Ep. 1271 - The Origins Of The Anti-Human Depopulation Agenda
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we will trace the origins of the left's anti-human agenda to depopulate the planet. It all began with a document that is rarely talked about, and most people don't even know existed. We'll discuss. Also, the Daily Wire's new comedy, Lady Ballers, premiered over the weekend and was a smash hit. Plus, a mother begs for mercy for her son after he nearly beats his teacher to death. She says he's autistic and has had a hard life. Should that matter to us? And a gay Fox News commentator is congratulated by many on the right after having a baby via commercial surrogacy. Is this the kind of thing we should be applauding? No, I'll explain why.
Ep.1271
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://utm.io/ueMfc
Watch the official Lady Ballers movie trailer now: https://bit.ly/3R1dM5b
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898 to convert your existing IRA or 401(k) into gold and receive a FREE bar of gold! https://birchgold.com/Walsh
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Helix - Get 20% OFF + 2 FREE Pillows with all mattress orders at http://www.HelixSleep.com/WALSH.
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on The Matt Wall Show, we will trace the origins of the left's anti-human agenda to depopulate the planet.
It all began with a document that is rarely talked about and most people don't even know existed, but we'll talk about it today.
Also, The Daily Wire's new comedy, Ladyballers, premiered over the weekend and was a smash hit.
Plus, a mother begs for mercy for her son after he nearly beats his teacher to death.
She says that he's autistic and has had a hard life, should that matter to us.
And a gay Fox News commentator is congratulated by many on the right after having a baby via commercial surrogacy.
Is this the kind of thing that we should be applauding?
No, I'll explain why all of that and more today on the Matt Waltz Show.
(upbeat music)
Diversify your savings with physical precious metals while stockpiling silver in your home safe.
With Birchgold Group's most popular special of the year, now through December 22nd, for every $5,000 you spend with Birchgold, they'll send you a one-ounce Silver Eagle coin for free.
Text WALSH to 989898.
To claim your eligibility now, you can purchase gold and silver and have it shipped directly to your home or have Birch Gold's precious metal specialists help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in gold for no money out of pocket.
They'll send you free silver for every $5,000 you purchase.
Keep it for yourself or give something with real value as a stocking stuffer this year.
Just text the word WALSH to 989898 to claim your eligibility with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.
Now is the best time to buy gold from Birch Gold.
Text WALSH to 989898 and claim your eligibility for free silver on qualifying purchases before
December 2nd.
That's WALSH to 989898.
About 10 or 15 years ago, a successful Hollywood producer named Aaron Rousseau sat for an interview
that nobody really talks about anymore.
Rousseau was a Bette Midler's manager.
He worked on the film Trading Places.
And in this interview, Rousseau goes into some detail about a conversation he had with one of the members of the Rockefeller family.
Specifically, Rousseau claims that the Rockefeller Foundation and the US government Spent a lot of money funding the feminist movement for reasons that are not remotely related to equal rights or empowering women.
Watch.
He was talking and he started laughing.
He said, Aaron, what do you think women's liberation was about?
And I said, I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point.
I said, I think it's about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
You know?
And he started to laugh.
He said, you're an idiot.
And I said, why am I an idiot?
He said, let me tell you what that was about.
We the Rockefellers funded that.
We funded Women's Lib, you know?
And we're the ones who got all of the newspapers and television, the Rockefeller Foundation.
He says, and you want to know why?
He says, there were two primary reasons.
And they were, one reason was, we couldn't tax half the population before Women's Lib.
And the second reason was, Now we get the kids in school at an early age.
We can indoctrinate the kids how to think, which breaks up their family.
The kids start looking at the state as the family, as the school, as the officials, as their family, not as the parents teaching them.
Now, watching that footage, there are reasons to be skeptical, even though pretty much every conspiracy theory from the past decade has been proven correct.
It's still hard to say whether Rousseau is a credible source of information, but if Aaron Rousseau is a fraud, he has one thing that most frauds don't have, which is corroboration.
This corroboration comes in the form of a document that was drafted not by some online troll or by a dastardly MAGA Republican or anything like that.
Instead, this document was written by a vice president at one of the most powerful left-wing activist groups in the country, an organization you've probably heard of called Planned Parenthood.
Every year for decades, Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding.
In terms of political impact, they are maybe the single most influential non-profit in the United States.
And I use the term non-profit very loosely, just like Planned Parenthood does.
About five decades ago, in 1969, Planned Parenthood produced a step-by-step roadmap for depopulating the United States, and this document is called the Jaffe Memo, after the man who drafted it, Frederick Jaffe, who is also the founder of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
He wrote the document in response to a letter from Bernard Burleson, who was the head of the Population Council, and Burleson wanted a summary of expert opinions on how to make sure that we have fewer people in this country.
That's what the JAF memo is supposed to outline, kind of a roadmap for accomplishing that.
JAF's memo makes clear that the feminist movement is a core component of a much broader depopulation agenda.
And that agenda has been achieved, for the most part.
Point by point, it has become reality.
Just like they drew it up.
You go back to 1969 and read this memo, and you will see from that vantage point a look into the future.
If you want evidence that pretty much every problem facing Americans today was not just predictable, but planned, then this memo is very interesting reading, to say the least.
And if you want to know where the depopulation agenda is heading in the future, then it's vitally important that you understand every word of the document.
So, I'm going to go through the document.
This is a memo that I've alluded to at various points on this show over the years.
We've never spent much time analyzing it in detail, but today we will.
That's because it is maybe the single most important document that most people have never heard of.
The JAF memo begins with this statement, quote, Continued U.S.
population growth will inevitably cause a deterioration in the quality of life of this and future generations.
The document adds that many experts believe that, quote, Explicit U.S.
policy to encourage or compel smaller family size in the U.S.
is necessary.
Now, what policy proposals might achieve this goal of depopulating the planet?
Well, here's the first column of a chart included at the end of the JAF memo.
It says, "Restructure family, postpone or avoid marriage, alter image of ideal family size,
compulsory education of children, encourage increased homosexuality,
educate for family limitation, fertility control agents in the water supply, encourage women to
work." Okay, let's go through these one by one.
Restructure family, postpone or avoid marriage.
Well, they accomplished that one, obviously.
In the 1960s, the median age of first marriage for men was 23, and for women it was 20.
Now the median age for men at their first wedding is over 30, and for women it's 29.
This has been a slow and steady climb, and it's still increasing.
And you have to keep in mind, of course, that for women, fertility starts to decline rapidly at the age of 30.
