Part Of The Problem - Mark Levin Loves Censorship

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie "the fire" Bernstein discuss consequences of the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz being closed, Mark Levin's call for censorship online, and more.Support Our Sponsors:Sheath - https://sheathunderwear.com use promo code PROBLEMStopBox - http://www.stopboxusa.com Use code PROBLEM for 10% off your order!Ultra - Don’t sleep on Ultra Pouches. New customers get 15% Off with code PROBLEM at https://takeultra.com!Part Of The Problem is available for early pre-release at https://partoftheproblem.com as well as an exclusive episode on Thursday!PORCH TOUR DATES HERE:https://robbernsteincomedy.com/eventsFind Run Your Mouth here:YouTube - http://youtube.com/@RunYourMouthiTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmFollow the show on social media:X:http://x.com/ComicDaveSmithhttp://x.com/RobbieTheFireInstagram:http://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmithhttp://instagram.com/robbiethefire#libertarianSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What's up? Everybody. Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. Of course, he is Roberto Zephyr Bernstein. I don't know. I just did different. I like that. That made me feel good.

Let's keep that every time. It got French for a minute. Anyway, me and Rob are on our way to Tulsa this Friday night. And then we'll be in Oklahoma City Saturday and Sunday night. That's going to be a lot of fun. We got two shows in Tulsa on our. Friday, two shows in Oklahoma City on Saturday, one show together at Brickdown on Sunday, and then Rob has a late night secret show.

There you go. Yeah, come out on the porch. I'm running my FBI presentation. And then next weekend, I got two gigs in Connecticut and one in Long Island City, just added Detroit, a whole bunch of stuff going on. You can find all the dates at Rob Bernsteincom. Hell yeah. And then, of course, Comitabismith.com for all the other dates that, all the Bricktown

shows together. And then we got, I think, quite a bit of dates coming up on the road. Real quick, let me just shout them out here. After Tulsa and Oklahoma City this weekend, our next stop is next week in Phoenix, Arizona at the Desert Ridge Improv. Really looking forward to that. I've never been out there before, and I've heard great things. Then we'll be up in Toronto, Denver, Houston, Huntsville, Alabama, Nashville, Tennessee, Cincinnati, Ohio, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Appleton, Wisconsin, Austin, Texas, the Comedy Mothership. Get those tickets soon because those will sell out. Louville, Kentucky, Fort Worth, Texas, Dallas, Texas, Salt Lake City, Utah,

San Diego, California. A lot of stops on the 2020s. Is Huntsville were NASA's? I thought NASA was in Houston. Maybe. That's where they have a problem. Or that's who you tell if you have a problem. I know that much.

about a no you know i know they've got they've got uh um i don't know i think they have offices in dc also maybe they do in huntsville i'm not sure um but anyway let's uh let's get into some stuff rob because we got a lot of stuff a lot of stuff going on there's uh the war which seems to be on the precipice of uh perhaps starting back up in a bad way um there are open and uh not as open calls for censorship in the wake of this shooting um you you know you're You know, I think one of the things, I think, I don't know, man, I just talk too much. So I can't remember. Did we say this on the show yesterday?

But I got to say, one of the most bizarre aspects of that shooting over the weekend was that the immediate pivot to calls for the new ballroom to be built. And did you see how many, like, right-wing influencers were posting that we need to build a ballroom. Some people are putting together like screenshots of them. It's like so many. A few people I like in there too. It's just like very bizarre. I don't know. It's just very, very bizarre. Like who it's just weird to me that there's anybody who somebody is going to either for their news or for their opinion on the news, kind of seeing what this person thinks, what this person thinks. And you're going to someone who immediately after an event like that doesn't even like attempt to formulate an original thought and instead just goes,

oh, these are the marching orders of the administration. Like, it's very bizarre. I tweeted, by the way, Rob, I just tweeted my only comment on this so far was I just tweeted, we shouldn't open a ball, we shouldn't build a new ballroom. Like, just like, hey, like, I don't even really care that, you know, a bunch of autistic people are,

and I say that tongue in cheek, are arguing with me and they're like, oh, it's not even taxpayer money. What's your problem with this? And you're like, I don't know. I don't actually care at all about the ballroom. I'm just like I'm counter signaling whatever this is that your role is to just fall in line with the administration over. So they're so stupid, Rob.

Like, anyway, go ahead. Yeah, so I mean, I commented it on the last episode because I just laughed so hard when I saw Trump get up right after the shooting and pitch. This is why we need the ballroom. Yeah, yes, yes. Now, the ballroom had been temporarily shut down. And I was hoping that it would be a lasting testimony to Donald Trump. uh, relabeled by the Democrats as the Donald Trump trash heap of America when he ends up with

a half finished ballroom. But there's a fun development in this story. Donald Trump did, uh, applaud himself on the fact that it was not being paid for by the taxpayers, but instead it's all the people that are bribing him. And there'll be a nice sign there of all of his private partners, because with all the money our government spends, we can't afford to do projects at the White House. And so we need private developer money to do it. However, the ballroom is actually just, a cover for a brand new bunker of which there's unknown government funds going into the brand new beautiful bunker that will be underneath um so the idea that this was just a taxpayer funded not taxpayer funded exercise is uh turning out to be not true and i believe this came out when he was sued

over the ballroom and then they pivoted to well it's not really the ballroom we've got this military bunker going underneath um which is not being paid for by you know Donald trump silent tech partners. Right. Right. Yeah. The taxpayer, things never come out in favor of the taxpayer in Washington, D.C. is a good rule of thumb. But it's also just like, I don't know. It's, what even is the argument that we got to have a new ballroom because that'll be secure? And so we could do the press, the press dinner event there. What's it called the correspondent dinner? We could do that there. Like, that's your solution to like so the president

just can never go outside anymore but he'll be safe in the what like isn't the White House in general is secure they got rooms like it just doesn't make any sense it's like it doesn't solve I mean I'd imagine presidents will still want to do events outside

their house sometimes so then you still got a pretty big problem it's just a very very bizarre like it would make more sense if you were just saying hey we shouldn't do this event anymore, but to somehow make it like it's a security issue, but like we're not going to deal with the fact that there's so many, you know, like people out there who want to kill the president, he'll just hide in here. I don't know. It's just very bizarre.

