Ep. 2064 - Patrick Clancy's 60 Minutes Interview Recap

Okay, fellas. Since Hollywood can't do anything right anymore, we did their job for them. The Daily Wire's newest movie is an ode to the great funny action films of the 80s and 90s, good guys win, bad guys lose. No one apologizes for it. Check out Run Hyde Fight Infidels now streaming only on the daily wire. This episode is brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion fund. It's since 2004 applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at cardiff.co/noles. Patrick Clancy sits down with 60 minutes. It is one of the most important interviews to Aaron decades, and the most important stuff in it has absolutely nothing to do with the Lindsey Clancy trial or the circumstances of her crime. Then President Trump finally scores a deal for Greenland. Ed Sheeran caves to the activists and talks on stage about Israel Palestine. I feel like we haven't heard enough about that. I just need one more artist to weigh in on the intractable geopolitical problem. Also an IVF clinic in Jacksonville accidentally makes a baby with the wrong father. Oops, I mean that's choice, right? You know freedom. I'm Michael Noles. It's the Michael Noles show. Welcome back to the show. You know what movies out right now? It's called Run Hyde Fight Infidels. Many, many of you have subscribed to Daily Wire in order to watch it at dailywire.com/subscribe. You are meaming it. You're talking about it. It is driving reviewers crazy. It is creating lots of commentary, lots of LGBTs are getting pushed off of rooftop spoiler alert. Anyway, if you haven't seen it yet, the movie everyone's talking about you have to go dailywire.com/subscribe, watch Run Hyde Fight Infidels right now. The White House and the DOJ are scoring victory after victory on the trans kids phenomenon. It is phenomenal. It's not getting nearly enough coverage all of this after a major study finally destroys whatever tiny little vestige of respectability the trans ideology had. That has been wrecked. That study also not getting enough play. We'll get to all of it. First though, I want to get into this Pat Reclancy interview. This was the big banner interview. The relaunch of 60 minutes. They've hired the conservative Ross Douthit from the New York Times. This was his first big break on 60 minutes with the tabloid true crime story that has had America talking for over a month now. Everybody tunes in and what they got I think was something totally different than what they were expecting. In other words, the interview was extremely important. It was one of the most important interviews I think to air in decades, but not for the reasons that everyone is expecting. Not for the reasons that they're even talking about now. I'll play just a couple of clips from the interview to get into what it was. What everyone was expecting was some new detail about the crime, some new detail about Lindsey Clancy's mental state in the lead up to her committing the crime. Some explosive revelation about the trial and her guilt or innocence. That's not what we got. We got something actually much deeper and more important. One big revelation is on how Pat Reclancy feels about his wife, which is that he says he's forgiven her, but the shock is she has never asked for forgiveness. I saw headlines that said, you know, killer mom and baby murderer monster and none of them were accurate. I believe that it was her mental illness that caused that. So I share those words. And I think when it comes to forgiveness, I also felt that if I didn't get there, I would be eaten up inside forever. Did you ask Lindsay why she did it? I asked her if she remembered it. And what did she say? She said it was like a dream. And she remembered it much in the way you would remember a dream after waking up. Do you feel like you failed in some way in this period or do you feel like you did the best you could? I think I did the best I could with what I had at the time. And I live with the outcome. I live with it every day. Has she ever asked for your forgiveness? No, but I gave it to her. No, no, she's never asked for forgiveness. This is a little bit crazy because Clancy here is giving the most gracious, most charitable take. He'll be pilloried for that too, by the way. And then the psycho ladies who are following Lindsay Clancy will accuse him of doing it himself or something, a point that not even Lindsay Clancy or her lawyer make. But we know he's going to be totally pilloried for this answer, but what does he say? He says, I have forgiven her. She has never asked forgiveness. Hold on. He says, I don't blame her personally. I think this is mostly due to her mental illness. And I asked her if she remembered it. She said she was it was like a dream. But even if that were all true, if you did something accidentally, if you did something because of a fit of a psychosis, wouldn't you still ask forgiveness? Wouldn't you still express some kind of sorrow or regret? He says, she hasn't done any of that. So my takeaway about Lindsay Clancy from that comment is the woman is simply a monster. Whatever else, she's just a monster. And yet, Patrick Clancy says, I have forgiven her. Now, there's a Christian read of this, which is, well, we're called to forgive people. We're called to forgive other people's trespasses because we want God in heaven to forgive our trespasses. And we want to be forgiven in as much as we can forgive. So there's a Christian read of that. But this seems more human than that. This seems more terrestrial than that. What he's saying is, I had to forgive her because otherwise I would be eaten up inside. So it's not even that I'm chiefly forgiving her because I think she deserves my forgiveness. I'm just forgiving her because I will be destroyed. I will be eaten up inside by my resentment and my