All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:01:51
This Women’s History Month, All The Best Women Are Men | Ep. 1679
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hershey's celebrates Women's History Month by featuring a dude who says he's a lady.
Lori Lightfoot claims she lost her mayoralty because Chicago is mega country.
And Greta Thunberg gets herself arrested again for the cameras.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
There is a strategy that is being implemented, whether consciously or unconsciously, by the elites in our society, and it is to make everybody a loser.
The reason I say this is because if everybody feels dispossessed by the system, then this allows people in power to claim that they have all of the incentive in order to change the system.
The system, of course, being the enemy.
Everything that has to do with the status quo is bad.
Now, you might think to yourself, wait, hold on, I know that if I make good decisions in a free country, in a country where I have rights, then I tend to do better.
And if I make bad decisions, I tend to do worse.
Yes, but that doesn't allow people in power to have the impetus to change the system.
And so their goal is to create as many losers as humanly possible.
Their goal is to incentivize people to make bad decisions, to act as fringe as they possibly can, so they have more foot soldiers in the fight against the system.
Now, this strategy involves sort of three separate steps.
Step one is you glorify people who make bad life decisions.
Or people who are exceptions to a rule.
People who are left out by the system.
You glorify those people.
You put those people at the center of the conversation.
You re-center things.
The Left talks about re-centering a lot.
They like to talk about how the center of the conversation for too long has been on the average Joe.
It's been on secious white men.
Or it's been on capitalism.
It's been on the normal person, supposedly.
They say statistically normal, like the average person.
No.
It's time to re-center the conversation around the marginalized.
You hear this sort of talk a lot on college campuses.
You hear it a lot in the media.
Center the conversation on the marginalized.
Now, the goal of doing that, of course, is to suggest that the marginalized ought to make all the rules or that the rules ought to be radically changed so that the marginalized are no longer marginalized.
And there are two types of marginalized people in free societies.
Marginalized people can be marginalized because they are statistically not the norm or they act in ways that are contra the normal rules.
Or you can marginalize yourself.
You can marginalize yourself by making really crappy decisions.
So you marginalize yourself from sort of mainstream society by making decisions to, for example, not finish high school.
You've marginalized yourself economically now.
Or you marginalize yourself by having a baby before you're married.
That is a way that you economically and societally marginalize yourself in certain ways.
And then the left says, okay, we glorify those people.
We uphold them as just a new standard.
They're just living differentially.
These are just people who are living differently.
It's diversity.
And then comes step two, which is you suggest that the reason for their life problems is not the decisions that they have made or the ways in which they are acting, right?
What has to change is the system itself.
Now, again, there are two separate categories of people here.
There are people who are marginalized because the system has legitimately left them out for bad reasons, right?
This would be the story of the civil rights movement would be the idea that there are people who are marginalized by the system because the system was indeed wrong because people have immutable characteristics that They have no control over and make no difference in life and should make no difference in life.
And so the system should take account of them.
Perfectly fine.
Perfectly true.
And then there is what the left has done now, which is conflate that with marginalized people who are self-marginalized, people who are making decisions in their lives that marginalize them.
We glorify those people.
And then we say that the system is bad because the system isn't taking account of those people.
The reason for their troubles isn't their own decision-making process.
We shouldn't incentivize them to make better decisions.
Instead, what we should suggest is the system itself is bad.
It needs to be torn down and needs to be changed.
And so when you look at the sort of random chaos of modern culture, you have to understand that there is one unifying grand theory, and that is opposition to the status quo.
That is the thing that unites all of the disparate parts in American society.
It helps explain why certain bizarre things seem to be happening in terms of media and culture.
It explains why the Biden administration, the White House, is pushing equity in all of its executive policy.
We have to rejigger the entire system to take account of the quote-unquote marginalized, even if we're not actually talking about people who are marginalized anymore.
Now we're just talking about people who make bad decisions, for example.
Because the left essentially suggests that all disparity in outcome is a result of disparity in treatment, which of course is not true.
It also explains the bizarre nature of the cultural waters in which we now swim.
So today's example of the weirdness of our culture comes courtesy of Hershey's.
So Hershey's, for the last three years, has been celebrating Women's History Month.
And so they have now released Hershey Bar.
Get it, get it?
It's like her, but also she.
Do you get it?
It doesn't have the Y at the end, because that'd be weird.
So it's just her for she.
This is their new campaign.
It's the third year Hershey's has created the product according to a press release from the company.
This is Fox Business Reporting.
They are now selling the Hershey's She Bar, which will be available in two sizes, a 1.55 ounce standard chocolate bar and a 4.4 ounce extra large chocolate bar.
It will help Single, lonely 40-year-old women relieve their depression by eating as much chocolate as possible, presumably.
And also, it will cost 77 cents on the dollar.
Neither of those last two things are true.
The Hershey Company, headquartered in Hershey, Pennsylvania, now partnered with the North Carolina-based Girls on the Run for the second year for the special offering to build upon their shared mission of uplifting women to recognize their limitless potential.
Okay, fine.
So you want to do some sort of weird left-wing virtue signaling about chocolate and Women's History Month?
All right.
I mean, I guess that's better than if Hershey's had made a really awkward and terrible move like doing Hershey's of Color History Month or something.
That would have been weird.
They do Pride Month products also.
We now have the intersectional Hershey bar.
It's a pun, guys.
It's a pun.
Here's the thing.
When they released this Hershey's bar, the Hershey, the she bar, they decided to also release a commercial.
The commercial that they released featured one of the best women in the world.
One of the best women in the world.
A dude.
So here is the ad for Her4She featuring a human who is, in fact, male.
My name is Faye Johnstone.
I'm the executive director of Wisdom to Action.
We can create a world where everyone is able to live in public space as their honest and authentic selves.
See the woman changing how we see the future at Hershey's Canada.
See how Hershey's Canada is changing the future by featuring a dude.
The best women changing the future are dudes.
Isn't that exciting?
That right there is a man.
She is a beautiful woman changing the future with a voice deeper than my own.
By a significant margin.
But so you ask yourself, what in the world is happening?
Why is that happening?
Or, for example, why is Women's History Month being touted by actual male Dylan Mulvaney?
Why?
Why is that happening?
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, let's talk about clarity.
Our politics are increasingly murky these days, but your call quality should not lack clarity.
Your call quality should be perfectly clear, and you shouldn't be spending a lot of money on corporations that hate your guts.
This is one reason to switch your cell service over from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile over to PeerTalk.
PeerTalk saves the average family over $900 a year.
When they switch from Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
That is correct.
You can save $900 a year on your wireless bill and still enjoy ultra-fast 5G service.
You get unlimited talk text and plenty of data for just $30 a month.
PeerTalk is so sure you're going to love their service that they are backing it up with a 100% money back guarantee.
Stop paying a fortune to Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
You can cut your bill in half with PeerTalk.
Their U.S.-based customer service team makes the switch super easy.
