Strategic Shifts: Analyzing US Army Downsizing, VP Harris's Role, and the Rise of Security Threats

Tonight: the strategies behind the US Army's recent downsizing from 494,000 active-duty members to 470,000, and why this might redefine the future of military engagements. Clay Novak steers this solo mission to unpack the implications of these strategic decisions for our national defense, and weighs in on the Army's recruiting challenges and the push towards preparing for large-scale conflicts with powerful adversaries.

Next: the discussion of Vice President Kamala Harris's position and the contentious debate over her role in the Democratic ticket. I'm not just skimming the surface; I'm tackling the tough questions about leadership quality and competency—issues that our nation cannot afford to overlook. And when it comes to the escalating security threats posed by drones along our borders, we're facing a wake-up call for robust countermeasures and strategic governance. It's not just about drones; it's about the safety and security of our nation's borders in a world where technology outpaces policy.

Finally, brace yourself for a confrontational take on media manipulation in political discourse. I'm calling out the distortions and misinformation that cloud our understanding of key issues, from Trump's misinterpreted remarks to the uproar over West Point's mission statement revision. And if you're craving an inspiring read, I've got a recommendation that's raking in high praise—'Keep Moving, Keep Shooting'. I'll guide you through these captivating topics, providing the clarity and insight you need to navigate the complex terrain of today's military and political landscapes.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hey everyone, good evening. Clay Novak here, co-host of the Elsa Curt Show. With Clay Novak, we are missing Elsa tonight. As we told you last week, she is down in Florida still on Baby Watch, waiting to be grandma for a third time and we've got her fingers crossed for her, praying for her. But you got me flying solo tonight. But I got a jam-packed show for you. I got a good, solid group of topics and we'll get started right after this. Okay, everybody. So first topic for tonight A couple of weeks ago, end of February, the United States Army announced that they were reducing the overall force from 494,000 on active duty to 470,000 on active duty.

Speaker 1: 1:03

A bit of a shock to a lot of us who've been around for a while. Post-desert storm, there was a massive downsizing. A lot of active duty forces and responsibilities were moved to the National Guard and the reserves and the active duty force dropped down to about 495,000. Give or take a little bit Now during the war. The war is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially around 2007. If you all remember, it was called the surge. There was an authorized increase where the Army was authorized because of the op tempo and the number of people we had deployed and trying to have folks recover and come back to the states and moving pieces. Everywhere. There was an authorized increase for a short period of time. I think they capped out at the highest. We were probably at about 525-ish.

Speaker 1: 1:54

In the last few years, though, as we've talked about on this show, and I'm sure most of you have read or seen in the news, the Army not just the Army, but specifically in this case the Army has missed its recruiting goal for the last two years, consecutive years of minus 15,000 new recruits. So the Marines have hit there number the last couple of years with a little bit to spare two years ago and just made the edge, made their number last year. Space Force newest of the services made their number last year, but all the other services missed Navy, air Force, I think, even the Coast Guard and definitely the Army missed, but the Army is two years in a row of minus 15,000. So current strength is under well under the 494,000, which is the current authorization, and what we've got is a significant number of mid-grade, mid-grade billets or manning spaces that are empty.

Speaker 1: 3:08

The Army has also done a reevaluation of its needs and based on the type of war or conflict that they anticipate fighting. So the drop in from 494,000 to 470,000 is mostly cuts in fact almost all of it is cuts to empty spaces that currently exist. So they're not getting rid of soldiers, they're not asking soldiers to leave and what they're doing is cutting away empty positions, right. So it's not a manning loss. There are no soldiers being sent away or sent home. What it is is a loss in the overall document never to be refilled. So those 24,000-ish slots are just going away. And so where are they taking from?

Speaker 1: 4:01

So I mentioned that the Army has done a reevaluation of what war they anticipate fighting or the type of warfare they anticipate conducting. So, in their infinite wisdom and this is very reminiscent to the late 1970s, post-vietnam the Army has decided that they're going to focus on large-scale conflict, and so and I've said it a number of times we haven't done a good job of determining who our greatest threat is and therefore how we're going to man and equip our Army and then train it to fight our most deadly foe. It looks like the Army, or at least DOD as a whole, has decided it is going to be large-scale conflict, which points directly to Russia, china, potentially North Korea as well, but definitely Russia and most likely China. So where is the Army cutting from? Well, when you fight large-scale conflict and you've got to focus on that you cut away from small-scale conflict. You cut away from counterinsurgency, which is what we've been doing actively and consistently for the past 23 years. Our Army, its current organizational structure, its current promotional timeline and guidelines and experience base.