fury and my rage if I don't forgive her. So it's not that I want to forgive her. It's not that I want to move on. It's not. But the only way that I can survive is by forgiving her. Then he goes into how he celebrated his kids next birthday. Five weeks after I moved to New York on May 26th, I had to figure out how I'm going to celebrate counts first birthday. And how do you celebrate your son's first birthday months after he's passed away? And so I go to St. Patrick's Cathedral. I light a candle and I say, I love you, buddy. And I walk out on Fifth Avenue. I start crying my eyes out. And nobody cared. And was that good? Were you grateful for that? I thought this is where I need to be. I can grief. This interview is so so important. And the reason it's so so important is because it's just a guy suffering. That's why it's important. And our culture doesn't permit that. The left does not deal with suffering. They won't acknowledge suffering. They'll deny all manner of suffering and try to sublimate it into political revolution. This is why the real radical leftists, they no longer even say rest in peace. Requeous Scott and Pache, which is a prayer that we say when people die. It's a prayer for the dead. R.I.P. That's what they want to say. They have to change it. Rest in power. What does it even mean? Rest in power. The person's dead. Well, I don't think they're talking about heaven. What they're talking about is there's going to be a kind of powerful effect, a change to the world, a political revolution as a result of this. In other words, we're going to take all that pain that we're feeling. But we're going to use it for good. George Floyd will not have died in vain. No, sir. We're going to march. We're going to change the laws. Same thing on the right. The right, which is more realistic than the left. The right has a big problem suffering. This is because a lot of what passes for American Christianity lacks a theology of suffering. Christianity has a very long standing theology of suffering. We say we're going to kiss it up to God. We have a sense that our sufferings are sanctifying experiences that we can offer it up. And this will somehow help us grow in holiness and bind us more closely to Christ, especially as Christ suffers on the cross. But American Christianity, we, we're a little worse at that. We don't quite have, we have to be happy clappy all the time. And a lot of the American kind of funerals, even putatively Christian funerals, we say, "No, you shouldn't be sad. Don't be sad. Your loved one is with Jesus right now." We make these kind of confident claims, claims with more confidence than is traditional in Christianity. But regardless, even beyond that, we say, "No, no, no, you got to be, you got to be happy." There's no suffering up there. We're not even going to have funerals anymore. We're going to have celebrations of life. We can't even grieve at a funeral. The funeral itself has to be a celebration. No, no. It's okay. Don't cry. Don't grieve. In other words, as if it were somehow a, a mark of a weak faith, if you are to grieve. Never mind, of course, the Christ himself weeps in the Gospels over the death of Lazarus. Now we've feel uncomfortable with that. And on the left and the right, we have this impulse to take whatever grief we have and to transform it into some political crusade. But that's not what's going on here. The Patrick Clancy interview reveals all of that to be weak, reveals all of that to be insufficient because there's no crusade here. There's no law to change. Are we going to now pass the law? Hey, we're going to pass the new Lindsey Clancy law. Times are no longer allowed to kill their kids. Some on the left want to pass new laws that make it easier for moms to kill their kids. But there's not for the people who are grieving with this guy who feel sympathy for this guy. There's no law. There's no crusade. There's no great illuminating fact, some kind of enlightenment that's changes the way we think. No, it's just sad. It's just a guy grieving. And there's not all that much to be done. The most you can do in this case is forgive the perpetrator. Very difficult to do and go light a candle and cry. You can't actually cure suffering. The political radicals on the left and the feel good power of positive thinking people that you sometimes see on the right. What they're all after is trying to eliminate suffering from life. If you just take this one health supplement, if you just enact this one political revolution, if we just kill the kool-ox and transform the political order a little bit and you give the government a little bit more money and you pass some new law, then we're not going to have suffering anymore. But that doesn't work. It doesn't actually work. There just is suffering and it's something that we have to grapple with in this life, in this veil of tears that we find ourselves in. And the Patrick Clancy interview puts that on display. How do we deal with that? How do we look in our quiet hours and just deal with the fact that life deals a sad circumstance and sometimes? What are we to do with that? And there's no resting in power or there's no. Yes, there was this crime, but it's actually going to redown to greater good. It's actually a good thing in a way. No, the scale of eschatology, maybe that's a satireology, maybe that's a case, but in this world now, how are we going to deal with suffering? Really powerful. So obviously, we should just pray for Patrick Clancy and pray for ourselves because hopefully none of us ever has to experience something that horrific in our lives, but we're all going to experience sad stuff. How are we going to deal with it? I think a lot of the mental health crisis is called crisis of meaning, the crisis of social alienation, the loneliness epidemic. A lot of it comes back to this