B (13:08)

picking a lot of beauties out there. J.D. i envy you and other people. I don't know. Who's it going to be? Is it going to be J.D. is it going to be somebody else? I don't know. Does anybody have. Okay, let's go. You ready? Who likes J.D. vance? Who likes Marco Rubio? All right, sounds like a good ticket. J.D. it's a perfect. That was a perfect ticket, by the way. I do believe that's a dream team, but these are minor details. That does not mean you have my endorsement under any circumstances. But, you know, it's a perfect. It was a big. And then a very nice. And think it sounds like presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

A (14:05)

I love him. And some people don't totally understand what Trump is saying here because they don't speak New Yorker. I think most people get what he's saying, but for those who don't, for those who are not familiar with that particular dialect of American English called New York A's, New York, New Yorkees, he comes out, he says, okay, we got great presidential candidates here. And he starts out with J.D. the Vice President obviously says, who likes J.D. huge round of applause. He says, oh, but we got some other people. How about Rubio? A big round of applause. Not as big as the round of applause for JD but it's still pretty good. Obviously, that crowd really likes Rubio, too. Rubio's doing a great job. And he says, wow, sounds like a great ticket. He says, there was a huge round of applause for JD There was a very good round of applause for Marco Rubio. Sounds like a great ticket, a dream team, a perfect ticket. But this is not in any way an endorsement. It's not an endorsement, but it's perfect and it's great and it's ideal, and it's exactly what you should pick. And crucially, this is also what Trump has been saying for months now. Trump has been saying for months, JD should be the presidential candidate. Marco should be the vice presidential candidate. I want them to run as a ticket. I was in the room, I was in the Cabinet meeting when it was right before Labor Day, and Marco Rubio had this great joke. It brought down the House. He said, you know, this is a very important Labor Day for me as a man with five jobs. And everybody laughed, and they were going around, and Trump says, marco, you're doing such a great job. I hope you never run for office again. I hope you stay in this. So in a way, he was saying, you're doing such a great job, don't run for president. But now he's saying, well, maybe run for vice president, but he's obviously favoring. He's saying it's not an endorsement, but I am endorsing you, but it's not an endorsement. He's obviously favoring the vice president because that's why he picked him. The historical circumstance, the strange historical circumstance of a non consecutive second term means that when the presidential candidate picks as vice presidential candidate heading into that non consecutive second term, he is effectively saying, this is the guy who it's gonna be next time. And Trump also loves the unity. It seems to me, within his administration, there was a little bit of division and discord in the first admin. In the second admin, people are getting along great. And this is crucial about JD And Marco Rubio, because there are gonna be some people out there who say, well, I prefer Rubio. I want it to be a Rubio JD ticket, or I want it to be a Rubio DeSantis ticket, or I want. Whatever. You know, I don't. But you hear a little less of that from the pro JD guys. You ever hear a little less anti Rubio stuff from the pro JD guys? You hear a little more anti JD from some of the pro. Look, I haven't had a cigar this morning. I'm a little. Let me say that again. You hear a little less anti Marco from the pro JD people. You hear a little more anti JD from the pro Marco people. Okay. Why? Why is that? Well, it seems to me, and this has been true for 15 years now, the Republican establishment feels more comfortable with Rubio. This is no knock on Rubio. Don't take this as a criticism of Rubio. I think Rubio is doing a great job. But the political establishment has preferred Rubio for a long time. Really since just about the time he became senator. Certainly when he ran for president in 2016, the more establishment wing of the GOP really favored Rubio over a guy like Trump or a guy like Cruz or some of the other candidates. And so what does that mean for this kind of ticket? I actually think that's a great thing because the GOP does very, very well when you have the more conservative, a little more populist kind of candidate along with the guy who's a little better liked by the establishment or by the business community or by even the foreign policy