The Elsa Kurt Show

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

• Elsa Kurt

Share episode

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...

Speaker 1:

It's the. Elsa Kirk Show with Clay Novak Serving up trending news and conservative views Brought to you by the Elsa Kirk Collection and Refuge Medical. And now it's time for the show. And now it's time for the show.

Speaker 3:

We're back. It's been a hot minute. Why does like a one week gap feel like so much longer? Like I was itching to get back in here?

Speaker 2:

Yeah, last week you know we didn't do a show. You know you and I were both kind of overcome by life events. You were traveling, I had stuff going on and we just couldn't get our schedules matched up. But happy to be back after a week and, yes, it feels like forever.

Speaker 3:

Yes, yeah, and fortunately for us, the news never, ever stops. There's never a lack of topics we have. We started with six and we just added one more in at the last minute because it's kind of a last minute thing and I cannot wait to talk about that one, but we have all the other ones to talk about first, right yes, and good reminder it is, we're recording Wednesday at 4 30 eastern time, so, um, the the one that we just added is, like right now, immediately brand new.

Speaker 2:

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:

They don't want you talking about a terrorist attack in boulder that somehow isn't being called terrorism. Ukraine's drones just change, modern warfare. Is the us paying attention? Graduation stages hijacked by protest politics, another high school girls sport won by a boy. Elon Musk torches Trump's big, beautiful bill is the base splitting and the Chrysler's are out of jail and back on reality TV. Let's dive in.

Speaker 3:

So Chris Lee's, not Chrysler's. Yeah, I don't know how I how I didn't hear that when I did, when I and I did it. But yeah, whatever, I don't know. Is it really the biggest deal in the world? Probably not, maybe to him.

Speaker 3:

But we do have yeah, probably to him, probably to him or them, I guess All of them. It's probably the biggest deal in their world right now, other than that they're happy to be home. But we're not talking about that yet. We'll get there, guys. I know it's like the about right. Oh, we got to start with the bigger stuff, though we're starting with the big stuff. The attack in Boulder, colorado. So you know, I guess, depending on who you ask, one set of people will just call it a you know hate crime maybe, and another set will call it a terrorist attack. And you know what say you, clay? What's your opinion on that one?

Speaker 2:

Yeah. So over the weekend, folks I think probably everybody's tracking so there was a demonstration by a pro-Israeli group trying to, you know, bring some attention so it doesn't fade away to the hostages being held by Hamas and an Egyptian man who originally came to the United States legally on a visa but has stayed beyond the expiration of his visa. His name is Mohammed Sabri Solomon. He decided that, amongst this protest, that he would light people on fire while yelling free Palestine. Eight people injured, no fatalities yet, which is amazing, and thankfully so, ranging from ages 52 to 88, 88.

Speaker 3:

He was 88 Holocaust survivor.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, Well, years old, lit them on fire with a makeshift flamethrower, and just some anyway. So he wasower and and just some anyway. Um, so he was arrested and and was great picture, right.

Speaker 3:

Right, sums it all up there, every part of that picture, right.

Speaker 2:

Um so, uh, he was arrested, taken into custody, uh, charged with a number of crimes, including including a murder charge, even though no one has uh, there has been no fatalities yet, which I thought was not even interesting. Yeah, it was very interesting. Um, the other interesting part of this is how this has already started to become watered down. Yes, it could be easily classified as a hate crime. The FBI spokesperson and the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, labeled this as targeted terror attack. Right, but interestingly, Dan Bongino, deputy director of the FBI, labeled this as an act of ideologically motivated violence. And if that doesn't sound like a politician, I don't know what does.

Speaker 3:

Yeah. So I have really mixed feelings on this. My initial and very strong reaction 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 I did a little more reading today and there may be, I guess, maybe a little bit more to it than that. Like, maybe this is more of a strategic thing right now, because here's what I read. So I'm just going to read to you what I read just a little bit more to it than that. Like, maybe this is more of a strategic thing right now because here's what I read. So I'm just going to read to you what I read just a little while ago.

Speaker 3:

So it says that to charge someone with terror, the prosecutor would have to prove at trial that the person is either associated with or inspired by designated foreign terrorist organizations. Without this, it's difficult for the justice department to bring terrorism charges. So my only thinking is is that if he is not directly tied to a terrorist organization, maybe it's harder to get that kind of charge to stick, and maybe it's a concern that he could essentially get away with this or get charged with lesser crimes or get it dismissed. I don't know, maybe I'm talking crazy here, but I have always, like most of us, loved Dan Bongino and his work, so I'm just a little taken aback by what's been going on. You know, starting with the Epstein you know thing. So it's like is this just careful wording? Like you know, when you always say, when you're talking about a crime, you're always saying the alleged blah, blah, blah. I don't know what do you think? You wrote a really great blog I shared it over where there were a lot of responses to that. Let's talk about that a little bit.

Speaker 2:

Go ahead. Yeah, so yeah, that blog's like. I think 3000 ish people have read that blog at this point Thanks to you passing it along. Once you belong, probably another 20 people passed it along. But my my point in saying that I understand exactly what you said. Yes, you have to be somewhat precaution at times. Show some precaution in the words that you use. However, the depth director of the FBI called it targeted terrorism. The spokesperson for the FBI called it targeted terrorism. The spokesperson for the FBI called it targeted terrorism. Ok, the deputy director is on a different messaging path, and when you soften, the danger is that he has softened the act by using those words. If you say ideologically motivated violence, that's a lot like calling murder, you know, removing the capability to breathe.

Speaker 3:

Right, yes, right. Abortion is reproductive health.

Speaker 2:

Right. And so I was very disappointed in Dan Bongino because he has been the tough guy for the last few years in his podcast, in his messaging. You know he has spent a lot of time on Fox news banging on the desk, pointing at the camera Um and oh. By the way, he is not the prosecutor in this. The prostitute and the district attorney have the obligation to bring the proper charges. He he is not going to taint in a negative way the prosecution by using the word terrorism it's already been done that's out of the bag.

