Huge, Huge Ridiculous Boobs!

This is an I Heart podcast. Guaranteed human. Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty. I'm strong and getty. And now he is. I'm strong and getty. And I'm going. You're going to go to Supreme Court. Thanks, I do believe. Because I have listened to this argument for so long. And this is not about Chinese billionaires or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves. Talking about the birthright citizenship. Supreme Court case. The oral arguments are today and Trump has a ribbon. If he is there. And you fancy. I'm looking at the cable news channels. Yeah, he's there to Supreme Court. Supreme Court. First time ever a sitting president has gone to take in the oral arguments. What the president was talking about in the, and that is interesting. We'll talk about, but about it. But what he was talking about in that clip we played was the 14th amendment. It was not about Chinese billionaires popping out surrogate kids to have US citizens probably as a spy army. It was about the children of slaves when the 14th amendment was passed. More on that in a moment. There's a Brook Shaffer from News Nation explaining that not everybody agrees with the POTUS. This order though, it has faced a lot of criticism, particularly among Democrats and immigration advocates. They warned that if upheld, it could impact millions of immigrants already living here and hundreds of thousands born each year. This order so far has been repeatedly blocked by lower courts across the country. Some legal experts believe the Supreme Court will do the same. I don't understand the way the left works, looks at the world. That will affect a whole bunch of people. Yeah. So what? It's either the, it's either the right policy or not the right policy. The end. However many people it affects now or in the future is irrelevant. It's either right or wrong. I think you've quite skillfully highlighted one of the main features of leftist thinking. It's not about principle. It's about outcome. Anyway, so here's what we're arguing about essentially. And the administration and its lawyers agree that, yeah, we're asking for a change in the interpretation from the way it's gone. But the reasoning behind the way it's been interpreted for a long time is very, very thin. To it, the 14th amendment was ratified right after civil war. Well, ratified in 1868. It begins, quote, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The question is, does this language confer US citizenship on babies who parents, whose parents are in the country illegally or very temporarily? And that was a traditional understanding is yes. Trump says no. But that was to make sure that, you know, in the most racist states, Alabama or Mississippi, those people are citizens. Whether you like it or not, they are. And they get all the right to be citizens. But that just because they're slave parents, weren't, quote, unquote, citizens doesn't mean the kids ain't. That's the whole reason for it. Now, I'm I'm shooting from the hip here. I've not read deeply on this. But if the intention was that and you're an originalist, I would think you'd go back to their original thinking and think, OK, everybody who could conceivably be the child of a slave was gone by, I don't know, whatever year, 1920. I mean, unless you live to be 150. So it no longer applies. Period. Yeah, you've gotten way ahead of me, but you're 100 percent right. Yeah. So the constitutional provisions come before the Supreme Court before in a case called Wong Kim Ark in 1898, the justices recognize the citizenship of a man born to Chinese parents in San Francisco. The majority said, and I quote, the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory. All children here born of resident aliens. Now, the few exceptions and this is where it gets interesting because they absolutely recognized that there are exceptions. They included children of foreign diplomats because you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. You have diplomatic immunity. Enemies during hostile occupations. You can have poncho v in his boys invade the US, have a bunch of kids and say they're US citizens and particularly Native American tribal nations, which were considered self governing. Their children are not automatic US citizens under that, you know, at that time. But the Trump administration is arguing that the court has not answered the question, the current question, not directly. Congress did not pass the first modern immigration law until 1875. So for much of our history, migrants could freely enter the United States and take up permanent residence, the government points out. And Wong Kim Ark concerned children of aliens with a lawful domicile in the United States, not children of temporarily present aliens or illegal aliens, a concept that was practically unknown until, you know, the closer to the modern era. So the crux of the dispute is what does it mean to be subject to US jurisdiction? The opponents of the Trump administration say this simply refers to people who are under the government's authority, including illegal aliens. If you murder somebody, he's an illegal alien, well, not in Chicago or LA or New York, but you get arrested and tried and punished. So clearly you're under the jurisdiction of the United States government. But people on our side of it argue that birthright citizenship covers only people completely subject to US political jurisdiction, meaning those who direct an immediate allegiance to the nation may claim its protection, its reading excludes babies born to temporary visa holders, as well as illegal migrants who lack legal capacity to form a lawful domicile. Not to mention birth tourists for goodness sakes. So there are 33 countries, according