establishment. This is what you had with Reagan Bush. Reagan Bush was a unity ticket to bring together those two sides of the party. Little more cowboy, conservative, populist, a little more country club, gets along in the boardrooms kind of guy. That was Reagan, Bush, you had this, really, with Trump Pence in 2016, the GOP establishment, really, they didn't feel that comfortable with Trump. Foreign policy establishment really didn't like Trump. Even the business guys were a little worried about Trump, especially when he was talking about immigration and tariffs. But they did like Pence. Pence was a little more satisfactory to that wing. And so in this case, I think Vance Rubio makes a lot of sense. I think Trump is totally right here. It's a little too early to endorse a ticket, as Trump is joking, too, but that makes a lot of sense. The fact that they appeal to slightly different wings of the party is actually a good thing. And there's an irony, too, which is that by all appearances, at least from the outside, Vance and Rubio get along very well. They seem to be aligned on a ton of issues. They work together very well. So that could be an excellent ticket because, you know, Reagan and Bush did not really get along. Maybe they came to get along, but in 1980, they were not exactly pals, and they were a very, very effective Republican administration. Here. Vance and Rubio already have worked together pretty closely, already seemed to get along very well, and they appeal to different groups. You have the more conservative, populist candidate in JD who is, who is the vice president, who has gotten the plaudits from the president, probably should be the top of the ticket. And then you have the guy who allays some of the fears of the more establishment wing of the gop, but also has good conservative bona fides himself. Hard to disagree with Trump. That would be a very, very strong ticket. Okay, A perfect ticket, he says. Now, speaking of perfection, here's a story has nothing to do with electoral politics, but it's a delightful story, and it was going viral on social media. It's an image of an ultrasound with what looks like a hand, if not multiple, at least one hand touching the baby's head on the ultrasound. So it's one of these 3D ultrasounds. If you've had a kid recently and you pop for the extra hundred bucks or whatever it costs, you get to see the 3D ultrasound. And it's not as grainy and black and white, and you get to see all these features. And. And on this, it's really, really weird. There's a hand on the baby's head, and I can't make sense of it. It almost looks like AI, but it's not being reported as AI. It's Being reported by a news organization. Where is this? Yes, this is by kwtx Local news here. The hand of God Kentucky mom sees divine sign in baby's ultrasound. There's a now viral post. One Kentucky mother shares a precious ultrasound image of her baby in which she believes a hand is seen seemingly touching the child. Each time before ultrasound, she says, I've dropped to my knees right in the doctor's office to pray over Kyler, said Amanda Foster. And she prayed that God keep his hand on her baby. And then the ultrasound comes out and you see this hand there, and it doesn't. I don't think it's the doctor's hand. Doesn't quite look like it would be the doctor's hand. And it does. It's just. There's a weird image. Maybe it's just some. Maybe it's AI. Maybe it's some weird interference in the ultrasound. Maybe. Who knows what it is? But it's really jarring. Now. What I love about this image is the incredulity from people. The people who say, not the skepticism, but the incredulity, the skeptics. I'm a little skeptical myself. I say, I don't know, I wonder how that image came about. Is it a hoax or is it. Is there some interference or whatever? But the people who say, couldn't possibly be the hand of God, I would just ask you, why not? Why not? It's not that God's existence relies on signs like this. It's not like if this turns out to be a hoax or just an illusion, that therefore we conclude that God does not exist, but in a world made by God, this image, if it is real, should not be surprising. That's kind of my point. Like modern people, secular people, materialist people, they're so shocked. They seem so scandalized by apparent miracles. And I don't really get why. We live in a world that is contingent, that is in motion, that is subject to change, that has effects caused by causes, a world that by our best theories just began from nothing in a Big Bang. Why is it weird that in a world that is created and sustained by God, God whose existence we can know, we can deduce through reason. Why is it weird that miracles