And now it is right at that moment, right when fertility is declining, right when it hits the precipice and starts to decline, that women are now getting married.
Now, of course, there have always been women who marry later in life, and there's nothing wrong with that on an individual level.
But as a general societal strategy, it is a recipe for decline and eventually disaster.
And this is a recipe that was, as it turns out, quite intentionally concocted.
Now let's take the next part of the memo.
Alter image of ideal family size.
And that happened very quickly.
The Jeff memo was written in 1969.
Just a couple of years later, Pew reports that people suddenly wanted much smaller families.
Quote, In 1971, there was a shift in attitudes as Americans' ideal families switched from four kids to two kids.
So just as contraception is being legalized, suddenly everybody wants fewer kids.
Another goal of the anti-human forces was achieved.
Jeff Memo continues by calling on policymakers to encourage increased homosexuality.
So in 1969, they said, this is what we're going to do.
Now they appear to be doing it.
And if you point out that they're doing it, of course, they say, well, that's not what we're doing.
But in black and white, Planned Parenthood is saying two things at once.
First, that homosexuality can be encouraged.
It's not a naturally occurring phenomenon, at least not in their opinion, if it can be encouraged.
And then Planned Parenthood is admitting that the goal of encouraging increased homosexuality is not about equal rights, it's about curbing the human population.
In various corners of left-wing media, you'll find tacit admissions that this is the reason they're so adamant about promoting homosexuality.
The Huffington Post, for example, published an article in 2017 entitled, Homosexuality is Population Control?
Why Gays and Lesbians are Essential to the Balance of Nature.
The article stated that, quote, even without a causal link established between homosexuality and population management, the obvious reduction in population growth attributable to homosexuality by itself indubitably works to preserve the species.
Now, if you've ever wondered why it's always the case that the climate nutjobs are in complete agreement with the LGBTQ club, if you've been curious what, you know, environmental Marxism has in common with gay marriage, well, there's your answer.
The left views the climate agenda and the gay agenda as two components of a larger plan, which is about, among other things, depopulating the planet.
The first column of this memo ends with these two action items.
Fertility control agents in the water supply encourage women to work.
Now, it goes without saying that they have encouraged women to work.
There are more women in the workforce than ever before.
There are also more women taking SSRIs and divorcing their husbands.
So, you know, mission accomplished.
But the other bullet point needs some more explanation.
Fertility control agents in the water supply.
I mean, what could that possibly mean?
Outside of chemical spills from train derailments, where have we seen that?
Well, we have seen it.
Again, pretty much no one talks about it, but it's true.
Here's an article from the Daily Mail from October 2020.
2020 quote birth control hormone is making its way into streams and hindering fishes ability to reproduce
The article notes that quote up to 90% of birth control is unmetabolized and flushed down the toilet
the piece continues a 2015 study from Washington State University found a link
between synthetic estrogen and the growing decline in sperm counts which have plummeted up to
38% in a decade Now this synthetic estrogen can have effects on humans even
in very limited Frederick von Sahl, a biology professor at the University of Missouri, told the National Catholic Register that the fake estrogen, quote, can cause effects in human tissue at concentrations in blood below one part per trillion.
So this is an extremely potent drug.
Is that why sperm counts in men are plummeting?
Is that why birth rates are dropping?
No one's been able to offer an explanation for what's happening to sperm counts, but it's clearly a major problem.
Watch.
If you look at the sperm concentrations, when we last looked at them, which was samples collected in 2011, the sperm concentration in Western countries was 47 million per milliliter, down from 99 million per milliliter 39 years earlier.
So that's a decline of more than 1% per year, and it would predict between 2011 and now, which is 10 years, that we would be now below 40 million per milliliter.
And that's an important number because below 40, it becomes increasingly difficult for couples to become pregnant.
And how low it's going to go before we wake up and say, we have to stop this.
I don't know how long that's going to take, but it's urgent.
This is another one of those things that, um, it's a catastrophic, like, world-changing, potentially civilization-ending problem that almost nobody talks about.
And does this crisis have anything to do with the chemicals we're putting in the water supply and in pharmaceuticals?
If so, it would be yet another bullet point achieved by Planned Parenthood in their agenda.
So let's go through the rest of it.
It also says, modify tax policies.
Substantial marriage tax.
Tax married more than single.
Reduce, eliminate paid maternity leave or benefits.
Now for most couples, we don't have any kind of tax penalty for marriage in this country, at least not officially, not yet.
That's one element of the JAF memo that remains unfulfilled, but maternity leave and benefits are definitely on the decline.
CNBC reports that quote, in 2022, organizations offering employees paid maternity leave dropped to 35% from 53% in 2020.
Currently, there isn't a federal paid leave program, and only 11 states plus the District of Columbia offer the benefit.
Then if you go down the list, back to the Jaffe memo, you'll find these two words.
Chronic depression.
That's under the column heading of economic deterrence slash incentives for depopulating the planet.
So they want to make sure that as many people are as depressed as possible, and then because they're depressed, they won't want to start a family.
Now this is something that you never hear anyone say out loud.
We're supposed to pretend that everyone's trying to prevent chronic depression, that the SSRIs are making everything better, etc.
But at least for Planned Parenthood and the rest of these eugenicists, depression has some upside.
And when we look at the fact that, you know, we know that these antidepressant drugs that everyone's taking, that they've been prescribed under false pretenses of curing a chemical imbalance that doesn't exist, and you see that, and you see that they're still being prescribed, even though they don't work, and you wonder why that's the case, well, maybe for the powers that be, they're not supposed to work.
You know, and they also, we know, they don't want anyone owning any property.
Back to the Jeff Bezos quote, housing policies, discouragement of private home ownership.
That's a version of the WEF's line about how you'll own nothing and be happy.
And Planned Parenthood wrote it all the way back in 1969.
Then there's the last column, quote, payments to encourage sterilization, payments to encourage contraception, payments to encourage abortion, abortion and sterilization on demand, allow certain contraceptives to be distributed non-medically, improve contraception technology, make contraception truly available and accessible to all.
Well, again, mission accomplished.
With Planned Parenthood leading the charge, so-called gender-affirming care, quote-unquote, is now available on demand in much of the country.
Children can take hormones that will sterilize them for life.
Meanwhile, major corporations are paying employees to fly out of state to murder their children.
Now, of course, not everything in the Jeff memo has come true.
Compulsory abortion, for example, is not yet the law of the land.
We're not forcing people to commit murder, at least not yet.
But that may be coming, sooner than you think.