Switch on over to Pure Talk in as little as 10 minutes while keeping your phone and your phone number.
Your first month is guaranteed risk-free.
Simply head on over to puretalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO, save 50% off your very first month of coverage.
That's puretalk.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Pure Talk is simply smarter wireless.
Restrictions apply.
See site for details.
And the coverage is great.
I've been using Pure Talk for all my business calls.
You should do the same.
Puretalk.com, enter promo code SHAPIRO, save 50% off your very first month.
So, Women's History Month, it features For Hershey, a dude.
Faye Johnstone, who's the dude, as the spokesperson.
Or maybe you have Dylan Mulvaney, celebrating Women's History Month.
Dylan Mulvaney is, of course, also a dude.
in a creepy video in which he, having waxed his mustache and beard apparently, has to put on makeup and then gallivant around like a caricature of a cartoon girl.
I like pink. Pink. Oh, no, it's a TikTok video. Oh, no. Oh, my God.
Pink.
Dylan Mulvaney is wearing things that are pink, like a dress that is pink, and then smiling hysterically creepily into the camera for Women's History Month!
Do you feel all the feminine history happening right here?
Dylan Mulvaney's history as a woman is less than two years old.
And in fact, doesn't exist at all because Dylan Mulvaney is in fact a dude.
So why exactly is this happening?
Or why, for example, is it that the Democrats in the Senate, they had a hearing the other day about the Equal Rights Amendment.
Now, the Equal Rights Amendment has been DLA for decades at this point.
There's a hard push for it in the 1970s.
It didn't make it across the finish line because a lot of conservatives pointed out you're obliterating the distinctions between the sexes in law.
So what exactly are you doing?
Well, Democrats have been trying to revive the Equal Rights Amendment for a while.
They've been doing so on the faulty legal basis that if an amendment is voted for over the course of like 40 years by various states, that there's no time limit on the amendment, which of course is ridiculous.
But in any case, The main point here is what a pro-ERA witness named Kathleen Sullivan, who's a lawyer at Quinn Emanuel, said about protecting the differences between men and women.
So she was asked about, you know, Women's History Month is coming up.
You're talking about the Equal Rights Amendment.
If you're going to protect women, then shouldn't there be distinctions between women and men that are actually protected?
She says, no, no, not really.
The ERA would simply make constitutional bedrock something we already recognize, which is Women and men should not be treated unequally.
How that gets worked out when there are real differences between men and women is a question for the future.
And this court, this court excuse me, the Senate need not specify to courts of the future how to work those questions out.
We don't even have to bother with determining how men and women are different, actually, according to the newfangled left, which of course led Dick Durbin, one of the dumber senators in America from Illinois, to dismiss all concerns about women in men's sports or men in women's sports.
Now we hear that what's at stake really is not a constitutional right for women, but the fate of field hockey.
I mean, I'm trying to keep up with the arguments here.
It might not mean a lot to you, sir, but it means a lot to the girls who play.
See, I believe you have a sincere belief in that.
And I believe those girls would probably feel very strongly about the issue if they're field hockey players.
Particularly when they're displaced by males on the varsity team.
But you see, that's what the argument comes down to.
The fate of field hockey.
And I think it is much more fundamental.
We are talking about the role of women in the United States of America.
Yes, we are.
We are talking about that.
But the whole point is that you are destroying the role of women in the United States of America by saying that women don't exist, that men can actually be women.
That's why you're doing it culturally.
That's why you're doing it in the halls of power.
It's why we are treated to our cultural betters to the sight of a man dressed as a woman who is the Assistant Human Health and Services Secretary.
Talking about health.
An overweight man dressed as a woman explaining to you about human health.
This is the sort of thing that we are now treated to and we are supposed to treat it as normal.
We are supposed to treat it as though it is regular.
We are re-centering the conversation around the fringes, of course.
Why?
Because all the systems that would impede your ability to see this as the normal, that's your problem.
It's because you've been indoctrinated by society.
Society has to change its rules.
Society has to change how it thinks about things like men and women.
All the powerful systems in which you have been indoctrinated need to be exploded.
And that's how you end up with the bizarre spectacle of Rachel Levine, HHS Assistant Secretary, who is a dude talking up health during Women's History Month or something.
March is National Nutrition Month, and the Biden-Harris administration is taking action to support public health by offering evidence-based guidance on nutrition.
The 2025-2030 Federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee just met for the first time to begin its review of the relationship between diet and health throughout our lives.
This committee will make recommendations for the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans based on a number of important factors, including socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and culture.
Each of these factors impacts the food that we eat, the food that we're able to access in our overall nutritional outlook.
This work is very timely because our country is facing a genuine crisis of diet-related diseases.
Oh, I mean, we're not supposed to mention what those diet-related diseases are?
Do you mean like people being fat?
We're not supposed to mention that because fat positivity and all of that.
Man, when you look at the weirdness of American society, you have to wonder, why are you seeing so much of it?
Because the whole goal is the weirdness!
The whole goal is to re-center all of the weirdness, so that all those people can then feel marginalized, and they can feel bad about the system, and then you have enough people who feel bad about the system, and then you get to wreck the system.
And this is how you end up with Lori Lightfoot, the former mayor of Chicago.
She just got her ass kicked in a Democratic first-round race.
She lost to two other Democrats.
She didn't even finish second in that runoff election.
Lori Lightfoot, she's also a victim.
We have a society that incentivizes victimhood, that wants to make you into a loser.
You're supposed to be more prominent if you are a loser.
That's the whole point.
It's more of that in a second.
A society that incentivizes loserdom, by the way, is a society that is not bound for a stable fiscal and financial future.
This is just one reason why you should think about diversifying.
See, the government keeps raising the rates right now because it's the only tool they have to keep inflation under control.
It is not working particularly.
You've seen the impact on the stock market.
You've seen the impact on your savings.
You can hedge against inflation by owning gold, whether that is physical gold and silver in your safe at home.
Or through an IRA in Precious Metals, where you can hold real gold and silver in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
I've bought gold from Birchgold because I like to diversify.
It's just a smart investment strategy.
You can do the same.
Buy gold today.
Get a free safe to store it in.
That is correct.
On qualifying purchases from Birchgold Group now through March 31st, they will ship a free safe directly to your door.
Just text Ben to 989898.
Get your free info kit on gold.
Claim eligibility for your free safe.
Then talk to one of their Precious Metals specialists.
That's Ben to 98-98-98 today.
Again, text the word Ben to 98-98-98.
Ask all of your questions to the folks at Birchgold, and then diversify at least a little bit into precious metals.
They've never been worth zero, and they're a great hedge against government malfeasance.
Head on over to Birchgold by texting Ben to 98-98-98 today.
Meanwhile, in the in the quest to glorify the losers, Lori Lightfoot, this is just amazing to me.
So Lori Lightfoot loses her Chicago mayoralty.