problem. We don't know how to suffer. And Patrick Clancy is giving a masterclass in that. Okay. Speaking of suffering and death, the political activists are causing a lot of suffering for Ed Sheeran, who finally caved, you know this whole story. Ed Sheeran's doing a tour. He invited Macklemore to do the tour. Macklemore, I guess, is some singer or whatever. And Macklemore decided to hijack the stage to make it all about his views on the Israel Palestine conflict. And then activists on the other side who owned the venues said that they were that Ed Sheeran had to fire Macklemore from the tour because they don't like his views on Israel and Palestine. And then Ed Sheeran finally did up and then he caught a little bit of backlash from the other activists. So he finally Ed Sheeran, it was assiduously avoided talking about politics in his career. He addressed it on stage. We'll get to it. First I want to tell you about pre-born. Go to pre-born.com/noles, Canada view, LES. I told you recently about a woman named Alba. Alba has been told pregnancy was impossible and her husband's diagnosis confirmed it. A child of their own simply was not going to happen. So when she unexpectedly became pregnant, she was not overjoyed. She was afraid and overwhelmed. Then she walked into a pre-born network clinic. She received a free ultrasound. She saw her baby, heard that tiny heartbeat and everything changed. Alba chose life. Today, baby Laura is healthy and thriving. And right now, another mother is walking into a clinic, feeling just as scared as Alba did. You can help give her that same moment. Right now, another mother needs that moment. You can give it to her. Just $28 helps provide one life saving ultrasound. 140 bucks helps rescue five babies. Please donate today. This is a group that I personally support. I strongly encourage you to give what you can. The ROI is great. I'll pound 250 say keyword baby. That's pound 250 keyword baby or go to pre-born.com/noles. That's pre-born.com/noles. If you're a business owner, maybe consider a larger donation and claim a write off donation of $1,000, $2,000, $2,000. I recommend $15,000. That would sponsor an ultrasound machine for a needy clinic, helping to save countless babies lives for years to come. All gifts are tax deductible and they will reach eternity. Get involved today. You might not care about politics, but politics cares about you. Ed Sheeran gets squeezed. This is his take. I am deeply worried about the idea that venues should pre-approved content performance. This happens in so many places that I perform around the world, but it should never happen at the free world. Now, I want to address the question of where I stand in the situation in Israel and Palestine, and whether my doing this concert here tonight implies where I stand. I have tried in my career not to be a political commentator at any time, because I want my music and shows to be about unity, not division, about humanity, not politics. But this is a humanitarian issue, and I cannot hide how I feel about it anymore. What happened in Israel and I don't know if music festival on October 7 was horrific and compounded centuries of Jewish pain. What is happening in Gaza is catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate. But heart has been broken by the scale of devastation and loss of civilian lives, of children's lives, and the systemic injustice we're seeing unfold in the West Bank cannot be overlooked. Okay, now the most interesting thing about this clip, it's being reported, Ed Sheeran sobs on stage over the Israel palace. He didn't sob on stage. He's, he's giving a very measured take. Notice though, where he gets the applause. He doesn't get the applause for speaking out against Israel, nor does he get the applause for defending Israel and criticizing Hamas. He doesn't get the applause for either of those. He gets the applause for his preface when he says, look, I've tried not to be a pundit. I'm not a political commentator. I just want to play my tunes and make people feel good at a concert. That's where he gets the applause. That's where the whole crowd is going, woo, yeah, you're right. Don't talk about politics. We don't want that. But Ed Sheeran has been forced to talk about politics because of a very small number of political activists on both sides of this issue. The idea that there is some huge number of ardently pro-Palestine activists in the Ed Sheeran audience or the broader public is absurd. The handful of people who are really hardcore, free Palestine and the apartheid Israel regime, wearing the kefis marching in the streets. It's like four people in Greta Thunberg. Okay. It's not a real constituency. Likewise, the people who are ardently pro-Israel, who demand that we dehumanize the Palestinian Arabs and we say that the defense of the Israeli state is the most important. There are like five of those people too. The activists wield an undue amount of influence in the political conversation. Most people don't care that much. You want to know the thing that's going to equally irritate the pro-Palestine people and the pro-Israel people. Most people don't care that much about the Israel-Palestine conflict. I find it interesting. It's an intractable geopolitical problem. It goes back millennia. But in terms of the people who actually, it's very, very few. That's what's being represented in the applause. Why is Ed Sheeran doing this? The reason Ed Sheeran is doing this is because both of those groups wield a disproportionate amount of influence in the conversation. The pro-Palestine groups control a lot of public opinion institutions and the pro-Israel groups wield a lot of power within various industries as well. It was the pro-Palestine groups who were ginning up, who were creating all of that fervor, such that Macklemore decides to