Pope Leo Diagnosed with Lung Cancer, Shane Gillis Blows Up the Internet, and No-Fault Divorce

And we're live. Welcome back to the LOOPcast. Pogo is, as we speak, on his way back to his home seat. He'll be back with us next week, but we have with us the original OG tinfoil Tom today, coming to us from the hallowed grounds of Virginia and birthplace of our first president, and we have quite the show packed in. We're going to start with updating everyone on the Pope's condition, our Holy Father. Then we're going to get into all things election.

We are midterm go time. We have early voting going on in many states. We have polls rolling in, predictions rolling in, and we're going to get the update from our two Politico heads. Thank you, gentlemen. And then Shane Gillis blew up the internet, and we are going there. We are also going there with the capital punishment debate, which is raging around the Catholic interwebs, and so much more. We have good news. We have twilight zone. Oh, and I hope you all had a great Columbus Day weekend, because I love Columbus Day.

I know I did. All right, but first, we have our sponsors for the show, Charity Mobile. Now more than ever, it is important to do business with companies that stand with you and your beliefs. Charity Mobile is the pro-life phone company that serves pro-life customers and supports pro-life, pro-family causes. They send 5% of your monthly payments to Charity Mobile. plan price to your favorite charity, and they have sent millions of dollars to charities over the last 30 years. Not only that, there are no sacrifices when you switch to Charity Mobile.

All of their plans start under $50 before taxes and surcharges. Their nationwide coverage is the same as the major carriers, and their friendly pro-life customer service team is based right here in the U.S. Plus, Charity Mobile is running a special promotion for our audience. Use promo code LOOPcast to get the free phone offer with every new line of service, plus free activation and free standard shipping.

Switch to Charity Mobile and buy the way you believe. To get started, visit charitymobile.com and use promo code LOOPcast. That's charitymobile.com, promo code LOOPcast. Thank you, Charity Mobile. Always love to see that. Cute baby. And we have another sponsor, another of our favorite organizations. So, this is great news for Catholic families. The 2026-27 edition of the Newman Guide is now available. Brought to you by our sponsor, the Cardinal Newman Society. We just celebrated his feast day last Friday. It was a great day.

The Cardinal Newman Society has published its largest edition of the Newman Guide yet, recommending 179 faithful K-12 schools, colleges, homeschool curriculum providers, and graduate programs. That is two-thirds more recommendations than the 2526 edition. The Newman Guide is the gold standard, amen, of faithful Catholic education. Families trusted to find education that forms students without compromising the Catholic faith.

Tragically, as we know, not every school or college labeled Catholic is faithful to its religious mission. Too many engage in scandalous practices that cause confusion and lead students away from the truth in Christ, such as pro-abortion activism, LGBTQ celebrations, and outright rejection of church teaching. We're hosting Rosa DeLauro, as is going on at Sacred Heart next month. But Catholic families deserve... Better. Catholic families have relied on the Cardinal Newman Society's Newman Guide for nearly two decades to discover faithful Catholic education that incorporates the truths of Christ in all subjects and forms, the whole person for God.

The mission of the Cardinal Newman Society is to promote and defend faithful Catholic education, so make sure you order the latest version of the Newman Guide today. It is available in digital and print forms. So, click the link in the description below in our show notes, or visit cardinalnewmansociety.org backslash LOOPcast to get your free e-book of the 2627 edition of the Newman Guide today. Thank you, Cardinal Newman Society, and congratulations on the growth. That is just phenomenal. All right.

Let's dig into it, guys. I am excited to get your take on all things election. We're in the last 28 days leading up to Election Day. Voting is ongoing so far. It seems like a big turnout. I was seeing some numbers this morning that when Georgia opened up its early voting, they're seeing a 50% increase in numbers from 2022. We're also seeing some interesting numbers on voter registration with the GOP. Nationwide, coming out ahead of Democrats in terms of registering more new voters, but Democrats in general are really liking the early voting turnout.

So, let us first turn to the House. Let us turn to Congress and the House of Representatives. Not looking great for the GOP, for sure. We have gone over this before. We have a slim majority, as it is right now.

I'm seeing people say there's about 48 races in play, which is more than expected if you count the leans, the leaners, as it were, like leans Republican, leans Democrat. Looks like Texas is not going great. We might lose all of those seats in the Rio Grande Valley.

And as a result, yeah, we're seeing this week, there's a lot of headlines right now about the GOP pulling money from certain races and reallocating it to other races, and it's being characterized in the mainstream media as the GOP is playing defense right now. So, Josh, I wanted to kind of get your take on the House race. I know we're watching that really carefully. Is CatholicVote doing anything to change its strategy at this point, or are we locked in? Well, I mean, some of the triage things, we'll talk about that one right from the start.

I mean, Michigan 8. Congressional District, there was, you know, there wasn't really a good recruited candidate, and then he didn't even, you know, the one that the Republicans sort of wanted lost to a no-name in the primary. So, this is just a race that didn't make any sense. They also have triaged Miller Meeks' seat in Iowa. She won the last race by eight total votes. So, in a bad year, you know, it would take a miracle for her to win that.

Well, if anyone could do it, I mean, I guess she could do it, but it just sort of makes sense, you know, in some of these races to be like, let's cut our losses and try to short resources. Now, with regards to a lot of these races, you know, as you mentioned down in South Texas, the Rio Grande area, it's very true that Donald Trump spurred a big, excuse me, Move amongst Hispanics. Hispanics were a big swing vote towards Trump in 2024, and so these are voters who, you know, historically have voted for Democrats.

They swung to Trump this time, or this last time. If anything, they're going to be the most likely to swing back towards the Democrats, at least when the president is on the ballot. And so, those races, as you mentioned, along the Rio Grande, those are going to be the hardest ones for Republicans to try to win. I suspect that will be very difficult. So, you know, when you look at some of these things, yeah, it makes sense. Now, again, we have been open-eyed about all of this stuff with regards to the House.

You could almost say that we lost the House the day after the 2024 elections because, I mean, voters naturally like to place checks on people in power. No political party, for better or for worse, has really done a sufficient job over enough years to win the confidence of the American people. The American people, if you look at the elections of the past, you know, 20 years, know.

Trump has been very successful at the ballot box, and so, I mean, I think Donald Trump's agenda has been fantastic, but the thing is, you secure the border. Within like three months, people are like, okay, good. Our voters are supposed to be secure. Right. They are not going to keep voting for you automatically anyway. So, again, you only have like a three or four seat majority in the House. The odds that you are going to be able to retain that majority in a midterm election when your president is in office is extremely, extremely small.

Yeah. So. Again, I just don't see, though, the signs of a big wave, and part of the reason is, you know, there are going to, we'll see, there's going to be a reckoning, because look at Michigan 7. This is, you know, Barrett is a congressman from that very swing district, you know, in central Michigan, like includes Lansing and other areas.

So, Barrett is a fine congressman. He's been independent, too. He voted against the Iran war from the start, pretty much. But again, Democrats would have had every opportunity to take that House seat. But then there was a jumbled three-way primary. You had a former ambassador, you had another Democrat who had mainstream credentials. They both lost to this crazy guy, William Lawrence. You know, with the Sunrise Revolution, or whatever the heck it's called, this guy is a total moonbat. And he says stuff like the nuclear family needs to be abolished.

And so, there are definitely some House seats that the Democrats have fumbled. But ultimately, So, there is just too many seats to have to defend, and Republicans are playing defense, as you would expect, with high gas prices and inflation.

Yeah, we can throw those polymarket numbers up there. Right now, it is like 90 to 10 percent that the Democrats take the House. Well, I mean, I do not take too much on the insider trade. I mean, look, sometimes those guys are wrong, but that actually is probably accurate. Yep.

There's a 90% chance the Democrats will win at least four, you know, five seats they would need for the majority. The question is, what does that majority look like? You know, do they win, do they win 10 seats? Do they win 40 seats? I don't, you know, I think 40 is a little hard. If they have a really, really good night, though, 25 seats, you know, that would be. That would be a problem. The real question is, what happens if they win the House, as I have long suspected they will, and they have a majority?

Maybe it is not razor thin like the Republicans had in the last two years. Maybe it is like a 10-seat majority, and now, Hakeem Jeffries as the Speaker, that is a terrible idea, isn't it? Will they actually having to govern with... What, like about 8, 9, 10, 12 DSA candidates who are elected to Congress now? So, we'll actually, the Democrats, in order to get votes done, will either have to go to the Republicans for votes, or they'll rely on actual socialists to make the difference in a vote.

Right. This is going to be crazy. I mean, of course, I think this is reckless, and it would be better to retain the Congress in Republican hands, but. But as it is, yeah, Tom, I wanted to ask you, because I sort of asked, you know, facetiously before the show, how many hours are you working right now on elections, thinking, oh, you're so busy. Thanks for asking that in front of my boss. Yeah, exactly. So many hours.

Tom's the swamp. Logan and I, we work about the elections. You're the trail, and Tom's the swamp. Got it. So, you said that you're actually more strategizing right now about what happens and sort of looking forward to. When the House of Representatives, if in fact the 90% is accurate, Democrats take the House, whether by a slim or a massive majority. We're going more slim in our predictions here, but what is that going to look like for the next two years of the Trump administration and the presidential race in terms, I mean, so the House does the subpoenaing, it has the committees and all this, so what's it looking like from the Hill right now?

Well, everybody is prepping for investigations to happen, and while Josh said it'll be hard for them to govern in the House, I don't think it's going to be as hard as Josh says, though, because, yes, there's going to be those socialists that are going to be elected, Democratic socialists, but to me, the rest of the party has always been CINO, Socialists in Name, in everything but name. I guess that's science. The Democrats have that problem, too.

It's a matter of that the things that Democratic socialists believe have been at the core of what a lot of these Democrats who get elected believe as well. And they're hard to believe, right. Right, so it's not going to be that hard. I mean, they're going to pass things like the so-called Women's Protection Act, which would not only legalize abortion at all ages, Including after birth, but also override state laws, and in addition, if you're a state legislator and you introduce a pro-life bill, you could be investigated by the FBI under this legislation.

Stuff like that, I think, passes. That's why it's important we hold on to the House, or the Senate, I mean, and certainly the White House, and it's better for us in 2028 if they go as far left as possible.

With the investigation? Do you think the socialists, the democratic socialists, are able to cajole? You know, Hakeem Jeffries into having some votes, like on Medicare for All, and that kind of stuff, which would be a dream for Republicans to have these votes.

Medicare for All might be tough. However, like the Women's Protection Act, or Health Protection Act, there's a green bill that would stifle American industry. So, Medicare for all, you run into two powerful, you run into the doctor's lobby, you run into pharma, you run into, and even the Democrats take a lot of money from them. So, it's not impossible, but I don't see it happening now, like right away. I think the other stuff right away. For the investigations, Good friend of mine, Katie Bailey, just got elected, just got moved to take over the Legislative Affairs Office.

She's got a long history of investigations working in the House Oversight. She worked in the Senate as well. So, the White House is finally getting ready to handle these investigations. I also hope the White House realizes that during these investigations, they are going to need groups like CatholicVote on the Outside, so keep us happy. Do things that you can, at least on the administrative level. But, I mean, if anybody benefits, I think, from a Democratic takeover of Congress or the House in this midterm election, it is J.D.