She becomes the first sitting mayor of Chicago to lose a reelect effort in 40 years.
And she had a reason.
So she was asked by a reporter after a concession address if she'd been treated unfairly over the course of the campaign.
And her reply was, quote, I'm a black woman in America, of course.
She'd said the same thing to the New Yorker back in February, quote, I'm a black woman. Let's not forget. Certain folks, frankly, don't support us in leadership roles.
So that's weird because you'll remember that she actually won 73.7% of the vote in 2019 to become mayor of Chicago. And And the other 27% of the vote or so went to Toni Preckwinkle, who is also a black woman.
But the whole point here is that she's a victim.
You see, she's a victim of Americans.
She's a marginalized member of American society.
Now, I will say, I did not see coming that Lori Lightfoot, the Smeagol of Chicago politics, intersectional Smeagol, I did not see that she was actually just Jussie Smollett, that she actually is Jussie Smollett.
She's now claiming that she was victimized as a black woman in Chicago.
A black liberal woman in Chicago.
She was victimized.
Because Chicago's mega country!
I'm just waiting for her to tell her story about how she was walking down the street at 2am in the middle of a polar vortex getting a Subway sandwich when she was attacked by two dudes in red hats who decided to garret her.
And then she walked back to her apartment wearing the rope line around her neck.
It's an amazing thing.
By the way, you wonder why Jussie Smollett said what he said?
He said it for the same reason that all these people are saying these kinds of things.
They are victims of the society in which they live.
That is the most important thing for you to remember.
We have a society that embraces victimhood, that glorifies victimhood, because that is the impetus to change the system.
It is all about wrecking the institutions around us, the institutions that actually create and enshrine our freedoms.
The institutions that allow for predictability to life, the institutions, the intermediate institutions that I've been talking a lot about in American society, church, family, local government, community events, right?
All these things are the things that people on the left would love to rip apart because they need to build something else in the wake of those systems.
And the only way to tear down the systems is to focus on the marginalized.
And that is why if you lose power in the system, like Lori Lightfoot said, you immediately declare it's because of your marginalized status, even though the reality is the only reason Lori Lightfoot became mayor of Chicago was, at least in part, her marginalized status in the first place.
This leads, by the way, to bizarre spectacles like one of the most absurd arguments online that I've ever seen.
And of course, it features another person who claims victimhood while being one of the least victimized people in American society, Nicole Hannah-Jones.
She is the pseudo-journalist and creator of the Garbage 1619 Project, who's been turned into a national intellectual hero by the left.
for telling a pack of lies about American history in an attempt to quote-unquote recenter, right?
The whole goal is to recenter American history around slavery as though slavery wasn't already a deep and implicit part of American history that gets taught to literally all schoolchildren.
Nope, she created the 1619 Project and now she's gotten herself in an argument with a survivor of the Maoist cultural revolution.
According to the New York Post, She sparred with Critical Race Theory opponent, G. Van Fleet, on Twitter on Sunday after the malice survivor challenged Jones's rejection of American exceptionalism.
In a three-part thread, Hannah-Jones argued that black history is under attack because, quote, our very presence on these lands is the greatest rebuke to the narrative of American exceptionalism.
Van Fleet fired back, yourself and I, an immigrant from China with 200 borrowed dollars in my pocket when I arrived more than 30 years ago, are proof of American exceptionalism, which is 100% true.
Nicole Hannah-Jones, being a, a, Pseudo-historian liar, a professional pseudo-historian liar has made herself millions of dollars.
She's gotten herself a permanent chair at Howard University in a country that she says is terrible to her, in which the systems are geared against her.
Van Fleet points out that I came here from China as a victim of the Cultural Revolution with 200 borrowed dollars, and I was asked to succeed.
Van Fleet argued natural rights are unique to America's founding, telling Jones that quote, because of it, we were able to abolish slavery, Jim Crow, anti-Chinese laws to allow individuals to succeed.
She said, what is not unique to America is slavery, which still exists today.
People fighting for human rights in China are jailed by the CCP.
Hannah Jones retorted, ma'am, the idea of natural rights may have been unique, but one fifth of the population was enslaved at our founding and had no natural rights.
Further, do you not think protesters in the United States face state violence and arrest?
You think the U.S.
has no political prisoners?
And then she instructed Van Fleet to watch episode five of her Hulu docuseries.
Fanfleet responded, her interpretation of America is not a vision, as Hannah-Jones suggested, but is a lived experience under the enslavement of communism, freedom in America, and the current woke revolution aiming to undo America.
Black Americans are enslaved no more thanks to the persevering principles and humanity of this country, she told Hannah-Jones.
Now again, it is just amazing to have Nicole Hannah-Jones, one of the most privileged human beings who has ever lived on the face of this planet.
Nicole Hannah-Jones went to a college in the United States.
Nicole Hannah-Jones worked at the New York Times.
She has never written a thing of value, and she's extremely famous and rich.
And here she is, informing a victim of Mao's Cultural Revolution, who came here and became successful, that America is truly a terrible place.
That's the whole point.
The whole point, over and over and over again, is to censor the marginalized, thus to declare victimhood from American society.
And that's gross, because American society is pretty great.
The intermediate institutions of America are pretty awesome.
Those are the things that allow for success for not only the hundreds of millions of people who live in the United States, but billions of people around the world.
In fact, there are so many people who are arrayed at tearing down those institutions by refocusing all the focus on the marginalized.
And there are bad reasons for marginalization and good reasons for marginalization.
Bad reasons for marginalization include immutable characteristics.
Good reasons for marginalization, meaning that you are economically marginalized, or that you've had a worse life, or that the system hasn't quote-unquote worked for you, is because you made bad decisions.
And we have a society that is actively, actively incentivizing bad decision-making.
Get to more of that in a second.
First, I want to tell you why I got emergency medications from Jace Medical.
So, you've seen the supply chains break.
When it happens, it's really ugly, and it's very hard to get the things that you need.
Not just that.
As we move toward a more polarized world, the supply chains are probably going to start breaking a lot more often.
And a lot of the stuff that you need is actually not manufactured in the United States.
But one thing I don't have to worry about is having emergency medications thanks to JaceCase.
It is a pack of five different antibiotics you can use to treat a host of bacterial illnesses in an emergency.
You can get your JACE emergency medications right now because the vast majority of vital medications are going to be very hard to get if the supply chains actually get any ores.
We've already seen antibiotic shortages last month.
So what does the JACE case do?
Again, it gets you the antibiotics that you need, the most commonly prescribed antibiotics.
So in case of God forbid an emergency, you have them on hand.
Visit jacemedical.com, take a few minutes, fill out their online form.
Your information will be reviewed by a board certified physician.
Your medication will be dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost.
Enter code Ben at checkout for a discount on your order.
That's J-A-C-E, medical.com, promo code Ben.
Again, J-A-C-E, medical.com, promo code Ben.
Okay, so, and the call to treat bad decision-making as victimhood is a pace.
