Keith Olbermann is back and crazier than ever. Democrats pledge to stymie the Amy Coney Barrett nomination as hearings open. Joe Biden and the media team up to redefine the term "court packing." And Ben Shapiro is back to lecture you, America, on why Donald Trump is the most evil, terrible, horrible, no good, very bad person in the entire history of the world. And not only that, but anyone remotely associated with Donald Trump should go to jail for their part in the Trump Derangement Syndrome, which is why the far-left doesn't care about court packing, they care about wrecking the Senate, because the country is at stake and everyone who disagrees with me should be sent to jail. Ben Shapiro's new show on the Ben Shapiro Show is available wherever books are sold, including Audible, Audible and iTunes. Subscribe to the show and become a supporter of the show by becoming a patron. You get 20% off your first month when you enter the Promethean Club when you sign up and get a 20% discount when you become a patron when you place an order of $99 or more. Get protected at ExpressVpn at expressvpn.ee/ProtectYourData and get 50% off the first month with discount code ProtectYourData when you shop there. Ben Shapiro: Protect Your Online Data at ExpressVPN. Protect Your Data at Parcast Connect with Ben Shapiro dot com and get 25% off for the entire year with discount promo code "ProtectYourDigitalCare" when you run the test. . You can get 10% off his entire year of his new book, "Protect Your Online Privacy Protection and access to all of his best books, all for $99, plus an additional $5, plus he'll throw in an extra $5 discount when he makes his first month, and he'll give you an additional 3 months get $5 and get an ad discount when they get the deal of $50 and he gets $5 gets the book "Provenible, he'll get $50, they get $25, they'll get a VIP discount, he says he gets VIP access to the book, plus they get a FREE PRICING FREE, they also get VIP access, and they also gets a discount on the book and he also gets an ad that he gets a VIP 4-day VIP membership, and gets a FREE VIP membership and gets VIP PRIVATE PRIVATORY PROMOTION.
00:00:38.000Chances are you are not because there is no way to use unlimited data.
00:00:41.000What you actually need is Pure Talk USA.
00:00:44.000You can take a look at that cell phone bill where it shows data usage.
00:00:46.000The average person who switches to Pure Talk is using less than four gigs of data a month.
00:00:50.000The big carriers are charging you for unlimited data, which is like paying for, you know, like All the seats on an airplane to use like a seat.
00:00:56.000That's how Pure Talk saves the average person over $400 a year on their wireless service, unlimited talk, text, and two gigs of data, all for just 20 bucks a month.
00:01:04.000And if you go over on data usage, they don't charge you for it.
00:01:06.000Folks, switching to Pure Talk, it's the easiest decision you will make today.
00:01:10.000Grab your mobile phone, dial pound 250, say Ben Shapiro.
00:01:13.000When you, you save 50% off your first month, dial pound 250, say keyword Ben Shapiro.
00:01:20.000There is no reason for you to overpay for your cell phone coverage, especially Because you can get the same exact coverage as you would get from some of those bigger companies, the Verizons, AT&T, T-Mobiles, you get the same coverage for like half the price.
00:01:55.000The entire country is now suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome in one form or another.
00:02:00.000Which is why the return of Keith Olbermann is worthy of note.
00:02:03.000So Keith Olbermann, you'll remember, used to have a show on ESPN, then he was on ESPN2, then he was on ESPN6, then he was on MSNBC, who's on Current TV, who's at GQ Magazine.
00:02:53.000The terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box.
00:02:58.000And then he, and his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators, and the Mike Lees, and the William Bars, and the Sean Hannity's, and the Mike Pence's, and the Rudy Giuliani's and the Kyle Rittenhouse's and the Amy Coney Barrett's must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has nearly destroyed by turning it over to a virus.
00:03:25.000We must take all of these people out and we must jail them and then possibly guillotine them.
00:03:31.000From Kyle Rittenhouse to Amy Coney Barrett, they must be prosecuted I don't know why Amy Coney Barrett, but she's bad.
00:03:41.000Keith Olbermann. But it's this attitude, it's this bizarre attitude that lies behind so much of our modern politics, which is we're at absolute crisis point because Donald Trump... Okay, here is the reality.
00:03:53.000Donald Trump is not a threat to our institutions.
00:03:55.000You pretending that Trump is such a threat to our institutions that you get to destroy the institutions?
00:03:59.000That's an actual threat to our institutions.
00:04:01.000Which brings us to the issue of the Supreme Court.
00:04:04.000Over the weekend, apparently, you know, the craziness continued.
00:04:08.000It's always difficult to have these Jewish holidays that last two days because you're afraid of logging back on and finding out what you missed.
00:04:13.000It turns out that while I was gone, the entire media and Democratic Party simply decided to redefine terms in basic English so they no longer have to deal with the ramifications of those terms.
00:04:22.000Specifically, they decided to redefine the term court packing.
00:04:25.000So before, court packing meant that you were just going to add a bunch of seats to the Supreme Court in order to put a bunch of people who agreed with you politically on the court and therefore change the nature of the court.
00:04:35.000It has meant this for some four generations in the United States.
00:04:39.000In fact, the last time the number of people on the court changed was the 1860s, and it has been solid ever since.
00:04:45.000In fact, it was so controversial in the 1930s that even a Democratic Congress, with FDR as president, refused to court pack.
00:04:51.000But now the Democrats in the media have decided that they are going to completely redefine the term court packing so as to never have to answer a question about whether they plan to actually turn the judiciary into an open super legislature.
00:05:02.000And when you talk about judicial nominations, when you talk about the role of the judiciary, you have to understand there is a fundamental difference in vision for how the judiciary is supposed to operate.
00:05:10.000So on the conservative side of the aisle, The idea of the judiciary agrees with Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 that essentially the judiciary is supposed to be the least dangerous branch.
00:05:20.000That is the phrase that he used, the least dangerous branch, because it had neither the force to carry out its own judgments nor the purse to actually fund itself.
00:05:28.000It was subject to the whims of the legislature as well as to the efficacy of the executive branch.
00:05:32.000The judiciary could basically make decisions, but they didn't have any way to actually cram down those decisions.
00:05:37.000And in fact, Alexander Hamilton said that should the judiciary become an agent of In other words, if the judiciary were to start basically cramming its opinions down on the American public, rather than just looking at the text of a statute and then trying to hue as closely as possible to the proper meaning of the text of the statute, they would be a legislature and there would be no reason to have unelected people in that position.
00:06:07.000Now, in a democratic republic like the United States, you want a bunch of different checks and balances.