Vance. So, why do you say that? Well, because if the Democrats show, okay, now we're governing, even if it's one-third of the legislative executive branch that is needed to pass laws, this is what we would do if we got elected. And they don't moderate. They don't moderate like the Republicans do. So, I think it'll be very easy for J.D. to go like, we wanted to do this, but look what the Democrats did instead. They wanted to declare your backyard a wetland so you can't build a dwelling unit on it, or to save the pink snail garter.

That was a very specific example, Tom. I'm impressed. You just pulled that right out there. I don't even know if such a creature exists, except it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You know, just going back on the house, I mean, again, I don't think we're being doomed and gloomy here. I think we're just being honest about a very razor-thin majority. I mean, the fact of the matter is, you know, the census was off in 2020. We sent out an action alert on this this week.

You know, encouraging people that there's going to be reforms there at the Census Bureau. Republicans were cheated out of several seats that way. Republicans are cheated out of additionally like a dozen congressional seats because we count not citizens, but residents, including illegal aliens when we apportion seats. So, states with large populations of illegal immigrants are overrepresented, and Democrats benefit from this. And so, there's all these ways that are skewed in favor of the Democratic Party. Like, if we had had a normal majority, we would at least have had a 20-seat majority, but it ends up being like a three or four-seat majority, and I have to give credit, like, you know, it is easy to rip on.

The swamp, and Mitch McConnell should have retired much sooner than he did. He's not even the leader anymore, thankfully, but he's going to retire finally. You're not going to find me cheering for John Thune, but I will say, without any irony, three cheers for Speaker Johnson. I mean, how you're able to get as much of a legislative agenda passed with a four-seat majority, and I thought the one big, beautiful bill was Fantastic in many ways, especially with the federal tax credits for schools.

I think Republicans should retain him as leader, even if they lose the House. I mean, he's great. See, there I disagree, and I really like Mike Johnson. I liked him before, knew him when he was an attorney for Alliance for Freedom, worked down in Louisiana. I really like him. I think he was the right speaker for the time, did exactly everything that you said. I don't think he's a fighter.

He is a fighter when he needs to get his own people on board. I do not think he is a fighter when he is defending as much. You are saying he is not a backbench grenade thrower. Right. You need somebody who is not as conservative as Mike Johnson, a Tom Emmer or a Steve Scalise, I think, somebody who is not afraid to throw bombs to the other side, somebody who is not afraid to let the Freedom Caucus be the Freedom Caucus and maybe slip in a motion to recommit that sends the Democrats in disarray.

Mike Johnson, I think, is just too nice a guy, I think, to be a minority leader. Interesting. Well, anyway, I do want to give him credit for what he had done. Oh, yes. I don't want to take away from that at all.

But it's a different role, is what you're saying. And if they keep the majority, Mike Johnson, I think, is the only guy who could balance the House. Exactly. The way he has. Yeah. Let's just turn over to the Senate really briefly. So, CNN, our favorite. Can we play the clip? I just love listening to this guy. Harry Anson. He's entertaining. He's hilarious. Let's just listen to what he has to say about the GOP and the Senate. Go for it.

Across the map, let us just say we have the 2026 Senate polls, but if the polls are underestimating the Republicans by 3.5 points, which you know is really possible because we have seen it through the history, right? You go back to 2020. That is basically what happened. Even in 2024, a number of the key states we saw it happen, including places like Texas. How about Michigan? How about up there in Maine? How about in Alaska? How about in Iowa? How about in Kansas, which has been getting a lot of press lately?

All of these go red. All these go red, and Republicans don't just hold the United States Senate. They hold it easily with 52 seats to the Democrats' 48 seats. All right, Mercer, how is this prediction looking? I think it's pretty accurate. I mean, Alaska is tricky because they have ranked choice voting, and they put that decoy Dan on the ballot and all that kind of stuff. So, Republicans in Alaska have to be very disciplined and make sure that they vote for, obviously, it says on the ballot, incumbent.

And Dan Sullivan, the senator, who obviously we want him to win re-election, it actually says his identification on the ballot is Republican. The other decoy, Dan, it doesn't say any party name. And again, it's one of those things where you don't realize. A ranked choice voting. You have to vote for the one that you want, and then you vote for every other person that's in your party to make sure that at least one guy in your party gets elected. Democrats understand that, and they understand the rules of the game, but there's a lot of tricksters, even deceiving people, pretending they're conservatives, sending out postcards to Republican voters and conservative voters, and telling them, you know, only vote for one.

Like, they're just liars. So, that is going to be tricky. I do think Sullivan wins Alaska. You know, Tallarico, I think, ultimately loses to Ken Paxton in Texas. I think it is going to be like a couple of points. It is going to be a narrow win. I do not think it is going to be a narrow win in Kansas. I mean, I think all this talk, give me a break, it is going to end up being five points or more.

I mean, Marshall has not shot himself in the foot. It is just that. You know, generally, people are kind of grumpy, you know, and there is a reason that they are grumpy. And so, when a poll calls, they just say, I do not know, maybe I will vote for that other guy. But when push comes to shove, in the last few weeks, what we have seen is Republican voters coming home. They are not going to give us a Democratic Senate because they are upset with gas prices.

So, you know, and Ashley, you know, Hinson, is that her last name? Hinson in Iowa. She'll win. Moody won't have any problem in Florida. All right, so we're keeping the Senate, which is... Great. You know, and again, I think, you know, look at the polls, like Susie Collins is performing well in Maine. I mean, you know. Oh, the debates have been just with her and Troy, like she just mops up the floor with him, I have to say. So, we'll see.

You know, I mean, ultimately, Democrats have to win, you know, four seats to take the majority, and other than North Carolina, which is a swing state, which everyone expects will flip to them, you still got to win three seats in. States that went for Trump by 10 points or more, like Ohio, Iowa, Alaska, you know, it is just Texas. It is tough. It is just tough for them to do, thankfully.

Thankfully. That is why we love our checks and balances. In 96, before you were born, Erika. I was so born. I am not. When the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in 30 or 40 years... That was not voting. That was 94. 94. Or 94, I'm sorry, yes.

A buddy of mine, we were at a watch party for the elections. We're both from New York, and how we knew the Republicans were going to have a good night was one of the first races that came in was the governor of New York, George Pataki. I was so elated. I called my buddy right on the phone. We looked at each other, and we were just like, okay, this is going to be a different night. I think, so you always try to look for bellwethers, especially for people who don't normally follow politics as closely as Josh.

I couldn't really name in the House, but I think for the Senate, if for some reason Susan Collins loses, I think we lose the Senate. I don't think she's going to lose, as Josh said, and the other races, they're going to be nailed. For example, New Hampshire reports pretty early, and if Sununu is dead even. And, you know, like with Pappas, like, wow, it might not be a horrible night for Republicans. We'll see. And Florida also announces early, although it's not that big.

But, like, let's say Moody is close with Nixon. You're like, okay, bad night. Oh, man. Speaking of which, we will be covering Election Night Live. So, if that's your thing, we're going to be doing that thing here on LOOPcast. We're going to have a long list of guests coming in and out, and it'll be... It'll be an interesting night, and you'll get to hear about those bellwethers as the returns come in, and yeah, it's Josh's night to shine. This is what we live for here.

I do love it. It is my Super Bowl. It is pretty fun. Okay, so one of our favorite things about election season, of course, are debate highlights and great ads. So, actually, I'd like to turn to the AG race in New York, which is between two Democrats at this point. We've got Letitia James. And, well, let's just introduce her. No, it's not two Democrats.

She's a Democrat. Sarita? No, she's a Republican nominee. Oops, sorry about that. Go ahead. Easy mistake to make, Indira. I mean, they're all blue to me. Go ahead. No, this is, look at this ad. This is great. There's a three-word solution to affordability in New York. Just fight crime. When crooks steal a car, your insurance goes up. When scammers siphon money from Medicaid, healthcare costs go up. When Tish James forces solar and wind, electric bills go up. My name is Saritha.

I'll be a different kind of Attorney General. Letitia James spent $10 million making herself a celebrity. My motto is my career, just fight crime. That is awesome. There was also a debate between her and Tish James, and it was hilarious, because the moderator asked, hey, you know, could you name, like, you know, another attorney general who served New York that you really like and admire? And Tish James was like, fumbling, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, uh, uh, uh, I like all of them.

It was just like, I mean... She couldn't name one. Go for it. Roll the tape. What's the last New York attorney general that you admire? Um... Uh... Tick-tock. Don't look at her face. Don't admire herself. No, we admire others.

I admire all of the past Attorney General's, because it's a difficult job, and you've got to stand up. Dennis Facco. Yeah, she's like, I have one right off the top. Yeah, oh my gosh, that, like, I was watching Letitia. I actually had a spasm of sympathy for her, because that's, like, every nightmare I have of, like, standing up in high school and having an exam I can't answer or something. But yeah, we also had this viral clip of Letitia James explaining how exactly she would prosecute a particular case that they asked Saritha about.

You can play that one. That's a pending case, and it's an important one. I have to look at the facts in the law. When I'm Attorney General on January 1, I'll do that. You don't have to look at the facts in the law. All you have to do is study what they do. It is illegal in the state of New York. Period. Well, there you go. You don't have to look at the facts in the law, gentlemen. You're Attorney General.

That's about how it's been with Letitia James of Trump. It's a crime that New York is so liberal that she probably won't win, but that candidate is awesome. Yeah, she's gone. I hope, if she could, like, move out of New York City and run in some other district, like, she's phenomenal. Hey, but miracles can happen. We'll see. I mean, by the way, for governor, what's the guy, his name, Tom Blake, what's it, running for governor in New York? Oh, my gosh.

Blake, isn't it Cushman? Isn't it Bruce? Something like that. Now, I'm blanking on the guy's name, but that super liberal actress from the 90s. Blakeman. Blakeman. She endorsed Blakeman. Yeah. I'm like, what? Cynthia Nixon, or? No, no, no, no. Of course, Cynthia. Now, I can't remember, but I just couldn't believe it.

All right, Josh, what else do you want to play here? We've got Iowa, we have New Jersey, we have… I like the Iowa one just because, I mean, again, my contention here is that… There are a lot of Democrats who are in a bubble. Now, there are some conservatives and Republicans who are in bubbles, too, obviously, but given the way our culture is, you know, there's a lot of left-wingers out there that just don't touch grass, and when they get confronted about what they stand and what they believe in, they just are smithering and smathering.

They don't know what to do. And so, there's a debate in the... Iowa's 2nd Congressional District and Republican Joe Mitchell just methodically recounts this woman, Lindsay James' horrible left-wing record. So, this is before she made her home, L.A., in San Francisco, Massachusetts, before she conveniently moved to Iowa just 10 years ago. Immediately ran for office. She gets in office. She missed over half her votes this last legislative session, and when she was there, which was probably worse, she was voting to give illegal immigrants state-funded Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, sex changes for kids.

She hasn't seen a tax raise she didn't like. She was letting criminals off. violent criminals that we were trying to penalize and give the three-strike law to. So, again, we don't judge her for being from Portland, Oregon, but when she brings her Portland, Oregon values, it is not. And you know that's true. And you know that that is not correct. No, you know it's, okay.