Or just have some competent security protocols. Yeah, that seems like a bit more. And I do, I got to say, you know, I listened to Joe Kent was on breaking points yesterday. And it's, I don't no, look, I'm not jumping on to any conspiracies, you know, exactly yet. As I said yesterday on the show, I think there's a reason why so many people do jump on these things. I also, I don't know, there's, I don't like to be the person who's just beating up on regular people who just distrust the government so much that they assume they're lying to them at every turn. And, you know, I understand why those people are there. And I think it's more our job to beat up on the powerful people who lie through their teeth about everything

and are destroying the country. It just seems to me like that should be the priority. But there's, look, I've always said this about Butler. And it's, I guess obviously there's a lot of factors going on here. Now, Joe Kent was the director of counterterrorism, and he is straight up like, he talked about in his resignation and in the subsequent interviews, he talked about Charlie Kirk's assassination, Butler, and Donald Trump's security being compromised,

which is, okay, that's kind of interesting that the director of counterterrorism, a person with the absolute top clearance, who was just in the government five minutes ago, thinks these things are really big issues and need to be investigating, investigated. I will say this, right? obviously all Donald Trump ever does is kiss the Secret Service's ass, even after they really fuck up.

Now, part of that might be that like, you know, the man was just shot or shot at, and, you know, you're a little concerned about that. And these are the people in charge of your security. So you kind of want to say nice things to them. However, you know, one of the things that Donald Trump always did, always. his entire political career and before his political career. He always either engaged in or gave a wink and a nod to conspiracy theories. You know, like, he would talk about how weird it was that the buildings fell that way on 9-11. He would talk about how we've never seen Barack Obama's birth certificate.

Maybe he's a secret Muslim who's not American and is therefore illegitimate. He was never, and certainly when there were real obvious conspiracy, you know, Russiagate, he would never stop mentioning, had a 2020 election, even if he doesn't have any evidence, he'll always just, and you understand. Obviously, it's very self-serving for him to just constantly be casting doubt

over whether Joe Biden never really beat him or not. No, I think it was stolen. You know, he does this about everything. Never Butler. Never once about Butler. And I just find that. Now, you could write that up as well. He got spooked in a different,

way than he ever did before. But you know what I'm saying? Like, it just seems like Donald Trump. It's like even when, you know, he's talking about like whatever, he just never goes like, he goes, they tried to throw me in jail. They tried to steal the election. And you're like, but you're not also going to say they tried to kill me or they try, you know what I'm saying?

Like he just will not go in that direction. And that's something kind of interesting. And it's just, again, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, crazy to watch such a blatant, objective security failure. And then his response is how great the Secret Service did. Like right after Butler, he was talking about how great they did. It's like, that was not great. That was not, I'm sorry.

That was not a good job. No one plays along with a fake shooting better than my Secret Service. They played their parts perfectly. Great actors. They should get Academy Awards. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today. show, which is Sheath underwear. Of course, we love them.

They've been longtime sponsors of our podcast years. I believe almost four years they've been with the show. I still have the first pair of underwear that they ever sent me, and they're still as comfortable as they were when they first sent them to me. The only underwear I ever own is Sheath. It's the best. They're really good quality. They last.

They make shirts and stuff, too. They're all really nice, really good quality. Check them out at Sheath.com and use the promo code problem. for 20% off. They are a longtime sponsor of this show. That's what keeps this show alive. And they're genuinely a great product. So if you want to support this show and get the best pair of boxer briefs you will ever put on your body, go to sheath.com promo code problem for 20% off.

All right. Let's get, well, in a second, let's talk a bit about some of the calls for censorship. Blatent, direct calls for censorship now that are coming out of this, which is quite, quite fascinating and revealing. But I guess we should talk for a little bit up front here about the war, because we're still in a war, guys, even though this shooting may have given us a few days of other things to focus on. I don't know, like, from what you've been reading about this, Rob,

but, you know, as I've mentioned several times on the show here, a lot drop site, Jeremy Scahill, his coverage has just been phenomenal and really, really helpful to trying your best to understand what's going on here. But essentially, Rob, the negotiations have completely stalled and fallen apart. This is, now look, I'm not saying that the Iranian regime always tells the truth or nothing like that. In fact, they do not. They lie and they have throughout the years many times lied and threatened things and had a lot of bluster when they didn't really mean it. It does seem to me, I could say pretty confidently at this,

point that if you've just been reading Jeremy Scahill and everything that the Iranian government is saying, which I was not sure about at the beginning. I mean, I've been reading him the whole time. But, you know, when Jeremy Scahill is reporting that the Iranian foreign minister says this, it says, hey, we're standing firm. We're not negotiating on this. But then Donald Trump says, we're talking to them and we've got a big deal that's coming out in a few days. I don't know. It is possible that that's what the guy is saying to Jeremy Schaill. But actually, that's just posture and that you know like you don't know for sure but from reading drop site uh this whole time it just seems pretty undeniable that the iranians really are sticking to their guns here they're

telling the truth for the most part at least to everything that's led up to now Donald trump is completely full of shit and is lying and they're what the Iranians as we've been talking about on the show here the Iranians have made clear like no we're not accepting the the status quote, we're not turning over our enriched geranium to you. We're maybe open to like broader nuclear talks, a la the JCPOA type things that we've always been open to talking about, but that like we're not, we don't accept this and we're not agreeing to a ceasefire as long as you're blockading the Strait of Hermuz. They've been clear on this.

And then they were like, well, we're not going to the negotiations. Donald Trump was bluffing acting like the negotiations were still going to happen. clearly at this point that's been conceded he's admitted that's not happening but i will say this man and this is from from reading the drop site stuff there seems to be a very okay so from the american side it seems like the the thing is like okay look we could not get this deal and the major problem here is we'll listen to marco rubio explain in a minute is exactly what me and you called pretty or i think the first week of this war we started talking about this um and we'll get into that in a second But so now Donald Trump, the debate is, okay, if we resume the war, what do we do?

You know, do we really go bridge and power plant? Or do we do something a lot lighter than that, that, you know, but then say it was total destruction or whatever. There has been, now I'm not saying this means that it's 100% true. But what has the Iranians, like they have throughout this entire time, they have not stopped saying the same thing. and what they are saying very clearly now in several different warnings is that if we resume this war and it goes back to hard strikes, that they have made the calculation that they feel like there has to be a painful response and that their response, they've said this over and over again, will be bigger than anything they've done yet in the war.