00:06:12.000There's no question that the judiciary is supposed to be anti-democratic.
00:06:15.000What I mean by anti-democratic, it is a check on popular passions.
00:06:19.000It was meant to be a check on popular passions.
00:06:21.000But that's been true for judges since biblical days.
00:06:24.000If you go back to the Bible and you talk about the sort of characteristics that people are looking for in judges, they're looking for honesty, they're looking for non-favoritism.
00:06:32.000The Bible specifically says that judges are supposed to be able to neither favor the poor nor the rich.
00:06:37.000So it's not outcome-driven jurisprudence.
00:06:40.000The essence of justice is that justice is the same for everybody.
00:06:43.000It is not driven by individual circumstance.
00:06:55.000That is what conservatives have always believed.
00:06:57.000Judges are there in order to look at a statute that was passed by the legislature and then determine whether that statute is in the proper reading of the statute, in the most accurate reading of the statute, in coincidence with the Constitution looking at the most proper and accurate reading of the Constitution.
00:07:14.000The left in the United States believes that judiciary should essentially be an agent of change, and that is why the left has always celebrated the judiciary as an agent of change.
00:07:22.000Now, what they've neglected is that the judiciary, actively speaking, is not really an agent of change.
00:07:26.000Typically, it's something both the left and the right tend to overblow, I think.
00:07:30.000They tend to think of the judiciary as a sort of As a sort of movement forward in American law, typically the judiciary greenlights stuff that the legislature is already doing, and then they refuse to stand in the way, or maybe they push something a little bit faster.
00:07:47.000So to take a few obvious examples of sort of transformations in the law, in Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court declared that segregation was unconstitutional, It still took an additional decade for desegregation to actually practically start happening in the South.
00:08:01.000And that was only after the legislature acted in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in 65.
00:08:05.000In other words, as Gerald Rosenberg says in his book, The Hollow Hope, the idea that the Supreme Court has the capacity to really change things radically in the United States is not quite right.
00:08:14.000What the Supreme Court does have the capacity to do is to green light bad legislative activity.
00:08:19.000So that is what happened in the Obamacare case, to take an example.
00:08:22.000Yeah, so there are certain cases where people think that the Supreme Court has really affected social change, and there are cases where it has.
00:08:28.000Roe v. Wade is the most obvious case, where the Supreme Court decided to read a trend and then try to jump to the end of the trend.
00:08:35.000You see this in Obergefell also with regard to gay marriage, where the Supreme Court read the tea leaves and said, okay, well, more and more states are greenlighting gay marriage, so let's just go the whole hog and let's just put gay marriage right there in the Constitution.
00:08:45.000That'd create a whole host of problems.
00:08:46.000You see the same thing in abortion via Roe v. Wade.
00:08:51.000The Supreme Court taking a leading moral role is the goal of the left, but it always has to be a left-wing moral rule.
00:09:00.000The goal of the right is to treat the judiciary as though it has a separate job from the legislature, a separate job from the executive, and its job is to simply interpret the law.
00:09:08.000It is not the job of the judiciary to create its own law or to rule in accordance with its own perception of morality.
00:09:15.000That is not what a court is designed to do.
00:09:16.000A court is designed in order to interpret the law as closely as possible.
00:09:22.000And so the left believes that if the court is actually, if it becomes an instrument of interpreting law, and interpreting law requires the striking down of particular statutes the left doesn't like, or the court doesn't actively promote left-wing values, then the court has been perverted.
00:09:36.000And this is why they oppose Amy Coney Barrett.
00:09:38.000As we're about to see, Amy Coney Barrett, her hearings begin today.
00:09:41.000And Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement is very much about how her job is not to impose her own morality on the world.
00:09:47.000Instead, her job is to ensure that the law is interpreted properly.
00:09:50.000And the left really does not like this.
00:09:52.000If you look at the differences in how Sonia Sotomayor talks about the law, she talks about the law as sort of open-ended and broad and malleable when you see Stephen Breyer.
00:10:01.000Justice Breyer talk about the malleable living constitution that you have to move along with the evolving standards of decency, the evolving standards of morality and interpret based on essentially your own moral compass.
00:10:14.000That is a fundamental rebuke to Alexander Hamilton.
00:10:18.000Hamilton would look at that sort of talk about the judiciary and he would say, okay, then the judiciary doesn't deserve to be a separate branch.
00:10:22.000We already have two bodies of the legislature.
00:10:24.000We don't need a third, particularly a third branch that is not elected and that serves for life.
00:10:30.000And we're gonna get to this in just one moment, because all of this is the underlying framework, the underlying philosophical framework for the debate happening today, not only over Amy Coney Barrett, but also the debate that is happening over so-called court packing.
00:10:43.000First, let us talk about the fact that whether your underwear is comfortable or not, that can actually determine how your day is going to go.
00:11:04.000I, of course, am talking about Tommy John underwear.
00:11:07.000From working to playing hard, when you start every morning in Tommy John underwear, you are that much more comfortable, so you can do everything better.
00:11:13.000That's why Tommy John Underwear doesn't have customers, they have converts with dozens of comfort innovations.
00:11:16.000Once you've tried Tommy John, you'll never go back.
00:11:18.000I know because I have tried it, Tommy John.
00:11:55.000Save 15% right now at tommyjohn.com slash Ben.
00:11:58.000Once more, that is tommyjohn.com slash Ben.
00:12:00.000Okay, so the hearings open today, and those hearings are basically a waste of time.
00:12:08.000They're a waste of time because the Democrats are just going to posture about how Amy Coney Barrett is terrible, and how Amy Coney Barrett is a throwback to atheocracy, and how Amy Coney Barrett is somehow a handmaid.
00:12:18.000It doesn't matter that she's an independent, powerful woman who's going to be sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.
00:12:22.000We're going to get all of the posturing from the various senators.
00:12:25.000There are 22 different senators who make opening statements today.
00:12:44.000Again, proof positive she's not good at her job.
00:12:46.000She dropped out of the Democratic primaries despite having at one point held the lead.
00:12:50.000She dropped out before there was a single primary that was held.
00:12:53.000Harris is going to attend Amy Coney Barrett's hearing remotely because she says the measures against COVID-19 are not safe for her.
00:13:02.000Apparently, a spokesman for her said, due to Judiciary Committee Republicans' refusal to take common-sense steps to protect members, aides, Capitol Complex workers, and members of the media, Senator Harris plans to participate in this week's hearings remotely from her Senate office in the Hart Building.
00:13:14.000Her confirmation hearings begin Monday.
