All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2023 - Dennis Prager Show
01:20:13
Putin on the Ritz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
Subscribe at PragerTopia.com.
Hello everybody and a good Monday to you.
And for approximately the thousandth time, I hope you have a good weekend.
Not everybody does.
I do.
I'm very lucky.
I pretty much walk around life thinking the opposite of the question, you know, when tragedy occurs to people, they go, why me?
That's how I feel about all the good I have.
Why me?
People never ask that when good things happen.
They only ask that when bad things happen.
And that's a subject for an ultimate issues hour or even a happiness hour.
They're very related ultimate issues and happiness.
Only God knows what will finally transpire in Russia.
There was a full-fledged revolt.
The problem is that the people revolting against Putin We're
as evil as Putin.
A significant part of Russia, certainly not every Russian.
These people were let out of prison and told that if they survive, what is it, six months, I think, then they are released from prison.
However, a vast number of them get killed.
So that's your offer.
Chances are you'll die and very possibly get, of course, terribly injured.
And suffer a great deal, but at least you'll get out of prison.
And if you leave, if you try to leave before your six months, you'll be killed by the Russians.
Did you know that?
That was the deal?
So, among other things, the cruelest, the Nazis did that.
They let prisoners out.
Some of them were the ones who manned the death camps.
And they were known for their sadism.
As a rule, prisons are not filled with good people.
There are good and even innocent people in prison.
But as a rule, what is it that Alan Dershowitz said many years ago before he became controversial for defending a Republican president whom he didn't even vote for?
He said, the fact is that, what is it, 99% or some extraordinarily high percent of the people we defend, he's a criminal defense attorney on occasion, and 99% of them are in fact guilty, but we have to give them a defense anyway, which everybody agrees to.
However, it certainly shows the weakness of Putin.
Who gave an address to his people and compared this to the post-1917 Bolshevik Revolution and the horrific civil war that took place in Russia.
And the reason for that is to appeal to the patriotism of the people.
He, of course, is the innocent regime being attacked by people who want to undo...
The Russian Revolution or the Putin Revolution, as you will.
It is hard to know if he has done anything good for Russia while in power.
Since I am prone to observations about life, allow me one more.
Well, we've probably got a few more today.
Pretty much every segment.
But I have an observation on this.
The ability of a handful of people to do staggering harm is one of the built-in tragedies of life.
If Putin were a decent human being, he could have done so much good for Russia.
He's animated by Russia being great.
But there's a very big problem with his definition of great.
Great means big and powerful government.
A big country with a powerful government.
It doesn't mean morally great.
That is not his aim for his country.
This country, the United States, was founded to be a shining light, a beacon on a hill, and with all its bad occurrences, because it's composed of humans who are not basically good, as all humans are not basically good, there is no single more moronic idea than human nature is basically good.
It is the number one idiocy.
From which flows vast amount of evil.
Because if you don't acknowledge the nature of the human, you can't make a good human.
And the people who believe people are basically good tend not to make good humans.
They tend to make big government because they trust people so much.
We were founded to be morally great.
And then the left began to shatter every dream upon which America was founded.
We were founded to be a beacon of light, of liberty to the world.
We were a beacon of both.
That is why so many people on earth wanted to move to America more than to any other country.
That is why only a few years ago they marched in Hong Kong with American flags and no other foreign flag.
America represented for all of our history until the left took over.
Until now, it represented freedom.
I wrote a very depressing piece in my column from Europe two weeks ago.
About how much, in some ways, more comfortable I felt in Europe.
An idea that I never imagined I would ever write in my, I don't know, 20 trips to Europe?
How many?
I don't know.
Some very large number.
I studied in Europe for a year.
This was the beacon of light.
And now we arrest the head of the opposition.
And the New York Times and the leading prestigious left-wing media like it defend this.
Every government whose press chilled for it defended the government arresting opposition leaders.
That's nothing new.
What is new is that it happened in the United States of America.
When America becomes less of itself, chaos will begin to reign on Earth.
When I asked one of the leading historians in the world, what is Neil's last name?
Ferguson.
Neil Ferguson.
I had no idea what he would answer.
I often anticipate an answer from someone I'm interviewing.
I didn't know.
Do you believe that Putin would have invaded if Donald Trump were the president?
Without hesitating, all he said was, no.
I agree with that.
I have two positions on Ukraine.
One is...
To have imagined the United States watching as Russia invaded Ukraine is to imagine an America that I never imagined.
At the same time, if the United States under Joe Biden has played any role in squashing chances for peace, as Boris Johnson went to Britain, excuse me, from Britain, went to Ukraine and did Apparently squash a chance for peace.
And the former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said that he too was told by America not to proceed in his attempts for peace.
That Joe Biden said that we want a regime change in Russia, that we want to Have the Russian military deteriorate?
So we're fighting to the last Ukraine in order to weaken Putin?
Nevertheless, there was no choice but to support Ukraine.
I haven't heard a single argument against that.
I'm told that it's a corrupt regime.
May well be.
So is ours.
Not a particularly effective argument today.
The Korean regime was corrupt.
We fought the Korean War and 37,000 Americans died fighting for a corrupt regime.
Were we wrong?
With the good people, quality people of coastline travel.
England, Iceland, Greenland.
Yes, Greenland.
June 24 to July 5, 2024. We'll be sailing on the Regent Seven Seas.
One of the most beautiful, luxurious ships I have ever seen.
The Seven Sea Splendor with white gloves serve a spacious room.
Superb cuisine.
Regent is a five-star luxury line and all-inclusive.
That means...
Business class airfare included.
One night pre-hotel in London.