Now, maybe that's just bluster. It would make sense to make that bluff even if you weren't going to do it. You know what I mean at this place right now? but we've seen them call several of Donald Trump's bluffs. And if Donald Trump does attack Iran again, this will be an attempt to call one of theirs. And the thing is, Rob, is they really might not be bluffing. This really might be the calculation.

The latest from Trump is essentially he canceled negotiations that weren't actually planned or going to happen. Iran then hit him up and said, all right, listen, we respect the fact that you canceled the non-negotiations, so we'd like to make you a better offer. Donald Trump declined their better offer and won't tell us what the better offer is or what the improvement was or what the offer would need to be. None of those points were clarified, but in his refusal of the better offer, just two days later, Iran sent him a note basically being, hey, this is not sustainable for us and we're losing. So now we're ready to send you an even better deal.

So that's the official narrative from Donald Trump was that refusing negotiations got us a better deal that we declined. And now Iran called us up to let us know that they're getting ready to fold and that they acknowledge American might. So really, this is basically wrapped up. Follow Donald Trump for his latest stock picks. So you can be in the know of when to reverse course. And he tells you it's going back to full out war. Dude, it's so funny that Donald Trump, he can't even. lie effectively because whenever he claims what they're saying, you're always like,

that just sounds like something Donald Trump would say. Like he's like, they called me and they said, we're totally defeated. We're utterly humiliated. You're terrific and tremendous and we are weak and small. That's what they're like, why would they even say that? And also, again, this is, look, a lot of this is like, okay, Trump's claiming they said this. Okay, then we've got Jeremy Scahill doing reporting, sitting down with people interviewing them and going, well, they're saying that, so, okay, who knows? But it's just, it makes absolutely no sense

that they'd be saying what Donald Trump claims they're saying. It flies in the face of their actions, but if Jeremy Schaerl's reporting is correct, then it's completely consistent. Like, it's just so obvious that he's lying, and this is really what's happening here, because if they were, like, look, all we know, it was reported, the Iranians bailed on the negotiations first. they said they're not going. Then Donald Trump insisted they were still happening. Then he canceled the thing. If they were desperate for a deal,

they'd be going to the negotiations. If they were so weak and they can't afford this anymore, they'd be going. But so, I mean, look, my concern here is, and I hope, like, man, I don't know that I really, really like to hope that there's still some, level of restraint, both from the Pentagon, the Trump's War Cabinet, and from the Iranians.

That like, I don't think Donald Trump's really going to take out like every bridge and power plant in Iran or something like that. Just don't think he would do that. I was a bit more concerned about that a few weeks ago. Maybe I should still be concerned about that. But I don't think he would do that. And I like to think that, like, the Iranians would respond by, like, taking out maybe one desalination plant just to let them know that they could take out all of it or something like that,

you know, but it's quite possible that this goes back to some version of that, hopefully not so catastrophic, but very dangerous game. And it's also just unbelievably annoying the half information that keeps coming out. That's a puzzle piece to try and figure out. So the other latest was basically I ran offer to, listen, we won't block the straits. If you don't block the straits, and then we can talk about the new, We can postpone, you know, conversations about the nuclear agreement, which sounds like a de-escalation and a step in the right direction. Right.

But no point in time is that clarified whether or not that meant that they were still charging a toll, which in other words means not really reopening the straits or if that meant that they were willing to let more people pass if they were paying them and essentially just America, you stop locking the streets. That wasn't, it's unbelievable to have like these half-reported stories with the critical element. just unclified. Yeah. No, that's right. You know, the other thing here that is, I think, and, you know, I think that like there, our whole economic system is such a house of cards.

It's all just fake and built off essentially just like accounting tricks and money printing and trading in derivatives where there's not even a real, there's no actual industry. It's all just a made-up artificial, like everyone gambling, essentially, on what's going to happen in the future is a bigger industry than any actual industry. So it's all, but so there's so many ways that you can manipulate the markets, and we've seen Donald Trump, you know, doing this for weeks now. But we are, we're going to find out within the next few months, and it might take a few months.

how much damage the straight being closed this long actually did. Like what, and it does take a while for that to like give it. You know, like even if you could think, for example, okay, so if you remember in 2020,

I mean, the insane money printing of that year, it started immediately in March. Like as soon as the, the national emergency was declared, the Federal Reserve started pouring, like just flooding the market with liquidity. in March alone, I mean, they were pouring in just like insane amounts of money.

Overall on that year, it was trillions and trillions of dollars. Like, I forget exactly the hell. I used to have all these details in my head. But I think it was like $6 trillion between the like 2020 and then the beginning of 2021, but they're pumping trillions of dollars into the economy. We didn't start feeling the price inflation for that for like another year. Like it was like it took, it was like in late 20, one when it was really like, oh, shit, the price of everything was exploding.

It took a while for that to make. And, you know, as if you guys remember, there were supply chain issues that were like two years after COVID, you know, like things had been caught up. There's still to this day, in fact, me, you and Chris were talking about this a little bit when we were out in Stanford, that there's still to this day, there's all types of, like, storefronts and restaurants who are still now it's hitting them, all the, the, the, months of rent that were, if you remember, they had a rule where you were allowed to, like, defer the rent to the end of your lease. So you didn't get free rent, but you got to put it off. Well, now that

bills come and do. And I don't know for, you know, Chris used to own a restaurant. So he was like a little more in the know in this. But like, you think about like the profit margin for a restaurant. And then you go like, hey, can you make your rent if you made zero revenue for three months? Like, no, probably not. And so anyway, so there's the point is just that even where we are right now, we really don't exactly know like, what devastating is this going to be to the global economy four months from now? Like this is if the problem got solved today.

You know, the straight of Hormuz, I don't know. I have no expertise in this field whatsoever. But they're saying 20% of the world's oil goes through this straight. There's been, there hasn't been no activity going through the straight, but it's been tremendously reduced for like eight and a half weeks now. What is that, you know, like how long can we go? of that without there being like a, you know, a real calamity. That's a big question mark.

And I will say that Asian countries and countries and the Gulf states are getting really worried about this. That's for sure. The Europeans are getting very worried about this. So that's a whole other dynamic and we'll see what, you know, the pressure of that is. Now, I don't know if you've seen this, Rob, this is the, what the Iranian government is saying, I'm getting this from the drop site reporting, is that they believe the threat. M's are on their side.