Speaker 1: 5:26

For those of us that participated in the shooting wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was all counterinsurgency. That's what we were all doing. It wasn't reserved for special operators, although that was their mission before the war started, but it became everybody's mission. Counterinsurgency was it Again very, very much like the post-Vietnam era, where the Army did the same thing. I could tell you that in 2005-06, I attended the Army Staff College and we were developing a new counterinsurgency manual for the Army. That counterinsurgency manual was new and the best thing going, because it was the war we were fighting and we identified it. But we also identified that a significant portion of what that manual was based on were things that were thrown away in 1975 because the Army decided well, vietnam's over with and we're never going to fight that type of war again. But fast forward a little bit Balkans, somalia, desert Storm was definitely not an insurgency, counterinsurgency or a small war, but the entire global war on terrorism is essentially small war style, counterinsurgency style and very special operations focused. They're the ones who have done the heavy lifting in a lot of cases, especially in the last two years after we shut down Afghanistan. But in the early days of Afghanistan and in the waning days of Afghanistan and a good portion of Iraq, special operations forces were the focus of counterinsurgency capability. We have decided to cut away from that in the Army's infinite wisdom. Where are they cutting from? The Army has just determined.

Speaker 1: 7:23

My last combat tour in 2013, 14, or correction, 12, 13 was as a security forces advice and assist team commander. I was in eastern Afghanistan commanding a team of 18 folks and what we were doing was advising and assisting the Afghans to take over as their own security force, their own military. Obviously, this is eight or nine years before the horrible X-Phil out of Kabul that we all watched on television in horror. But that's what we were doing. We were trying to work ourselves out of a job. As a result of that, the Army took conventional forces guys like me I was not a special operator, I was a conventional infantryman and they built these advice and assist teams from folks like me. They trained us to do the job and then they sent us over there to do it.

Speaker 1: 8:25

After that, the Army decided, hey, this is a capability that we need to have and we're probably going to need to have for the long haul. This is a mission that's never going to go away, no matter what we're doing. Well, that's exactly some of the force structure that they're cutting away. There are security force advisory brigades, s-fabs that are being downsized, shrunk. That capability is being minimized. We're also cutting away something that we refer to as civil affairs and some other special operations capabilities that are less about shooting and more about and advising and assisting native nation forces to take over their own security.

Speaker 1: 9:08

But again, it's the same lesson learned over and over again. We did it in 1975-ish post-Vietnam. We decided we're never going to do this again. We're now doing it again in 2024. We decided, well, we're never going to do this again. We're cutting it away, or at least that's what it seems on the surface.

Speaker 1: 9:26

I would tell you there's probably two other things going on. One, we are never until there is a large-scale shooting war. We are never going to be authorized. The military, the army itself is never going to be authorized another massive increase or an increase to go back to even pre-desert storm level numbers. We can't maintain it with an all-volunteer army, as demonstrated in the last two years of recruiting. So we're never going to get that big or be allowed to get that big again until the war starts, until the big war starts, in which case we'll be scrambling. There's potential for the draft to be enacted, but regardless of all that, we will never be a large army pre-1990 numbers again. So you have to prioritize and that's what the army is doing.

Speaker 1: 10:22

And again, it is very reminiscent of the 80s where we decided that the Soviets were the threat. We were going to build our military to fight the Soviets. We were going to build all of our manning to fight the Soviets. We were going to train to fight the Soviets. That's what we were going to do. We have done the same thing over again and because our army is even smaller than it was in the 80s, we've had to really, really prioritize where our active duty forces are going to focus.

Speaker 1: 10:45

And the decision has been and is we are going to focus on large-scale conflict. We're going to focus on tank-on-tank and updated new technology drone anti-drone type fights. There are some capabilities that we developed, which is a wheeled mobile infantry capability based on the Striker vehicle that's Striker with a Y if you've never seen one before. They're gonna start cutting some of those away because it's not conducive to a lot of large scale fighting Great troop movement, very fast, very quiet, but the armor is very, very light and it's not gonna stand up to a tank or armor personnel carrier type shooting war. So they're cutting away some of that. Again, this is about prioritization. What is most important? If we have to fight someone like China, someone like Russia, someone like North Korea, if we're gonna max out the capability of our active duty force, where are we gonna focus it? And that's where we've decided we're gonna focus. So we're cutting away some special operations capability. We're cutting away some mobility assets that aren't heavily armored and wouldn't necessarily be as useful I'm not saying not useful, not as useful in the numbers that we currently have them against a foe like China or Russia. So we're cutting some of those away or focusing more on drone anti-drone technology, because that's gonna be a big part of the fight.

Speaker 1: 12:22

I would tell you there's also something else going on. There's a lot of optics that are being catered to. When you miss your recruiting goal by 15,000, two years in a row and you are not even meeting your manning requirement, it is very easy to say change the manning requirement. We're right now, we're 24, more than 24,000 under strength. We're 30,000 under strength, give or take a little bit. So reduce it, reduce the end strength number, and then you're not that far off.

Speaker 1: 12:57

So there's, in my opinion, there's a shell game that's going on right now. There's a little bit of cover your ass going on by the administration, a little bit of cover your ass going on by the DOD and by. You know, unfortunately, that the current Army Chief of Staff has been left with this. This is a mess made by people before him, decisions made by people before him and I'm going back, not just the last Chief of Staff or the last two Chiefs of Staff, although they they bear the brunt of it, but there were some decisions made even before that that affect this. And the General George, the current Chief Staff of the Army, has kind of left to make decisions to rectify some of this stuff, and that's unfortunately what he's been tasked to do. But I think there's a bit of a shell game going on.