Randy Weingarten is one of the people who has led this charge because, of course, she is a failure in her job.
She is the leader of the American Federation of Teachers.
The American public school system under her auspices has failed and failed and failed again.
The American Federation of Teachers is explicitly directed against the interests of students.
They wanted to keep the schools shut when there was no reason to do it during COVID.
They want no metrics of success in terms of whether students can read, write, or do basic work.
What they actually just want is money out of your pocket.
And then they want to claim that you're a victim.
Not a victim of their system, the system that they themselves created, but victims of a broader system.
So Randi Weingarten is out there stumping for free college.
She's stumping for Joe Biden to illegally simply get rid of student loan debt.
And she's going crazy in doing so because, again, she's a member of the marginalized, don't you see?
Here we go.
All of a sudden, what it's about are students!
They challenge it!
The corporations challenge it!
The student loan lenders challenge it!
That is not right!
That is not fair!
And that is what we are fighting as well!
So I have a nearly three-year-old, and she's gotten into a very whiny phase.
And so she likes to break into tears as a ploy to gain attention.
And I have no idea what she's saying.
She starts crying, and all that comes out of her face is that sound.
Except she's almost three.
Randy Weingarten is head of the American Federation for Teachers, and Randy Weingarten is, right now, 65 years of age.
When you're 65 years old, you shouldn't sound like my three-year-old.
But there she is, screaming!
Screaming!
Woo, lady!
Okay, so.
And the goal here is to suggest that she is a victim.
You're a victim.
She's saying you're a victim.
You're a victim of American state.
You took out a loan to go to college, and then you went to a college, and then people ask you to pay back that loan, and you're a victim.
That's how this works.
Always a victim.
Always, always, and forever.
Okay, or internationally.
Again, same sort of deal.
Always, playing the victim is like the best thing that you can do in global Western civilization right now.
It is the best thing you can do.
So this is the game that Greta Thunberg is now playing.
So she's outlived the child prophetess routine because she's now the age of majority, which means I can make fun of her as much as I could possibly want to make fun of her, which is an awful lot because she's terrible.
So Greta Thunberg got herself detained again.
And this is a thing that she does every so often now because she needs to be in the press.
And she can't be in the press anymore for being a small child who dresses down and wear pigtails.
So she looks like she's six years junior to what she actually is in charge.
and the adults! How dare you!
How dare you?
No one cares about her anymore.
So now she has to go get herself fake arrested.
So according to Reuters, environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg, by the way, how is that an actual job?
Like who pays you to do that?
How do you get employed as an environmental campaigner?
Like who pays you to just go get arrested at places?
She was twice detained during a demonstration in support of indigenous rights in Oslo on Wednesday.
Police removed her and other activists from the finance ministry and later the environment ministry.
Hilariously, what was she protesting?
I do love it when the woke eat themselves.
It is fun to watch when the far left radicals who hate the system, they start eating the system that they themselves have stumped for.
So on Monday, she joined protesters.
Demanding the removal of 151 wind turbines.
I thought she liked wind turbines.
I thought wind turbines were everybody's favorite friend in the environmental community.
I thought wind turbines were, like, the greatest thing.
We should all attach them to the top of our cars, and we should just go down the street powered by the wind turbines, like a giant pinwheel on the top of our Ford F-150s.
Well, if she wanted the removal of 151 wind turbines from reindeer pastures used by Sammy Herders in central Norway, They say a transition to green energy should not come at the expense of indigenous rights.
Well, I have some good news for them.
There will be no transition to green energy because, factually speaking, Norway is one of the biggest oil producers on planet Earth and their entire social infrastructure relies on them having a giant slush fund made of oil.
The demonstrators have in recent days blocked access to some government buildings, putting the central left minority government in crisis mode.
Yeah, as you see, the revolution is ongoing because even central left governments, not far left, even central left governments sometimes have to uphold the institutions that they purport to run.
Here was a Greta Thunberg happily being being, quote unquote, detained yesterday.
She looks very upset.
What I love is all the people, the cops who are carrying her, like, oh, I can't believe we have to carry on this dead white human.
The cops are just carrying her around.
She's like, she's enjoying herself.
Again, another thing, a lot of kind of comps to my three-year-old today.
This is also what my three-year-old does when she just doesn't want to walk places.
Just sits down on the pavement and then I have to carry her around and schlep her around.
It's half my exercise.
Thunberg, holding a red, blue, yellow, and green Sami flag, was lifted and carried away by police officers from the finance ministry, while hundreds of demonstrators chanted slogans.
She told Reuters, quote, We want to make it very clear.
It is the Norwegian state that is committing the real crime here for violating human rights by building wind turbines.
Wind turbines!
Reindeer herders say the sight and sound of the giant wind power machinery frighten their animals and disrupt age-old traditions.
And how is Santa ever going to have his reindeer if the wind turbines frighten away the reindeer?
The most delicious thing about the radical leftists, who again, feature the marginalized, there will always be marginalized.
The marginalized shall always be among you.
What that means is even if you build your new system, even if the central left is running things, even if they're as green as green can be, there will always be a more marginalized group that is out there awaiting a new radical to tear down the system.
Which is why it is worthy of note here that hilariously, Germany and Italy, both of whom signed on to all this Green New Deal garbage over in Europe, both of whom essentially disconnected power plants and tried to move toward more environmentally friendly energy.
And meanwhile, we're kind of shuttling in Russian oil through the back door.
Well, now Germany and Italy are signaling that they are going to kill the EU's attempt at a internal combustion engine ban.
According to the Wall Street Journal, a group of large European countries is threatening to block a plan by Brussels to effectively ban the internal combustion engine, endangering the bloc's ambitious agenda to combat climate change.
Germany and Italy said this week they could block the plan's formal approval at crucial meetings this week and next.
Berlin said it would oppose the plan unless Brussels agrees to allow so-called synthetic fuels that can burn like gasoline and diesel, but spew fewer climate-damaging emissions alongside fully electric vehicles.
Now, the reality, of course, is that Europe is going to be relying on oil for a long time to come.
They do not have the geography that is necessary in order to support, for example, solar energy.
Solar energy, we don't have the battery power on planet Earth to actually allow us to use solar energy as a substitute for hardier forms of energy.
Also, Europe tends to have very short days at certain times during the year and not a lot of sun.
It turns out that Europe is not actually all that land rich, so having wind power things is not going to do it.
So all of this kind of nonsense about how they're going to do this green transition, even Germany's like, yeah, we can do it.
See, here's the thing.
The radicalism, it is a privilege of the systems that you guys hate so much.
All the radicalism, all the attempts to tear down the system, those only exist in systems that are already extremely wealthy and extremely beneficial to the vast majority of their citizens.
Because then you get to claim that you're marginalized from a system that has generated enormous success.
See, if no one is successful, it's hard to claim marginalization because everyone is unsuccessful.
