Truth In The Crosshairs: Seven Stories The Mainstream Media Won't Tell You Straight

Clay and Elsa return after a brief hiatus to tackle seven controversial topics ranging from the Boulder attack classification to former Biden administration officials distancing themselves from the Democratic party.

• The Boulder attack where an Egyptian man lit pro-Israeli protestors on fire raises questions about why Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino labeled it "ideologically motivated violence" instead of terrorism
• Ukraine's drone strike destroyed 34% of Russia's cruise missile bombers ($7 billion worth), demonstrating battlefield technology changes that pose potential security threats to the US
• University graduation speakers who violated their agreements to deliver politically charged pro-Palestine speeches have had their diplomas withheld for breaking contracts, not for their speech content
• Biological males continue winning girls' sports competitions across the country, despite being mediocre performers in male divisions
• Elon Musk has publicly criticized Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" (OBBB) despite working with the administration, demonstrating he's not a "lockstep follower"
• Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley received presidential pardons after serving minimal time for tax fraud and bank fraud convictions
• Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declaring herself "independent" may be part of a DNC strategy to create a fabricated middle ground to pull moderates from the GOP

Support the show

DON'T WAIT FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY, PLUS, SAVE 15%: https://www.twc.health/elsa
#ifounditonamazon https://a.co/ekT4dNO
TRY AUDIBLE PLUS: https://amzn.to/3vb6Rw3
Elsa's Books: https://www.amazon.com/~/e/B01E1VFRFQ
Design Like A Pro: https://canva.7eqqol.net/xg6Nv...

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's the.
Elsa Kirk Show with Clay NovakServing up trending news and
conservative views Brought toyou by the Elsa Kirk Collection
and Refuge Medical.
And now it's time for the show.

(00:21):
And now it's time for the show.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
We're back.
It's been a hot minute.
Why does like a one week gapfeel like so much longer?
Like I was itching to get backin here?

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah, last week you know we didn't do a show.
You know you and I were bothkind of overcome by life events.
You were traveling, I had stuffgoing on and we just couldn't
get our schedules matched up.
But happy to be back after aweek and, yes, it feels like
forever.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Yes, yeah, and fortunately for us, the news
never, ever stops.
There's never a lack of topicswe have.
We started with six and we justadded one more in at the last
minute because it's kind of alast minute thing and I cannot
wait to talk about that one, butwe have all the other ones to
talk about first, right yes, andgood reminder it is, we're

(01:11):
recording Wednesday at 4 30eastern time, so, um, the the
one that we just added is, likeright now, immediately brand new
.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
So, uh, but yeah, seven topics and we'll get to
them right after this tonight,clay and Elsa are taking on the
headlines.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
They don't want you talking about a terrorist attack
in boulder that somehow isn'tbeing called terrorism.
Ukraine's drones just change,modern warfare.
Is the us paying attention?
Graduation stages hijacked byprotest politics, another high
school girls sport won by a boy.
Elon Musk torches Trump's big,beautiful bill is the base

(01:49):
splitting and the Chrysler's areout of jail and back on reality
TV.
Let's dive in.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
So Chris Lee's, not Chrysler's.
Yeah, I don't know how I how Ididn't hear that when I did,
when I and I did it.
But yeah, whatever, I don'tknow.
Is it really the biggest dealin the world?
Probably not, maybe to him.
But we do have yeah, probably tohim, probably to him or them, I
guess All of them.
It's probably the biggest dealin their world right now, other
than that they're happy to behome.
But we're not talking aboutthat yet.
We'll get there, guys.
I know it's like the aboutright.

(02:20):
Oh, we got to start with thebigger stuff, though we're
starting with the big stuff.
The attack in Boulder, colorado.
So you know, I guess, dependingon who you ask, one set of
people will just call it a youknow hate crime maybe, and
another set will call it aterrorist attack.

(02:40):
And you know what say you, clay?
What's your opinion on that one?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Yeah.
So over the weekend, folks Ithink probably everybody's
tracking so there was ademonstration by a pro-Israeli
group trying to, you know, bringsome attention so it doesn't
fade away to the hostages beingheld by Hamas and an Egyptian
man who originally came to theUnited States legally on a visa
but has stayed beyond theexpiration of his visa.

(03:08):
His name is Mohammed SabriSolomon.
He decided that, amongst thisprotest, that he would light
people on fire while yellingfree Palestine.
Eight people injured, nofatalities yet, which is amazing
, and thankfully so, rangingfrom ages 52 to 88, 88.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
He was 88 Holocaust survivor.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah, Well, years old , lit them on fire with a
makeshift flamethrower, and justsome anyway.
So he wasower and and just someanyway.
Um, so he was arrested and andwas great picture, right.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
Right, sums it all up there, every part of that
picture, right.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Um so, uh, he was arrested, taken into custody, uh
, charged with a number ofcrimes, including including a
murder charge, even though noone has uh, there has been no
fatalities yet, which I thoughtwas not even interesting.
Yeah, it was very interesting.
Um, the other interesting partof this is how this has already
started to become watered down.
Yes, it could be easilyclassified as a hate crime.

(04:14):
The FBI spokesperson and thedirector of the FBI, Kash Patel,
labeled this as targeted terrorattack.
Right, but interestingly, DanBongino, deputy director of the
FBI, labeled this as an act ofideologically motivated violence

(04:37):
.
And if that doesn't sound likea politician, I don't know what
does.

Speaker 3 (04:41):
Yeah.
So I have really mixed feelingson this.
My initial and very strongreaction was a big WTF.
Right, like, call it what it is.
It's a, it's a terrorist attack.
Um, however, I will say that Idid a little more reading today
and there may be, I guess, maybea little bit more to it than

(05:01):
that.
Like, maybe this is more of astrategic thing right now,
because here's what I read.
So I'm just going to read toyou what I read just a little
bit more to it than that.
Like, maybe this is more of astrategic thing right now
because here's what I read.
So I'm just going to read toyou what I read just a little
while ago.
So it says that to chargesomeone with terror, the
prosecutor would have to proveat trial that the person is
either associated with orinspired by designated foreign
terrorist organizations.
Without this, it's difficultfor the justice department to
bring terrorism charges.

(05:23):
So my only thinking is is thatif he is not directly tied to a
terrorist organization, maybeit's harder to get that kind of
charge to stick, and maybe it'sa concern that he could
essentially get away with thisor get charged with lesser
crimes or get it dismissed.
I don't know, maybe I'm talkingcrazy here, but I have always,

(05:46):
like most of us, loved DanBongino and his work, so I'm
just a little taken aback bywhat's been going on.
You know, starting with theEpstein you know thing.
So it's like is this justcareful wording?
Like you know, when you alwayssay, when you're talking about a
crime, you're always saying thealleged blah, blah, blah.

(06:09):
I don't know what do you think?
You wrote a really great blog Ishared it over where there were
a lot of responses to that.
Let's talk about that a littlebit.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
Go ahead.
Yeah, so yeah, that blog's like.
I think 3000 ish people haveread that blog at this point
Thanks to you passing it along.
Once you belong, probablyanother 20 people passed it
along.
But my my point in saying thatI understand exactly what you
said.
Yes, you have to be somewhatprecaution at times.