This is what they're saying publicly, and it does seem to be correct. But I guess the three Ms are, what is it? It's munitions, the midterms, and, oh, shoot, I'm blinking on what the third one was. But they are basically saying that, like,

yo, the global economy, the, you're going to run out of munitions before we do. And the fact that Trump's got these midterm elections going on are like we're in the driver's seat here that's what they seem to be saying and then of course now it does seem that and and i kind of alluded to this before but let's get into the marco rubio clip here um this is what me and you were talking from like the first or second week of this war was like this dynamic with the strait of her moose sorry markets markets midterms and munitions

so i meant the the global economy munitions and midterms thank you natalie i appreciate that i forgot one of my M's. I was thinking about this. It's just a fleeting thought in my head that it's really interesting if like your Putin Z or the Iranian leadership and that really what do you care about staying in power? I mean, that's kind of your core business is me being in power. And so if you're Iran, you can kind of stomach a worse economy or more hiccups because you don't really care about the people that live there. It's about, hey, we got to keep this regime going. And it's almost interesting if you're the Iranians to get on a call with Putin and Putin's like, guys, you just got to make it two years, two years and this guy's out of office.

Like you guys are, you guys are trying to stick around for 50, 100 years or whatever it is, but you know, you just got to weather the storm for two years. Can you weather a two years storm if there's a complete close of the straight? You know what I mean? They're playing by different timetables because new leadership comes in and, you know, you might get some Democrat that just decides, hey, we're buying the oil from Iran. We're changing the whole thing here. You're absolutely right.

And look, here, let's go to the clip by Marco Rubio here. Because obviously, this is, you know, perhaps the most, aside from Trump, the most influential person on U.S. foreign policy right now, the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. And this is, it's hard to even, like, remember that there was a time, you know, way back three weeks ago where Donald Trump was trying to say that, like, we don't care about the straight. The rest of the world needs the strait. We don't need the straight. It'll naturally open. That's going to be no problem. Here, let's listen to Marco Rubio, his latest comments on the strait of Hermose.

What they mean by opening the straits is, yes, the straits are opened as long as you coordinate with Iran, get our permission or we'll blow you up and you pay us. That's not opening the straits. Those are international waterways. They cannot normalize, nor can we tolerate them trying to normalize a system in which the Iranians decide who gets to use an international waterway and how much you have to pay them. to use it. Look, look, I'm just saying that's why you got to watch our show. Because it is kind of crazy that literally we were weeks ahead of their admission on this. Because me and you both were just looking at the facts on the ground. You go, wait a minute, hold on, but if Donald Trump is literally saying he leaves, and this is what Mark Rubio is recognizing what we were talking about

weeks ago, but then you've transformed them into a global power. Now all of a sudden, instead of being this country that was relegated and isolated and crissue. tripled under U.S. sanctions with their economy falling apart. You know, by the way, Rob, they tried the whole goddamn fucking Mossad up and the global media that seems to just be in their pocket. You know, those protests starting in December that everyone made a big deal about about the protests in Iran, they were largely driven by economic anxieties. It's like price inflation and the economy being terrible because they were in this, you know,

awful situation. And you're going to, in a war, transform them from a country that had their own people out in the street upset with the... Because, like, they tried to make it out like every single person in the street was going, we want the shawl back in power, we hate Islamist theocratic governments. When more it was like the price of eggs is high. You know what I mean? So like, or at least part of it was that. And so, you know, the idea of transforming them with a war into, oh, now you're an economic power that controls the strait.

That's a real fucking problem that they can't. But this is where you really get like, you know, trapped in the escalation trap in the fog of war or whatever where okay. So you can't do that anymore. But what can you do? You know, it's hilarious to hear Marco Rubio, they're essentially saying that this is illegal. These are international waterways. This is not Iranian territory.

It's illegal for you to say which ships can come and which can't. and they can only come if they get your permission. And that's why we're blockading the whole thing. Like, okay, well, it's certainly not American territory. So it's just as illegal when we do it as it is when they do. But the difference is we don't live there. And as I mentioned last week on the show, the Pentagon told Congress that it would take six months

for them to open the straight militarily and that that would only happen after the war. So in other words, we don't, have the ability to force them to open it, all we can do is force it closed. But closing something doesn't solve the problem when your desire was to open it. This is really complicated math here. You've got to be like 150 IQ stuff to really understand this. So essentially, all we can do is keep playing this game of chicken where even less is getting

through the Strait of Hermuz because of our naval blockade and hold the world economy hostage. What is, like, again, as I said, the only alternative to this is that the Iranians have to just buckle. They have to capitulate it, and there's no indication that that's going to happen. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Stopbox. Love Stopbox. It's a great product. Let's be real. Owning a handgun for self-defense comes with serious responsibility. You need it secure, but also accessible when it matters most. Too often that means choosing between locking it away or leaving it out, vulnerable to kids,

guests or intruders. That's the problem Stopbox USA set out to solve and they nailed it with the Stopbox Pro. It's a 100% mechanical, keyless, battery-free lockbox that gives you instant controlled access to your firearm. No electronics, keys, or codes required. No keys, no codes, no app, just a patented five-button locking system that responds only to your unique input. It's fast, intuitive, and built for muscle memory, so you're not thinking, you're reacting. And when seconds matter, that can make all the difference. I will tell you guys, I own this product. I own this before they came on as a sponsor.

It's really great. I really love it. If you're a gun owner, I would seriously recommend considering it. It's a great way to have it all where you have your guns stored, but it's also very quick access. And if you just practice it for a few minutes, it becomes second nature, like muscle memory to just open it. And only you can open it.

There's no way of kids getting into that thing. And so, yeah, it's really the perfect box. in my opinion. And for a limited time only, our listeners can get 10% off at Stopbox when you use the promo code problem at checkout. So just go to Stopboxusa.com, use the promo code problem for 10% off. That's Stopboxusa.com promo code problem for 10% off. All right, let's get back into the show. It's like a formal announcement of a whoopsies here. Hey, guys, we can't just move on because we made Iran a world power. Interesting thing to note, and I might not have. have the, all the specifics perfect on this. But it's not exactly an international waterway

based off like maritime law. It's kind of like duly owned by Oman and Iran because of how close it is to their shoreline. Now, there was an international treaty that allows for if something's like a critical passageway, then I guess the typical law of how close you are to someone's shoreline doesn't apply and they have to let you pass. But here's the kicker. Iran's an international pariah. They never signed that thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right. Oh, this is what happens when you don't let a country be in the global community of countries. It's like, okay, but then, you know, you can run into problems like this.

