Supreme Court Ethics, Power Plays, And Public Faith

We dig into whether unsealing the Epstein files can restore trust without real accountability and why the release may disappoint. We debate Supreme Court ethics, the NDAA’s priorities, and the risks of releasing sensitive drone footage in the AI era, then pivot to campus speech, Texas politics, media power, and sports double standards.

• Epstein files transparency versus real accountability
• Public trust, redactions, and expectations management
• Supreme Court resignations, ethics, and recusal norms
• Lifetime tenure versus competency assessments
• NDAA priorities, foreign aid, and America First strategy
• Israel and Ukraine funding, industrial cooperation
• Drone footage, secrecy, and AI manipulation risks
• Campus free speech and viewpoint-neutral grading
• Jasmine Crockett’s Senate run and viral politics
• Late-night TV renewal and media consolidation
• Steroids in baseball, Hall of Fame standards
• Kaepernick debates and fan contradictions

“Next week should be our annual holiday show—drop your ideas in the comments. You’ll probably get something lighter, more celebratory, more holiday focused.”

Support the show

Elsa's AMAZON STORE
Elsa's FAITH & FREEDOM MERCH STORE

Elsa's BOOKS
Elsa Kurt: You may know her for her uncanny, viral Kamala Harris impressions & conservative comedy skits, but she’s also a lifelong Patriot & longtime Police Wife. She has channeled her fierce love and passion for God, family, country, and those who serve as the creator, Executive Producer & Host of the Elsa Kurt Show with Clay Novak. Her show discusses today’s topics & news from a middle class/blue collar family & conservative perspective. The vocal LEOW’s career began as a multi-genre author who has penned over 25 books, including twelve contemporary women’s novels.

Clay Novak: Clay Novak was commissioned in 1995 as a Second Lieutenant of Infantry and served as an officer for twenty four years in Mechanized Infantry, Airborne Infantry, and Cavalry units . He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel in 2019. Clay is a graduate of the U.S. Army Ranger School and is a Master Rated Parachutist, serving for more th...

Episode Transcript

SPEAKER_00 (00:01):
It's the Alpha Current Show with Clay Nova.
Serving up trending news andconservative views.
Brought to you by the AlphaCurrent Board and Refuge
Medical.
And now, it's time for the show.

SPEAKER_08 (00:22):
What up, my friend?
How are you?
I am doing good.
I am laughing at myself here.
I am, you know, I wear, believeit or not, guys, these glasses
do come off of the top of myhead.
And I I'm wearing them most ofthe time when I'm doing computer
work, as I would be doing forprepping for this.
And I have a small, I have atablet in front of me.

(00:45):
So I'm actually gonna hold it upto the same time.
So I have my tablet in front ofme, which has our topics and
anything I want to notes I wantto read.
And every time I take my glassesoff, like everything is so
blurry.
I'm sure so many of you canrelate to this, but I have
increased the font size on this.
So it's ridiculous.
And if you guys could see it,I'm not showing you this.
Um it's just huge and it's justabsurd.

(01:07):
So I'm laughing at myself.
Anyhow, uh, we have a wholebunch of great topics.
Great job, Clay.

SPEAKER_04 (01:14):
Uh yeah, busy week, uh, obviously.
And uh just so you don't feelbad, I'm the opposite.
So I normally will wear contactsexcept when I'm doing this, um,
because it, you know, I'm I'mnearsighted.
And so um, I take my contactsout for this.
Um, but when I'm like out andabout and I have my contacts in
and I have my phone, I like thetext on my phone is increasing.

(01:35):
It has to be because otherwiseit's blurry because it's too
closed, and I I gotta do the oldman, like, you know, yeah.
And I can't do that.
So I get so mad when peoplethank you.

SPEAKER_08 (01:44):
I get so mad when people do the hey, you know,
they'll hold their phone out toyou, they're like, hey, look at
this.
And they put it like right up toyour face, and you're like,
whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down.
Put that thing on the floor so Ican read it from you.
Yeah, I can't win.

SPEAKER_04 (01:58):
I'm just but yes, we got uh, I think seven, eight
topics, uh a little bit of uhpolitics.
Uh actually a lot of politics,we always do politics, but uh a
little bit of sports, maybe someother stuff at the end.
We'll see.

SPEAKER_08 (02:09):
Yeah, here they are, guys.
Here's what we got coming up.

SPEAKER_03 (02:11):
Tonight we have it all after blowing open after
years of call just after theSupreme Court.

SPEAKER_08 (02:42):
Oh my, we told you we got a lot of stuff for you.
Uh let's go right off the tophere.
The Epstein files crack open.
How about that?
Um, will the truth finally beatthe spin?
I don't know.
I mean, it was how many years?
Years of excuses a federal judgejust gave the green light for
the DOJ to unseal the grandjury.

(03:03):
There's a lot of interestingthings here about this, as
usual, right?
Uh grand jury records in theGhlaine Maxwell case, thanks to
the new Epstein FileTransparency Act.
Uh, we talked about it lastweek, didn't we?

SPEAKER_04 (03:13):
Yeah, a little bit.
The uh the act itself isinteresting because it's a very
all-encompassing um kind ofconcept.
So, you know, with GhislaineMaxwell, however you pronounce
her name, I've never figured itout.
Um, I, you know, her trial is alinked but separate trial,
right?
Um and but, you know, and andgrand jury is usually sealed.

(03:35):
Like any testimony, anythingthat's uh introduced in a grand
jury, unless it's also in thetrial, is is usually sealed,
it's locked away.
Uh, but the Transparency Act,the Epstein Files Transparency
Act, opens everything up and itbrings in everything that has to
do with Maxwell because it'srelated to Epstein.
So um it's it's an interestingad.
Uh the question is, does itmatter?

SPEAKER_08 (03:57):
I mean, yeah, I it is that is really a great
question because I I I don'tknow, you know, we've been
talking about this, um analyzingit, not just us, everybody,
everybody with the internet andhas been, you know, analyzing
this whole thing and givingtheir perspectives and opinions
and all of that.

(04:18):
And uh I I just feel like andwe've talked about this before
as well, I feel like there hasbeen this level of apathy that
has you know gone toward and andthey're downplaying it, they're
really downplaying it too.
I I um they're they're sayingdon't expect too much from this.
You know, there's there's youknow thousands of of pages here,
but don't expect too much fromit.
So what do you make of thateven?

SPEAKER_04 (04:40):
Yeah, I I think you know, the one thing that the
judges have continually said isthat you know, privacy and
protection for young ladies, thevictims in this entire thing is
paramount.
So anything that has thepotential to expose them, uh,
any any information that could,you know, like somebody could
puzzle piece together who it'swrit referencing, et cetera, is

(05:02):
all gonna be redacted to protectthose the women involved.
Now, when you do that and youleave it that wide open,
appropriately so to protectthose young women, you're also
gonna mask some things thatpeople really, really want to
know.
Um, and and I think myexpectation is this is gonna be
disappointing as it has beenthus far.
Um now I do know there are somesome of the victims have

(05:24):
advocated for releasingeverything, um, including their
own names, and have threatenedto even come out in public and
say, listen, we will tell youwho's on the list.
We will tell you who was where,when, and all of those other
things.
Um, my expectation though, andit's you know, I I'm I'm not a p
I I don't dislike Pam Bondi, butshe's been slow rolling this so
much, and there's a lot of youknow angst over releasing it and

(05:48):
why it hasn't been released, andit leaves for a lot of
speculation, et cetera, etcetera.
But I I think this is going tobe, as with everything else,
very underwhelming.

SPEAKER_08 (05:56):
Yeah, yeah.
And because it's been teased forso long and you know, resisted
for so long, I I I just don'tknow.
I mean, we we've long passed thepoint where anybody believes
anything, and and I this is arunning theme.
So even if they do, well, notif, even when they do release
everything that they're going torelease, um nobody's gonna

(06:19):
believe it.
Nobody's gonna believe thatthey're either gonna say, that's
not all there is, they're lying.
You know, I there's no winninghere.
The the trust in any governmententity.
Uh we are in such a unbelievablybad way in this country, in this
world, um, with belief inanything that the other side has

(06:42):
to say.
And I'm frankly, and I know youguys hear me say this so often,
I am so tired of it.
It is so exhausting for everyonebecause all it is is people just
shouting back and forth at eachother that they're lying.
You're lying, you're lying, no,you're lying, no, everybody
seems to be lying.
This is another case of that.