All right. We'll have everything on our page after this, every single bill that she voted on that we just listed off. Yeah. Why is it absurd? Like, why are you proud of it? I know, exactly. Like, why does it, if this is what you stand for, you'd be like, yes, and I was proud of it, and here's why that was a good thing for you, but. Like, what, you're not for sex changes for kids? Like, you didn't pay for medic, you know, healthcare funding for illegals?

Like, I thought you thought it was a good thing, you know? It's like, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, that's what, again, every, every liberal dresses up as, you know, a conservative come election season, and then every conservative dresses up like he's even more conservative, like he's, you know, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, it's just kind of a hilarious thing. Like, why can't you guys just govern somewhat normal? Oh my gosh. Well, Republicans do that in the primary. Yeah, right.

Every six years, it used to be called a Cornyn. That if you wanted something done by John Cornyn that was conservative, you had to ask him when he was in cycle. Because once he won the primary, once he got past the primary, he was good old John again. Oh, my gosh. And that's why we are glad there is going to be no more John in D.C.

Selene, I am going to... I do think the Rogers ad would be... A good one to run, just because you want to see about how, again, a tough year for Republicans. It is a very purple state, Michigan. It voted for Trump, then Biden, then Trump. How can you win in a tough environment? Well, thankfully, his opponent is super radical.

Abdul Al-Sayed is doing terrible with, obviously, Jewish voters, but also with Black voters who just do not trust him. And so, this ad is a great way for Mike Rogers to try to win support. I think it is pretty effective.

I'm a lifelong Detroiter. I'm passionate about education. I voted for Barack Obama, but this year, I'm voting for Mike Rogers. Abdul is way too arrogant and way too extreme. He will kill our jobs and make our communities less safe.

Mike Rogers will get to work for us. Better schools, safer streets, more jobs, and affordable health care. Let's send Mike Rogers to the Senate. I'm Mike Rogers, and I approve this message. Yeah, that's a good one. That's a good one. I loved how they snuck in the Abdul El-Sayed Love Island ad in the background there. Yeah, and then he's doing the one cartoon character, like, whatever that, you know, it just looks goofy, and he's got the bullhorn, and he is arrogant.

Like, that's the thing that people don't realize. Yeah, his treatment of reporters. Don't you put your name in my mouth and all this stuff. Yeah. Crazy. Crazy times. We'll see. All right. Yeah. Are we going to do this one here, the one in the comments that Josh left Celine in the side there? So, I was always thinking, like, there's no way I could ever run for office, and, you know, we need more good candidates. We need more Catholics to run for office at the local level, at the state level, and if you have ever felt, well, I wouldn't do very well.

In a debate, or I wouldn't do well on TV with these candidate interviews, this clip will actually give you a lot of confidence that you, in fact, could definitely run for office. So, go for it. What's this? And that's what I have to say about that. Okay. And our last question of the night is, if elected, what is one decision that you expect to make that may be unpopular with some voters, but you believe ultimately would be in the best interest of Fayette County?

I wouldn't raise your taxes. Controversial. What is the one decision that I would make? Repeat that again. What is the one decision that I would make that might not be popular with fake gunmen? Right, that may be unpopular with some voters. Unpopular with some voters. But is in the best interest of the county. Hmm? I'm not a Republican. I wouldn't let them, I mean...

I don't even talk to them. I don't like them. I mean, they voted against our own state representative voted against her own party. I mean, what do you want me to say? I don't like being around them. I mean... Okay, okay. I don't want to rag on the city too long. I think she's been hitting it a little early, if you know what I mean. Yeah. But, listen... If she can run for office, Catholics listening to this right now. You, too, can run for office.

Is that a dog drinking water in the background? Just sound effects for the candidate that we just saw. Oh, okay. Got it. Yeah, it was dog water. I'm going to tell you what. That's my exhortation to everyone watching. Consider running for office, because you can definitely do better than that. All right, we're going to move into B Block here, but first, I did promise we'll do an update on our Holy Father. So, most of you have probably seen it. It was top of the story in the loop.

It's all over the internet. But Pope Leo. He had a successful surgery yesterday, so all those prayers, awesome, but it also confirmed a diagnosis of lung cancer, so he is looking now at further treatment. The reports early this morning were that he had a peaceful night in the hospital, and more details will be released today and in the coming days, of course, but CatholicVote and Zeal Media are asking all of you to pledge your prayers for the Holy Father. We want to present him with a beautiful spiritual bouquet from all of our family members, all of our donors, all of our followers.

So, please go to the Zeal Prayer Wall. This is why we founded Zeal, right, Josh? This is why we founded Zeal Media, because stories like this call for Catholics to come together in prayer in a powerful way that we know is efficacious. So, again, prayers of thanksgiving for a successful surgery and prayers of... Total healing for our Holy Father, Pope Leo.

I love moments like this in the church. Yeah, and it was amazing that the diagnosis came on the Feast of the Miracle of the Sun, right, at Fatima, and Our Lady of Fatima has held so many popes in our lifetime close to her heart. So, of course, John Paul II was shot on the Feast of the First Apparition, May 13th. Our Pope today, Leo, he gets his diagnosis on the Feast of the Final Apparition. So, I just feel like this whole episode in his life is wrapped in Our Lady's prayers.

It is announced, right? It is announced on the Feast. The surgery is on the Feast, but that is good. Okay, any other thoughts on that, Josh? Did you have... Well, and again, if you prayed yesterday for the Pope, just continue to pray today and actually continue that all the way to October 22nd. Make it a nice little novena, because that will be nine days, and that leads you to the Feast of another great Pope. Who had a very special connection to Fatima, Pope John Paul II.

So, just keep those prayers each day going for the Pope's healthy recovery. The early reports said he was eating his meals and getting good rest, so we are hopeful, and like I said, keep those prayers coming. Amen. And if you have any questions, comments, concerns for the LOOPcast team, anything you want to hear Pogo pontificate about, little joke there, if you want to hear Mercer mumble and you want to hear Erika opine, please send us your mail. Send us your email at LOOPcast at CatholicVote.org.

We love to feature your questions on the LOOPcast, and like I said, Pogo, who is the keeper of the post, he will be back next week and looking in his inbox, hoping to be loved. He just wants to hear from you. So, again, send us an email at LOOPcast at CatholicVote.org. Alright, we skipped over this story last week, but we sort of doubled up on it this weekend. This is the death penalty question, capital punishment. Is it just? Is there a better way to do it?

Is there a worse way to do it? Well, the question resurfaced again. We have two stories over the last two weeks. Of course, the first one was Krista Pike, who was a convicted, brutal murderer. She was convicted in Tennessee and condemned to death row.

And her scheduled execution was botched when she survived two doses of pentobarbital, and she's now recovering and back in prison. Her lawyers are seeking life without parole. So, that was the first death penalty case. She, again, was the first woman to be executed in X number of decades and made headlines all over, especially when the state botched it with legal injection. But then over the weekend, we also got this sort of strange announcement from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, or Secretary of War, as he calls himself, Nadal Hassan.

So, this is back in 2009. Many of you will remember Nadal Hassan. He is the Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood in Texas, and he killed 13 people, including a pregnant woman. He wounded 32, and he himself He described the act. He owned the act. There is no question that he did it. He called it an act of jihad, and he was sentenced to death back in 2013.

Just to note, if we could talk eventually about why it takes so long to carry out executions, why are these... Well, if he did it in 2009, why did it take until 2013 to get the conviction? Right. It's like four years. Why would it take that long? And then why would it take... Another 13 years to actually execute. Those are both very valid questions. I also would like to say, what I was actually most shocked about when that came down, I remember that, of course, 2009, not that long ago.

I am like, how do you start shooting at people at a military base? I would think that someone would pull out their gun and just mow the guy away, but apparently, you are not supposed to be carrying a side piece or arm with guns while you are on a military base. I thought...

What? On God's earth, this isn't a playground. Like, if someone comes in shooting, everyone should be like, pull out their gun and shoot the guy dead. Like, it should be over. I don't understand. I'm absolutely shocked by this. Yeah. The whole thing, from soup to nuts, is nuts, actually. Really nuts. Even the MPs should have...

Should have been armed. Well, they'll have MPs usually at the entrance that are, but like, again, like, you know, you can, once you get on a base, and you know, if you hit your gun somehow, and then you can just start mowing people over, but like, well, he was in the infirmary, so there, there was a line of people waiting to be seen by doctors and for medical care, including the pregnant woman was there for a prenatal visit, and that's, so at the infirmary, apparently, there were, there's no one with a gun to stop him, but now his execution, We finally scheduled his execution.

It is scheduled for December 3rd, and then we get this, so Pete Hegg says, was describing, we could just roll the tape of what he said. Came down regarding firing squad. Can you tell us about how that came about, and what led to that decision process? No brainer. Execution by firing squad. An army major betrays his country. Radical Islamist kills a bunch of Americans at Fort Hood. Of course, we are going to do it at Fort Hood. We are going to do it on a Thursday.

We are going to do it at 1 o'clock, which is when he did it, and it is going to be soldiers with rifles executing the firing squad. It had not been since World War II since we have done that. Well, I kind of like the mentality we had in World War II, which was win.

Which was, understand when the enemy attacks you, you need to stand your ground. So, it was a radical Islamist terror attack. Remember what Obama called it? Workplace violence? I mean, that is what we are up against. That is the worldview we are up against, is workplace violence, CVE. We know what it is. It was a radical Islamist attack in uniform inside the ranks, and so he is going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be. And we will make sure that people are able to watch it, that it is public, because people need to understand that there are serious consequences for these types of things.

All right, so he did confirm later that there would be, they were planning to live stream the execution, so anyone could watch it anywhere around the world. Before I get into other reactions, gentlemen, what were your thoughts when you heard this?

Well, thanks for having probably the one guy at CatholicVote who is not a fan of the death penalty on the day you're talking about this. I think most people at CatholicVote actually don't like the death penalty. I mean, obviously, I'm the difference maker here.

I just assume you lead everything. Look, this is military, so I think death penalty is very different here. I'm not saying I support. It's him being killed, except if anybody deserves it, he certainly does. And I do think, regardless how you feel about the death penalty, the appellate system has to be reformed, so it doesn't take over 20 years for something like this to happen. Except to have it televised, I think, just reaches a level of barbarism. Because I don't think people will be watching it to, unfortunately, watching it to learn a lesson.

They're going to be watching it thinking, It's another version of GTA, whatever that race car violent video game is, and I don't think they'll take away the lesson that is trying to be conveyed here, so I'm glad. It sounds like they're walking back a little bit.

The feeling of, let's televise this. Yeah, well, there's certainly an outcry against it, and featured very prominently across all mainstream media were the U.S. bishops who came out. So, Archbishop Coakley, who's the president, he's been on the program, actually, so LOOPcast. I love Coakley a lot. I love Archbishop Coakley, had a fantastic interview with him, but he came out and expressed his horror that live streaming would be. Archbishop, even on the table, Archbishop Broglio, who is the head of the military archdiocese, he even went so far as to say that Catholics who were called to the firing squad should decline to participate in the execution.