00:13:16.000Senators Mike Lee and Tom Tillis both tested positive for coronavirus.
00:13:19.000Senator Lindsey Graham and Harris have been talking about implementing testing measures for members and staff ahead of the hearings, but Graham has not imposed additional testing requirements.
00:13:29.000A lot of other members are expected to attend, including complete moron Maisie Hirono from Hawaii, who is indeed the stupidest person in the United States Senate.
00:13:49.000There are people who are urging her to.
00:13:52.000Christian Farias, writing for the New York Times, says Kamala Harris should grill Amy Coney Barrett.
00:13:56.000They say millions of Americans have already cast votes ahead of the election.
00:13:59.000Democracy demands one of the candidates on the ballot be the Democrats' lead questioner at the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett that begins on Monday.
00:14:06.000Kamala Harris isn't just a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Republicans control, and is rushing madly to ram through President Trump's chosen replacement for the Supreme Court seat formerly held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
00:14:16.000She's also one of the sharpest questioners on the committee, setting herself apart in nearly four years she's been in the Senate.
00:14:21.000She has cross-examined everyone from Jeff Sessions to Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Barr.
00:14:25.000Yeah, her cross-examination of Brett Kavanaugh was this weird thing where she suggested that he was in cahoots with Donald Trump's law firm over at Kasowitz without any actual evidence of what she was talking about or even any indicator of what she was talking about.
00:14:37.000But Democrats are rooting for Harris to get very aggressive.
00:14:41.000According to this columnist for the New York Times, this is about democracy.
00:14:44.000As Senator Harris herself observed during Wednesday's vice presidential debate, Republicans' brute force effort to confirm Judge Barrett as people head to the polls is an affront to voters.
00:14:52.000We're literally in an election, she said.
00:15:01.000That is not a case against actually having hearings to fill a vacant judicial seat.
00:15:07.000But really, what they are going to object to, because they don't actually have any dirt on Amy Coney Barrett, and it's going to be a lot harder to accuse Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic mother of seven, of being a gang rapist.
00:15:15.000A lot harder to do that than it was for Brett Kavanaugh, who is, of course, a white male, and therefore guilty of a myriad of crimes he did not commit.
00:15:21.000They're going to go after Amy Coney Barrett on the basis, presumably, that she is Catholic and too religious, or that she might be anti-Roe v. Wade.
00:15:29.000John Podhoretz on the Commentary podcast made a great point the other day.
00:15:31.000He was saying, we do live in a weirdly ironic world in which Amy Coney Barrett is expected to opine on every single issue that could possibly come before her.
00:15:39.000But Joe Biden is allowed to hide in the basement and not explain any of his own viewpoints.
00:15:43.000One of those people is running for an elected office.
00:15:45.000And one of those people is being selected to be a judge.
00:15:48.000But the media have got everything exactly backwards, of course.
00:15:51.000So in her opening statement, Judge Coney Barrett is expected to praise her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as well as honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a brief series of remarks.
00:16:02.000She issued a four-page statement and she talks about her judicial qualifications and she talks about her sort of judicial philosophy as well.
00:16:37.000There's a tendency in our profession to treat the practice of law as all-consuming while losing sight of everything else.
00:16:41.000That makes for a shallow and unfulfilling life.
00:16:43.000She's also going to talk about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
00:16:47.000Apparently she says, when I was 21 years old and just beginning my career, RBG sat in the seat.
00:16:51.000She told the committee, what has become of me could only happen in America.
00:16:54.000I've been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg's seat, but no one will ever take her place.
00:16:57.000I will be forever grateful for the path she marked and the life that she led.
00:17:02.000It is the statements on judicial philosophy that interest me most, obviously.
00:17:05.000And when she talks about the fact that it is not the job of judges to do right, it is the job of justices to interpret the law, this is exactly correct.
00:17:14.000It is also in direct opposition to what the left believes, which is that, again, the court is designed to do the work that leftists couldn't get done in the legislature.
00:17:21.000So they couldn't pass national legislation on same-sex marriage or abortion, and so they have the Supreme Court do their dirty work for them.
00:17:28.000They couldn't pass the Affordable Care Act as a tax, so they called it a fee, and then they waited for Justice John Roberts to rewrite the statute into a tax so that it would be legal.
00:17:38.000That is what the left wants the court to be.
00:17:41.000The fundamental disconnect when it comes to the court that has happened here is that, again, the left would love for the court to be a super leftist legislature.
00:17:49.000The right would like for the court to be a court.
00:17:51.000And the left really objects when the court is used as a court because they see it as an obstacle to their utopian goals, whereas they would like for it to be just another weapon in their arsenal.
00:18:02.000So, yeah, Amy Coney Barrett is obviously going to cut against a lot of the priorities that Democrats hold.
00:18:08.000And she is exactly right when she says that the court is not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong.
00:18:14.000I don't know how that's remotely controversial.
00:18:16.000It is not the job of a court to do that.
00:18:17.000It is the job of a court to interpret the law.
00:18:19.000If the political branches want to solve a thing, they should solve the thing.
00:18:23.000When I was in law school, I actually had a little acronym that I would text people when people started talking about judicial activism in class, which was L-I-T-T-L, leave it to the legislature.
00:18:36.000Leave it to the legislature, should generally be the hallmark of a justice who recognizes that the law is badly written and needs to be struck down, or that a law is badly written and doesn't need to be struck down, but the legislature has to fix the law.
00:18:51.000A little bit of judicial humility goes a long way.
00:18:53.000And that means faithfully interpreting the law.
00:18:55.000Again, what's amazing about so much of this when it comes to judicial interpretation is that nobody would ever read the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1907 the way that they purport to read the Constitution of the United States.
00:19:07.000And yet, more and more, the left expects justices to do this.
00:19:11.000And you see even textualist justices doing this.
00:19:13.000You saw Justice Gorsuch do exactly this with the Civil Rights Act of 64, suddenly and randomly reading transgenderism into Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.
00:20:16.000Now they're just like, okay, well, we're going to pretend we'll say we're objective, but it's pretty damned obvious that we are not objective in any way.
00:20:23.000All the veneers have come off and it's really ugly.
00:20:30.000Because at least when there was the veneer, we could agree that the values the veneer stood for were good.
00:20:35.000Yes, people were lying about what they actually wanted to do with the court, but they at least attempted to move in line with American expectations of what the court was.
00:20:43.000With the veneer stripped away, it becomes obvious just how much we disagree with one another.
00:20:46.000I'm going to get to that in just one second.
00:20:49.000First, let us talk about protecting your computer from malware.