(07:03):
I mean, how do you and it's afair question?
How do you trust it?
How do you trust it?
So I I don't know.

SPEAKER_04 (07:09):
I don't know what the answer is.
And it's and it's it's become,you know, the boy who cried
wolf.
There's been so you know, Idon't know if there's been
actual promises of what'sinside, um, but there has been a
lot of speculation which hasgrown into expectation.
Yeah, and and now it's you know,things like this.
Oh, we're gonna now you're gonnaget the you know, the grand jury

(07:29):
from the Maxwell.
Like this is gonna be where themeat's at, nothing, right?
Yeah, big jumping burger.
Right.
And then on the flip side, youknow, I know people who kind of
literally end every social mediamessage with release the Epstein
files.
Doesn't matter what they'retalking about, like grocery
shopping, and then they put thatat the end, right?
Which becomes like you you don'teven see it anymore.

(07:53):
Um, so you know, I I think weare in a place where um no
matter what happens,expectations are so high they're
never gonna be met.
And unless this has, you know,unless there's some massive
release relief that or releasethat comes with every single
name of every single personthat's ever been rumored to be
anywhere near this thing, andthen throw a huge bombshell on

(08:15):
top of it, you know, um nobody'sgonna be satisfied no matter
what happens, no matter what'sin there, truthful or not, it's
all gonna be a disappointment.

SPEAKER_08 (08:22):
Yeah, and let's be real, the goalpost will get
moved because now once it'sreleased, well, what okay, well,
where's the accountability?
Who's getting arrested?
You know, who's um you know,who's getting their name blasted
uh across there, who's whosecareer is ending, whose
political career is ending.
And if you don't see, if wedon't see those types of
consequences from whatever namereleases that there are, um

(08:45):
what's the point of everything?
Like just to know, just for thesake of knowing, I don't want to
know just for the sake ofknowing, so I can say, aha, or I
knew it, or be shocked, orwhatever.
I I it's not that I don't careabout that.
It's I care more about whatcomes next.
And that is where we're gonnahave the next big problem.

(09:06):
Because if there is no nextafter that, meaning consequence
um for any of this, uh again,these victims still get no
vindication.
What's we've seen this happenover and over again throughout
history.
Somebody uh, you know, famous,uh wealthy, whatever the case
is, gets accused, caught, provento be guilty of something.

(09:30):
What whatever it is, whetherit's being uh, you know, wearing
black face in the 80s or rapingsomebody, and we're literally
going the whole gamut herebecause it is that vest.
Uh a few years goes by and thenthey come back into public eye,
you know, they they do theirlittle PR uh damage control and
they're just right back on topagain.

(09:52):
How is that helping any victimfor just just simply to have
their name come come out and Idon't know.
I mean, I guess that's what itcomes.
I hope that's what it comes downfor everybody in their minds,
not the I just want to hear thedirt and the nitty-like
remember, there's actualvictims.
There, there's people whoselives have been, you know,
ruined and and they're trying torebuild.
So I hope they truly getjustice.

SPEAKER_04 (10:12):
Yeah, the only people who've been held
accountable in this entire thingso far, in any way, shape, or
form, are Epstein himself, who'sdead, right?
They pay the price.
Um a lot of speculation there,but we'll leave that one alone.
Maxwell, who's in jail and willbe probably forever, and Prince
Andrew or Andrew.
Andrew is no longer Prince.
That's right, no more prince.
Just but he's been heldaccountable not by a court

(10:36):
system, but by his own family,right?
And and the everything thatcomes along with that.
Um, other than that, nothing.
And and let's be honest, folks,you could go if you wanted to go
strictly legal on this, youcould hold uh pilots
accountable, right?
Transporting minors, yeah,right.
They knew they know who's on themanifest on every flight that

(10:56):
they take, right?
Because they're responsible.
Flight pilots, flight crews,boat crews, staff at the island
itself, every one of thosepeople can be held accountable.
And literally, we have seennothing so far.
And and you know, everythingthat you were saying, we can
think of the big names who havebeen held accountable for things
that have happened horribly,right?
Bill Cosby, uh Weinstein,probably Kevin Spacey.

(11:20):
And that's about where the listends.
And we know there's so much morethat has gone on and continues
to go on.

SPEAKER_06 (11:27):
Right.

SPEAKER_04 (11:27):
Um, you know, probably uh what's his name that
uh Danny Masterson is probablythe other one.
Um but but really that's and offthe top of your head, you know,
I I can't think of anybody else.
And that's what I want, is whatyou're talking about, which is
the accountability.
Knowing is right and and youknow, I hate to say cancel
culture, but it it kind of doesits own thing.

(11:49):
Um a level of accountabilitythere, but we want the legal
accountability that goes alongwith stuff like this.
And we're just frankly, we'renot getting it, we're probably
not gonna get it.
Um, and it's gonna just becontinue to be a disappointment
for everybody.

SPEAKER_08 (12:02):
Yeah, yeah, it is.
It is, it will um become anotherversion of the nothing burger, I
think.
Yep, you know, it'll be the bigflurry for a minute.
Maybe we'll we'll get someshocks in there.
Maybe I feel like we're alreadyalready I doubt it too, you
know.
I mean, I don't even uh again, Idon't even care about the
shocks.

(12:22):
I don't care about the oh so andso was on that list.
Oh my goodness.
No, because nobody's gonnasurprise me at this point.

SPEAKER_04 (12:29):
You can't it would have to be it would have to be
astronomical, it would have tobe like the Dalai Lama, like
right.
It would have to be somethingcrazy like that.
But other than that, I mean thatyou know, Bill Gates' name has
been thrown around and forever,you know.
Um it just it the speculated thelist of speculation is so grand

(12:50):
that the actuality is just gonnabe you know a a disappointment
no matter what.

SPEAKER_08 (12:54):
Yeah, yeah.
So I don't know, guys.
My uh my position on this is youknow, hey, great, great.
It's finally getting released,even though they said for years
can't be done, can't be done,and then all of a sudden with a
stroke of a pen, and it now it'snow it's done.
So that's a little eyebrowraising.
As I joked with Clay before, Ican't really raise my eyebrow
currently, but it, you know, ifI could, my eyebrow would be

(13:15):
raised.
Um as far as you know, anythingelse to do with this, I
personally will not be impresseduh until I see arrests.
That's the only thing that wouldimpress me at this point.
And and convictions.
Let me let me let me rephrasethat.
Arrests and convictions would bethe only thing that would
impress me at this point withthis.
And I'm not knocking anyone.

(13:36):
I understand that this is justall part of the way these things
go, but um, until that happens,I'll just kind of I don't even
know if I'll do a slow clap,Clay.
Just be like, okay, right.
Oh, what do we got next?
Um, well, I mean, we're we'rekind of staying in the family of
these conversations, right?

(13:57):
It's it's it's a good littlesegue.
Um, everybody wants somebody offof the Supreme Court.
And this is really interestingbecause I had to do a little bit
um more.
I had to even double check withyou, Clay, right?
Beforehand, like, oh wait, arewe talking Katenji Brown or are
we talking about Alito and uhThomas?
And so technically we're gonnaactually gonna talk about all of
it.
Um, because both sides of thepolitical aisle have decided

(14:18):
that the best way to savedemocracy is to shove
inconvenient justices um off theSupreme Court.
So it's a it's a goodconversation.
What are your uh what are yourthoughts there, Clay?

SPEAKER_04 (14:29):
Yeah, so it's um, you know, stay on the GOP side.
Um, and and we don't, you know,we all want and and by design,
the Supreme Court is supposed tobe apolitical.
Um we all know that that's notnecessarily true.
Um, although there have been,you know, enough kind of
centrist or surprising decisionsmade by the Supreme Court in the

(14:51):
last you know couple of yearsthat that it is probably less
political than we realize.
However, um from the GOP side,you know, the ask right now is
that Justice Alito and JusticeThomas both resign while the
Republicans hold power in youknow both houses as well as the
presidency so that um PresidentTrump can nominate two

(15:13):
replacements of the GOP ilk thatcan be confirmed and therefore
retain that GOP uh dominance,the 630 dominance that exists
right now uh on the SupremeCourt, um, which goes back to,
and it brings up the same, youknow, argument that keeps coming
around, which is term limits andage limits for the Supreme

(15:34):
Court.
One, President Trump says, I'mnot asking them to do that.
I don't want them to do that.
They're both doing a fantasticjob, and I don't want them to
resign.
So there's the president'sposition, which is good.