Speaker 2:

But when he uses terms like ideologically motivated violence, he gives the defense an opportunity. Right say listen, even the deputy director says this isn't terrorism. Even he says it's a difference in ideology. This is like you. You know this is the mostly peaceful protests.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, oh, I have, I have his, I have his, his tweet. Basically, everybody can see what that says in the evidence passive, blah, blah, blah, you know. 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 of people. So, you know, I think everybody had time to read that, right? Yes, you're all fast readers, you got it.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so it's. And even the response to my blog was probably, you know there's. I wouldn't even say it was equal parts. I would say and I and I didn't. I'm learning from you. I didn't get involved, I didn't respond to a single comment. Um, I just kind of. But I did look and it was probably, 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:

I saw a few of them. I did see.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it was not a big deal that I was overreacting, that he didn't say anything.

Speaker 3:

I think I got a shame on you for even sharing this or something along those lines. Okay, Okay fine.

Speaker 2:

I personally think that again, once the cat's out of the bag, then you get on board with your boss and with your organization. It does show some lack of co of of um, you know, cohesion within the fbi, within the leadership. Some people again will say that's okay, there's nothing wrong with that um, but in the, in that tweet, you know, when he says we're the fbi, the federal bureau of investigation, not the federal bureau of word games, um, he is chastising his boss a little bit.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, yeah. It's going to be interesting to see 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 but wonder if there's a lot of headbutting behind the scenes there when it comes to things like this. I'm sure this very specifically, this very different wording choices by these two people specifically definitely caused some conversations behind the scenes between them, and I'm sure it wasn't very friendly, right, because somebody comes out looking like the tool in this, you know. So I don't know, I just I just felt like, um, it was just a very watered down on his part. You know, it wasn't the Dan Bongino that we're so used to, like you said, with the table thumping and finger pointing and strong language and weird.

Speaker 2:

It's weird I don't prescribe to. There were some people that commented and said, oh well, you know the CIA got to him or you know the political party got to him. The people got to him, they threatened his family. I don't prescribe to any of that. I don't think that he's been gotten or whatever that means, right, I do think that he is. He is being careful in what he says, but I think he missed the mark on this one. I think he was behind the curve and now he's backpedaling a little bit to try and make up for it. I just think it's a bad look. So everybody who voted for this administration to be tough on these sorts of things did not ask for it, nor did they want or anticipate this kind of reaction out of him, specifically in this job. So it's a little disappointing. But we'll have to see. Like you mentioned, the Epstein Epstein Epstein thing. You know everybody. He even said it himself he did not kill himself, he did not kill himself, he did not kill himself. And then it's like, yeah, he killed himself.

Speaker 3:

So in the most awkward, uncomfortable, cringeworthy delivery I've seen in a while and we've seen a lot of those, but that one really, I think, because talked about it the last time. You know their posture, their mannerism, their wording, their delivery, like every part of that rang so falsely that you know the most amateur body language reader could sit there and say something, doesn so again, isolated incidents. You don't say or think much about it. Now you start adding things. It gets more concerning, you know. What is also disappointing concerning, however not surprising is the left and the mainstream media and their spin now, who said very little about the 88 yearold Holocaust survivor that was nearly burned alive and the other victims Very little to say about that. But they have plenty of tears to shed for this terrorist family who is looking at getting deported For them. They're going to cry and feel sad for these illegal aliens that are here and getting held accountable. Typical right, no surprise on that.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, yeah. I haven't heard a single update about the eight injured, wounded people from the incident Not one. But I've heard a lot about the five family members that have been taken into custody, that are potentially deported. Yeah, those poor, poor people, yeah they're are potentially deported.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, those poor, poor people. Yeah.

Speaker 2:

They're, they're here.

Speaker 3:

Yeah.

Speaker 2:

They were here legally on a visa. They let the visa expire two years ago and they stayed so. But you're right, that's who. That's who the focus is going to be on from the. You know the alphabet or mainstream media, right and not. You know the alphabet or mainstream media and not. You know, unless and I don't even know if we will, unless somebody dies, unless one of those eight injured people dies, we will not likely hear another thing about those victims, and we may not even hear anything if one of them passes away.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, yeah, definitely not from the mainstream media. I mean you'll maybe, if anything, you'll get a quick little blurb and then they'll just divert to the very next thing. You know that's way higher on their list of you know priorities. You know all you can say is it's disgusting, but it's not surprising. So you know.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think the thing to pay attention to at the end of this is what is he? You know, how do these charges sit with domestic terrorism? Do they get changed or elevated as the, as the, you know the, the trial actually nears as any of that modified or changed, and then we'll all just have to watch and see what happens, you know and you know I don't.

Speaker 3:

I want to go kind of like backwards for a second that whole little thing that I read out. You know there were two parts to. I want to go kind of like backwards for a second that whole little thing that I read out. You know there were two parts to that as far as getting charged with terrorism and it was, let's see, either associated with and the part that 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 by designated foreign terrorist organizations? I mean, it's literally right there, like yes, so I would say that qualifies.

Speaker 3:

The guy was shouting free Palestine, right? What else? Some other Zionists, you know. So kind of feeling like it fits the criteria. Let's not dance around this. Call it exactly what it is and it is an act of terrorism, charge him to the fullest extent, whatever the worst thing that you can do to him. And I agree, of course you know they probably do have to kind of wait and see what happens with these victims before they know, you know fully what the charges are going to be for this guy. The murder one is very curious. I need, I want to look into that.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I didn't understand that, and that itself was a separate headline in the. In the coverage of this was that he had been charged with murder even though no one had died, which I've never heard of in my life.

Speaker 3:

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 that too. Um, what do we got next? Let's see what the next one is next up Ukraine.

