Mark Levin: Tucker Carlson, American Traitor

Peloni & David Fieldstone

Video Loads at Bottom

Mark Levin opens his monologue describing it as the beginning of a look into American history to recall both great heroes and traitors of America.  In doing so, Mark begins by taking a look back into American history as it relates to Tucker Carlson’s many attacks on America and President Trump, as well as his association with enemy states, and his endorsement of antisemitism and anti-Christianity.  Before doing so, however, Mark raise the question as to what comprises a traitor.  in answering this question, Mark notes that it includes someone marked by betrayal of a friend, principle or country, and in defining this term, Mark challenges that this term describes Tucker Carlson.

Mark goes on to recount the story of Benedict Arnold, detailing Arnold’s early military heroism, his grievances over promotions, his growing resentment, his later secret dealings with the British, and his eventual betrayal of the American war effort at West Point. Drawing a parallel to this series of events which nearly cost the fledgling American nation dearly, Mark stresses that it is his expressed opinion that, through his attempts to undermine President Trump, his sympathy toward foreign adversaries such as Russia and Qatar, and his attacks on fellow conservative American loyalists, Carlson is a traitor and that he is betraying America, the Republican party and President Trump, as well as the MAGA movement.

Mark specifically contrasts Carlson’s actions with those of President Trump, emphasizing Trump’s strong support for Israel, his military assistance for Israel in recent regional conflicts, and his close working relationship with Israel’s premiere, PM Benjamin Netanyahu. He also charges that Carlson’s attempts have been focused upon undermining Trump’s association with Israel while trying to smear its prime minister, offering this as further evidence of Carlson’s attempts to undermine President Trump.

Mark next shifts to address the topic of antisemitism in Carlson’s commentaries with a reflection about Charles Coughlin, a 1930s radio priest known for antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories. Mark recounts Coughlin’s defense of Nazi actions, promotion of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and his claims that Jews were responsible for communism and global conflict. In making this comparison, Mark highlights the similarity between Coughlin’s positions and the antisemitic themes/narratives being promoted by Carlson, including Carlson’s criticisms of prominent Jewish figures alongside allegations of Jewish influence in finance and politics.

Mark continues to expand on the life and influence of Charles Coughlin, emphasizing how Coughlin evolved from a popular, populist Catholic radio priest into an overt anti-Semite and fascist sympathizer. Coughlin initially gained a massive following during the Great Depression, presenting himself as a defender of the “common man.” He supported Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and used his radio program, The Hour of Power, to mobilize voters behind the New Deal.

Mark explains that Coughlin later felt slighted when Roosevelt distanced himself from him and denied him influence within his administration. Reacting to his feeling of having been betrayed, Coughlin turned against Roosevelt and began attacking both Roosevelt as well as his New Deal policies. Coughlin went on to found the National Union for Social Justice and the journal Social Justice, promoting a hybrid populist platform which blended left-wing economic nationalism (nationalization of key industries, abolition of the Federal Reserve, prioritizing human rights over property rights) with right-wing nationalism and isolationism.

Mark explains that Coughlin’s populism increasingly merged with explicit antisemitism. He defended Nazi actions after Kristallnacht, promoted conspiracy theories about Jewish control of finance and communism, and publicized themes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He described Jews as enemies of Christians and claimed Jewish influence was responsible for global upheaval. Coughlin also associated with prominent antisemites and fascist sympathizers such as Henry Ford, Oswald Mosley, and Ezra Pound. Eventually, under pressure from church authorities and the U.S. government, he was forced off the air in 1942, and his reputation was permanently tarnished.

Using this historical account to draw an analogy to Tucker Carlson, Mark highlights Carlson’s attempt to blend his populist appeal with political extremes while associating with or platforming individuals who promote antisemitic or extremist themes.  He also notes that Carlson’s interviews commonly include those who are sympathetic to authoritarian regimes and those who speak favorably about leaders of openly hostile governments (including Russia, Iran, and Qatar), platforming controversial nationalist figures, while attacking pro-Israel conservatives and evangelical Christians in the same moment.  He further raises the charge that Carlson undermines both President Trump as well as the MAGA movement, all while claiming to represent it.

From here, Mark began recounting the report by Dr. Yvette Alt Miller on Aish.com where it discusses lies told by Tucker Carlson about Jews and Israel, beginning with the false report that Carlson was detained at Ben-Gurion Airport following his interview with U.S. Amb. Mike Huckabee.  From here the Aish report by Dr. Miller recounts the recent inflammatory interview Carlson conducted with Hosam Naoum, the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem, and “known Hamas apologist”.  During the interview with Naom, Dr. Miller recounts  incendiary and false claims including those made by Naoum charging that Israel, rather than radical Islam was in fact responsible for the drop in Christian followers in the region.

Mark charges that these incidents are part of a broader pattern pursued by Carlson in an attempt to disparage Jews, Christians, and President Trump, while promoting Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

After finishing reading Dr. Miller’s report detailing these and other gross mischaracterizations, Mark turns to raise a number of questions:

1. Why has Carlson yet to be criticized for any of this?
2. Why is he at the White House?
3. Why does he have friends at the White House who are undermining the administration?
4. Why was the Iranian regime playing clips of Tucker Carlson as propaganda while they slaughtered Iranian protestors?
5. Why is Carlson so close with the Emir and govt of Qatar?
6. Why has Carlson said nothing about the Christian across the Middle East and Africa who are being slaughtered at the hands of Islamist radicals?
7. Why is Carlson actively covering up the plight of these Christians in the Middle East?
8. Why isn’t Carlson registered as a Foreign Agent?

Mark contrasts all of this with his own stated record of consistency in supporting Israel, opposing Islamist extremism, and defending persecuted Christians globally.  Mark reiterates that Carlson pretends to defend America while he is in fact disparaging America, and that he is trying to divide America as only America’s adversaries would want.  He challenges that this support for an agenda supportive of America’s enemies is what gains Carlson his access to the leaders of these adversary nations, as they see him as their useful idiot.

From here, Mark pivots to a warning about Iran. He challenges that the Iranian regime is a terrorist state.  He reminds us that Iran is guilty of murdering a thousand Americans, that it is pursuing nuclear weapons capable of striking major American cities.  Iran is a police state which uses its authoritarian infrastructure as a base of operations from which to destroy America and the West, all while collaborating with China, Russia, and North Korea for support towards this end. He frames the current situation with Iran is an historic inflection point, comparing it to past internal acts of betrayals in American history, and contends that the United States has a generational obligation to confront the Iranian regime militarily if necessary.  He warns that a preemptive defense to secure long-term peace and safety for future generations is not warmongering, but rather, it is an important, necessary and appropriate response to raising geopolitical threats facing America today.