SPEAKER_06 (15:44):
Right.

SPEAKER_04 (15:45):
Um, but it goes back to, you know, we we had the same
thing with um, you know, uh thethe last few that have, you
know, passed away, you know,while in office, Ginsburg and
the right.
So it does beg the questionshould there be a term limit?
Should there be an age limit?
Um, and and you know, how wouldwe manage those?

(16:07):
Personally, I don't think I Ithink they should resign, retire
when they feel like it.
Um I I'm a firm believer thatthey shouldn't have a an a term
limit.
There should probably be acompetency uh limit that or or
some sort of competency testthat goes on um associated with
age, potentially.

(16:27):
Um, but age doesn't meananything.
I mean, you truthfully, youknow, Alzheimer's as probably
everybody knows, can strike atremarkably early ages, right?
Um, where you know you start tohave cognitive decline, et
cetera.
Anyway, I I think no term limitfor SCOTUS.
I personally think theyshouldn't resign unless they
feel the need, health-wise,competency-wise.

(16:48):
But I do think that there's weneed to at least explore
competency testing uh forjustices of every age.
What do you think?

SPEAKER_08 (16:56):
Yeah, well, that's interesting, Clay.
I'm I I need to pick your brainmore because my my gut response
and reaction is is you know,term limits for every term
limits for everyone andeverything.
Um I'm just I'm curious why youdon't think so.
Is it because of the length ofexperience that they have there?
Like what's your reason forthat?
Because I I'm just curious.

SPEAKER_04 (17:18):
I think, you know, by design, the idea of no term
limits for um Supreme Courtjustices was so that they could
not be swayed or influenced uheither way, or they couldn't use
their influence to stay on thebench.
It was a two-way street, right?
That was all by design.
Okay.
So if you say I'm in this jobforever, you can't inf you can't

(17:40):
push me to make a decision inyour favor because you have
nothing to influence me with,meaning re-election, another
term, etc., which is the problemthat we have in Congress right
now.
Right.
You know, all of the the donors,you know, right?
Um, all of that that goes alongwith it.
You don't have that as an issuewithin the Supreme Court.
Um, and I and that's why Ibelieve they shouldn't have term

(18:01):
limits.
Um that's just my opinion.
I think that's how theframeworks defined it, and and
and I think it works personally.

SPEAKER_08 (18:08):
Yeah, no, that makes sense.
I I genuinely didn't I genuinelydidn't understand or know.
So I I knew there was there werereasoning that I just simply
didn't understand.
So that makes sense actually.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Um, what else?
Let's talk about let's talk alittle bit about Town G Brown.
Because, you know, obviously,well, you know, so we have this
whole thing, right?
That's it, it's it's the foreverleft and right, and uh the the

(18:32):
left has been screaming aboutwell, they've been screaming
about Thomas and Alito allalong.
Um, they they despise both ofthem, particularly Thomas,
right?
I mean, more so him thananything.
Well, I guess both of them.
Um, but it's just it's it's justinteresting because you and the
other side of it is you haveher, and now the controversy

(18:52):
with her in this moment, there'squite a few technically, um, but
her husband's firm is tied tocases before the court.
And you know, what a surprise,the media goes completely deaf
about that, but they'll talkabout uh Thomas's um supposed um
what was it?

SPEAKER_04 (19:08):
He was getting money for something or plane rides and
and some other things, I think.
Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 (19:14):
Right.
So, you know, it it's it's justthe constant, you know, uh we're
gonna put a spotlight on this,but we're gonna ignore this.
So, how about we do this reallyradical, crazy thing and apply
the same rules and expectationsof everyone?
Can we just like I know itsounds like absurd to do that,
but I know it's never gonnahappen.
I'm I'm a realist, guys.
I am a realist, and that waspure sarcasm.

(19:35):
I knew it was gonna happen.
But you know if we're makingcomparisons between the two,
we're talking about a woman whocould not tell you what a woman
was.
Anyone remember that?

SPEAKER_06 (19:47):
You provide a definition for the word woman.

SPEAKER_08 (19:52):
Can I provide a definition?
No.
Yeah.
I can't.
You can't?
Not in.
Into contact.
I'm not a biologist.
I'm not a biologist, guys.
I can't tell you what a woman isbecause I'm not a biologist.
So, you know, I don't know.
As I've never, I've just neverheard uh Clarence Thomas say

(20:15):
anything so certainly stupid asthat.
But whatever, you know, whateverto each their own.

SPEAKER_04 (20:20):
She is the she is the number one successful DEI
hire.

SPEAKER_08 (20:26):
She truly is.
She truly is.
She truly is.

SPEAKER_04 (20:29):
See, if you go back and you look at her work record,
um she really was never even ana functioning active judge that
made a determination on anythingprior to the Supreme Court.
Uh she is, you know, just Imean, you could take that clip
alone and tell talk about levelof competency, um, you know, et

(20:51):
cetera, et cetera.
Um, you know, and I think I'vealways said this, I think it was
a missed opportunity uh for uhMarsha Blackburn to say, give me
a legal definition of a woman.

SPEAKER_06 (21:03):
Right.

SPEAKER_04 (21:03):
That key word, right, with her being, you know,
confirmation to be a SupremeCourt justice, I think was was
the word that was missing,right?
Yeah.
I'm not asking you to be abiologist, I'm asking you to be
a judge and an attorney.
Give me a legal definition of awoman.

SPEAKER_08 (21:16):
You're so right.
Opportunity missed.

SPEAKER_04 (21:18):
Yeah, missed that one.
But um, regardless, she's she'sa massive.
I but sticking to my own youknow premise, she's there
forever, right?
Until and and the system waswhat it was.
She was confirmed under thesystem as it existed.
She will hold that seat forever.
Um, and or until somethingdrastic happens.

(21:41):
Um, you know, there could be,like you said, there could be
corruption potentially.
That's the speculation with herhusband, um, you know, et
cetera, et cetera.
So, you know, we'll we'll justhave to see what happens with
her.
She could be a thorn in the sideof the Supreme Court for the
next 40 years.

SPEAKER_08 (21:57):
Yeah, it's it's insane when you think of that,
right?
Um just to be just to becompletely fair, um, I'm gonna
give you both sides of like theargument here.
So um the left's argumentagainst Thomas and Alito has
been ethics crisis, loss ofpublic trust, right-wing
billionaires secretlyinfluencing the court, flags
equal insurrection.
That was uh the wife, Alito'swife flew the uh flag, American

(22:20):
flag upside down.
That was that whole thing.
Um, and wants them to resign forthe good of democracy.
Now, the right's argumentagainst KGB, no, KB, yeah, KBJ,
sorry, um, is they said ifThomas's friends are a conflict,
then her husband's firm is too.
Um, undisclosed financialinterests are still undisclosed.

(22:40):
Media outrage is selective,which we know that, not
principled.
Uh, ethics rules must cut bothways, which is what we were just
saying.
And if recusal is theexpectation, then recuse, if
not, stop using ethics as thepolitical weapon.
So, I mean, you know, this isthe this is we're being fair
here.
We're giving both sides of thecoin, both sets of, you know,

(23:01):
generalized opinions on thetopic.
And and I I I think that it'ssimply um really a matter of
just what we were saying, thatum neither side actually wants
ethics reform.
They just want a scoreboard umto change whenever one is in in
power or favor over the other.

SPEAKER_04 (23:19):
So yeah, I think the one thing that you have never
heard, not that I can recallfrom the uh Republicans, that
you have heard multiple timesfrom the Democrats, and that is
pack the court.
Um Republicans have saidconsistently the system is what
it is, nine's the number, youknow, we we wait, we wait our

(23:39):
turn, we wait, you know, if youdon't like it, get a get a
better president, you know, etcetera.
Um, they have never said we'regonna swing the the strength of
the court by adding justices,and then, you know, while
there's a Democrat in office,then we pack the court with the
people that we want, and then weswing it the way that it you
know gives us the advantage, etcetera, which has been the

(24:01):
argument for a while.
Um, you've never heard, I'venever heard um Republicans ever
even bring that up.
I may be wrong, but I I can'trecall off the top of my head
ever hearing that.
So I think that difference inyou know party ethics, which,
you know, like you said, is partof the argument with the
justices themselves.