to Claude, that grant unconditional birthright citizenship, many of them in the Americas, but these are go way back for a variety of reasons that they did that. People have been getting rid of this over recent decades. I didn't know this. Notable examples of countries that ended unrestricted birthright citizenship in recent decades include the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, India. In Ireland, for instance, they ended it in 2004 with 80 percent of voters backing a constitutional amendment in the modern world for all the modern reasons. You don't want to do this. And so you're not some sort of Trump racist. And you think unless you think all the Irish are racist or the Great Britain or whatever, you don't have to be some sort of Trump racist to want to end birthright citizenship. It's a to me a stupid way to run your country. I would agree. Yeah, especially if you're not here lawfully and especially cuckoo knots, especially if you have a welfare state the way modern countries do and you allow chain migration. Yeah, the era of wide open immigration had no welfare state. No, so you either came here and you would work harder. You'd starve. Yeah, either came here and made your way or you went back home or you starved to death. Those were your options. Or leaned on your family who would soon tell you go back to the old country. You suck. I want to quote Randy Barnett, who's the director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and co-author of a book entitled The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, its letter and spirit, which is pretty authoritative. His piece is entitled Trump is right on birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment authors would exclude illegal and visiting aliens from US quote unquote jurisdiction. And he agrees the dispute is over the meaning of the subject of jurisdiction. That phrase in each of the categories he mentions, children of diplomats, soldiers from an invading army, American Indians, maintaining tribal relations. In each of these categories, the status of the child depended on the status of the parent and then he gets into the temporary or unlawfully thing. Before Trump's executive order, what originalist scholarship existed on the original meaning of subject to the jurisdiction, that key phrase, was sporadic and lightly tested, if at all. This past year has produced an explosion of originalist scholarship on both sides. This is where Jack presciently got a couple of minutes ago. The justices are now in a good position to decide which side has presented the stronger originalist case. Kurt Lash, University of Richmond, is examined the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment was like to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was to say, hey, this is not a law that can come and go. This is permanent, please. And that act declared what we said already about not subject to any foreign power, blah, blah, blah. The Fourteenth Amendment. Oh, I already said that. But the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment saw a need for constitutional language that more clearly excluded the children of tribal Indians. Lime and Trouble of Illinois managed the citizenship clause in the upper chamber in the Senate, explained that subject subject to the jurisdiction meant not owing allegiance to anyone else, whether to a tribe or foreign power. This is the guy who managed that clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. John Bingham, a congressman from Ohio, the moving force behind the Fourteenth Amendment, who is Republican, of course, used the same framework, referring after ratification to persons born in the US, quote, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power. These statements and others, Mr. Lash, identified, demonstrated how leading Republicans explained the concept. The text was meant to capture birth plus full political membership. And I could go more into detail on some of the precedents that have come and gone. But they they only scratch the surface of the key question. This is an old interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on virtually no serious thought. It again, it was like drive by interpretations that addressed a specific question at a specific point in history, but did not take on the bigger question. It's practically been unexamined. So what do you think is going to happen? If you watch, I don't know about mainstream media, but certainly lefty leaning media, which is mainstream media, they're presenting it as just an incredibly unconstitutional overreach by Trump, too. It's very clear in the Constitution what is supposed to happen. That's not true at all. What do you think is going to occur? And we're not going to find out till June, by the way, the arguments are today and Trump is there to listen to him, but they probably won't release their decision until June. Well, Jack is going to cuss me for this, folks. But I think it's something close to a coin flip. Really? I don't know. It's it would definitely be a sea change in the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and to my mind, a completely appropriate one. It's it's a great case of I just I mean, I'm not a lawyer and you know, I can't I can't look at it this through the lens of the way you argue this in the Supreme Court, but just on the face of it at the surface level. It just seems so insane to to to continue to use something meant for A and now it applies only to B, but we're going to keep it around because it was there originally. What? Right. Right. Well, it's a perfect example, as I started to say, of how sometimes the Constitution, the amendments are a bit vague because the people who weather frame