might happen? There is nothing contrary to physics, there's nothing contrary to biology, there's nothing contrary to nature, about the supernatural intervening into nature in a nature that is obviously created. You understand the point. This is like sometimes Christians will say, well, look, I don't believe that some miracle happened. Whatever kind of miracle it is Whether it's a eucharistic miracle, whether it's a miraculous healing, whether it's a mystical experience, whether. Whatever it is, they say, I don't believe that this miracle happened. And you say, hold on. You believe a guy died and then rose again from the dead on the third day and then ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, but you don't think that, like a religious relic could liquefy? You don't think that the Eucharist could bleed? You don't think that a person could be miraculously healed from cancer without any medicine? Hold on. They'll say this even about the miracles in the gospel. Well, well, look, I don't believe that Jesus literally fed 5,000 with, you know, just a little bit of bread and fish. I don't. But hold on, hold on. You believe God became man, took on flesh and dwelt among us, then was crucified, died and was buried, and then rose again from the dead, but you don't think he could make some extra bread or turn water into wine? I don't really get it. I understand people's challenges that they have with religion and questions that they have about revelation, the way that God reveals himself in the world, but the people who say it is not possible to see the hand of God in an image of a baby on an ultrasound, I just think that doesn't. That's an illogical conclusion to draw. Everything that we know about nature. Everything that we know about nature, using our reason, tells us that very well could be the hand of God. Okay, speaking of the birds and the bees, Clavicular, our old pal, Clavicular of Michael and fame. He's had some troubles, had a drug problem, overdosed a little while ago. We talked about it on the show, and he's said, I think clavicular is very talented. I think he's actually got some interesting insights into the world. But he seemed to be going down a bad path. And so we hope that he kind of makes a little turn, makes sure he gets on the right path. We don't want bad things to happen to him like happens to a lot of young people who get famous, reality stars, all the rest of the. But I feel vindicated in my observation that clavicular has a good sense of media and even some insight into how society functions, because he just had a viral clip introducing an OnlyFans model, like a porn lady to one of her top donors, a guy who reportedly donated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to her and the clip is not just a Jerry Springer circus. The clip tells us something really profound about prostitution and simps, but also about digital life, which we'll get to momentarily. First, I want to tell you about Mizzen and Main. Go to mizzenandmain.com, use code Michael20. Most dress shirts make you choose between looking sharp or feeling comfortable. Our sponsor, Mizzen and Main, is that rare brand that delivers both. Imagine the white dress shirt you wish you could wear all week. Crisp, comfortable, effortlessly stylish, from morning meetings to after hours plans. That is what Mizzen and Main delivers in an even better way. Mizzen Main is not just another clothing brand trying to chase trends. They actually invented the performance fabric dress shirt more than a decade ago. Since then, they've perfected it. Their shirts and pants look sharp and professional. They're also breathable, stretchy, moisture wicking and wrinkle resistant, so you can throw them in the wash without ever worrying about dry cleaning or ironing. It is the kind of gear you can wear anywhere, at the office, on the golf course, doing yard work, or grilling out on a Saturday. It's terrific. I love this stuff. Especially, by the way, polo. Their polo shirt is really, really nice. Fabric's great and the designs are really elegant. They're excellent. Mizzen and Maine is also a veteran led company backs up what they say by supporting those who've served and giving back to veteran organizations year round. Right now, Mizzen in Maine is offering our listeners 20% off your first purchase at mizzeninmain.com, promo code Michael20. That's Mizzen, spelled M I, Z, Z, e n and main m a I n.com promo code Michael20. For 20% off, mizzenandmain.com, promo code Michael20. If you'd rather shop in person, you can find Mizzen and Maine stores in select states. Mr. Ikuler clavicular just introduced some onlyfans lady to one of her top donors. Here's how it went.