SPEAKER_06 (24:20):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 (24:20):
Um, but you know, when you want to when you want
to change the rules, they'relike an oldest child, which I
always my older sister about,right?
You know, change the rules inthe middle of the game when
things don't go your way, butthat's how they're acting, is
like an oldest child.
Um, because they, you know,they're losing, uh, they don't
like it, and so they're gonnajust change the game itself, and
and that's how they want tooperate.
So um, I don't think PresidentTrump should.

(24:44):
I don't think he should getinvolved.
I don't think the justicesshould resign, going back to the
Alino Thomas thing.
Um, and I think that uh theyjust ride it out.
I I think they do what they'resupposed to do is SCOTUS, you
know, justices on Supreme Court,and uh we just move forward.

SPEAKER_08 (24:56):
Yeah, yeah, fair enough.
I like it.
It works for me.
We'll see what happens, right?
Oh, what do we got next?
Bombs, borders, and bowlingchecks.
Um TG versus the Pentagonbudget.
I'm gonna give this one over toyou.
Uh so just quick intro.
The new National DefenseAuthority Act is out, and
Marjorie Taylor Green is loudlyin the no column, uh, mostly

(25:21):
because she hates, not I'msorry, not because she hates the
troops, but because she's tiredof funding everyone's border but
ours.
Those are basically her words.
Um so go ahead, Clay.
Give them the Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 (25:31):
So that the NDAA is out.
I have right here, this is fromthis is the House Armed Services
Committee's document.
This is their summary document.
It's 30 pages.
Um if you as an Americancitizen, and I encourage
everybody to be involved, ifyou're wondering how and where
your tax money is being spent,this is 900 billion dollars.
900 billion, okay?

(25:53):
And and it doesn't outline whereevery single dollar and every
single allocation goes.
However, this is the bulk of it.
It gives you at least an ideawhere it's at.
One of the primary things thatMarjorie Taylor Green does does
not like, does not appreciate,is there's$400 million going to
Ukraine.
Um, so that's one of her bigbeefs.
There's the continued support ofuh Israel is outlined in here,

(26:15):
uh, et cetera.
Now, I will tell you that inthis 30-page document, it does
give you a great feel for wherethe priorities lie within the
Department of War.
Um, one of them, however, is notan allocation of any kind to
rename it officially to theDepartment of War, because you
can change the sign all you wanton the outside of the building,
um, but until Congress approvesit, it's still the Department of

(26:35):
Defense, regardless.
Um so, but it but it's all laidout in here.
Um, and and there's a lot ofgood things in here.
There's the elimination of VEIand then the associated cost
savings with that.
There's um allocations in herefor um or directions and
guidance for improving housing,uh, feeding of our soldiers, the
the um the process for which weprocure and develop equipment.

(26:58):
It gives direction on equipmentto be purchased, things that are
important to the to thedepartment itself.
Um, but what it doesn't do,which bothers me, it does it
somewhat indirectly, but itdoesn't do it directly.
I think it's very important inthe National Defense
Authorization Act to outline whowhat is the greatest threat to
the United States and why, andhow the money is being allocated

(27:20):
to counter that.
The first thing that isspecifically mentioned, the
first foreign power that'sspecifically mentioned in the
NDAA, and it's all the way inthe back, is China.
Now, it does not outline Chinaas our number one threat to the
United States.
It does talk about Indo-Pacificinfluence by the United States
to counter China, removing Chinain any way, shape, or form in

(27:41):
our uh procurement anddevelopment process for defense.
Um it talks about Israel, ittalks about Russia-Ukraine, it
talks about ISIS, uh, Iran,counterterrorism, and some other
things.
But it doesn't say China's ourbiggest threat.
It doesn't say anybody's ourbiggest threat.
Um it just happens to mentionChina first.
I personally think that that's amistake.
Um, so that that to me is aproblem.

(28:03):
However, the document itself isis, and again, this is the
summary, and it's 30 pages.
Okay.
So you can imagine what the NDAAactually is.
I was gonna ask you that too.
Like how we're I've read thembefore.
I haven't read this one yet inin whole, but they're big.
Um, and and you really have toknow eight million acronyms to
even get through it.
So um the summary is a gooddocument to get into.

(28:25):
Um, there are, you know, like Isaid, there's a lot of things in
here about cost removal.
Um, you know, there's some somerestoring, like this is one of
the most interesting ones, andit's very Pete Hegsif.
Um, restoring lethality and thewarrior ethos is in here.
Um and the very first thingunder that heading is prohibits
men in women's sports at theacademies.
Takes it right off.

(28:45):
Right off.
Okay.
Um, you know, restoresmeritocracy is the next bullet.
Um, ends diversity, equity, andinclusion programs at the
Department of War is the thirdbullet, right?
Prevents a military new GreenDeal, fourth bullet, right?
And then expands faithproviders, fifth bullet.
So, you know, that's got PeteHags' name written all over it
is okay.

(29:05):
Um, he is the secretary, sothat's kind of the way it works.
The page after that is securingthe border.
So you can tell where thepriorities lie within this.
Um, it does kind of put a stickto big business in that, you
know, they've said, hey, we weneed big business to work for
us, not us to work for them,which is kind of how things go
in procurement and developmentright now.
Um, so it it's a good, again, itgives a good doc good

(29:29):
documentation and a good summaryfor all of you that are out
there who want to see where yourtax dollars are going.
But Marjorie Taylor Green, amongothers, uh, she's just the
loudest right now, has saidshe's not gonna vote to approve
this.
Keeping in mind she hasn't votedfor anything since she announced
her departure from Congress.
She's been absent for everyvote, but she said she's not
gonna vote for this.
Um, because her explanation isthat this is not America first.

(29:54):
By sending$400 million toUkraine, this is not America
first.
For supporting Israel, this isnot America first.
And really, to me, what she'sshowing is that she doesn't
understand internationaldiplomacy, and she doesn't
understand that America firstdoesn't mean every single dime,
dollar, penny of American moneystays inside of America.
You have to understand that ussupporting other nations around

(30:18):
the world in form and fashion,sometimes financially, benefits
America more than not doing it.
And that's where America firstreally lies.
I don't I've said this a milliontimes.
Ukraine to me is a NATO problem.
And there is allocation in hereto discuss NATO, NATO
responsibilities to counterRussia.
That's all included in the NDAA,but it does say that there's$400

(30:40):
million allocated to Ukraineitself.
And that's where she has aproblem.
But I think it also shows herignorance and that she has a
problem with that, not takinginto account the entire
document.
Sure.
So that's kind of where I sit.

SPEAKER_08 (30:51):
And particularly with uh with Israel, I I just
read, I wish I had saved it so Icould pull it up here, but uh, I
just read recently, and I don'tknow the dollar amount, um, but
in the language apparently withthese agreements with Israel is
part of that is that they haveto spend a certain percentage or

(31:12):
dollar amount in the US on US onUS, in US, uh, as part of like a
contingency for the support.

SPEAKER_04 (31:22):
So it's not just this um, you know, bank machine
that they're taking out of theso I I can pull the bull, it
doesn't have a dollar amount,but I think what you're
referring to is this.
So it says directs theestablishment of the U.S.
Israel Defense Industrial BaseWorking Group to study
opportunities for greatercollaboration on defense
production and potentialintegration of Israel into U.S.

(31:44):
national technology andindustrial base.
So, really what that means is weare pulling them in, they're
becoming a partner in defensedevelopment, in which case they
spend money on development andalso spend money on purchasing
essential US equipment for theirown defense.
So we're not bearing the burdenfor all of this, but it does
help in, you know, um, and thenyou've got established, oh,

(32:05):
here's another one establishesand authorizes$35 million for a
new emerging technologycooperative program with certain
partners, including Israel, tojumpstart development and
testing of cutting-edgetechnologies, including AI,
quantum, cybersecurity,robotics, and automation.
So there you go, right?
It is about a financialpartnership that benefits
defense for both nations, whereIsrael foots part of the bill.