(06:37):
Show some precaution in thewords that you use.
However, the depth director ofthe FBI called it targeted
terrorism.
The spokesperson for the FBIcalled it targeted terrorism.
The spokesperson for the FBIcalled it targeted terrorism.
Ok, the deputy director is on adifferent messaging path, and
when you soften, the danger isthat he has softened the act by

(06:58):
using those words.
If you say ideologicallymotivated violence, that's a lot
like calling murder, you know,removing the capability to
breathe.

Speaker 3 (07:10):
Right, yes, right.
Abortion is reproductive health.

Speaker 2 (07:15):
Right.
And so I was very disappointedin Dan Bongino because he has
been the tough guy for the lastfew years in his podcast, in his
messaging.
You know he has spent a lot oftime on Fox news banging on the
desk, pointing at the camera Umand oh.
By the way, he is not theprosecutor in this.
The prostitute and the districtattorney have the obligation to

(07:37):
bring the proper charges.
He he is not going to taint ina negative way the prosecution
by using the word terrorism it'salready been done that's out of
the bag.
But when he uses terms likeideologically motivated violence
, he gives the defense anopportunity.
Right say listen, even thedeputy director says this isn't

(07:57):
terrorism.
Even he says it's a differencein ideology.
This is like you.
You know this is the mostlypeaceful protests.

Speaker 3 (08:07):
Yeah, oh, I have, I have his, I have his, his tweet.
Basically, everybody can seewhat that says in the evidence
passive, blah, blah, blah, youknow.
So he's justifying himself,right, I mean, and that's that's
how this is coming across to me, like he's, you know, trying to
qualify his terminology use,and I don't, I don't think it's
sitting well with a lot ofpeople.

(08:28):
So, you know, I think everybodyhad time to read that, right?
Yes, you're all fast readers,you got it.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
Yeah, so it's.
And even the response to myblog was probably, you know
there's.
I wouldn't even say it wasequal parts.
I would say and I and I didn't.
I'm learning from you.
I didn't get involved, I didn'trespond to a single comment.

(08:53):
Um, I just kind of.
But I did look and it wasprobably, I don't know maybe a
70, 30,.
You know, 70 agreed, maybe 30,but a very adamant 30%.
That, um, very adamant.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
I saw a few of them.
I did see.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
Yeah, it was not a big deal that I was overreacting
, that he didn't say anything.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
I think I got a shame on you for even sharing this or
something along those lines.
Okay, Okay fine.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
I personally think that again, once the cat's out
of the bag, then you get onboard with your boss and with
your organization.
It does show some lack of co ofof um, you know, cohesion
within the fbi, within theleadership.
Some people again will saythat's okay, there's nothing
wrong with that um, but in the,in that tweet, you know, when he

(09:36):
says we're the fbi, the federalbureau of investigation, not
the federal bureau of word games, um, he is chastising his boss
a little bit.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
Yeah, yeah.
It's going to be interesting tosee how these dynamics play out
, because these are all I mean,you know, stating the obvious.
These are all really headstrong, you know, alpha males here in
these positions, right?
So there's.
You know, you can't help butwonder if there's a lot of
headbutting behind the scenesthere when it comes to things
like this.
I'm sure this very specifically, this very different wording

(10:07):
choices by these two peoplespecifically definitely caused
some conversations behind thescenes between them, and I'm
sure it wasn't very friendly,right, because somebody comes
out looking like the tool inthis, you know.
So I don't know, I just I justfelt like, um, it was just a

(10:29):
very watered down on his part.
You know, it wasn't the DanBongino that we're so used to,
like you said, with the tablethumping and finger pointing and
strong language and weird.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
It's weird I don't prescribe to.
There were some people thatcommented and said, oh well, you
know the CIA got to him or youknow the political party got to
him.
The people got to him, theythreatened his family.
I don't prescribe to any ofthat.
I don't think that he's beengotten or whatever that means,
right, I do think that he is.

(11:01):
He is being careful in what hesays, but I think he missed the
mark on this one.
I think he was behind the curveand now he's backpedaling a
little bit to try and make upfor it.
I just think it's a bad look.
So everybody who voted for thisadministration to be tough on
these sorts of things did notask for it, nor did they want or

(11:22):
anticipate this kind ofreaction out of him,
specifically in this job.
So it's a little disappointing.
But we'll have to see.
Like you mentioned, the EpsteinEpstein Epstein thing.
You know everybody.
He even said it himself he didnot kill himself, he did not
kill himself, he did not killhimself.
And then it's like, yeah, hekilled himself.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
So in the most awkward, uncomfortable,
cringeworthy delivery I've seenin a while and we've seen a lot
of those, but that one really, Ithink, because talked about it
the last time.
You know their posture, theirmannerism, their wording, their
delivery, like every part ofthat rang so falsely that you
know the most amateur bodylanguage reader could sit there
and say something, doesn soagain, isolated incidents.

(12:18):
You don't say or think muchabout it.
Now you start adding things.
It gets more concerning, youknow.
What is also disappointingconcerning, however not
surprising is the left and themainstream media and their spin

(12:40):
now, who said very little aboutthe 88 yearold Holocaust
survivor that was nearly burnedalive and the other victims Very
little to say about that.
But they have plenty of tearsto shed for this terrorist
family who is looking at gettingdeported For them.
They're going to cry and feelsad for these illegal aliens

(13:02):
that are here and getting heldaccountable.
Typical right, no surprise onthat.

Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yeah, yeah.
I haven't heard a single updateabout the eight injured,
wounded people from the incidentNot one.
But I've heard a lot about thefive family members that have
been taken into custody, thatare potentially deported.
Yeah, those poor, poor people,yeah they're are potentially
deported.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
Yeah, those poor, poor people.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
They're, they're here .

Speaker 3 (13:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
They were here legally on a visa.
They let the visa expire twoyears ago and they stayed so.
But you're right, that's who.
That's who the focus is goingto be on from the.
You know the alphabet ormainstream media, right and not.
You know the alphabet ormainstream media and not.
You know, unless and I don'teven know if we will, unless

(13:50):
somebody dies, unless one ofthose eight injured people dies,
we will not likely hear anotherthing about those victims, and
we may not even hear anything ifone of them passes away.

Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah, yeah, definitely not from the
mainstream media.
I mean you'll maybe, ifanything, you'll get a quick
little blurb and then they'lljust divert to the very next
thing.
You know that's way higher ontheir list of you know
priorities.
You know all you can say isit's disgusting, but it's not
surprising.
So you know.

Speaker 2 (14:17):
Yeah, I think the thing to pay attention to at the
end of this is what is he?
You know, how do these chargessit with domestic terrorism?
Do they get changed or elevatedas the, as the, you know the,
the trial actually nears as anyof that modified or changed, and
then we'll all just have towatch and see what happens, you

(14:40):
know and you know I don't.

Speaker 3 (14:42):
I want to go kind of like backwards for a second that
whole little thing that I readout.
You know there were two partsto.
I want to go kind of likebackwards for a second that
whole little thing that I readout.
You know there were two partsto that as far as getting
charged with terrorism and itwas, let's see, either
associated with and the partthat I kind of glossed over in
my own mind.
But as I read it I'm like, oh,wait a minute, what was the part
where it said or inspired bydesignated foreign terrorist

(15:03):
organizations?
I mean, it's literally rightthere, like yes, so I would say
that qualifies.
The guy was shouting freePalestine, right?
What else?
Some other Zionists, you know.
So kind of feeling like it fitsthe criteria.
Let's not dance around this.
Call it exactly what it is andit is an act of terrorism,
charge him to the fullest extent, whatever the worst thing that

(15:24):
you can do to him.
And I agree, of course you knowthey probably do have to kind
of wait and see what happenswith these victims before they
know, you know fully what thecharges are going to be for this
guy.
The murder one is very curious.
I need, I want to look intothat.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
Yeah, I didn't understand that, and that itself
was a separate headline in the.
In the coverage of this wasthat he had been charged with
murder even though no one haddied, which I've never heard of
in my life.