Shore excursions.
Unlimited beverages.
Gratuities.
And of course special events with me.
All covered in the cost.
We'll visit spectacular places in Iceland.
The port in Scotland.
The Faroe Islands.
And three ports in Greenland.
But the best reason to travel is the fellow listeners you'll meet on my trip.
They always sell out fast.
Click the banner at DennisPrager.com or email PragerListeners at CoastlineTravel.
Again, the banner on my website or send an email to PragerListeners at CoastlineTravel.com.
Hi, everybody.
There is so much to talk about, including all the LGBT parades to talk about.
Some of them, let's see, what did I see?
Seattle, Chicago, New York, where I had a group of men naked, bicycling naked in front of little children.
Any parent who took their little child there deserved to have their child seen naked men.
I tell you, I admit it.
It has been a difficult emotional rollercoaster for me to realize how many fools there are in my beloved America, including and especially parents doing spectacularly awful things to their children.
That's where you want to take your child.
See naked men.
And worse than that, as I will play for you later, an audio about people chanting.
I think it was the New York parade.
We're here to take your children.
Was that what it is?
Yeah.
We're queer, we're here, and...
What's the rest?
We're queer, we're here.
We're here to take your children.
The only thing I can say is it's honest.
What does it mean take your children?
We would like your children to be one of us in some way.
Either L or G or B or T or Q or I or A or 2S. That's the new one, 2 Spirit.
Anyway, I'll get to that as I will much else.
The Mayo Clinic.
I didn't know this.
This is reported today in Just the News, which is a good site.
The Mayo Clinic receives $440 million from the National Institutes of Health.
Okay.
I just thought I would note that as a preface, as the article does, to the following.
The Rochester, Minnesota-based, non-profit academic medical center's concern is about a professor of anesthesiology who studies exercise physiology and whose research lab has been, quote, continuously funded by the NIH since 1993. Its College of Medicine and Science gave the professor,
Michael Joyner, a one-week unpaid suspension And preemptively denied him future salary increases for talking to the media about a disfavored COVID-19 treatment and the inherent athletic advantage of males over females regardless of cross-sex hormones, according to its March 5th disciplinary letter.
Get that?
So he was, let's see, he's suspended without pay.
And he might be denied future salary increases for talking to the media about two things.
A disfavored COVID-19 treatment and saying that biological men have built-in advantages over women in sports.
Do you understand that it's the Mayo Clinic?
Well, just for the record...
For years I have been telling you that the Mayo Clinic has said that cigar smoking is as dangerous as cigarette smoking.
It's from their website.
People used to call my show, well they still do on occasion, and say, you know Dennis, I agree with you 99% of the time.
And I used to try to guess the 1% with which they disagreed.
And my first...
The guess would always be secondhand smoke, and about half of the time I was right.
From the beginning, I said that they were lying to us that 50,000 Americans died every year from secondhand smoke.
I think it's as big a lie as the effectiveness of school shutdowns and the like.
The sciences are not dedicated to truth.
They're dedicated to following their philosophy.
And their philosophy is that smoking is bad, and smoking is bad, especially if you smoke cigarettes, but not necessarily if you smoke cigars or pipes, and not necessarily if you vape, and not necessarily for secondhand smoke, which may be bad for some people, in which case the smoker shouldn't smoke in front of them, but for most people it is a non-issue.
Except aesthetically, cigarette smoke stinks.
I fully agree with that.
But that's not the same as saying 50,000 people die.
In other words, I saw in that when a scientific body is prepared to lie for the sake of doctrine, then it will lie on bigger and bigger things than cigars.
Inherent or alleged danger.
And so, indeed, if they have really suspended a doctor at Mayo for saying that men have an inherent biological disadvantage over women, then it is clear Mayo is no longer run by people devoted to science,
but they are devoted to Ooh.
What is idiomatic language?
Do you know?
Hmm.
That has earned the organization's brand and reputation.
That has harmed it.
Ooh.
I told you.
I didn't even...
You see, I just got this.
I knew the gist of the column, but I didn't know the details.
And I was right.
It's cowardice.
We don't want a bad name.
So you have to toe the line, doctor.
Do you understand the idea that doctors towing the line could be one of the most anti-progress ideas in the history of science?
Galileo had to toe the line.
What is the difference between Mayo and Dr. Joyner and the church and Galileo?
I'd like to know the difference.
I would.
A wide range of academic...
Freedom groups have warned the private institution that it's violating its own academic freedom promises, endangering the Mayo Clinic's reputation.
UK's Daily Mail jokingly called it the Mao Clinic.
And Daily Mail is not right-wing.
Well, what's left, my friends?
What's left to respect in America?
Gold dealers are a dime a dozen.
They're everywhere.
What sets these companies apart and whom can you really trust?
This is Dennis Prager for AmFedCoin and Bullion.
My choice for buying precious metals.
When you buy precious metals, it's imperative that you buy from a trustworthy and transparent dealer that protects your best interests.
So many companies use gimmicks to take advantage of inexperienced gold and silver buyers.
Be cautious of brokers offering free gold and silver or brokers that want to sell you overpriced collectible coins.
Claiming They appreciate more than gold and silver.
What about hidden commissions and huge markups?
Nick Grovich and his team at AmFed always have your back.
I trust this man.
That's why I mention him by name.
Nick's been in this industry over 42 years, and he's proud of providing transparency and fair pricing to build trusted relationships.
If you're interested in buying or selling, call Nick Grovich and his team at AmFed, Coin& Bullion, 800-221-7694.
AmericanFederal.com.
Come on, pretty baby, won't you talk with me?