the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, etc., or came along later, like the Fourteenth Amendment, the world they existed in was very, very different in terms of immigration population, that sort of thing. Then the world exists that exists today. And so their wording was absolutely adequate to the situation of the time. But now the situation's changed so completely. You've got to dig. And this is what the MSNBC is the world are not doing. You've got to dig behind the vague wording and look at the reasoning behind it, be an originalist. What did they mean? What were they trying to get to? And you answer that question. And if then you decide, well, that's wholly inadequate to the modern world. Well, that's when Congress steps up and you clarify it or you amend the amendment or whatever, which you can absolutely do. We need to do this, though, right now, a word from our friends that simply save home security. This is such a great deal, such a great system. I think we've all a lot of us have had like old timey security systems with all the wires and stuff, and they didn't work right. And they were incredibly expensive. And you had to sign a three year contract. Simply safe is none of those things. It's super advanced. AI technology, live monitoring agents, no locked in contracts. I have it myself. I got the sign in front of my house that reminds me as much as anybody else. Oh, yeah, as I'm pulling away from my house right now, I got to simply set up with the sensors and the cameras and all the different sort of stuff. And then there's also the fact that I'm not locked into. I'm not doing it just because I signed a couple of your contract and I got no choice. No, they earn your business all the time by being good in lots and lots of people. Five million people like me trust Simply Safe every day. And they prevent break ins. They don't just go off after the break ins occurred. It's great. And right now, you good people can get 50% off your new simply safe system. It's simply safe.com slash Armstrong 50% off. Simply safe.com slash Armstrong. There's no safe like simply safe. The giant headline on the front of the New York Post. What a boob. We all learned a word yesterday. Bimbification is a kink and Kristi Noem's husband has it apparently. That and other stories on the way. I saw any news coverage yesterday of the Kristi Noem's husband. Bimbification story. Apparently, we still have some decorum and standards where we just don't get into stuff like that on the serious shows because I didn't I didn't see it anywhere. Did you? I don't think it's of any great significance other than being interesting from sexual kink perspectives. There's lots of stuff that makes the news of no no great significance. Like most of all my gosh. Yeah, almost all of it. Yeah. So I just was surprised nobody did it. Apparently, the meme is going around. The Marco Rubio finding out meme that has been going for quite some time. Marco Rubio finding out he's now the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. The New York Jets. And I'm sitting on the couch in his uniform. We're not finding out he's the new Shah of Iran. Marco Rubio finding out he's now Kristi Noem's husband, but it's a picture of him in pink spandex looking at a giant bra, confused. I've seen a couple of different versions of that. Yeah, bimbo vacation. So Kristi Noem, who was the Department of Homeland Security Secretary up until a couple of weeks ago, Ice Barbie. And there are all the rumors, which seem to be pretty fact based, that she was having an affair with Corey Lewandowski, which was Trump's original campaign manager that got him elected way back in 2016. Anyhoo. And then you had the weird thing of Kristi Noem being grilled by Congress and her husband sitting right behind her. As Congress asked her about the affair. Well, she he had left at that point to catch a plane to probably a bimbo vacation conference more on that. Stay with us. And that's why we know anything about Kristi Noem's husband, really, is that he was sitting behind her at that grilling, which is awkward all the way around. Anyway, story breaks yesterday. And whether or not Kristi Noem knew about it herself, I'm still skeptical. She's claiming the family had no idea they were completely blindsided. When all these pictures came out of him. Dressed in really tight tops with giant, giant balloons or something under his shirt to look like enormous boobs and his tiny little shorts. And it's some sort of kink called bimbo vacation, which I don't know that I'd ever heard of. And he corresponded hundreds and hundreds of messages with adult performers with massively augmented breasts to achieve a Barbie dial like appearance. No, it's Barbie dial like it. It doesn't begin to describe it. And he didn't try to hide who he was at all. And these claims he coveted huge, huge, ridiculous boobs. That's a quote. He was willing to share these pictures with his face. Well, lit and very clear who he was with all kinds of random people who were into bimbification. Jack, his face is fully visible in several of the photos. One with a completely straight visage and others making a flirtatious kissy face with pursed lips. Back to you. I feel like the tiny little pink shorts are more offensive than the giant bazoombas. Guy's successful insurance executive. He sent some of these performers over $25,000 via cash app and PayPal as tips as they would, you know, do whatever he bid or engage in whatever conversation. He and Christie have been married for 34 years, like high school sweetheart sort of couple. He traded selfies with one woman. He pledged to worship like a goddess, telling her, quote, you turn me into a girl before asking if he should put on leggings. But he's straight. He's straight as far as we