Speaker 3 (15:51):
No, yeah, definitely not.
Yeah, strange.
Well, we're going to, obviously, guys, we're going to, we're
going to keep up on it and, uh,we certainly want to hear your
comments and thoughts on thattoo.
Um, what do we got next?
Let's see what the next one isnext up Ukraine.

Speaker 2 (16:05):
You know, I'm passing this right over to you to give
you the big yeah no, I mean theopening uh, where you know you
asked the question of are wepaying attention to this?
And and so you know we ofcourse are paying attention to
this the United Statesdepartment of defense.
Um, I, I think you know whereit directly relates to Ukraine

(16:26):
and Russia.
What happened was Ukrainiansloaded a bunch of trucks with
wood paneling, wood rooftops,and they loaded the drones
inside and they got driven intoRussia to a distance where they
could fly and attack thesedifferent air bases.
All right, so they were drivenin trucks, were walked away from
and then they were remotelylaunched and they, uh, they

(16:47):
attacked and if you haven't seenit, there's tons of footage out
there Uh, but they destroyed,destroyed or damaged at least 22
aircraft.
Um, what is significant in that,in the inventory that they
attacked, was 19 of those werestrategic bombers.
Two of them were in theequivalency of what we would
refer to as AWACS.

(17:08):
So, like those planes with thebig radar dish on top Okay, for
airborne command and control,early warning radar capabilities
they destroyed two of those, aswell as some cargo aircraft.
But those 19 strategic bombers,those are Russia long strike
capabilities into Europe andeven potentially into the United

(17:29):
States.
Like those are the kinds ofplanes that they would use for
that kind of strike.
So you know, ukraine going onthe offensive a little bit,
taking a ability away fromRussia to defend themselves, but
with you know, they werestaring negotiations in the face
, like there was a schedulenegotiation, peace negotiations.

(17:49):
He's firing, negotiation comingup and they launched this
strike and I can promise you andPutin has said it they will
retaliate, in kind Of course.
So negotiations, of coursethey're gone.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
Yeah, yeah, this is, this is just insane to me.
Uh, the, the thought process,uh, zelensky, is beyond my
comprehension.
And um, just for a side note,just to kind of follow up on on
what you said, as far as thedamages, um, they destroyed or
damaged 34% of Russia's cruisemissile bombers, right, and it

(18:22):
was valued at seven,approximately $7 billion.
So you know, I mean, I guesskudos to you for you know
exacting such damage, you knowgreat, but to what ends?
You are no match for what thisguy has like, none, no match
whatsoever.
And you just, I mean, talkabout poking the bear, right,

(18:44):
it's actually scary, yeah.
And I mean, talk about pokingthe bear, right, it's actually
scary yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
And, and you know, Putin's crazy.
I've never.
You know he's not, he's not arational man and he does have a
temper.
It's been proven over time.
So I, you know, I, I think apoor decision on the part of
Ukraine.
They just escalated and thingswere on a little bit of a down,
a little bit Europe is going tobear the brunt potentially of

(19:07):
this.
We'll have to see, hopefullyfor beyond Ukraine.
But again to the point of are wepaying attention?
This is something that we, theUnited States, need to pay
attention to, and I know we havebeen.
But the battlefield is changing.
The capabilities for thesetypes of attacks are.

(19:29):
It's out there and it'sprevalent, it's being modified
and developed and advanced onthis battlefield.
This is like a testing groundfor the world right now when it
comes to drone technology.
And so you know, touching backon our last topic, you know Tom
Homan, right, right, he isconvinced that there is going to

(19:49):
be a significant terror attackinside the United States in the
near future, based on the amountof illegal aliens that have
come into the United Statesthrough the Biden administration
.
And these are the types that weand I talked about Golden Dome.
We talked about Golden Dome, Ithink a couple of weeks ago.
These are the types of attacksinside the United States that we
have zero defense for.
If this was replicated in theUnited States to attack any

(20:15):
installation, any major city,something like that, where there
are trucks with drones, suicidedrones, drones with explosives
we would have zero defense forthis inside the United States.

Speaker 3 (20:26):
But this is changing.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
It's paying attention to this.

Speaker 3 (20:29):
Yeah, well, it gives me, in relation to the Golden
Dome conversation from theprevious episode, this what
you're saying now gives me alittle bit better perspective on
that because honestly, I thinkI was thinking like, well, the
Golden Dome sounds like abrilliant idea.
Why wouldn't we want that?
But I get what you're sayingnow that you know the enemy is
literally here.
Like they were let in by thatprevious administration, the

(20:52):
Biden administration or theBiden handlers administration.
You know they let them all in.
They're like we can't call itthe Biden administration anymore
, like it cannot be called that,I think.
Can we just determine thatright now this is no longer
going to be, at least not onthis show.
We are no longer going to referto the previous administration
as the Biden administrationbecause it was not his at any

(21:12):
point in time.
Argue with me all you want,folks, but that's the hill I'm
dying on.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
So anyway, it could be the Jill Biden administration
.

Speaker 3 (21:20):
Absolutely.
And her right-hand man, what'shis name?
Bernal, what's his name?
Yeah, absolutely.
And her right hand man, what'shis name?
Bernal, what's his name?
Yeah, whatever it is.
Yeah, and apparently, um,apparently, uh, what's her name?
Pocahontas there, elizabethwarren?
Yeah, yeah, wait, well, thatwould be a whole other topic.
We can't go there now.
We got too many topics.
We can't do it, guys, and do itanother time, and I'm sure we
will, um, but yeah, so, yes, Iget what you were saying then.

(21:48):
Better now, in light of thisconversation, yeah, it's really
frightening to know what's rightunder our noses, what's in our
backyard, what's next door.
You know, all of these thingsand the rage that we all should
be feeling at that previousadministration so far yeah,
maybe we'll just call it the JoeBiden administration the rage

(22:11):
that we should be feeling aboutall of this now should only be
escalating tremendously.
And now that they're, all youknow, defecting and all of a
sudden distancing themselveswhich, yes, we will get to that,
guys, hang tight.
But yeah, this is scary.
Back to Ukraine, of course.

(22:31):
Why, why would he do this?
Can you speculate on that atall?

Speaker 2 (22:35):
I think so.
They had a clock.
This has been planned or inmotion for he read it off.
It's like one year and fourmonths and 17 days or something.
I don't remember the exactnumber, but it's been planned
and in motion Because, if youthink about it, they had to
build the drones, they had tobuild the trucks, they had to
set everything up, they had toinfiltrate inside of Russia,

(22:58):
they had to travel throughundetected, get to their
destination, get everything setand then launch Right.
Those things take a lot of timeand a lot of planning and, as
far as the military operationgoes, kudos to Ukraine.
They pulled off a good one.