And about the same time... Didn't he say they should be allowed to voice their conscience if they don't want to participate? He didn't say they shouldn't participate. That's correct. You're right. So, they should be allowed to. Act according to their conscience, which sort of goes, I mean, I would think that goes... Basically, it's giving permission to any soldier who didn't want to participate, saying, well, I kind of agree with this, Archbishop, I don't want to have to do it, I guess.

Yeah, whatever. Yeah, clarity. I mean, also... Yeah, go ahead, Josh. Well, I mean, I don't think it should be televised either, but I do, I mean, in a sense, I do believe in... Well, I mean, I don't have a problem with capital punishment, and I think the problem I have, I guess, with, I mean, I think Coakley is a very good man. I think Archbishop Berger is also a very good man. I consider them to be very holy bishops. My frustration, though, is that, you know, if we want to talk about the hard truths living in American life today.

One of the hard truths is that the secular mainstream media will choose to broadcast any message that fits their narrative, and they will completely smother and downplay anything that doesn't. So, when these good holy bishops speak about the evils of Euthanasia, like we just had legalized in New York, widespread pornography, gambling that wrecks so many people's lives, and of course, the murder of so many children in the womb. The media doesn't have anything to say about that, and if they cover it, it's like...

Two paragraphs, you know, way off to the side, no one hears anything about it. But when three cardinals of our church want to excoriate and scold President Trump on immigration, well, one of the flagship networks, CBS, gives them plenty of airtime and 60 minutes to talk about how terrible Trump is. So, this is the concern I have. In and of itself, I find it to be grotesque that, well, not grotesque, I just, unseemly is probably a better word. I don't think, I don't like.

The airing of it, you know, I had a friend who said, here, these jihadists executed Daniel Pearl. I remember that. It was like 25 years ago. He goes, you should watch this. I said, I don't need to watch it to know that it's absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible behavior. And again. My concern is, one of my frustrations is that people on the left who make fun of Charlie Kirk being murdered and love to watch that clip, and they sell merchandise of him being murdered, are going to be telling me about human dignity.

Like, it's unseemly. Well, it is unseemly to show an execution. I agree, so I hope they don't do it. But there's not, execution itself of a criminal, I don't consider to be barbaric. I think it's justified. And the frustration I have with the church on the discussion of the death penalty is, I was telling you this before, Erika, to me, liberal Catholics love this issue, because they get to show, I'm in favor of human dignity, when they cover their eyes, they cover their ears, anytime we're talking about abortion, you know, widespread pornography, you know, all these other social ills, you know, gambling, all that kind of stuff, la la la la la, they don't care.

But on the death penalty, they get to be more Catholic than conservatives, because the Pope changed the catechism back in 2018. It reminds me of the left on January 6th, which has become Christmas Super Bowl for liberals, because they get to be more patriotic than conservatives that day. We stand for the Constitution. We will try to overturn the election. To me, it is the same song and dance. They don't actually want an honest conversation about... The death penalty. Now, I don't like the death penalty right now, because if you're going to do it, do it right.

Don't wait five years to actually pronounce a sentence when we know it's this guy. Don't take another 10 years before you actually execute the guy, you know, and do it right. I don't actually like it. We had the case in Tennessee with a woman who was on death row. Krista Pike, right. Her lethal injection, and it didn't work out, and all this, and oh my gosh, what are we going to do now? I don't like combining medicine with execution, period. I think a firing squad or hanging them, very simple, do it that way.

The whole problem I have with this As C.S. Lewis called it, it's like a chronological snobbery, where we think just because we are now newer age, that we're somehow more evolved on everything else, and therefore, we can look back at our ancestors who believed in the death penalty, like, oh, well, we're so much more refined than that. We can just put people in jail for the rest of their lives, and therefore, problem solved. It's like, well, first of all, The death penalty, the understanding behind the death penalty was not just to protect people, these criminals, from doing additional harm.

I mean, I suppose we could launch them into orbit, for crying out loud. What are you talking about? Like, we'll have a space station where all the criminals are there. No, I mean, it's like the Brits in Australia. That's not the reason for the death penalty. It's one, but one of the other reasons is restributive justice. The idea that, no, you just slaughtered, like... 14 people at a military base, and what, we're going to let you be in prison for the rest of your life, three meals, and get to talk and spout off and say whatever you want to whoever else?

I'm sorry. There are some crimes which are so reprehensible that demands this kind of justice. So, that's what I feel. I guess I have centuries of the church teaching on my side, and in fact, we had the Vatican actually had an office of the executioner up until, what, 1870?

I loved this thread that you brought to my attention. So, this is an anonymous account on Twitter, but it's Britannus Rome, so Roman Britain. But he had an amazing thread that just kind of walked through from a traditional Catholic teaching, which for 2,000 years, the Church has said the state has the right to execute. And even in the past, popes as head of the Vatican state were allowing executions or calling for executions. But he did a really good job, I thought, of laying out some of the objections to the death penalty and why they're ineffective, right, or they don't.

So, my favorite one, though, was… Well, to the church's changing of the… The church's changing, yeah, and it was that Pope Francis changed a word in the catechism to say the death penalty is inadmissible, but still sort of like giving himself… There's enough room to say, well, I'm not saying other popes were wrong, or I'm not saying the Church's magisterial teaching on the death penalty was wrong all that time, but today, it's inadmissible, which is that chronological snobbery that you're talking about, Josh.

But my favorite section, I'm just going to read it from the tweet. It's argued that we have had some sort of, quote, development on our understanding of human dignity, that it is not lost, even in the commission of the gravest crimes, and that the death penalty Is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of human life. But this presents dual issues. First, frankly, any question of human dignity is completely irrelevant. Nobody claims that the criminal loses his human dignity. Nobody claims that the death penalty is justified because they supposedly do not have human dignity.

It has nothing to do with the argument at all, which is true. Second, using this justification creates a very problematic contradiction. If the defense is that the death penalty is not necessary in modern society, that is a conditional argument. Logically, in a less developed society, it could still be necessary and justifiable. But if it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of human life, that cannot be conditional. It does not matter if a less developed society does not have the capacity for permanent imprisonment.

An attack on human dignity is always an attack on human dignity. Dignity. So, that would move the death penalty into the region of grave moral evil, along with contraception or murder, things that are always intrinsic. Yeah, because you're basically saying it is intrinsic to the act. Exactly, right. So, you can't ignore that question, but you also, if you want to keep this as a matter of prudential judgment on the part of the popes, you can't be appealing to human dignity as your argument.

And I thought that was a really, really wise way of looking at it. Because then the question becomes, okay, if the death penalty is not necessarily opposed to the dignity of the criminal who's condemned, what would be? Well, I would say, as you did, Josh, that the way we treated Krista Pike was contrary to her human dignity. I think there are certain moments in human life that should not be live-streamed, that should not be documented for the whole world to see.

That should not be medicalized, and those would be, or not medicalized, I'm going a little too far, but they shouldn't be public, right? They shouldn't be subjected to third parties, right? Yes, it would be your birth. Like an act of sex between a man and a wife, for example. Yes, sex, the birth of a baby, which is why those TV shows about watching me have my birth are totally contrary to the dignity of that child.

So, birth. Sex and death. I think that those three moments... I would add Josh dancing. And Josh dancing. I think that's fair. Should never be live-streamed. Well, I mean, the one I could actually give... Like, the birth of a child, if you're doing it for a medical class, that would be the exception that would make sense. Right, but not on Twitter. Like, not the Instagrams. No need on the Instagram. Right, I mean, and of course, again, the spectacle of things. Yeah, that is something to be...

Like, what is the nature of it? Like, that's the idea, because... What's interesting about videotaping or recording something is that you're able to present it to another audience that weren't able to be there. And so, like a speech from a politician, a radio or TV show, they can show it to someone else. That's fine. But again, that's why we had standards with regards to like, okay, well, we don't want to do something that leads to lust or leads to vengeance or whatever.

You know, yeah, so there are natural limits on some of these things. I agree with that. Yeah, and I think our society has taken these very intimate moments in our lives and just made them the focal point and, like, a way to grow your account on Instagram or grow your account on Twitter by, like, oh, look at my kids or, you know, look at me and my husband, like, suggestively, and, I mean, Charlie Kirk, obviously, his human dignity was violated because he was assassinated, but it was...

It was supercharged when it was live streamed. Everyone saw that moment in his life, which should be so intimate and so private. One more note on the death penalty, too. As we've talked about the retributive aspect of it, that there are some acts that are so grave that death, in fact, may be warranted as the penalty. But Aquinas, I love this part of Aquinas, because he also brings up that even more so, it's medicinal.

That the death penalty can be a medicinal... Punishment for the perpetrator. That should never be lost in the conversation. So, not every offense that's worthy of death should result in capital punishment for the accused, but only in those cases where, I think he said, they've caused irreparable harm that they can never repay to society, or that they contain some horrible deformity. And I think that would characterize what Krista Pike did. That ought to be punished with the death, so as to be medicinal for the perpetrator, as well as for society.

So, another aspect that I think gets lost in a lot of liberal discourse on the Catholic side about capital punishment. Well, from a salvation standpoint, I mean, knowing of your impending death is not necessarily the worst thing in the world. I mean, you had the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was not able to be executed. So, then he ends up in prison, and then someone, you know, comes up to him with a shiv and kills him, and well, there was, you know, but if he had given, if he had been properly executed, which I think he should have, he'd have had time to say, okay, would you like to make an account for your life?

Would you like to talk to a rabbi, a priest, or someone like that? No, I guess you'll get, hey, you know, you never know the day or the hour, buddy. Yeah, sometimes it's a blessing to know the day and the hour. So, moving on to our good news. Let's do some good news, gentlemen. I love this story, so I'm going to go first before someone takes it.

Fox News covered this just so well. They got the parents on board, but we had this girls cross-country team. I was a big cross-country runner in high school, so this struck really close to home, but about a dozen girls walked away. From their high school cross-country race in Washington yesterday, on Tuesday, this week, they refused to compete.

Against a male athlete, you can tell it's the male if you zoom in on that photo, because he's about a foot taller than all the other competitors. What? This male, there he is, and he has facial hair, too, if you're really getting close. This male was, until two weeks ago, on the boys' cross-country team at the same high school. He decides he's a girl. All the adults in the room are like, great, yay, we have a trans person. Let's put him on the girls' team.

And yeah, about a dozen of the girls on the team. If you play the footage there, Celine, they start the race. Go ahead. And there you can see. There's the girls. You got it, girls. And they just walked away.

Yeah, so this is especially poignant because on the ballot in Washington State, this election, if you're in Washington, go vote. You have an initiative. It is 638, and 638 would prohibit students who are biologically male from competing in certain female-only inter-school athletic competitions, and it would require students seeking to enter those competitions to provide verification of biological sex. From a doctor. So, there's actually something on the ballot in that state, which would be great, but I was blown away by the parents in this case.

So, the Fox story interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Burns, who are Holly Burns, one of the students' parents, and they talked about their daughter's reaction when she knew this race was coming up. She found out that this boy would be competing on her team.