I want to make it clear. I'm not saying Iran should run the straits or they should have ownership over the straits, but I'm just saying it's not so clear cut and dry to go, hey, they have absolutely no claim to this thing or right to it. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's a fair point. So anyway, I mean, we're still essentially, I guess, in the same situation, but something's going to have to happen here very soon. And now, I don't know.

I mean, we should all pray that what ends up happening is some type of de-escalation here. But, man, you know, I really do think, and again, I've been saying this through the whole thing. I mean, look, I said that I thought Donald Trump had destroyed his coalition last June. And I said no question. I mean, the first day of this war, I was like, well, that's it. The coalition has destroyed. His presidency has ruined. So, you know, I hear Joe Kent the other day.

And he's got like the perfect message for someone who, like, maybe Donald Trump would hear. You know, and his message is, sir, you can still do this. You can, you know, he's like, Donald Trump is a strong leader. I know a strong leader when I see one, and it's going to take a really strong leader to have the strength to end this thing and explain to the American people that we just had to walk away from it,

but, you know, all this. And he said that Donald Trump is uniquely able to survive this and save his presidency. And I'm watching it, and I'm like, you know, that's a really good message for Trump to hear. But as I said to Tucker Carlson,

I'm just no good at being a political operative. I'm not good at, calculating like what is the right thing to say here in order to get this result like I just tell the truth that's just what I'm comfortable doing and I think someone some people have to play that role and it's just like that's not true like you know what I'm saying like I understand that that's a better thing for the president to hear but I'm kind of confident he's not watching this podcast right now I mean I did say this on Tucker Carlson I was a little nervous when I said it because I was like there's a chance he could be watching this but the truth is now

He can't save his presidency. He can't leave now and save his presidency. I mean, listen, don't get me wrong. I think he should. I think he can only make it worse by staying. But if Donald Trump were to just accept that and leave now, he is the laughing stock for all of history. His presidency is destroyed.

If he did all of this for nothing and the best result we can come up with is, well, he stopped at some point. Oh, man, is that a disaster? I just, I still don't see. It's not like he recovers. He doesn't go back to have. having all those people who supported him and 24 supporting them again. There's just no way.

So unfortunately, we're in this awful situation here where, like, Joe Kent is saying the best possible thing that could be said, but he is wrong. It's not true. Donald Trump has destroyed his presidency already, and there's almost like, I don't know, I'm struggling to come up with one of my bad analogies, but there's something of like, I don't know, remember that movie speed where you couldn't slow the bus. down once it had started or something like that it's like if you stop it you die it's like you almost got to keep going just to maybe at least if he keeps going he thinks maybe we can pull a win out somewhere

maybe if we hit him hard enough we can bring them to the negotiating table or something like that but of course it's like behind all of those doors is just a real risk of catastrophe so i don't know if i had to guess both sides want to play the economic warfare game for a little while and if don't trump flirts the strike, then you're going back up the escalation ladder. And I think then Donald Trump realizes it's time to walk away or he makes the irrational and horrific decisions to just bomb the shit out of the country and give Israel the regime change it was looking for. And then who knows what that even looks like, you know, if that makes anyone safer 10 years down the line, if Iran's regime is somewhat taken out just because we bombed the shit out of the country.

and if that leads to another ISIS or just a more hard-lined regime that is not a threat for the next five or 10 years, but we got to deal with in 20. Well, it's like it's what you say, though, right? Because you go, okay, so even if it's just, you know, it's a country in 92 million people, you know, even if you take the, even if you take the expats and the Israel lobby hawks at their word and say, hey, only 10 to 20 percent of the people support. the regime, you're like, okay, well, that's nine to eight million, 18 million people. You know, there's a few hundred thousand in the IRGC, a few million in the, in the military there. Yeah, that's got all the makings for a nice Shiite ISIS, you know? Like, you take, you take Mullahs, you take theocrats destroy their state. What are they now?

Now they're a stateless militia, otherwise known as a terrorist organization, you know? that's what's so funny about the whole debate about who the real terrorists are that I've found myself in the front of. It's like that's the only difference is statehood. If any, you know what I'm saying? Like if anyone did that without being a government, you would just go, oh, that's

a terrorist organization. So yeah, we will see. We'll see where all that goes. All right, let's let's check in with our buddy Mark Levin, friend of the show. Friend of the show, personal mentor of mine. And just always goes out of his way to give me props, which I appreciate.

So Mark, Mark Levin, whoof, what can we say about this guy, Rob? He is out here. We're going to play these clips, a few clips, including where he personally mentions me, obviously to sing my praises. But he is out here, which I will say this, this is often true of Mark Levin. There is almost an element about him that you approach. appreciate because at least he says it out loud. You know what I mean, Rob? You know, like when there's, there's been dozens of times where we've played some clip or talked to something and

you've made the point that you're like, hey, in essence, what they're calling for here is censorship and they're using these weasel words to act like they're not calling for censorship, but that's clearly what they're calling for here. Dozens of times you've made that point before on the show. At least you got to give it to Levin. He just comes out and calls for censorship. Now, he doesn't quite tell the entire truth, which is that like I'm incapable of winning this argument, if people can hear from them too. But he is at least open enough to go, that's what he stands for. Let's play the clip. First of him calling for censorship, and then we'll get into his comments on yours truly.

First time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected. And you hear people say, don't you believe in the First Amendment? They don't we know what the First Amendment believe. Do you want to de-platform people? You know, the Libs do that. I don't have any problem with de-platforming Nazis or jihadis. I don't have any problem with de-platforming them. What does that mean de-platforming them?

A government law knows. He just paused it already. It means that... Right here. Isn't it already saying, I mean, he starts by going, oh, isn't that what the libs do? And then it's like, no, I'm fine with de-platforming Nazis. And now he's going to get into his, no, it's not the government.

It's a private company doing it. You're like, dude, this is, Rob, we lived through this. Identical to the argument that the woke progressives made. Identical. Literally nothing different. They go, it's a private company. They can do whatever they want, even though it was clearly, we now have proof, but it was clearly being manipulated by the government.