(32:27):
It's not just the US fundingeverything and then they buy the
product in the end game.

SPEAKER_08 (32:31):
So yeah, because I I think the um the impression that
the MGTs of the world are aregiving is that places like it,
well, we'll just specificallysay Israel, because that seems
to be the biggest issue for acertain portion there, um, that
they're just taking and takingand taking, and there's no,
there's no relationship hereother than a give, give, give on

(32:53):
our part.
Um, and that's you know,couldn't be further from the
truth.
And, you know, we're talkingabout President Trump, who is
the deal maker, that is histhing.
Like the money, the business endof operations is his thing.
He's not gonna he's not gonna begiving and giving and giving
with nothing coming back inreturn in some way, shape, or
form.
So let's be, you know, let's bereal about that.

(33:14):
And I don't, I don't, I don'tlike the, you know, I don't know
if it's willful uh misleading orif it's ignorant misleading, but
it's still misleading peopleinto thinking that the
relationship is other than whatit is.
So I just found that veryinteresting.

SPEAKER_04 (33:29):
Yeah, and and so you know, there's um it's a good
document.
I again, please, if you're notfamiliar with defense, like
intimately familiar withdefense, I do not recommend you
go get the full NDAA.
You're gonna drive yourselfcrazy.
But this is again, it's a HouseArmed Services Committee summary
document.
It's a PDF, it's out on youknow, out on the web.
You can get it.
I printed it myself.

(33:51):
Um it didn't, folks, it didn'ttake I didn't call anybody I
know, I didn't, you know, getany of those connections,
literally pulled it off theinternet.
Um I think everybody canappreciate and understand uh as
a taxpayer.
Um it does give you some focuson uh you know where the
Department of War is headed andhow they're allocating funding
uh for the next year.

(34:11):
I just wish that it said in a nobones about it way, the greatest
threat to the United States is.
Um and how are we using this$900billion to counter that?
Um, that's what's not clear tome.

SPEAKER_08 (34:24):
Interesting.
Yeah, no, it's a goodperspective.
Uh definitely.
I I absolutely, of course,commend you for actually getting
the the documents, the paperworkthere, because most people, and
you know, I'm not knockinganyone, there's no shade to
anyone, including uh MarjorieTaylor Green, for asking
questions, for raising concerns.
But you know, the the answer tothat is to do what Clay just

(34:47):
did.
Well, I have questions, I getsome answers, I will go get
those answers so I can speak onthis.
So, you know, just food forthought.
Anyone who's curious, take Clayup on that and go read it.
I'm not going to because I'mjust not that curious.
Because I have you.
I have you to tell me.
Oh, thank you.

(35:08):
Thank you very much.
Uh, let's keep going with uhwith your guy Pete.
Oh boy.
So uh drone wars and the fog ofwar.
Does America deserve to see thestrike?
What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_04 (35:21):
Um there's there's two dangers in releasing the the
footage itself.
Uh so um the first one is, andthis is about classified
capability.
One is you never want to releasesomething that is going to tip
the enemy on how you acquiredthat information.

(35:42):
In other words, I don't knowwhat kind of drone they were
flying.
This is really, folks, this isabout the September 2nd, the
double tap, as they keep callingit, or the reattack, whatever
you want to call it, the twostrikes on the same boat, um,
where there's accusations ofkilling survivors.
Um, and so the you know, thepush right now is to release the
full drone footage and alloweverybody to see um what uh you

(36:03):
know the vice admiral, who isthe um special operations
commander who authorized thesecond strike, uh, you know, was
looking at uh in the operationscenter when he said, Yeah, go
ahead, hit it again.
Um But again, so to go back,first concern is is there
anything about the footageitself that would that would
tell the enemy how did they getthat?

(36:23):
How do they have such clearcamera capabilities?
How do they have X, Y, and Z?
Whatever is on there, does thattip the enemy off to say, well,
if they can do that, they cansee this.
If they have that capability,then we need to figure out a way
to counter that capability, etcetera.
So you never want to tip off thecapability itself.
In other words, the drone, thetype of drone, the type of
camera work, the type oftransmission, whatever it is,

(36:46):
you never want to tip anybodyoff.
So if there's a risk of exposingclassified capability, then no,
they should never release thedrone footage in any capacity.
Second, if if they do releasethe drone footage and they
release it as you know, clearand unredacted, I can promise
you two things are gonna happen.
One, people who have no ideawhat they're looking at are

(37:07):
going to interpret it the waythey want to, the way that their
brain sees things, they aregonna say, well, this is clearly
what happened.
Having no no experience lookingat drone footage, having never
seen a drone, don't know whatthey're capable of, etc.
Right?
They're gonna misinterpret andthey're gonna see what they want
to see.
Um, the second part of it isit's gonna be AI's immediately.

(37:29):
Somebody's gonna take thatfootage, right?
Through AI, and then we're gonnalose track of what reality looks
like very, very quickly.
Um, and it's gonna be, you know,either AI'd or edited to a point
where the news outlets, asdishonest as they are, are gonna
use it in whatever form orfashion they choose.

SPEAKER_08 (37:45):
Oh, no question about it.
No question about that part.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
You know, uh you just touched onsuch a huge important part to
all of this that the the wholeAI aspect of it is it is so
dangerous and out of control.
I mean, it it's beyond out ofcontrol, and you can't, you

(38:07):
know, it goes back to what wewere talking about before.
It is so hard to trust anythingthat you hear or see, or whether
it's from the government,whether it's from Joe Schmoe on
the internet, um, because it isso accessible to everyone um to
make these, and it's justgetting, it's just improving and
improving and improving, youknow, and even people who who

(38:28):
are well versed in being able touh identify AI video or AI
images are struggling.
So now you take it to the nextlevel uh of something like this,
and like you just said, and thenthe mainstream media gets hold
of that, they run with it, andall you need to do is is air one
time for it to be real, youknow, to be for it to be fact in

(38:51):
people's minds.
And we're in such an incrediblydangerous time with all of that.
So I, you know, I I I get it,you know, we all like the we've
become the transparency um uhadministration where you know
they just are airing their livecabinet meetings, and and I love
all that, and I think that'sterrific.
Something like this for all thereasons that you stated, proceed

(39:15):
with caution, basically, right?

SPEAKER_04 (39:17):
Yeah, and and let's be honest, this from the time
this story broke, there has beenrepeated jump to conclusions and
erroneous reporting from themedia.
The very first report that cameout was that SEAL team six was
dispatched.
This is the most absurd thing,was dispatched to fly out and
kill the survivors, likeliterally fly out in the water,

(39:40):
right?
Which is crazy.
That was beyond crazy.
Then it was, you know, PeteHeggs sitting in there going,
hit him again, which whathappened.
And then there was the orderthat said, kill everybody.
Um, you know, and so you know,even at this point, ABC News was
the first one, Martha Rabbit,who I can't stand, was Like,

(40:00):
hey, listen, here's how thisworked.
Um, and and now you've got allthese people, these uh, you
know, uh attorneys, former JAGofficers within the Army, the
military across all branches.
You've got you know all thesefolks.
The ACLU is now suing uh the DOJand I think the State Department

(40:20):
uh to protect uh these boats uhover this strike on September
2nd.
Yes, the American CivilLiberties Union uh is suing our
own government to protect uhpeople who are dragging drugs
into anyway.
Um regardless, I I think giventhe opportunity and it and any
ability to protect the integrityof the footage itself, I think

(40:45):
that Department of War shouldrelease it.
However, I think that isimpossible to do.
Um and therefore I don't thinkthey should.
That's just my perspective.
And again, folks, those of youthat watch or listen every week
know I am not a Pete Hegsithfan.
I am not trying to protect thatguy at all.
I just know that this is afactor of war that we have been
using, a capability we've beenusing for the last 25 years

(41:07):
religiously.
I I'm I'm part of this, believeme.
Um, and and so I I think thatthis is really nothing new.
I think it's much ado aboutnothing.
Um, and I'm not trying toprotect the Sec War uh because
I'm I'm not, but I I reallydon't think they should release
the footage.