But if you can find a system in which a lot of people are very successful and then you claim to be marginalized to tear down the system, it is success itself that creates the marginalized who then claim that the success must be torn down.
All the systems must be torn down.
In other words, these are first world problems.
And it is fun to watch as the first world problems swing back around on the left.
There is never any position that will be so radical that the left will not take it in order to tear down whatever the prevailing system is.
The revolution must go on and the revolution always and forever eats its own.
Meanwhile, on the Hill yesterday, Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, came up to testify on his job thus far.
He has done an unbelievably poor job over at the DOJ.
Now, there is some kind of fascinating news that the Washington Post reported the other day regarding exactly how Merrick Garland is running the DOJ.
According to Hot Air, did the FBI get a bad rap in the wake of the raid on Mar-a-Lago?
According to the Washington Post, the raid took place only after months of debate between the FBI and prosecutors from the DOJ.
The FBI argued a request for a full search of the property would have sufficed, according to two senior officials from the bureau.
But the prosecutors wanted a raid.
The DOJ agreed.
Remember the very non-political DOJ under the late Merrick Garland?
He was supposed to be on the Supreme Court, but he's not.
Thank God.
While prosecutors argued that new evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing secret documents at his Palm Beach home and urged the FBI to conduct a surprise raid at the property, two senior FBI officials resisted the plan as too combative and proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search the property.
Prosecutors ultimately prevailed.
In the tug of war between two arms of the DOJ and then the FBI conducted the unprecedented raid.
So basically Merrick Garland's DOJ ended up pushing right past the objections of members of the FBI in order to push the raid of Mar-a-Lago.
So Merrick Garland doing just an amazing job.
Merrick Garland had to sit in front of a bunch of senators.
And it turns out it did not go unbelievably well for him.
So it began with Senator Ted Cruz grilling Merrick Garland on the fact that the DOJ really did virtually nothing to stop people from protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in the aftermath of the leak of the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.
Merrick Garland could have arrested a lot of those people because it turns out that it is illegal to attempt to use intimidation against a judge.
It's against federal law.
He didn't do any of that.
So Ted Cruz pushed him on this.
Merrick Garland, of course, had no answer.
So, you just said yes, it's a crime to protest at the home of a judge.
Same goes for jurors, by the way, with the intent of influencing a case.
But in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision, When rioters descended at the homes of six Supreme Court justices, night after night after night, you did nothing.
The department did nothing.
When these same groups posted online information about where the justices worship, or their home addresses, or where their kids went to school, you again sat on your hands and did nothing.
Your failure to act to protect the safety of the justices and their families was an obvious product of political bias.
Hey, he happens to be true.
That's true.
Merrick Garland got very angry and then he's like, I want to answer the question.
But his answer to the question was, I put people from the DOJ outside the justice system.
Yes, but did you arrest anyone?
Because I noticed that you have a lot of eagerness to arrest people who disagree with your political point of view.
This is the point that Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri was making when he asked Merrick Garland.
He said, you know, I noticed that you guys are perfectly fine targeting Catholics.
That's that's it's strange.
You won't arrest people outside justices' houses.
You have no record of that.
But you're perfectly willing to, at gunpoint, go and arrest a Catholic activist who was involved in a bit of a tussle with a person who was insulting his 12-year-old son.
Here's Josh Hawley going after Merrick Garland.
We're supposed to hate long guns and assault-style weapons.
You're happy to deploy them against Catholics and innocent children.
Happy to.
And then you haul them into court and a jury acquits them in one hour.
I notice a pattern, though.
The FBI field office in Richmond on the 23rd of January of this year issued a memorandum in which they advocated for, and I quote, the exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development against traditionalist Catholics, it's their language, including those who favor the Latin mass.
Attorney General, are you cultivating sources and spies in Latin mass parishes and other Catholic parishes around the country?
The Justice Department does not do that.
It does not do investigations based on religion.
I saw the document you have.
It's appalling.
It's appalling.
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Well then, why was it put out?
And why does this seem to be, unfortunately, a pattern inside Merrick Garland's DOJ?
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, it seems almost everywhere you turn in the world wants to make you woker, but not Dennis Prager.
Dennis would like to make you wiser.
My good friend, the founder of PragerU, he's going to do just that.
He has a brand new series exclusively at DailyWirePlus.
It's called The Master's Program.
The Master's Program takes decades of wisdom and experience from one of the most influential conservative thinkers in America today and distills it all down in a way that is relevant and accessible.
When you watch it, you'll come away better equipped to navigate the world through a lens of truth and virtue to counter woke ideology and all of its lies and deception.
I've known Dennis for literally decades at this point.
My parents became Orthodox, at least in part, by listening to Dennis Prager.
The first five episodes Okay, meanwhile, the questioning of Merrick Garland by Republican senators continued apace yesterday and Garland had very bad answers to what exactly he thinks the DOJ does for a living.
become a member, watch PragerU master's program and more.
That's dailywire.com slash subscribe today. Okay, meanwhile, the questioning of Merrick Garland by Republican senators continue to pace yesterday and Garland had very bad answers to what exactly he thinks the DOJ does for a living.
So he was asked about the fact that pro-life protesters are getting prosecuted.
But meanwhile, people who are firebombing clinics, those people are not getting prosecuted.
Firebombing like pro-life clinics.
And Garland was like, well, that's because people firebomb things at night.
Oh, what?
In 2022 and for the first couple of months of 2023, DOJ has announced charges against 34 individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion clinics.
There have been over 81 reported attacks on pregnancy centers, 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the Dobbs decision, and only two individuals have been charged.
So how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything other than politicization of what's happening there?
There are many more prosecutions with respect to the blocking of the of the abortion centers, but that is generally because those actions are taken with photography at the time during the daylight and seeing the person who did it is quite easy.
Oh, so basically the DOJ will not expend resources if you firebomb things at night, is the note.
And this DOJ, they're doing an amazing job.
They are totally about enforcing the law, which is why America also says that it's good to send biological males to female prisons.
Because, you know, everyone deserves dignity, except for the females who might be raped in the prison by the biological male, but they don't deserve dignity.
Some women who rape other women have penises, according to the DOJ.
What is our policy when it comes to allowing a male prisoner to be transitioned into a female prison?
I think if you're generally asking the question of how trans people are dealt with in the Bureau of Prisons, my understanding is that these are determinations about where they're placed or where people are placed in general have to do with individualized determinations regarding The security of that individual and the management of the prison.
These are done on a case-by-case basis.
Are you concerned that if a biological male is sent to a female prison, that could be a risk to female prisoners?
I think every person in prison has to be dealt with dignity and respect.
The determinations of the safety questions you're talking about have to be made on an individualized basis.
Mmm.
Mmm.
So much wisdom happening here from our DOJ.
Garland also denied that he activated the DOJ to go after parents, which is weird because there was an actual letter issued from the DOJ talking about the threat to school boards at the behest of a school boards group that suggested that anyone who objected to what school boards was doing, those people were effectively terrorists.
