Supreme Court Ethics, Power Plays, And Public Faith

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

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

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

Chapters

• 0:00 Banter, Setup, And Topics Preview
• 2:49 Epstein Files And Public Trust
• 15:40 Accountability Versus Apathy
• 27:12 Supreme Court Resignations And Ethics
• 45:12 NDAA Priorities And America First
• 1:02:40 Israel, Ukraine, And Defense Industry Ties

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:01

It's the Alpha Current Show with Clay Nova. Serving up trending news and conservative views. Brought to you by the Alpha Current Board and Refuge Medical. And now, it's time for the show.

SPEAKER_08: 0:22

What up, my friend? How are you? I am doing good. I am laughing at myself here. I am, you know, I wear, believe it or not, guys, these glasses do come off of the top of my head. And I I'm wearing them most of the time when I'm doing computer work, as I would be doing for prepping for this. And I have a small, I have a tablet in front of me. So I'm actually gonna hold it up to the same time. So I have my tablet in front of me, which has our topics and anything I want to notes I want to read. And every time I take my glasses off, like everything is so blurry. I'm sure so many of you can relate to this, but I have increased the font size on this. So it's ridiculous. And if you guys could see it, I'm not showing you this. Um it's just huge and it's just absurd. So I'm laughing at myself. Anyhow, uh, we have a whole bunch of great topics. Great job, Clay.

SPEAKER_04: 1:14

Uh yeah, busy week, uh, obviously. And uh just so you don't feel bad, I'm the opposite. So I normally will wear contacts except when I'm doing this, um, because it, you know, I'm I'm nearsighted. And so um, I take my contacts out for this. Um, but when I'm like out and about and I have my contacts in and I have my phone, I like the text on my phone is increasing. It has to be because otherwise it's blurry because it's too closed, and I I gotta do the old man, like, you know, yeah. And I can't do that. So I get so mad when people thank you.

SPEAKER_08: 1:44

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

SPEAKER_04: 1:58

I'm just but yes, we got uh, I think seven, eight topics, uh a little bit of uh politics. Uh actually a lot of politics, we always do politics, but uh a little bit of sports, maybe some other stuff at the end. We'll see.

SPEAKER_08: 2:09

Yeah, here they are, guys. Here's what we got coming up.

SPEAKER_03: 2:11

Tonight we have it all after blowing open after years of call just after the Supreme Court.

SPEAKER_08: 2:42

Oh my, we told you we got a lot of stuff for you. Uh let's go right off the top here. The Epstein files crack open. How about that? Um, will the truth finally beat the spin? I don't know. I mean, it was how many years? Years of excuses a federal judge just gave the green light for the DOJ to unseal the grand jury. There's a lot of interesting things here about this, as usual, right? Uh grand jury records in the Ghlaine Maxwell case, thanks to the new Epstein File Transparency Act. Uh, we talked about it last week, didn't we?

SPEAKER_04: 3:13

Yeah, a little bit. The uh the act itself is interesting because it's a very all-encompassing um kind of concept. So, you know, with Ghislaine Maxwell, however you pronounce her name, I've never figured it out. Um, I, you know, her trial is a linked but separate trial, right? Um and but, you know, and and grand jury is usually sealed. Like any testimony, anything that's uh introduced in a grand jury, unless it's also in the trial, is is usually sealed, it's locked away. Uh, but the Transparency Act, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, opens everything up and it brings in everything that has to do with Maxwell because it's related to Epstein. So um it's it's an interesting ad. Uh the question is, does it matter?

SPEAKER_08: 3:57

I mean, yeah, I it is that is really a great question because I I I don't know, you know, we've been talking about this, um analyzing it, not just us, everybody, everybody with the internet and has been, you know, analyzing this whole thing and giving their perspectives and opinions and all of that. And uh I I just feel like and we've talked about this before as well, I feel like there has been this level of apathy that has you know gone toward and and they're downplaying it, they're really downplaying it too. I I um they're they're saying don't expect too much from this. You know, there's there's you know thousands of of pages here, but don't expect too much from it. So what do you make of that even?

SPEAKER_04: 4:40

Yeah, I I think you know, the one thing that the judges have continually said is that you know, privacy and protection for young ladies, the victims in this entire thing is paramount. So anything that has the potential to expose them, uh, any any information that could, you know, like somebody could puzzle piece together who it's writ referencing, et cetera, is all gonna be redacted to protect those the women involved. Now, when you do that and you leave it that wide open, appropriately so to protect those young women, you're also gonna mask some things that people really, really want to know. Um, and and I think my expectation is this is gonna be disappointing as it has been thus far. Um now I do know there are some some of the victims have advocated for releasing everything, um, including their own names, and have threatened to even come out in public and say, listen, we will tell you who's on the list. We will tell you who was where, when, and all of those other things. Um, my expectation though, and it's you know, I I'm I'm not a p I I don't dislike Pam Bondi, but she's been slow rolling this so much, and there's a lot of you know angst over releasing it and why it hasn't been released, and it leaves for a lot of speculation, et cetera, et cetera. But I I think this is going to be, as with everything else, very underwhelming.