Speaker 1: 13:41

I think we are hiding some of the manning issues by just flat out changing the balance sheet. If you're short 30,000, but you reduce the end number by 24,000, suddenly you're only short 6,000. And it looks a hell of a lot better. So I don't know how much of that played into this. My gut says it's. It's a pretty significant number.

Speaker 1: 14:06

You know, when we cut away mid-level multi-year, you know the folks that have the manning document says. You know, based on this rank structure, you know mid-grade leadership, you know junior to mid-grade NCOs and junior to mid-grade officers. You know those that have been in for six to eight years to 10 years and you just they're unfilled so we cut them away. What that does is it shortens the opportunity for the new junior generation for their advancement. So you know, I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on the surface, but if you cut out the availability of mid-grade rank in certain numbers, then when the new generation comes in and it's infinitely harder for them to get promoted because there's a limitation on how many of them can get promoted and how quickly, then you start to have retention issues. Then you start to have soldiers who you know normally a couple of years ago, 10 years ago, would have enlisted and then reenlisted because they have the potential to continue to grow and be promoted and lead soldiers and become leaders. Now, when it becomes infinitely harder and they have less of an opportunity to get promoted in their specific career field, they do one enlistment and they get out.

Speaker 1: 15:29

So my guess is, my anticipation is, is that while we're shortening the Manning document and we're cutting out empty slots, as they are now, to kind of make up for our recruiting problem, we're gonna end up having a retention problem in the next few years. So I think this is, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul and I think you know, probably five to six years from now, again a new chief of staff of the Army. Later we're gonna have a different set of problems to deal with and hopefully hopefully we are not and hope is not a course of action, but that's kind of where we're at. Hopefully we're not in the middle of fighting a fairly sizable shooting war when that happens. So keep an eye on that.

Speaker 1: 16:14

If you're concerned and you should be you know that the Army, the military, has been professing capabilities to fight multiple foes on multiple fronts, multiple locations across the globe. Our reduction in end strength does not make that possible. It actually makes it much more difficult. In fact, I would tell you it makes it impossible. You probably need to start talking to your congressman and start asking the hard questions of how are we really going to fix this, to continue to provide defense for this nation? Because it's not by reducing the Army number overall. If you're worried about a large scale foe in China who has a military 10 times the size of ours, us getting smaller is not helping that. It's not an easy nut to crack, but we all need to start asking questions of our elected officials to find out what they really believe to be the plan and if there is even a plan. My guess is right now they're developing a plan and a long-term strategy.

Speaker 1: 17:15

It's just not done yet, and I think that this most recent move to reduce 24,000 off the end strength of the Army was a really poor, rash decision, but and I think it was done for optics, which I think is a real shame. So we'll see what happens. I certainly, as a retiree and somebody who's still on the recall rolls, will definitely be keeping an eye on this. Hopefully it'll never come to that, but it is something that we should all pay attention to. My assumption is that this is probably gonna start happening in the other services as well, if it hasn't already. So for all you former Marines, airmen, sailors out there, probably take a look at your own service. You know it better than I do. I just happen to know the Army really well. Just check out what's going on out there and you may find the same disturbing trends going on in your services I've found in mine. So okay, moving forward, you know I remember.

Speaker 1: 18:08

You know I touched on Desert Storm just a little bit ago in the last topic. Vice President Quayle, for those of you that remember, I was a senior in high school when Desert Storm kicked off, which was really the second conflict in George Bush Seniors tenure as administration, as a president, obviously, 1989, you know the military jumped into Panama. You know mostly a bunch of paratroopers and special operators, and then in 1990, 1991, we had Desert Shield, desert Storm. So behind President Bush was Vice President Quayle and Vice President Quayle, for those of you that are younger and don't remember, had a reputation of not being very smart and you know that reputation, truthfully, was based on a singular incident while he was Vice President he took a lot of flack.

Speaker 1: 19:06

And I mean a lot of flack because in public he misspelled the word potato. That was it. He misspelled the word potato. He wasn't necessarily a greatest public speaker in the world, but he wasn't horrible. There's been a lot worse, truthfully. But he misspelled potato and he did it in public and he took a lot of crap for it. How can this guy be Vice President? He can't even spell potato, and that's really about as far as it went. So think about who is the Vice President now?

Speaker 2: 19:44

So how do you propose to fix the problem? Well, listen, when we are talking about a problem of this magnitude, okay, what we have to do, first and foremost, full stop. We have to identify the problem.