Here's Garland denying that the DOJ had anything to do with going after parents.
Didn't you understand The chilling effect that it would have to parents.
When you issued your directive, when you directed your criminal divisions and your counter-terrorism divisions to investigate parents who are angry at school boards and administrators during COVID.
Senator, if you'd just give me a moment to put to full context, I did not do that.
I did not issue any memorandum directing the investigation of parents who are concerned about their children.
Quite to the contrary, the memorandum that you're talking about says at the very beginning of the memorandum that vigorous public debate is protected by the First Amendment and the kind of concerns that you're talking about are, as expressed by parents, are of course completely protected Yeah, but he's talking about the chilling effect of putting out these giant notices that basically say, but if you cross the line, you know, and you just cross the line, and we've been seeing all over the country a vast swath of violence against school.
When you do that, it does have a chilling effect.
Again, they're not sending their best.
These are the people who are supposed to be expert bureaucrats.
They're going to usher in the new age.
Now, speaking of the expert bureaucrats who are going to usher in the new age, John Kirby, who is the national security spokesperson for the Biden administration, he said something the other day that kind of went without notice, and it's crazy.
So, John Kirby was asked about further gain-of-function research.
So, gain-of-function research is, of course, where you take a virus and then you make it more deadly, more transmissible.
It depends on whether you're using the technical definition or not technical definition, but let's use the non-technical definition for a second.
You let it jump species.
So, instead of it just being transmissible bat-to-bat, now it's transmissible bat-to-human, for example.
Gain-of-function research is super risky because if it leaks outside the lab and you haven't come up with a cure for it, that's a real problem.
So, John Kirby was asked about it and here was John Kirby's answer.
Does the President believe, though, that the reward outweighs the risk when it comes to gain-of-function research?
Does the reward outweigh the risk when it comes to gain-of-function research?
That type of research is prudent.
I got a history degree.
You're going to have to say that again?
Does the President believe that this type of gain-of-function research is prudent?
He believes that it's important to help prevent Future pandemics, which means he understands that there has to be legitimate scientific research into the sources or potential sources of pandemics so that we understand it so that we can prevent them and we can prevent them from happening obviously.
So that's a yes on the gain-of-function research.
So, yes, more of the gain-of-function research.
It went so well in Wuhan.
We need more of the gain-of-function research.
Now, I'd be a little warmer to the case for you guys doing gain-of-function research if you weren't a bunch of political hacksaw garbage at your jobs.
See, here's the thing.
The same NIH that is suggesting they need to do gain-of-function research and fund gain-of-function research all over the world.
Gain-of-function research, like, exactly the stuff that may have created COVID-19.
Those exact people are now promoting DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion on scientists.
So I don't think that you guys are really into science.
I think that what you guys are really into is a particular brand of politics and you act outside your area of expertise all the time.
I just think you're garbage at your jobs.
I mean, I'll be honest with you, not all of you.
I think some of you are good at your jobs, but I think that a lot of you are kind of garbage at your jobs.
According to the Wall Street Journal, John Saylor writing, In 2020, the National Institutes of Health created the Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation program to enhance and maintain cultures of inclusive excellence in the biomedical research community.
The program will give 12 institutions a total of $241 million over nine years for diversity-focused faculty hiring.
Under the terms of the grant, only candidates who demonstrate a quote, strong commitment to promoting diversity and inclusive excellence can be hired through the program.
To apply, candidates must submit a diversity statement.
So what exactly are the rubrics for evaluating diversity statements?
The University of South Carolina's program currently seeks faculty in public health and nursing.
The University of New Mexico's program seeks faculty studying neuroscience and data science.
Their rubrics call for punishing candidates who espouse race neutrality, dictating a low score for anyone who states an intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and treat anyone the same.
So yeah, I don't trust you guys to actually do science, since the people who are doing the gain-of-function research may have been appointed based on affirmative action considerations.
Thanks to the NIH.
The expert class has not earned the trust to be able to do risky things anymore.
They've actually actively unearned whatever trust they had.
This is a point made by our friend, Dr. Marty McCary.
He was sort of our go-to guy during the pandemic here on the show over at Johns Hopkins University.
Yesterday, he pointed out that there are a bunch of top scientists who very early on in the pandemic had essentially found that this was a lab leak, that this was probably a lab leak.
And then, coincidentally, as soon as they reversed themselves on the question, they received a $9 million grant from the federal government.
He insisted that he was sure that the coronavirus research that the U.S.
taxpayer dollars funded at WIV was completely unrelated to SARS-CoV-2.
And I was wondering if any of the three of you had any thoughts on that.
Two leading virologists, maybe the two Top virologists in the United States, Dr. Michael Farzan from Scripps and Dr. Robert Gary from Tulane, told Dr. Fauci on his emergency call in January of 2020 when he was scrambling soon after learning that the NIH was funding the lab, they both said that it was likely from the lab.
Both scientists changed their tunes days later in the media And then both scientists received $9 million subsequent in funding from the NIH.
It's a no-brainer that it came from the lab.
Well, again, he's not wrong.
And the expert class shut everything down.
Jay Bhattacharya, who's legitimately targeted by members of the federal government, up to and including doctors Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, targeted because he suggested the proper strategy.
He ripped bureaucrats yesterday for acting like dictators.
And he, of course, is right.
This is Dr. Bhattacharya of Stanford.
By early 2022, about 95% of Americans had contracted COVID despite the harsh countermeasures in most states, including confinement of broad populations, business closures, cessation of religious and other gatherings, school closures, and widespread violation of civil liberties.
Very clearly, these measures failed to protect Americans from COVID.
This fact is confirmed by a comprehensive Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis which included that lockdowns had failed to contain the spread of COVID.
At best, they temporarily protected the laptop class who could work from home without losing their jobs, perhaps 30% of the population, while being served by the working class.
Vaccine mandates forced many frontline workers, heroes who contracted COVID early in the pandemic while doing essential work, to choose between their careers and a vaccine that provides less protection than the natural immunity they already had.
Many faced with these anti-scientific choices will never trust public health authorities again, even on vital topics such as the necessity of traditional childhood vaccines.
Public health bureaucrats operate more like dictators than scientists during the pandemic, sealing themselves off from credible outside criticism.
Bhattacharya is right, but here's the dirty little secret.
The folks who are acting like dictators, they were backed by the political chattering class.
They were backed by the political class who used their political point of view to promote, quote-unquote, the science.
This was admitted by Whoopi Goldberg yesterday, of all people.
She actually admitted that politics got in the way of truth when it came to the lab leak theory.
The larger problem with all of this is the inability to discuss things that are within the realm of possibility without falling into absolutes and litmus testing each other for our political allegiances.
And the two things that came out of it were, I'm racist against Asian people, and how dare I align myself with the alt-right?
Now, he's right that politics got in the way of a lot of looking for the truth.
