Joe Biden’s January 21 executive order on gender identity, leveraging Title VII, Title IX, and the Fair Housing Act, forces biological men into women’s sports—including the Olympics—by redefining categories, risking dominance in podium events. Critics like Dr. Patrick Moore argue environmental doomsday claims (e.g., polar bears rising from 6K to 35K in Canada) rely on unverifiable "invisible" threats, while Rachel Levine’s HHS appointment is tied to pandemic-era controversies. The shift prioritizes ideological compliance over fairness, potentially splintering women’s athletics into a segregated "trans league." [Automatically generated summary]
Hello my rebels, today I tell you about one of the very first executive orders passed by Joe Biden.
And let me put it this way.
It's going to change what the American Olympics team looks like pretty significantly.
That's ahead.
Before I get there, let me invite you to become a subscriber at Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of these podcasts I think is great.
Of course, I would say that, but I really think it is.
And especially with stories where there's a key visual image like there is today, I think it really pays off to have it.
It's eight bucks a month, which is less than Netflix.
You also get Sheila Gunn Reed's weekly show, David Menzies' weekly show.
Now we have shows by Andrew Chapatos too.
Just $8, go to subscribe.
That's the big button on RebelNews.com and take it from there.
All right.
Here's today's show.
Tonight, Joe Biden bans discrimination based on gender expression.
Will biological men compete on the women's track team in the next Olympics?
It's January 21, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government will walk up just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Look at this executive order issued today by Joe Biden, the new U.S. president.
Executive order on preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Now, that sounds okay.
I mean, who would be for discrimination?
Except the answer to that is all of us are.
If you get literal about the word, discrimination means to choose.
To say someone has a discriminating palate means they're very choosy about what they eat or drink.
They know the good stuff from the bad stuff.
Of course, in common parlance, discrimination means discrimination for a bad reason, like being a bigot.
But we still discriminate all the time.
Back in the before times, when people still used to go to movie theaters, kids paid a different price than adults, and seniors paid a different price too.
All for the same seat.
That's age discrimination.
Bathrooms have signs for men or women.
That's discrimination based on sex.
We discriminate for things all the time.
Only citizens are allowed to vote.
Only members of a certain religion are allowed to go to Bible camp or Muslim camp or Jewish camp because they're about Christianity or Islam or Judaism.
We discriminate based on a hundred characteristics.
Think about boxing.
All the different weight categories.
I mean, some discrimination doesn't make any sense and it feels unfair.
But some discrimination is precisely to make things fair.
Muhammad Ali was 235 pounds.
It just wouldn't be fair for him to box a man who weighed 135 pounds.
That's not sport, right?
So boxing has so many different weight divisions to make it a contest of skill, not of pure luck or genetics.
That's always why men's boxing and women's boxing are different things.
It's not just sport.
It's just not sporting to watch men fight women.
We know that instinctively, I think, over the thousands of generations, since we would recoil from that and morally despise a man who would hit a woman, we know inherently it's unfair.
At least we always used to know that, but not anymore, because it is now illegal in America.
If you say a man can't be on a women's sports team, boxing, wrestling, track and field, football, whatever, you are now against the new executive order.
Let me read from it.
It starts off slightly poetically.
Let me read.
I mean, it sounds a little bit like protecting the weak, protecting people.
Sounds good.
Section one, policy.
Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.
All right.
I don't think a lot of people are going to fight against that.
Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.
Okay.
I see where you're going, though.
Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes.
People should be able to access health care and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination.
All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.
That's fairly friendly talk, but it's blurring things, isn't it?
Equality before the law, and people aren't allowed to laugh at you because you're dressing in a very unusual way.
Guys wearing skirts to work, maybe.
I mean, they're blurring things, aren't they?
Very serious things, like being treated equally, like not being afraid to demanding people support your particular style.
Doesn't feel like a shield so much as a sword now, does it?
But now the order moves from inspiring language to extremely dense legalese, and there's a reason for that.
Let me read a little bit.
It's not going to make any sense, but I'll read it.
These principles are reflected in the Constitution, which promises equal protection of the laws.
These principles are also enshrined in our nation's anti-discrimination laws, among them Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in Bostock versus Clayton County.
The Supreme Court held that Title VII's prohibition on discrimination because of sex covers discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.
Under Bostock's reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination, including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 as amended, the Fair Housing Act as amended, and Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended.
Anyway, I'm going to skip ahead.
It's all sorts of legal talk.
Prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.
Why would they move from an attempt at inspiring rhetoric to absolutely impenetrable legalese?
And I skipped over half the complicated phrases there.
Why would they switch to a passage that only a skilled lawyer can understand?