hijack Ed Sheeran's concert tour. Then it was the pro-Israel groups who got the venue owners to try to shut down the tour and to pressure Ed Sheeran into firing Macklemore. Here's Macklemore squeezed in the middle. What is his opinion? The opinion he offers is it's really bad what Hamas did to the state of Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel was maybe a little heavy-handed in some of the response to that in Gaza, and the Israeli settlers are committing crimes in the West Bank. In other words, he has the most moderate view that basically every reasonable person believes in. No moral person can possibly say that what Hamas and the gossens did to the state of Israel on October 7, is anyway justified. It was completely horrific. I think most observers would say the Israeli state sometimes is a little bit heavy-handed in their military operations. Basically, every reasonable person, including up to the United States State Department, says that the Israeli settlers are expanding way too much in the West Bank and they need to cut it out. In other words, Ed Sheeran just goes on stage and goes, "You want my political opinion? I'm going to give you the most normy and unobjectionable political opinion ever." People don't even really want that. Good on Sheeran. People are knocking Sheeran, because they're saying, "Oh, he's capitulating, either to. they're accusing him of opposite crimes, either of capitulating to the pro-Israel forces or the pro-Palestine activists or whatever. He's not doing that. He's saying, "You know, my view, my view is the most normy view, which is held by probably 85% of people on this subject. And by the way, I don't want to talk about politics from my concert stage. I'm not competent to do it. I'm not a political pundit. I'm not interested in doing it. And you're all here to hear music. And guess what? The entire audience goes crazy for that statement. I think Ed Sheeran handled. I might be the only person saying this. I think Ed Sheeran handled this very, very well. And I think that the main takeaway from this whole non-triversy, this whole tempest in a teapot, which was mostly a product of social media, is that the vast majority of people are irritated with the pro-Palestine activists and the pro-Israel activists for hijacking a venue, a medium that is totally inappropriate for political commentary. I'm with Sheeran. Go down Sheeran. Okay, yet the other reason he had to say it actually has nothing to do with the conflict. It's just that he has to say face to, he doesn't look like he's being bullied by either group of protesters. So it's a face saving thing to say, hey, I'm still in charge of my shows. I'm still in charge of my concert tour. But he is the most sympathetic figure of all of the activists in this whole episode. Now, speaking of international conflict, some pretty big news after a year and a half now of lobbying for it. President Trump has just gotten his deal in Greenland. He is just kind of sort of a little bit acquired Greenland for the United States. We will get to exactly what that means because there's a lot of misinformation floating around first though. I want to tell you about Tacovas. Go to Tacovas.com/nolesk and OWLES. There is only one cowboy boot that I can wear. And it is the best cowboy boot. It is Tacovas, which is broken in from the moment that you put your foot in it. It looks great. Great. So it's a compliments. And I don't wear cowboy boots that much. I could pull them off. Maybe a bad, I don't know, once a year, once or twice a year. The rest of the time though, what I absolutely love is the Tacovas loafer. It is so great, very sleek, beautiful leather, extremely comfortable. You can play baseball with your kids in it. You can wear it to the office or to dinner. It's really good. If you're a little more Yankee like me, you can pull off the boots as much. The loafer is great. By the way, they're wallet. I get compliments on this wallet all the time. So good. I try not to pull out my wallet that much because I want other people to pay. But when I pull it out, look at beautiful alligator wallet. Anyway, it's just terrific. Tacovas is a wonderful company. Their products are phenomenal. All of them across the board. And right now you get 10% off at Tacovas.com/nolesk.netwvls. When you sign up for email and texts, that's 10% off TEC of VAS.com/noles. Tacovas.com/noles, you sign up for details. Tacovas, point your toes west. President Trump tweets out. He usually just posts on true social. This is a tweet. Breaking news. I'm pleased to announce that the United States of America is entered into an agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland that gives the United States permanent control over security and all other needs in Greenland, completely addressing all of our many US concerns. There will be no cost in the United States. Don't forget Trump had offered to spend gazillion dollars acquiring Greenland, making it the 51st date or some kind of official protectorate. But no, he says in my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will forever have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland and the United States of America. Now, the people who are attacking Trump over this, their argument is that the deal that he supposedly got is no different from the deal we already had going back to 1951 that gave the US a lot of military rights in Greenland. And that is not true. Notice here, the inclusion of Denmark. There are many people who have been hearing about this whole conflict who don't even realize that Greenland is owned by Denmark. So a lot of the conflict from the superlips is over supposed imperialism. See, Trump is trying to bring back imperialism and colonialism by taking the sovereign nation of Greenland. Hey, Greenland isn't sovereign. Isn't really