Speaker 3 (23:13):
Yeah, I mean, they really did.
You got to give the creditwhere it's due.
It was just an insane move.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
I almost wonder if it was started in motion to a
point where they couldn't turnit off when you know, at some
point you know it went beyondthe capability to say no, and
that could be it, but also, Ithink it is still.
You know this.
I think there's someundermining, there's some

(23:38):
speculation, there's someundermining going on, even by U
S officials that are not namedpresident Trump, going on even
by US officials that are notnamed President Trump, that you
know.
Folks have been talking toZelensky under the table, even
publicly, and giving him advicethat probably isn't warranted.
But truthfully, I think it wasjust a.
I think it's a terribledecision, but I think that

(24:00):
Ukraine is still adamantlytrying to drag NATO into this to
get it to stop.

Speaker 3 (24:06):
Yeah, yeah, oh boy.
Well, obviously, making theunderstatement of the century,
this is going to be one thatwe're all going to have that
place.
And I don't think you are, youknow and I don't know.

(24:34):
You know it's probably aninsane thing to say that do we?
Does everybody just step backand say we're not, we're done,
like everybody's done, blow eachother up, you know, and it
would be really easy probably tosay that if nuclear weapons
were on the table, you know.
So you, like, you can't evenjust step back, and I know
there's a lot of people thathave and will say, like it's not
our fight, just, you know, walkaway.

(24:55):
Well, the implications are big.
You're dealing with crazy asspeople.

Speaker 2 (25:00):
You know it's I at this point, especially after
this, and I still don'tnecessarily advocate for this,
but I think it's becoming moreand more apparent that the only
two outcomes for this are acomplete Russian takeover of the
Ukraine or NATO insertingpeacekeeping force as a wedge
between the two.
I think we just keep inchingcloser to one of those two

(25:23):
solutions on a daily basis thepotential for a settlement,
peace talks, ukraine gaininganything.
I think all that's gone.
So we're down to two options atthis point, and that's those
are the only two ways this isgoing to end.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
Yeah, yep, I agree with you.
I'd love to offer analternative to that, but I
certainly don't have one.
All right, let's bring it,let's bring it back to home.
Turf here, let's talk aboutthese boneheads, these highly
educated boneheads.

Speaker 2 (25:55):
I mean, what else am I gonna call?
Yeah, the the bad in this is,you know these um, it's what is
it?
It's?
Ny nyu mit are probably the twomost prominent yeah it is.
It is bleeding over a little bitinto some high schools, uh, in
some places, right, um, butthose are the two big ones, uh,
where you know thesevaledictorians, or whoever they
are, that are nominated asstudents to speak at the

(26:17):
graduation.
They go into an agreement,right, and these universities
figured this out a long time agoyes, you bring the speaker in,
you give them the parameters,sign some an agreement that
they're going to abide by therules.
Going to abide by the rules.
They provide you a speech, youknow, the university approves it
, and then everybody's going ongood faith that the speaker is

(26:38):
going to stand up there at thepodium and give the speech
that's been approved.
And in these cases, that's notwhat happened, right.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
And you know, of course, you know people on the
left and maybe, I don't know,maybe some people on the right
to argue.
You know like, oh, you know.
Well, the argument always isyou know you're violating their
free speech.
They should be allowed to speak.
No, no, absolutely not.
There are rules, there areguidelines there.
So you have free speech, justnot everywhere you go and
anywhere you want.

(27:02):
Your free speech is your rightto go on your own platforms,
your own social media page.
Go, stand on the street corner.
I think actually probably needa permit to do that too.
But you know, yes, youabsolutely can say whatever you
want under.
That's protected under freespeech.
Don't get that confused with nothaving to follow rules and

(27:23):
guidelines that you, by the way,agreed to and then just decided
to disregard.
That's actually what it comesdown to.
This isn't a violation of freespeech.
This is you flagrantly ignoringa commitment that you made,
that you agreed to, and nowyou're pouting and mad because
you can't you know, I don't knowwalk up and get your diploma or
whatever, because you've beendisinvited.

(27:43):
It's your own damn fault.
Nobody should be feeling badfor these.
You know, snot-nosed brats.
I can't stand them.
I really can't Like you want to.
I respect your right to freespeech.
You want to say free Palestine.
You want to say you want tocall somebody a fascist or a
bigot?
Say whatever the hell you want,I don't care, but you're not
going to do it on time.

(28:04):
That's designated for somethingelse.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
It's that simple you know, yeah, and and this is, you
know, welcome to grownup land.
You sign a contract anywhere.
You know, once you graduatefrom college, you're going to
sign an employment contract,you're going to, you're going to
sign all kinds of contracts andyou have an obligation to abide
by them or there arerepercussions.
Sometimes it's legal, sometimesit's financial.
Whatever it is there is, youmake a deal, you have to abide

(28:28):
by it or pay the bill.
And in the case of these two,their diplomas have been
withheld.
So you have not graduated,they're not getting the
sheepskin.
I haven't heard any updates, butI think that still stands.
And again, it's not because ofthe content, it's not because of
what they said, because theyviolated the agreement made

(28:48):
between them, as the speaker,and the universities.
So you know, and on top ofeverything else, it's
unbelievably selfish.
You know, at both of theseuniversities I think
specifically at NIU you know thecontent of both of the speakers
was very much free, palestine,the West is terrible.

(29:09):
You know, anti-israel,anti-semitic, and at the NYU
graduation, a number of Jewishstudents got up and walked out.
So you have now, by virtue ofyou just running your mouth,
have stained their hard-earnedgraduation for them, for their
families and everything else,because for the six minutes that

(29:34):
you're on stage, you couldn'tresist being a selfish, arrogant
little punk and running yourmouth, and that's that, I think,
is even worse than the rest ofit.
I think that's the worst partof it.

Speaker 3 (29:46):
Yeah, I, I completely agree with you.
And you know, look at whattheir role models are.
You know celebrities whograndstand and showboat and you
know, stand on their soapbox attheir uh award ceremonies, their
Yamy ceremonies and everythingyou know.
These are their examples.
All a bunch of petulant, bratty, spoiled jerks is really what
they are.
And um you, there's.

(30:06):
There's no way I'll ever seethat any other way, because it's
it's all very clear.
You had guidelines.
It was in writing.
You knew what you were supposedto do.
You chose to do something else.
These are the consequences.
Welcome to adulthood, right?
Yeah, I'm just tired of it.
And of course, that's the songand dance always.
Oh well, it's because we'retalking about Palestine, that's

(30:29):
why.
No, it's because you violatedthe rules that were laid out
before you for you beforehand,that you knew.
So suck on it.
Go cry, cry more, my favorite,cry harder, cry more.

Speaker 2 (30:41):
And clearly the expensive education that they,
that they paid for, um, did themno good because they weren't
smart enough to understand thatthis is a legal agreement, a
binding agreement, and there arerepercussions and I'm actually
very impressed with those twoinstitutions for holding these
kids to a standard bywithholding their diplomas, by

(31:03):
not allowing them to graduate,and you know, I would say it's
pretty ironclad.
I would venture to guess thisis going to be very hard for a
court to rule in favor of thesestudents.
Written agreements, you know,highly educated, obviously very
intelligent.
They were the valedictorians oftheir classes.

(31:25):
You know two very esteemedinstitutions.
So you know there's no outthere institutions.
So you know there's no outthere.
And good for the universitiesfor holding them accountable and
making this well known sothat's not tolerated by anybody
else in the future.