But they still are not saying definitively.
And that's a problem.
They still don't know for sure.
I love that.
She admits it.
But then she's like, well, I still won't accept, you know, the real possibility that this is a thing that happened.
Ah, the genius is over at The View.
But this is why you shouldn't trust the expert class, because the expert class is talking to people like Whoopi.
Those are the people who insist that you give them more power, of course, to change the system from within or destroy the system from without.
OK, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
This story, it's actually a tragic story.
It's a sad story of transphobia.
A really sad story of transphobia.
According to American Wire News, Kayla Lemieux, the biological high school teacher who became famous for strutting around school dressed as a woman with Z-size prosthetic breasts, has now been placed on leave from Oakville Trafalgar High School.
Now, You might say to yourself, well, isn't that a good thing?
Why is that a tragic story?
I mean, after all, this is a male who is walking around with fake prosthetic breasts that were size Z. They were obviously ridiculous with like fake nipples poking out through the shirt.
Why is that person teaching children?
Well, it turns out the reason this person has been suspended is not because he was wearing giant Z-sized prosthetic breasts at school in front of high school students.
No, the reason this person was suspended is because he wasn't wearing the Z-sized prosthetic breasts outside of school.
I'm not kidding.
The development comes roughly two weeks after the New York Post discovered Lemieux allegedly dresses like a regular dude outside of work.
The discovery was made by simply following him after he left work.
The Post reported the teacher, who until a few years ago went by the name Carrie, left Ontario's Oakville Trafalgar High School this week wearing gigantic breasts and blonde wig and glasses.
It wasn't long until the cartoonish clothing came off.
After shopping at a department store and pet supplies shop dressed as a woman, Lemieux headed home to get changed, and emerged dressed as a man 30 minutes later.
Lemieux then spent the afternoon in public wearing men's sweatpants, trainers, a gray t-shirt, and a navy puffer vest without breasts, makeup, glasses, or a wig.
The post then obtained witness testimony from Lemieux's neighbors.
Quote, he wears prosthetic breasts extremely infrequently.
He put the breasts on to teach occasionally when he goes for a walk or when the cops visit, said one neighbor.
According to the neighbor, the prosthetic breasts appeared out of nowhere last May when Lemieux was spotted parading them around while walking down a busy road.
I was driving past.
You can see the breasts from so far away when you're driving.
He puts the whole outfit on, just walked up and down Gulf Line.
No bags, just walking.
Everyone slows down because you can't believe what you're seeing.
Following the post-investigation, Lemieux contacted them to tell them his side of the story, which was that his obviously fake breasts were somehow real.
He said, I'm not wearing prosthetic breasts.
These are real.
He also denied being transgender, claiming instead to be intersex.
He said, my condition is classified as gigantomastia, which can also be referred to as macromastia or breast hypertrophy.
It's rare.
There's no doubt about it.
It affects women on a very rare basis.
In my case, I believe my doctor thinks because I have XX chromosomes as well.
That has something to do with it.
And hormone sensitivity to estrogen has caused it, even though these are obviously prosthetic breasts.
He said, this is who I am.
This is how I look.
You've been talking to people in my building.
What they're telling you is not the truth.
It's not the truth.
It wasn't me.
He said, I'm always going out looking the way that I am.
So, in other words, it was totally fine for this person to make a mockery of the classroom in the most bizarre, fetishistic way.
That was fine.
The moment that he wasn't doing it like the rest of his life, that's when the, oh, well, I guess it's not, that's not authentic.
If it's not authentic, then we can't, but if it were authentic, if this dude were wearing around the fake prosthetic breast full time, well, then it's a civil rights issue.
Yes, that's how backwards we as a society have become.
It is worse for you not to wear the fake prosthetic breasts around the rest of your life than it is for you to wear them in school among high school children.
Slow clap for the Canadian system.
Okay, other things that I like.
So, Bill Maher did an interview with Jake Tapper the other night.
Bill Maher's show now appears on CNN because CNN is dying in the ratings and Maher actually draws flies.
And Bill, I'm friendly with Bill, he did a very good interview with Jake Tapper in which he discussed what it's like to actually do his job.
He says when he's trying to hire writers for the writers room he has a real problem because everybody is ideologically monolithic.
So every year I read these packets of proposed writers, and I read them this year as I do every year, and it's just stunning how uniform their points of view are.
And it hasn't always been that way.
Exactly.
I don't remember, but I don't think it was ever quite this bad.
It's the exact same point of view on every single issue, and it's very predictable.
I have a relationship with people who want to hear what I think is the truth, and I'm going to present both sides.
Ammar also pointed out that the woke left, they love diversity, but they don't like diversity of ideas very much.
So you talk about the Democrats being so hemmed in by identity politics.
The counter-argument would be, it's always been identity politics, it's just always been white people, so people like you and me didn't notice.
And now it's just an effort at inclusion, which I'm sure, theoretically, you support.
Yeah, I support it in fact.
But, I mean, you know, Democrats sometimes can take it too far.
You know, I would categorize liberal as different than woke.
You know, woke, which started out as a good thing, alert to injustice, who could be against that.
But it became sort of an eye roll because they love diversity except of ideas.
And that's not really where we should be.
I mean, they have a trail of very bad ideas.
Yes, yes they do.
Bill Maher, it's amazing.
Remember if you go back to my first book that I wrote in like 2003 when I was still in college.
If you go back and you look at that book, I talk about Bill Maher.
I'm pretty disparaging about Bill Maher because he and I were on opposite sides of every single issue.
Well, Bill Maher is no longer on the opposite sides of every issue.
It's just that the entire political spectrum has moved so far to the left that him being mildly reasonable now makes him a right winger in the eyes of the left.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
Let's go.
So the situation over in Israel domestically is incredibly stupid right now.
I say it's incredibly stupid because you're seeing hundreds of thousands of people who are going into the streets to protest an overhaul of the judiciary.
Now, in reality, they're not protesting the overhaul of the judiciary.
The people who are in the streets right now and who are very angry are really just angry that Benjamin Netanyahu and the right wing won the last election cycle.
After a series of sort of stalemate elections, Netanyahu won an overwhelming victory in the last election, got 64 seats in the 120-seat parliament.
And one of the first things that he took on was an obvious flaw in the Israeli governmental system, which is the judiciary.
The judiciary in Israel is very weird.
Essentially, the people who are on the Supreme Court of Israel can make rulings striking down legislation, not on the basis of a constitution, because there is no constitution in Israel.
They just basically say they don't like a thing and strike it down, which means that they're not actually a judiciary.
They're just a super legislature.
They appoint their own successors, effectively speaking.
The legislature is not really involved.
The prime minister is not really involved.
It's an outside body that selects the people who can actually be the justices on the Israeli Supreme Court, and that includes past Supreme Court justices and members of the Israeli Bar Association and all the rest.
It doesn't work like the United States does.