Speaker 1: 20:03

Washington Post just wrote an article, or there's an article in the Washington Post saying that Kamala Harris needs to step down as the Vice President for the next election for the good of the ticket. The idea that she steps down for the good of the ticket, to increase the potential that President Biden is elected for a second term, says a lot. We've been talking Elsa. Obviously, as you all know, one of the reasons many of you even know about this show is because of Elsa's fantastic impersonation of Kamala Harris and, whether you know it or not, about 95% of what she does is nothing more than exact imitation, verbatim, word for word, of Vice President Harris. Okay, she doesn't make up the words, she just impersonates the delivery of the exact words used by the vice president. So you know, we all know that vice president Harris, kamala Harris, her reputation is that she's not that bright. She's got some other reputations. She's got some reputation that she, you know, slept her way through politics. That's, you know, an earned reputation. Her nervous laughter, the phrase word salad is associated with her. She talks in circles, as we all know, and, truthfully, every assignment she's been given by the White House and by the president, she has done absolutely zero to impact, improve or make gains on the border being one of them, but still she sits in office, so she is a liability. Unfortunately, where the Washington Post kind of leaves things is that she's a liability for reelection. Think about that. They didn't state it as she's a liability as the second in command, second most powerful person in the United States and potential to assume the presidency for a president who is physically and mentally ailing, as we all know. Right, none of us know how much longer President Biden can, you know, stay in office, withstand, maintain the pace that he's at, which isn't a great pace to begin with. But the position of the Washington Post is that Vice President Harris is a liability to the reelection efforts of President Biden, not that she is incompetent and incapable as potentially the next president of the United States. That is scary. And it's scary because 30 years ago, 35 years ago, we had a vice president who people wanted to remove from office because he misspelled potato, which was, truthfully, one of his only failings and his only public failing. He misspelled potato and people wanted him removed.

Speaker 1: 23:23

We have Vice President Harris, who is as incompetent as any politician who has moved through the presidency or vice presidency in my lifetime and the concern from the Washington Post, although valid, that she is a hindrance and a liability to the reelection of the current president, fails to mention that if she's a liability for reelection, she is a liability every day that she shows up for work and there is no motion and no movement to remove her from office for that reason, versus the liability on reelection. I think it's shameful. It's shameful journalism that that. I understand where they're coming from and I understand that they're saying it for the good of the Democratic Party, for the good of President Biden, for the good of, you know, in their eyes, the good of the, or the author's eyes, the good of the country, the good of the nation, to keep President Biden in office and keep President, former President Trump out. But the fact that they're overlooking her lack of capability, her incompetency to even serve as vice president is astounding to me. I, you know, we've talked about the nation has talked about removing the president they talked about with President Trump. We talked about President Biden, you know, enacting the amendment to get him out of office. We need to have those discussions about Vice President Harris immediately.

Speaker 1: 25:03

She is, she is one heart attack, one slip trip and fall, one, you know, trip over a sandbag on stage. She's one second away from becoming the president and when the media is saying she is a danger to the president being reelected, then she's a danger to all of us. She's a danger to the country. People have that little faith that they will not reelect a president based on his vice president. Then she needs to go. She needs to go for all of our things and I don't care if you vote Democrat or Republican. You should be worried about her as vice president today, not just come November when the election rolls around. So you know, I applaud them for being honest. I applaud them you know the post for publishing the article. You know it's a I don't think it's much of a dissenting opinion, but I think having it out in public is a good thing, a discussion point.

Speaker 1: 26:07

But the fact that they haven't addressed and people aren't addressing the fact that she needs to be removed right now, if she's that incompetent and she's that much of a liability, then she needs to go today, not in November, not her stepping down for the election, not, you know, the next time the inauguration rolls around, if President Biden gets reelected, or an adjusted ticket, anything like that. If she's that bad. She needs to go now Because you know, they just gave President Biden a new pair of shoes that they give to people who suffer from dementia and Alzheimer's to maintain their balance. So he's not a stable man physically on his feet or mentally, as most of us know. And if he's not that and there is that big of a concern, then we need to be concerned about who's replacing him right now, today. This isn't about the next election, it's not about the next ticket, it's about today. So, again, another one of those things to keep your eyes on, keep your ears open.

Speaker 1: 27:12

We've talked about President Biden potentially bowing out, being asked to bow out, gavin Newsom, michelle Obama's potential replacements. We've talked a lot about President Biden and his capability, or lack thereof, to either be reelected or to serve a second term, but we haven't been talking about the reality of today with Vice President Harris. If she is that big of a liability, she needs to go, and we all need to start talking about it out loud in those terms and not just in terms of the election, because it really is that close for all of us. Okay, so you know she is, the borders are right, which, again, was one of those flash in the pan. We're going to give it to Kamala, we're going to see what she can do with it and we're going to make her. The borders are. I don't even remember how long it took her to get to the border.

Speaker 2: 28:16

I don't understand why people are constantly asking me have I been to on the border? I have been to on the border many times. Okay, what is the problem that you're all making here?

Speaker 1: 28:34

They're asking if you've been to the border. What To the border?

Speaker 2: 28:38

Listen on the border, the border. How am I to know the difference? I don't know.

Speaker 1: 28:51

I don't even know if she's been there. I know that she made trips south. I know that she talked to leaders from Central American nations in Mexico. I know that she did all of those things haphazardly and truthfully, not all that well. And then her role as the borders are just kind of faded away. But the threat at the border, as we, as we all know, is not gotten any better. In fact, it's gotten worse. So, on top of the you know perpetual flow across the southern border, we're also learning, obviously, that you know we've been flying in migrants from Haiti, venezuela and other Caribbean and Central American nations in the thousands, plus the illegal border crossing, you know, across a Texas, arizona, new Mexico and California.