Speaker 3 (31:40):
Right, yeah, absolutely.
And it doesn't even stop atthem.
They're actually the worstoffenders, I think, because they
have so much more at stake.
It's just foolishness on theirpart.
You know you have people Iforget his name already I think
a, I think he's like a CBS newsanchor and he's not.
He's just example of many.
You know that go, they'reinvited to, you know, give these
speeches at these graduationsand they use it as an

(32:01):
opportunity to, you know,promote their ideologies or
their political stance and allof those things.
And it's like, dude, your wholejob, your whole point is to go
up there and say inspiring,uplifting, motivating things.
Can we go back to that wheresomebody gets up there and talks
about what it's really allabout?
You are the future of ourcountry, of the world, be a

(32:25):
contributor, do great things,have a good work ethic.
Can we go back to thosespeeches?
And I know they exist, I knowthat there are people that are
giving them.
You know I'm not.
I don't want to give theimpression that I think that
every single college campus, youknow, is overrun by this.
Enough of them are.
But man, oh man, just enoughalready.
And I agree with you and Ithink it's a really good sign

(32:48):
and a fantastic message thatthese universities are putting
their foot down because it'sgoing to inspire other ones to
do it too.
You know to say hey, wait aminute, they're not taking it,
and that's the way it alwaysgoes right.
As soon as somebody stands upor puts their foot down and says
enough, it's that encouragementfor you know for others to do
the same thing.
So I really look forward toseeing a lot more of that, you

(33:10):
know.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
Yeah, and, and we, we both know that the education
system, especially higher leveleducation, I think it's you know
it does exist at lower levels,but at the higher level high
school and college you know youget a lot of politicism of
everything that happens,especially from the faculty at
times, and and it bleeds overand you know so this is the time
of year, it happens every year,because they're swimming or

(33:34):
track, have you know, the highschool transgender argument
rolls itself around again and ithappened again and again and
again.
Yep, yep.
So you know, in California I'mgoing to, because we have yet to
see.
We have yet to see a femaletransitioning to male, attempt

(33:54):
to play male sports.

Speaker 3 (33:56):
I wonder why that is clay.
That's so strange yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
Um, so I'm just going to call them all boys, um,
cause that's what they are, uhbiologically.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
That's what they are.

Speaker 2 (34:05):
Yep, we had.
There was a boy in Californiahigh school track who first and
second first place in the highjump and triple jump, second
place in the long jump statemeet.
Right there was a um, minnesota, a softball uh player boy
pitched 14, defeated the, thestanding state champions.
He pitched 14 shutout innings.

(34:27):
You know one one player again,a boy throwing faster than
anybody else in the tournament.
And there's tons of these, theyare everywhere.

Speaker 3 (34:37):
Yes, and every single one of them was a mediocre
athlete in their own realdivision, mediocre at best and
now they are number one, andoccasionally number two, but
typically number one.
They typically win all of theseevents that they compete in and

(35:00):
yet the left is still sittingthere having the audacity to say
that they stand for women andwomen's rights.
It is galling, to say the least, is beyond offensive.
And, like you said, and they,like you know, their favorite
game is to gaslight.
You know they like to say, oh,these are such isolated
incidents, there's so few ofthese incidents, no, nice try.
We know that that's not thecase, because we keep hearing
about them.
And, by the way, even if it isjust a handful and, by the way,

(35:23):
a handful is what?
A thousand, you know, a hundred, what do you consider a handful
?
Because it's definitely not twoor three or four or five.
We're talking about hundreds ofcases of this happening, that
is, hundreds of girls havingopportunities taken away from
them that they work their assesoff for, and it's not okay,
period.
I don't care if it's one or 100or a thousand, it is not okay,

(35:45):
period.
End of story.
So, and you know, like you said, there's more, and there's one
I got to hit, the one that is inmy home state.
Let's just talk about this onefor a moment.
This is Connecticut.
I believe it was Bloomfield.
I think I want to say yeah,bloomfield.
So no, you can't see it, Idon't have it up there.
But I'm going to read you thecaption that it put with this

(36:07):
image and I just want everybodyto take a moment and look at the
individuals in this image andin your own mind you don't have
to shout it out, but just thinkabout if you can tell the gender
of anybody in these picturesjust by looking.
Just that's it.
I'm going to read it.
Bloomfield High School.
Transgender athlete TerryMiller, second from left.

(36:27):
I love that.
They felt like that.
They had to tell you this Winsthe finals of the 55 meter dash
over.
Here's a shocker, guys, it'snot really a shocker.
Let's see over.
Transgender athlete AndrianaYearwood, far left.
I could guarantee right thatnobody looking at this picture

(36:48):
could tell which two people werethe transgender athletes in
that picture.
But you know, I'm glad thatthey, I'm glad that they told us
so we would know.
But yeah, so the wins the finalof the 55 meter over a
transgender athlete.
So a transgender athlete beat atransgender athlete in a girl's
sport.

(37:09):
Make it make sense.
Yeah, you can't, you just can'tright.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
No, there's a.
I did see one.
I don't remember what state itwas in, but, uh, you know this.
This boy, uh, won the women's400 meter um high school track
18, 18, senior right Not anunderclassman, senior Um and.
And won the event with a timeof 56 and change seconds Now.

(37:36):
I ran the 400 meters for fouryears in high school.
I was better than average, butwas not even a state qualifier.
I ran a time faster than thatas a sophomore, ran times much
faster than that as a junior andsenior.
So these boys who are winningthese are not even you know,

(38:00):
they're not even decent maleathletes, which is why they are
making these moves over to thewomen's side um, because they
can't compete and and refuse tocompete or try to, because they
can't accept being second, thirdor non-competitive in some of
this.
It's really a shame because,like you said, it is taking away

(38:20):
opportunities from young ladies.
We have seen, though thankfully, we're starting to see changes
on the international level.
I don't know if you saw this ornot, but it has been finally
determined that the Olympic youknow, boxing champion was and is
, in fact, male.

Speaker 3 (38:42):
Yes, yeah, yeah, you know it just again the
gaslighting like nobody couldtell that, nobody could tell
that, like we needed you to.
You know, finally, after howlong, I mean how many months and
months to finally say, oh, bythe way, yep, how many yeah, I
guess it was last summer, soit's been a year all right, okay

(39:04):
.
So a year, yeah, a year, evenworse, even worse, a year to
finally come out and say and Ikeep seeing, with regards to
that specific case, I keepseeing the term leaked info, so
I don't even know if that wassupposed to be released to the
world.
So you know, somebody leakedthat information out, that very
obvious information.

(39:25):
But what I haven't seen orheard is what is the consequence
of that?
Is he getting?
I mean, because the givenshould be that the medal is
revoked, and I mean nobody wantsI personally would never want a
forfeit medal, you know.
So I mean I don't, I don't evenknow.
I mean that girl should,obviously.