Well, partly because an executive order is a form of lawmaking, not through the legislature or Congress or the courts, but it does apply the powers of the president as chief executive of America.
But I think in this case, it's to deliberately hide what they're really doing here.
If they would have said in plain English that every sports program in America that is at any university or other place that takes a dollar in federal government money, they must now stop discriminating based on gender identity.
People would start asking questions.
Because men must now be allowed on all women's sports teams as long as they identify as a woman.
That's right, that language, you know, that legalese I read, Title IX of the Education Amendments, that's what that means.
I think they wrote it to be incomprehensible because if they would say anyone can join the girls' sports teams now, 100 million moms would say, why are you kicking my girls out of sports?
You know, 49 years ago, Congress passed a law basically telling universities that they can't just fund boys' teams.
They have to fund girls' sports teams too, or they can't count on federal money.
So it was the power of the purse.
The Fed said, if you want government money for your school, you can't only have a boys' sports team.
So girls were allowed sports too.
I think it's wonderful.
Actually, girls were equal.
They were apart.
They had their own leagues, their own teams, their own change rooms.
Of course, I mean, you know, go do boxing with Muhammad Ali.
That's not sport.
But they were allowed in sport.
Like in boxing, it would be like saying you have to allow every weight class to box, not just the heavyweights.
But now that the same rule will be applied for transgenderism, I'm sorry, that's the end of women's sports.
It's just over.
I'm sorry.
There are so many kooky news stories these days emerging around the world.
Men beating women in cycling, men beating women in weightlifting, men beating women in sprinting.
It's odd because it's so obvious what's happening in almost every case.
The athlete who decides he's transgender and wants to compete as a girl had a previous career as an unsuccessful male athlete.
He couldn't beat the guys on a level playing field.
So he came up with a plan.
He says he's a gal now, grows his hair along, maybe takes some hormones, and presto, he's competing against the girls.
He's still not particularly good, by the way, technically, physically.
But it doesn't matter, a six-foot, 200-pound man, even if he's out of shape and not particularly good, is going to beat a five-foot, 100-pound woman pretty much just by showing up.
So it's odd these days to see a man on a sports podium with two women.
Well, get ready for all three places, first, second, and third to be men now.
And you'll have the real men's teams, and then you'll have all the losers who go to compete against the girls.
So they're going to drive out all the girls.
So you're going to have the men's league, and then you're going to have the trans league.
And the girls will be gone.
Girls' sports were cool while they lasted.
That great breakthrough when a woman sneaked into the Boston Marathon.
Title IX rules to let girls compete in sport.
Women at the Olympics.
Just great.
What a wonderful era, the golden era of women in sport.
And now that's over.
You know, the Olympics are fine with this, which is really weird because I remember as a kid during the Cold War when the big scandal every time were those Soviet bloc countries like the Germans who kept trying to sneak men in to compete in the women's sports, the swimming team, for example.
It was regarded as unfair cheating.
Now it's the only way you're allowed to win.
That's super gross.
Where are the feminists here, by the way, as women are being eradicated from the public square?
Sometimes feminists speak out.
They protest.
In the United Kingdom, one woman protested against transgenderism, and she was attacked by one of the men she was protesting.
So police laid criminal charges against them.
And here's the extra crazy part.
At the criminal trial, the woman who was assaulted was told by the judge that she had to call her violent attacker a woman.
She, her, to use those pronouns.
It was a biological male who claimed to be trans, who had physically attacked her, according to the allegations, injured her.
And the neutral judge told her that in the trial, she had to call her attacker a woman.
Yeah, it's madness now.
Polar Bears and Propaganda00:11:45
Don't be fooled by that doddering old man you see on camera.
He's not the center of this administration.
He's not the spirit of this administration, that kindly old fool.
I think this guy is.
Biden announces Rachel Levine as pick for assistant secretary at Health and Human Services, would be first transgender Senate confirmed federal official.
As Austin Powers would say, that's a man, man.
Except you can't say that or you're breaking the law.
You can't find out what Rachel Levine was named at birth when he was a baby boy.
Try Googling it.
Just try.
Google purges any reference to it.
You can't.
You can't even say on Twitter that he's a he.
You'll be suspended for misgendering him.
It's like that court.
Say the man who attacked you was actually a girl or you're going to go to jail for contempt of court, not him for hitting you.
By the way, my criticisms of Levine aren't that he's transgender, it's that he was an absolutely horrific disaster.
As the head of Pennsylvania's pandemic response, he did a Cuomo shipping sick elderly people into long-term care homes to infect and kill hundreds.
Imagine putting someone with so much blood on their hands in charge of national public health just to get some transgender virtue signaling talking points.
Yeah.
That's Joe Biden.
And that's just 24 hours into his presidency.
Stay with us from very excited about this new book.