Come on, pretty baby, give me one more chance.
Try to save our romance, slow down.
Baby, now you're moving way too fast.
You gotta give me a little lovin', give me a little lovin', ow, if you wanna.
This is pretty serious stuff, what the Mayo Clinic is doing to one of its professors.
NIH committed bureaucratic rope-a-dope with its wet blanket refusal to recommend convalescent plasma to immune-suppressed COVID patients.
That's what the doctor there said, which would...
Which would make it more widely available.
Joyner told CNN in January he was the principal investigator for a federally funded study of the treatment.
A year ago he told the New York Times in a profile of biologically male transgender swimmer Leah Thomas that testosterone is the 800 pound gorilla that gives males an advantage over females starting in the womb but especially after puberty.
The metaphor offended Rochester Pride chairperson Jennifer Winter.
You know, I say every day that truth is not a left-wing value.
Nobody proves it more than the LGBT heads.
By the way, I will talk about the Human Rights Campaign, I think the leading LGBT advocacy group.
They put out a big statement about how many transgender have been killed.
I looked up every single one of their examples.
Not a single one was killed that I could see because they were transgender.
Isn't that a gigantic lie then?
So does the Human Rights Campaign lie?
No.
The thought of an LGBT activist group lying, it's inconceivable.
Their first commitment is to truth, as we all know.
Like the truth that it's...
There's no advantage to being a male.
Why, then, have women sports?
I would like them to answer that question.
The metaphor offended Rochester Pride chairperson Jennifer Winter, who tweeted at Joyner, quote, were you intentionally trying to be transphobic by invoking imagery of a giant gorilla when talking about trans women in sports?
Oh, my God.
So the guy used the metaphor of an 800-pound gorilla, and this is what the LGBT chairman in Rochester, Minnesota, tweeted.
Wow, are you being transphobic in using the term 800-pound gorilla?
Let me try to unravel that.
Or people who don't believe you can change sex.
Let alone that you don't have inherent advantages if you're biologically male in competing against women.
Do they regard these people as 800-pound gorillas?
It is depressing.
It is depressing.
This Jennifer Winter is a fellow American.
Joyner's remarks about NIH sheds light on a negative and unprofessional pattern of behavior, going back to his comments about sex and athletic advantage, which were caught problematic in the media and the LGBTQI plus community at Mayo Clinic.
Also states the disciplinary letter.
Oh, so the Mayo Clinic does not wish to offend the LGBTQI plus members of the community.
Mayo Community.
I love the term community.
How come the gays we know are not part of that community?
Oh, wow. - Thank you.
It also states the disciplinary letter referring to his November meeting with the Personnel Executive Committee.
Ooh.
Did they have a personnel executive committee 50 years ago at Mayo Clinic?
About your use of language viewed as inflammatory in this context.
So do you understand the Mayo Clinic is disciplining one of its doctors for saying that men have an inherent advantage over women in sports?
Do you realize the level to which the Mayo Clinic has sunk?
To which nearly all medical institutions have sunk?
If it doesn't bother you, I am perplexed.
Hi everybody, Dennis Prager here, John Eastman, the law professor, and he was the dean of the, what was it, the, yes, the Chapman, exactly. yes, the Chapman, exactly.
Chapman University Law School.
His distinguished bio.
His trial continues tomorrow.
He is being tried, I think, in multiple states.
He was Donald Trump's, one of Donald Trump's lawyers.
And John Eastman, I'm going to read to you.
John Eastman from the Los Angeles Times article about you and your being.
The attempt to disbar you and even criminally charge you.
So just, I think the best thing is to answer what they write.
The State Bar accuses John Eastman of ethics violations for attempting, quote, to obstruct the electoral count on January 6th, unquote.
by pressuring Pence to reject electors, promoting the claim that electoral cheating cost Trump the election, drumming up slates of bogus electors, and fueling the mob with falsehoods.
So before you answer each one of these charges here, I don't understand why the state bar can try to disbar someone for, I don't understand why the state bar can try to disbar someone for, quote, promoting claims that electoral cheating cost Are they claiming a lawyer cannot say that?
Well, apparently.
The 38-page complaint, 85 paragraphs, 11 counts against me, says that my claims that the massive evidence of election illegality and fraud were false, among other reasons, because Bill Barr said there among other reasons, because Bill Barr said there wasn't any such evidence.
And I guess I'm just supposed to bow the knee to Bill Barr when he says something, even though I had evidence that proved what he was saying was not correct.
And if this is the standard, one has to wonder why the multi-year false storm That was pushed by people like Adam Schiff and Mr. Eric Swalwell, both members of the California Bar, I might add, and now have been demonstrantly proved to have been false and knowingly false.
Why there was no investigation by the Bar into them?
But no, I mean, the Democrats have been making claims of election fraud.
In every election where a Republican was elected since, I think, 1984. And yet, this one seems somehow different, according to them, because, well, it was Trump.
And that's where we are.
And extraordinary, I think, Dennis, an authoritarian crossing of the Rubicon.
Because the defense, the charges against me are based on, well, the government said the opposite.
So how dare you?
Continue to say that what you saw with your own eyes was true.
The government said otherwise, and you should just bow the knee once the government says otherwise.
That's not what our adversarial system is supposed to be, and we ought to look at this in the broader context.
This is really an effort to destroy the adversarial system, at least in election challenges, and they've admitted as much.
The head of this group called the 65 Project, whose goal is to not only disbar...
All the lawyers that worked on the Trump election efforts, litigation, but to make them so toxic in their firms and communities that right-wing legal talent will never want to take on election challenges again.