00:20:52.000If you ever had your computer hit by malware, it is the worst thing in the world.
00:20:55.000I mean, it just destroys your computer.
00:20:57.000If you work on a computer, it destroys your life for several days.
00:21:11.000It's a next-generation antivirus designed to stop modern threats like ransomware.
00:21:14.000Independent testing firm AV-Test just named PCmatic as a top performer in the cybersecurity industry, giving it the best performance award for 2019.
00:21:22.000Only PCmatic has American research, development, and support.
00:21:25.000PCmatic's competition is foreign-made, often in countries where malware originates.
00:21:29.000PCmatic will block annoying and malicious ads for hassle-free web browsing, makes your computer faster and more reliable, even after years of use.
00:21:36.000PCmatic protects Windows computer, including XP, Vista, Windows 7, 8, and 10, Windows servers, Macs, MacBooks, Android phones, and tablets.
00:21:43.000PCmatic is just 50 bucks for five devices for one year with a full 30-day money-back guarantee.
00:21:48.000If you act right now, PCmatic has offered my listeners a free month of security protection with the purchase of an annual license.
00:21:53.000You are making a large-scale mistake if you do not protect your computer from malware.
00:21:57.000Right now, check out PCmatic.com slash Ben.
00:22:00.000Again, when you go to PCmatic.com slash Ben, you get 50 bucks, five devices, one year, full 30-day money-back guarantee, and my listeners get a free month of security protection when you purchase an annual license.
00:22:10.000Check them out at PCmatic.com slash Ben.
00:22:16.000Okay, so there was a veneer that really... If you want to know where the American people are, all you have to do is look at which directions politicians tend to lie.
00:22:26.000Don't pay attention to their actual positions, because nobody pays attention to actual political positions.
00:22:29.000If they did, I think Republicans would win far more often.
00:22:34.000Nobody even really looks at what politicians do.
00:22:36.000Mostly, people look at what politicians promise.
00:22:39.000And what politicians promise tends to be where they think the American people are.
00:22:42.000So, even Sonia Sotomayor, who's a wildly activist left judge, even she, when she was trying to get herself on the court, she suggested that it was the job of judges to interpret law, not make law.
00:22:53.000Now, of course, she's on the court, and she knows that it's the job of justices from a left-wing point of view to make law, to just do it willy-nilly.
00:22:59.000But even when Sonia Sotomayor was being appointed, she paid lip service to the idea that judges are not legislators.
00:23:06.000When it comes to the media, the media understand that most Americans would love to believe that their news are objective, and so media keep paying lip service, or did until very recently, to the idea of objectivity in news.
00:23:19.000And you're starting to see Democrats abandon it on the court.
00:23:21.000When they talk about court packing, what they really mean is that the judiciary is no longer supposed to be an objective branch of government, an apolitical branch of government.
00:23:28.000We're just going to strip the veneer away.
00:23:30.000So we can't even agree on what the judiciary is supposed to do.
00:23:33.000We can't agree on what our media are supposed to do.
00:23:35.000We can't agree on what our government is supposed to do.
00:23:38.000There used to be this truism in American politics that we all sort of want the same thing.
00:23:42.000We just have different ways of going about it.
00:23:43.000It's pretty obvious as time goes on, we do not in any way want the same thing.
00:23:47.000That the utopian vision of the left is very, very different from the conservative vision for the country, and that the institutional obstacles the Constitution provides are a real problem for many members of the left, which is why, of course, they're now talking About court packing.
00:24:00.000Now, in order to push for court packing, in order to push for adding justices, the left understands that it's unpopular.
00:24:07.000They understand that most Americans are not in favor of fundamentally reshaping our institutions.
00:24:12.000You've seen them do this about the court routinely, by the way.
00:24:14.000Not only individual justices who claim that they are just there to interpret the law and not to make it and then immediately turn around and make the law.
00:24:21.000And not just justices who suggest that judicial activism, the term judicial activism, which typically means reading the law in alignment with your moral ideals instead of just reading what the text of the Constitution says.
00:24:32.000That's what judicial activism used to mean.
00:24:34.000They shifted the definition of judicial activism.
00:24:36.000They rewrote the term in order to mean any time a judge strikes down a left-wing statute.
00:24:41.000If a judge strikes down a right-wing statute, that's not judicial activism.
00:24:43.000That's standing up for the Constitution.
00:24:45.000If a judge strikes down a left-wing statute, that is now active, right?
00:24:53.000Well now, their new move is to redefine the term court packing.
00:24:57.000So for several months now, we have been talking about the fact that during the Democratic primaries, many of the candidates talked about packing the court, even before RBG died.
00:25:04.000Then RBG died, and it became a rote talking point for many Democrats that they would look at packing the court if they gained control of the Senate.
00:25:12.000Now this isn't really as much of a threat to Biden as it is to various Senate candidates.
00:25:16.000The truth is Biden's refusal to denounce court packing is not going to hurt Biden very much because the vote for Biden is really not about Biden.
00:25:24.000But it could hurt the Democrats down ballot.
00:25:26.000It could hurt the Democrats in the Senate, because those races are very, very closely fought.
00:25:31.000There's the significant possibility right now, and I think I'd probably put my money on this, that Joe Biden is leading in the presidential race, but in the Senate, Republicans hold the Senate because the Democrats have gotten so radical on this issue.
00:25:44.000So instead, they've decided to completely redefine the term court packing, and the media are going along with this completely.
00:25:51.000Donald Trump, over the weekend, he correctly pointed out that the radical left Democrats are pushing Joe Biden to pack the Supreme Court.
00:25:56.000So President Trump tweeted, FDR's own party told him you cannot pack the United States Supreme Court.
00:26:00.000It would permanently destroy the court.
00:26:02.000But now the radical left Democrats are pushing Biden to do this.
00:26:23.000Then why in the world is Joe Biden so hesitant to condemn court packing, which is a fundamental change to the nature of the republic?
00:26:28.000The minute that you have a court that is openly political, people just stop paying attention to the court.
00:26:33.000The minute that you have a Senate that has been packed, filled with Democrats from new states, and then pushing forward a packed court, and then pushing forward any legislation to the far left, the American people and various states are just going to say, I'm not paying attention to that.
00:26:44.000You've now rigged the system, like truly rigged the system.
00:26:47.000And Joe Biden is not standing up to that, which is an amazing thing for a guy who's campaigning as captain return to normalcy, back to moderation, back to the future, right?
00:27:18.000They'll know my opinion in court packing when the election is over.