Speaker 2:

You know, I'm passing this right over to you to give you the big yeah no, I mean the opening uh, where you know you asked the question of are we paying attention to this? And and so you know we of course are paying attention to this the United States department of defense. Um, I, I think you know where it directly relates to Ukraine and Russia. What happened was Ukrainians loaded a bunch of trucks with wood paneling, wood rooftops, and they loaded the drones inside and they got driven into Russia to a distance where they could fly and attack these different air bases. All right, so they were driven in trucks, were walked away from and then they were remotely launched and they, uh, they attacked and if you haven't seen it, there's tons of footage out there Uh, but they destroyed, destroyed or damaged at least 22 aircraft.

Speaker 2:

Um, what is significant in that, in the inventory that they attacked, was 19 of those were strategic bombers. Two of them were in the equivalency of what we would refer to as AWACS. So, like those planes with the big radar dish on top Okay, for airborne command and control, early warning radar capabilities they destroyed two of those, as well as some cargo aircraft. But those 19 strategic bombers, those are Russia long strike capabilities into Europe and even potentially into the United States. Like those are the kinds of planes that they would use for that kind of strike. So you know, ukraine going on the offensive a little bit, taking a ability away from Russia to defend themselves, but with you know, they were staring negotiations in the face, like there was a schedule negotiation, peace negotiations. He's firing, negotiation coming up and they launched this strike and I can promise you and Putin has said it they will retaliate, in kind Of course. So negotiations, of course they're gone.

Speaker 3:

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 the damages, um, they destroyed or damaged 34% of Russia's cruise missile bombers, right, and it was valued at seven, approximately $7 billion. So you know, I mean, I guess kudos to you for you know exacting such damage, you know great, but to what ends? You are no match for what this guy has like, none, no match whatsoever. And you just, I mean, talk about poking the bear, right, it's actually scary, yeah. And I mean, talk about poking the bear, right, it's actually scary yeah.

Speaker 2:

And, and you know, Putin's crazy. I've never. You know he's not, he's not a rational man and he does have a temper. It's been proven over time. So I, you know, I, I think a poor decision on the part of Ukraine. They just escalated and things were on a little bit of a down, a little bit Europe is going to bear the brunt potentially of this. We'll have to see, hopefully for beyond Ukraine.

Speaker 2:

But again to the point of are we paying attention? This is something that we, the United States, need to pay attention to, and I know we have been. But the battlefield is changing. The capabilities for these types of attacks are. It's out there and it's prevalent, it's being modified and developed and advanced on this battlefield. This is like a testing ground for the world right now when it comes to drone technology.

Speaker 2:

And so you know, touching back on our last topic, you know Tom Homan, right, right, he is convinced that there is going to be a significant terror attack inside the United States in the near future, based on the amount of illegal aliens that have come into the United States through the Biden administration. And these are the types that we and I talked about Golden Dome. We talked about Golden Dome, I think a couple of weeks ago. These are the types of attacks inside the United States that we have zero defense for. If this was replicated in the United States to attack any installation, any major city, something like that, where there are trucks with drones, suicide drones, drones with explosives we would have zero defense for this inside the United States.

Speaker 3:

But this is changing.

Speaker 2:

It's paying attention to this.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, well, it gives me, in relation to the Golden Dome conversation from the previous episode, this what you're saying now gives me a little bit better perspective on that because honestly, I think I was thinking like, well, the Golden Dome sounds like a brilliant idea. Why wouldn't we want that? But I get what you're saying now that you know the enemy is literally here. Like they were let in by that previous administration, the Biden administration or the Biden handlers administration. You know they let them all in. They're like we can't call it the Biden administration anymore, like it cannot be called that, I think. Can we just determine that right now this is no longer going to be, at least not on this show. We are no longer going to refer to the previous administration as the Biden administration because it was not his at any point in time. Argue with me all you want, folks, but that's the hill I'm dying on.

Speaker 2:

So anyway, it could be the Jill Biden administration.

Speaker 3:

Absolutely. And her right-hand man, what's his name? Bernal, what's his name? Yeah, absolutely. And her right hand man, what's his name? Bernal, what's his name? Yeah, whatever it is. Yeah, and apparently, um, apparently, uh, what's her name? Pocahontas there, elizabeth warren? Yeah, yeah, wait, well, that would be a whole other topic.

Speaker 3:

We can't go there now. We got too many topics. We can't do it, guys, and do it another time, and I'm sure we will, um, but yeah, so, yes, I get what you were saying then. Better now, in light of this conversation, yeah, it's really frightening to know what's right under our noses, what's in our backyard, what's next door. You know, all of these things and the rage that we all should be feeling at that previous administration so far yeah, maybe we'll just call it the Joe Biden administration the rage that we should be feeling about all of this now should only be escalating tremendously. And now that they're, all you know, defecting and all of a sudden distancing themselves which, yes, we will get to that, guys, hang tight. But yeah, this is scary. Back to Ukraine, of course. Why, why would he do this? Can you speculate on that at all?

Speaker 2:

I think so. They had a clock. This has been planned or in motion for he read it off. It's like one year and four months and 17 days or something. I don't remember the exact number, but it's been planned and in motion Because, if you think about it, they had to build the drones, they had to build the trucks, they had to set everything up, they had to infiltrate inside of Russia, they had to travel through undetected, get to their destination, get everything set and then launch Right. Those things take a lot of time and a lot of planning and, as far as the military operation goes, kudos to Ukraine. They pulled off a good one.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I mean, they really did. You got to give the credit where it's due. It was just an insane move.