C (27:41)

Hi.

A (27:42)

It's nice to finally meet you. You're much fatter in person.

C (27:48)

What?

A (27:48)

You're much bad in person.

C (27:50)

Bad matter.

A (27:51)

Yeah. Mother.

D (27:56)

Get a charge back.

B (28:01)

Oh, my God.

A (28:03)

What kind of things are you into?

C (28:06)

I don't really want to talk to you after you said that. That was so mean.

D (28:11)

But he. He gets a pass. Like he's giving you like millions, right?

C (28:15)

Yep.

A (28:16)

Mm. Anything you want to say about yourself? Why are you looking at me?

C (28:24)

Cause I'm scared, mother.

D (28:27)

I'M scared.

C (28:28)

Nice to finally meet you. Are you guys dead right now? I'm like, I don't know.

D (28:32)

No, like, it's literally dead. It's not even a troll. Oh, like, most of them are like the scripted fake podcast, but this mother is like actually your top spender.

A (28:44)

So I wanted to know, what do you bring to the table dating work wise? Okay, all right, we'll pause here before we get to the crucial point. But this is an amazing interaction already off the top. So you might say, well, maybe this is all just fake, but I don't know that it's fake. I mean, this lady is apparently an onlyfans lady, and so guys pay her money. Kind of talk about the sign of a decadent age. People are paying for pornography on the Internet, the most abundant product that exists probably on planet Earth for free. People are paying for. Shows you perversity, it shows you the irrationality of vice, and it shows your decadence. But I have no reason to believe that this guy hasn't spent a ton of money on this lady's OnlyFans page. And so they sit down and what does this guy say? You'd expect him to be really in love with this girl, right? He's given her all this money. He looks at her and obsesses over her all the time. He's infatuated with her. So you'd expect him. You'd expect it to be embarrassing for him, but in a different way. Perhaps you'd expect him to say, like, I love you and I wanna marry you and I wanna. You're just the most perfect thing ever. But it's not what he says. He sits down and he says, hey, you're fatter in person. And she seems shocked by it. He says, what? All of a sudden, all of the bravado, the kind of performative confidence that goes along with any performance on camera. And certainly with like pornography or prostitution or stripping or whatever, all of that. Her tone shifts immediately. She's kind of taken aback. Wait, what? And why does he say it that way? Because to him, she is just a product. It's like going to the store and buying a pound of gabagool and you inspect it, you say, the gabagool. It's a little fatty. Hey, hold on. That's not what I paid for. He's not. In other words, he's not in love with her as a human being would be in love with another human being. He doesn't want her. He doesn't desire her in the way that a husband desires his Wife. He desires her in the way that a fat Italian guy desires gabagool. He wants to consume her, and he's disappointed. He says, you're fatter in real life. And he's reduced her entirely to the material, just like flesh, like meat. And the reality of her is disappointing to him because pornography is a glittering image. It's a phantasm. It's an illusion. And the reality is inevitably going to be disappointing because for him, this girl is, in part, glittering images, pixels, and in part his own fantasies. And she can't live up to his fantasies. So then she says, wait, what? She doesn't know what to say. She's flummoxed. And he says, what do you bring to the table? Once again, not, hey, what can I do for you? How can I help you? It's. No, it's. Hey, hold on. You're here for me. I'm buying you. You're my slave. You're my product. And then you get to the really crucial discovery of this bizarre interaction.

C (31:41)

Nice to meet you.

A (31:42)

Nice to meet you, too. Was it?

B (31:44)

Yeah.

D (31:47)

Was it nice to meet him? Okay, I'm really scared.

C (31:58)

Like, kick him out now? Yeah, like right now. I'm dead.

A (32:02)

Why would we get him out? You said give you over a hundred thousand dollars.

D (32:07)

She's really scared.

C (32:08)

No, because I'm scared.

D (32:09)

I would be, too, but this is like the kind of. That you subject yourself to when you like.

C (32:14)

Okay, but why are you, like, not defending me and being mean to me?

D (32:17)

We are defending.

C (32:17)

Would you not be scared if you're me right now?

D (32:19)

That's why I have my security guard here along with all my staff.

C (32:23)

Wait, like, would you actually not be scared right now if you're me?

D (32:26)

I would, but then I would also say to myself, I subjected myself to this, right? But I didn't, you know, like, this is the consequences of, you know, earning money in that way, is I. Yeah,

C (32:37)

no, I understand, but do you?

D (32:40)

It's like, I don't think you did understand.

C (32:42)

That was really scary. No, that was really scary.

D (32:44)

Actually.

C (32:44)

That's never happened to me.

D (32:45)

Like, it's. It's really easy. It's really, really easy when it's over the Internet, but, like, putting it right in front of you, it just actually gives you a clear picture on what's going on.