sovereign. Greenland is owned by Denmark by this tiny little country. Why does Denmark own Greenland? So that objection was totally ridiculous. We have to engage in negotiations with Denmark. And what we got is different than what we had. So the way that this differs from the 1951 agreement is that Greenland is now a direct party to the treaty. Previously, we were just dealing with Denmark as Denmark own Greenland. But increasingly, there has been some movement for Greenland to have independence from Denmark. So if the United States is going to secure its interesting Greenland and the Arctic and fend off enemies like Russia and China, we're going to have to include Greenland more directly, just as a hedge against Greenland independence. A lot of the commentary around Trump's provocations in this issue have been that we're alienating our long time ally Denmark. But that's not totally the issue. A bigger issue is that Greenland might break away. We need to secure our interests there. So the 1951 pact that we had with Denmark was sufficient for a long time for the Cold War. We built up a lot of military bases and resources in Greenland during the Cold War. And then the Cold War ended. We began to pull some of our military resources away. This new deal is with Denmark and Greenland. And it will remain in effect even if Greenland goes independent. The other thing that the deal says is that non-NATO countries cannot establish bases or maintain troops in Greenland without the direct written approval of the United States. The previous treaty did not have that. Maybe it wasn't likely that Greenland was going to invite the Russians or the Chinese to come station some troops in Greenland. But there was nothing preventing them from doing that. This treaty says no chance. Greenland effectively belongs to the United States. Next thing it includes, the new treaty. Again, we haven't seen the text of this, but this is the announcement today and no one really seems to be disputing it. The next part of this is that U.S. approval will be required not just for foreign powers bringing their military to Greenland, but even for foreign powers bringing their private companies to Greenland. Any sensitive investments must be approved by the United States. Don't forget, Greenland is rich in critical minerals, in mining, and all sorts of other resources that are relevant to security and also to private industry. And China and Russia and other enemies of the United States might rather want to get their hands on some of those. The 1951 agreement would have let them do it. This new agreement says no chance. You're not getting any of that with that American approval, even more clearly making the case that Greenland now technically belongs to Denmark might become officially independent, but practically speaking belongs to the United States. Even as a matter of the military, we are now treating Greenland as part of Northern command, we're treating Greenland as part of looking northward toward the American interests rather than looking toward Europe. Finally, and this is where the rubber meets the road, the U.S. is going to rebuild the military in Greenland. We are going to build up our troops in Greenland. Now, according to the 1951 treaty, we would have had every right to do that. The thing is though, practically speaking, we would have had to negotiate it because it would have been a major change. For the last 30 years, we've drawn down our troops. We've drawn down our resources in Greenland. We're going to have to build those back up because we are looking at or potentially already in a cold war with Russia and we're in a major proxy, sorry, with China and we're in a major proxy war with Russia. So the world is getting hotter. We seem to be lurching ever closer toward war that would have required some kind of negotiation. This is the negotiation we got. People are going to be going after Trump and they're going to say, well, you told us that you were going to officially acquire Greenland. It was going to become a state. It was going to become a formal U.S. protectorate. You didn't get it. So, aha, you lost the Danish one, the Greenlanders one. You got nothing, Trump. This totally misunderstands the way that Trump negotiates. And I'm not just trying to flak for the president here. I'm at least somewhat critical of the president when I disagree with his policies, but this is just basic Trump 101. Scott Adams was talking about this for years, going back 10 years. The way Trump negotiates is he always talks past the sale. So if what he wants is control over Greenland and to build up our military and to keep foreign powers out of the area, what he's going to ask for is to make Greenland part of New Jersey or something. What he's going to ask for is to become the direct governor of Greenland or to send Marco Rubio to be the direct governor of Greenland and to build 25 Trump towers in Greenland. He's going to ask for way more than he actually wants. And then when he comes back a little bit, everybody can have a win win. It's, it's a big diplomatic victory here for Trump because Trump has irritated a lot of our partners. There's no, that criticism of Trump, I think is legitimate. But in the end here, you have the European celebrating this, Macron celebrating this, the day in celebrating this, Greenland celebrating this, Greenland's a little more trepidatious, I think, and America can celebrate. It's a win. The people who are very upset about this deal are China and Russia and that was the whole point of the campaign in the first place. Good stuff. Speaking of other Trump wins, DOJ here just keeps the hits coming. You remember, a month or two ago, we, we were talking about how the DOJ secured a major victory in court was able to force a hospital that trans kids to stop transiting the kids and