SPEAKER_08: 5:56

Yeah, yeah. And because it's been teased for so long and you know, resisted for so long, I I I just don't know. I mean, we we've long passed the point where anybody believes anything, and and I this is a running theme. So even if they do, well, not if, even when they do release everything that they're going to release, um nobody's gonna believe it. Nobody's gonna believe that they're either gonna say, that's not all there is, they're lying. You know, I there's no winning here. The the trust in any government entity. Uh we are in such a unbelievably bad way in this country, in this world, um, with belief in anything that the other side has to say. And I'm frankly, and I know you guys hear me say this so often, I am so tired of it. It is so exhausting for everyone because all it is is people just shouting back and forth at each other that they're lying. You're lying, you're lying, no, you're lying, no, everybody seems to be lying. This is another case of that. I mean, how do you and it's a fair question? How do you trust it? How do you trust it? So I I don't know.

SPEAKER_04: 7:09

I don't know what the answer is. And it's and it's it's become, you know, the boy who cried wolf. There's been so you know, I don't know if there's been actual promises of what's inside, um, but there has been a lot of speculation which has grown into expectation. Yeah, and and now it's you know, things like this. Oh, we're gonna now you're gonna get the you know, the grand jury from the Maxwell. Like this is gonna be where the meat's at, nothing, right? Yeah, big jumping burger. Right. And then on the flip side, you know, I know people who kind of literally end every social media message with release the Epstein files. Doesn't matter what they're talking about, like grocery shopping, and then they put that at the end, right? Which becomes like you you don't even see it anymore. Um, so you know, I I think we are in a place where um no matter what happens, expectations are so high they're never gonna be met. And unless this has, you know, unless there's some massive release relief that or release that comes with every single name of every single person that's ever been rumored to be anywhere near this thing, and then throw a huge bombshell on top of it, you know, um nobody's gonna be satisfied no matter what happens, no matter what's in there, truthful or not, it's all gonna be a disappointment.

SPEAKER_08: 8:22

Yeah, and let's be real, the goalpost will get moved because now once it's released, well, what okay, well, where's the accountability? Who's getting arrested? You know, who's um you know, who's getting their name blasted uh across there, who's whose career is ending, whose political career is ending. And if you don't see, if we don't see those types of consequences from whatever name releases that there are, um what's the point of everything? Like just to know, just for the sake of knowing, I don't want to know just for the sake of knowing, so I can say, aha, or I knew it, or be shocked, or whatever. I I it's not that I don't care about that. It's I care more about what comes next. And that is where we're gonna have the next big problem. Because if there is no next after that, meaning consequence um for any of this, uh again, these victims still get no vindication. What's we've seen this happen over and over again throughout history. Somebody uh, you know, famous, uh wealthy, whatever the case is, gets accused, caught, proven to be guilty of something. What whatever it is, whether it's being uh, you know, wearing black face in the 80s or raping somebody, and we're literally going the whole gamut here because it is that vest. Uh a few years goes by and then they come back into public eye, you know, they they do their little PR uh damage control and they're just right back on top again. How is that helping any victim for just just simply to have their name come come out and I don't know. I mean, I guess that's what it comes. I hope that's what it comes down for everybody in their minds, not the I just want to hear the dirt and the nitty-like remember, there's actual victims. There, there's people whose lives have been, you know, ruined and and they're trying to rebuild. So I hope they truly get justice.

SPEAKER_04: 10:12

Yeah, the only people who've been held accountable in this entire thing so far, in any way, shape, or form, are Epstein himself, who's dead, right? They pay the price. Um a lot of speculation there, but we'll leave that one alone. Maxwell, who's in jail and will be probably forever, and Prince Andrew or Andrew. Andrew is no longer Prince. That's right, no more prince. Just but he's been held accountable not by a court system, but by his own family, right? And and the everything that comes along with that. Um, other than that, nothing. And and let's be honest, folks, you could go if you wanted to go strictly legal on this, you could hold uh pilots accountable, right? Transporting minors, yeah, right. They knew they know who's on the manifest on every flight that they take, right? Because they're responsible. Flight pilots, flight crews, boat crews, staff at the island itself, every one of those people can be held accountable. And literally, we have seen nothing so far. And and you know, everything that you were saying, we can think of the big names who have been held accountable for things that have happened horribly, right? Bill Cosby, uh Weinstein, probably Kevin Spacey. And that's about where the list ends. And we know there's so much more that has gone on and continues to go on.