A (32:56)

What an amazing turn in the interview. What an amazing turn. So revealing. It actually shows. Can I say. It can. It shows that Clavicular has some real insight here. Some of the things he said do not reveal insight. And you should not Follow them, obviously, you know, like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and injecting yourself with a bunch of drugs and, you know, stymieing puberty and making yourself infertile. And some of his sociological, political observations, not ideal, but here on this specific interaction, which crucially is not even just about men and women, it's about digital versus real life, which is his expertise. Because I think that was the discovery of my two hour interview with Clavicular, which you can get on YouTube and on daily Wire. The discovery was this guy was bred in a petri dish by and for the Internet. This guy is just like the perfectly distilled concentrate of growing up on the Internet, which means he understands the Internet really, really well. And so when she says, whoa, I'm scared right now, I think that's genuine. I think she is scared. She should be scared. That guy's super creepy. And she says, well, I'm scared right now. And Clavicular says, you should be. Yeah, I would be scared too. And then she says, why aren't you protecting me? He says, what are you talking about? You mean protecting you? I have security guards all over here. You are as well protected right now as you are ever going to be. But why are you putting yourself in the position where you are this vulnerable? In other words, how protected are you going to be when I'm not here with my staff and my security guards? Why are you putting yourself in this kind of danger? And she doesn't have a good answer for it. So then he says, it's very easy to do all of these things, to engage in this kind of reckless behavior on the Internet because you don't understand the stakes of it. It seems like there's no danger, it seems like there's no consequences on the Internet. But then when the Internet collapses into real life, all of a sudden you realize the stakes and you realize how dangerous it is to prostitute yourself. Prostitution's a pretty dangerous business. You're not really protected by the law. Prostitutes don't end up well, putting yourself out there, inciting the lusts of all of these guys, making yourself a product for them, and then being shocked and terrified when they desire you like a product. Yeah, maybe you should rethink what you're doing. It's amazing because the clip works as a Jerry Springer circus. It works on the level of pure trash reality TV entertainment. But this is a real insight into digital life, and it's an insight that we should take even beyond the realm of the sexual, even beyond the vice of lust. Because we're on the Internet. People got big mouths on the Internet. They engage in all sorts of vices, all sorts of sins. Wrath, certainly. X is for wrath. Twitter is for wrath. Pride. Instagram probably is for pride. Instagram, avarice. LinkedIn maybe is for avarice. Seems like social media is tailor made for all of these vices. And we think they don't have consequences. Well, that's just online. The Internet's not real life. But you are not a divided person. You can't compartmentalize your life, and you cannot totally protect yourself from consequences by a computer screen. You're one person. And what you do in your life, whether it be over a computer screen or whether it be in the middle of the street, carries moral consequences, eternal consequences, but also very tangible consequences. You're putting yourself in danger. And one of the great tricks the devil plays in our digital age is to convince us that that screen protects us both spiritually and physically. And it doesn't. Very insightful clip. Gotta hand it to him. That's a very insightful clip. You get the whole story from how radically her demeanor changes. Okay, speaking of young people, the collapse of family values, there's been a teen takeover in Tampa, Florida. A teen takeover. And that sounds really nice and kind of funny and just a little mischievous until you find out it's actually a major race riot with a bunch of deadly weapons. Folks, we know that one of the big ways that the left tries to control the present is by rewriting the past. They do this all the time. AOC just did it by saying that the American Revolution was fought against billionaires. Well, thankfully, my friend Matt Walsh has a new series, Real History with Matt Walsh, where he debunks all the lies and the nonsense. They've already got four episodes out. Episode four drops today. It's on the Civil Rights Act. And every month there's gonna be a new episode. You know what? The left is terrified of this. They're terrified because they know that if Americans understand their own history, if they know what happened and why, the whole project falls apart. Stop accepting the narrative that America is irredeemable. Watch real history with Mount Walsh on DailyWire today. My favorite comment yesterday is from Hardboiled Entertainment. It says, pro tip, Michael. Keep the top on the tumbler. Less spillage. So yesterday I was feeling very, very Italian, and I was speaking with my hands, and I knocked my Tumblr over and the. The fruity Millennial Seltzer went flying. It almost took out my camera. You say I gotta put the top on my tumbler. No, I don't do it. I don't do it. The leftist ears tumbler comes with a tub I don't use. I never use the tub. I don't