But they said, it's a private company and you're all just a bunch of Nazis anyway. It's literally exactly what they did. Not even a different version. It's so funny when they call, he has the nerve to call us the woke Reich or whatever. You're not even doing a version of the woke censorship. You're doing the exact same thing. Zero difference whatsoever. Yeah, the big problem is one, if you start floating out just jihadi, terrorist, domestic

terrorist, I don't know. Whatever term you want to throw out, it's up to them how they want to define it. So if they want to declare us as Nazi propaganda, then all of a sudden you've got a right to censor it. And it's not that the government's going to censor it. It's that these are private companies and private companies don't want Nazis or violent extremists on their network as defined by us. But then it's the COVID problem once again where they're not really private companies if the government is threatening them and going, hey, can you pull the records on this? Hey, we want to see this full transcript. Hey, can you explain to us why this wasn't violent extremism?

can you explain to me why this wasn't giving people false health information? I mean, this was the COVID thing. Some voices were just too dangerous to be heard because we've got this national pandemic. And if we listen to them, people are going to die. And then the government going, hey, we're not telling you what to do, but you mind explaining to us why you aren't pulling this down? And so you got the twofold factor. One, you can't pretend that these are just private companies.

They are going to be either pushed by the government, or the backdoors through advertisers who are in line with the government of going, hey, we can't be affiliated with this kind of content. So it's not just a neutral decision of a private company, which, by the way, all these companies are in the market for views. And when all of this information is actually more popular, do you think that the private companies want the most popular programming not to be on essentially their networks anymore?

Of course not. There will be censorship from the government and coercion from the government to make sure that that happens. And then it's just who gets to define these terms. I mean, if what I'm saying is me being a Nazi, in the words of Mark Levin, if that becomes the government standpoint, then great, you just don't have free speech. Yep.

There also is something, there's something even, like, I completely agree with everything you said. Of course, this is an attack on free speech. But even if, like you were saying, like, let's just say in a scenario, the government didn't get involved at all. And you were just calling for private companies to stop hosting. I guess literally, at this point, who he'd be advocating for,

all of the most popular people in the field of talking about the news? Literally, he'd want Tucker and Candace and Fuentes and Megan Kelly and me. I mean, like, a huge chunk of the top 15, top 20, biggest, like, people in this thing. He'd want them out. So let's just, like, even if there was no, government intervention at all involved in this, theoretically. Like, what a bitch of a man you are.

Like, just what a, like, I don't know. It would just never even occur. Yeah, like, it would just never even occur to me that, like, oh, well, what I want is Mark Levin to be shut down. Dude, I'd have Mark Levin on, and I mean this, this is how I feel about platforming. I'd have Mark Levin on this show every day for the next three months if he wanted to come on this show. We could just make this the me versus Mark Levin show.

I'll offer him half my show. I would just love to platform these guys more. I'd love Randy Fine, all of you guys. The idea that you're trying to silence other people and you still see yourself and other people who are surging in popularity, that that's your big response is you want to silence them, not eviscerate their argument. I've never once wanted to silence a single one of the Warhawks. I want them to all speak more. Just let me, just give me the fair shot of also getting to eviscerate every single one of their arguments.

That's all I ask. And, you know, again, Roe, you know, me and you, it is personal. It's hard sometimes to remove the kind of personal nature of all of this because we do this. This is our lives. But like, me and you built this show from nothing, dude, from nothing. And I mean, I don't know how many people were listening to each episode when you came on board this show, but like maybe 10,000 at most we're listening when you first came on board, probably less than that.

We've built this into a show now that gets hundreds of thousands of views and is in the top charts and stuff like that. And it's like we, Mark Levin had multi-billion dollar companies behind him, pushing him, putting up billboards of him, on radio stations, on television networks, on the biggest network in cable news. like all of this stuff. He has such a huge advantage in this race. And we're all like the fact that you got a call for other people's voices to be removed is just so pathetic. It's just genuinely like I don't understand as a man how you wouldn't be embarrassed to say this publicly.

Let's keep, let's keep playing. X or Twitter or Facebook or Amazon with Twitch and so says, you know what? You're a low life. We're not, you know, get off our platform. What's wrong with that? It's called Private Enterprise. I got no problem with that. I mean, what if they have this horrific pornography on it?

Is that okay? No, it's not okay. What if they have a bunch of drug addicts, you know, shooting up all the time? Is that okay? No, that's not okay. Because our kids have access to it, people who are impressionable have access to it. What if they have people screaming at the top of the lungs saying, assassinate this guy and assassinate that guy?

Well, they shouldn't do that. Why? What's the standard? You need to have a standard. What should the law be? I just love this. First of all, I just love Mark Levitt. He goes, our kids are watching this.

Mark, your kids are 58. How old are you? Our kids? Our kids? Of course, though, it's much easier, right? If you do make the examples, like what are the examples? What if they were just doing open drug use? Or what if it was pornography?

Or what if it was direct criminal calls for violence? Yeah. Or it doesn't sound as good to say, or what if they didn't think we should fight this war? What if they wanted transparency on the Epstein files? What if they believed that Israel shouldn't get to have a lobby in the United States of America? Those ones just don't hit quite the same, right? So in other words, you're using these kind of extreme examples and you're using things that are like, I don't know. I yes like how much children like under 18 children have access to social media or the internet generally there's a there's a legitimate debate that you could have around that something about like

obscene drug usage i wasn't exactly sure what he meant by that like people are just posting hey dude shooting up heroin here's i don't know i don't get it but but yeah but none of that is what we're talking about what we're talking about like he's he by the way he calls me out they will play literally he calls me out by name talking about Tucker Carlson talking about me he's talking about nick Fuentes guys like this what we do is sit in front of a camera and make arguments agree with them or not but that's what you're actually talking about here so don't this is such weasel like trick behavior like there's no your issue isn't with any of those things your issue is with people making arguments opposed to mine that are landing better with the audience that's what you're

you wish to shut down. All right, guys, let's take a moment and take our sponsor for today's show, which is ultra, ultra pouches. Everybody is raving about them. Ultra pouches are completely nicotine-free, caffeine-free. They're packed with neutropics that are designed for mental clarity and enhanced focus. So you get the same kick as a nicotine pouch without the side effects like the buzz, the addiction, the crash, the jitters.

Most pouches elevate cortisol, raise blood pressure, and keep your body in a constant. constant stress state, ultra pouches, let you keep your pouches, but with a cleaner kick. So you still get the pouch experience that you like, but without the nicotine. 90% of ultra pouch users saw significant improvements in their overall focus level, calm, steady, flow state focused, smooth energy, mood balance, all with zero nicotine and natural neutropics. New customers can use the promo code problem and get 15% off at take ultra.com. That's take ultra.com promo code problem for 15% off.