(39:45):
I don't know, I really don'tknow.
I mean, how do you make thisright for this poor young
athlete, female athlete, whotrained so hard and just got
robbed?
You know and I think of all ofthese women who got robbed and I
always love to point her outthat Riley Gaines man, she is
something else that girl stoodin the fire and still continues

(40:07):
to stand right in the fire ofall of this, under every kind of
attack, and still stand up forwhat's right, and she's done
amazing, amazing things againstall of this done amazing,
amazing things against all ofthis.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
So, yeah, and interesting to kind of on the on
the fringe of this, but realstill topic related is that as
much pushback as there is fromthe entertainment community
about this, right, they're big,always have been supporters.
There's been some veryinteresting studies lately about
the amount of, you know, lgbtqkids growing up in hollywood.
You know, um, but at the end ofthe day, uh, hollywood can, can

(40:45):
say anything that it wants inpublic, but it is still about
the almighty dollar.
Because what did hbo?
Just greenlight a reboot ofharry potter and in the
agreement to do that, jk rowlingis an executive producer who
has been accused she doesnothing but defend.
She's not anti-gay oranti-lesbian, any of that, she's

(41:08):
just pro-female.
She's pro-female, is what sheis.
Um, and didn't?
You know hbo looked at it.
They said we can make a lot ofmoney off of harry potter and we
, we will bend against publicopinion or bend to, you know,
hollywood and we will agree withJK Rowling to bring her on so
that we can make all this moneyoff of Harry Potter.

Speaker 3 (41:30):
Yeah, absolutely so.
Your little causes and yourideologies and your you know
sign waving and genderinclusivity and all those things
.
Guess what, unless you got themoney, don't matter.
Yep, none of it matters.
You know, and it should be awake-up call to them, like I'm
sacrificing if I were themwatching all of what goes on,

(41:53):
every single part of it.
And we can throw target and allof these other uh corporations
into the mix here who all lastyear, every single one of them,
turned their logos and theireverything you know immediately
to rainbow, everything you know,just vomiting rainbows
everywhere.
And this year I think I saw itwas like a graphic of you know

(42:13):
the comparison from last year,this year and Target was on
there, BMW like a whole, maybelike 10 different corporations,
the comparison of their lastyear's logo for June and this
year's logo for June, which istheir regular logo, versus all
the rainbow stuff.
So you know all thesecorporations why?
Because the tide has turned.
The tide has turned against you.
That's how valuable you are tothe people you know.

(42:39):
That think you, think, supportyou, that think they have your
back.
They don't have your back, theydon't care about you, they
don't care about your mentalhealth, and I think this is the
biggest, honestly, for me, thebiggest takeaway, or I hope it's
the biggest takeaway for thatcommunity, which I think it's so
silly to be calling everything,every group, a community and
lumping everybody together,Because I actually know
transgender people, gay lesbians, people who don't want to be

(43:02):
lumped in to any of this.
They just want to live theirlife and not be bothered.
So calling them all a communityis probably not fair, but
anyhow, this should be such awake-up call to them that no one
none of these people care aboutyour mental health.
They used you as a prop, as atool for their agendas.
You know they don't care andthe minute they don't need you

(43:25):
anymore, you got discarded.
And I think that's somethingyou really should be paying
attention to, and I hope they doBecause at the end of the day,
despite what the left tellseverybody about Christians and
about conservatives, we actuallydo care.
We actually do care about yourmental health and your happiness
and your safety and all ofthose things, a hell of a lot

(43:46):
more than those people do.
So I'm done.
I'm off my soapbox.

Speaker 2 (43:52):
Let's jump to a different soapbox and let's talk
about Elon.
Yeah, and his.
So listen folks.
There is a.
He left on schedule.
A hundred yes, we have talkedabout a hundred and thirty days.
You can work for the federalgovernment as an unpaid
volunteer, which is what he did.
He reached a hundred and thirtydays, his stuff, and he left.

(44:15):
Right, he didn't get fired, hedidn't.
You know his stuff and he left,right, he didn't get fired, he
didn't.
You know, he worked as long ashe had planned to, um, and then,
and then he, he left, and youknow, somewhat ceremoniously,
right, they had a whole thingfor him and yeah, but you know,
he did a lot, uh, with doge.
Doge is going to continue tomove forward, uh, even even

(44:35):
without him right, which was theplan all along the plan all
along, but there is and I think,true to form, there's a little
bit of a rift between him andPresident Trump on the what is
it?
One big, beautiful bill, theOBBB, yes.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
OBBB yeah, yeah, yes, yeah, yeah, there's a yeah,
yeah, there's a rift.
Let's see.
Do I have his quote?
Is that him?
Yeah, so he's very upset.
I'm sorry, but I just can'tstand it anymore.
The Mass Abobrageous PorkfieldCongregational Spending Bill is
a disgusting abomination.

(45:15):
I mean strong words, man.
Shame on those who voted for it.
You know you did wrong, youknow it.
So he's not pulling any punches.
He's not alone in thissentiment.
He's far from alone in thissentiment.
There are a lot of highly,highly disappointed Republicans,
conservatives, americans withthis.

(45:35):
And you know we we talkedbriefly beforehand and, like you
said, rightly so I mean there'sa lot of things in here that
are head scratchers in regardsto what was told to us.
You know what the whole planwas and, of course, um number
one being Doge.
You know, like, what was thewhole point of going in there
and finding all this?
If you're not going toeliminate all of it, like, stop

(45:58):
already, just make it all gone.
This is what we elected all ofyou for, this is what we wanted.
So freaking, do it right.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
Yeah, he is upset, I think, specifically because of
the.
You know, the idea behind Dogewas efficiency, save money,
lower the deficit, recover somefunding and keep America out of
crippling debt.
And that's what he did for the130 days, and I don't know where
the running tally was when hewalked out the door, but it was

(46:27):
quite a bit of money.
And then the one big, beautifulbill turns around and it adds a
couple of trillion dollars tothe deficit, which is why Elon
is so upset, which is why he'sadamantly opposed to this bill,
because it goes againsteverything that he was charged
to do, along with Doge, which is, you know, save Americans money

(46:49):
, save taxpayer dollars, makesure they're being used in the
appropriate ways and efficiently.
And nothing that costs us acouple of trillion dollars is
efficient, and nothing thatcosts us a couple of trillion
dollars is efficient Nothing,Right, Right.
And so he's upset, and again,right, Rightfully so.
So I get it.

(47:09):
I really do.
I think it is also evidence thathe is not a lockstep follower
of President Trump.
Right, you know, this is aagree to disagree of president
Trump, right?
You know this is a agree todisagree.
President Trump hasacknowledged that that.
Uh, you know Elon doesn't likethe bill, Um, and, and you know
he said that's his opinion andhe's entitled to it, and he
moved on.
Yeah, so he's not.
He's not a blind follower likeeverybody portrayed him to be,

(47:32):
which most of us rational peopleknew Right, but this is great
proof that that it is in factnot true.

Speaker 3 (47:38):
Yeah yeah, absolutely .
I mean, you know, and it's.
It's honestly so silly to evengive that a moment's thought
that he would be a lockstepfollower.
You know this is a guy who wasbeloved by the left.
He was their, you know, theirhero, their icon, and the minute
he changed his mind or sawthings differently and vocalized

(48:00):
that he's not afraid to goagainst, you know that was who
was paying him basically.
You know the left was his moneymarket.
He wasn't afraid to riskeverything for that.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't care.
He's going to do whatever it ishe thinks is right and what he
believes in, it doesn't matter.
You know, whether I agree withhim or not or anybody else does.
He is going to do what hebelieves is right, regardless of

(48:24):
what anybody else is saying.
And I actually respect that.
I mean, I like everything thathe does or says, um, but I
highly respect that um about himand I and I think this
dissension basically is um is acharacter, a Testament, really,
in my opinion, you know.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Yeah, I think is.
Um is a character attestmentreally, in my opinion.
You know, yeah, I think there'sthat one other oddity.
We move on to the next one.
There's one other timing pieceto all of this um, the day after
I think it was the day after heleft um and they had a thing in
the oval office for him um, thepresident withdrew his
nomination for the man to runNASA.