00:27:20.000Now look, I know it's a great question, and I don't blame you for asking it, but you know the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that.
00:27:33.000Other than, other than, focusing on what's happening now.
00:28:18.000Here he is openly saying voters do not deserve an answer on whether he's going to wreck the third branch of government.
00:28:23.000Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts, and I know that you said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election, but this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.
00:28:34.000Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now.
00:28:41.000Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know?
00:29:06.000So I'm not going to give you an answer.
00:29:08.000Okay, and then Joe Biden lays out the narrative that has become immediately the rote narrative for the entire Democratic Party and many members of the media.
00:29:16.000And it's unbelievable how everything switched on a dime.
00:29:19.000Okay, he decides that he's going to lay out a narrative whereby the term court packing itself no longer means that you pack the court with extra seats from people of your political persuasion.
00:29:29.000Instead, court packing now means legally filling the seats that are empty with people who are duly nominated and confirmed.
00:29:51.000And then she randomly started talking about how there were no black judges appointed by Donald Trump, as though they love Clarence Thomas over on the left wing.
00:29:58.000But this is a fundamental redefinition of the term, right?
00:30:00.000Because when people are asking about court packing, they don't mean, are you filling existing empty seats?
00:30:05.000They mean, are you adding seats to courts to willy-nilly overturn the majorities that currently exist on those courts?
00:30:11.000Not a seat came open, and now you fill that seat with somebody.
00:30:14.000Instead, court packing typically means you add seats to the court.
00:30:20.000Remember, I laughed openly at this when I reviewed the debate the other night.
00:30:24.000Kamala Harris tried to redefine the term court packing in the middle of the debate.
00:30:27.000You'll see Biden picked it up, then the entire Democratic Party picked it up, and then the media picked it up, which is normally the way this works.
00:30:32.000Do you know that of the 50 people who President Trump appointed to the Court of Appeals for lifetime appointments, not one is black?
00:30:55.000So now there's this weird redefinition going on, because they don't want to answer the question, in which we equate filling seats with people who are constitutionalists and originalists, duly, because the seat is empty and you get to nominate and confirm judges.
00:31:08.000We're going to equate that with adding five, six, seven seats on the Supreme Court, which is crazy.
00:31:14.000OK, so Joe Biden tried this line also.
00:31:17.000Here is Joe Biden saying the only court packing that is happening is happening with conservatives, which, of course, makes no sense because conservatives are not packing the Supreme Court.
00:31:24.000The only court packing going on right now.
00:31:28.000It's going on with Republicans taking the court now.
00:31:32.000It's not constitutional what they're doing.
00:31:34.000We should be focused on what's happening right now.
00:31:37.000And the fact is that the only packing going on is this.
00:31:41.000It's being packed now by the Republicans after the vote has already begun.
00:32:17.000Voters don't deserve to know my answer on court packing.
00:32:19.000Also, court packing no longer means court packing.
00:32:21.000It means duly appointing people to open positions.
00:32:24.000Here's Dick Durbin trying to treat the American people as idiots.
00:32:29.000American people have watched the Republicans pack in the court over the last three and a half years, and they brag about it.
00:32:34.000They've taken every vacancy and filled it.
00:32:36.000Did you know that they've sent us, and we have approved only with their votes I might add, ten people who have been judged unanimously unqualified by the American Bar Association?
00:32:46.000Do you know how many judicial nominees came from Obama who were judged unanimously unqualified?
00:32:52.000So we are dealing with people on the court, packed into the court, with little or no qualification, who are going to be there for a long time.
00:33:25.000And then he tweets out, conservatives stealth court packing plan.
00:33:28.000Step one, steal seats by blocking confirmation of judges until White House and Senate are under conservative control.
00:33:33.000Step two, change the rules to appoint the most partisan conservative judges at breakneck speed.
00:33:37.000So number one, I just, I'm really enjoying the redefinition of a judge who rules according to the law as a partisan conservative.
00:33:45.000Now, if you just do your job as a judge or a partisan conservative.
00:33:49.000You are, in fact, a wondrous human being if you look into your heart for empathy, the way Barack Obama described Sonia Sotomayor.
00:33:55.000But if you're a judge and you look at a law and you say, you know what, this law doesn't allow this thing, even if I would like it, even if it's a nice thing to do, then you are a conservative partisan.
00:34:02.000That is the way they've redefined what it means to be a judge.
00:34:05.000They've redefined the term judicial activism.
00:34:07.000And now they're redefining the term court packing.
00:34:09.000So there is Sam Berger for the Center of American Progress.
00:34:30.000playbook for decades asking for Merrick Garland. That's not court packing. They didn't have the votes to confirm Merrick Garland. End of story. They do have the votes to confirm the judges that Trump is appointing. In what way is that court packing?
00:35:22.000It's not stealing a seat to not confirm a justice who is appointed by your political opposition, nor is it stealing a seat to confirm a justice appointed by a member of a party of which you are also a member.
00:35:33.000Okay, what you are watching is an incredible case of gaslighting.
00:35:35.000It's just an unbelievable case of gaslighting.
00:35:36.000The media are now in plain view, and Democrats are in plain view, taking the term court-packing and saying, court-packing no longer means court-packing.
00:35:43.000This is slow motion court packing in plain sight.
00:35:45.000Okay, what you are watching is an incredible case of gaslighting.
00:35:48.000It's just an unbelievable case of gaslighting.
00:35:50.000The media are now in plain view and Democrats are in plain view taking the term court packing and saying, court packing no longer means court packing.
00:35:57.000It now means anything Republicans do and we don't like is court packing.
00:36:00.000As we will see, they're also gonna say anything that Republicans do and we don't like is unconstitutional, which is super fun, considering that the left scorns and despises the institutions of the constitution of the United States.
00:36:10.000They think that the Senate is unrepresentative and therefore bad.
00:36:14.000They think that the judiciary ought to be a super legislature.
00:36:17.000They believe that the presidency of the United States should be unbounded.
00:36:22.000In fact, one of the reasons why I vote Republican is because, while I have many problems with the way that the Republicans have gone along with the expansion of the executive branch, at least they don't fundamentally despise the institutions of the Constitution the way the Democrats apparently do.
00:36:51.000So it started off, remember, from Biden and Harris, redefining court packing.
00:36:54.000Then it went to kind of the lower level senators, redefining court packing.
00:36:57.000Then it went out to the activist base.
00:36:59.000It went out to people like Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, who put out a tweet thread saying, any Democrat who uses the term court packing to describe expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court should be smacked upside the head. This is not only idiotic politics. More importantly, it is wrong, incorrect, not what anyone is proposing.