One more time, take ultra.com promo code problem for 15% off. All right, let's get back into the show. I'd like to think that my impression of Mark Levin single-handedly defeated him that he's no longer doing Mark Levin. He's turned it off. I swear to God, it's true. Ever since you started mocking it, he stopped doing it. Yeah, he stopped doing Mark Levin.

Now he was just a calm old guy. Yeah, but he does the thing where he's like, you can still tell he wants to scream. You know what I mean? Like you can tell that he's forcing himself to be calm. All right, here, let's keep on. It's the Constitution said. I just think we've taken this too far because we're not even talking about political speech, which is the most protected of all speech.

We do limit speech. We limit speech pornography. We limit speech cigarettes on the air. And so we limit speech. booze, limit speech, drugs, and I can go on and on and on. There's different types of speech, there's commercial speech, right? There's religious speech, there's political speech. They're babbling buffoons. We see that all over the internet. Most of that is protected too, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the kind of speech that really gets in the head of people who want to

do grave damage to other people. Incitement. And I'm not talking about it in an ambiguous way when you get a guy that talks about killing a senator oh i really didn't mean it or when you get a guy that says uh yeah i don't know if there's really rape can you prove it and so for then october 7th well he's allowed to say that but in the pattern of what this person is saying what is it that they're trying to do have a real discussion no no no he'll say that but he's not okay pause the overthrow of the country i mean what on or even in his exam He said the guy will say, was there really rape on October 7th? I mean, can you prove that?

What is supposed to be appalling about that comment? And this like thing where he goes, it's not political speech. It's not, you know, it's on what world is what me and you do not political speech? Like, how could you even possibly try to make that argument? And then he's saying, it's not this. Then he goes, it's incitement. Well, here's the thing, Mark Levin will be thrilled, relieved to hear this, Rob. Insightment to violence is already illegal.

That is not protected speech. That is a crime. And you can go to jail for a long time for that. You can't incite people to violence. But then again, that's not really what. Now Mark Levin goes, no, see, they don't even really mean it when they say something that sounds very reasonable like, oh, was there sexual violence on October 7th? What evidence do you have for that?

You think that's what they really mean? No, they want to get in your head and make you do things. Like, what type of standard is this? This is just pure, this is just the language of a tyrant. How dare he ever call himself a constitutionalist? There's just, oh, you've decided that that speech is really bad, and it just so happens to be that that speech is against the war that you're supporting, which is very unpopular.

Okay, you just happen to want to shut down the people critical of this very unpopular war that you've been pushing for for your entire career. That's convenient. And it's a very dangerous line that the speech compels other people to violence, which, firstly, I think there's rulings that even in pretty extreme stances,

it's still considered protected free speech. But the idea that speaking out against Donald Trump can then be, even calling Donald Trump Hitler is now an incitement to violence because someone else might hear that and go take action. I mean, once you've crossed that threshold, you can really redefine anything as violent rhetoric, and you essentially just have a platform for full censorship to fit whoever's narrative of the current regime is. And just wait until Democrats are back around and Mark Levin would be the first one yelling about how they're creating violence by not allowing him to speak up for war. Yeah, really.

Well, it's kind of funny. It's like Norm McDonald's old great joke about Marlon Brando. He said that Jews control Hollywood. And then he met with a group of rabbis and apologized to them. And they said, all right, you can work again. Which is a great joke. But it's almost like the same type of thing. He's like, hey, these guys called Donald Trump a Nazi.

You know how you should respond? Strip their speech rights. All right. That doesn't really seem to take away the accusation or disprove it. Here, let's just play the last couple seconds of this, and then we'll go to his other clip. Let me ask you this. Do you think the founders would have put up with this?

First time. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that's all that was left on the clip, but what hilarious. What would the founders have done? Rob, where did the founders land on free speech? If only they had written an amendment to make it clear where they stood. if only there was some type of record that they had left, why did these brilliant minds they did not foresee

that they should probably leave us some type of document with an indication on where they fell on the free speech issue? Oh, yeah, they were pretty clear. They were pretty clear. Unbelievable. All right, here, so let's go to the other police. Because now he clarifies the violent rhetoric that he would look to see get censored from the internet.

That's right. and Mark Levin himself posted this on Twitter. So let's pull up that tweet. By the way, pull up the tweet first before we even play the video. Because, you know, I didn't, I literally didn't notice until literally as we were preparing for the show, like right before we started, Natalie said, oh, is that the video that he tweeted? And I was like, oh, I didn't even notice that he tweeted it. But so yet he posted, I'm calling out Tucker Carlson, Dave Smith, Nick Fuentes, and the other podcast reprobate. Here's the thing, Mark.

Like, yeah, you're calling us out, but you're terrified to see any of us. Like, I know that Tucker texted you and asked for a debate. You even acknowledge this. And you said, no. And Tucker said, hey, maybe it'd be really good for the country. If me and you could actually, like, have a conversation here, let's like, which Tucker very, I know Tucker, he very genuinely believes that, like, it is dangerous that, like, things are getting this elevated

and we should be trying to like calm this down. So like maybe, no, Mark doesn't want to do that. I've challenged him several times. No, he won't ever do that. I'm sure if Wendez would be down to face Mark Levin too. So you want to post like, I'm calling you out. Like, no, you're really not. You're just calling for our censorship because you know you can't win the argument.

That's as simple as it is. Here, let's, we could just play the clip. Who does more to call out the woke Reich, R-E-I-C-H than I. Nobody. Others are now, and that's a very good thing. The president has done a tremendous job. He's basically excommunicated them. But the things that a Tucker Carlson says or a Bannon says,

this guy Fuentes is a low life, the things that he says and the way he says it and so forth. And then you have Theo Vaughn, comedians like this guy, Dave Smith. You know things that Rogan saying, these other people say, not as much, but still, all contributes to the environment. You can be aggressive. You can use foul language. I'd rather not. You can explain the facts. If somebody believes in an ideology that would overthrow our country, overthrow our constitutional system, overthrow our economic system, well, of course we're going to discuss that. I've written books about that. Or the Islamists and the jihadis, their mentality, their doctrine, where it comes from, what they intend to do, and so forth and so on. Of course, it's important to talk about that. But when you're talking about Donald Trump, he's not talking about overthrowing our government, overthrowing our economic system. He's no dictator. Now, if you like this little clip that you just saw...