And at first, she wanted to play it safe, and her parents were like, we weren't going to push it, but we just encouraged her to follow her conscience, and eventually, she started talking to her teammates. Other girls were also thinking, I don't want to run in this race. It's a farce. It's an insult, and so this group of girls got together, and the parents were so good in that they just said, we didn't push her. We just told her to do what was on her heart and what would be best for her and her teammates.

And girls in the future, and she chose the right thing, because this is the way things are going to change. It's not going to change because the school board is suddenly going to have a change of heart, but it's going to be girls and their parents not making an idol of high school sports and saying, I'm going to do it no matter what, but saying, this is a lie. I'm not going to participate in your lies, and you're not going to make me affirm something.

That is not true. Namely, that this boy is a girl. So, kudos to the Burnses and all of the girls on that team. I know that wasn't easy, but you spoke your souls. This is good. That's my good news.

I actually have a related good news thing. Josh! First of all, I'm super happy. That the Federal Trade Commission is going to, they're starting an investigation into the now massive online sports gambling industry. I mean, we're talking, you know, what is it, $156 billion industry? I mean, it's insane. $167 billion, sorry. You know, this is something that needs attention to it. And I would just say, like, first of all, Part of the reason why my family doesn't really watch that much sports at all is because, like, for example, someone made the comment on Twitter, I agree with him, if you watch the baseball playoffs, you know, sports gambling ad with someone who's half-naked, then, you know, then you have, like, horror film show, you know, movies, because October, Halloween month, right?

All these, you know, ads that are just, like, attack you. Like, I can't watch any of these games with my children. And so, by the way, guess what? All my kids, they don't care. I mean, they like the Vikings just because, oh, dad likes the Vikings, but they don't watch any sports games. You're losing the next generation. You're eating your seed corn. This is the dumbest thing ever. But gambling, that's how they want to juice themselves, these sports leagues. Initially, all the leagues were against it.

All the networks were against it, and then when the Supreme Court in 2018 wasn't Congress, the Supreme Court just says, ah, we're going to have gambling now, and then all of a sudden, the floodgates have opened up, and it's been crazy, you know, and it's frustrating to me, and by the way, it used to be.

It used to be, 10, 15 years ago, the largest metropolitan city in the country that never had any sports teams was Las Vegas, because it was too unseemly. Football, baseball, like, well, we don't want to be in Las Vegas. The scandal of gambling would be too much. We can't do that. Now, it's gone so far the other way. So, I'm glad that the FTC is investigating this, and I also want to give a shout out.

To this woman named Nicole Noren. She's been a producer at ESPN for like 16 years or so, and she's just quit. Not over the girl sports thing, which I would be even more awesome. But she's quitting about the gambling thing, and she got frustrated because it used to be, you know, when they first made that decision in 2018, you know, Disney, which owns ESPN, was like, oh, I don't think this is really going to affect us. We don't really see this, you know, playing a factor or whatever.

And then fast forward to 2023, and ESPN licensed its name for a gambling app. So, I mean, the sea change has been insane. And so, you know, there are some brave people standing up and saying, this is a really, really bad idea, and I applaud that. Stand up and save sports. That's the theme of our Twilight Zone.

I highly recommend Erika's The Deep on this issue. I listened to it myself. Actually, the only thing I ever testified against in Congress. Was internet gambling? It was a Democratic Congress. It is on YouTube somewhere. I am not well liked by the Poker Players Alliance or anybody on that side. Let us just say some of the words they use to describe me are not pleasant. But at the time, the biggest backers for organizations that were fighting this internet gambling was the NFL.

I can remember, they used to have football players come in and lobby with us, and it was also great because I'd get free box seats to things like baseball games and football games. Not anymore. Now to see how far they've fallen, and exactly what they predicted in like 2010, 2011 is happening to their own industry. They all predicted this, that it would ruin their industry, yet they went ahead and did it anyway. Temptation. Because, like, you know, it used to be people, you know, would watch their own hometown sports teams, and they'd occasionally watch other teams, you know what I mean?

But now, because it started actually, I would say, about 30 years ago with fantasy football, where people would adopt their team, you know, fantasy football, and then they started caring about games that weren't even their hometown team anymore. And it got to the point where...

Now, if you look at the Nielsen ratings for the top 100 ranked shows, 97 of them are football games. Wow, that's crazy. Or 96 or something like that, and then it's like the Emmys and the Tonys, and you know what I mean? Like the award shows, it's all football. I mean, again, it's sort of laughable, but like two teams that are like seven and four, or in four and seven, like who cares about them? Men would rather watch that than WNBA.

They'd rather watch that than baseball. NFL is massive, and so fantasy football started bringing more eyeballs, and then gambling is the same thing. People want to know who's going to win this game, who's going to win that game. They've got money in the game. It's too much.

I'm not a libertarian. That's why I actually think that our lawmakers could stand by and say, even though this would be fun, it's devastating. I don't know how you get the cap. Back in the bag, or whatever, now, but it would be nice to have at least some limitations, but I wish this... Yeah. We cannot be libertarian about the vice economy anymore. I think it's terrible. And these sport leagues rely a lot on the federal government, both for their monopolies, as well as local governments for their stadiums and things like that, that the people do have more power than we give ourselves credit for.

Yeah, you're going to be in a bear's. All right, what's your... My good news... But first, you have to explain your shirt. The people want to know, what is the... Is there words on your shirt? Oh, I didn't know you could even read that. It's actually a shirt I got for my last anniversary.

It's the song my wife and I dance to. It's writing on the shirt. That is the sweetest thing. So, Crazy Love by Van Morrison. And anybody... Both of you know my wife, so you probably understand it is a fitting song that we dance to.

Well, we know you, and that is why you are crazy. All right, Tom, good news. Somebody has to hold the keys to the asylum. The good news, it is more in a positive development of our culture. There was a study that the Washington Post talked about, CDC-linked findings, found that the number of teens who identify themselves as gay or bisexual are in free fall. And that word freefall is used by the researcher herself. I'm assuming Gene Twenge's analysis, 2025 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, showed a sharp decline in teens defining.

Those defining themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual fell from 30% in 2021 to 17% in 2025. Drop is concentrated among the youngest high schoolers. And rates still remain high, but the free-fall language, as I said, came from the study itself.

When the Washington Post wrote about this, it was kind of like, oh, you know, it is because they are being closeted, recloseted, and everything else. But if you look further into the study, teens are happier now than they have ever been.

Teens are, their suicide rates are going down. Teens are happier now than they were. Say five, six years ago, I should say. Suicide rates are going down. Persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness fell from 42% to 33%. The share who seriously considered suicide fell from 22% to 14%, which kind of bolsters what number of us who follow the culture thought that the recent surge was largely social and cultural. Rather than fixed, like kids coming out of the closet. This was more, they were responding to what they were seeing on TikTok and what was supposed to be cool.

The social contagion, right? Right, the social contagion. So, it is great when society resettles itself, and quite honestly, not to make this partisan, but it has turned into such a partisan issue. If the Democrats take over again, Don't expect that they will come back even harder to try to force men into women's locker rooms, force you out of your job if you hold Christian beliefs. So, it's just positive news for now, but we always have to be vigilant.

Amen. But it's great news. That's so good to hear. I know just the last few years, we've just been covering endlessly the rise in teen anxiety and suicide and the smartphones and the porn and all these contributing factors, and to see nature sort of naturally healing itself when there's, I think, more of a narrative of permission to just be normal in the upper echelons, more alternative news sources, more alternative online communities. Like, in a good sense, like more traditional options for kids.

It's good to see that it's possible to turn this around. But yeah, like you said, we have to keep the pressure on. As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, Woke 1 was crazy. And I think what she actually meant was, just wait till I get my hands on some power and I can do Woke 2. It'll be even crazier. Sequel's always worse. That's what I think she actually meant. Yeah. All right. Ah, good call. So, we're moving on from good news. This is not.

This is a little bit dark, but I really wanted to pull this because this post is just going. viral online. And it was from a kind of no-name account. We have Dom Loves Investing, whoever that was. Four days ago, he had 2,000 followers. And now he is world famous. And he's been picked up by every conservative pundit and liberal as well. So, it's very sad. I don't want to dump on him. I want to ask for prayers up front. But he goes totally public with this.

He says, my wife and I decided to get a divorce. There were no fights, just two adults who realized they drifted apart from each other. This is probably the hardest thing I had to go through. First of all, telling our girls. Seeing them so sad was heartbreaking, but we are still a team as parents, and we'll do everything for them. Also, we have to sell our house. Everything except living together. Everything except the one thing they really want from you, Dad.

Also, we have to sell our house, the house I wanted to live in forever and raise my kids in, going back to a smaller apartment will be rough. Oh, do you think that'll be hard for you? What about your kids? I still have a lot to handle, and that's why I wasn't active here on X. I'm really grateful for all the people who reached out and asked where I was. This woman will always be part of my life. Yeah, because you have kids with her.

She gifted me with two perfect daughters. I wish her all the best. Great memories were made in those years. I'll be back soon. Thank you. Everyone. And this just blew the top. This was coupled with another bizarre story in the tabloids where Tobey Maguire officiated the wedding of his ex-wife to some billionaire tycoon, so like Spider-Man officiated his ex-wife's wedding, and of course, all of the TMZ was like, isn't this so cool? They had a friendly divorce. They're best friends still, and their teenage children were at the wedding, and also the child she had with the other guy was at the wedding.

The wedding, and modern family, this is all just fine, and the kids are fine. Because it is not really marriage, it is just cosplaying, you know? Just cosplaying as a marriage. Yeah. So, there are just some great replies to this, but I mean, one of them, Bethany Mandel, who, you know, one of my favorites, she goes, I don't want to pile on this guy, but as a child of divorce, you want more than I just wasn't feeling it anymore, if your parents are going to set off a nuclear bomb in your life.

Yeah, really? My goodness. And I think that, like, the... The takeaway from most of the reactions to this is just, you know, people get divorced, tragedies happen, and all that, but this idea that we're still floating the narrative that there can be such a thing as a good divorce, and we're still a team, and we're going to do everything for our children, and it's so obtuse and leaving out the actual victims, because the whole purpose of marriage. It's the procreation and the education of those children.

And the first thing that you do in your divorce announcement is be like, no, I'm still doing that for them. No problem. When you're not and expecting everyone else to say, oh, yay, good for you. You had a friendly divorce. It's the expecting everyone to say, I'm so sorry you're going through this hard thing. You're doing the right thing, man. It's so harmful and so disgusting. Yeah. I don't know if you have thoughts on that. Well, I mean, again, I think the biggest, I mean, you know, we all grew up in the 70s, 80s, 90s, where this divorce was rampant.

If anything, it's lower these days because just fewer people are deciding to, you know, actually take the plunge and get married. Like, that was the thing. Like, that's some of the lessons that Gen X and millennials learned from this, this hellscape that was left over in the immediate aftermath of the sexual revolution. And then, you know, what is it, Katie Foster always says, or was it the other lady? In the sexual revolution, the first victims are children. Yeah. And, you know, and that's definitely the truth.