That's exactly it.
That's right.
That's exactly right.
Your answer...
I so wanted to interrupt, but I bit my tongue.
In fact, it's bleeding.
Sorry.
You're forgiven.
When you said...
That essentially what is being said is if you differ with the government and the government is Democrat, then you can be prosecuted because all truth comes from the government.
So you may not know this, but I have played what you are about to hear from the New Zealand Prime Minister of Arden.
Jacinda Ardern, who of course is now going to be teaching at Harvard along with Lori Lightfoot.
Harvard is really picking the creme de la creme.
And this is what she said.
It's a few seconds.
You can trust us as a source of that information.
You can also trust the Director General of Health and the Ministry of Health.
COVID19.govt.nz Otherwise, dismiss anything else.
We will continue to be your single source of truth.
We will provide information frequently.
We will share everything we can.
Everything else you see, a grain of salt.
And when you see those messages, remember that unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.
That is it.
So that is the left wing all over the world.
All over since Vladimir.
Your lawyers should hear that and understand that the left's prosecution of you and persecution of you is part of their framework.
You differed with the state.
So let's go through the other charges in this LA Times article.
So that was the, that you are not allowed to say that you believe that there was cheating in the last election.
Next, pressuring Pence to reject electors.
Please respond to that.
Well, of course, their own witness, Greg Jacob, admitted that in my meeting with Pence, I did not urge him to reject electors.
I urged him to delay because hundreds of state legislators had said our elections...
We're improperly certified and we'd like some time now that we're back in session to deal with that.
So delay rather than reject.
But more importantly, last I checked, it's still part of the First Amendment, the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Vice President Pence has a primary role in the counting of electoral votes on January 6th.
And my client, as well as millions of other Americans, had a grievance about the conduct of the election.
So petitioning the government for the redress of grievances is exactly what the First Amendment protects.
What I don't understand, and we have to take a break, John Eastman, but I don't understand why what you did warrants your removal from the bar or a criminal trial.
You're allowed to say what you think.
Back in a moment with John Easton.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any better, Mike Lindell with MyPillow is launching the MyPillow 2.0.
When Mike invented MyPillow, it had everything you could ever want in a pillow.
Now, nearly 20 years later, he discovered a new technology that makes it even better.
The MyPillow 2.0 has the patented adjustable fill of the original MyPillow and now with a brand new fabric that is made with a temperature-regulating thread.
The MyPillow 2.0 is the softest, smoothest, and coolest pillow you'll ever own.
For my listeners, the MyPillow 2.0 is buy one, get one free offer with promo code Prager.
MyPillow 2.0 temperature regulating technology is 100% made in the USA and comes with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Just go to MyPillow.com and click on the Radio Listener's Square to the buy one, get one free offer.
Enter promo code PRAGER or call 800-761-6302 to get your MyPillow 2.0 now.
My friends, even if you differ with everything John Eastman stands for and everything that Donald Trump stands for, the fact that a lawyer is on trial in the United States of America, may lose his ability to teach,
excuse me, to practice law, former dean of a law school, because you don't agree with his politics, this is the stuff of countries that arrest Opposition leaders.
Oh, we do that too.
I forgot about that.
I'm reading the anti-Eastman piece.
John Eastman is the person.
John, I want to ask you, do you stand a chance?
Maybe you can't answer this because you...
Maybe I shouldn't even ask.
So do whatever you want with the question.
Do you stand a chance of a fair trial in Los Angeles?
Well, Dennis, I'll just say what I've said before.
I think the law is very clearly on my side.
I had certainly plausible, if not completely correct, views on every statement I made and every legal position I advanced.
And even if I would lose on those positions, the fact that they were tenable...
Legal positions means, as a matter of law, I should win handily.
And I'll leave it at that.
One hopes that the law is faithfully applied.
Right.
So, again, I'm reading the accusation.
To obstruct the electoral count on January 6th by pressuring Pence to reject electors.
You say you asked for a delay.
But let's say you even did say, I think you should reject the electors.
Why does that amount to an illegality as a lawyer?
So there's a statute on the federal books.
I call it the old Mob Witness Intimidation Statute.
If you intimidate a witness, threaten to kill them to prevent them from testifying, it's a pretty serious felony.
And after the Enron scandal, they added to it, or if you destroy documents in order to avoid prosecution, you can also be charged with that felony.
And then it says, or otherwise attempt to obstruct the government proceeding.
So they've taken that otherwise, tied to destruction of documents, and said anybody that petitions their government officials to slow down or come out a different way in a government proceeding is somehow obstructing.
This is a very expansive interpretation of a vague statute.
I don't think the Supreme Court will tolerate it when it gets up there.
One hopes that the lower courts See the problem long before it has to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Well, I see it.
Well, I'm going to stay in touch with you, and I wish you good luck starting tomorrow with the trial.
Let me tell people, I've posted the link.
They're live-streaming the trial, so people can watch.
It begins at 10 a.m.
Pacific Time, Tuesday through Friday.
They can watch, and the link is posted at my Legal Defense Fund site.
GiveSendGo.com slash Eastman.
People can go there and see the link and help if they want or send prayers.
I want them to.
Yeah, very good.
Hello, everybody.
Hope you had a good weekend.
LGBT Pride Parade Weekend.
As a general rule, I would say that...
The left has hurt gays, and transgender, and lesbians, and bisexuals, and queers, and what is the I? I always forget what the I stands for.
Intersex.
Intersex?
There's a lot of those.
It's a big group.
Intersex.
Plus.
People who only had goodwill toward sexual minorities, and that was the general American belief.
There are exceptions, obviously.