00:37:16.000For the last decade, Republicans have used an escalating mix of aggressive and corrupt means to stack the federal judiciary in order to entrench power they believe they will no longer be able to win in majority elections.
00:37:26.000If Democrats control the Congress and the White House, they must take steps to undo this harm and corruption, and the most viable logical path is to add additional seats to the Supreme Court.
00:37:59.000They have been trying to politicize the court every step of the way, and we have to figure out ways to make it less political.
00:38:08.000So I'm open to that, and that's anything from a Judicial Standards Commission, or we'll look at any other thing that might be suggested, including adding justices.
00:38:18.000Okay, so there was Steve Bullock openly acknowledging that he would consider packing the court.
00:38:22.000Okay, and here is how the AP covered this.
00:38:26.000Bullock said that if Coney Barrett was confirmed, he would be open to measures to depoliticize the court, including adding judges to the bench, a practice critics have dubbed packing the courts.
00:38:35.000Oh, it's only critics who call it packing the courts, you see.
00:38:37.000Yes, we've been doing this for a hundred years, talking about this.
00:38:40.000But only critics call this packing the court.
00:38:42.000Otherwise, it's not packing the court.
00:38:43.000It's depoliticizing the court, you understand.
00:38:45.000So if Republicans appoint judges who faithfully interpret the law rather than creating it from whole cloth, that is politicizing the court.
00:38:51.000So when you add seats to the court, you are depoliticizing the court.
00:38:55.000That is your objective, Associated Press.
00:38:57.000Very, very objective stuff there from your Associated Press.
00:39:01.000So it was amazing to come back off of Jewish holiday and see how the term court packing has now been completely turned on its head and redefined so that court packing is now depoliticization rather than politicization of the court.
00:41:18.000All the other employees were complaining because Mark, every single day of the week, three times a day and in the middle of the night, took them to Texas Roadhouse.
00:41:46.000With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then actively invites them to apply to your job.
00:41:53.000ZipRecruiter makes hiring efficient and effective with features like screening questions to filter candidates and an all-in-one dashboard where you can review and rate your candidates.
00:42:01.000In fact, ZipRecruiter is so effective, four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
00:42:06.000Right now, to try ZipRecruiter for free, my listeners can go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:42:11.000That is ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:42:16.000ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
00:42:19.000Okay, in just a second, We're gonna get to how the media and the left are now twisting science in order to achieve their priors.
00:43:18.000Text the keyword BASEBALL to 83400 to purchase your all-American Daily Wire baseball bat today.
00:43:22.000you are listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show on the nation.
00:43:26.000Okay, so it's not just that the left and the media are undermining American institutions like the Supreme Court of the United States and then gaslighting you, deceiving you about the nature You know what the term means.
00:43:42.000And then they just lie to you about what the term means.
00:43:43.000So court packing is no longer court packing.
00:43:45.000Unconstitutional is no longer unconstitutional.
00:43:47.000Basically, if they like it, it's all the good things.
00:43:50.000And if they don't like it, it's all the bad things.
00:43:52.000Well, now they're doing the same thing with science.
00:43:54.000So they're blaming Trump for ruining science.
00:43:59.000People's faith in science surrounding COVID has been Wavering since the beginning of this pandemic, namely because scientists, I think, claimed to know more than they did.
00:44:09.000I don't think that they spoke with the proper amount of humility.
00:44:13.000I think many of our scientific leaders proclaimed that they knew exactly what they were talking about when they absolutely did not.
00:44:18.000They claimed that they were sure of their policies when, in fact, there was a lot of uncertainty.
00:44:23.000I'm very much in favor of being clear about the level of uncertainty with which you pursue certain conclusions.
00:44:28.000So I said at the beginning, maybe lockdowns are justified because we don't know enough about this particular disease.
00:44:33.000Maybe masks are not justified, because Fauci's saying we don't need masks, and then they switched on masks, and then it turns out that the lockdowns probably were not justified.
00:44:41.000It turns out that lockdowns have the effect of lowering infection rates for a temporary time, and then as soon as you release, then the infections start to move through society.
00:44:50.000But current lockdowns are probably not justified.
00:44:53.000It turns out there's been lots of conflicting science about a lot of different topics.
00:44:55.000But the media speak with one voice as though the science on COVID is completely clear in every respect.
00:45:03.000And so that means that we have been misled on several different occasions by a variety of supposedly scientific outlets.
00:45:09.000Remember, The Lancet published an entire study suggesting that hydroxychloroquine was going to kill you of a heart attack, and it turns out that the study was essentially falsified.
00:45:16.000That doesn't mean that hydroxychloroquine was a cure-all the way that President Trump was talking about it.
00:45:22.000But at the same time, it was not just Trump who was botching that particular story.
00:45:27.000It turns out that the botchery of COVID has been uniform across all levels of government and across all levels of our institution.
00:45:35.000The media, however, have decided the only person who is botching the rollout on COVID is Trump.
00:45:39.000They keep saying, we follow the science, we follow the science.
00:45:41.000Except, as it turns out, you guys don't very often follow the science.
00:45:44.000You follow the science when it leads to conclusions you like, and you don't follow the science when it leads to conclusions you don't.
00:45:50.000And you're critical of Trump no matter what he says.
00:45:51.000So if Trump had come out and said hydroxychloroquine is bad for you, they immediately would have said, well, the studies show hydroxychloroquine is not bad for you.
00:46:06.000It turns out that what science is really good at is examining the past.
00:46:09.000Very often it is not great at predicting the future, and that's particularly true with a new pandemic.
00:46:12.000There are no experts in a new pandemic.
00:46:15.000And yet we are treated to this bizarre sort of rhetoric where when Trump says something and it's wrong, then that is uniquely bad.
00:46:24.000But when scientists say stuff and it turns out to be wrong, then they are not held to account for it at all.
00:46:30.000That is not a justification for Trump speaking beyond science.
00:46:33.000It is a recommendation that we be pretty humble in how we approach all of the science from every available level, and that scientists should do the same.
00:46:40.000So the Washington Post, for example, has a piece today about how Trump has undermined confidence in government science.
00:46:46.000Joel Achenbach and Lori McGinley, they say, in another era, what happened Wednesday might have been viewed as simply good news.
00:46:51.000Two companies, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly, have independently developed therapeutic drugs called monoclonal antibodies that, in preliminary testing, appear to reduce symptoms for coronavirus patients.
00:47:00.000They applied for emergency use authorization from the FDA.