I mean, like, you... You grow up in broken homes, and it is just awkward where the parents are pitting the children against each other. Divorce actually breaks my heart more than just about any other sexual sin, even more than abortion. I mean, obviously, abortion is worse. I am just saying that divorce breaks my heart. I have seen it. uh hurt so many people and the response to that should try it you know the hope is it's like well we're going to do it right we're going to get married we're going to try to set the course the right way and you know i my wife and i we love each other we it's not even a thought but even if something like we just started screaming and yelling at each other it's like okay wait humble them you know yourselves like i have six children You know, now Young is 11.

There's no way, I mean, like, if we have to sleep in different rooms, if I'm in the basement, like, we're still a team. We're still gonna, you know, like, we're there for our kids. Like, that's the thing about the sexual revolution. It taught, like, you know, that ye be made gods, you know, like, you are in control. And, like, you stay with your spouse only so long as, or partner only so long as you want, and, you know, like, and that's the narrative.

There's never the sense, it's all about rights, all about what you want, and it's never about any sense of what you're obligated to do, and what your duty is. And a life without duties and without obligations is listless. It's boring, you know? Like, again, like, What was it, like, the wedding singer talking about? I remember that movie, Adam Sandler. Remember all those guys, like Sam Malone on Cheers, all those, you know, Playboy guys that go around, you know, and everyone thinks they're heroes because they're betting all these women.

Well, you don't see them in their 50s anymore because no one likes to see a guy who's single and 50, like, trying to hit on chicks. It looks depressing. It looks sad. Yes, there's something about life. You're meant for something greater. You're meant for marriage. This idea that you're just drifting apart, it's a euphemism for your selfishness. You know, on his part and her part. Like, there's no, give me a break. Yeah, one of the saddest lines, one of his responses, someone said, oh, you took the home away from your children, and his response to that comment, and again, not to dunk on this guy in particular, I'm only using him as an example, because these are all lines.

He threw himself out there. Yeah, he put it out on Twitter, man. But, and it's also a line that I've heard from other, you know, we got a great divorce couples in my life, and he said, well, a home is just where my children feel safe. I'm like, oh, no. No, that's not what a home is. A home is where their mother and their father live and order their lives to your growth, to you, and not to themselves, or they've died to themselves, like you said, Josh.

And I think, too, this lie that there's such thing as a good divorce. Obviously, there's high-conflict divorces, and then there's low-conflict divorces, which it seems like he's equating that. But that for the children, as they grow into adulthood, no matter what age they are when the divorce happens, whether they're two and three and they can't remember a home with mom and dad, or they're 25 and 26 and they've graduated college, that inevitably children are looking for an explanation.

For the divorce, and they're looking for an explanation of why mom and dad left, and there's no fighting, there's no screaming, there's no, you know, violence, please God, but they're still going to want an explanation, and just we want a new chapter, or we've drifted apart. Most children in this, you can talk to psychologists, like, and read studies, the children end up blaming themselves, right? And it's a form of Of gaslighting, right? That you're like, well, we still do everything for you.

We take you to ice cream. We make sure you're in sports. We give you a good education. We're still doing everything for you. And so, you can't... How could they not feel like it was because they were abandoned? Right. And it's terrible. As a child of divorce, though it was 50 years ago, I do come from a big family. I love everybody in my family, including my dad remarried. So, of course, I love my little brother and sister. But looking back, you can tell how much it messed up everybody in the family, and I was blessed 20 years after that to be able to, and friendly alcohol was involved, but to be able to talk to my family, because my dad, he was always there for me, but the most important lesson he could have taught me about how to treat your spouse and how important that is, He did not, with my mother.

So, and I've talked to my male siblings, at least, about this. We've all, we all have decided we married for life, because we, that's the lesson, ultimately, we came out of it. Two of my brothers never married, and I think, certainly, divorce played a part in that. But, I mean, it's...

I know very much so that when I die, my wife will be at my side, probably holding a pillow. Nice shirt, Tom. But there is no friendly divorce. You could say that was a friendly divorce. My mother, to her dying day, resented my dad for it. We never held her accountable. We never held her responsible for that, because she understood that life was forever, and that she had all these kids now to raise.

It was just probably the only time in my life my dad disappointed me, a man I love dearly and look up to. Well, I got to say, you know, that pains me. I mean, I know that, I remember something that my friend Tom Hoops told me. He was editor of the National Catholic Register, and he said that the vast majority of marriages, if they could just stick it out and not get divorced, not push that button and blow it up.

Five years later, they're so much happier, so much better. And so, I do commend my mom and dad for sticking it out, you know, back, I think, to 1998 or whatever, and that was, it was horrible. It was a rough, rough patch, and I confronted my father, and that was, it was rough.

But he stuck it out. And they remain married to this day. That is amazing. They could be waiting until you are more mature. They are waiting for Josh to grow up. That is good. Exactly. Kudos to Paul and Peg. Thank you for sticking it out. Amen. Here is to everyone who is sticking it out.

All right, moving into, I can't believe we're covering this. It was a slow news week, y'all, so you're going to get Shane Gillis on Saturday Night Live. And for those of you who are like, yeah, if you have young children, again, we are a family-friendly show. We're going to soften the blow here, but there is a little of a nun-do, if you know what I mean, going on with Shane Gillis, who is a comedian, stand-up comedian, who in 2019 was fired from Saturday Night Live after only two weeks or something because of his offensive remarks.

Apparently, they dug up some slur to Chinese people. Then he had some He had a character-referred accent that was offensive, what they are calling a homophobic epithet, that he had made these surface, so he was canceled in 2019. Then they had him back in 2024 and 2025 as a host because he went and made such a big name. He's kind of like a Dave Chappelle cancellation kind of figure going on. All right, Shane Gillis, back on Saturday Night Live this past weekend.

And here's what he said. He had a seven-minute monologue. It was mostly self-deprecating jokes about his appearance and weight, which is generous. He's generously built. Then he started in on guys going to the gym these days. He said, I haven't been to the gym in so long, I didn't know that women just dress like, nasty word for prostitutes now.

He said, and all of a sudden, the audience goes, oh, like they're laughing along, and it goes, oh, you can hear the, I'm sorry. He says, there's no other way to describe. Have you seen it? I've seen it. The shorts. Have you seen the shorts? He asked, comparing them to neon-colored fish lures. And don't look, he continued, you're not allowed to look to the guys, for real. Don't look, because they, the women, are filming. I am in the background of like 10 TikToks right now.

Now, so, for those of you who are not on TikTok, you can go on, and you can see girls at the gym videotaping guys. I mean, don't, but you could. Don't, but you could, because it's a thing. It's a trend where they dress provocatively, and then they go to the gym, and they film the guys ogling them or trying not to look at them, and they're like, oh my gosh, can you believe what he said?

So, everyone was totally upset by this. Jimmy Fallon couldn't believe it. What's that guy's name? The really bad one. Kimmel couldn't believe. Of the man show? Yes, of the man show. Okay, all right. I cannot believe in this day and age. The show that 25 years ago had women. You know, in tight outfits, bouncing on trampolines. That guy had a problem. Okay, just making sure. He was shocked. Shocked. How did I tell you? Dan Levy of Schitt's Creek fame, and I can say that because it's a proper name, not the expletive, but he had probably the most viral reaction to Shane Gillis.

Just roll that tape. Women wearing short shorts to the gym does not make them horrid. It makes the men calling them whores misogynists. There's a difference there. By the way, I've seen more men's nipples at the gym than I've ever seen women, except showing their bodies off. But I'm speechless that something like that can exist on live national television.

And to be perfectly honest, more men need to be standing up in opposition to it, because it's complacency that has created the environment with which women are sexually assaulted, and it's a conversation as opposed to a crime. Men need to be defending women more. This is not a women's issue. This is an everybody issue.

Because the more that men objectify women in the media, the more that other men see them as objects and treat them as objects. So, is he going to come up for women's sports? They are superior human beings to men, okay? Oh, I like that. And I'm sorry if this gets me in trouble with the internet, but f***.

Okay, Dan. Poor Dan. First of all, can I just react to the very first thing he said there, that he's seen more men's nipples at the gym than women? And I'm like, dude, men's chests are not equivalent to women's chests. So, yeah, like, I don't think guys should be naked at the gym either, but like, it's not the same. And I believe Dan Levy also is same-sex attracted as well. Yeah, he is. He's a flaming. Yes, he's rainbows. I hate to say, I agree with a lot of what he was saying.

You don't have to say it. Tell us your case. Give us your case. Listening to the LOOPcast last week with Mark Houck, who was great, not as great as me, of course, as a guest host, but he's great. He's great.

And he was talking about the Cornell case and the white knighting, that somebody, a man, should have spoke up. To me, it's not white knighting, it's being a gentleman, and learning, and you're always a gentleman, like you always, I don't know if it's James Bond or whatever, like you would call everybody madam or lady, and it's like, how do you know I'm a lady? And it's like, I always assume, until you prove me differently. It might have been Winston Churchill, actually.

Under no circumstances do I think publicly you should be calling anybody that word, any woman that word. Um, if they are dressed inappropriately, say something to the gym, say something to them. Probably that's not the wisest move, or have a woman talk to them or something.

I do think that it's right that it's not good for the culture that women are dressing this way, but it's a separate thing that a man feels comfortable. And I don't know Shane Gillis, his comedy, all that well, and I know comedy is supposed to make you think and also offend, and I certainly embrace that, but I don't think it helps things by calling a woman, women in general, that word.

Yeah. Well, so, he didn't, I got to disagree with you on this one. First of all, it's not like he called a specific person. This word, right? He's not like, okay, I was at the gym, and I saw this woman, and I go, you are dressed like a prostitute. He, of course, did not do that, and he didn't single out like, oh my gosh, some celebrity dresses like a prostitute. So, he didn't do that. That, I think, would be obviously unacceptable or tacky.

But, you know, here's the thing. We have this weird environment, right? So, like, it used to be in the 50s and 60s, people would, you know, women were encouraged to wear, like, let's say, makeup or, you know, nice clothes in order to try to impress, like, their husband and try to look nice for your husband. And then feminism creeps in. It's like, no, no, no, that's not the reason. Burn the bras. No, it's like, so what do they do? The corporation is like, no, no.

Do it, you know, you deserve it. You deserve to look this good. So, the whole idea behind beauty was really just to try to impress how you look and show other women how beautiful you are, and any talk about trying to look nice for your man was like sort of like 50s sexism, you know, misogyny, old school stuff. All right.

So, what's funny then is, like today, a woman can go onto social media, be very scantily clad, you know, wearing hardly anything, technically not nude, but being very, you know, half, they're basically in her underwear, essentially, these gym clothes are basically like underwear. Like, what's the difference between your underwear, a bikini, and these gym outfits? There's not really that much of a distinction in terms of how much you're showing.

And everyone affirms her. Certainly, creepy dudes or just general men in general, they like looking at women that are beautiful and half-naked. I'm not suggesting it's a... I'm not approving of this, but so men give them affirmation, and then other women give them affirmation, like, yeah, you're doing it for you. You go, sister, do it, because we're in the sexual revolution. We've got to celebrate.

Whatever your sexuality is, you can't offer any criticism, right? Because that's, judgment is the only thing that's not acceptable in the sexual revolution. Any kind of discretion is the only thing that we can't tolerate, right? Right. You can't tolerate any kind of modicum of respect and dignity. That's the thing that we got to slam the door on right away.