Live and let live has been, or was, a basic American tenet.
But now the left has really revealed itself.
What it does, it goes from, Tolerate and treat decently your fellow citizen who, for example, may be gay.
The vast majority of Americans accept that as a given.
And it has been transformed by the transgender movement.
By the way, I wish I had a recording of this years ago, at least a decade ago.
I asked, what was the tea doing there?
I didn't understand any link between gay and transgender.
And there isn't.
It's sort of the transgender movement, the movement to destroy the notion that there are men and women.
It has piggybacked on the goodwill of the L's and the G's.
I was never quite certain why the B's were in there either, because the claim for the L and the G is that they have no choice.
This is the way they're made.
Which in many cases, especially with the G's, with male homosexuals, it is accurate.
And it doesn't mean that it is genetic, but I think that right-wing religious people who deny that, at least with gay men, it is built in that very few people, if any, choose, and very few men...
Can choose, let alone do choose, not to be attracted to a woman.
It's very liberating.
The truth shall set you free, and right-wing people need to know that as much as left-wing, although the amount of lying on the left dwarfs all other lying in the country.
What they're doing is engendering ill will, though.
The Human Rights Campaign All of these left-wing groups, I think the ADL actually increases anti-Semitism more than it decreases anti-Semitism.
I think that the Human Rights Campaign increases distrust of LGBTQIA people rather than increase respect.
These activist groups taken over by the left actually harm the people in whose names they speak.
Feminism has been dealt a severe blow to its moral authority by not protecting women against so-called trans women who compete against them in sports.
They have taken the side of the men, not the women.
So, that's what happened yesterday.
If you look at the videos of the parades, An LGBTQIA person with decent values could not have been proud of the Pride Parade in his or her or their or zeer city.
Here's a video.
This was from the Daily Mail and just of a group of...
participants in the LGBTQIA+ Pride Parade in New York City yesterday.
We're here, we're queer, we're coming for we're coming for your children.
Is that right?
Is that the wording that people just heard?
To the best of my knowledge.
We're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children.
And then there were the pictures, the videos of the naked men participating in the parade.
I think that was Chicago, but I'm not certain.
It was Seattle, it was Minneapolis.
Naked Men?
Yeah.
Oh, and a lot of them?
Seattle as well.
And what was the other?
Minneapolis.
Minneapolis.
Well...
I'm quiet because I'm trying to put clearly what I'm thinking.
What type of human being wants to go naked in public?
And I'm not talking about participants in nudist colonies or women on optional only beaches where it's known and you can keep your kid away.
But I mean, to be in a parade and be a naked man and children are watching.
Of course, why a parent would take a child to that parade, I can only say I feel bad for the child.
You have to understand how fragile civilization is.
It's so hard to build civilization.
Human nature is so destructive of civilization, it so rebels against rules, except if it can impose them on others.
But it so rebels against rules, you're telling me I have to be clothed?
I reported to you years ago, the San Francisco City Council, by a vote, I think it was 9 to 8, decided to keep its laws against public nudity.
And it was on the grounds of health that a naked person may sit on a park bench and...
And transmit some sort of disease.
Which means that eventually, well, in San Francisco, the city is so deteriorated.
I'll report about that later as well.
There was an article on how much theft is taking place in San Francisco.
It's mind-boggling.
If you don't understand the fragility of civilization and how hard it is to protect it, you are part of the problem.
The human instinct is to steal.
That's why there's a commandment, do not steal.
There are only commandments against things that people would do and did do and do do.
And that is the reason we need the law to prohibit it.
Right?
There is no law, do not choke thyself.
Because people do not choke thyself.
And therefore you don't need a law against it.
We need laws against things that we have a natural tendency, like murder and adultery and theft.
That is a natural part of human nature.
Except for those of you who went to university and were taught the idiocy that human nature is basically good.
The Rousseau idiocy.
Well, these things, that's why I have an Ultimate Issues Hour.
These things emanate from cockamamie ideas.
I was reading to you about the Mayo Clinic, one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the country, but it has been taken over by the left and therefore it is a troubling place.
They have dismissed, suspended to be precise, without pay, a doctor who said that men have a biological advantage over women in sports.
An anesthesiologist there.
What he said was, testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla that gives male an advantage over females, starting in the womb, but especially after poverty.
Ah, the metaphor.
Remember when I first read this?
I didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
What metaphor?
800-pound gorilla.
Offended Rochester Pride chairperson.
You have to understand, there's so little that is problematic.
There is so little that is problematic in what is being said, in how gays are treated, that the pride people, like in fact the NAACP and the left generally, they make up reasons to be offended.
That's why they're called microaggressions, because there are so few real aggressions against blacks in America.
They must make up microaggressions.
If you say that the only race is the human race, that is considered racist.
We'll return.
This story that I am reading to you about the Mayo Clinic is very scary.
The deterioration of the Mayo Clinic, one of the most prestigious medical institutions.
But I had said I was worried about the direction of the Mayo Clinic toward propaganda when it writes on its website.
Do you want to check if it still does?
Mayo Clinic is cigar smoking dangerous.
And they say it's no different from cigarettes.
That's a lie, my friends.
So I want you to know...
I'm saying that the Mayo Clinic lied, if I don't know if it still has it on their website, when it says it's as dangerous as cigarettes.
How could it be as dangerous?
They know it's not.
You don't inhale cigars.
So how could it be as dangerous?
But they believe you're allowed to lie for what they perceive as the greater good.
Now, this is truly, this is actually incredible.
One of its doctors said that the 800-pound gorilla on the issue of the transgender, that's the term he used, is that men have testosterone and it's the big issue, gives them massive advantages, and so on.