Consider the fact that euthanasia, known as MAID, or medical assistance in dying, is now the sixth leading cause of death in Canada.
And MAID does not require a terminal diagnosis in Canada.
In fact, Canada's government is killing some people simply because they're disabled, or mentally ill, or can't find housing.
They're even planning to open MAID up to so-called mature minors nationwide.
And disabled people in Canada are openly talking about this.
They're talking about the fact that the government is eager to kill them.
Watch.
If you call the number on the government website, they will provide doctors that will sign off for you.
Like many disabled Canadians, she is stuck in a cycle of poverty and despair.
There's no hope for anybody in Ontario.
That's a good boy.
So she's planning to end her life.
Up!
With the government's help.
They can have me dead in 90 days.
That's what I was told.
Like in my case, the problem is not really the disability.
It is the poverty.
Les Landry is in the same position.
Wanting to live, but seeing no other option than death.
These two are for my asthma.
This is for my COPD.
Since when did we stop looking at the value of human life in this country?
It's a question people with disabilities and their advocates ask constantly.
So, full-on dystopian future has been achieved in Canada, and it's heading here as well.
And what is Canada's government doing about this?
Are they trying to reverse course?
Are they trying to find a way to help these people live?
Just the opposite, actually.
Just this week, Statistics Canada, which is the agency in Canada's government that catalogues how people are dying in Canada, announced on social media that it's effectively going to start hiding the statistics on Maid.
And here's what they wrote about their record-keeping practices going forward, quote, The underlying cause of death is defined as the disease or injury that initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.
As such, maid deaths are coded to the underlying condition for which maid was requested.
In response to that post, one Canadian asked for some clarification.
He wrote, quote, How do you classify people with a disability that do not have a foreseeable death or people that chose maid because of mental health issues?
And here's how the agency responded to that.
Quote, deaths are coded using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems.
In the case of a disability, deaths are coded to the underlying disability or mental health issue that MADE was granted for.
So in other words, if somebody is depressed and the Canadian government puts them down like dogs, Canada will record that as a death due to depression, not euthanasia or suicide.
Now if it doesn't seem like something like this could ever happen here, you should know that already efforts are underway to bring Maid to the United States.
In November, at a meeting of the American Medical Association, a resolution was proposed to remove this line from the Association's guidelines.
Quote, Physicians must not perform euthanasia or perform assisted suicide.
And instead of that line, members of the AMA proposed this revision.
Quote, Resolved that our American Medical Association adopt a neutral stance on medical aid in dying and respect the autonomy and right of self-determination of patients and physicians in this matter.
So at this rate, it's only a matter of time before we adopt Canada's MADE program wholesale in this country.
It's only a matter of time until we have a marriage tax, just like the ones Frederick Jaffe was writing about.
With every passing year, we get closer and closer to realizing every single wish list item on the Jaffe Memo.
We've seen this agenda unfold in front of our eyes for decades.
It's right there in front of us.
It's not happening naturally.
It's not inevitable.
It was pre-planned.
And even now, it's still in progress.
And when you realize that, it puts the fake debates over climate change and quote-unquote gender-affirming care in context.
Whatever branding they come up with, the end goal is, and has always been, the same.
Depopulation.
It is an anti-human agenda.
And that is where all this activism leads.
You could choose to believe that it's a coincidence.
You could come up with some alternative theory for why every single left-wing cause happens to match perfectly with the Jaffe Memo and with the people that outlined their plan to depopulate the planet.
But whatever the case, there's one thing you can't deny, which is that all the way back in 1969, Planned Parenthood planned all of this.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
What was the point?
You might even be thinking, I don't have the time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, you're not alone, and it's not too late.
Hillsdale College is offering more than 40 free online courses.
Learn about the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian church with Hillsdale College's online courses.
If you're not sure where to start, check out American Citizenship and its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson.
In this eight-lecture course, Victor explores the history of citizenship in the West and the threats that it faces today.
Threats like the erosion of the middle class, the disappearance of our borders, the growth of an unaccountable deep state, and the rise of globalist organizations.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever you want.
Start your free course of American Citizenship and its Decline with Victor Davis Hanson today.
Go to hillsdale.edu to enroll.
There's no cost.
Well, it's a huge weekend for us here at The Daily Wire.
Our comedy film Lady Ballers has been a smash hit.
Audiences love the film.
Critics are trying to ignore it for the most part, as expected.
The left is mad.
All that stuff is to be expected.
But the great thing has been to see fans rallying around the film, both because of the message, but also because it's just a very good comedy.
And there's a ton of awards chatter surrounding many of the performances in the film.
People didn't realize it, but we are a company full of thespians here at The Daily Wire.
Or maybe not thespians, but close enough.
In fact, I think the genesis of this film and how it came to be and how we filmed it is hilarious in its own right.
I mean, that's a comedy film all on its own.
And it also shows why The Daily Wire is unique, you know, what's special about the company.
Because first of all, you know, we had the same thought that many conservatives have had over the years, which is that somebody should really make a sports comedy about, you know, making fun of the trans insanity.
This is an idea that many, I've heard people say stuff like this.
You know, that movie should exist.
And conservatives will often lament things like that, whether it's on this issue or another.
They say, you know, someone should really make a movie on that.
And so the brilliance of the idea is that it's not, like, a brilliant idea.
It's incredibly obvious.
It's a ball sitting on a tee for just waiting for someone to come along and take a swing.
And it's all, it's just, it's sitting right there.
In fact, I just read a review in The Spectator, which is a friendly review, a positive review of the film.
And I didn't even know this, but the guy who wrote that review said that he had an idea for a comedy film almost exactly like this that he pitched to the Daily Wire after we had already filmed ours.
So that just shows how this is like, it's just there.
Someone has to do it.
And the difference is that we said, well, you know, someone should really make that film.
And then we decided, well, I guess we will.
But the problem is, to make a film, you need actors.
And most actors are not willing to touch a movie like this with a 10-foot pole.
We know movie studios aren't willing to touch it either.
But we can take care of that.
We can be our own movie studio.
But in terms of getting actors, even...
The very few selection of so-called conservative actors, many of them, you know, Jeremy has talked about this, that even actors who you think are on our side, what few of them, when push came to shove and we reached out to them about this film, many of them, you know, it just, it went too far for them.
They didn't want to do it.
And so we said, all right, well, we'll just have to play the characters ourselves, I guess.
And by the way, all, you know, all joking aside, I'm not going to pretend that Any of us here would be confused with, like, Robert De Niro in his prime, or Daniel Day-Lewis.
But I think we did pretty well.
Especially when you consider that Jeremy just pulled a bunch of podcasters out of their studios and said, here, act in this movie.
And we're like, alright, fine.
And then we did it.
Like, with that in mind, it's pretty good.
I have to say.
Because as it turns out, Acting?
See, here's the dirty little secret they don't want you to know in Hollywood.
Acting is actually not that hard.
It's pretty easy to do.
Again, I mean, right, if you want to turn in a performance like, I don't know, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote or something, just a tour de force artistic brilliance, that extremely elevated master class level is difficult, and it takes a lot of work and practice.
But, Of course, that's not what you're looking for with a slapstick sports comedy anyway.
But the vast majority of actors in Hollywood are not at that level, and they just turn in kind of serviceable, fine acting jobs.
You look at any average superhero movie.
These are movies that make all the money.
Well, not so much anymore, but used to.
And the acting is like, yeah, it's fine.
I mean, I buy it.
I buy that that person is that character.
It's not like a beautiful performance, it's not riveting, but it's like, it's fine.
And that is actually not hard to do.
Because all you're doing is just pretending.
You're just pretending.
You're playing pretend.
It's like something that everyone did when they were kids.
You just have to get over the embarrassment.
That's like the whole thing, just getting over the embarrassment.
Once you get over the embarrassment, it's not that difficult.
I was talking about this earlier and someone said, on Twitter, and someone said, well, no, you need to get, this is, you need to get real, real actors.
What do you mean a real, what the hell is a real actor?
A real, you know, trust the experts.
Trust the experts of playing pretend.
You know, you need the experts for that.
You gotta call in the experts who can, hey, we need someone to pretend to be this thing.
Well, I gotta get an expert in for that.
Get the experts, get the trained experts on that one.
You know, it's not, and that's why, like historically, the acting profession was not considered to be, it was not this, we didn't worship, right, like in Shakespeare's day, actors were not worshipped as gods like they are now.
In fact, it was considered like a relatively lowly profession.
And you can kind of see why.
All right.
Let's see, I want to move on to this.
New York Post has this article.
The mother of the hulking Florida teen who beat his female teacher unconscious over a Nintendo
Switch video game claimed that prison time would be a death sentence for her convicted son.
Leanna Depa, who pleaded for leniency for the now 18-year-old Brendan Depa,
who faces up to 30 years behind bars for slamming Montanzas High School paraprofessional Joanne
Nadick to the floor before kicking and punching her in the back and head more than a dozen times.
and...
And the video of that attack, you've probably seen it.
We played it on the show.
We don't have to play it again.
It's just a brutal, savage attack.
Here is the mother on News Nation talking about this.
but could have easily killed her.
In her first public appearance since the February beatdown, the grieving mother Wednesday begged Nadek
to request that the six foot six teenager be handed a lighter punishment.
But as of now, the teacher has said that she wants her attacker sentenced
to the maximum of 30 years behind bars.
Here is the mother on News Nation talking about this.
Let's watch it.
I am so sorry for what my son did.
And nobody should ever have to go through that.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
But at the same time, please consider that my son has had a hard life and he's gone through so much trauma in his life.
He has autism.
Please show mercy to him.
It's devastating that my heart is breaking.
I'm terrified for my child.
I, you know, I feel like if he gets sentenced to prison, it's a death sentence for him.
Um, he's scared.
And to have your child call and cry and say, I don't want to die.
Um, it's, it's awful.
And I don't understand why that, um, in his IEP, it was stated that in the intensive behavior group home that he was living in, If they ever had to remove it as a consequence, they called in the crisis team.
And the original IEP called for a token economy or so he could know to motivate him to do his work.
He could earn tokens to then go to like a snack closet.
This year he had a new teacher who It's not Joan.
Joan was not his teacher.
She's a para.
He had a new teacher who, it was her first year teaching, and she didn't, I don't know if she didn't understand the IEP, if she didn't read it, but she approached the group home and asked the group home to send it in.
Listen, for anybody who watches that video, it's hard for them to get past it, and I can understand.
They'd be devastated for Joe Nadic, the victim in this attack.
And I can imagine you feel.
So a couple things here.
First of all, I give a lot of credit to the teacher for demanding justice.
And maybe that seems like something that doesn't take a lot of courage because, well, yeah, you got attacked and of course you want the person punished, but these days it shouldn't require courage for a victim to demand justice, but these days it does.
I mean, how many times have we seen victims in these situations disgrace themselves after the fact by making excuses for the attacker?
I mean, we've even seen family members of victims who were killed Turn around and say, well, you know, I'm sure the person who committed the crime was disadvantaged by the system.
I'm sure they lived a hard life.
I mean, it's disgusting.
It's actually disgusting.
And especially from family members.
I'm sorry, you know, I know we shouldn't judge people going through something so difficult, but anytime you see one of these videos, like your own family member was killed.
And your first thought is like, let's be nice to the... But we know why they do that.
It's bowing to social pressure.
It's this political correctness and wokeness that people, even in moments of crisis, will still abide by.
So I give a lot of credit to her for not playing that game.
She wants justice.
She's demanding it.
And she should get it.
As for the attacker here, I get why his mom is pleading for mercy.
I don't blame her really for having that opinion.
I do blame her a little bit for putting the victim on the spot.
I mean, if you want to go on TV and say, I want my son, he's not as bad, whatever.
You want to go on TV and talk about how he's really a good kid and all the rest of it, I mean, it's kind of hard to believe.
As the mother, I don't blame you for that.
Putting the victim on the spot, though, and saying, I'm sorry this happened to you, but... Like, there's no but there.
You don't start your next sentence with a but.
I'm sorry my son knocked you to the ground and beat you senselessly.
But at the same time, even as the mom in this situation, You're still called to have some empathy yourself.
So, if you want people to have empathy for your son, then you need to show some.
And saying, I'm sorry this happened to you, but.
No but.
So, if I was hurt, you leave the victim alone.
You don't say anything about it.
You don't have the right to do that.
You just don't have the right to call on the victim to be nice about this.
You want to call on the court system, you want to just kind of generally advocate on your son's behalf, I get it.
But yeah, in fact, I do blame her for sort of using this public emotional manipulation against the victim specifically.
You just have no right to do that.
And whether we understand the mother's Feeling here or not, doesn't matter, because I think the answer from the court system should be, no.
Please have mercy on my son.
No.
We will not have mercy.
This man, and he is a man, he's not a kid, he's 18 now, this man has to be removed from society.
He has to be segregated from civilized society.
He is not fit to be a part of society.
He cannot be allowed to walk free.
It's that simple.
Autistic, hard life, emotionally troubled, whatever.
Doesn't matter.
Like, I don't care, actually.
Oh, my son's autistic.
Don't care.
I would have cared before this.
Before he, uh, you know, pounced on top of that woman and tried to beat her to death.
If you had told me before that my son has autism, I would have cared.
I would have been very sympathetic.
But after that happens, I don't care anymore.
And I know that that makes me cruel, in most people's eyes.
Because I know that these days, you know, that's the kind of thing, somebody brings up, something like this happens, someone brings up autism, it's supposed to be like, oh, okay, well, in that case, I decided, no, I don't care.
He should still go to prison forever.
In fact, 30 years, I give him, 30 years is too light.
I'd put him in jail forever.
Never to see free, never to walk free again.
Because he did what he did, and that's it.
He demonstrated that he is a danger to society, and that is all that matters now.
Here's how I look at it.
Either he brutally attacked the woman because he's autistic and doesn't know any better, which I don't buy, by the way.
Maybe he's autistic, maybe he's not, I don't know.
The fact that that would mean that he doesn't know any better, I don't buy that.
But either that's the case, in which case he certainly cannot be trusted in society ever again.
If you're telling me that this is a kid, quote unquote, who you need a crisis management team on staff to take his Nintendo Switch away, and he's six foot six, right, 200 plus whatever pounds, and you need to have a whole SWAT team on staff just to take his, we cannot ever trust him anywhere in society.
Would you want to ride on a bus next to that guy?
Would you want him living next door to you?
No.
He's a danger to everyone, if that's how he is.
It doesn't matter why, if that's the case, if he doesn't know any better and he can't help it, he's a danger to society, he has to be removed from society.
If he attacked the woman because he wanted to, And he could have chosen otherwise, but he just decided to do it because he wanted to.
Well, then he can't be trusted in society ever again.
Either way, the conclusion is the same.
In fact, you could argue, I think quite convincingly, that if some kind of mental handicap caused this, that's even more reason to permanently segregate him from society.
This is what I will never understand about the mental challenges excuse.
Because if it's true, then that's all the more reason why this person cannot ever... If they're not even capable of understanding why they shouldn't do that, obviously they can never be trusted in society ever again.
You know, if he's being driven by forces outside of his control to lash out violently, well, that's very sad.
But it makes him a danger to society, and we have to respond to that danger.
I've said this many times.
We must choose between mercy for innocent victims Or mercy for violent thugs.
You cannot show mercy to both.
You can't.
Anyone who tells you you can is lying.
One or the other.
Zero-sum game.
Mercy to one group comes at the expense of the other.
So who should lose here?
Like, someone has to lose.
Either we put innocent people in danger by being merciful to dangerous people, or we punish dangerous people.
And those dangerous people are going to live terrible, awful lives for the rest of their lives.
I mean, the idea of being locked in a cage for the next 30 years is awful.
It's a terrible thing.
That this man, his whole life is wasted now.
It's awful.
It's terrible.
It really is.
It's really terrible.
But either we say too bad to him, or we say it to his next victim.
Those are the choices.
Like, someone gets the short end of the stick, somebody loses.
And so who should lose?
Who should the justice system prioritize?
The woman who got beat half to death?
Or the guy who did the beating?
I mean, it's not even a question.
Or it shouldn't be.
It's not even a difficult ethical... People say, oh, it's so difficult, so many difficult ethical... No, it's not!
It's really easy.
It's super easy.
There are a lot of emotions that are maybe tied up in it, but in terms of what is the right thing to do?
Really easy.
The other problem with the mental illness excuse is that literally everyone who commits a brutally violent crime could be or has been diagnosed with something.
Okay, all of these people, by definition, are mentally deficient in some way.
A lot of them have very low IQs.
A lot of them suffer from, whatever, delusions.
A lot of them have trouble controlling their emotions.
A lot of them have trauma in their past.
I mean, you don't go out and commit a barbaric crime that's sure to land you in prison for decades unless you are a mentally disturbed person.
And like I said, even aside from the mental illnesses, low IQ plays a factor here.
You watch any of these videos of somebody, like, brutally, just on camera in front of everyone, savagely beating someone.
In most of those cases, if you were to measure that person's IQ, it's probably like 60.
And you could probably say, well, if that person had, like, even 30 more IQ points, they might not have even done that, because they'd be smart enough to know that however you are feeling, you can't react that way, because it's going to ruin your life.
And that's probably true.
But so what?
These are crimes that, by their nature, are only ever committed by people who have, to use the modern phrase, mental health challenges.
And so, okay, so?
How does that change anything?
You often hear people say, when they're calling for us to be compassionate, they say, well, put yourself in that person's shoes.
If you were raised that way, if you were abandoned as a child, if you were abused, if you ended up in foster care, if you had a low IQ, as I'm sure this person does, Uh, if you had, if you were autistic, if you had, right, like you take it, take me and, and put me, like, give me all the exact same circumstances as that guy.
Everything exactly the same as him.
I'd probably do what he did.
Cause I'd, I'd like, I'd be him.
And so it stands to reason, I just, since I'm him, I'm doing whatever he does.
That to me, that's like, it's a truism, but it doesn't, it doesn't mean anything functionally for the justice system.
Because one of the primary functions here is to segregate dangerous people from society.
That's not the only function of the justice system.
It is also to punish evil.
And what he did is evil, and it should be punished, autistic or not.
But the other big thing is to protect society.
And when it comes to that function, it really doesn't matter why you did it.
All that matters when it comes to that part of it is, are you a danger to others?
And if you are, you just, you cannot be a part of society.
That's it.
It'd be like if you said, if you said, oh, no, don't punish that man for stealing.
You don't understand.
He struggles with greed.
He's very greedy.
That's why he stole.
He struggles with it.
Yeah, we get that.
Kind of picked up on that based on context clues.
That's not an excuse though.
That's just like a description.
Alright, one other thing briefly that we have to make at least some time for.
Daily Wire has this report.
The US government is not being fully transparent about what it means about UFOs.
According to a journalist who just wrote a book on the topic, Garrett Graff, author of UFO, The Inside Story of the U.S.
Government's Search for Alien Life, Here and Out There, shared insights into his work during an interview on NBC News with host Chuck Todd.
Let's watch a little bit of that interview.
What is one thing you've learned about UFOs that the public doesn't know about?
Well, I think there are a couple of things that stand out for me right at the top here.
The first, as you covered in some of the previous segments, that there is something real here.
There are things out there in our airspace that we do not understand what they are, and that those could represent exquisite new adversary technology, but they could also represent science that we don't understand.
Atmospheric, meteorological, and astronomical science that we don't yet understand.
And that I believe that the government is covering up some level of its knowledge and understanding about what some of those things are, both in terms of what chunk of that is our government's own secret development programs, planes, drones, new technologies that we're working on, as well as what we're sensing and detecting of advanced adversary technology You know, being tested against U.S.
forces or around U.S.
airspace.
What I'm unconvinced of is that the government is covering up meaningful knowledge of, you know, alien spacecraft, alien visitors, extraterrestrial contact.
I just don't see the extraordinary evidence or the fingers of the cover-up that one would expect if that was in fact the case.
Well, so what's interesting there is that he's, you know, in my mind, I think that there is a cover-up of specific knowledge of this kind of activity and this technology.
And so the position that he's taking is, like, relatively moderate.
But it's a common sense position, which is that we know this technology exists.
We can see it.
Like, it's a fact.
We know that there's stuff going on in the skies involving craft, involving technology, that far exceeds our own understanding of what is even possible.
And we know that.
It's a fact, and it should matter to people.
People should care about it.
And this book that he's got, I don't know anything else about this guy.
He's got this book.
It should be a big number one bestseller.
And it probably won't be.
That's the bad news I have for him.
Spent all his time writing a book.
And he probably thinks, oh, this is a bombshell.
This is the bestseller.
No one's going to buy it.
Garrett, I hate to tell you.
I will.
I'll be your one customer.
Like, nobody else cares.
They should but they don't.
I was thinking about this today that, because of course I think about this topic every day, that I think if not for the, sort of like paradoxically, if not for the internet and social media, people would care a lot more about this stuff.
Because it's always interesting when you go back and you look at the famous UFO sightings from back in like the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, even the 90s, And you go back and you watch a documentary or an unsolved mystery about one of those.
And one thing you always notice is that it's all over the news.
People were talking about it.
It was like a big deal at the time.
Front page, headline news, right?
Top, above the fold.
And aside from what they're reporting, to me, aside from the UFO itself, that is like the second most shocking thing.
Because when you look back then, people really cared about this.
When there was, like, credible reports of unexplained phenomena in the skies, there was an intense amount of public interest.
Why is there public interest?
Because it's like, it's above all, above everything else.
There's public interest because it's interesting.
It's an interesting thing to talk about and think about.
There's mystery, there's, you know, wonder, there's all these deep questions of our place in the universe, and of the universe itself.
That's interesting.
And that's how people used to see these kinds of stories, but now in the social—and you would think, if you didn't know any better, and you had to predict, You would think that the internet and social media would just throw that into hyperdrive.
Because now we're seeing all this stuff all the time, and there'd be even more interest, but it's had the opposite effect.
I think because people are so, it's just, there's so much information coming at us all the time, and everybody is numb.
And so when you have things like this that are fascinating, everyone just kind of yawns and turns away.
And leaves me to talk about it alone on a podcast that everyone has already now turned off because I started talking about this again.
It's a tragedy.
Let's get to Waswal Sharon.
Everyone knows I love my Helix mattress, but have you checked out their Helix Elite line?
Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite Collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions
and firmness preferences.
I've had my Helix for years and I love it.
It's the best mattress I've ever had.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress
because why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
Go to helixsleep.com/walsh, take their two minute sleep quiz and find the perfect
mattress for your body and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to your door for free.
Plus, Helix has a 10 year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will, trust me.
Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
Helix is offering 20% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh.
This is their best offer yet and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
Okay, a couple comments here.
Kaydick says, man, that's some cringe Elon crisis management atoning for Elon's anti-Semitism after Netanyahu welcomed Elon more warmly than Netanyahu did Biden.
Context, Elon did not provide free Starlink for Ukraine when under Russian assault.
Mr. Musk does nothing for mankind ever.
Another comment says, America is a capitalist country.
It's okay for companies to decide where to spend their advertising dollars.
It's okay to refuse to kowtow to bigots.
Last week he disenfranchised companies with his anti-Semitism, this week he doubled down.
Another says, Elon's feelings are hurt because advertisers don't want anything to do with his failing platform.
Pretty easy to tell a group of people to F off when they've already told you to F off lol.
I just want to respond to one point here.
About corporations being private companies who can do whatever they want.
And when it comes to this feud between Elon Musk and these corporate advertisers who are trying to blackmail him, this has come up again.
And it shows the one area, what's interesting is it shows the one area where the left, historically, in recent history, was right, correct, and the right missed the mark.
But now the left is abandoning their one correct position, which is about the problem of multi-billion dollar corporations controlling our system.
And for years, as I remember it, it wasn't all that long ago when leftists were critics of corporations.
Think of Occupy Wall Street, for example.
Leftists were constantly going on about corporations and evil corporations.
And then people on the right tended to reflexively defend big business.
And the right said that, you know, it's all about free markets.
And so we're defenders of big business.
And the left pointed out that, well, the market isn't really free.
The distinction between governmental power and corporate power is now basically irrelevant.
The government uses corporate power, corporations to wield power and vice versa.
And so there's, there's almost, you can't really, there's no meaningful distinction anymore.
And these are the things, these are the points that the left used to make.
But now, if you've noticed, they don't really say that anymore.
You don't, you don't hear, I think maybe 2016 with Bernie Sanders was the last time when you commonly heard people on the left going on and on about the evil corporations.
It was already kind of on the wane in 2016, but now you barely hear it at all anymore.
And they dropped all of that.
They dropped it because instead they wanted to rally around these same corporate interests, like the pharmaceutical industry, and the corporate media, and Disney, and Target, and Bud Light, and so on.
So it's been a kind of a fascinating switching of places that's gone on where the right woke up to the problem of corporate tyranny.
Finally.
Took a while.
And while the right is waking up to that problem, the left, which had been aware of it, has now fallen asleep.
And that's where we are now.
And the ultimate effect is that, like, if you're on the left, you look at the last 30 years of leftism in this country, they've been right about maybe one thing.
And they were not even completely right, but they were generally right about the corporations.
It's the one single thing, and they've abandoned that one thing they were right about.
Rather than doubling down, rather than saying, hey, you know, this is the one thing we got right, maybe we should Just as a branding, from a pure branding standpoint, we should really lean into this.
But no, they looked at that and said, oh no, we're right about something.
We can't be right about anything.
It destroys our whole, our brand is to be wrong about everything all the time.
And so, yeah, now we're going to become defenders of Disney, you know, and Pfizer.
Well, Lady Ballers has officially changed the game.
Thanks to you, The Daily Wire's first-ever feature-length comedy was one of the most streamed movies of the weekend, with an incredible 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.
To celebrate the blockbuster comedy, we had to bring back our best deal of the year, get 50% off new annual Daily Wire Plus memberships.
But don't wait, this offer expires tonight at midnight.
And when it goes, it's gone for good.
With your Daily Wire Plus annual membership, you'll instantly have access to watch the Daily Wire's first-ever feature-length comedy, Ladyballers.
But we're not done with comedy.
As a matter of fact, we've only just begun.
Take a sneak peek at the Daily Wire's new animated comedy series from Adam Carolla.
It's called Mr. Bertram.
Check it out.
I don't know what you need.
Jumping in the first one?
Rolling.
Speed.
Action.
Sawbuck's looking a little chubby-wubby.
So I bought him some new food.
It's organic and vegan.
Dogs are supposed to eat meat.
They're descendants of wolves.
You ever see a vegan wolf on the Nature Channel?
I'm a vegan.
Coffee is for closers, ladies.
Listen up!
Hey, don't make this a prison hug.
Don't do anything stupid!
Er than last year!
I'm a heteronormative, cisgendered, white male.
For which I apologize.
I'm black, and that used to be enough.
But I'm also bilingual, and I'm non-binary.
We're the Army!
We drink more before 9am than you Navy pukes do all day!
He rubbed all the fur off his emotional support ferret.
The damn thing look like a four-legged penis!
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Charity and work.
Two words that should never go together.
Like women and opinions.
I want a burly man.
They're salty and make me dizzy.
Sorry, just need to find a thingy to fix my gaming chair.
When I was on the construction site, my chair was a five-gallon bucket.
It was also my toilet.
Hey, I'm done.
I'm going back to bed.
Thanks a lot.
Get your Daily Wire Plus annual membership today for 50% off and be the first to see all the exciting content we have in store for 2024, including Mr. Bircham and the Daily Wire's highly anticipated series, The Pendragon Cycle, inspired by the renowned works of acclaimed Christian novelist Stephen R. Lawhead.
We're bringing you one of the most timeless stories of all time to life with a unique retelling of the Arthurian legend.
But most importantly, it's your chance to join us in the battle to take back culture and build the future we all want to see.
Get all this and so much more for 50% off today only Don't miss out on your last chance to get our best deal of the year.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe now to join.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
Last week, Fox News commentator Guy Benson became the latest high profile or
at least moderate profile gay man in politics or media to announce the birth of a child through surrogacy.
Parade magazine delivered the news.
What a Thanksgiving gift!
Fox News commentator Guy Benson and his husband, Adam Wise, became first-time fathers over the holiday weekend.
The couple, who married in 2019 in a lavish Napa ceremony, exclusively shares with Parade the details of their son's arrival.
Conrad James Benson Wise arrived at 3.42 a.m.
Central Time on Saturday, November 25th via surrogate.
The baby boy weighed 8 pounds 12 ounces.
Quote, we are totally in love.
So excited and he's doing great.
Benson, who hosts the Guy Benson Show on Fox News Radio, and is a Fox News contributor, tells Parade, it's a challenge as a new parent and involves so much feeding, crying, diaper changes, and staying on schedule, but it's a privilege to do it and we're over the moon.
In this exclusive interview with Parade, Benson shares the sweet story behind Conrad's name, what songs they're already singing to the newborn, and how all the cliches about parenting are true.
Benson says he's already totally transformed in ways he could never imagine.
Now, I wanted to read that line about the exclusive interview in order to head off at the pass anyone who would try to claim that it's somehow out of bounds for me to have an opinion on this subject.
Anyone who might tell me to mind my own business.
Well, Guy Benson went to a media outlet and gave them an exclusive interview about the birth of his child along with providing photos.
I can tell you at no point before or after the births of any of my six children did it ever occur to me or my wife to contact anyone in the media and offer them an exclusive, you know, an exclusive.
I got an exclusive for you.
Here's a real scoop.
We just had more kids.
And when you do that with your private life, you've offered your private life up for public discussion.
You're saying to the public, hey, I really want you to know about this personal detail of my life.
And then once we know, you cannot control what we think or say about it.
And you cannot be offended, at least you cannot be justifiably offended, if some of us think that the story is actually quite disturbing, and then we say so.
And I am saying so because that is what I think.
You know, I often talk about the fact that positions that were nearly ubiquitous 20 years ago are now considered radically right-wing.
There are a lot of examples of this kind of shift, of course, but perhaps no example better illustrates the general trend than this particular issue.
20 years ago, virtually nobody thought it was a good idea for two men to buy a woman's eggs and rent a woman's womb in order to grow a child they would then raise apart from the child's own mother.
Even the most liberal of Democrats, Barack Obama, would have been opposed to such an arrangement.
And now, following the general trend, we've landed on the opposite extreme.
It's suddenly treated as though it is unquestionably and self-evidently good for gay men to rent a woman's body for the sake of incubating a child that will grow up motherless.
Now people act as though they can't even understand the contrary position, which is a position that many of those exact same people held up until 14 seconds ago.
The shift is so dramatic that, unsurprisingly, a great many conservative media figures congratulated Guy Benson on the birth of his surrogate's baby.
And, you know, everyone seems to have decided that the thing that we all knew was wrong forever is actually right.
And yet nobody can explain this change of heart.
Nobody can say what exactly led them to this new conclusion.
Those of us who have remained on Team Sanity have no trouble articulating our view.
In fact, our position is so solid, so intuitively correct, that we can prove our point simply by letting the other side speak.
And if they speak for long enough, like 20 seconds or so, the horror of commercial surrogacy becomes painfully evident.
So, for example, here's a recent viral clip of two gay men on a podcast talking about the process that they underwent to have a child through egg donation and surrogacy.
And just listen to the way that they talk about it.
How much does it cost?
We probably spent a quarter of a million quid.
It was the first time we were meant to go to America and then we couldn't because of Covid.
So we ended up working with a clinic in San Diego and we went to Mexico.
I mean we were slightly knobheads at this reason as well because I wanted to make sure that we knew who the egg donor was.
I wanted them to be super fit.
You go to the bar and you go, I'm going to procreate that person, right?
That's your choice as a human.
I wanted to find someone that I know is going to be absolute smoke show.
Basically we chose Emily Bratunowski.
So there's a company in LA, and they have a company that basically is supermodels who are Ivy League educated.
So they have to have gone to like Brown, Columbia.
No!
Owen went to Columbia.
That feels a bit strange.
Is it not?
Or no?
It's a bit prostitute-y, isn't it?
I think it's quite fabulous.
But the eggs were terribly expensive, but we got a Brazilian supermodel.
Our One went to Columbia, he says.
Our One.
Like he's walking through the parking lot at Enterprise looking for the camera he just rented.
He even admits that the process is a bit prostitute-y.
But he doesn't care because this is what's necessary to design a human.
They want the baby customized, like a monogrammed bathrobe.
Why?
For the child's own sake?
Well, no, of course not.
It's for their sake, for their vanity.
They've made the child into a fashion accessory.
And this is what inevitably happens when you treat a woman's womb like a long-term Airbnb rental that you can, you know, rent for nine months.
There's no better, less vain, less dehumanizing version of commercial surrogacy.
This is it.
This is what it fundamentally is.
And the more you listen to any of these people talk about their experience, the more obvious that becomes.
Here's another example.
My husband and I are on a surrogacy journey.
We have some embryos created.
They're chilling on ice, waiting for their moment.
We had to choose an egg donor out of a virtual book.
Like an album of ladies?
Yeah!
We got pictures.
Like Tinder, but for moms.
Yes!
Yes!
So you swipe right or left on the mommies.
The first question on their profile is, what is your BMI?
Whoa.
Whoa.
Really?
Like, why does that matter?
It's crazy.
I met my husband on Tinder.
Legit.
Tinder.
I bet I know what your first message to each other was.
What's your BMI?
And how big is your d***?
Yeah.
Oh, they're gonna be great dads, aren't they?
So that's how they chose the surrogate.
The egg donor is selected based on her attractiveness and educational attainment, and the surrogate is chosen like a Tinder date based on her BMI and other similar factors.
The gay men flip through the catalog and choose whichever option will best satiate their own ego.
If this all sounds incredibly dehumanizing to both the mother and the child, that's because it is.
And if you want to know just how dehumanizing it is, listen to this influencer on TikTok talk about her own experiences as a surrogate.
And by the way, she's like recommending it.
This is what passes for a positive experience.
But just listen.
I've been a surrogate three times, so here is my five things I would not do as a surrogate or trying to become one.
Number one, I would not transfer more embryos than I'm willing to carry.
That means I would not transfer two or three embryos if I only wanted to carry one baby and not have twins or triplets.
Number two, I would not bend on any requirements.
In the beginning, if you use an agency or whatever, you match with people of like mind.
So you can say, I don't want to work with these type of people, or I do want to work with these type of people, and here are my requirements.
So, if you are not 100% comfortable, 100% comfortable aborting or terminating a pregnancy because the child might have Down syndrome or something of that nature, Don't think that, oh it's a slim chance that this will happen, because it can and will happen.
So you don't want to put yourself into a position that you're in breach of a contract.
Number three, I've learned from my mistakes.
I did this 10 years ago for my first time and I overshared unknowingly.
I was oversharing that could be anywhere from due date to if it's a boy or girl.
Literally anything and everything that the parents are not 100% on board with everyone knowing.
Don't ever show up for a share.
Number four.
I would not go into becoming a surrogate if I wasn't 100% done growing my family.
Because it can and sometimes has happened that the surrogate has to have a hysterectomy and they're put into a position like, crap I wanted more kids but now I can't so I'm forced and this just leaves a sour taste in their mouth from surrogacy and you just don't want that.
And number five.
So you get a monthly allowance and just for like little things here and there.
And this was 10 years ago.
I highly doubt anyone does this anymore, but I agreed to sending receipts in for everything that I purchased with that monthly allowance.
It was a pain.
I felt like it was judged, and I just didn't like it.
So I would definitely say no to itemized receipts.
Okay, so to review, a surrogate contractually signs her uterus over to a third party.
That third party can contractually require her to kill the child in her womb.
The third party controls what she says about her pregnancy.
They control what she buys with the allowance that she's given.
And then, when the nine months are up, she delivers the child and hands him over to the third party, never to see him again.
The contract has been fulfilled.
Now if you hear all of that, how human bodies are rented for money, babies are exchanged as part of contractual agreements, and you think to yourself, wow, that sounds an awful lot like human trafficking, well that just means you're more perceptive than the average moderate conservative who is always on hand to wish a hearty congratulations to gay couples who engage in this trafficking.
Because it is indeed human trafficking by definition.
The end result is that a child is immediately torn away from the woman who birthed him and raised intentionally motherless, or fatherless as the case may be.
The child will be deprived of what he needs, which is both a mother and a father, so that the gay couple can get what they want.
This is the essence of the whole practice, exchanging the needs of the child for the wants of grown adults.
Now, if you are not the perceptive sort, you might listen to all this and say, well, this is unfair to gay couples.
What if they want to have children?
What are they supposed to do?
Don't we need to have some kind of system in place to help them achieve their parenthood dreams?
The answer to that question is no, we don't.
Homosexual unions are sterile by their nature.
It's not an exception to the rule when they are.
It's not the result of sickness or genetic defect when a homosexual couple is unable to have children.
None of them are able, or have ever been able, or ever will be able.
That is a sign from nature, about as glaring and obvious a sign as you can ever see, that gay couples are not meant to have kids.
They're not meant to have kids because they cannot ever have kids, because kids are meant to have both a mom and a dad.
Now, it's true that plenty of kids end up with just one of those, or sometimes none, but this just means that something went wrong.
In that case, you do the best you can to compensate.
But with surrogacy, we are designing children from the outset to be motherless or fatherless.
We are intentionally depriving them of what they are supposed to have.
You know, it's true that some children grow up with one arm, or no arms.
But that obviously doesn't make it any more horrific or any less horrific or barbaric to intentionally chop a child's arm off.
You know, the fact that some children end up that way, yes, but a child is supposed to have two arms at birth.
And to intentionally design a child to only have one, we would all agree it's like mad scientist horror.
But this is essentially what we're doing with commercial surrogacy.
Only it's worse because it's far better for a child to be raised lacking one of his arms than to be raised lacking one of his parents.
And that's why I will never applaud and cheer when we get these birth announcements from gay couples.
Because I'm more concerned about what the child needs than what those men want.
Which is why, once again, commercial surrogacy is today cancelled.