So, yeah, if, let's say, I mean, first of all, I'm a married man. I don't go to a gym. Obviously, I'm overweight anyway, but if I were to go to a gym, and I were to, you know, like, I would want gyms to have times where, wouldn't it be great, like, just men, you know? Yeah. I would go, like, at five in the morning, or something like that, when it's mainly just, let's say, men going, or something like that, and they're not people that are trying to, you know, do it for the camera.

That said, I think Shane was doing a public service in this, because that's like, how else are you going to talk about it? Like, if someone looking like me comes up to the gym manager, like, dude, some of these girls are dressed kind of skanky. Dude, you're a fat old man. You're a pervert. Yeah, right. You're not perverted. There's no way anyone's going to listen to anything I have to say on this. So, it is kind of like those times where, in the old kingdom, where no one could talk to the king and say what you're doing is wrong.

It had to be the court jester that would kind of make it. Like, oh, well, certainly that's not, you know, the problem, wink, wink, and everyone would laugh, and the king would be like, hmm, uh-oh, and it was an opportunity for a course correction, and so we do need sometimes comedians to say the truth that we're just apparently not allowed to say, because if social conservatives get on social media, if social conservatives go to the congressman or whatever and say, women are dressing way too scandal-y, you know, in gyms, like, who's going to, like, oh, my gosh, you're a Puritan, you want to take us back 300 years, but Shane Gillis says a joke like this, and people are like, yeah.

Of course, people are jumping ugly on him, but a lot of people are like, I mean, is he wrong? They are kind of dressing like there's a very old... It might have been... David Chappelle had a skit on... You can watch it on YouTube. I don't recommend it. We're not playing it, but it's... We're not going to play it on this cat. Very R-rated, but the point he made is like, okay, so technically, you're not a prostitute. But man, if I were to wear a police outfit and people come up to me, help, my friends aren't hurt.

Actually, I am not a police officer. I am just wearing the uniform. Well, that was kind of what David Chappelle says. You are not technically a prostitute, but you sure are wearing the uniform, so stop acting like it. Stop dressing like something that you are not then. Like, have dignity for crying out loud. But any time a guy tries to say it, they come off looking like a creep. And so, you need sometimes, you need someone like a David Chappelle. You need someone like a Shane Gillis to say, the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Because everyone else is affirming them. Right, because what Shane Gillis said out loud is what decent men Should be thinking, like, when they encounter that, be like, oh my gosh, she is not dressing. And this is obviously, like, much more sophisticated than what he said, because again, he's a comedian, he's up on SNL. Choice of words, we can argue over that. He's going salty on purpose. Right, but what a decent man should do, like, when he goes to the beach in the summer and he sees these girls wearing string bikinis and showing off their bodies in this way, like, a decent man will be like, that's beneath her dignity, because that's, it's objectifying her own body.

It's sexualizing herself, and in the case of these girls who film it and put it on their social media pages to get clicks and likes and what have you, they're actually weaponizing their sexuality against these men because they're going to the gym, they're dressing in these $100, $200 gym outfits from Lululemon that are like, we're going to lift your butt, and we're going to, you know, do this with your chest, and we're going to dress this way. Like, literally in the descriptions of these clothing, when you go online and you go...

Go to purchase them. It says, we're going to do this to your body, which you know will make you more sexualized for men, and they're going to then weaponize it so that the men who notice it at the gym are now forever on social media, like, trying not to look at them, and they're like, how dare you? And that is disgusting, harpy siren behavior. I'm sorry, ladies. Yeah, and I guess here's a weird thing to say. I mean, like, okay, so, you know, my wife and I, you know, we're...

Traditional, conservative, whatever. And a lot of the people listening to the show are like this as well. They do the right thing. They would never wear this kind of stuff in the gym, and they don't think like this. But I think part of what's going on is, were there people that were dressed like this in the 70s, 80s, 90s? Yes, actually, there were. And here's kind of one of the things. The idea is, if you wore these kind of outfits, you were intending to try to attract mates.

And I think what's kind of schizophrenic What's so schizophrenic about our day and age is that they wear this and the guys come up to them like, hey, what's up? And they're like, what are you doing? I'm just here to exercise. It's so misleading. It's so chaotic. What are you talking about? It's like, well, you're dressing like you're trying to attract a mate and then you act as if you're completely scandalized when people will try to come up to you and mate with you.

It's totally asinine world we live in. It is. I would say, don't dress like that. Yeah, and to the point, like, wouldn't it be great to have more single-sex spaces, although we're blowing that off, obviously, like, in YMCA's all over the country, but wouldn't it be great to have, like, girls' hour at the gym? But for the women who are doing this in a performative way, that would just defeat the purpose, and so they'd be like, I don't want girls' hour.

I'm a girl boss. Actually, exercise, that brings up a good point, though. There was that one chain of exercise, you know, gym or whatever. That targeted just women. Women could go there, and they wouldn't have to worry about guys trying to hit on them and be creepy or whatever, and it was like, yes, actually, there is, as you just said, there is a virtue, there is a reason for having single-sex spaces, and women saw that as an appropriate and a good thing, and that's when you're like, hey, great.

Is it possible that there might be a reason that men might have that? Men-only spaces are always evil in feminism, whereas women-only spaces are sacrosanct and beautiful and good. This is why I hate feminism with every fiber in my being.

You and Keri Grass, go for it. Speaking of men's only spaces, Cornell has a solution to the Cornell Sevens. Remember last week, as Tom alluded to, we covered the frat party that happened two years ago. There was a girl, there was some menage a huit, there was really deviant sexual behavior going on, kind of gay stuff and all this, and then the girl, a couple of months ago, she says, No, we're actually going to go in charge for rape, even though she'd said it was consensual.

Such a mess, such a muddle, never should have happened. So, Cornell, of course, has been scrambling because they did an investigation initially two years ago. They said, there's no criminal behavior, there was no rape, we're not going to do much except, you know, a couple boys got expelled, a couple of them had to write an essay. And now, of course, there's, we're having screaming sessions on Cornell's campus this fall. In protest. So, Cornell comes out, and they're like, okay.

We're going to prevent this from ever happening again. And you could think, well, okay, one solution could be maybe Cornell is now going to, at their student health services, instead of offering sex toys for sales and tutorials, I kid you not, there is a freshman orientation tutorial on how to do sodomistic, this is just disgusting stuff, on gross sex practice. Maybe they'll stop doing those. Maybe that's one thing that they will do. In order to prevent the Cornell 7 from happening again, no.

They're going to keep doing that, and instead, they are going to ban all frat social events for the rest of the year. They are also going to hire at least two new administrators to receive rape allegations, which again, According to all the evidence, is not what happened here. It's not what happened here.

So, we have the most predictable Ivy League administrative response to this cultural disaster and personal disaster that happened on their campus. We're going to ban the parties, which could be a good thing, and we're going to hire more bureaucracy to prevent this.

Will it work, Josh? Will it work? It's like, you know, there's this, you, why don't we just go back to the basics? Like, try the tried and true things. This is what drives me crazy. Like, I think we eventually get to conservatism because we've exhausted every other possibility. It's like what Churchill said about democracy. It's the worst system ever, except until you try everything else.

This is where we're going to eventually get to when it comes to women and men, you know, interacting in social situations, whether it's on campus, in gyms, in reality, at the bar, whatever. We're eventually going to kind of return to normalcy, I think, because there's nothing left. Right. I mean, what are you, you know, like, you know, what, is it a fully digital experience where you're watching porn all day and you're not interacting with any humans? Or are you going to have a college campus system where it's like, you know, everyone goes to a party and then you're just going to have...

Absolute, absolute, complete madness. Yep. You know, like 10 people in a room, and they're all together, and like an orgy. Like, no, like you've got to have a return to sort of normalcy eventually, and that's actually what's kind of freaking out some of these liberals. They said that some of these students are like, wait a minute now, the consent only isn't working. You know, the basis of relations between men and women operating on the idea of consent is insufficient, they said, because you can get to a situation like Cornell, if the woman said, yes, I was perfectly fine with it, instead of claiming rape later, even if she said she was okay with it, it is still wrong.

It is still gross. There has got to be something more to this, and so what some of these students at all these campuses are finding out, like, The whole structure that we've defined with these liberal colleges on centering it on consent, like that's the paramount. Anything goes, anything, as long as everyone says yes, then there's no manipulation, there's no, you know, everyone's, everything's fine, and what these students are finding out is like, no, actually, it's undignified, it's nasty, it's gross, like, this is, even if she said yes to this, like.

Like, what Mark said, there should be men saying, this is not a way to go. Like, we're not like cattle. Like, you know, like, this is not who we are. It's only a liberal college would decide more bureaucracy is the answer to anything.

And that is what they are trying to do here. This is one where it is just basically you have to burn it to the ground. Burn it to the ground, send all the parents who are sending their kids there, the Cardinal Newman Guide, and a flyer to Hillsdale, because I don't know if Hillsdale should be in the Cardinal Newman Guide. Well, they are not Catholic. They are not Catholic, and they have fraternities, and they are nothing like this at Cornell, I can tell you that much.

But we, as a society, have to eliminate these colleges. These colleges are just a burden on society. It's where all our kids are going to learn how to hate us and to hate society. It's where the democratic socialists, it's their fertile ground, and the only way is to disassociate, in my opinion. It's not canceling the frat parties. It's canceling those colleges themselves. These colleges should not be getting federal funds. It's just... It's going to take a long time. I mean, I think that's why, again, I've been such a big fan of what the congressional Republicans and President Trump did with the one big beautiful bill, placing some basic financial, you know...

Some guidelines. Right. Some sort of barriers here, like you can only borrow $5,000, and then you have to ask your parents, and they're going to have to get involved in this decision, and they have to go, wait a minute, is it, how much are you getting charged again? And so then we're starting, you know, having parents sign off to the loan is making it like open eyes. Making it real, right. People are starting to realize, wait a minute now, am I spending, I'm having to be on the hook to Cornell for $80,000 over the next four years because of you, and you're doing what?

That's a diploma I don't want. Nope. Yeah, it's shocking to me the number of even conservative Catholic parents in my circles who are still just, you're like, oh, you're going to Harvard? Oh, we're applying to Yale? You're like, but what does that mean? What is actually going on there? I'll never forget last year, I gave a talk to the Thomas More Center at Yale to the pro-life students, and all four of them said, no, just kidding. There's more there. There's more.

But one of them was describing to me what she went through her freshman orientation week, much like Cornell. But they got all the girls in her dorm, because it was a co-ed dorm. They separated the girls or the people who were capable of getting pregnant. So, potentially pregnant persons got to go to this orientation session that was entirely titled, How to Get an Abortion. And it was just, here's all the resources in New Haven. Here's where you go for your abortion.

And she actually, as a freshman, this girl's fire, she actually asked, she's like, are the boys getting a similar session? And they just looked at her like, what do you mean? Like, the boys, they have nothing to do with your pregnancy.

Well, that is how insane, and this is Yale, right? People are like, oh, Yale hospital system, the best in the world, but that is what they are actually indoctrinating these kids with. So, there is a little bit of good news at the end of this story, though. The Harvard Crimson, thank you to P.T. Keenan, I love her, domestic terrorist P.T. Keenan, on Twitter shared this from the Harvard Crimson.