then to give a major settlement to establish a clinic that would provide free care for the kids that they had transged to come back and be detranced. Major, major win. Really one of the biggest formal moves in the process of eradicating transgenderism from public life entirely. Well, the hits just keep on coming. There was that first hospital, then there was another hospital. Now, NYU, NYU Langone and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center have both agreed to cease providing, quote, unquote, gender-affirming care to minors, in the comments. polluting puberty blockers in cross-sex hormones and to stop performing surgical procedures. On top of that, NYU Langone is going to pay eight and a half million bucks, University of Penn Medical Center is going to pay almost a million bucks. They're going to establish de-transition clinics to help the poor kids who were destroyed by that leftist ideology that the left forced all of us to accept or face social ostracism, losing our jobs, punishment in schools, and so on. This was their most cherished fad for several years there in the early 2020s, and it is now being destroyed, not just by the popular culture, but by the heavy hand of the state, which is taking money from them through the courts to make them do the right thing and help the kids. This is a win, major, major win, and the DOJ said it when the first hospital agreed to do it. This is the beginning of many such cases, every single hospital in the United States that was transiting the kids. I think really transiting anybody, but certainly transiting the kids needs to pay for it. Not just stop. They're all going to stop. They're basically all going to stop at this point because they're afraid of pecuniary punishments, but they need to pay. They need to be punished. They need courts to come in and smack them down. They need the heavy hand of the state to stop them from their immense predations. I know there are a lot of people who are libertarian or quasi-anarchistic on the American right. They don't want the government ever to do anything, but let me ask you a question. If you accept that we should have at least some kind of government, even a government so small, you infidate in your pocket, if we acknowledge that there is some role in society for the government. And the government does not have a role in stopping freaks and creeps and moneyed interests from castrating little children, a crime that boggles the imagination, something that should be universally condemned. If the government doesn't have a role in that, in regulating the medical industry and protecting little kids from freaks and perverts, what's the government for? What does the government have a role in? I'd like to say the government has a role in anything. Good stuff, big, big win, especially after a study came out in April. I don't know if we even talked about it on the show, very few people talked about it, but it's totally pertinent to these agreements. This is a study out of Finland, Scandinavia, it's getting a lot of play at Denmark, Finland. There was this Finnish study that just destroyed whatever vestige of minor credibility the trans movement had. It is gone after this study that came out in April, starting to make the ransom a little bit today, I think because of this great news. It's a peer-reviewed study published in Okta, Pediatrica, which showed that the trans treatments make the kids more miserable and not just a little bit more miserable, not just a little bit more crazy. Many multiples, more miserable and crazy. This was a study came out of Temporé University Hospital. It tracked every young person under 23 who went or contacted the nation's gender identity clinics from 1996 to 2019. For essentially, the whole history of transgenderism. There were a lot of people here, over 2,000 people, they were followed for up to 25 years. There were over 16,000, almost 17,000 population controls. This Finland has kind of a nanny state because their health registers are mandatory because the patients cannot opt out of them. This data set is the most complete transgender data set we have ever had and what did they find? They found severe psychiatric morbidity is common among gender-referred adolescents and appears to be more prevalent in those referred after the recent surge of referrals. Psychiatric means do not subside after medical gender reassignment. Among the young people who went under medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during the follow-up. So before they got all the treatments, psychiatric morbidity was 9.8%. Afterward, it was almost 61%. That was in the boys who decided to look more like girls. How bad in the girls who decided to look more like boys went from 21.6% to 54.5%. So at least doubling, at least doubling, and in some cases sex-tupling. The big takeaway here for us is not just to keep hammering the trans issue, though we should, because it's a major political win at a time when the Democrats and the Left have a lot of political wins at their sales. It's a good thing to focus on the winning issues, but beyond the politics of it all, the big political takeaway for us from the study and from the DOJ agreements. It turns out, lying does not make you happy. That's the takeaway. That is the takeaway from the whole transgender craze. That is the thesis of the people who are arguing against the transgender craze myself included. The basic thesis applies to a lot more than just transgenderism. The thesis is, lying does not make you happy. What the Left told us was, if a boy thinks he's a girl, we should lie. We should tell that kid to lie about himself, and we should all lie to him, and we should tell everybody else, including the girls who want their own bathrooms and sports leagues, we should tell them to lie to. If we all just lie, everyone