Speaker 2:

I almost wonder if it was started in motion to a point where they couldn't turn it off when you know, at some point you know it went beyond the capability to say no, and that could be it, but also, I think it is still. You know this. I think there's some undermining, there's some speculation, there's some undermining going on, even by U S officials that are not named president Trump, going on even by US officials that are not named President Trump, that you know. Folks have been talking to Zelensky under the table, even publicly, and giving him advice that probably isn't warranted. But truthfully, I think it was just a. I think it's a terrible decision, but I think that Ukraine is still adamantly trying to drag NATO into this to get it to stop.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, yeah, oh boy. Well, obviously, making the understatement of the century, this is going to be one that we're all going to have that place. And I don't think you are, you know and I don't know. You know it's probably an insane thing to say that do we? Does everybody just step back and say we're not, we're done, like everybody's done, blow each other up, you know, and it would be really easy probably to say that if nuclear weapons were on the table, you know. So you, like, you can't even just step back, and I know there's a lot of people that have and will say, like it's not our fight, just, you know, walk away. Well, the implications are big. You're dealing with crazy ass people.

Speaker 2:

You know it's I at this point, especially after this, and I still don't necessarily advocate for this, but I think it's becoming more and more apparent that the only two outcomes for this are a complete Russian takeover of the Ukraine or NATO inserting peacekeeping force as a wedge between the two. I think we just keep inching closer to one of those two solutions on a daily basis the potential for a settlement, peace talks, ukraine gaining anything. I think all that's gone. So we're down to two options at this point, and that's those are the only two ways this is going to end.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, yep, I agree with you. I'd love to offer an alternative 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 about these boneheads, these highly educated boneheads.

Speaker 2:

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 two most prominent yeah it is.

Speaker 2:

It is bleeding over a little bit into some high schools, uh, in some places, right, um, but those are the two big ones, uh, where you know these valedictorians, or whoever they are, that are nominated as students to speak at the graduation. They go into an agreement, right, and these universities figured this out a long time ago yes, you bring the speaker in, you give them the parameters, sign some an agreement that they're going to abide by the rules. Going to abide by the rules. They provide you a speech, you know, the university approves it, and then everybody's going on good faith that the speaker is going to stand up there at the podium and give the speech that's been approved. And in these cases, that's not what happened, right.

Speaker 3:

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 is you know you're violating their free speech. They should be allowed to speak. No, no, absolutely not. There are rules, there are guidelines there. So you have free speech, just not everywhere you go and anywhere you want. Your free speech is your right to go on your own platforms, your own social media page. Go, stand on the street corner. I think actually probably need a permit to do that too. But you know, yes, you absolutely can say whatever you want under. That's protected under free speech.

Speaker 3:

Don't get that confused with not having to follow rules and guidelines that you, by the way, agreed to and then just decided to disregard. That's actually what it comes down to. This isn't a violation of free speech. This is you flagrantly ignoring a commitment that you made, that you agreed to, and now you're pouting and mad because you can't you know, I don't know walk up and get your diploma or whatever, because you've been disinvited. It's your own damn fault. Nobody should be feeling bad for these. You know, snot-nosed brats. I can't stand them. I really can't Like you want to. I respect your right to free speech. You want to say free Palestine. You want to say you want to call 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. That's designated for something else.

Speaker 2:

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 graduate from college, you're going to sign an employment contract, you're going to, you're going to sign all kinds of contracts and you have an obligation to abide by them or there are repercussions. Sometimes it's legal, sometimes it's financial. Whatever it is there is, you make a deal, you have to abide 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.

Speaker 2:

I haven't heard any updates, but I think that still stands. And again, it's not because of the content, it's not because of what they said, because they violated the agreement made between them, as the speaker, and the universities. So you know, and on top of everything else, it's unbelievably selfish. You know, at both of these universities I think specifically at NIU you know the content of both of the speakers was very much free, palestine, the West is terrible. You know, anti-israel, anti-semitic, and at the NYU graduation, a number of Jewish students got up and walked out. So you have now, by virtue of you just running your mouth, have stained their hard-earned graduation for them, for their families and everything else, because for the six minutes that you're on stage, you couldn't resist being a selfish, arrogant little punk and running your mouth, and that's that, I think, is even worse than the rest of it. I think that's the worst part of it.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I, I completely agree with you. And you know, look at what their role models are. You know celebrities who grandstand and showboat and you know, stand on their soapbox at their uh award ceremonies, their Yamy ceremonies and everything you know. These are their examples. All a bunch of petulant, bratty, spoiled jerks is really what they are. And um you, there's. There's no way I'll ever see that any other way, because it's it's all very clear. You had guidelines. It was in writing. You knew what you were supposed to 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 song and dance always. Oh well, it's because we're talking about Palestine, that's why. No, it's because you violated the 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:

And clearly the expensive education that they, that they paid for, um, did them no good because they weren't smart enough to understand that this is a legal agreement, a binding agreement, and there are repercussions and I'm actually very impressed with those two institutions for holding these kids to a standard by withholding their diplomas, by not allowing them to graduate, and you know, I would say it's pretty ironclad. I would venture to guess this is going to be very hard for a court to rule in favor of these students. Written agreements, you know, highly educated, obviously very intelligent. They were the valedictorians of their classes. You know two very esteemed institutions. So you know there's no out there institutions. So you know there's no out there. And good for the universities for holding them accountable and making this well known so that's not tolerated by anybody else in the future.

Speaker 3:

Right, yeah, absolutely. And it doesn't even stop at them. They're actually the worst offenders, I think, because they have so much more at stake. It's just foolishness on their part. You know you have people I forget his name already I think a, I think he's like a CBS news anchor and he's not. He's just example of many.

Speaker 3:

You know that go, they're invited to, you know, give these speeches at these graduations and they use it as an opportunity to, you know, promote their ideologies or their political stance and all of those things. And it's like, dude, your whole job, your whole point is to go up there and say inspiring, uplifting, motivating things. Can we go back to that where somebody gets up there and talks about what it's really all about? You are the future of our country, of the world, be a contributor, do great things, have a good work ethic. Can we go back to those speeches? And I know they exist, I know that there are people that are giving them.