Hold on, wait, wait, wait, play the rest. Hold on. I just... I have to see him do a little YouTube video. I'm sorry. Just watching 80-year-olds do. This is very entertaining to me. Please head over to YouTube and subscribe or rumble and follow. And tell everybody you know. Oh, the nerve! He's promoting Rumble? Oh, my God. Dude, you know what? I can't even hold this against him, because he's just too old to even understand any of this.

You know why Rumble exists? You fucking fraud, Mark Levin. Do you know why Rumble is a platform? Because in the midst of all of this, they took a stand that they won't kick people off while people were being censored off every other platform. That's literally the entire pitch of Rumble is going against the entire last segment that he just delivered.

But, Rob, I mean, dude, what can you? I don't, he didn't get to a point in there. so I don't exactly know what to like debunk about this. But his whole thing where it's like he's going essentially at one point, he's going, look, you can make your criticisms, but like, yo, you can't take it this far or something. Well, pull up the tweet again because he spells it out in the tweet and he says, I want to make a clear distinction between and.

Okay, yeah, sure. Let's read this. Okay. A clear line between strong political commentary and what I see is reckless rhetoric. Well, why do you get to make that distinction? And are you looking to... Dude, you open the clip by calling us the woke Reich. You know what the Reich is?

You open the clip calling us Nazis. And dude, like, also, what the fuck are you talking about, man? Like, look, don't remember I would not call Nick Fuentes a Nazi. I don't think that's accurate. But, like, okay, Nick has certainly not guarded against being called that. Right. So like he is on record intentionally making kind of provocative statements like Hitler was really cool. Now, if you push him on that, he'll be the first one to acknowledge. Like, no, I'm not saying Hitler was moral. Obviously, he committed horrific atrocities.

But like, you know, like he's a great man of history. And he's kind of got an argument like he goes, look, like what I'm doing is trying to like demystify all this stuff. Like, why is it that like, you know what I'm saying? Like if someone said Gangus Kong is cool, no one goes like, no, we all get exactly what you're saying. whatever. But certainly he's gone out there and said some, you know, very provocative things. And he is an identitarian and a nationalist and a hard right-winger. So like, but like, dude, you're, you're starting by calling Tucker Carlson and me Nazis. It's just, it's just ridiculous, dude. How are you going to in the same breath? I'm literally a, I'm pro-peace and pro-laise-faire free markets.

And not a racialist, not an identitarian. And still, no matter how hard all of you guys try to push us into that camp, some of us have still resisted and been like, no, I don't think that's the correct direction either. And in fact, the people who are really hardcore in that camp, as I've found out in some of my Twitter exchanges over the last two days, aren't very big fans of me, which is fine. But brother, you're calling us Nazis and then a moment later saying that there's reckless political rhetoric? Rob, the hypocrisy, the self-contradiction here is just off the charts. Here, let's keep reading from that tweet a little bit more, just to say I've not actually

read this whole thing. Okay, hold on. So in this clip, I explain why the way ideas are presented matters just as much as the ideas themselves. You can be aggressive, you can be passionate, but when commentary fuels distortion, extremism, or confusion, it has real consequences. I break down why, yeah, okay, Mark, but like, that's what you're doing. So now let's have the argument. Like, this is all just, like, as you said, Rob, you get to just call everybody else Nazis and then decide that their rhetoric is dangerous and then say that their rhetoric is leading to confusion.

Like, okay. but we say the same thing about you, right? We disagree. So now let's debate it. Let's go through whose rhetoric is really causing more distortions. I don't know. Any comment on this? That's exactly the point.

He doesn't want to debate it. It's the same as COVID. I would have gladly debated Fauci, but what are looking for is censorship because opposing ideas are too dangerous for people to hear. And if you look at a four-year timeline of information that was censored at any given moment, and it's probably a mainstream opinion at that point.

Yep. Yep. No, that's for sure. It's also like, again, dude, like, Mark, you're calling other people Nazis, but you're the one who's against free speech. Not us. You're the one who's out here promoting censorship.

So, like, just on that one, I don't know if you guys, like, I don't know how many history buffs we got here in the audience, but, you know, Adolf Hitler, not a big First Amendment guy. And so, you know, you already are kind of putting yourself more on that side. You're calling us woke Nazis while you cheer on wars of aggression. You're calling us woke while you promote the same tech censorship that the woke did.

Just I can't figure out why you're losing in the marketplace of ideas. I just can't figure out why you're unwilling to go have this. conversation with any of us. Because like this is, by the way, it's not really a comment on any of us, but this shit is just so easy to tear apart if you got someone pushing back against you. And you know that. And that's why you're afraid to do it. That is, I'm sorry, man, you just, you can't fool people out of this. People can see that. They can see who's willing, who, you know, I mean, I'm not saying this would necessarily apply universally, but as a really good rule of thumb is that The person trying to shut down speech is the bad guy.

You know, the person who's unwilling to debate supports unpopular wars and will not debate anyone who's against them. The person who wants to shut down speech, wants to shut down criticism of the administration. They are the bad guys. And, you know, I'll just leave this final. We didn't get to the Caroline Levitt comments. maybe we'll cover that on a future episode. But I will just say too, Rob, look, I made this comment on the last podcast. Look, as I said, Tucker Carlson really believes that we really should try to cool the temperature and lower rhetoric in lots of ways.

Mark Levin in some weird way is making a similar kind of argument. I get it. you if you are supporting Donald Trump or you're a part of the Trump administration, you do not have a leg to stand on. You just don't. Like, it's undeniable. The president of the United States of America publicly celebrates when people die. He calls everyone all types of name, every name under the sun.

You just, you have no leg to stand on saying we need a, we need a, we need a, tone down the rhetoric now. Sorry. And then by the way, you know, listen, I don't, what can I say? I'm calling our government war criminals and calling this whole institution corrupt. And yeah, that's pretty charged rhetoric. I'm saying that the U.S. government is the biggest terrorist organization in the world. That is very charged rhetoric.

I also think it's true. I also think it's important that people tell the truth. So I'm not going to say, Mark Levin, you have to tone it down. Don't tone it down. I think you should grow a pair of balls and come debate one of us, have a conversation, but you don't need to do that either. But for you to sit here and call us all a bunch of Nazis and then ask us to tone it down, kindly go fuck yourself.

That won't be happening. I think Mark Levin's got to tone it back up. This shit's boring. Go back to being Mark Levin. Make Mark Levin, Mark Levin again. There you go. All right. Thank you guys very much for listening.

We'll be back tomorrow. I'll be back tomorrow with a brand new episode. Catch next. time. Peace.