(49:02):
I don't believe in coincidences.
That one is a little odd.
More to follow on that one, butto me.
I looked at it and I was like,okay, well, you know, spacex is
going to have a NASA logo on itand that's the next move.
Hasn't turned out that way yet,and we'll see what happens.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
But I just thought that one was a little bit too
close.
That was a little too close, alittle a little bit interesting
and no explanation, right, justsimply right.

Speaker 2 (49:27):
Like just he was not that the, and I don't remember
the gentleman's name, but theguy.
His nomination was withdrawnbecause he did not fully align
with the um, you know, the goalsof the of the president.

Speaker 3 (49:38):
So Okay, okay, so they did give you know, but it
was very bland, it was, you knowcould have been anything, but
yes, that was the reason given.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
So yeah, a little bit , a little bit in the odd time.
All right, listen this topicyou know, I mean yeah, this next
topic is all, oh my gosh comeon.
It's so fun.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
I don't know why it's fun, it just is.
I guess you know anything.
I guess I guess there's still alittle bit of me.
And now, first, let me say I'venever watched their show.
I really never.
Even at the height of theirpopularity or their scandal, I
never took the time to figureout what the big deal was like,
what they're all about.
I saw like handfuls of you knowshort little clips of their

(50:18):
show.
I found him I mean, I'm sorryif you like them I found him to
be so obnoxious.
I took no joy out of that, so Inever followed it.
I just simply didn't care.
Frankly, guys, I just didn'tcare.
I don't care greatly about this, and I know you don't either.
It's just newsworthy and it isactually pretty interesting.
So if you don't know who thesepeople are, todd and Julie

(50:40):
Chrisley.
They were sent to prison for inJanuary yeah, well, yeah,
january of 2023, after beingconvicted of tax evasion and
bank fraud the previous year,they had their whole reality
show.
I'm forgetting the name, it wasit like Chrisley knows, or
something like that.
I don't even know what the nameof the show was, but they
touted themselves, or he toutedhimself, as a uh real estate

(51:03):
mogul, which I literally didn'teven know until I researched for
the show.
No, I did.
Did you know anything aboutthem, clay?

Speaker 2 (51:10):
I know they're all blonde.
I was shocked to find out umonly seeing highlights like the
commercials for the show.
I was shocked to find out thathe wasn't gay, um yeah, well,
lights, like the commercials forthe show.

Speaker 3 (51:21):
I was shocked to find out that he wasn't gay.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
Yeah Well, I think that's even still kind of
questionable.
But I don't know where theirmoney came from.
I thought it was a fabricatedreality show and then did the
research to find out that theyhad taken out $20 million in
loans.
Yeah, I think it was more like$30 million, I think yeah.
They took out $20 million inloans and then they took out
more loans to pay back thoseloans.
Oh, okay, and then couldn't payanything back and then filed

(51:45):
for bankruptcy.
And then the charges came Right.

Speaker 3 (51:49):
And then they went to jail, right, and that's like
the gist of it.
They fabricated this entireillusion.
They created this illusion.
He apparently shopped a show.
He wanted a show.
He wanted to be.
You know, he saw the writing onthe wall.
These reality shows probablywatch the Kardashians, like it
was.
You know, I don't know hispersonal soap opera.

(52:10):
I don't really know and must'vethought, hey, we can do that.
You know, let's, let's createthis image of who we are, and oh
, we don't have any money to dothat.
Well, we can fake that too.
And they did it.
I mean, they did it.
They managed to manufacturethis whole image and sold it to
whatever, you know, whoeverchannel, I don't know station

(52:33):
they were on and they got theirshow.
And you know, unfortunately forthem, it was all a lot.
It was like a shell game,basically Right, but they were
just constantly like moving,play money around and taking
advances.
He had a business partner whobasically threw him under the
under the bus when all of thiscame up and, like you said, they

(52:53):
went to jail Like it's not,they were just accused, they
were convicted, like they weregoing to spend.
How long were they going tospend in jail?
They were supposed to be injail for like 12 years.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Is that right?
They spent two and a half.
They, they, they appealed theirappeals court.
It was like nope, you're saying, you know the the end of,
because he thought that thepunishment was harsh, that they
were conservative, you know, hethought they'd been targeted for

(53:23):
their conservative values.
Their daughter, you know,campaigned, I think, on his
behalf.
Yeah, blah, blah, blah.
And of course, there's a lot ofbacklash because he pardoned
them and got them out of jail,right, and how anybody in their
right mind can criticizesomething.
You know him.
I personally should have stayedin jail.

(53:44):
Yeah, probably, um, you know,but in the wake of what's going
on with the president Bidenpardons, the pre pardons for his
family, for general Mully, foreverybody else, you know, um,
these folks got pardoned fornonviolent crimes.
Um and you know, and of coursethere's some backlash going on
which is a little bit on theridiculous side.

Speaker 3 (54:05):
Yeah, I think, you know, I think it's overblown, I
really do.
And I agree with you, clay, I'mnot saying that.
I think that I don'tnecessarily think they should
have been pardoned.
You know, if I were to say thatI cared at all, like I'm trying
to put on my I care hat and onthis topic I just don't care,
but I'm pretending that if I didcare, what would I think?

(54:27):
And you know, I think givingthem a pardon, sure, maybe it's
a little twitchy like theyreally did the crime, like they
really are criminals.
They, I think they, well, yeah,they defrauded people so kind of
not cool.
Was anybody you know?
I think they.
Well, yeah, they defraudedpeople so kind of not cool.
Um, was anybody you know?
And then the flip side right,is anybody physically harmed?
Um, you know, uh, you know, noneof those things are not

(54:48):
murderers.
They do have young children.
They're uh.
Two youngest children were inthe.
The uh custody of the oldestdaughter.
Uh, savannah, I think hername's Savannah, sorry if that's
not her name.
Guys, I don't even know.
There's a kid named Chase, doesit matter?
No, the daughter.
The daughter actually tookcustody of the two younger

(55:08):
children while the parents weregoing to be in prison this whole
time.
You know, yeah, as a parent,that pulls my heartstrings a
little bit.
You know, for when you knowthat people are walking the
streets for much worse crimes,you know getting let out for uh
well, for literal murder, youknow, and they're walking the
streets free, I kind of have alittle problem with you know,
locking these people up for 12years.

(55:29):
Um, I I don't know.
I mean, like you said,everybody's going to have their
opinion on it.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
I think.
I think if the president wasgoing to act on this which I
don't think he should have everacted on this it should have
never come across his desk.
But probably the better optionwould have been to let the
conviction stand and commutetheir sentence, get them out of
jail, but really never again.
They should never be allowed toagain, but it is what it is.

Speaker 3 (55:53):
So yeah, yeah.
And of course, the other partof the irritation people are
experiencing is like they're nowthey're going to roll into a
little docuseries and they'regoing to make money off of that.
You know, like they'reprofiting Now they're like
profiting from their crime.
You know that's kind of thesentiment that leaves kind of a
bad feeling in people's minds.