will be happier. That's what the Left tells us about a lot of things. That seems to be the Left's argument. Hey, let's lie about what marriage is, because homosexuals are upset that they're not getting married, because they are not attracted to people of the opposite sex. They miss out on the good of marriage. Let's just lie, and let's just pretend that they are getting married, even though they're not. That'll make everyone happier, right? Hey, some people don't feel that they're succeeding in life. Let's just tell them that it's never their fault. Just tell them it's not their fault, and then they'll be happier. Do they get happier? No, they become more resentful. They become angrier. Let's, some women want to be men, not just in the transgender movement but in feminism. Let's tell them that they're just as suited for all professional fields as men, and let's tell them that they relate to sex and exactly the same way as men. Let's tell them to go out into a hook-up culture. Let's tell them that the only virtues that matter are the masculine virtues, let's just lie to them. That'll make them happier, right? In every one of those cases, the lying makes people less happy, because it turns out that the truth actually is what sets you free. That's a big takeaway here, and we should apply it beyond the transgender craze, which, by the way, you're beginning to see the consequences of this exact kind of regime of lies cropping up in the IVF issue, which is much more controversial. All the conservatives and the disillusioned lives in the centrist and the normies, we all agree trans-ing the kids is bad, and most of us agree trans-ing the adults is bad, and an increasing number of us agree that redefining marriage is probably bad. But the one that you can talk to, a pro-life Christian conservative, and many of them will say, but IVF in the surrogacy industry, that's good. And we are getting more and more evidence that it's really, really bad. Shocking story that I have been talking about and predicting for months, I hate to say I told you so. Shocking story out of Florida, out of Jacksonville, an IVF clinic, whoopsie daisy, created a baby with the wrong father. Before we get to that, my favorite comment on Friday is from Toby Breedlove, who says pretty sure daily wire is paternity leave. Wow. Talk about providential. Talk about a great segue. The comment is pretty sure daily wire is paternity leave is the approximate time it takes to smoke a cigar. That's true. People keep asking me because my baby is coming any moment now, and I'm way behind on work, and they say, Michael, you're going to take a little paternity leave. Has the daily wire paternity leave planned? I say, it's good. It's about, sometimes they'll let us take breakfast off. When you say it's the time it takes to smoke one cigar in the car, my last kid, I was driving back from the hospital. I'm my way to work. I didn't miss one single show you may have noticed. And I lit a cigar in the car to celebrate the birth of my child, and then I got to work a little early. I finished the cigar, went and did my show. So anyway, I'm hoping not to miss a show. Maybe I'm miss one, but I'm hoping not to. Okay. This IVF issue. I know it's very sensitive for people because a lot of people have kids from IVF. We all know people who have used IVF. We all know that those people, they're not evil, they're not psychopaths, they did it for the best of reasons. We all know that infertility is really brutal. It's a really awful thing to deal with. And so a lot of people do not want to follow their ideas to their logical conclusions because they feel that it would risk taking away from them some good that they desire, like getting a kid after infertility. Well, here is yet another one of the problems of IVF. I mentioned, and we all know, that IVF practically speaking massively increases the number of abortions because the way IVF works practically is you create a lot of people, you put them in a freezer in a petri dish, then you only use some of them. If you implant all of them very often, you end up aborting the extra ones that take, otherwise you just freeze them forever and then eventually destroy them. So if you're opposed to abortion, practically speaking, it's very hard to support IVF. And on top of that, we know that this establishes the domination of science and technology over the origin and destiny of human life. In other words, it accretes to unethical scientists and to we the individuals, a power that does not properly belong to us. And in so doing, it deprives children of certain rights because we're now buying and selling children on the open market. That's bad. We have a 13th amendment, we got rid of slavery, we all know it's wrong to commoditize human beings. And yet, we do it through the surrogacy industry. On top of that, there is the exploitation of young women who rent out their rooms because they want to make a quick $30,000. We harvest eggs from various mothers who want to sell some money. We pay guys to commit a gravely immoral act into a petri dish into a little cup at a clinic. It is bad stuff all around. And one of the stories, one of the real downsides we hear is that sometimes they implant the wrong embryos and the wrong people. So you know, a black mother gives birth to a Chinese baby and the Indian mother gives birth to a white baby. And then you realize, well, this isn't my baby. So now we're inflicting a trauma on the kid where we say that in order to return you to your biological parents, we're ripping you away from the only mother you've ever known. Maybe you'll be raised by that mother for a few months while it all gets sorted out in court. I mean, it's just horrible. But there's one circumstance that's even worse than that. And I've talked about it a lot of people didn't believe me that