can tell. I don't know. I don't matter. A straight guy thing to do. Those little pink shorts don't seem very straight, but I don't I might not fully understand bimbification. If you know Texas. Armstrong and Getty. Finally, some potential good news here for oil markets, for stock markets and really for the American consumer that's been hit by this impact to oil, you know, trickling down to prices at the pump. We've actually seen over the last 24 hours, oil futures move as low as 4 percent. Just around a hundred dollars a barrel just falling under that threshold. We are starting to head in the right direction. And there's more optimism that this could be a sustained pullback for the oil markets, as the president, of course, has signaled that the end of this conflict could be near within the next couple of weeks. All right. I just wanted to play that to make the point. This determining on a 24 hour by 24 hour period. Whether policies are good or bad. Based on tiny movements in various right, commodities is not. I was going to ask, is that nice lady familiar with roller coasters and how they work? Why do we do that? We went up. Look ahead, just ahead. See that twisty thing? Both sides do it, though, all the time. And quit, quit making your argument for anything based on one day of movements in markets. It's very song. Everything is clickbait. It's very, very complex. There's all kinds of reasons things can go up and down for one day. Oh, yeah. People who want good news for reasons political or financial will click like crazy on those headlines. Those who despise Trump and are convinced this war is a better idea will click like fiends on anything that's negative. So I want to mention this. I tweeted this out yesterday afternoon. And it's kind of interested to see what the responses would be. Got quite a few responses. Partially because I've lived in California for so long now that I don't know what the rest of America does and how much has changed along with California is different California. Anyway, this is what I tweeted out. I had to take my son to the doctor for his physical. He was due for his T DAP also booster, which used to be for me anyway, just all about the tetanus. And then you know that other stuff that they throw in there. Well, since I had the P in the T DAP, whooping cough last year, man, you don't want to get whooping cough. But anyway, he had to get that shot and just the regular physical. And I tweeted out, I don't think anything makes me angrier at the doctor's office than being asked to step out of the room so they can talk to my kid alone. And some of the responses I thought were interesting from people who said, move here, they don't make us do that here. WTF. Yeah. So I even and it does, it makes me insanely angry. And I try to control my boiling rage. I don't know how good a job I did it. I made it clear to the nice young woman who is a assistant of some sort who asked me to leave the room, how angry it makes me. And I made it clear that it's not your fault. I realize you don't make the policy. I'm just registering how outrageous I think this is. And I do think it's outrageous. And then. Well, first of all, do you have any concept of how how common it is around the country for this? Is this the sort of thing they do mostly in California and, you know, Texas, Massachusetts and not in Oklahoma and. Nebraska or I don't actually know. I don't. I would like to dig into that. It's an interesting question. I know it didn't happen when I was a kid. And the physician's assistant, she said, you know, I actually understand. I'm not sure if I had a kid, I would like. But the idea that I said, is it the does the government make you do this? Is it the hospital? And she said, it's kind of both. And the idea that I, as the parent of a kid who have so responsibility for everything in that kid's life, I'm asked to leave. For now, for now, I'm asked to. Well, that's what they're trying to get to. I'm asked to leave the room so that some other entity can come between me and that kid because we're making the assumption here that whatever conversation they're going to have with my kid is at a higher plane than what I'm going to do. That it is the authority. It's the let us check in to see if we think what's going on in this household is right or wrong, because we know what's right or wrong. He might not. We're just checking in. Important clarification, not as a backstop if something's gone terribly wrong, like abuse or neglect, no, but as an ongoing higher authority for that child's life and well-being. Right. You're making the statement that we, the state or we, this institution at the behest of the state know what's best. We're just checking to make sure you're following our rules. And what indication do you have that their rules have been very good throughout history? Well, I will tell you this and this is the bedrock of all of it. I've told this story in various forms many times, but I encountered a professor in college who was a Marxist and I was at that point completely unfamiliar with some of the sociological aspects of Marxist thinking. And her point was that the nuclear family is a organization, an institution of oppression and that the state should raise children. She actually espoused this in class and I'm sitting there like, wait, what? And that was my introduction to that Marxist belief that the state should raise the child because that way you can indoctrinate them into becoming a good little Marxist or just automaton or what have you. And it's right there in the It Takes a Village philosophy and it's absolutely the the unholy bloom of that weed right now is, hey, yeah, I'd be happy to call you Jenny, Johnny, and let's not tell mom and dad. They don't need to know because