I'm excited about the author.
I can hardly wait to read it myself.
The title is Fake, Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
You won't be surprised to know that the PhD who wrote this book, this skeptic's book, is our dear friend Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, who deeply cares about the state of the planet, but left Greenpeace because of their junk science and political extremism.
He's been a debunker of many myths since then.
I'm very excited about this book because it's specifically targeted to families that hate the propaganda for the kids that they get in schools and other places.
A hundred color photographs, illustrations, and charts to help debunk the myths.
Joining us now via Skype from British Columbia is our friend Dr. Patrick Moore Patrick.
Great to see you.
I am very excited about this book.
Tell us a little bit about it.
Well, Ezra, it dawned on me not too long ago, and I've been studying the environment for over 50 years, that most of the scare stories, maybe all of them, that are bandied about in the media today to make our children and ourselves afraid of the future, are all about things that are either invisible, like carbon dioxide and radiation and whatever is in a GMO that's supposed to be bad.
Obviously, it's invisible because you can't see anything bad, or remote, like polar bears and coral reefs, where the average person cannot verify or observe for themselves the truth.
Therefore, we depend on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists who are on serial government grants to study these things for the truth.
Now, they all have huge skin in the game.
Every one of those categories, activists, media, politicians, and scientists, has a stake in those stories being listened to and repeated over and over again in the media in particular.
And there's money involved, billions of dollars.
So how on earth is the average person going to know the truth about these things when they can't see it for themselves?
And this book is all about 11 different examples, ranging from the climate change issue, of course, to coral reefs, to polar bears, to GMOs, to radiation, to forests, and to walruses falling off cliffs because of climate change, according to Sir Richard Attenborough.
Covers all of these subjects and shows the reader what a sham it is.
That it's absolute propaganda in most cases.
The polar bear population is healthy and growing.
The coral reefs are not dying.
Nuclear energy is one of the safest techniques we've ever invented in terms of casualties per amount of energy produced, and on and on and on.
And I tell you, it's an eye-opener, and it really will help because it's written in plain English for anyone from grade nine who has any interest in science and up to grade 12 where you don't even need an interest in science because it's written for people who can read normal English.
And I sure hope this book gets around.
Well, I am completely convinced.
I know you over the years, your presentations.
I remember in the before times, before the pandemic stopped us from living our lives, you were a guest speaker on a Rebel News cruise.
And I had the pleasure of watching your presentations.
And you have a special knack of having a mastery of science.
I mean, you have a PhD, but you can speak in a plain English that is not only accessible, but very persuasive.
I'm very excited about this.
I'm absolutely going to get a copy of the book, not just for myself, but for my kids, because I'm worried that just passively, just by absorbing the propaganda that comes from the world, from pop culture, from the media, and their schools, they are probably going to, if I don't intervene, believe the 11 myths you refer to.
How could they not?
Because, for example, the polar bear example, you say, it is so widely reported that polar bears are almost extinct.
The polar bear was chosen as the symbol for global warming alarmism.
But the facts are the exact opposite.
So unless someone's there to debunk it, just by default, I think people will be in a state of fear.
That's true, Ezra.
And the book is available on Amazon.ca and amazon.com as a Kindle now, as an e-book.
We're in a pre-sale phase, but the paperback will come out about February 2 or February 3.
So you can watch for that.
But the Kindle book is under $10.
So, or maybe it is pegged at exactly $10 Canadian.
It's under $10 U.S.
And I tell you, it is an amazing thing to realize that they have used invisible and remote things where the average person can't see it for themselves to make all these scare stories.
Just the example of GMOs, for example.
What is it in the GMO that is bad for you?
Well, first it must be invisible because you can't see it.
Second, it has no name.
And third, it has no chemical formula.
Everything has a chemical formula.
Therefore, it does not exist.
It's a simple logic.
And yet people are afraid of GMOs because they've been called Frankenstein and they've been called Terminator and they've been given all these ugly names.
It's sort of like dirty oil.
You know, like oil, oil isn't dirty.
And neither, and of course, dirt is dirty, and that's where we grow all our food.
When they say dirty oil, they don't have it.
It's not talking about dirt.
They're talking about dirty as in dirty little scoundrel.
In other words, it's a swear word in that sense.
That's what propaganda is all about, is associating things you don't like with nasty words like dirty.
Right.
You're so right.
That's why, you know, I remember when I wrote my book, Ethical Oil, over a decade ago now, there was such a freak out on the left because you're not allowed to associate oil or anything industrial with a good word, let alone ethical.
They were apoplexy.
That title alone sent the left into apoplexy.
You mentioned coral reefs.
You mentioned nuclear power, GMOs, climate change.
Tell me some of the other threats of doom that you criticize or inspect in the book.
