Log in
With the clock ticking on the two week ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran, and the 10 day halt to hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, the leftist media has been working overtime to convince viewers that Trump will cave, and in the end, Iran will be able to claim victory, Israel dragged Donald Trump into the war, and has been gratuitously bombing Lebanon. But Friday on Fox News's Hannity, fellow Host Mark Levin was unafraid in destroying those narratives and looking into the future.
After being introduced by Sean Hannity, Levin went on an extended monologue, starting with Iran.
LEVIN: Only Donald Trump could do this, only Donald Trump could bring us to this point and he's the only one who did. The Iranians are on their back, and they're gonna cut a deal with Donald Trump, and he's gonna cut a very tough deal with them. My concern is when Donald Trump leaves. You hear these Democrats....if they become president who's gonna uphold the deal? I'm very worried about that. They're not gonna send the military in, they're isolationist, they're anti-American, and their base won't allow them to do it.
What about if it's another Republican? We have an isolationist wing among the Republicans. I don't see anybody doing what Donald Trump has done, they didn't do it before and they're not going to do it after. And I'm worried about that and I think the Iranians are thinking about that too.
Levin then made this analogy, and urged that Trump himself finish the job.
LEVIN: You know at the end of WWll, Patton, after we defeated Germany and all, he said, let's finish off the Russians. They said why, because our military is here, we're gonna have to do it one day anyway. Our military is there. I'm a commentator and that's why I will never be president like Donald Trump. I say we're there, let's finish them off. People can call me whatever they wish.
In the next breath, Levin turned to Israel's battle with Hezbollah, first giving viewers a short history lesson.
LEVIN: Lebanon is a surrogate of Iran. That is Hezbollah, I should say. Hezbollah in 1982 was basically sent to Lebanon to populate it, to secrete itself into its culture, into government, into its politics, to destroy it. Lebanon was a majority Christian country, now it's majority Muslim country. Hezbollah controls Lebanon. If there's a cease fire between Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel and the Lebanese government and their President, that's fine but that has nothing to do with the problem which is Hezbollah, in my opinion. Why is Israel in Lebanon? Because they like to bomb buildings? No they don't want to bomb buildings, There was a ceasefire in 2024. Hezbollah violated it. They've shot 6700 rockets and missiles into Israel.
Next he presented a perspective that the left wing media will never speak to.
LEVIN: They've (Israel) had to relocate over 100,000 of their citizens and that's what Hezbollah is doing they're a terrorist organization. Iran has desperately lobbied to protect Hezbollah from the Israelis, who are trying to wipe it out and are close to wiping it out. So if we tell Israel, you're not bombing any more buildings, I'm Hezbollah, where do I go Sean? Into the buildings. If we say, no more, no more, then somebody's going to have to disarm Hezbollah, who's going to do it?....And Israel's done a tremendous amount to degrade them. But if they're not going to disarm and defeat them, and the Lebanese army isn't going to disarm them and defeat them then it's on us.
Levin finished with a dose of reality.
LEVIN: And I'm just curious, is that really what we want to do and how are we gonna accomplish that? And furthermore, if I'm another country like Israel and they keep firing missiles into my country, I don't care what anybody says. Would we? If missiles were flying into our country from Canada, what would we do? We'd go and take care of business once and for all, wipe them the hell out.
With all of the one-sided anti-Trump, anti-Israel coverage that permeates MS NOW, CNN and occasionally Fox News's The Five, Mark Levin's educational, unafraid, and refreshing rant is a slap in the face to them all.
Here is the latest weekly round-up of links, focusing on two main issues. The first is last week’s election defeat of Victor Orbán, who went much farther than Donald Trump in using authoritarian means to entrench himself in power for 16 years—but he still could not prevent a vast wave of rejection by the people of Hungary. The second issue is the Supreme Court’s growing use of a highly dubious “shadow docket” in which it makes often highly partisan decisions with no explanations. In between are a few notes about the Iran war; the corruption, mismanagement, and inebriation of Trump’s imperial court; and the actual effect his policies have had on immigration.
A reminder about this News Link Round-Up format: The main headlines are there to provide context and perhaps a little commentary, the headlines with the links are the original headlines from the articles, and the quotations beneath are extracts from the articles.
“Never Again a Country Without Consequences”
How Viktor Orbán’s Hungary Eroded the Rule of Law and Free Markets
Hungary is a small country, but as Viktor Orbán has pointed out: “There is one thing that makes our country an important place: the fact that Hungary is an incubator, where experiments are being conducted for the conservative politics of the future.”…
The sociologist Ferenc Pataki talks about Orbán’s project as “a neo-collectivist, neo-communist experiment,” and similarly, the Fidesz oligarch Simicska has said that the party decided to pick up “the commies’ methods.” But while Fidesz is opposed to free markets and has used nationalization and state intervention to control the economy, it does not have an egalitarian ideology, and the party does not think it is necessary to place ownership in the hands of the state itself, as long as it is in the hands of friends.
Others have called it a fascist system, referring to how the government controls the economy and society through many different institutions and turns to nationalism and xenophobia to rally support. However, while Fidesz’s rhetoric is often aggressive, it refrains from the overt kinds of racist and anti-Semitic legislation that characterize fascist states.
These descriptions also ignore the ideological flexibility of Fidesz’s pursuit of power. Regarding the party, Orbán was onto something when he said: “It is not an organization based on one single coherent system of principles or an ideology—such an organization is incapable of expanding beyond a certain point.” Instead, he described the party as “reality without ideology.” He has been adept at transforming the party’s ideas whenever that helps it cling to power, saying that he has no need for his thoughts “to be forced into the cage of any ideology that can be summarized in a book.”
Bálint Magyar, a sociologist and former education minister, thinks that Orban’s Hungary has become another form of state altogether, a “mafia state.”…
It is not a case of “state capture” in which oligarchs draw the state under their control. Rather, it is a case of “society capture,” in which the government uses procurement, subsidies, regulations, and taxes to replace market actors with its own oligarchs who are offered protection and privileges as long as they stay loyal. If they are not, or cease to be useful, they are taken down and replaced. The primary concern is not principles and ideology but the consolidation of power and wealth for the ruling clique
This is just an excerpt from a much longer and more detailed report that is worth reading.
Next Page of Stories