And they are attacking him for using the term 800-pound gorilla.
The metaphor offended Rochester, Minnesota pride chairperson Jennifer Winter.
Were you intentionally trying to be transphobic by invoking imagery of a giant gorilla when talking about trans women in sports?
These people are vile.
Just vile.
Anyway, I'll keep you informed on that particular issue.
So, it's really gone viral.
I never really expected this to happen.
It's gone viral that...
The woman in charge of the center at Arizona State University invited Charlie Kirk and me, among others, to appear at a health, wealth, and happiness seminar.
Anna Atkinson, whom I had on the show last week, she wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal and that started the process here.
39 of the 47 professors of this particular college opposed my coming and Charlie Kirk coming.
I am going to do something with you, which I'm thinking of writing up, and I'm going to go public with this.
It doesn't bother me.
That professors say, I'm a hate monger.
I'm a hater, not hate monger, hater.
It doesn't bother me because I expect so little from left-wing professors.
They lie because they're left-wing.
The truth is not a left-wing value.
I will document for you what the charges are.
They wrote an open letter.
Protesting the fact that Charlie and I were appearing.
So, for example, they used the example that I said that it's a shame we can't use the N-word.
Like, I believe it's a good idea to use the N-word.
So, they got a link from Media Matters.
Media Matters...
It's like the 39 professors.
It's a lying organization.
What it does is take people's comments completely out of context, distorts them.
And then the left uses those like the professors.
The professors never read one column I wrote.
Every quote they cited that I saw was from Media Matters, which monitors all of my shows, which, by the way, I think about on occasion.
How does somebody watch this or listen to this on a daily basis and still be proud to be a leftist?
It shows you how weak the conscience is.
Another topic that I have talked about a number of times.
You at Media Matters, you contribute to the deterioration of the greatest country ever made.
All you do is bad.
That you delude yourself into doing good makes you part of the very, very large cohort of human beings who have done evil and thought they were doing good.
You are in a long line of people from the communists to the fascists to Media Matters and the rest of the left.
But it does give you employment and it does enable you to sleep well at night.
So that was an example.
I remember that, actually.
So, here is an interesting thing.
I am going to tell you what I actually said.
Dennis Prager, this is what they cited in protesting my coming to Arizona State.
A link to Media Matters.
Dennis Prager.
Quote, it is idiotic that you cannot say the N-word.
That is how Media Matters, which is a left-wing source of distortion for the left-wing, headlined what I said on this show.
I remember the context well, wherein I spoke about being able to say the word kike, which is the N-word about Jews, but you can't say...
You can't say the N-word even to condemn the use of the N-word, which I do, and I did.
By the way, John McWhorter, who was a black linguist, wrote how foolish it is.
The New York Times published the word, the N-word, the whole word, in his article.
Did you see that?
Yes.
They actually used the word in quotes.
The New York Times could use it.
But I can't even say it's idiotic never to use it.
You should never call a black person that word.
That's bad.
Hello there, everybody.
Dennis Prager here.
Those of you online calling, I'm going to take some of your calls, so don't hang up.
But I do have an extraordinary guest.
Had him on a number of times.
John Yu is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.
And his new book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court.
I have read a number of the Politically Incorrect Guides.
They are, in my estimation, batting a thousand.
They are truly excellent.
You learn an immense amount.
In non-academies, for which alone John Yoo should be congratulated since he is an academic.
And I said that, Professor Yoo would love.
I just want you to know that.
Calling somebody an academic these days is fraught with danger.
Anyway, congratulations on the book.
There's no question I'm going to be reading it.
When did it come out, by the way?
It comes out tomorrow, Dennis.
And I really hope I don't bring the batting average down from 1,000.
That's a tough standard to beat.
You're a funny man.
There is no danger.
Okay, let me put it that way.
If you had written a politically incorrect history of marbles, I would have had you on.
That's my regard for you.
Going to the modern period, and then we'll go backwards.
But I just want to bounce an idea off you.
This is the great joy I have in having a talk show.
I have people like you, and I can bounce any of my ideas off.
I mean, how many people have that in life?
It's a real gift given to me.
So, when I look at the massive change in America...
A cultural revolution.
People generally point to Roe v.
Wade.
I point to an earlier decision, 1962. I don't remember who versus whom, but it was the school prayer decision in New York State.
It's totally okay if you don't see it this way, but do you see that as a watershed the way I do?
So you're referring to Board of Education v.
Everson, I believe.
Right, I assume.
The Regent's Prayer in New York State.
I don't think that decision alone, but it's part of a group of cases that occurred under the chief justiceship of Earl Warren and I think culminated in Roe v.
Wade.
So you have a period of 10 years where the Supreme Court decided to intervene in a lot of the basic social questions of our society.
And to impose its vision of what was best for the country by freewheeling interpretation of the Constitution.
And so it's not just school prayer.
It's also abortion.
It was also contraceptives.
You could go on and on.
But the point of my book was to explain, one, how today's progressives...
We're trying to accelerate that process through the courts.
And to also explain why we're seeing this current attack on the court, while you're seeing things like the leak of the abortion decision last year, for the first time in history, the leak of a full Supreme Court opinion, an assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh, and now this escalating attacks on the ethics of the justices, these proposals to pack the court.
My argument in the book Wow, that was great.
There was a sentence there.
I remember the gist, not every word, but decided to impose its social views.
So do I infer from what you said that prior to the Warren Court, Supreme Court justices were more, if you will, humble about their role in society? - Bye.
I would say so.
I think that the court's view, and you're seeing this in the return of abortion to the states.