00:47:03.000The positive development immediately became entangled in election year politics, with President Trump repeatedly making false and exaggerated claims about the new therapeutics.
00:47:10.000He called them a cure, which they're not.
00:47:11.000He said he was about to approve them, a premature promise given the FDA's career scientists are charged with reviewing the applications.
00:47:19.000Politics has thoroughly contaminated the scientific process.
00:47:21.000The result has been an epidemic of distrust, which further undermines the nation's already chaotic and ineffective response to coronavirus.
00:47:29.000OK, well, again, it's all about Trump, right?
00:47:31.000So this entire article is about Trump and how the White House has intruded and how it's really bad that Trump has intruded.
00:47:38.000I think the White House should not have intruded here.
00:47:40.000But you also have Kamala Harris saying she's not going to take a vaccine if Trump says you should take the vaccine, which, of course, is anti-science because Trump ain't the one who's developing the vaccine.
00:47:49.000Also, it turns out that we've been getting conflicting information from the scientific community all the way along.
00:47:53.000First, the WHO said that this thing was not airborne.
00:47:55.000Then, the WHO said this thing was not human-to-human transmissible.
00:47:58.000Then, the WHO said that masks were bad.
00:48:00.000Then, the WHO said that masks were good.
00:48:02.000Then, the WHO suggested that perhaps lockdowns were justified.
00:48:05.000Now, Dr. David Nabarro, the WHO Special Envoy, is saying that we should never be using lockdowns because they are not, in fact, an effective tool at containing the pandemic.
00:48:12.000Here was Dr. David Nabarro, over the weekend, explaining lockdowns are dumb.
00:48:17.000We really do have to learn how to coexist with this virus in a way that doesn't require constant closing down of economies, but at the same time in a way that is not associated with high levels of suffering and death.
00:48:37.000It's what we're calling the middle path.
00:48:39.000And the middle path is about being able to hold the virus at bay whilst keeping economic and social life going.
00:49:00.000There's mass confusion reigning in Europe.
00:49:02.000There's confusion ranging across the Middle East.
00:49:04.000There's confusion nearly everywhere about exactly how to handle this thing, what it constitutes, how dangerous it is.
00:49:09.000I mean, there's actual riots in the streets in Israel.
00:49:12.000There have been riots in the streets in France.
00:49:13.000There have been riots in the streets in the UK.
00:49:16.000None of that has anything to do with Trump.
00:49:18.000One of the things that has happened with regard to our scientific institutions is that they have politicized themselves.
00:49:22.000Once again, I think that Trump exacerbates the problems here, but I don't think that Trump is the creator of the problem inside our scientific community.
00:49:30.000One problem is that our politicians politicize science.
00:49:33.000The other problem is that our scientists politicize science, and they get involved in making political judgments about science.
00:49:40.000So Anthony Fauci said early on in the pandemic in an interview, he said that the Trump administration was doing the most of any administration he could imagine, which was true.
00:49:47.000Again, if you look at what the Trump administration has done, not what Trump has said, not the idiotic rhetoric, if you look at what the Trump administration has actually done, namely making sure that everybody could get the ventilators they need, mobilizing Navy ships to go off the coast of New York, ensuring that PPE were distributed, Developing Operation Warp Speed, we could get the fastest vaccine literally in human history because of Operation Warp Speed.
00:50:08.000The government backing of the development of new therapeutics that have radically reduced the rate of death from COVID-19, down closer to flu rates than originally to the WHO's suggested rate.
00:50:19.000The WHO, you remember, suggested that the death rate on this thing could be three to five percent.
00:50:22.000It has turned out to be maybe one-tenth of that.
00:50:27.000Fauci said fairly early on that the Trump administration was doing yeoman's work in mobilizing everything.
00:50:35.000So Trump cut an ad in which he pointed out that Fauci had said this, especially because Fauci is now considered sort of the trusted scientist.
00:50:42.000Although there's one member of the, I will say, one member of sort of private medical establishment who's a very prestigious doctor at a very prestigious university.
00:50:49.000And when they said that, how did Fauci become sort of the epidemiologist, like the source for all information?
00:50:55.000Normally in doctorland, people who work for the government are considered like second raters.
00:51:59.000Because he wasn't talking about Trump personally.
00:52:01.000He was talking about the federal employees.
00:52:02.000Yes, but who's the head of the government?
00:52:05.000I'm sorry, but that is not an inaccurate ad.
00:52:07.000If you say that I can't imagine anybody doing more about the Obama administration, then Obama cuts an ad where it says, I can't imagine anybody doing more.
00:52:17.000No one would be objecting, but because Trump is saying it, suddenly it's objectionable.
00:52:20.000And again, the scientists have been pretty political throughout this entire process, I will say.
00:52:26.000Now, meanwhile, our cultural institutions are similarly under assault.
00:52:28.000So we have our governmental institutions, then we have science, which has been politicized every which way by political actors ranging from Trump to Andrew Cuomo, who, by the way, said yesterday that he is looking at additional lockdowns in New York State after there were five deaths in New York from COVID.
00:52:51.000We've perverted our scientific institutions because our scientists are considered the font head of all knowledge.
00:52:56.000And many of them are not exhibiting the sort of scientific caution that would be recommended in any normal scientific scenario.
00:53:03.000And now we are going to pervert every aspect of our culture as well.
00:53:07.000Like literally every aspect of our culture.
00:53:08.000Our media are going to engage in this.
00:53:10.000So here specifically, I gotta talk about two articles in the New York Times because this is really impressive stuff.
00:53:16.000So, over the weekend, Bret Stephens had an excellent column in the New York Times.
00:53:20.000I know, an excellent column in the New York Times, a sentence that is very rarely uttered.
00:53:24.000He had a piece called the 1619 Chronicles, and he talks about the fact that the 1619 Project has now rewritten its own history to suggest that it wasn't saying that 1619 replaces 1776.
00:53:39.0001619 was explicitly designed to overwrite 1776.
00:53:41.0001776. Brett Stephens says, if there's one word admirers and critics alike can agree on when it comes to the New York Times award-winning 1619 project, it's ambition. Ambition to reframe America's conversation about race. Ambition to reframe our understanding of history. Ambition to move from news pages to classrooms. Ambition to move from scholarly debate to national consciousness. In some ways, this ambition succeeded. The 1619 project introduced a date previously obscure to most Americans that ought always to have been thought of as seminal and probably now will.
00:54:08.000It offered fresh reminders of the extent to which black freedom was a victory gained by courageous black Americans and not just a gift obtained from benevolent whites.