like it. It's infantilizing. It makes me feel like I'm a little child with a sippy cup. I wanna drink like a man out of a big beaker. If it means I spill, so be it. There's been a teen takeover in Tampa, Florida. What is a teen takeover? We have some B roll footage of it. I think teen takeover is when a ton of urban youths show up, in some cases with deadly weapons and terrorize people, commit violence, vandalism, total disorder. A consequence of this teen takeover is 22 arrests. The seizure of two guns. How old are the kids? There's one 21 year old, not a teen. Two 20 year olds among the arrested. One 18 year old, two 17 year olds, three 16 year olds, four 15 year olds, two 14 year olds, six 13 year olds and a 12 year old. So the arrests bookended by people who are not teenagers. A 12 year old showing up to commit crimes with 21 year olds carrying guns. Now this is very unfortunate. We don't like race riots in our cities. That's just generally to be frowned upon. It's even worse that this involves really young people, teenagers. But the most scandalous part of the whole thing is that we're calling it a teen takeover. When I was a kid, a teen takeover was a special night at the museum. A teen takeover was like the special day at the movie theater when tickets were a little cheaper and they played G rated movies. That was the teen takeover of this institution or that institution. Now in our highly degraded culture, as we live in the ruins of our civilization, a teen takeover is when a bunch of 12 year olds show up with guns like they're child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And how do you deal with that? This is the other how do you deal with that? What the libs insist is that we just let people off the hook. There was a story. Maybe I'll get a little more into it tomorrow. There was a story. This guy, recidivist, criminal, rap sheet a mile long. He gets out of a mental health inspection, he was arrested, he's evaluated for mental health. They say, okay, well yeah, the guy's kind of crazy, we're just gonna let him out. And then he goes and kicks a 78 year old man down the stairs of a sub. 78 year old man dies on the subway. This guy was out on the streets now, he's been arrested for it, but that guy had been arrested many, many other times. He was threatening a couple women on a subway. He was chasing them, kicking women on the subway, trying to grab them, trying to victimize them. They got away, the guy starts following them across the street. And then luckily there were some cops there to protect them. Speaking of protecting women. But the ladies refused to cooperate with the cops. And one of the girls goes on record, she was a 23 year old girl, she says, well, I don't know, I didn't want to cooperate with the cops. I didn't want to, you know, it's like, I guess, I don't know, I just didn't want to see another black man in prison. So she lets this guy off the hook. Not only did she let him off the hook, she refuses to cooperate with the cops who are trying to enforce the law and protect the community. The guy gets off the hook and he goes and kicks a 78 year old man down the stairs and kills him. So because she didn't want to put a black man in prison, another black man in prison, she put an elderly white man in the grave. That was the consequence of that, of her misapplied empathy and her misperception of racial justice. The consequence of that was an elderly man was murdered in a totally preventable crime. Same thing here. What's going on? How do you get a 12 year old showing up with a bunch of 21 year olds and guns, committing crimes all over the streets? What do you do about that? You're not gonna treat them like adults, I guess, their kids, but what are you gonna do? The inclination among the liberal, humanitarian laissez faire set is to say, well, you know, we need to slap them on the wrist and tell them, no, no, no, we certainly can't put them in juvenile detention, we can't put them in prison, we can't punish their families, obviously terrible families. We can't act in a way that is authoritarian or overbearing. No, no, no. We have to just understand the root causes. How the generational trauma stemming from the American Revolution, which was fought against the billionaires, why that's leading these 12 year olds to terrorize people with guns. No, you have to just bring down the full force of the law, the instinct. This is the most scandalous part of it for the libs, is to just coin another euphemism, oh well, it's just another teen takeover. You know, boys will be boys, you know, those 12 year olds running around shooting people with 21 year olds at the mall. You know, it's like, who among us hasn't? I looked up the etymology or the history of the phrase teen takeover. It was coined in Chicago in 2019. It's a pretty new phrase, seven years old. And the reason that you have this phrase is so that we don't have to grapple with the reality of this, which is that we have through our laissez faire attitude, which you see socially on the left, but you see it a little bit on the right too. The right embraces laissez faire. Hands off. We need very small government. Whatever. Well, the consequence of that is the total degradation of society and the degradation of these people in particular. So I would say maybe we get rid of the euphemisms and we bring the full weight of the law down, even on the little 12 year olds and certainly on their families. That's the only way that you can prove this for