Mark R. Levin

From the very onset of the war, 40% of veterans disagreed with it. Are they less patriotic than you?

They don’t even understand what they criticize and purposefully misrepresent it. This was something that Hitchens warned about. He was talking about the left but all of the n00bs that showed up since 2016, at their core, are disaffected shitlibs. Every one of them. Replies locked

Starting to think these guys (gaetz, mtg, and massie) might actually just be drunks.

Boomers need to be removed from power

✝️ Pro-Terror Palestinian Think Tank Unveils Multi-Year Plan to Turn Christian Zionist Churches Against Israel ✝️ The Palestine Strategy Group (PSG), founded by Husam Zomlot, now the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, has unveiled a new strategy detailing how it plans to monitor pro-Israel Christian networks, cultivate clergy, and reshape seminary teaching to advance its agenda. PSG previously described Palestinian suicide bombings as acts of “armed resistance” and praised Hezbollah's terror campaign in Lebanon as an example of armed struggle that successfully forced an Israeli withdrawal. The group also commissioned research from convicted PFLP terrorist Shawan Jabarin. These are the people who want to poison your churches. Do not let them.

Kind of a great idea from someone I initially thought was kind of dumb. Lobbyists have done way more harm to America than police officers and we make them wear body cameras.

Those 17 year old girls were promised to him 3000 years ago.

💥NEW: Ben Shapiro tells Sean Hannity he spends $2 MILLION on security *PER YEAR*🤯 Shapiro asserted the "THREATS" against him are "SEVERE" — and only getting worse. Nick Shirley has also said he spends a fortune on security. And we all saw what happened to Charlie Kirk. Conservatives are forced to spend their hard-earned money on security because they are literally being hunted by deranged Leftists.

"Neocons" are people who always want war, no matter the cost, even Republicans losing. Neocons hate being called neocons because who would want this?

Probably a coincidence that @JDVance's favorite pollster @honestpollster, JD's @TPUSA influencer bro @JackPosobiec, and JD's French friend @pegobry_en - who "helped refine the thesis" of JD's 2nd autobiography - are all groyper-adjacent Franco fans. Right? jasonahart.substack.com/p/th…

This is a perfect example of a propagandist taking a real, documented event and distorting it to fit a narrative. Mike is counting on people recognizing the Iran-Contra incident name while not understanding what actually occurred and why. Essentially, he is taking a documented scandal, stripping it of all context, and then presenting it as proof that settles the entire history of conflicts between Iran and the United States. Let’s break it down. Yes, Reagan authorized arms sales to Iran and used stocks already in Israel to supply the transfer for the Iran-Contra operation. He owned that terrible decision, but here is why he made it in the first place. The Reagan administration was trying to recover American hostages in Lebanon while attempting to establish a channel with the new Iranian government. American officials believed they might be able to gain influence with people in Iran that could shape future Iranian leadership, but the operation became an arms for hostages arrangement with money from the off book sales going to fund the Nicaraguan Contras… hence the name of the scandal. The operation failed and only three American hostages were recovered. In hindsight, it was clearly an ill-informed and naive attempt at clandestine diplomacy. In March of 87, Reagan admitted that what started as a strategic diplomatic opening devolved into trading weapons for hostages and took full responsibility. As for the earlier arms sales from Israel, they came from just after the revolution in 79 to a brand new Islamic Republic. Iran had been a partner under the Shah, and both Israel and the United States hoped they could steer the more hostile regime into more friendly territories for future diplomacy. They were making in the moment decisions without the decades of context we now have about the Islamic Republic. Israel’s interests also differed at the time, as they wanted Iran to be a counterweight to Iraq. This is all well documented history, mind you. By 88, the US was sinking Iranian warships as they finally realized that the Islamic Republic was not amenable. Hostilities increased during Operation Praying Mantis, which Mike also conveniently omits from his narrative framing, and the rest, as you could say, is history. Iran became the number one state sponsor of terror in the world, pushing its proxies against both American and western interests throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa. It is easy to armchair quarterback these decisions now with what we know about the Islamic Republic, but in the early 80s it was nowhere near as clear. So, as you can see, Mike is being deliberately misleading because he just can’t help himself. He has a narrative to further, after all.

Chris Van Hollen’s leadership bid isn’t about Medicare for All, war powers, or any other issue that helped Democrats turn out an electorate 13 points more blue than red. For the senator’s activist phalanx, it’s all about Israel. | @NoahCRothman nationalreview.com/corner/ch…

The merits of the case Vance made aside, posting what was, in effect, a dissent from Trump’s Iran policy was a major risk with no upside. | @RichLowry nationalreview.com/corner/wh…

אייזנקט: חייבים להתפשר ולא לקיים את כל ההבטחות מלפני הבחירות. הבטחות שהוא מוכן להפר: לגייס את החרדים להעביר לחרדים מיליארדים לוותר על לימודי ליבה להישען על המשותפת להכניס לקואליציה את רע״מ הבטחות שהוא לא מוכן להפר: לשבת עם נתניהו לפחות אצל הבובה הקודמת (גנץ), ישראל הייתה לפני הכל. אצל אייזנקוט זה הג׳וב

The median @JackPosobiec fan

In 2009 @marklevinshow said that if you opposed the PATRIOT Act and torture you were a “Statist.” Which makes no sense. Today he says the Iran war did not cost Republicans the midterms. Which also makes no sense. But it’s classic Mark Levin. @amconmag theamericanconservative.com/…