SPEAKER_08 (41:20):
But the question is, do you think they will?
No, no, I don't think you don'tthink so.

SPEAKER_04 (41:25):
Not unless directed to.

SPEAKER_08 (41:27):
Right.

SPEAKER_04 (41:28):
The only person who's gonna direct them to do
that is the president, and Idon't think he's gonna do it.

SPEAKER_08 (41:31):
Right.
Yeah.
Okay, I like it.
All right, what do we got?
Let's fix.
Let's see.
Do do do do the right one?
Yes, yeah.
Uh okay.
I don't know if you guys sawthis one, but Nokohoma's student
says she was punished andflunked because she argued from
a Christian worldview aboutgender in a writing assignment.
She was told her views were uhdemonic.

(41:51):
Uh, the university now says it'sjust a grading issue.
Of course they do.
Of course that's what they say.
Uh so again, she wrote a shewrote an essay from a biblical
perspective describingtransgender ideology, this is
the demonic part, um, asdemonic.
Her instructor gave her afailing grade, allegedly calling

(42:11):
her views harmful and suggestedshe should not express them.
A student appealed, like public,and the university put the
instructor on leave and said herconduct was under review while
insisting um they value freeexpression.
So, I mean, this this is thekind of thing that we we've been
talking about for how long nowwith these universities

(42:34):
suppressing and punishing uhconservative and Christian uh
speech and perspectives.
Uh you hear this, you know, on adaily basis that somebody is
either being flunked out orbeing um um asked to leave or
just simply demonized for um nottowing the ideological line.

(42:57):
And you know, good on her forcoming forward with it and
making it public.
Um, you know, it's ironic,right?
This is, and I don't know ifthis campus specifically, but
you know, a lot of thesecampuses have no problem posting
uh satanic club uh gatherings,but you know, but Christian
perspectives.
Nope, that's a no.

SPEAKER_04 (43:17):
So the kicker is this is one, it was essentially
an opinion piece that they weresupposed to write.
It was, you know, part of theassignment was your opinion.
So she expressed her opinion.
Um the instructor is a they thempronoun.
Um, and so that, you know, sheprobably knew when she wrote it
that there was, you know, thepotential for pushback, but she

(43:39):
stuck her guns, good for her.
Yeah, she took the assignment.
The instructor, while she metactually every requirement of
the assignment, she providedinformation, she provided
opinion, uh, she providedinformation to support her
opinion, etc.
She met every requirement.
Um, the instructor, it was a25-point assignment, and I don't
know what that means on thelarger scale, but a 25.

(44:00):
She gave the the instructor whois either an assistant professor
or a teaching assistant, one orthe other, um, gave her a zero
out of 25.
Not just partial credit, gave meno credit.

SPEAKER_08 (44:12):
No credit.
Zero.
But I didn't like, so zerocredit.
Right.

SPEAKER_04 (44:15):
I know I asked you for your opinion, but and and
and so the student, you know,protested.
She put in a formal complaint umto the university, and the
university, my understanding isthat the university actually
they were acting but notcommunicating with the student
until this hit the news cycle.
And then when it hit the newscycle, they were like, Oh, yeah,
we've been talking to everybody.

(44:36):
We've been talking to theprofessor, we've been talking to
the student, we've been talkingto so-and-so.
Actions are being taken, we'rereviewing everything, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah.
The student has come forward,and you're right.
So the assistant, the whoeverthe professor is, whatever the
teacher, instructor is, has beenput on leave.
It's all being reviewed, but thestudent has come out and said,
they weren't saying anything tome.
I have no idea what was going onuntil it hit the news cycle, and

(44:56):
then of course the universityreached out and said something.
Um, but the question is, howmany other students have had
this happen to them from thatinstructor or any other
instructor on the Oklahomacampus?
Um, and and what adjustments arebeing made for them?
Um, you know, this just shedsthe light, as every one of these

(45:17):
small incidents does, sheds thelight on a much larger problem
across many, many campuses.
And folks, I hate to break it toyou.
Just because the university isin a you know flyover state, a
red state, a conservative state,uh, you know, belt uh Bible belt
state, uh, whatever you want tocall it, don't assume that the

(45:38):
that university has the samevalues as you you think the
state does, because the realityis is they don't.
The universities, universitiesare universities, and they are
incubators for liberal thoughtprocess and and you know um
indoctrination and all thoseother things.
I don't care what state it's in,and I don't care what school
it's it is.
There is that potential there,and this is a great example of

(46:00):
in the heart of America at theUniversity of Oklahoma, right?
This is happening, and it'shappening today as we speak.

SPEAKER_08 (46:09):
And I and I I would hope that this would go without
saying, you know, we're not,we're not shouldn't write a
piece um calling transgenderpeople trash or garbage or bad
people, or she's saying the thebelief system and this type of
ideology is demonic.

(46:30):
She's using biblical reverence,she is basing this from a
biblical perspective.
Um, she's not, you know, andwhere I'm going with this is
that she is she's basicallyspeaking truth with grace, which
is what we should be doing asChristians.
We should not be um sayinghurtful, hateful things towards,
well, towards anyone.

(46:51):
Um, but since this is thespecific subject, uh transgender
people, we should be speaking inlove and truth and biblical
truth, which is you know whatshe was doing.
That was the essay, that was herposition.
So this wasn't um, you know,some Christian girl, some holy
roller attacking anyone.

(47:12):
She was asked for her opinion,she based it in scripture.
This is what scripture says,this is the perspective of it.
Yes, I know the Bible does notuse the word transgender.
So let's let's not get on thatwhole topic.
We all know what we're talkingabout here.
Um, so yeah, there's a bigdifference between and and and I
would hope that my Christianfriends and followers and

(47:32):
viewers um remember that, youknow, that you absolutely all
day long speak truth, but do itwith grace and compassion and
kindness.
You don't have to be nice, youhave to be kind.
Big difference.
Um, so yeah, and that's what shewas doing.
And and I applaud her so much.
And anyone else who is standingup for themselves that way, and
it's so sad that the only waythat you can is to make it so

(47:55):
pub public and hope and pray forit to get picked up and people
to notice, because otherwisethey'll just steamroll you and
they'll flunk you, and you havereally, you know, very little
recourse.
Or by the time that you do,whether it goes to court or or
whatever, you know, so much timeis passed and money spent to
defend yourself.
Um, so it's a sad world that welive in that this is the case,

(48:16):
but it is.

SPEAKER_04 (48:20):
Yeah, it's uh and again, it's happening, it's
happening everywhere.
Don't think you're saved bygeography, don't think you're
saved by you know ideology.
This and folks, uh you know,even the places where you think
that this is the most protected,okay?
Uh Notre Dame, right, thepreeminent, most prominent

(48:41):
Catholic university in theUnited States has taken all
references to Catholicism out oftheir mission statements.
Okay.
So this type of mindset ischanging everyone.
So don't think that just becauseyou're at a quote unquote
religious institution, uh, thatthe these things aren't
happening.
So if you've got college-agekids, uh, you know, tell them to

(49:02):
you know, stick to their guns,uh, they will be protected in
the long run or in the shortrun.
Um, but we can't let thesethings go untouched, unpunished,
unnoticed, uh, and and you know,unresolved.

SPEAKER_08 (49:13):
Absolutely.
And um, being that, well, guys,today is uh as usual, we like to
give you this reminder eachtime.
Uh, today is Wednesday.
We are recording on Wednesday.
We will watch this all togetheruh on Thursday.
And uh I am wearing thisparticular shirt because today
is three months uh since CharlieKirk was assassinated.

(49:35):
This is uh in memorandum of him.
Well done, faithful servant.
And uh yeah, I just wanted totake a moment and uh just
acknowledge that it is threemonths, which is crazy.
And you know, every every timethese little uh anniversary
moments of this come up, I Ialways recall exactly what it's
gonna be one of those moments.

(49:56):
Uh and I'm sure for a lot ofpeople of the where were you
when this happened?
And you know, and I I wassitting right in this spot
prepping for our show, and I gotthe text from you, and then from
that point on it was on.
So yeah, so God bless CharlieKirk and next, because I'll

(50:17):
start crying.
So moving on.
Moving on.
Uh Viral Cleps to Sent Up DreamsCrockett.
Okay, I'm so glad we're movingon.