Which is a very leftist, it's the student paper at Harvard itself, and it says, its title is, The Cornell Case Shows Gen Z is Moving Away from an Ethics of Consent, to Josh's point. A senior at Harvard observes in this story, quote, a narrative emerging among young people that more than just consent is required to make a sex act ethical.

Shocking news. In the Cornell Daily Sun, one student says fraternities function as a, quote, market where women are seen as commodities. A Dartmouth contributor lambasted frat culture at that school where brothers, quote, humiliate and degrade, and that teaches, quote, men to treat women and each other like subhuman objects. So, this is Cornell now. Now, we have Dartmouth in the story, and then we have Harvard.

But they're saying that the story is bringing up a conversation among the students and the undergrads. The emerging picture is of a sexual ethic that cannot be satisfied simply by one liberal autonomous agent assenting to the action of another. The new ethic requires upholding the dignity and respect of the human being involved. Respecting women is incompatible with drug-fueled orgies where the shop is open, regardless of how consensual said orgy may or may not. And P.T. Keenan said, Lefty Ivy League's kids take the trad pill?

Sounds like it. It's about time, too. But I'm with McCluskey on this one. Burn it down. Cut it off. And they all have an endowment the size of a small African nation, so honestly, these schools could go on forever and ever. They just have to take a little bit of time to reorient their economy. Well, you know, again, part of that, I mean, look what happened to Syracuse, though. I mean, like, it doesn't take that long, and you start spending more money than you need, and all of a sudden, you look around, and three, four years later, you know.

The numbers start going way off the table, and you end up like Siena Heights here in Michigan. It is up for sale. Should we buy it? TAC Midwest, maybe? Anyone from Thomas Aquinas College watching? Can we get a third? Love that. All right. Gentlemen, let us coast into the twilight zone here. Josh.

Well, hey, you know, why are things so expensive? And certain things actually much more affordable. What is the mystery here? I saw this video by Bert Kellerman. I just thought it was very eye-opening, and I wanted to share it with you guys. Let us take a look at this.

You can get a plumber to your house in the middle of the night within an hour, but if you go to the ER, you could wait six hours. Why? The federal government never tried to make plumbing affordable and accessible.

You can buy an 85-inch television for $1,000, but a dialysis machine costs $30,000. Why? The federal government never tried to make televisions affordable and accessible. You can get LASIK surgery done for $1,500 because it is not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, because it is elective. But if you get a major surgery, it could cost you $100,000. Why? The federal government never tried to make LASIK affordable and accessible. Socialism is killing every industry it touches.

Boom. That was amazing. Said it like I could understand it. I love it. And by the way, why is college so expensive? Because the government is trying to make it accessible and affordable. Accessible and affordable. I love that so much. So awesome. Thank you, Josh. Government, just. Yeah, economics in one easy lesson. The opposite of Midas to touch. Everything it touches turns to.

Thank you for censoring that. Excellent. Okay, I would like to take my Twilight Zone to congratulate Students for Life because they're being sued for the best possible reason. In 2022, they saved a baby's life in... Texas. This is awesome. So, this case was, Kristen Hawkins announced this yesterday. The plaintiff in this case, there's a 26-year-old woman who's using the pseudonym Maria Puerto, and she and her lawyers with Amplify Legal, which is the litigation arm for abortion in America, so you can see where we're going with this, they contend that Ms.

Hawkins, Kristen Hawkins, and the group members of Students for Life did not appear to be pregnant. And so fall squarely within the law's reach when they tried to expose that medication abortion pills were still being mailed illegally into the state. And so, because of Students for Life action, that law was not only passed banning abortions, but also it was enforced, so that when this woman Ms. Puerto became pregnant in 2022 after Texas had banned most abortions, something that Students for Life helped get through and helped them to know how to enforce.

She was unable to abort that child. With no way to travel out of state and an ailing mother at home, she said, she was forced to continue the pregnancy. Then morning sickness forced her from class so often that she lost a scholarship at school, and she was fired from her job at the convenience store because she had to miss so much work because of pregnancy. I love the way the New York Times put this. A second pregnancy followed in 2024, meaning she had another child in 2024, and now she and her two children are impoverished in Texas.

And this just blows my mind because I have a child who was born in 2024. I have a, magically, I have a child. He was born in 2024. I hold him every day. I look at him, and this woman with her two children, a four-year-old and a two-year-old, is suing someone because she had her children, because she was forced to give birth to these two people. Because she couldn't murder them. Because she couldn't murder them in the womb. So, not only is that disgusting, but I really think, like, CPS, given the Lindsay Clancy trial.

Given the crazy women on social media, this needs to be looked into ASAP by CPS in Texas. I think there's going to be a lot of kids today that when they get to be older, they've realized that, oh my gosh, my mom did OnlyFans pornography or whatever, and they get totally embarrassed by that. Yeah. But to actually find out, oh yeah, my mom publicly sued because she wanted to kill me. Right.

Wow. Yeah. And kudos to Students for Life, and I'm sure their attorney's thinking this, because one thing you always have to worry about is the left, what they're thinking also is discovery. So, they're going to try to go into Students for Life's books, go into their tactics or anything like that, and I'm sure they're all clean, but nobody wants that stuff publicly put out there. So, I don't know who's representing them, but I'm sure they have that part covered. Yeah. But again, why would it be suing somebody who's advocating changing the law?

If you're upset with the law, You should go after Governor Abbott or the Attorney General of Texas in Paxton and say, this law is unjust. How dare you enforce this law? How dare you sign it into law? I am sorry, what? To me, I just find it absolutely asinine. You know, are you going to go after an advocacy group that favors the law? That supported the law? Right. Well, they think they're intimidating other organizations that maybe they won't get involved in the next state's laws.

Oh, yeah, of course. Which is precisely what it is, yes. Which you've never met a pro-lifer if you think you can intimidate them that easily. Yeah, we're not looking for lawsuits, but if they come, that's not going to change how we act or comport ourselves or our mission.

It's going to change our letters to our donors. That's right. Go, Kristen. All right, Tom. Oh, is this my favorite congresswoman? I just thought for... Fear, Honor, the Connecticut Congresswoman, Rosa DeLauro. This just shows how the left have to contort themselves. There's this, I think it's a British video, comedy video, if the British know comedy. Oh, they do. They do. Okay, Monty Python. Very funny, very funny.

Where a police officer comes out, and he's apologizing for saying something offensive in public, and he's like, I'm sorry I turned a blind eye to what I said, and then it clips to five seconds later, and he's apologizing to all the blind people, and he's like, I should have listened better. Then it's five seconds later, he's apologizing to all the deaf people. Oh, I shouldn't have used those words.

Except Rosa DeLauro put out a tweet. I don't know if we have that tweet handy. We do. But on the same day, she sent out three different tweets for the Italians, for all the indigenous people. And I forgot, and these are like within an hour of each other, and the last one, it was like Girls' Day or something like that, or, so anybody not covered, any Italian Indians who are female? Well, the International Day of the Girl was the day before, yeah.

Oh, it was the day before. Yeah. We have all the days covered. Just, I mean. The way they have to twist themselves to make sure that they don't get... That's why we have... It used to be gay people, now it's LGBT, then it was LGBTQ, and now you have to add plus marks and things like that. And numbers and everything else, yeah. Yeah. But there's still enough Italians living in that district that she has to pay homage to the Italians on that day.

Yeah, that... It's not like Italians are known for revenge, though, so I don't know if she... None of that going on. Yeah, on that post, the Columbus Day post, I'm proud to honor the rich history and countless contributions of the 20 million. She got so many people just posting a picture of the Columbus statue being torn down in New Haven, and the smashing and the graffiti. They're like, is this you? Because at the time, in 2020, she's like, yeah, the statue's got to come down.

She was on the bandwagon for that. So, yeah, she totally got ratioed on that one. And then Indigenous Peoples Day. Yeah, I love Columbus Day. It's a great day to remember, and there was no nobility that happened because of Columbus, but we're not allowed to remember that. You can only remember all the bad things that happened after 1492, 98% of which Columbus was not responsible for in any way, shape, or form, but not allowed to remember that. Not anymore. No, I mean, hey, in this podcast, Christopher Columbus is a hero.

That's right, just like the Sopranos. And are similar to the... No, and something said that. Yes. That was awesome. I mean, there was this, you know, Casey Musgraves or some singer or whatever, and she said that Christopher Columbus was lame.

Okay, say whatever you want, but that you're organizing a trip, three boats across the waters, and have no idea where the heck you're going to end up, and then you land in a new world, and dealing with all these cultures and all this.

You're anything but lame. Like, that is an adventure. That is crazy kind of cojones that's needed to do something that, you know, wild. Like, I mean, come on. I mean, the only person who'd done it, well, except for the, you know, the Vikings who did it 500 years earlier, which is why Leif Erikson is a few days before Christopher Columbus, but I digress.

He's fanatically aggressive. A hero. I don't see anybody tearing down Leif Erikson statues anywhere. We need more Leif Erikson statues in general. But you know what? I give credit to Chris Columbus because His was more epic, because we actually stayed, so the Italians get more credit. Crazy, crazy. And his exploration was in many ways driven, and the push to explore the oceans and the new world was in many ways in response to the rise of Islam, and I am going to tie this back, the rise of Islam across North Africa, the fact that we had just pushed them back out of Spain made it possible, and to that end, Check out The Deep tomorrow at 4 p.m.

Eastern. I am talking about the Islamification of America and the bizarre red-green alliance that we are seeing, the strangest political marriage, perhaps, in American history between—I actually have a picture for you all on the episode of a drag queen wearing a Palestinian flag, and I believe holding a keffiyeh. So, the red-green alliance, Islamification of America, check it out on The Deep tomorrow, 4 p.m. Eastern. Well, it's a reminder that it was the year 711 that the Islam invaded Spain, and the last year they were kicked out?

1492. Columbus sailed the ocean blue. I mean, that's only possible if Spain is united. Amen. Which I go into on the show, so make sure you hit that one, because I think it has bearing on... You need another Reconquista. That might be a line. It might also be a line. Josh, we are on the vibe. We are doing the thing, whatever that is called. See, I want to bring back the Inquisition. All right. We will not bring back the Inquisition, but we are bringing back Pegasic next week, so get ready for another show.

We will see you then, but let us close in a prayer. For our Holy Father, again, one more time, you can sign up to pledge a prayer for Him on the Zeal Prayer Wall, so you'll need to log into Zeal, get your prayer up there, and let's pray for our Holy Father and His complete recovery together. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, amen. Lord Jesus Christ, Divine Physician, look with mercy on Your servant, Pope Leo, whom You have chosen to shepherd Your Church.

Through the intercession of Our Lady, Patroness of the United States. And of all the holy men and women of America, and of blessed Fulton Sheen, grant him a swift and complete recovery. Strengthen his body, steady his heart, and guide the hands of all who care for him. Unite his suffering to your cross for the good of your church and the salvation of souls. Amen. Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us, St. Thomas More, pray for us, St. Fidelis. Pray for us. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we will see you next time. Thank you so much.