Speaker 3:

You know I'm not. I don't want to give the impression that I think that every single college campus, you know, is overrun by this. Enough of them are. But man, oh man, just enough already. And I agree with you and I think it's a really good sign and a fantastic message that these universities are putting their foot down because it's going to inspire other ones to do it too. You know to say hey, wait a minute, they're not taking it, and that's the way it always goes right. As soon as somebody stands up or puts their foot down and says enough, it's that encouragement for you know for others to do the same thing. So I really look forward to seeing a lot more of that, you know.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, and, and we, we both know that the education system, especially higher level education, I think it's you know it does exist at lower levels, but at the higher level high school and college you know you get a lot of politicism of everything that happens, especially from the faculty at times, and and it bleeds over and you know so this is the time of year, it happens every year, because they're swimming or track, have you know, the high school transgender argument rolls itself around again and it happened again and again and again.

Speaker 2:

Yep, yep. So you know, in California I'm going to, because we have yet to see. We have yet to see a female transitioning to male, attempt to play male sports.

Speaker 3:

I wonder why that is clay. That's so strange yeah.

Speaker 2:

Um, so I'm just going to call them all boys, um, cause that's what they are, uh biologically.

Speaker 3:

That's what they are.

Speaker 2:

Yep, we had. There was a boy in California high school track who first and second first place in the high jump and triple jump, second place in the long jump state meet. Right there was a um, minnesota, a softball uh player boy pitched 14, defeated the, the standing state champions. He pitched 14 shutout innings. You know one one player again, a boy throwing faster than anybody else in the tournament. And there's tons of these, they are everywhere.

Speaker 3:

Yes, and every single one of them was a mediocre athlete in their own real division, mediocre at best and now they are number one, and occasionally number two, but typically number one. They typically win all of these events that they compete in and yet the left is still sitting there having the audacity to say that they stand for women and women'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 of these incidents, no, nice try. We know that that's not the case, because we keep hearing about them. And, by the way, even if it is just a handful and, by the way, a handful is what? A thousand, you know, a hundred, what do you consider a handful? Because it's definitely not two or three or four or five. We're talking about hundreds of cases of this happening, that is, hundreds of girls having opportunities taken away from them that they work their asses off for, and it's not okay, period. I don't care if it's one or 100 or a thousand, it is not okay, 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 in my home state.

Speaker 3:

Let's just talk about this one for 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, I don't have it up there. But I'm going to read you the caption that it put with this image and I just want everybody to take a moment and look at the individuals in this image and in your own mind you don't have to shout it out, but just think about if you can tell the gender of anybody in these pictures just by looking. Just that's it. I'm going to read it.

Speaker 3:

Bloomfield High School. Transgender athlete Terry Miller, second from left. I love that. They felt like that. They had to tell you this Wins the finals of the 55 meter dash over. Here's a shocker, guys, it's not really a shocker. Let's see over. Transgender athlete Andriana Yearwood, far left. I could guarantee right that nobody looking at this picture could tell which two people were the transgender athletes in that picture. But you know, I'm glad that they, I'm glad that they told us so we would know. But yeah, so the wins the final of the 55 meter over a transgender athlete. So a transgender athlete beat a transgender athlete in a girl's sport. Make it make sense. Yeah, you can't, you just can't right.

Speaker 2:

No, there's a. I did see one. I don't remember what state it was in, but, uh, you know this. This boy, uh, won the women's 400 meter um high school track 18, 18, senior right Not an underclassman, senior Um and. And won the event with a time of 56 and change seconds Now.

Speaker 2:

I ran the 400 meters for four years in high school. I was better than average, but was not even a state qualifier. I ran a time faster than that as a sophomore, ran times much faster than that as a junior and senior. So these boys who are winning these are not even you know, they're not even decent male athletes, which is why they are making these moves over to the women's side um, because they can't compete and and refuse to compete or try to, because they can't accept being second, third or non-competitive in some of this. It's really a shame because, like you said, it is taking away 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 or not, but it has been finally determined that the Olympic you know, boxing champion was and is, in fact, male.

Speaker 3:

Yes, yeah, yeah, you know it just again the gaslighting like nobody could tell that, nobody could tell that, like we needed you to. You know, finally, after how long, I mean how many months and months to finally say, oh, by the way, yep, how many yeah, I guess it was last summer, so it's been a year all right, okay.

Speaker 3:

So a year, yeah, a year, even worse, even worse, a year to finally come out and say and I keep seeing, with regards to that specific case, I keep seeing the term leaked info, so I don't even know if that was supposed to be released to the world. So you know, somebody leaked that information out, that very obvious information. But what I haven't seen or heard is what is the consequence of that? Is he getting? I mean, because the given should be that the medal is revoked, and I mean nobody wants I personally would never want a forfeit medal, you know. So I mean I don't, I don't even know.

Speaker 3:

I mean that girl should, obviously. I don't know, I really don't know. I mean, how do you make this right for this poor young athlete, female athlete, who trained so hard and just got robbed? You know and I think of all of these women who got robbed and I always love to point her out that Riley Gaines man, she is something else that girl stood in the fire and still continues to stand right in the fire of all of this, under every kind of attack, and still stand up for what's right, and she's done amazing, amazing things against all of this done amazing, amazing things against all of this.

