending. I wish they could have changed that part….

Tuesday, Mark spoke about the disgraceful liberals that are undermining our war efforts.

I said it before and I’ll say it again! What a bunch of disgraceful, partisan hacks!

Go the ShadowTV Viewer to watch Wolf Blitzed read David wade’s statement on CNN.

David wade, a spokesman for kerry just sent us over a statement saying ken mehlman’s filthy and shameful lie about a decorated veteran is disgraceful. Political hack ken malman and draft dodging doughnut eating rush bim log have something in common. Neither of them know anything about how to make american troops safe. John kerry will continue to speak out how to protect brave american troops.

Monday, Mark took a call from a guy that was in favor of Mass. Governor Mitt Romney to be our next president. Mark, however, endorsed US Senator from Virginia, George Allen.

Allen couldn’t get a better endorsement that that from the Great One!
By the way, I keep hearing people ask Mark for pod-casting. Those folks apparently haven’t explored our forum! LOL!

Monday, Mark pointed out that our military is under attack, by our own US Senate!

What a bunch of disgraceful, partisan hacks!

Monday, Sean called into Mark’s show again.

A lot of interesting things were hinted in this call! Me thinks things are about to get very interesting! LOL!

Woo hoo! I have moved this site to a new and improved web host! Sorry for the downtime yesterday! The site should be more stable now! I still don’t have the photo album moved, but that should be done later tonight or tomorrow.

I’m moving the site to a new web host. It should be completely back to normal later on tonight!

You should be able to view all of the posts and listen to the audio clips already!

Friday, Mark was in a good mood and decided to play a little trick on Sean Hannity’s callers. In some area of the country, Sean Hannity’s show is aired on a delay. As a result, sometimes people remain on hold after Sean’s show is already over. Mark likes to take some of those Hannity calls and abuse them once in a while.

After that call I’ll bet Mark felt this big! (Imagine your finger and thumb being held very close together!) Well, as Mark says, Clinton Happens! LOL!

Mark calls in to the Hannity show to have a little fun.

Created by Mark Dean — Click here for the Artist’s Bio!—

Thursday, Mark took a call from a guy who claimed he wasn’t a liberal.

Isn’t it funny how liberals don’t want to be called liberals? They never let facts get in the way of their talking points. The best thing is that Mark doesn’t let their talking points get in the way of our entertainment! LOL!

Thursday, Mark read some articles to prove his point.

Senate Democrats demand investigation of oil execs

Wednesday, Mark took a call from a mother of an Iraq War veteran and then the veteran himself called in.

It really does boggle the mind that the media in this country could be so anti-American!

Wednesday, Mark received a call from our buddy Don in Lake Ronkonkoma.

It’s funny to think of all of the places that Kerry CAN speak at! LOL!

Wednesday, Mark discussed and played clips of President Bush’s speech to the US Naval Academy.

I couldn’t believe (actually I could) the bias headline in my local paper describing the speech. The MSM is destined for the dustbin of history!