it was actually happening. Sometimes the scientists, to whom we've given power over the origin and destiny of human life, sometimes they don't just mix up the embryos. They mix up the component parts that go to make the embryo. They mix up the vials of sperm. When that happens, you don't just accidentally just hit a baby in the wrong mother and then return her to her real mother later. In that case, you create a person whose mother and father have never even met each other. As we saw in Good Morning America. Florida couple Natalie and Joshua Strong say they were overjoyed when their daughter was born last year after two rounds of IVF treatments, but they quickly realized something was wrong. It took away the euphoria of having a baby. A blood test revealed their daughter had the blood type B positive, but Natalie and Joshua each have negative blood types, making it biologically impossible for them to be the biological parents. A DNA test confirmed their suspicions. "I honestly don't know how to answer it." "I mean, this is going to affect us for the rest of our lives." Natalie was their daughter's mother, but Joshua was not her father. "It's a daily struggle with the emotional aspect of it because, you know, you do have sadness and anger and in the same day you also have joy and love." Now they're suing their clinic. Brown fertility associates in Jacksonville and its lead physician accusing them of negligence for using an unidentified man's sperm to create their embryo. Their attorney says situations like this happen far too often in the fertility industry. Corners are cut that clinics are understaffed and that is what has led to this rash of problems that we see. Okay. Respectfully, Mr. Lawyer, no, that's not what led to the problems. Clinics are understaffed. They just need a little more staffing. They just need to hire a few more people. They need a little more funding. No. The problem is you've commoditized human life and you have created a legal regime, a novel legal regime that allows people to go to deeply unethical scientists and order a custom baby. And then some, just like when you order a custom suit, when you order a custom car, you order a custom gun, sometimes the product doesn't come back exactly as you want. And in that case, you can sometimes return the product or have them fix it. In this case, it's a human being. It's not a product. It's not a commodity. It's not some good to be bought and sold. So now you have this poor baby who has been denied knowing his biological father. You have this poor father who has been medically cuckled by a bunch of weird scientists. You've got this mother who says she no longer feels joy in having a kid. Everyone is made worse by this. And the problem is not just, I will, you know, that it was an error of the agency. We'll sue them. Don't worry. We'll sue them. The, the error was a moral error of all the people who engaged in this. I don't mean to say in Judgy, we all send, we fall short of the glory of God from a lot of people fall into this unintentionally or because they're emotionally manipulated or emotionally vulnerable. A lot of them because they haven't thought through the bioethical implications of this really weird industry. But it is increasingly difficult to pretend that we don't know. This is just wrong. This is, it's a Faustian bargain. You are agreeing to make all sorts of moral compromises from how the, how the doctor gets the male part of this all the way down to the openness in most cases to abortion, all the way down to the personal selection of a baby like you're looking at catalog. By the way, this is a married couple. We're not even talking about individuals or homosexuals doing this. We're foreign powers trying to gain U.S. citizenship through baby farms, one of which was just shut down, 1000 Chinese babies being born through an industry. We're not even talking about this. We're talking about the best version of the IVF, surrogacy industry. And this is what happens because when you start to take powers for yourself that do not properly belong to you, when you begin to commercialize things that are not properly commercial, when you begin to treat proper subjects who have rights themselves as objects for your own desires, this is what happens. This is what inevitably happens. And I think increasingly we can't, we can't pretend that it doesn't, and we can't pretend that this is not intrinsic to the whole industry, which seems to me should be shut down. Okay, there's so much more I want to get to. Thomas Massey has gone from becoming, from being the principled libertarian standing up against the weaknesses of Maga, the big government, the perfidy of Maga in his mind. Thomas Massey is becoming a full on resistance lib. Now parroting Democrat talking points about the Safe America Act. We don't have time for that today. That's my tease. We'll get to that tomorrow. The rest of the show continues. Now it's music Monday. Do not miss it. Become a member of U.S. God knows Canada VLA as a check out for two months free and all new plans. I have no idea what the protest is about. Bingo. Given the current climate, should a figure as polarizing as place Saunders even be allowed on campus? Okay, you hear me okay. Saunders is a close personal friend of Chancellor Freeman. This is the decision I cannot find. The Islam will conquer the West. Saunders are we paying attention? They've taken over the building, they're downstairs and they've blocked the doors. I seek forgiveness from Allah, the Almighty. We cannot run and hide. Muhammad is the messenger of God. There is no God but Allah. What do you say? We turn those vessel bees into a fine red mist. As we move, one man will cover while the other guys go. They call that leaf frog, stretch your mouth and listen. You need a course in safe weapons handling.