Speaker 2:

So, yeah, and interesting to kind of on the on the fringe of this, but real still topic related is that as much pushback as there is from the entertainment community about this, right, they're big, always have been supporters. There's been some very interesting studies lately about the amount of, you know, lgbtq kids growing up in hollywood. You know, um, but at the end of the day, uh, hollywood can, can say anything that it wants in public, but it is still about the almighty dollar. Because what did hbo? Just greenlight a reboot of harry potter and in the agreement to do that, jk rowling is an executive producer who has been accused she does nothing but defend. She's not anti-gay or anti-lesbian, any of that, she's just pro-female. She's pro-female, is what she is. Um, and didn't? You know hbo looked at it. They said we can make a lot of money off of harry potter and we, we will bend against public opinion or bend to, you know, hollywood and we will agree with JK Rowling to bring her on so that we can make all this money off of Harry Potter.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, absolutely so. Your little causes and your ideologies and your you know sign waving and gender inclusivity and all those things. Guess what, unless you got the money, don't matter. Yep, none of it matters. You know, and it should be a wake-up call to them, like I'm sacrificing if I were them watching all of what goes on, every single part of it. And we can throw target and all of these other uh corporations into the mix here who all last year, every single one of them, turned their logos and their everything you know immediately to rainbow, everything you know, just vomiting rainbows everywhere. And this year I think I saw it was like a graphic of you know the comparison from last year, this year and Target was on there, BMW like a whole, maybe like 10 different corporations, the comparison of their last year's logo for June and this year's logo for June, which is their regular logo, versus all the rainbow stuff.

Speaker 3:

So you know all these corporations why? Because the tide has turned. The tide has turned against you. That's how valuable you are to the people you know. That think you, think, support you, that think they have your back. They don't have your back, they don't care about you, they don't care about your mental health, and I think this is the biggest, honestly, for me, the biggest takeaway, or I hope it's the biggest takeaway for that community, 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 lumped in to any of this.

Speaker 3:

They just want to live their life and not be bothered. So calling them all a community is probably not fair, but anyhow, this should be such a wake-up call to them that no one none of these people care about your mental health. They used you as a prop, as a tool for their agendas. You know they don't care and the minute they don't need you anymore, you got discarded. And I think that's something you really should be paying attention to, and I hope they do Because at the end of the day, despite what the left tells everybody about Christians and about conservatives, we actually do care. We actually do care about your mental health and your happiness and your safety and all of those things, a hell of a lot more than those people do. So I'm done. I'm off my soapbox.

Speaker 2:

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 talked about a hundred and thirty days. You can work for the federal government as an unpaid volunteer, which is what he did. He reached a hundred and thirty days, his stuff, and he left. Right, he didn't get fired, he didn't. You know his stuff and he left, right, he didn't get fired, he didn't. You know, he worked as long as he had planned to, um, and then, and then he, he left, and you know, somewhat ceremoniously, right, they had a whole thing for him and yeah, but you know, he did a lot, uh, with doge.

Speaker 2:

Doge is going to continue to move forward, uh, even even without him right, which was the plan 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 and President Trump on the what is it? One big, beautiful bill, the OBBB, yes.

Speaker 3:

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't stand it anymore.

Speaker 3:

The Mass Abobrageous Porkfield Congregational Spending Bill is a disgusting abomination. I mean strong words, man. Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong, you know it. So he's not pulling any punches. He's not alone in this sentiment. He's far from alone in this sentiment. There are a lot of highly, highly disappointed Republicans, conservatives, americans with this. And you know we we talked briefly beforehand and, like you said, rightly so I mean there's a lot of things in here that are head scratchers in regards to what was told to us. You know what the whole plan was and, of course, um number one being Doge. You know, like, what was the whole point of going in there and finding all this? If you're not going to eliminate all of it, like, stop already, just make it all gone. This is what we elected all of you for, this is what we wanted. So freaking, do it right.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, he is upset, I think, specifically because of the. You know, the idea behind Doge was efficiency, save money, lower the deficit, recover some funding and keep America out of crippling debt. And that's what he did for the 130 days, and I don't know where the running tally was when he walked out the door, but it was quite a bit of money. And then the one big, beautiful bill turns around and it adds a couple of trillion dollars to the deficit, which is why Elon is so upset, which is why he's adamantly opposed to this bill, because it goes against everything that he was charged to do, along with Doge, which is, you know, save Americans money, save taxpayer dollars, make sure they're being used in the appropriate ways and efficiently. And nothing that costs us a couple of trillion dollars is efficient, and nothing that costs 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. I really do.

Speaker 2:

I think it is also evidence that he is not a lockstep follower of President Trump. Right, you know, this is a agree to disagree of president Trump, right? You know this is a agree to disagree. President Trump has acknowledged that that. Uh, you know Elon doesn't like the bill, Um, and, and you know he said that's his opinion and he's entitled to it, and he moved on. Yeah, so he's not. He's not a blind follower like everybody portrayed him to be, which most of us rational people knew Right, but this is great proof that that it is in fact not true.

Speaker 3:

Yeah yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, and it's. It's honestly so silly to even give that a moment's thought that he would be a lockstep follower. You know this is a guy who was beloved by the left. He was their, you know, their hero, their icon, and the minute he changed his mind or saw things differently and vocalized that he's not afraid to go against, you know that was who was paying him basically. You know the left was his money market. He wasn't afraid to risk everything for that. He doesn't care. He doesn't care. He's going to do whatever it is he thinks is right and what he believes in, it doesn't matter. You know, whether I agree with him or not or anybody else does. He is going to do what he believes is right, regardless of what anybody else is saying. And I actually respect that. I mean, I like everything that he does or says, um, but I highly respect that um about him and I and I think this dissension basically is um is a character, a Testament, really, in my opinion, you know.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, I think is. Um is a character attestment really, in my opinion. You know, yeah, I think there's that one other oddity. We move on to the next one. There's one other timing piece to all of this um, the day after I think it was the day after he left um and they had a thing in the oval office for him um, the president withdrew his nomination for the man to run NASA. I don't believe in coincidences. That one is a little odd. More to follow on that one, but to me. I looked at it and I was like, okay, well, you know, spacex is going to have a NASA logo on it and that's the next move. Hasn't turned out that way yet, and we'll see what happens.