Speaker 1: 29:46

You know there's no potential to secure the border. There's no, there's no move to secure the border by the current administration. There's only blame to be given to the Republicans, as we saw in the state of the union. It's their fault that the border is not secure and not the president. Trump tried to build a wall that was then torn down and then the parts were sold off and the borders been opened. And we all know why. This is about votes, it's about altering the census, it's about getting more, more representation in, you know, federal government, as well as more votes for the White House. We all know that. But but we, we and I've said this before but it's growing we are also opening ourselves up to an actual physical threat to the security of this nation. We are Coming across the border, are not just asylum seekers.

Speaker 1: 30:44

They are not just the poor huddled masses from Central and South America. They are coming from Africa, they are coming from the Middle East, they are now coming from Asia. There has been a massive increase in the last six months or so In border control, bps, border patrol agent contact with Asian military age males, chinese, specifically at the border. We all know that the numbers of legal crossers being interdicted by BPS is lower than it should be, because there is just not enough of them to go around and the sheer numbers, the mass of humanity that is coming across our border, is too much for them to manage. It is too much for them to handle. They are being overwhelmed by the way many of them are being pulled away from actually patrolling and stopping crossers to processing crossers who have already been caught or been put into holding facilities, etc. We talked about this a few weeks ago. It is leading to human trafficking and a bunch of other things. Again, the border patrol service is being overwhelmed. Now what we are starting to see is a physical threat, security threat, to this nation.

Speaker 1: 32:15

Again you have undocumented individuals from Africa. Some of them may legitimately be asylum seekers. They move from Africa to Central South America. Then they get in line with everybody else and they start moving towards the US border and come across. We are starting to see those folks from the Middle East. That has been going on for a number of years.

Speaker 1: 32:40

I talked about this before. We had evidence of that even way back over 10 years ago, when I was stationed and living in Fort Bliss, texas, outside of El Paso, there were Middle Eastern military age males coming across the border. Then, again, 10 to 12 years ago, there was speculation of trained military from the Middle East places like Iran moving across the border. That has not changed. It has actually increased in the last decade. But now you have China in the mix. You have Chinese nationals, males, being caught in larger numbers at the border. That is not even counting the ones that slipped through and don't get touched and don't get caught. I am just talking about the ones that get caught. Now you have Chinese nationals coming across the border. That is frightening enough. Are some of them potentially seeking asylum? Maybe China is not necessarily the greatest place in the world? I would probably want to escape from there as well. If that was what I was doing, it probably wouldn't be through Mexico to try and sneak across the border in the United States. I would probably find another way or another place to go, but this is happening.

Speaker 1: 34:10

What is more disturbing, truthfully, is the reports of drones being used In and around the US southern border. Those drones are being used for any one of a number of reasons. They are being used for reconnaissance of places to cross. They are being used for surveillance of US border patrol service and any other US law enforcement or military force that is in and around the border area. You get the right kind of drone and you get it high enough. Even if it stays in Mexican airspace, it can look into the United States and see what is where. They can monitor vehicles and people that are patrolling the border and find better places to cross. The question is, who is operating them? The reports that I have seen and heard is that a number of these are being made, operated and controlled by China or by Chinese agents operating in Mexico. Whether covertly or overtly, they are in Mexico and they are operating these drones in and around the US southern border. That is frightening Because now you have an actual it is not just people and it is not just speculative on their intent Once they get across the border. This is actual spying and espionage immediately in the border vicinity of the United States by a, you know, a foe nation, by an enemy, a declared enemy of the United States, which is China. Now we have a real, real problem. Now we have a legitimate security problem for our nation, not just the southern border. It is for our nation.

Speaker 1: 36:00

There's a lot of things that drones do. Think in terms of what our military uses drones for. We use drones to surveil, conduct, reconnaissance, watch, people watch places. We arm our drones. They have strike capability that we maximized for a significant portion of the global war on terror. Now, I'm not saying that those drones are armed. I have heard not a single report of that being true, so don't take it as that. However, they don't fly just to fly. They have cameras mounted on them. They have the potential to have radio communications or cell phone communications capabilities mounted on them? And if they do, what are they seeing? What are they observing, what are they reporting, how are they reporting it and who are they reporting it to? Those are the questions we need to know the answers to right. We know the questions, but we need to find out the answers.

Speaker 1: 36:54

So now this requires drone capturing. This requires movement into Mexico or Mexican airspace to try and counter these drones. It requires an agreement with Mexico and then a lot of careful analysis of what are we going to do with that information once we get it. If we have unarmed drones flying in and around the southern border and they're operated by China, we have a significant problem. But how do we handle that with China? If they fly one? What do we do If we capture it? What do we do If we're forced to shoot it down? What do we do? These are the same questions that we had answers to readily available for a number of years in and around Alaska and still do. Still happens often that Russian aircraft, russian bombers and now Chinese balloons fly across the United States.