Well, one of them is polar bears, of course.
Let me just go back to that because I want to elaborate on that because it's a real Canadian issue.
We have more polar bears than any other country.
The Inuit who live in Nunavut and have their capital at Iqualuit on Baffin Island have a government.
And that government is created by Canada.
And it's a legitimate government for those people who live where there are no trees in the north because it's so cold there.
And they have created a polar bear management plan.
It's been a long process.
The reason they are creating a polar bear management plan is because there are too many polar bears and they are killing people in their villages in the winter.
So that's a big news, you'd think, that they have done that.
And it's because there's so many bears.
They have gone from 6,000 to 10,000 40 years ago, 45 years ago, to 35,000 or so today.
And that is a fact.
And yet they still say they're going extinct by 2050 or 2100, which is a crock.
They're doing very, very well.
They're fat and happy.
And the conditions in the Arctic right now are very good for them.
When they passed that management plan in Ikolawit, only one newspaper in Canada reported on it.
And that was a newspaper in Nunavut at Cambridge Bay where there's 1,200 people to read it.
Well, actually, most of them are kids, probably.
So there's not many people read the story.
And Canada said that the Inuit interpretation of polar bears is not about real evidence.
They question the evidence that the Inuit have.
Well, the Inuit live there year-round.
These scientists go up for two weeks and take a look and come back and tell us the polar bears are going extinct, whereas the Inuit live there all their lives and have been living there for two or three thousand years.
So they've seen a polar bear or two in their time.
And yet no media down in Canada here reported on this fact.
It's all just gone silent because it's kind of embarrassing, I guess, that the polar bears aren't going extinct.
You'd think people would be raising flags to the top of the mast and singing in order to be celebrating the large number of polar bears we have now.
But no, pessimism must reign, you know, and that's the trouble with the environmental movement is it's all dark and horrible and nothing is good.
And that's not true.
This is a beautiful world.
The greening of the earth caused by the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a fact.
It is not a fact that carbon dioxide is causing the earth to warm, especially not to warm too much, like as if it's going to be too hot for life in 10 years.
This is not true.
None of these scare stories, doomsday myths, are real.
They are fake and they are mostly invisible.
The Other Side Story00:03:13
Well said.
Well, I can hardly wait to get a copy of the book for myself and my kids.
We will send this video out to our viewers, Dr. Moore, because we love to hear the other side of the story.
And in the environmental catastrophe business, you only get the doom side of the story.
The book, again, is called Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.
We'll have a link to the Amazon pages under this video.
Dr. Moore, great to see you.
Thanks for taking the time with us today.
Thanks for helping publicize my book, Ezra.
Right on, my pleasure.
stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Bill writes, very disappointed in my party.
How can Mr. O'Toole think that the PCs will win the next election by being just like the Liberal Party?
Yeah, I don't get it.
I mean, I just don't think they're putting together a growing coalition.
They're shrinking their coalition.
I think there are new coalitions to be made, by the way.
I really love that phrase, the Republican working class, the conservative working class.
Look, Trump got the blue-collar vote.
Boris Johnson got a lot of blue-collar votes that used to go Labor.
I think there's a real opportunity in Canada for the Conservative Party to be the Conservative Workers' Party.
And I'm not Marxist about that.
I'm just saying who stands up for working people.
People who have been crushed by this lockdown, people who are being crushed by environmental extremists.
I think there are new coalitions to be made, but being the cancel culture extremists ain't going to do it.
David writes, I would like to know how my MP voted.
I might have to rejoin to help vote them out as our representative for the next election.
Well, I mean, you saw me press Derek Sloan a little bit about that.
He said he's not going to name the MPs who stood up for him, but he said that not a single frontbench conservative MP stood up for him.
So front bench would be an official critic.
So if you are a conservative in a riding and you have a critic, transport critic, health critic, not that you would know who they are.
I mean, I love doing that test, trying to get people to name who the defense critic is for the Conservative Party.
Nobody knows because they're invisible.
But if you have a frontbencher in your district, Derek Sloan told me yesterday that not one of them stood up for him.
I find that depressing.
R. Yale writes, he was a threat to O'Toole, just looking for a reason.
Well, but surely that threat is over.
I mean, surely he wasn't undermining O'Toole.
He wasn't trying to get the job.
I mean, no one would support that.
The election is weeks, maybe months away.
No sane person would say, yes, we're going to have a mutiny against O'Toole.
That's just not real.
That's just not a real thing.
Maybe Aaron O'Toole has an extremely sensitive inferiority complex or something, but I don't think that Sloan's a risk.
Well, that's the show for today.
Until tomorrow.
On behalf of all of us here at Rubber World Headquarters, do you at home?