SPEAKER_04 (50:24):
Is this little uh let me let me grab this one and
get it started?
So as as most of us know,Jasmine Crockett from the uh
great state of Texas uh is uhwas uh a uh member of the House
of Representatives.
Uh and since there's beenredistricting authorized in
Texas, her district has goneaway, and therefore her seat uh

(50:46):
with it.
So uh what she has decided to dois run for the one of the two
Senate seats for the great stateof Texas.
Um and let me tell you thereverberations that have come
out of this.
Um actually, yeah, let me dothat and then we'll and then
we'll go into it.
But so understand that thatthere is a little bit of a

(51:08):
heated GOP race.
So Senator Cronin um is the isthe incumbent.
Um he's he's almost guaranteedto secure his seat.
There hasn't been a uh statewidea Democrat elected for a
statewide uh in a statewideelection in 35 years, and the
and the last one was the uh thegovernor of Texas, but there
hasn't been a blue senator fromTexas in forever.

(51:31):
Um so there's a Republicanthere, there's two challengers
that are coming after him on theRepublican side.
On the Democrat side, um, youknow, Mr.
Crockett declared herself as thepeople that Republicans are
afraid of, that the president isafraid of, uh, that everyone is
afraid of.
Uh she is uh going up against auh a man named Calerico, uh, who

(51:53):
is uh he's a teacher, um, he'skind of a more of a centrist,
uh, or closer, at least he's ahe's a he's studying ministry, I
think, as a Lutheran.
Um and so his views presentthemselves as more centrist, but
he is a Democrat, okay?
And and so there was actuallysome hope that because he
appears or presents as more of acentrist, that he would have a

(52:14):
shot uh at this seat.
Um but now, and he was runningagainst uh man named Aldred,
who's a former NFL player um whowas promising.
As soon as Crockett declared,Aldred dropped out.

unknown (52:26):
It's crazy.

SPEAKER_04 (52:26):
He's like, I'm not even playing this.
Now he is flipping over and heis going to run for a house seat
uh to try and get some blue backinto Texas.
Uh but she has declared uh thatuh she is the one to beat, and
and truthfully, because she's anup-and-comer in the Democratic
Party, uh, they are a littleconfused as to what they should
do about this because thereality is she's not she might

(52:49):
win the Democratic primary, shewon't beat this guy Calo Rico,
she's gonna get murdered in thestatewide election.
But she has said she does notneed Trump supporters or
Republicans to get elected inthe state of Texas.
Okay, how delusional she is.
But if you want to see howdelusional she is, let's just
see her first ad cam in hercampaign to be a U.S.

(53:12):
senator.

SPEAKER_05 (53:13):
They have the new star, Crockett.
How about her?
She's the new star of theDemocrat Party, Jasmine
Crockett.
They're in big trouble.
But you have this woman,Crockett.
She's a very low IQ person.
I watched her tweet the otherday, and she's definitely a low
IQ person.
Crockett.
Oh man, oh man.
She's a very low IQ person.

(53:37):
Somebody said the other dayshe's one of the leaders of the
party.
I think you gotta be kidding.
Now they're gonna rely onCrockett.
Crockett's gonna bring themback.

SPEAKER_08 (53:50):
I feel like I have to do a parody video of that.
Oh, please.
Please do.
I feel like I must.
I love, I love the I love thatarm crossed.
I think I might have some falseeyelashes upstairs somewhere.
I might I might have some.

SPEAKER_04 (54:07):
You know, all the way up until the end.
Yeah.
All the way up until the endwhere it says crock it for U.S.
Senate.
You would think that this is ayou know from Talerico.
You would think this is fromCronin.
You would think this is fromsomebody.
That's her own campaign, putthat together, thinking that
that is gonna help her in someway, shape, or form.

(54:28):
Yeah.
Listen, folks, I've said this.
She's and we're taking AOC intothis thing, like Crockett is the
dumbest politician, nationallevel politician.
I I and Harono's in that group,who is a moron, right?
AOC's in that group.
There's a whole large group ofdumb people.
She is, in my opinion, thedumbest of all of them.

(54:50):
Um, and this her assuming thatshe can win this seat proves
that she just really is thatdumb.

SPEAKER_08 (54:55):
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, well, I think she'll get,you know, from her own party,
she'll she'll get thatnomination.
She'll be their she willabsolutely be their front runner
because you know they have nochoice.
Yeah, exactly.
There's no choice.
She's she will be she will bethe one.
Gotta love it.
Well, you know, I mean, it'sgonna be entertaining for sure.

SPEAKER_04 (55:14):
Well, it it keeps her in the national spotlight,
it also helps with funding forthe Democrat Party.
Um, you know, and that's reallywhat they're using her for.
She is a social media darling,yes, um, not in the state of
Texas, uh, in her very small inher district that doesn't exist
anymore.
Um, but but mostly at thenational level, uh, which is why

(55:34):
they love her and which is whythey're gonna keep her at the
forefront in any way that theycan.
She's just not gonna besuccessful.
She's she is, you know, a blackfemale version of Beto Auroric
for as long as it lasts, is whatshe is.

unknown (55:45):
Yeah.

SPEAKER_08 (55:46):
But I love, you know, the irony doesn't, I'm
sure it doesn't escape anyonethat for the the very same
reasons that the left loves her,you know, they're they're like,
she speaks full truths and shecombats racism and she's so
charismatic, and you know, arethe same things that the right
is making fun of because it'sall personal insults, race

(56:06):
baiting, and sound bites.
That's it.
There's no substance, there isno depth, uh, there's no deep
knowledge and understanding ofof the the issues.
She's sound bites, that's it.
So when it comes down to anykind of debate or any kind of
answering any real questions, uhjust the the sound bites alone
will will be fodder forentertainment, but it is it's

(56:30):
just crazy to me.
I can't even, it's justlaughable, and I appreciate the
please do the video.
Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 (56:37):
Please do the video.

SPEAKER_08 (56:38):
Yeah, the video is just amazing, and I definitely
will have to replicate that.
So stay tuned, guys.
It'll happen.
Oh, all right.
That's all we could say on her.
Uh, this, this, this guy, thisguy.
Well, this is no surprise.
Listen, I mean, this is all leftuh left run media.

(56:59):
Um, I if you had asked mebeforehand, if he said, Do you
think he's gonna get renewed?
I would have said, Of coursehe's gonna get renewed.
Of course he is.
There's no question about it.
Um, another year.
So he's got another year behindthe desk.
If there's one thing America wasbegging for, it's more Trump
jokes and lectures from amillionaire Hollywood.

SPEAKER_04 (57:15):
I I am I am surprised he got renewed.
Truth.
Are you?
I I was not only because of umof uh what's his name?
The guy who already gotcanceled.
Um yeah.

SPEAKER_08 (57:25):
I think they had to double down though.
I think that's exactly why theyhad to double down and be like,
no, no, no, we love this.
This is great.
This is so funny.
We're doing great.

SPEAKER_04 (57:33):
I I just you know, if you watch, you know, um
Stewart, John Stewart, whichJohn Stewart hosts one day out
of the week, um, you know, thatis the that's the the you know
punching bag show, and it'sdesigned that way.
It wasn't originally, but it isnow.
Okay, fine, you know, Colbert,you know, he he is done.
I I really thought that Kimmelwas gonna go the same way, and

(57:56):
you know, Fallon was gonnasurvive because he is the least
political of all of the shows.
Um I am surprised.
I the suspension was not asurprise, um, but I am surprised
that they gave him another year,uh, truthfully.
Uh now I it may be his last, butbut don't be surprised if you
see a change in content.
That could be that maybe thatmay be part of the contract.

(58:18):
The contract may be limitationson what he can and can't say,
shouldn't shouldn't say, andback off the politics uh and
make it more entertaining, andwe'll see what happens.
Um and and so we'll see.