Speaker 1: 37:55

The question is what do we do and what are we doing, and who's doing it? Do we have? It was a lot easier and is a lot easier when it's off the Pacific coast and it's off of Alaska or even off the Canadian coast, because there's an agreement there with Canada, but also off of our own coast. We have a lot of freedom to do a lot of things. These drones are being operated out of Mexico and in Mexican airspace. So we've got to work that out with Mexico first, as to what, who's going to do, what Are they going to handle it? Are we going to handle it? How are we going to handle it and what are we going to do in terms of dealing with China once it does happen?

Speaker 1: 38:31

But in the meantime, we have a threat and even a wall. Putting up a wall will stop migrants from coming across, illegal immigrants, migrants from coming across. It is not going to stop small, handheld or even larger than that drones being operated out of Mexico by a third nation, whoever it is, china or otherwise. A wall is not going to stop that. We need to develop policy very, very quickly in an agreement with Mexico, if we haven't already, to address this threat. It's a threat to us, but it's a threat to them too, although my guess is all the cameras are facing inside the United States and not into Mexico, but this is a real threat and it's all initiated by the lack of security at our southern border, by this administration, more importantly, by the current borders are, and resident idiot Vice President Kamala Harris, who's done absolutely nothing and continues to do nothing.

Speaker 1: 39:26

The president continues to do nothing and the more leeway that's given down at the border, the more you know space people are going to take, the more opportunity China is going to see, the more opportunity they're going to exploit, the more they're going to try and get as much information, reconnaissance, done on the United States as possible. We don't know they could be plotting invasion routes. Anybody ever seen the movie red dawn? That is exactly how some of this happened. Okay, right, come up through Mexico, right, and that's exactly what this, this looks like. Right, to me, as a military professional, that's what this looks like is reconnaissance for potential invasion. It's setting conditions, gaining intelligence prior to a large scale military operation. That's what it looks like. So, again, very, very scary. Keep an eye on those.

Speaker 1: 40:13

It is very, very important now that we get an administration I don't even care who it is we get an administration that is acting to secure the border and to develop border policy that protects our southern border specifically right now, but all of our borders, because this won't move to Canada as well at some point. But but they've got to do something. Sitting on their ass, doing nothing is is not doing us any good. It's actually making things worse in more ways than we anticipated. We've been worried about and focused on the ground for so long that we haven't been paying attention to, you know, 100, 150, 200 feet, 500 feet, 1000 feet above the ground with these small drones. But that's what we're starting to see. So keep an eye on that. We've got to secure the southern border and that requires, you know, an administration to have the balls to do it, which we currently don't have. So keep an eye on that. I think that is going to potentially become a hot topic, not just the border. We talked about that definitely a hot topic in the coming election. But I think what you're going to start to see is the discussion of more than just the migrants, or more specifically, about the country of origin of the migrants, and then threats like these drones potentially being used to exploit, you know, our southern border, and I think you're going to start to see a lot more of that discussed as we approach the election, so definitely not a topic to lose sight of, president Trump.

Speaker 1: 41:36

You know, the other day, in a speech, use the word bloodbath. I'm sure some of you saw this. I'm sure some of you did the same thing. I did Shook your head a little bit at the word choice. You know he has a tendency to provide fodder for the media and that's exactly what happened. So the media did what they do. The media took the word bloodbath.

Speaker 1: 42:05

Now, for those of you that didn't see this and haven't heard this, he was speaking in terms of what he said was in the short version is if I don't get reelected, there's going to be a bloodbath, and what he was referencing was the auto industry. Specifically, if he doesn't get reelected, china, mexico, other nations that build a lot of cars are going to wreck, destroy the US auto industry. There will be a bloodbath. Is what he was talking about? That, of course, that portion of it has been completely left off by a number of mainstream media outlets, right, your big three networks, their affiliates, cnn, msnbc, all that stuff. So what the headlines are saying is President Trump said if I don't get elected, there's going to be a bloodbath, insinuating and some of them outright saying he was making a reference to or trying to incite violence if he doesn't get reelected.

Speaker 1: 43:02

So then, on top of that, you've got idiots like Keith Oberman and, yes, somebody if you know him or if you're associated with him, feel free to tag him, because Keith Oberman is an idiot. You know he is one of these guys that took that again out of context and then turned around. You know he accused President Trump of talking about, you know, inciting violence and all these horrible things and then said you know, we can only hope. You know kind of making a reference that President Trump would be the victim of violence. You know this is a guy who, you know, made a career out of being a sportscaster who never played sports. So you know he loves he's become hyper liberal in the last, you know, 15 years or so loves to run his mouth, pretend he's a tough guy. He's another one of those. And you know and now he's, you know, doing the same things that many people were doing. You know, eight years ago, when President Trump was running for office, you know what was her name? The crappy female comedian, chicagoan, holding his. You know President Trump's. You know a mock-up of his head. You know it's the same kind of thing. You know, hoping for violence against a former president, you know I'm fairly confident is criminal and Keith Overman should probably be held accountable for that, especially since this is media manipulation.