everybody. Okay, last story before we go. Britain's first gay surrogate parent was just charged with rape and human trafficking. Here is the story. Let's see. I'll just read a little bit from the story. I don't want to get too much. It's not exactly a man bites dog story. So Barry Drewitt Barlow, 57 years old and Scott Druitt Barlow. I don't think they're brothers. I don't know. They have the same last name. I don't think they're brothers. Who's about 25 years younger. They're the co owner of some soccer team. They're set to appear in court because this guy who is now married to his daughter's ex boyfriend, he became earlier pre this daughter's ex boyfriend husband, he became the first gay parent to surrogate a baby. This was in 1999. So what he did was he went, he purchased a woman's egg, he rented a woman's womb, he bought a baby, designer baby. He's obviously a total sexual deviant. He ends up then dating his daughter's boyfriend and getting gay married to him. And anyway, he's just been charged with rape and human trafficking. But of course now the conclusion of this is not that all guys who are a little light in the loafers are pedophiles. That's not the conclusion. That's going to be a tempting conclusion for people to reach. But that's not fair. That isn't true. The conclusion of this should not be that all of the homosexuals should be like thrown off of rooftops or hung from cranes or something. That's not. That's obvious in certain parts of the world. That's the conclusion. I don't think that's a fair conclusion. I don't think that's where your righteous indignation at this story should lead you to land. But I think all reasonable people should look at a story like this. The very first guy to surrogate a baby for the very first time, a sexual. In Britain, to surrogate a baby. And this guy, turns out is a sexual criminal. I think we can reach the fair conclusion that. But the gays can't buy babies. And maybe no one should buy babies actually. But especially the gays. They should not buy babies. Because you just have to ask yourself, is this ideal for the baby? Is it ideal for the baby for a couple of homosexuals to go order him and then intentionally deprive the baby of his mother and then rent some other woman's womb and then rip away the only mother the baby's ever known? And then. And then to be raised in a household with two fellas. We've gone through the studies many times on here of the bad outcomes that this has for kids. But just even from first principles, do we think this is ideal for the baby? Do you think that a mother has anything to contribute to the raising of a child, just as a father has anything to contribute to the raising of a child? You do think that. Okay, so then should we in our law permit people intentionally to. To deprive a child of a mother or a father? Should we, as a matter of the law, permit people who are by definition a tad sexually deviant and who statistically are much more given over to much more aberrant sexual behaviors, sexual crimes? Should we by matter of law permit these people to go out and purchase babies? No. But Michael, you know, sometimes women abuse children. Yeah, they do. You're right. Men abuse children at a much higher rate. But yeah, women do sometimes too. So what? But Michael, don't you know straight people sometimes abuse children? Uh huh, Right. Sure. But homosexuals are given to these extremely deviant sexual identities at a much higher rate. So it's just. We're not gonna ban people from getting married like normal, like husband and wife. We're not gonna ban people from having kids, nor should we. But it seems to me we could put some guardrails on this. Right? Does anybody seriously think this is the ideal situation for a child to be raised? To be purchased by a man who is dating his daughter's boyfriend, who intentionally deprives the baby of his mother and who goes on to commit sexual crimes? No, it's not ideal. So can we just say, without being homophobes or whatever, can we just say that we shouldn't allow that? Just as basically no society ever allowed that until about five minutes ago? Can we say that the needs of the child are more important than the desires of deviant men? Can we say that? Do we have the courage and confidence to say that and to do something about it? Do we have the courage and clarity to enforce our moral vision in society as we must do, as all governments and societies must do? Or no. Are we just going to be laissez faire? Well, you know, I mean, you do you, I'll do me. This is just the teen takeover. By another measure, it's the same root problem. Can we come out and say no, sorry, gays, we like Cole Porter. We like Noel Coward. You don't get to buy babies. And actually, heterosexuals, you probably shouldn't buy babies either. But we're just dealing with this issue right now. You guys don't get to buy babies. Can we say that? Are you willing to say that? Because if you're not, then I don't want to hear about all of this. Well, we need to be tougher, and we need the new crusades, and we need to, you know, insist on standards and. No, guys, if you can't say that a couple of fellas don't get to go buy a baby, you don't have any credibility on any of those other issues. Okay? Oh, there's one more story I really want to get to, but I don't have time because it's tee Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Become a member. Use code Knowles, Canada Wles at checkout for two months free on all annual plan.

B (49:56)

Sam.