Speaker 3:

But I just thought that one was a little bit too close. That was a little too close, a little a little bit interesting and no explanation, right, just simply right.

Speaker 2:

Like just he was not that the, and I don't remember the gentleman's name, but the guy. His nomination was withdrawn because he did not fully align with the um, you know, the goals of the of the president.

Speaker 3:

So Okay, okay, so they did give you know, but it was very bland, it was, you know could have been anything, but yes, that was the reason given.

Speaker 2:

So yeah, a little bit, a little bit in the odd time. All right, listen this topic you know, I mean yeah, this next topic is all, oh my gosh come on. It's so fun.

Speaker 3:

I don't know why it's fun, it just is. I guess you know anything. I guess I guess there's still a little bit of me. And now, first, let me say I've never watched their show. I really never.

Speaker 3:

Even at the height of their popularity or their scandal, I never took the time to figure out what the big deal was like, what they're all about. I saw like handfuls of you know short little clips of their show. I found him I mean, I'm sorry if you like them I found him to be so obnoxious. I took no joy out of that, so I never followed it. I just simply didn't care. Frankly, guys, I just didn't care. I don't care greatly about this, and I know you don't either. It's just newsworthy and it is actually pretty interesting.

Speaker 3:

So if you don't know who these people are, todd and Julie Chrisley. They were sent to prison for in January yeah, well, yeah, january of 2023, after being convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud the previous year, they had their whole reality show. I'm forgetting the name, it was it like Chrisley knows, or something like that. I don't even know what the name of the show was, but they touted themselves, or he touted himself, as a uh real estate mogul, which I literally didn't even know until I researched for the show. No, I did. Did you know anything about them, clay?

Speaker 2:

I know they're all blonde. I was shocked to find out um only seeing highlights like the commercials for the show. I was shocked to find out that he wasn't gay, um yeah, well, lights, like the commercials for the show.

Speaker 3:

I was shocked to find out that he wasn't gay.

Speaker 2:

Yeah Well, I think that's even still kind of questionable. But I don't know where their money came from. I thought it was a fabricated reality show and then did the research to find out that they had taken out $20 million in loans. Yeah, I think it was more like $30 million, I think yeah. They took out $20 million in loans and then they took out more loans to pay back those loans. Oh, okay, and then couldn't pay anything back and then filed for bankruptcy. And then the charges came Right.

Speaker 3:

And then they went to jail, right, and that's like the gist of it. They fabricated this entire illusion. They created this illusion. He apparently shopped a show. He wanted a show. He wanted to be. You know, he saw the writing on the wall. These reality shows probably watch the Kardashians, like it was.

Speaker 3:

You know, I don't know his personal soap opera. I don't really know and must've thought, hey, we can do that. You know, let's, let's create this image of who we are, and oh, we don't have any money to do that. Well, we can fake that too. And they did it. I mean, they did it. They managed to manufacture this whole image and sold it to whatever, you know, whoever channel, I don't know station they were on and they got their show. And you know, unfortunately for them, 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 who basically threw him under the under the bus when all of this came up and, like you said, they went to jail Like it's not, they were just accused, they were convicted, like they were going to spend. How long were they going to spend in jail? They were supposed to be in jail for like 12 years.

Speaker 2:

Is that right? They spent two and a half. They, they, they appealed their appeals court. It was like nope, you're saying, you know the the end of, because he thought that the punishment was harsh, that they were conservative, you know, he thought they'd been targeted for their conservative values. Their daughter, you know, campaigned, I think, on his behalf. Yeah, blah, blah, blah. And of course, there's a lot of backlash because he pardoned them and got them out of jail, right, and how anybody in their right mind can criticize something. You know him. I personally should have stayed in jail. Yeah, probably, um, you know, but in the wake of what's going on with the president Biden pardons, the pre pardons for his family, for general Mully, for everybody else, you know, um, these folks got pardoned for nonviolent crimes.

Speaker 2:

Um and you know, and of course there's some backlash going on which is a little bit on the ridiculous side.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I think, you know, I think it's overblown, I really do. And I agree with you, clay, I'm not saying that. I think that I don't necessarily think they should have been pardoned. You know, if I were to say that I cared at all, like I'm trying to put on my I care hat and on this topic I just don't care, but I'm pretending that if I did care, what would I think? And you know, I think giving them a pardon, sure, maybe it's a little twitchy like they really did the crime, like they really are criminals.

Speaker 3:

They, I think they, well, yeah, they defrauded people so kind of not cool. Was anybody you know? I think they. Well, yeah, they defrauded people so kind of not cool. Um, was anybody you know? And then the flip side right, is anybody physically harmed?

Speaker 3:

Um, you know, uh, you know, none of those things are not murderers. They do have young children. They're uh. Two youngest children were in the. The uh custody of the oldest daughter. Uh, savannah, I think her name's Savannah, sorry if that's not her name. Guys, I don't even know. There's a kid named Chase, does it matter? No, the daughter. The daughter actually took custody of the two younger children while the parents were going 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 know that people are walking the streets for much worse crimes, you know getting let out for uh well, for literal murder, you know, and they're walking the streets free, I kind of have a little problem with you know, locking these people up for 12 years. Um, I I don't know. I mean, like you said, everybody's going to have their opinion on it.

Speaker 2:

I think. I think if the president was going to act on this which I don't think he should have ever acted on this it should have never come across his desk. But probably the better option would have been to let the conviction stand and commute their sentence, get them out of jail, but really never again. They should never be allowed to again, but it is what it is.