they're probably going to abuse you or whatever. The teachers radicalizing the children and getting between the parent and the child. It's all the same thing. And yes, it's leached its way into medicine. Some of our medical schools like UCLA medical school is one of the most woke institutions in America. It's horrible. Some of the questions they asked to how did this become part of a physical? Why are you asking about all this stuff for a physical? Yeah, I my kids both know that we don't answer the gun question. None of your effing business. Why are you freaking asking me if I've got a gun in my house at the doctor's office? That's a big yes. They say. Oh, yeah, no kidding. Right. What? And so I is interesting. A lot of the responses on Twitter to that were that when people saying I don't, I just say no, which I left the room because I don't want to embarrass my kid. I mean, if it's me, I'm willing to get in all kinds of an uproar. I don't care if they have to bring in guards because they're worried I'm about to twist off. I'm perfectly fine with bringing that upon myself videotape it, please. But I don't put my kid in an awkward position. We talked about it later and he said, I'm fine with you doing that. So from now on, I'm just going to say no. Just no, I'm not leaving the room. Anything you got to ask me, you're going to ask in front of me. Of course, in the. And so I bring this up to some people and they look at me like, why would that be a problem? What sort of crazy? What are you hiding? What awful thing are you doing to your child that you want to hide that you? No, no, no, no, no, no. Do you not understand they're declaring that they know what's best and you don't? That's the statement they're making. And there's a presumption that they they're justified in coming between you and your child and say, all right, what's the what's the deal with him? What's going on? Right. Yeah, I remember this one was tough and it blindsided me. And it was like, Katie's trying to stay calm. Go ahead, Katie. I'm just thinking, you know, I've got a kid on the way and I would blow a gasket. Where is that where to happen? Well, you're going to be dealing with it really soon, probably. Because the first time it hit me was when Sam was born and I was asked to leave the room so they can talk to mom without me there. Like, what? Well, see, that's what I'm going to demand. No, Drew is staying. You can talk to both of us. Well, I don't this is bizarre. Feel free. They can't. I don't know what they do if you say that. But they probably just make a note on a form, probably. Yeah, it's an unholy confluence, I think, of what I was describing and like insurance companies and liability and maybe greater awareness of certain issues. Like every time I register to go to my usual, let's try not to have a stroke appointment with my doctor. I've got to fill out the pre thing, the preform, which includes, do you ever feel like life is pointless and you take no joy in the things you do? And I want to fill in only when I'm filling out this form. Yes, actually, you know what? I've had to fill out two of those a week for the last month and I'm going to have to do it again today. I will be writing that. Right. Only when you guys ask me this question. Oh, and for again, I appreciate the greater awareness of mental illness issues. But is there anybody who's so completely unaware of depression and what it is and where you might get help that they'll fill out that form and the doctor will say, say, Jim, it sounds like depression to me. And they'll be like, what, doc? The fact that I'm hopeless all the time and take no joy in anything. And that will be the pipeline. That will be the connection that saves them. It just strikes me as, I don't know, dopey. Yes, Michael. There are so many people out there, though, that actually think they do no best and they will follow right along. Oh, they think that the authorities know that. Absolutely. Yeah. What's your any days? What's your indication of that? Covid, I hate to bring it up. But no, I'm talking to people who believe that the the the the government's view or an institution's view of how to raise your kids is better than yours. What's what's your your your data that led you to that? Excuse me, Jack, while I interview this sheep and ask it why it runs with the herd. That's just the nature of that sort of beast. And I live in a state where it's certainly on the table for somebody to say to your kid behind closed doors, do you ever feel like a girl or a boy? Except except the activists are much more insidious. They'll say, do you ever feel like, you know, being a tough guy is not who you really are? Right, right. They'll find some universal like that and then shove that wedge in. That's what they do. I've seen it happen. I feel like the questions were at least half like social science as opposed to all medical stuff like blood pressure, weight, you know, all those sorts of things that you do with a physical get the right vaccinations. OK, I don't know. The modern world is not for me. Oh, that makes me insanely angry, though. I mean, just like I can't hardly control myself angry. Right, right. Because you understand the greater symbolism of it and the the intent behind it. Right. And as a full time single parent, the responsibility I have of raising kids and how much work it is. And now you've just stepped in to say, we're really the ones in charge here. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh to take the wheel. Yeah. Oh my God. Next time they ask you about guns in the home, say yes, six. I mean, they're not in the home. They're on my personal right now. Take all six of them. One in my left sock, one in the back of my pants. I guess two here. One here in my groin. Gotta be careful with that one. Am I wrong? Then of course, both of my holsters on either hip and then the one tucked in my back in case, you know, things get really hairy. On each side, like you use somebody, Sam. Oh, I've got one of those drop down machetes too. Do you need to know about that? It's in my sleeve here. Ah, boy. Got a barrel of anthrax in the garage. I'm just, let me go through the list. Any thoughts on any of this being asked to leave the room? Text line 415-295-KFTC. He had man skied across an asphalt parking lot at 69 miles an hour. Not intentionally, he'd just been clipped by Tiger Woods' SUV. Yeah, we got to get to Tiger Woods' statement yesterday, which I found bad news for Tiger actually. So I was just talking about how angry it makes me when they say at the doctor's office, I'm there for my kid's physical. Can you step out of the room now? We need to talk to him alone. And I just, I can't restate what I just said. If you missed to get the podcast Armstrong and get him on demand, but what's the message it sends to the kid? This 22 year old woman is the authority, not your parent. Right. Oh my God, I hate everything about that. I'm never doing it again. I'm never doing it again. You haul me off in cuffs if you want to. I will never leave the room again. And I'm just going to see what happened. We got this text Katie, you're like this since you were with child. Jack and Joe, I just had a kid in the state of California. If you go to a baby checkup as the husband when she is pregnant, they will tell you in the lobby that they have to talk to her first before you're allowed to come into the baby check up. The prenatal baby checkup. They bring her back there and ask her if everything is okay in the home life. Then the nurse comes out and grabs you in the lobby. When in the hell did we decide this was okay? That the intrusion into the coherence of the family, the cohesion of the family, is justified by the interests of the state and protecting women or something. When did we decide that? We are sheeple that we allowed it to even get going. That we all just decided it. That the first time it ever happened, we all just thought, well, I suppose I'd better because they asked me to, but it's freaking outrageous. Anyway, I'll let you react, Katie. Well, okay. And so what if you say no? What are they? I don't know actually. And I suppose I doubt they can say, well, then you can't have a baby here. I doubt they do that. Because I mean, that's got to be some kind of protocol that they're following. Sure. But I mean, we are, she and I are grown ups adult citizens of this country. We willingly decided to get married and have a kid together. All you need to know. Right. Your job as a medical professional is to facilitate this birth in the healthiest way possible. Yeah. Check on my baby, not my marriage. I'm fine. Yeah, you know, there's, I always harp on the Marxist thing, the post-modernist way lefties. But there's a lot of paternalism and nanny statism among the left and center left too, that they just think the government is here to solve all problems. And they don't, they don't see it as a trade off. They see it as an unmitigated good. No, no, no, all the, all the husband has to do is leave the room for like a minute or two. We make sure the wife's not being abused or the girlfriend or the partner or whatever. And then the man comes in, what's, there's no cost there. Other than don't see the world the way we do. I know you're not making that argument for yourself. But there's no cost other than an infantile, makes us all infants. In that, you know, we need to be taken care of by, again, the 23 year old doctor's office, because we're not as adults capable of, you know, handling our own lives. Right. And here they come to the rescue. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Well, that 23 year old is an agent of the state, literally. They are bureaucrat to whom you must answer. And I'll say it again, because I know this will get back. It always does. I realize you're doing your job. You're just doing your job. You're doing what you were told to do. You're making your living. Not a problem with you. It's the policy, not you. Yeah, right here. Here. As most of you may have heard by now, Judy and I lost our buddy Baxter, the dog this last week, Baxie Taxi, codependent boyfriend, Mr. Underfoot. He went by many names. There's been another loss in the world of dogs. This sugar, the surfing dog, the first canine inducted into the Surfer's Hall of Fame. You may have seen a surfer, a sugar, the surfing dog who hung out at Huntington Beach, California and was a very, very famous surfing dog. 16 year old rescue dog from Huntington Beach, five time dog surfing world champion, passed away. When sugar was not surfing, she was a, what's the proper term? A counseling dog, a comfort dog for veterans. This is a dog hall of famer, sugar the dog. And just reminds us, it's funny, how much good will a dog brings in a room, hospital with kids or whatever? Man are our canine companions. They have a special, special role. She was 16. 16. Wow. She's like a kind of a lab ish. That's pretty old for that kind of a dog. A therapy dog was the term I was looking for. Yeah. 16 year old lab mix, I believe. And how recently was the dog surfing? Oh, it's till toward the end, I think. She had like the equivalent of like an 85 year old human out there surfing. That's pretty impressive. Winning championships. In 2024, her paw prints joined the hand and footprints of many other renowned surfers immortalized at the surfing hall of fame. That's sweet. That's awesome. We do a lot of stuff, been wide ranging, if you ever miss anything, want to catch it, get the podcast Armstrong and Getty on demand, subscribe.