Speaker 1: 44:20

The media is manipulating the story. Like I said, the actual quote and the full context of the quote had to do with the auto industry. That's all it was. Now Elsa actually posted or reposted a tweet of actually I think it was her generated it where it was Webster's dictionary and an alternate definition of the word bloodbath was referencing a horrible economic event. So you know that right there tells you that he although a poor choice of word leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion also was not wrong. It was actually correct use of the word as an alternate definition. So he used it and of course, the media jumped on it and turned it into something it's not as they tend to do and made it. You know, almost a January 6 insurrection reference. You know President Trump is gonna make sure that if he doesn't get reelected, that you know there's a civil war and there's massive violence and all these other things that he's trying to incite. You know another insurrection, whatever. It's all media manipulation. They know what the quote was. They have the video footage. They all do.

Speaker 1: 45:44

They chose to, as a whole, as a majority, as a community, the mainstream media chose to provide all of us, the voting public, the citizens of the United States a bullshit story. They lied. It's lying by omission. That's what they chose to do. They lied to all of us by manipulating that story the way that they did. They know the truth. It's out there. It's not hidden. They chose to take advantage of those who don't know the whole story and will take it at face value. And they lied, lying by omission. So it's proof, more proof for those of you that don't know, didn't know, that the media manipulates voters. That's what they do. Right? We just saw the other day that we found out Google has been manipulating elections for the past, I think for presidential elections, I think, going back to 2008,. They have been altering the algorithm to change the outcome. When you Google certain things, when you search certain things, when it related to specific candidates and specific topics, it changed what you saw. That's election tampering, by the way, but that's what the media is doing. That's the media is doing in this case specifically, and again, it's something that none of us need to stand for. None of us should tolerate and you vote with your feet. You don't watch.

Speaker 1: 47:18

You find an alternative news source Twitter, with independent journalism making a comeback over on X with Elon Musk. It's a great place to do that, but there's plenty of standalone independent journalists who are doing great work out there. Check them out. Stop turning on ABCNBCCBS, msnbc, cnn, headline news, even, truthfully, fox in a lot of cases. Find it out there. Find something else out there, because you're being manipulated.

Speaker 1: 47:49

Unfortunately, though, this is not the only case, and it's global, but it's both sides of the aisle as well. Globally, for those of you that didn't see, today there's a story released by Russian media outlets that Prince Charles is dead. Have no idea why? Have no idea what the genesis was, why they give a crap if Prince Charles is dead, but it's firing. It's kind of laying on top of all these other rumors about Princess Kate and Prince William and the royal family and all this other stuff Stuff that, truthfully, a lot of Americans don't care about, but they are influential in the world and we really should pay attention to Maybe not all the soap opera drama stuff, but really pay attention to what they're doing, but, in this case, russian media outlets a number of them, more than one decided to post a story that Prince Charles was dead. No idea why, but again, it's media manipulation. So we're not the only ones who are subject to this, now. Some of it is self-inflicted by us, the listeners, and it's through social media, and here's an example.

Speaker 1: 49:02

So for those of you that aren't tracking this again, I kind of started with a military topic. I'm gonna end with a military topic. Tonight. The United States Military Academy just changed their mission statement. Now, this is not uncommon. Organizations change their mission statement often, and when I say often, every year to two years every organization in the military changes its mission statement because things constantly change. Mission statements require who, what, when, where and how. With some specific tasks, commanders have a little bit, have some latitude in what their mission statement looks like and sounds like and the words that are chosen to be in there, but they change all the time. New commanders change their mission statement. Sometimes the mission of an organization changes. You change the mission statement Not uncommon. But the headline that's come out of this is that United States Military Academy has removed the words duty, honor, country from their mission statement, and it's a travesty. And this is the New Woke military and this and all these people, conservatives, a bunch of foreign military people who should know better are losing their mind over this thing.

Speaker 1: 50:17

Okay, let me explain something to everybody. A couple things. One, general Gillan. I don't know him personally. He is the superintendent at the military academy, by reputation, superstar, rockstar guy, special operator, for a number of years infantryman. I don't know a single person who does not look well on that man, his leadership capability, his capability as a soldier, all of those things, and as a true American. Okay, the commandant, I do know. Look her up, lori. She's a Hilo pilot, ch-47 pilot. I went to staff college with her a number of years ago. And I know her husband, who's a former army officer as well. She is a fantastic army officer, fantastic. She's a commandant at the United States military academy. Those two leaders would not be, will not be, influenced by anything. Woke.

Speaker 1: 51:26

Okay, this whole headline and all this uproar is manufactured 100% by people who don't know and understand. And here's how I know, because duty on our country has been the motto, not the mission statement, the motto at West Point for going on 100 years, okay, or over 100 years, it is still the motto of West Point. That has not and probably will never change Duty on our country. Those words were never in the mission statement for West Point until 2016. 2016. Okay, before 2016, was that a problem? That it wasn't in the mission statement? Anybody? No, it wasn't. It was not Removing it because the mission statement changes also not a problem.