Speaker 3:

So yeah, yeah. And of course, the other part of the irritation people are experiencing is like they're now they're going to roll into a little docuseries and they're going to make money off of that. You know, like they're profiting Now they're like profiting from their crime. You know that's kind of the sentiment that leaves kind of a bad feeling in people's minds. 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't watch their show, don't, don't contribute to their fame. Then I mean, that's all I can tell you. You know, there's there's a few coulda, woulda, shouldas and should nots. In this particular case, is it the hill to die on? Far, far, far from it. And you have people that are, in my opinion, doing something way worse.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, so this is the seventh topic. This is the one that broke right before we started recording, and that is that, as I like to call her, jean-claude van damme, but, uh, kareem zane, jupiter, whatever, the former did you mean yeah, I don't know kareem jean pierre. Um, yeah, uh, the former white house, uh press secretary spokesperson, uh now declared, by the way, with her book coming out, what?

Speaker 2:

a book deal yeah, she's divorced herself from the democratic party and is declaring herself an independent, and she is following her individual compass, kind of a thing yeah, that thing that she completely lacked at all in that presidency, shadow presidency, um.

Speaker 3:

So, you know, there's a tiny part of myself that is always going to feel a little bit shocked at the things that people do, um, but then there's the larger part that is not even remotely surprised at this. Of course, that's what she's doing, that's what they are all doing. I don't think Jake uh, jake Tapper was the first, but he's probably the most notable one right now, cause he's the most recent besides her. They all see the writing on the wall, they all know all the house of cards. It's not crumbling, it has crumbled, it's like disintegrating right now. And you know, are we ever going to see criminal charges on anything? Who the heck knows?

Speaker 3:

We talked about this the last time too. I don't really know thing. Who the heck knows? We talked about this the last time too. Um, I don't really know. All I know is that it is so gross that these people are profiting off of their um contribution, their, their complicit licitness in these long-term lies, that we're gonna call it a word, guys, calling it a word. Um, yeah, yeah, like you, kareen, you stood up there week after week, day after day, gaslighting the hell out of this country, the world and many, countless times, and I hope somebody puts the compilation together. There's people who are much better at that and somehow have the time to do things like that. Please put a compilation together of all the times that she, you know, said in one form or another that joe biden is perfectly fine. You know he's like totally mentally fit all of the things. Put a compilation together, somebody, please.

Speaker 2:

I beg of you and tag me, um yeah, before we wrap up, this is my take on this. Okay, we're getting, we're getting in in the, we're getting in the the end end minutes here, but yes, we are. My take on this is that this is not genuine. I think that this is a tactic by the DNC to take to encourage moderates from quote, unquote both parties, but really they're trying to encourage moderates from the GOP to declare as independent. This is a fabricated fight against the two-party system and what they're trying to do is draw votes and voters away from the GOP for the next election cycle, when, in fact, people like Jean-Claude Van Damme and Jake Tapper and John Fetterman and you're going to see more, you're going to see more people like this that are moved to the middle or become independent In reality, they're just agents for the Democratic Party with known faces and names that are going to try and draw people to an independent party that doesn't exist. Yeah, so it's. This is this is trying to fabricate Ross Perot without having a Ross Perot.

Speaker 3:

You know, I have to be honest with you, that never would have crossed my mind. I am so not politically savvy in that way that I can see those kind of mechanisms happening, but as you lay it out, it actually makes tremendous sense that that's what they would be doing. Yeah, I mean, what more can I say on that? That makes perfect sense. I want to know, guys, what do you think? Do you think that's a tactic that's happening, that's playing out in real time right now? Because I mean, they need desperately to strategize some type of recovery here, because their whole party is again disintegrating, it is falling apart, and you know, I guess, what better way than to pretend to start anew? You know, I don't know. We want to know what you guys think. Throw your opinions out. All I'm going to say, guys, is you don't like when I say it, but Clay's been right on a lot of things, so you might be right on this one. I want to know what you guys think. How about you, clay? What do you think? They're going to agree with you or no? They're going to agree with you or no?

Speaker 3:

I, I hope I'm wrong. I really do. I know, I know, I know I have silly small hopes. Yep, my silly small hope is that the the ticket for the next run will be, uh, aoc, and I don'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 of the party, that would be a blast. Who knows who knows they're? They're crafty. All I know is never underestimate them. Never underestimate them just because they appear to be falling apart right now. They always have a master plan. They've been playing the long game way longer than we have, and we should always keep that in mind, right?

Speaker 2:

Yep, 100%, and we'll just keep an eye on it. And again, as Allison and I are just 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'm going to toss it back to you to close it out.

Speaker 3:

What? Oh my goodness, I don't even know 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 different thing. We appreciate you so tremendously. We're so glad to be back on with you guys again and look forward to chatting with you in the comments section. And I think that's all I got. I got. I got, nothing else. We love you guys and we will see you next week. Take care.

Speaker 1:

Warrior, leader, author, patriot. From ranger school to the battlefield, from the front lines of combat to the front lines of culture. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Clay Novak isn't done fighting for truth. Catch him on the Elsa Kurt Show and read his no-holds-barred blog at claynovakauthorcom. Keep moving, keep shooting.

Speaker 3:

If you've ever looked around and thought this isn't normal and it sure isn't biblical. You're not alone and guess what? You're not crazy. You're discerning. That's why I wrote Truth Bombs and Grace Grenades a bold, unapologetic book for believers who are done being silent while the world screams lies From gender confusion to political idolatry, from woke theology to spiritual apathy. We're hitting it all straight on, straight up and backed by scripture. This isn't a rage-fueled rant. It's a rally cry, a wake-up call to stop apologizing and start boldly living out the gospel. Whether you're a new believer or a disillusioned disciple trying to find your footing again, this book is for you. It's packed with truth-based, grace-filled strategies and practical tools to help you speak truth with love, raise warriors, not warriors. Dismantle lies with biblical clarity and rebuild with grit, grace and gospel power. The culture doesn't need more compromise. It needs courageous Christians. So if you're ready to push back against the chaos with bold faith and real truth, grab your copy of Truth Bombs and Grease Grenades on May 6, 2025. Let's shake things up with truth and grace.