(56:13):
There I mean, yeah, I agree,it's, it's kind of not cool.
Is it a moral, ethical thing?
Well, no, of course not.
We know that it's not, you know, but I don't know.
At the end of the day, don'twatch their show, don't, don't
contribute to their fame.
Then I mean, that's all I cantell you.

(56:33):
You know, there's there's a fewcoulda, woulda, shouldas and
should nots.
In this particular case, is itthe hill to die on?
Far, far, far from it.
And you have people that are,in my opinion, doing something
way worse.

Speaker 2 (56:51):
Yeah, so this is the seventh topic.
This is the one that brokeright before we started
recording, and that is that, asI like to call her, jean-claude
van damme, but, uh, kareem zane,jupiter, whatever, the former
did you mean yeah, I don't knowkareem jean pierre.
Um, yeah, uh, the former whitehouse, uh press secretary
spokesperson, uh now declared,by the way, with her book coming

(57:16):
out, what?
a book deal yeah, she's divorcedherself from the democratic
party and is declaring herselfan independent, and she is
following her individual compass, kind of a thing yeah, that
thing that she completely lackedat all in that presidency,
shadow presidency, um.

Speaker 3 (57:36):
So, you know, there's a tiny part of myself that is
always going to feel a littlebit shocked at the things that
people do, um, but then there'sthe larger part that is not even
remotely surprised at this.
Of course, that's what she'sdoing, that's what they are all
doing.
I don't think Jake uh, jakeTapper was the first, but he's

(57:57):
probably the most notable oneright now, cause he's the most
recent besides her.
They all see the writing on thewall, they all know all the
house of cards.
It's not crumbling, it hascrumbled, it's like
disintegrating right now.
And you know, are we ever goingto see criminal charges on
anything?
Who the heck knows?
We talked about this the lasttime too.
I don't really know thing.

(58:20):
Who the heck knows?
We talked about this the lasttime too.
Um, I don't really know.
All I know is that it is sogross that these people are
profiting off of their umcontribution, their, their
complicit licitness in theselong-term lies, that we're gonna
call it a word, guys, callingit a word.
Um, yeah, yeah, like you,kareen, you stood up there week

(58:41):
after week, day after day,gaslighting the hell out of this
country, the world and many,countless times, and I hope
somebody puts the compilationtogether.
There's people who are muchbetter at that and somehow have
the time to do things like that.
Please put a compilationtogether of all the times that
she, you know, said in one formor another that joe biden is

(59:01):
perfectly fine.
You know he's like totallymentally fit all of the things.
Put a compilation together,somebody, please.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
I beg of you and tag me, um yeah, before we wrap up,
this is my take on this.
Okay, we're getting, we'regetting in in the, we're getting
in the the end end minutes here, but yes, we are.
My take on this is that this isnot genuine.
I think that this is a tacticby the DNC to take to encourage
moderates from quote, unquoteboth parties, but really they're

(59:30):
trying to encourage moderatesfrom the GOP to declare as
independent.
This is a fabricated fightagainst the two-party system and
what they're trying to do isdraw votes and voters away from
the GOP for the next electioncycle, when, in fact, people
like Jean-Claude Van Damme andJake Tapper and John Fetterman

(59:52):
and you're going to see more,you're going to see more people
like this that are moved to themiddle or become independent In
reality, they're just agents forthe Democratic Party with known
faces and names that are goingto try and draw people to an
independent party that doesn'texist.
Yeah, so it's.
This is this is trying tofabricate Ross Perot without
having a Ross Perot.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
You know, I have to be honest with you, that never
would have crossed my mind.
I am so not politically savvyin that way that I can see those
kind of mechanisms happening,but as you lay it out, it
actually makes tremendous sensethat that's what they would be
doing.
Yeah, I mean, what more can Isay on that?

(01:00:35):
That makes perfect sense.
I want to know, guys, what doyou think?
Do you think that's a tacticthat's happening, that's playing
out in real time right now?
Because I mean, they needdesperately to strategize some
type of recovery here, becausetheir whole party is again
disintegrating, it is fallingapart, and you know, I guess,

(01:00:57):
what better way than to pretendto start anew?
You know, I don't know.
We want to know what you guysthink.
Throw your opinions out.
All I'm going to say, guys, isyou don't like when I say it,
but Clay's been right on a lotof things, so you might be right
on this one.
I want to know what you guysthink.
How about you, clay?
What do you think?
They're going to agree with youor no?
They're going to agree with youor no?

(01:01:21):
I, I hope I'm wrong.
I really do.
I know, I know, I know I havesilly small hopes.
Yep, my silly small hope isthat the the ticket for the next
run will be, uh, aoc, and Idon't know.
I mean aoc and kamala.
That would be really fun for me, since I'm working on my aoc
impression, you know.
So throw me a bone, guys.
Make her be there the face ofthe party, that would be a blast

(01:01:42):
.
Who knows who knows they're?
They're crafty.
All I know is neverunderestimate them.
Never underestimate them justbecause they appear to be
falling apart right now.
They always have a master plan.
They've been playing the longgame way longer than we have,
and we should always keep thatin mind, right?

Speaker 2 (01:02:01):
Yep, 100%, and we'll just keep an eye on it.
And again, as Allison and I arejust happy to be back this week
and hitting all the hot topics,even the last minute one and a
little bit different than normal, I'm going to say keep moving,
keep shooting, and then I'mgoing to toss it back to you to
close it out.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
What?
Oh my goodness, I don't evenknow what to do.
I don't know what to say.
I'm just kidding.
I always have something to say.
Listen, you guys know the deal.
We would appreciate if you like, follow, share, subscribe, all
of the things.
Every channel has a differentthing.
We appreciate you sotremendously.
We're so glad to be back onwith you guys again and look
forward to chatting with you inthe comments section.

(01:02:40):
And I think that's all I got.
I got.
I got, nothing else.
We love you guys and we willsee you next week.
Take care.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
Warrior, leader, author, patriot.
From ranger school to thebattlefield, from the front
lines of combat to the frontlines of culture.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel ClayNovak isn't done fighting for
truth.
Catch him on the Elsa Kurt Showand read his no-holds-barred
blog at claynovakauthorcom.
Keep moving, keep shooting.

Speaker 3 (01:03:03):
If you've ever looked around and thought this isn't
normal and it sure isn'tbiblical.
You're not alone and guess what?
You're not crazy.
You're discerning.
That's why I wrote Truth Bombsand Grace Grenades a bold,
unapologetic book for believerswho are done being silent while
the world screams lies Fromgender confusion to political
idolatry, from woke theology tospiritual apathy.

(01:03:23):
We're hitting it all straighton, straight up and backed by
scripture.
This isn't a rage-fueled rant.
It's a rally cry, a wake-upcall to stop apologizing and
start boldly living out thegospel.
Whether you're a new believeror a disillusioned disciple
trying to find your footingagain, this book is for you.
It's packed with truth-based,grace-filled strategies and

(01:03:44):
practical tools to help youspeak truth with love, raise
warriors, not warriors.
Dismantle lies with biblicalclarity and rebuild with grit,
grace and gospel power.
The culture doesn't need morecompromise.
It needs courageous Christians.
So if you're ready to push backagainst the chaos with bold
faith and real truth, grab yourcopy of Truth Bombs and Grease
Grenades on May 6, 2025.

(01:04:05):
Let's shake things up withtruth and grace.