SPEAKER_08 (58:30):
Yeah, yeah, there certainly could have been a lot
of uh not even well, I guessnegotiating, you know, in the
background.
I'm saying, you know, if youkick me, I'll do this.
Or right.
Don't make me don't make it.
I don't know where to go, whatto do.
I'll behave, I swear, just giveme another year.
Yeah, yeah.
Oh gosh.
Well, I mean, listen, I've Iliterally have never watched

(58:50):
him.
I've uh obviously seen clips onyou know social media and really
only for the purpose of you knowmaking fun of him or just
criticizing uh the things thathe says and does.
But that's about it.
Never watched them.
I did once upon a time watch theman's show for segments here and
there.
I thought that uh listen, I'msorry, I thought the man's show
was kind of funny.
Shockingly, you know, like it'sjust like that jaw-dropping kind

(59:11):
of humor.
So I missed that guy.
He was pretty funny, he waspretty tolerable.
Uh now, not even remotely, butyeah, I don't know.
They can just enjoy theirpropaganda machine and do what
they do, and the people whowatch it will continue to watch.
And uh slight segment, I knowwe're like just about out of
time.
Um, but I I just want to talkabout very quickly, and I'm
sorry I didn't mention thisbeforehand.

(59:32):
This just reminded me.
Uh, this whole Netflixpurchasing Warner Brothers, and
that is a bad, bad deal foranyone who watches any kind of
mainstream stuff.
If you think it's bad now, it'sonly going to get worse with
that.
So I don't know if they can evenstop it at this point.
I would think that it's good.

SPEAKER_04 (59:50):
There are going to be efforts to stop it.
Um, there are gonna be.
Yeah, uh conglomerate too big,um, all of those things, too
much control over media.
So I think that uh Congress.
Potentially going to getinvolved to stop this merger uh
of Netflix buying WarnerBrothers um and and that whole
merger.
Um and I'll tell you, there'sthere is some concern inside the

(01:00:12):
production side of Hollywood.

SPEAKER_06 (01:00:14):
Interesting.

SPEAKER_04 (01:00:15):
Okay.
Because they think if it if itdoes get too big, it's gonna
change everything for everybody.
Um it's gonna be so big, it's ait's a non-compete essentially,
and you're gonna have to followsuit with what they do,
otherwise you're just not gonnasurvive.
So there are some concernsinside Hollywood on on what this
was gonna do to the entireindustry.
So I I I'm not betting the farmthat it's actually gonna go

(01:00:37):
through.
So we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_08 (01:00:38):
Yeah, yeah, I hope not.
And you actually have people,you know, who are normally
highly combative to anything.
Um who you would have thoughtwould be all for this, or at
least not have a problem.
Uh Elizabeth Ward has actuallyspoken against this as well.
So, you know, that's interestingin itself.
Yeah.
Um, so if you if you're gettingjoined forces here, which never
happens uh these days, yeah, ittells you a lot, really, tells

(01:01:02):
you how scary that really is.
For sure.
If if they're gonna join forces.
So yeah.
Um did we do our last one?

SPEAKER_04 (01:01:09):
Yeah, well, I'll just hit it real quick.

SPEAKER_08 (01:01:10):
Yeah, okay, let's put this up.
I knew you wanted to touch.

SPEAKER_04 (01:01:13):
Yeah, so um baseball, you know, for those of
us of of our age where weremember the golden age of
steroids and juicing withinbaseball.
Yeah, you know, the baseballhall of fame has essentially
banned, uh unofficially bannedthe known steroid users, the
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemensand others, uh, that whole era
of the late 90s that uh, youknow, you either loved or hated

(01:01:34):
baseball.
Um, but so those guys, the BarryBonds and Roger Clemens and that
crowd are beyond their normal umeligibility for the Hall of
Fame.
They're in what is, you know,the secondary process called the
Veterans Committee, where theyhave to get a certain number of
votes from a much smaller votingpool, um, and their
opportunities get further apart.

(01:01:55):
So it's not an every year vote.
Um, and they have just been toldin the latest voting you are not
eligible for the Hall of Fame.
And I think their nextopportunity is maybe three or
four years from now where theywill be reconsidered.
Um so baseball is still standingon, you know, whatever morals
you think that it has or hasn't.
But, you know, let's let's goback and Pete Rose is still not

(01:02:17):
in the Hall of Fame.
Shoeless Joe Jackson and theWhite Sox from 1918 are still
not in the Hall of Fame.
So there are some things thatbaseball and the baseball
writers stand on, whether youagree with them or not, but
steroids is one of them wherethey're not budging.
However, the fans want a lot ofthese players in and they voice
that publicly.
They're also voicing support forColin Kaepernack yet again,

(01:02:38):
which I can't understand.
Last weekend, for those of youthat do or don't follow sports,
the starting quarterback fromthe uh Indianapolis Colts blew
his Achilles tendon, which wasyou know, just the thought of
that is gross.
Um, so of course, umIndianapolis is out searching
for backup quarterbacks, andthey pulled uh, you know, a
44-year-old uh retiredquarterback in on Tuesday and

(01:02:58):
worked him out, and they'reprobably gonna sign him.
But in the meantime, so manyfans have said, why are they not
bringing Colin Kaepernick in fora tryout?
The guy hasn't 44 years old andretired.
He's only been retired for acouple of years.
Colin Kaepernick hasn't thrown afootball in like, you know, half
a decade.
I mean, it's been six or sevenyears, but yet he still
amazingly comes up, and it's thefans, it's not even the

(01:03:22):
organizations, because you'llnever get support inside the NFL
for him.
But the fans are bringing him upthat they still want him to get
another workout.
I will never understand that oreven the support for the steroid
folks in baseball.
I I just sports fans to me areare the you know, I and I'm a
sports guy.

SPEAKER_08 (01:03:39):
Yeah, I used to be a sports gal, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 (01:03:41):
Yeah, you there's so much um, you know, kind of
diversity within this, you know,the sports fandom world.
But that one support forKaepernick just blows me away.
Can't get it.
I don't know.

SPEAKER_08 (01:03:50):
Yeah, and you know, if you want to just talk on
ability or um, I don't know,stats alone, probably.
I'm pretty sure he was kind ofcrapping out uh at the end
there.

SPEAKER_04 (01:04:00):
He was in one good season, yeah.

SPEAKER_08 (01:04:01):
Yeah.
So I I don't get the appeal, youknow.
So if somebody said, Well, Ijust want to talk about his uh,
you know, him as a player, notas a social activist or whatever
you want to call him.
Um, yeah, I don't think it wasthat impressive, guys.
That your memory that short, youknow, I don't know.

SPEAKER_04 (01:04:16):
I mean I think the Colts didn't bring him in.

SPEAKER_08 (01:04:20):
Everything, right?
Yeah, no, definitely not.
Yeah, I mean, you know, to me,he's always gonna be the the
start of why uh we stoppedwatching football in our home.
And it that makes me sad.
And yeah, I mean, great reason,right?
You know, the the day he walkedout on the training field uh
wearing uh pig socks, you know,uh that was it.
That was it for me.
I was like, yeah, yeah, I'mdone.

(01:04:41):
I think I'm done.
You know, so yeah, so that isit, guys.
We covered them all, we threwsomething extra in there.
Um, yeah, we will uh we'll we'relooking forward to joining you
guys in the the comment sectionfor sure.
Clayton Quismo.

SPEAKER_04 (01:04:58):
Yeah, hey folks.
Uh next week, uh, and we've donethis for the last couple of
years, we have tried to dosomething a little bit different
in our last show before theholidays, which will be next
week.
Um, so if you have any, youknow, what did we do?
We've done um favorite Christmasthings, we've done lists, we've
done all kinds of fun stuff uhlast couple of years.
Um if you have any ideas,something you'd like to see us
do, uh please put it in thecomments section.

(01:05:18):
If not, Else and I will come upwith something.
You will probably not get uh abunch of politics next week.
You'll get something a littlelighter, a little more
celebratory, a little moreholiday focused.
But we'll do a different shownext week, and then uh we will
take our normal holiday breakbecause Else and I like the
holidays too.
So um, but next week should beour annual holiday show,
something a little different.
And uh until then, from me, keepmoving, keep shooting.

SPEAKER_08 (01:05:41):
Take care, guys.

SPEAKER_02 (01:05:42):
Terry Davis wanted a quiet life, the Midwest, a
rifle, a little feast.
But trouble keeps finding him onevery inch of American soil.
From cornfields to the Capitol,the enemy hides in the top.
And when the country needs oneman to stand up, Terry does what
he's always done.

(01:06:03):
The fight for America.