00:54:22.000Journalists are, says Brett Stephen, most often in the business of writing the first rough draft of history, not trying to have the last word on it.
00:54:27.000We are best when we try to tell truths with a lowercase t, following evidence and directions unseen, not the capital T truth of a pre-established narrative in which inconvenient facts get discarded.
00:54:37.000We're supposed to report and comment on the political and cultural issues of the day, not become the issue itself.
00:54:42.000As fresh concerns make clear on these points, and for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs, and a Pulitzer Prize, the 1619 Project has failed.
00:54:49.000These concerns came to light last month when a long-standing critic of the project, Philip W. Magnus, noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country's true founding, or moment America began, had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation.
00:55:03.000The deleted assertions went to the core of the project's most controversial goal, quote, to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation's birth year.
00:55:12.000That doesn't mean the project seeks to erase the Declaration of Independence from history, but it does mean it seeks to dethrone the Fourth of July by treating American history as a story of black struggle against white supremacy, of which the Declaration is, for all of its high-flown rhetoric, supposed to be merely a part.
00:55:26.000In a tweet, Cannon-Jones responded to Magnus and other critics by insisting the text of the project remained unchanged, while maintaining the case for making 1619 the country's true birth year was quote, always a metaphoric argument.
00:55:36.000I emailed her to ask if she could point to any instances before this controversy in which she had acknowledged that her claims about 1619 as our true founding had been merely metaphorical.
00:55:44.000Her answer was that the idea of treating the 1619 date metaphorically should have been so obvious it went without saying.
00:55:49.000She then challenged me to find any instance in which the project stated that using 1776 as our country's birth date is wrong, that it should not be taught to school children, and that the only one that should be taught was 1619.
00:55:59.000Good luck unearthing any of us arguing that, she added.
00:56:01.000Here is an excerpt from the introductory essay to the project by the New York Times Magazine's editor.
00:56:07.000It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.
00:56:11.000Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.
00:56:16.000What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every 4th of July, is wrong, and that the country's true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?
00:56:34.0001619 is not a year most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.
00:56:38.000Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.
00:56:42.000What if, however, we were to tell you the moment the country's defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August 1619?
00:56:48.000What they left out was that the fact that we were taught that 1776 is the founding date is wrong and that the country's true birth date is 1619.
00:56:57.000And so Bret Stephens points this out, and he suggests that this is historically wrong.
00:57:01.000This led to the New York Times Guild, which is the union of writers over the New York Times, to tweet out in bizarre fashion, quote, Okay, so a couple of things.
00:57:10.000One, you are currently attacking a New York Times writer.
00:57:12.000Two, they don't know how to use the word it.
00:57:13.000article reeks. Okay, so a couple of things. One, you are currently attacking a New York Times writer. Two, they don't know how to use the word it.
00:57:22.000It is not a possessive. Okay, but in any case, they then tweeted out, we deleted our previous tweet.
00:57:44.000What you can do is rip on a writer at the New York Times who points this thing out.
00:57:48.000The rewriting of our cultural institutions is occurring wholesale by motivated political actors who have no interest in journalism.
00:57:55.000By journalists who refuse to dog Joe Biden on whether he's gonna court-pack.
00:57:59.000By journalists who are happy to go along with the redefinition of court-packing.
00:58:02.000And by journalists who refuse to ask simple questions like, why were you allowed to rewrite the chief mechanism and chief goal of the 1619 Project?
00:58:09.000Okay, so that's one example of the New York Times rewriting reality in bizarre ways.
00:58:14.000Another way in which the New York Times is rewriting reality in bizarre ways.
00:58:17.000So this is an insane article from the New York Times today.
00:58:40.000The tragedy of heterosexuality wastes absolutely no time getting to the point.
00:58:44.000While many of its sentences made me laugh out loud, it is at heart a somber, urgent academic examinations of the many ways in which opposite-sex coupling can hurt the very individuals who cling to it most.
00:58:53.000Okay, so now the New York Times Book Review is literally pushing a book that argues that heterosexuality is in and of itself bad.
00:59:11.000Ward distinguishes straightness as a practice from straight culture, which is at the very heart of society's most disgraceful failures.
00:59:17.000Straight culture is at the heart of society's most disgraceful failures, you see.
00:59:22.000It is not, as one popular joke goes, that straight people are not okay.
00:59:25.000It is that heteronormativity creates a powerful, privileged form of sexuality against which historically and currently all other forms are compared.
00:59:33.000In examining the pressure to partner with the opposite gender, we find the extortions of capitalism, the misogyny of violence against women, the racist and xenophobic erasure of non-white families, and the homophobic hatreds that purvey so much of everyday life.
00:59:47.000So, if you're straight, and if we see straight culture, like being straight, as something good, Because it propagates the species and creates families naturally through the general biological process.
01:00:03.000This means that you are participating in, let me quote this, the extortions of capitalism.
01:00:08.000I didn't realize that a man having sex with a woman was about the extortion of capitalism.
01:00:13.000The consensual exchange there was about capitalism, per se.
01:00:19.000It seems like lots of commie countries still have heterosexuals in them.
01:00:22.000The misogyny of violence against women.
01:00:24.000So now we are back to the old feminist chestnut that all penetrative sex is a form of rape or some such nonsense.
01:00:31.000The racist and xenophobic erasure of non-white families.
01:00:36.000So it turns out that being straight has to do with saying that black families don't exist, which is weird.
01:00:40.000And the homophobic hatreds that pervade so much of everyday life.
01:00:44.000So in other words, if you say that heterosexuality is good, that means that you have to be nasty to gay and lesbians, which is weird, because it seems like the vast majority of straight people in the United States are very friendly toward gays and lesbians.
01:00:56.000Rewriting our cultural norms and institutions.
01:00:59.000Our desires may feel beyond our control, but Ward stresses the importance of understanding sexuality as self-identified.
01:01:04.000One of the foundational principles of lesbian feminism is that each person's sexual desire is their own responsibility, says Ward.
01:01:10.000If not something they can choose, then at least something they can choose to examine and take ownership of.
01:01:16.000As such, she argues a queer theory might be just the thing to rescue heterosexuality from its unearned hegemony in our shared cultural imagination.
01:01:26.000So this is the culture they want to create.
01:01:28.000This is the culture of the left, in which heterosexuality is about capitalism and forcible violence against women, and in which 1776 is not the founding of the country.
01:01:37.000And if you argue that it is the founding of the country, then you should be called out by the New York Times Guild.
01:02:28.000Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
01:02:31.000You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
01:02:37.000But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.