You're seeing this in the Dobbs opinion from last year.
The Supreme Court's basic attitude was, for most social questions, The Constitution leaves the question up to the political process, either the state legislatures and elections, or sometimes the federal government through Congress and the president.
But most justices did not think it was their job to sort of set social standards for the country.
To the point, I guess to the extent that they were Active, it was at first in trying to identify economic rights, like the right to own property, the right to make a contract.
FDR tried to destroy that.
I think he successfully did destroy that element of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence when he threatened to peck the court during the New Deal.
And then the question of race, where I think most Americans think what the court did with Brown v.
Board of Education in the years after to end segregation by law.
That was the other area where the court was active.
But I think what happened was that the court then went too far.
The court went beyond its job in enforcing the equality of everyone on the basis of race as required by the Constitution to try to cure what it saw as society's ills in lots of other areas.
And we are sort of living through that, I think, the tail end of that period now.
I think that's still been going on.
You could say, Look at the gay marriage decision, Obergefell.
Look at the decision striking down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v.
Texas.
I think this vision that was started under the Warren Court with the decision you mentioned and a series of others kept going until, I think really, until President Trump appointed three very conservative justices to the Supreme Court.
How then do you look at the Brown versus Board of Education decision?
Since we both agree that the Supreme Court has overstepped its role, how do you regard that?
Obviously, we both, just saying this for the sake of left-wingers who monitor my show, we both oppose racial segregation.
It's the left that doesn't.
They have all black graduation and all black dorms.
Racism in America is overwhelmingly from the left, in my view.
But how do you view that?
Was it overstepping its bounds?
And if it wasn't, how is the Supreme Court to know this should be left to the political process and this should be left to us?
Well, Dennis, first off...
The way the left monitors your show and then the way the left monitors me, they're going to be very busy having us intersecting at the same time.
On the other hand, they could kill two birds with one stone.
They only need one guy.
Yeah, we're actually saving them money.
That's right, exactly.
Actually, this is the fundamental question that we try to wrestle with in the book.
Not the left saving money on monitoring conservatives, but how does the court know when it should use its awesome power of judicial review to block the majority?
Right.
Something it wants to do versus when do you leave something in the political process?
And so we argue the only thing that can answer that question is closely focusing on the text of the Constitution as it was understood by those who ratified it and wrote it.
And so it's clear.
From the text of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which were added right after the Civil War, it's clear from the original understanding of the people who wrote those amendments that they wanted to end segregation based on race, that they wanted to end the ability of the government to treat people differently because of their skin color.
That's what Civil War was all about.
That was what ending slavery was all about.
I think the mistake is to get from there to something like abortion.
Or gay marriage, where there's no text in the Constitution that directly addresses those issues.
There are vague phrases like due process and equal protection.
And it's those kind of clauses where the Warren Court and then the courts, the justices after that, drove a whole truck through to engineer their vision of the future of society, just because there were five votes out of nine on the Supreme Court.
And to toss aside the considered views Of the majority of the American people.
So I think actually even in the area of race, as you said, Dennis, when it comes to racism today, who wants to use race more?
Because Brown was a success, I think, the left went too far and then they started to think, well, we can also engineer a racial utopia.
So we're going to allow the use of race in college admissions and we're going to use now the idea of diversity to allow.
Social engineering.
My hope is this week the Supreme Court will start to put an end to that.
The Supreme Court allowed it, a case called Backey, which allowed colleges and universities to use race, and has kept pushing aside efforts to get the court to overrule Backey.
But as you know, this week I think the Supreme Court hopefully will announce that Harvard and the University of North Carolina have been violating the Constitution by using race and emissions, and that might start to end.
I hope this racial diversity business where people are being treated differently today by the left because of their skin color.
John, you, Professor of Law at Berkeley.
And I tell you, this series is magnificent.
You're really honored if you're asked to be an author in the Politically Incorrect Guide series.
This one is to the Supreme Court.
It comes out tomorrow.
It is up at DennisPrager.com.
So, this is, again, the politically incorrect god of the Supreme Court.
That decision Roe v.
Wade was 7-2.
So, are you aware?
I suspect you are, but if you're not, you'll get a kick out of this.
Apparently, Dwight Eisenhower said that...
Putting Warren on the court was the worst decision he had made?
Yes.
Yes, I've heard that.
You know, there was always this talk.
We talked a little bit about this in the book.
There was allegedly a secret deal that Dwight Eisenhower, in order to get...
Earl Warren was a very popular governor of California.
So allegedly, there's no real proof of this, but allegedly Dwight Eisenhower might have offered Warren an appointment to the Supreme Court in order to get Warren to drop out and not run against Eisenhower for the Republican.
Believe that Warren was a Republican to get Warren not to run against him for the presidential nomination.
Holy crow, I'm sorry.
I can't believe it!
Well, that doesn't speak well for Eisenhower.
To put a guy on the Supreme Court so as not to run against him.
But we'll leave that in the realm of the...
Donald Trump may be offering Ron DeSantis a new job soon.
Oh, that's fascinating.
John Yoo, you're a joy.
So, I just want to understand the dynamics here because your point and the whole point of all of us is the issue is not abortion.
The issue is whether the Supreme Court should rule on it.
It's a social issue.
By the way, let me just take one less than a minute, hopefully, of your time to tell you of a way I understand much of the modern era.
The left uses everything for social engineering.
And I'll give you an example.
Journalism.
Did you notice there were no more reporters?
There were now journalists.
The word reporter was regarded by the left as demeaning.
If all you do is report the news, you are not shaping society.
