► Is Mark Levin a “Whore”, “Cockroach,” “Prostitute” and a “Worm”? Print

Is Mark Levin a “Whore”, “Cockroach,” “Prostitute” and a “Worm”? 

 

Mark Levin is another loser lawyer that decided to become a right-wing policial commentator after he realized how difficult it would be to earn a dishonest living practicing law. Mark is also a fervent advocate for the election of Sen. Ted Cruz for the GOP presidential nomination.

 

Roger Stone is a political consultant who supports Donald Trump for the presidency. In this matter, Roger is being awarded the Joseph Goebbels "Truth-Teller" award. 

 

FYI: Joseph Goebbels was the quintessential truth-teller during his tenure as the chief purveyor of propaganda for the Third Reich prior to and during World War II.

 

During a recent (04/13/16) interview with talks show host Fernand Amandi of WIOD radio in Miami, Roger made the following statements about Levin.

  • “I wrote with great documentation for the Daily Caller, which is not an obscure website, documenting the fact that Mark Levin is a paid shill for Ted Cruz.”
  • “He’s a whore.”
  • “He’s being paid cash money through a book deal for his support for Cruz.”
  • “This is also true of Glenn Beck.”

Roger continued on by saying:

  • “Now I understand cockroaches run when you put the light of day on them.”
  • “Mark Levin is a cockroach.”
  • “Mark Levin is a worm, he’s a paid-for agent, he is a prostitute, and he is being remunerated for his support for Cruz, just to be clear.”

In many ways, Roger’s statements about Mark are true. However, I personally believe it was truly unwarranted and may well constitute defamation by comparing Mark with a “Prostitute.”

 

Comparing Mark with a cockroach is quite appropriate even though some cockroaches may well take offense.

 

For additional stories on Mark go to the articles categorized below

  1. Bullshit Award Winner = 2
  2. Lunatic Award Winner = 1
  3. MoronAward Winner = 1
  4. Screwball Award Winner = 2
  5. GOP releases future list of “White is Right” nominees for Supreme Court:Art.77 – Dawg Opinions