Speaker 1: 52:19

This is being so blown out of proportion by people who don't know and don't understand. If you think it should be in the mission statement, that's one thing, but if you're trying to blame this on some woke bullshit, that's not what this is. Your ire is misplaced and it's due to ignorance and a lack of understanding. That's what this is. Okay, they rewrote the mission statement. I guarantee you that the cadets that they're pumping out as second lieutenants every year are just as good as they were five years ago, two years ago, 10 years ago, before 2016. Okay, this is not about removing duty on our country from West Point, because that has not happened. It is still there. It is still the motto. It is not leaving.

Speaker 1: 53:10

Okay, but we are manipulating and being manipulated by social media. Some person says it. They don't understand. Somebody who also doesn't understand says, yeah, that's great, and they jump on it too, and then it becomes a thing Right and the media in some cases, media outlets have jumped on this as well and made the same claims, right. So this is a shot against the administration and the current Secretary of Defense and the current chief of staff of the army and the current you know, you four-star, you know trade-off chain of command. You know that that owns and operates West Point within the army structure. That's not what this is Right. We have made something out of nothing.

Speaker 1: 53:54

Honestly, and and it's shameful because there's a lot of people who are taking a lot of shit from this that they don't need to deal with. They have other stuff to deal with. They have a whole Academy full of cadets on a daily basis that they've got to deal with academically, athletically, discipline wise, all of those that prep them to get them ready to be leaders in the army. They don't need this other crap because it is crap. Okay, this is manufactured, it's all bull.

Speaker 1: 54:21

So before you open your mouth and start to criticize, take a good hard look, and I know some of you're gonna turn around Say clay, you do it too, you know. But fine, poke fingers at me. I got time on my hands. You, you want to get an argument with me? That's fine, I don't care, leave those folks alone. Okay, they're doing what they should be doing and, truthfully, they're doing everything within their rights and responsibilities as a commander, command, team.

Speaker 1: 54:46

All right, that's. That's how units operate. Real units, good units, operate. They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't do anything out of sorts, and it's not some woke BS. It's a nested mission statement all the way up through and including their bosses and those folks who are responsible for running West Point. That's the way it works.

Speaker 1: 55:03

So you may not like it, you may think it should be in the mission statement. Okay, fine, that's an opinion, but it's. It hasn't been removed from West Point. Duty on our country is still their motto. I'm not a graduate, I'm not, didn't go to West Point, I'm an ROTC guy, but but I will stand up for that Institution and what it's done and continues to do on a daily basis and the leaders who run that place.

Speaker 1: 55:29

So, okay, that was it. That was soapbox. I just ask you all to take a breath on that one, but it's. It's important for all of us to understand instead of just criticizing. Okay, so that's, that's the show for this week it looks like. And again, elsa messaged me today. She said still waiting on baby, hopefully tomorrow. So you know, let's all, let's all keep Elsa, hopefully between time of recording again. This is Tuesday night, show drops on Thursday, between now and Thursday. Maybe, maybe she'll be grandma for a third time over. That would be great for her and just crossed our fingers, all of us, and and hoping that everything goes well with the delivery for her daughter. So again, folks, thanks for thanks for stopping in. You know, let, let, let me and Elsa know if you, maybe maybe you don't want me to come back, maybe you don't want me to host by myself anymore or or whatever, but any feedback.

Speaker 1: 56:22

Obviously we love communicating with y'all. I love I sit and watch this every Thursday night when it drops and I've got like my phone On. You know, I'm looking at Facebook and I'm seeing the chatter on there, and I've got YouTube going and I'm watching all the comments on there. You know, bouncing back and forth between a bunch of places where this thing's being being running for the first time and I love seeing that stuff. It's great, it's great for both of us. We love hearing from y'all, we love the feedback. So keep that up. You can find us both. We're easy to find social media. Send us a message. I know you know we love hearing from everybody. I've gotten some stuff over. You know some of the social media platforms and I certainly enjoy interacting with with those you out there that are listening in and or watching. So keep that up. We do appreciate it.

Speaker 1: 57:07

Plug for the book. You guys hear me saying it every every week. You know I close out the show saying keep moving, keep shooting. You can see behind me and I always screw this up there. It is right, that's my novel. The novel is titled keep moving, keep shooting. It is a fiction novel. It's an action fiction, military fiction novel.

Speaker 1: 57:22

It's got great reviews on Amazon 104 reviews. 99 of those are five star and five of those are four star. There's not a bad review on there. So check it out on Amazon. You can find it by title or by name. But give keep moving, keep shooting a look. Hopefully it's in your wheelhouse. Read some of the reviews and, you know, maybe buy yourself a book. I Appreciate it. I appreciate everybody tuning in. Listen to me run my mouth for an hour. It's not easy doing this without Elsa. She's always a great sounding board and we have a good time doing it for all of you as well as just talking to each other. So I will be back again next week running the show solo, and Until then, good night from Elsa, but from me, as always.