So journalism, reporting, should be used for social engineering.
Everything should.
Now medical schools.
There is no end.
Sports.
And so apparently it might have begun with the Supreme Court.
Dennis, I'd even go farther.
I would say that actually the left wants to stop any institution which stands in its way.
Because if you have the ultimate vision of racial justice, you have the ultimate vision about global warming, why would you let something like the Supreme Court or the separation of powers or the Constitution get in your way?
And so, yes, I think the Marxists were very open about what they wanted to do.
So they said, instead, take over the cultural institutions, as you said, the media, Hollywood, universities were first.
Use those to pressure society to overcome the founders' constitution in order to achieve their vision of utopia.
Whereas if you think about what the Supreme Court and our Constitution are designed to do, it's to slow everybody down.
It's to get people to think cautiously.
It's to separate power, not to concentrate it so that you can engage in social engineering.
And the founders were not people who thought 50.1% of the country should decide everything, that there should be individual liberties because they knew that majorities could do harmful things.
And this is this idea.
I think really, if you're going to say there was one president or leader who was at fault in this, I think it's Woodrow Wilson.
You were just talking about people like Fillmore and Buchanan earlier.
I think Woodrow Wilson has done a lot of harm to the country because he's the one who came in and said, the Constitution's obsolete.
It's an anachronism.
We need to overcome it and design modern forms of government to, and this goes to your point too, to put into effect modern theories.
Well, we couldn't agree with you more.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I blame Teddy Roosevelt for Woodrow Wilson.
I don't understand why he's such a hero to so many conservatives when his egotistic run with a third-party vanity ticket made it possible for Woodrow Wilson to win.
But it's one of the riddles of life that I cannot solve, why he's a hero to conservatives.
When the damage that Wilson did...
By the way, just for the record, Wilson was the first academic to become a president.
I totally agree with you.
I know you do.
Listen, I want to do a part two on this because I just want everybody, including myself, to learn so much about the Supreme Court.
It's so important and so vast.
Again, folks, it's the Politically Incorrect God of the Supreme Court.
I just need to ask you a somewhat personal question.
How isolated are you at Berkeley?
Well, I... I actually like living amongst liberals.
I have almost my whole life.
And I find I've never really been in an environment where I've been surrounded by conservatives.
So I'm used to it by now.
I do have to say that I moved out of...
I used to live in Berkeley for many years.
And I moved across the Bay to another part of San Francisco, which to me was moving to a more conservative place because Berkeley, the city, is really, really nuts.
I mean, all these bad trends you see in the country these days, they started here.
That's right.
So it would be interesting.
I've always wondered what it would be like to be on a faculty where instead of 50 liberals against me, it would be 50 liberals against two conservatives.
But on the other hand, that would be an unfair advantage to conservatives.
God, is that never true.
You're terrific.
John Yoo, professor of law at Berkeley, the book, The Politically Incorrect Guy of the Supreme Court, will do a part two.
Thank you.
Thanks, Dennis.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome back to or to the Dennis Prager Show.
I asked some people to hang on because I've raised so many issues today and haven't taken any calls.
Rochester, Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic.
Hello.
Hey, Mr. Prager.
Thanks for taking my call.
Hi.
Basically, a while back ago, I heard about the Rochester Post.
at the Mayo Clinic that you mentioned.
And I wanted to just kind of let your audience know, and something that I don't think a lot of people know, is that when you log in to the Mayo Clinic system, when you're a worker, one of the first things that pops up is one of the first things that pops up is a, basically flag promoting transgender rights, gay rights, pride,
And, you know, they're a 5013C nonprofit.
C3, yeah.
Not sure that they should be diving into politics, but the fact is that not long after this issue with the physician, You know, they started promoting workers to their trans agenda.
It suffices for me to point out to people that because of its woke doctors and other employees, the Mayo Clinic is going the way of Bud Light.
And that bothers me because there are a lot of good people there doing good medical work.
And they're intimidated, as a doctor I well know, in a hospital in Southern California who differs with everything his major academically affiliated hospital says on any of these issues and knows he will lose his job if he speaks up.
I spoke twice today about the ability of a handful of people to do spectacular harm.
That is the case of the left.
Most people do not believe in most of what the left believes.
Conservatives believe nothing that they believe, and liberals don't believe in most of what they believe.
The liberals vote for them.
And nobody, very few people have the courage to lose their job.
I'm not blaming them.
I'm just saying a fact.
Citing a fact.
But people listening in Minnesota should know that to a chunk of this country, as they become more and more aware of what's going on at the Mayo Clinic, will come to regard it as they do Bud Light.
Well, a word to the wise is sufficient.
Let's see, in Rye, New York, William, hello.
Hello, Dennis, thank you for taking my call.
I want to begin by saying, you know, your call screener sounds like an absolutely lovely person.
Well, she fools a lot of people.
Okay, well, she seemed very lovely to me.
Anyway...
You just mentioned something that you mention all the time, really, which is very important, that a lot of people in this country are sickened by things like what the Mayo Clinic is doing.
So thanks to you telling me about this, I decided to do something about it, and I think this is what more people need to do.
I went on their website, and I sent them an email explaining My take on the Professor Joyner situation.
I was respectful, but I was forceful.
And I explained that they ought to be interested more in truth and health than in the narrative.
And unless enough of us take our voices known, that's what we have to do.
That's right.
We have to flood their emails.
That's right.
That is exactly right.
You're a good man.
Dennis Prager here.
Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast.
To hear the entire three hours of my radio show, commercial-free, every single day, become a member of PragerTopia.
You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as the daily show prep.
▲
Export Selection