In the United States, it works pretty rationally.
The president selects a justice.
The Senate has the power of advice and consent.
And then vote on the Supreme Court justice.
The justices are then bound to uphold a written constitution in the face of other legislation, and the constitution overrules.
There is no constitution in Israel, and the judicial branch is basically impervious to any sort of public input in the form of, say, the Prime Minister selecting the justices who are going to be on the Supreme Court, and then the Parliament being able to up or down it.
Netanyahu came in and he said, I've looked at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has been a stalwart instrument for the hard left in Israel for literally the entirety of Israel's existence.
And so he wanted to pass a rule, some laws that would change how the Supreme Court was run in Israel.
And here are effectively what the changes are.
There are essentially four.
One was the Knesset, the parliament, would be allowed to override Supreme Court decisions by majority vote.
Okay, well, that makes sense if the court is not speaking on behalf of a constitution, on behalf of a higher law.
All that's saying is that the legislature in Israel rules, which makes sense unless there's going to be, again, another higher document that the Supreme Court can use to strike down legislation.
You have to have some sort of basis for striking things down.
The changes would have removed the Supreme Court's ability to judge Knesset legislation for reasonability.
This is one of the standards they were using, and they weren't judging it against the Constitution.
They were saying, is it reasonable?
Reasonability.
Well, that's not a judicial category.
Reasonability.
If a legislature passes a law, it is not up to the judiciary to decide whether the law was quote-unquote reasonable.
It's up to them to decide whether it conflicts with some sort of higher law.
Reasonability, as it turns out for the leftist members of the Israeli Supreme Court, just meant anything we don't like, we'll strike down.
So that's a problem.
They're going to change that.
It was also going to give the most control over appointing judges to the ruling coalition rather than to the legal experts and representatives who are sort of this independent body.
So it's going to look more like the American system than it looks right now.
And finally, one of the weird things in Israel is that every department in the Israeli Executive branch has its own legal advisors.
OK, but those legal advisors don't give advice to the heads of those branches.
They literally just strike down legislation inside the department.
So imagine if Joe Biden went to his EPA and he said, I want you to do X. And the head of the EPA is like, OK, I'm going to implement that.
And there was a legal advisor inside the EPA who just said, nope, you can't do it.
You can't.
Sorry, you can't.
Well, I mean, you weren't elected.
You're a bureaucrat.
That is not how that works.
So what this would have done is it would have allowed the legal advisors to be advisors as opposed to, you know, sort of independent judicial bodies who are striking down regulations and legislation inside the executive branch.
Those were the changes.
None of those seem wildly earth shattering.
There might be some wiggle room in terms of negotiation on these things.
You could see that.
And that's probably what's going to end up happening in Israel because the simple fact is the Supreme Court of Israel is going to strike down any law that doesn't get made via negotiation here.
And they have sort of a catch-22.
They want to pass a law changing the nature of the judiciary, but the judiciary still has the ability to strike down the law changing the nature of the judiciary.
Because again, when you don't have a constitution in the United States, this isn't a problem.
In the United States, when you want to change the constitution, you make an amendment.
The amendment prohibits the judiciary from speaking on a particular topic.
Israel doesn't have a constitution, so there's no way for them to quote-unquote overrule the judiciary.
The judiciary basically gets to decide what the judiciary gets to do, which is part of the problem.
But all of this is relatively complex.
There's wiggle room.
Instead of a negotiation taking place, or instead of the people who oppose Netanyahu and the current coalition just saying, OK, fine, so you want to do that?
You're going to feel the pain at the ballot box next time around and we're going to win.
Then we're going to reverse everything you just did, which they could do.
Instead of them doing that, they send hundreds of thousands of people into the streets to protest.
Now, again, protest is totally fine, but they were shutting down freeways.
Not only that, there have been rumored, say this is a rumor, high level officials in the opposing coalition In Israel who have been literally encouraging businesses in Israel to divest from Israel over this because they want power again.
They want to harm actively some of them.
The economy of the state of Israel, which is really kind of gross stuff.
And then beyond that, yesterday you had a really bad situation in which some of the quote-unquote protesters decided that they were going to surround the hair salon where Bibi Netanyahu's wife was getting her hair done yesterday in Tel Aviv.
And security forces, according to the Jerusalem Post, actually had to rescue Sarah Netanyahu from the salon, where hundreds of thousands of protesters stood blocking the exit, preventing her from leaving.
So what security forces did is they acted like she was still inside, and then they evacuated her to a vehicle and drove away from the scene.
And they didn't leave until they were notified.
The forces didn't leave until notified that the vehicle had been managed to get away.
Well, even some of the opposition was saying this is too much.
You have to actually let the prime minister's wife go home.
But the continuation of this really suggests that a lot of the protests that is happening right now has very little to do with the actual proposed legislation and more to do with the fact that there are a lot of people who just didn't like they lost the last election.
And this ties into broader politics across Western civilization right now.
There's been this claim by folks on the left that authoritarian rule is on the way.
It is coming.
It's coming in Brazil.
It's coming in Hungary.
It's coming in the United States.
It's coming in Israel.
What do these places have in common?
They're places where the right won or had won.
The left is constantly suggesting that democracy is under threat.
But when you keep suggesting that democracy is under threat, when you lose, who's putting democracy under threat?
What is the name, the specific anti-democratic action that is being taken so we can determine whether it's anti-democratic or not?
What Netanyahu is doing in Israel on the judiciary is actually pro-democratic because it means that people get to vote on issues as opposed to having the judiciary strike things down in the name of a non-constitution that doesn't exist.
It's very hard to make the case that Netanyahu, who was popularly elected with his coalition and now wants to make judicial decisions subject to more popular feedback, that that is somehow anti-democratic.
It is more democratic, technically speaking.
But this is what the left does right now.
And it's really dangerous.
It's a dangerous game that is being played by the left internationally.
Anytime you lose an election, democracy is under threat.
Anytime you win an election, democracy has been saved.
What that suggests is that democracy is not actually your chief goal.
Victory is the only thing that matters to you.
And that's really, really bad.
Again, not a threat that's unique to the left.
We saw this in 2020, I think, on the right.
I think on the right, there are a bunch of people who said if we lose the election, democracy has not had its way.
That's not true.
Because there will be future elections and you will win those future elections.
I have faith that the American people are going to turn away, for example, from Joe Biden.
I think he's done a really bad job.
I don't think he's going to win again.
I do not believe that this election is the last election.
And people who tend to say things like this election is the last election without actual evidence are the people who are promoting the this is the last election idea.
Because what they're essentially saying, if you think democracy is going to end, then everything and everything is on the table.
And that really does break apart societies.
It's really, really quite terrible.
Alrighty guys, the rest of the show is continuing right now.
You're not going to want to miss it.
We'll be getting into the question of why Sesame Street is featuring guests who really should not be around the kiddies, I think.
If you're not a member, become a member.
Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free and all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection