The media have found their new racial martyr and victim of white supremacy. He s a football player who got drafted into the NFL a few rounds later than expected. They don t make racial martyrs like they used to. Also, Trump has a judge arrested for interfering with immigration enforcement. An allegedly Republican governor vetoes a bill to keep sexually explicit material out of the schools. And two gay influencers went out and purchased children through surrogacy. Now they spend their time parading the kids around and using them for content.
00:27:01.380So when you hear that, you automatically know this is a, despite how she comes off, this is a dangerous radical.
00:27:12.580And this is how our dangerous radicals come off. And this is someone who, again, if she's guilty of what she's been accused, she deserves to go to prison.
00:27:21.780Daily Wire reports, North Dakota Republican governor, Kelly Armstrong, vetoed a bill this week that would have required school districts to keep books determined to be sexually explicit out of the reach of students.
00:27:34.420Saying that the bill was a misguided attempt to legislate morality.
00:27:39.940Armstrong, on Tuesday, vetoed Senate Bill 2307, which would have prohibited school districts from maintaining explicit sexual material in classrooms and libraries and would allow concerned parents and others to initiate a review of materials they believe may be in violation of the law.
00:27:53.800In his veto message, Armstrong said that enforcing the bill would be unworkable and infringe on free speech.
00:28:02.280Quote, while I recognize the concerns that led to its introduction, SB 2307 represents a misguided attempt to legislate morality through overreach and censorship.
00:28:10.720The bill imposes vague and punitive burdens on professionals and opens the door to a host of unintended and damaging consequences for our communities.
00:28:18.020The legislation would have expanded on a law passed in 2023 that barred public libraries from keeping sexually explicit books in their children's section.
00:28:25.800The law also requires public libraries to have a policy in place to keep explicit books out of the children's section.
00:28:32.300SB 2307 would have expanded those guidelines to school districts, requiring districts to ensure that students were not exposed to sexually explicit material through physical books or online resources offered to them.
00:28:43.080Districts would also have been mandated to put policies in place to ensure compliance.
00:28:46.920Districts, Armstrong, in a message, said that it's redundant and overly burdensome, and so he vetoed the bill.
00:28:55.140So this is a bill to keep sexually explicit books away from kids in school.
00:28:59.480A Republican governor in North Dakota vetoes it.
00:29:35.420It creates unnecessary confusion, unnecessary sort of red tape and bureaucracy and all that.
00:29:40.120But then this guy, Governor Armstrong, he admits in the same breath that it's not redundant because he lists all of these other things that he says the bill will do.
00:29:50.580He says that it overreaches, that it imposes censorship.
00:29:53.140Presumably, the other bill that he signed didn't overreach, didn't impose censorship in his view, which means that this bill is different.
00:30:05.300It's doing some, you know, his actual complaint is not that the bill is redundant, but that it goes farther than other bills have gone, which means that it's, again, means that it's not redundant.
00:30:18.220So let's just put that complaint to the side.
00:30:20.040Now, his real issue is that this bill is censorship and that it, quote, legislates morality.
00:30:31.320So let's take each of these objections one at a time.
00:31:20.180But this idea that censorship in principle is bad, that you can sort of make an argument against something simply by calling it censorship, as if it's a foregone conclusion that, oh, yeah, well, that's censorship.
00:32:15.120Well, unless you're a full-on lunatic, you would say that those materials obviously don't belong in the schools, which means, yes, they should be censored.
00:32:24.640We got to get over this really silly aversion people have to, well, I can't, I can't support censorship.
00:32:51.320So, we do want a certain amount of censorship in the schools.
00:32:53.740Personally, you know, I don't know about you.
00:32:57.600I mean, I could come up with 50 books off the top of my head that I would, 50 shades of gray.
00:33:02.480I don't think that should be on the, in the classroom, you know, I don't think that should be on the shelf in a first grade classroom, or any grade, really.
00:33:58.140Only a very small number of the books that have been written in human history are going to be found inside a school.
00:34:06.440And so, a lot of thought should be put into what books make the cut.
00:34:10.500And the vast majority of books will not make the cut, either because they're objectionable, or they're inappropriate, or they have no educational value, or they're just not needed.
00:34:23.500But, in any case, we're making decisions about what kind of material should be made available in this context to kids.
00:34:35.080And so, yes, we're engaging in a form of censorship.
00:34:40.740And it really is okay to just say that out loud and stop being so scared of the word.
00:34:46.440We're going around pretending, I'm an absolutist.
00:36:12.640If you go around saying we shouldn't legislate morality, you are too dumb to participate in any of these conversations.
00:36:18.640You are so stupid that you don't belong in the conversation.
00:36:22.160If I could, I wish that we could take anyone who still uses the phrase legislate morality and banish them to a small volcanic island somewhere in the Pacific, okay?
00:36:33.120And let the volcano do what it's going to do.
00:36:35.360You know, I'm not saying we should throw them into the volcano.
00:44:54.740But you can't analyze history or learn anything from it unless you start from this position that you understand that you're looking at all these things through a modern lens.
00:45:11.260And that just doesn't, it doesn't apply.
00:45:21.140We're not saying that slavery was okay 500 years ago and it's not okay now.
00:45:24.880Now, what we're saying is that the personal moral guilt of somebody who practiced it or supported it 500 years ago is significantly mitigated compared to somebody who would practice or support it today.
00:45:38.080The reason is that it was a time when, you know, slavery was an accepted institution across the globe, including in the Americas before the Europeans arrived.
00:45:45.900Totally, it was just a given, you know, in many places, everywhere really, for thousands of years.
00:45:51.600Which didn't make it okay, but it does mean that people a long time ago just didn't see it for the evil that it was.
00:45:58.780For thousands of years, pretty much nobody on earth saw it as an evil.
00:46:01.700So yes, that mitigates the individual guilt of any one person.
00:46:07.060It doesn't make sense to go think back to a time when, like, everybody on the planet thought slavery was okay and single out one guy and just make him the moral scapegoat.
00:46:24.100Especially because, you know, the remarkable thing when it comes to slavery, the really remarkable thing is that the remarkable thing about Europeans at the time is how far ahead of their time they were on this issue.
00:46:40.320It never occurred to really a single Indian tribe that slavery is wrong.
00:46:45.400It never occurred, as far as we know, to anybody in Africa that slavery was wrong.
00:46:50.640It took a while before it occurred to anyone in Asia that it was wrong.
00:46:54.100And at that time it was a globally accepted practice and would remain so for centuries.
00:46:58.700But Europeans started to shift their thinking about it pretty soon after making first contact.
00:47:06.100It would still be practiced for another 200 years before they abolished it.
00:47:11.100And when they did, they would be, again, still far ahead of their time.
00:47:14.200But even back in the 1500s, you start to see this shift happen, which is very early, you know, in comparison with the rest of the globe.
00:47:22.840For instance, I'm reading a book about Francis Drake right now, who circumnavigated the globe in the 1570s.
00:47:29.120And he was a slave trader earlier in his career.
00:47:33.720But by the time of his circumnavigation in like 1578, 79, he had started to change his mind and really abhor the practice and didn't try to enslave the natives that he encountered.
00:47:48.500And, which, again, it's easy for us to, like, oh, well, congratulations.
00:47:56.040But actually, at the time it was, because very few people had that kind of insight.
00:48:01.680So it's easy for us to be unimpressed by it.
00:48:04.360To us, it's obvious that slavery is wrong.
00:48:06.640We were born into a world that had turned away from the practice centuries earlier.
00:48:10.760But back then, at the time, it was not obvious at all.
00:48:15.340And when you were an advanced civilization encountering Stone Age people who run around naked and, in some cases, eat each other,
00:48:23.260it was not at all obvious that these people are equal to us in some sense, you know, that using them for labor would be a great moral crime.
00:48:34.380Now, it's obvious to us now, but it was not obvious at the time.
00:48:39.480And yet, Europeans did come around to that conclusion pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things.
00:48:44.480And we inherited that conclusion from them.
00:48:49.020Anyway, all that to say, none of that should prevent us from celebrating Columbus.
00:48:54.040And Trump says that it won't prevent us anymore.
00:48:56.340And notice one thing that Trump also says.
00:48:58.720He says that they tore down the Columbus statues and they put up woke or, even worse, nothing at all in its place.
00:49:07.540And he's right, because you notice how this campaign was waged to tear down Columbus, to vilify and demonize him.
00:49:15.440Same thing was done to many of our other historical icons and heroes.
00:49:19.440But there was always the question of, well, who's going to be put in their place?
00:49:37.880You know, because wokeness has no heroes.
00:49:42.400Wokeness is an ideology with no past, no tradition, no connection to anything that came before it.
00:49:48.160You know, and part of that is the fact that wokeness is an ideology that would have seemed insane to everyone as recently as like 20 years ago and any time before that.
00:50:01.180So there are no woke historical heroes.
00:51:36.060In fact, I was thinking about this today.
00:51:37.440This is actually, this is a good, sort of like a very basic test when I talk about having a simple test that you have to pass before you're able to vote.
00:52:48.560But I'm betting that a significant number of people could not do that.
00:52:51.760It should be like a fourth grade level history test or younger, but it'd be impossible for a lot of people, including the entire woke brigade.
00:53:17.860It just, it severs you from the past quite intentionally so that you're kind of floating in this sort of perpetual now where nothing that happened before actually existed or matters.
00:53:28.580And, you know, that's the root of a lot of our problems in society.
00:53:36.560Maybe you went a little wild with credit card in your 20s and now buying a car or securing a new apartment feels completely unattainable with a subpar credit to our kickoff changes the narrative with credit building plans designed to safely jumpstart your score in the simplest, fastest way possible.
00:53:54.600Kickoff is the number one credit building app out there.
00:53:57.340And you can sign up in minutes right from your phone.
00:56:03.600Instead, it's because their ideology, you know, more often than not, does not withstand a significant amount of scrutiny.
00:56:11.320You know, spend 10 minutes listening to these people and you'll hear all kinds of nonsense and contradictions.
00:56:15.540It's unbearable to the point that you just want to turn it off, and many people do.
00:56:19.780So to give just one example, if you can stomach it, here's former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg explaining how he acquired his two children.
00:56:57.060You know, we said that we were willing to adopt, or we wanted to adopt.
00:57:01.460We said that we wanted to adopt without regard for race.
00:57:04.040By the way, anybody who says race is not a thing in this country should experience an adoption process where there are literally different lists.
00:57:11.440If you say that you want a white kid only versus if you say that doesn't matter.
00:57:35.820So as you can tell, everybody on the set appears to be disturbed about the fact that, according to Pete Buttigieg, it's cheaper to acquire a black child than a child of another race.
00:57:46.060This is supposed to be taken as proof of the fact that America is fundamentally racist or something.
00:57:50.100And thankfully, Pete Buttigieg is not a racist, so he boldly accepted the discount that he received on his two mixed-race kids.
00:57:57.340The implication is that in a true post-racial utopia, nothing like this would happen because black children would cost precisely the same amount as white children.
00:58:05.020But the reason this conversation is so unsettling, of course, has nothing to do with race.
00:58:09.340It's unsettling because a middle-aged gay man is talking about how he flew in from out-of-state to purchase children that he has nothing in common with so that he can raise them in a motherless home and use them as props for his political career.
00:58:23.000In other words, the real outrage is not that Mayor Pete got a discount for purchasing mixed-race children.
00:58:28.500The outrage is that he was able to do it in the first place.
00:58:31.340And you'd think that that would be an uncontroversial statement in post-Civil War America, but of course it's very controversial, even on the right.
00:58:38.220From the moment that the concept of gay parenthood first took off about a decade ago, social conservatives were met with derision for opposing the idea of men adopting children.
00:58:47.560But in the end, social conservatives have been proven to be 100% correct, as we have been about literally any other issue you can name.
00:59:02.800Children who are raised by gay men ultimately face double the risk of depression in adulthood, along with much higher rates of anxiety and obesity, according to research by the sociology professor Paul Sullins.
00:59:12.500They're also at a significant risk of being sexually abused, even though nobody wants to talk about that.
00:59:18.000Recently, a gay couple in Georgia were convicted and sentenced to 100 years in prison for the systematic rape of two young boys they adopted.
00:59:25.500Nobody at the adoption agency wanted to, or perhaps was legally allowed to, ask any serious questions about why two gay men are looking to adopt young boys.
00:59:36.120So the boys were sent to the home with no further questions and subjected to unimaginable torture as a result.
00:59:42.800Now, in an attempt to address these concerns, we were told that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children because it's better for a child to have two dads than to be left to wallow in the foster care system indefinitely.
00:59:56.800It wasn't really a defense of the idea that children should be raised by two men in an ideal world.
01:00:01.140Instead, we were told that the alternative was even more horrifying.
01:00:04.860To the extent that this argument was persuasive to anybody, it hinged on the idea that a critical mass of gay men are interested in raising children out of the goodness of their own hearts, children who are, you know, had been put up for adoption.
01:00:17.860Now, I didn't find the argument persuasive personally, but a lot of people did.
01:00:24.540Many gay couples decided that they actually don't want to adopt other people's kids.
01:00:29.500The whole argument for gay parenthood, as wrong as it was, turned out to be, in so many cases, a red herring.
01:00:36.080A study by researchers at King's College in 2019 found that over 60% of gay men considering parenthood actually prefer surrogacy as the method instead of adoption.
01:00:44.720In recent years, that number has only increased.
01:00:47.440And in practice, this means that men are shopping for eggs as well as women to carry the children for them, looking for body parts to rent.
01:00:56.160And even though Pete Buttigieg won't pretend to be upset by it, all of this people shopping entails a lot of uncomfortable value judgments that implicate genetics, as mothers are screened based on their educational level, eye color, athleticism, and so on.
01:01:10.420The result is that children are not being rescued from unfortunate situations like foster care and being placed into loving homes.
01:01:18.420Instead, they're being conceived with the intent of placing them into unfortunate situations.
01:01:25.640They're being taken from the women who birthed them and given to gay men, like men named Joseph and Nathan Hughes.
01:01:33.460Now, if you're not familiar with these two individuals, they apparently sell hair care products on the Internet.
01:01:37.660They also have a fairly large social media following.
01:01:41.240And recently, Joseph and Nathan Hughes celebrated the first birthday of two children who they purchased via IVF and surrogacy.
01:01:48.360And here's what that display looked like.
01:01:50.940As you watch this, try to do what these two parents are, alleged parents, are incapable of doing and pay close attention to the children.