SPEAKER_06: 11:27

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 11:27

Um, you know, probably uh what's his name that uh Danny Masterson is probably the other one. Um but but really that's and off the top of your head, you know, I I can't think of anybody else. And that's what I want, is what you're talking about, which is the accountability. Knowing is right and and you know, I hate to say cancel culture, but it it kind of does its own thing. Um a level of accountability there, but we want the legal accountability that goes along with stuff like this. And we're just frankly, we're not getting it, we're probably not gonna get it. Um, and it's gonna just be continue to be a disappointment for everybody.

SPEAKER_08: 12:02

Yeah, yeah, it is. It is, it will um become another version of the nothing burger, I think. Yep, you know, it'll be the big flurry for a minute. Maybe we'll we'll get some shocks in there. Maybe I feel like we're already already I doubt it too, you know. I mean, I don't even uh again, I don't even care about the shocks. I don't care about the oh so and so was on that list. Oh my goodness. No, because nobody's gonna surprise me at this point.

SPEAKER_04: 12:29

You can't it would have to be it would have to be astronomical, it would have to be like the Dalai Lama, like right. It would have to be something crazy like that. But other than that, I mean that you know, Bill Gates' name has been thrown around and forever, you know. Um it just it the speculated the list of speculation is so grand that the actuality is just gonna be you know a a disappointment no matter what.

SPEAKER_08: 12:54

Yeah, yeah. So I don't know, guys. My uh my position on this is you know, hey, great, great. It's finally getting released, even though they said for years can't be done, can't be done, and then all of a sudden with a stroke of a pen, and it now it's now it's done. So that's a little eyebrow raising. As I joked with Clay before, I can't really raise my eyebrow currently, but it, you know, if I could, my eyebrow would be raised. Um as far as you know, anything else to do with this, I personally will not be impressed uh until I see arrests. That's the only thing that would impress me at this point. And and convictions. Let me let me let me rephrase that. Arrests and convictions would be the only thing that would impress me at this point with this. And I'm not knocking anyone. I understand that this is just all part of the way these things go, but um, until that happens, I'll just kind of I don't even know if I'll do a slow clap, Clay. Just be like, okay, right. Oh, what do we got next? Um, well, I mean, we're we're kind of staying in the family of these conversations, right? It's it's it's a good little segue. Um, everybody wants somebody off of the Supreme Court. And this is really interesting because I had to do a little bit um more. I had to even double check with you, Clay, right? Beforehand, like, oh wait, are we talking Katenji Brown or are we talking about Alito and uh Thomas? And so technically we're gonna actually gonna talk about all of it. Um, because both sides of the political aisle have decided that the best way to save democracy is to shove inconvenient justices um off the Supreme Court. So it's a it's a good conversation. What are your uh what are your thoughts there, Clay?

SPEAKER_04: 14:29

Yeah, so it's um, you know, stay on the GOP side. Um, and and we don't, you know, we all want and and by design, the Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. Um we all know that that's not necessarily true. Um, although there have been, you know, enough kind of centrist or surprising decisions made by the Supreme Court in the last you know couple of years that that it is probably less political than we realize. However, um from the GOP side, you know, the ask right now is that Justice Alito and Justice Thomas both resign while the Republicans hold power in you know both houses as well as the presidency so that um President Trump can nominate two replacements of the GOP ilk that can be confirmed and therefore retain that GOP uh dominance, the 630 dominance that exists right now uh on the Supreme Court, um, which goes back to, and it brings up the same, you know, argument that keeps coming around, which is term limits and age limits for the Supreme Court. One, President Trump says, I'm not asking them to do that. I don't want them to do that. They're both doing a fantastic job, and I don't want them to resign. So there's the president's position, which is good.

SPEAKER_06: 15:44

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 15:45

Um, but it goes back to, you know, we we had the same thing with um, you know, uh the the last few that have, you know, passed away, you know, while in office, Ginsburg and the right. So it does beg the question should there be a term limit? Should there be an age limit? Um, and and you know, how would we manage those? Personally, I don't think I I think they should resign, retire when they feel like it. Um I I'm a firm believer that they shouldn't have a an a term limit. There should probably be a competency uh limit that or or some sort of competency test that goes on um associated with age, potentially. Um, but age doesn't mean anything. I mean, you truthfully, you know, Alzheimer's as probably everybody knows, can strike at remarkably early ages, right? Um, where you know you start to have cognitive decline, et cetera. Anyway, I I think no term limit for SCOTUS. I personally think they shouldn't resign unless they feel the need, health-wise, competency-wise. But I do think that there's we need to at least explore competency testing uh for justices of every age. What do you think?

SPEAKER_08: 16:56

Yeah, well, that's interesting, Clay. I'm I I need to pick your brain more because my my gut response and reaction is is you know, term limits for every term limits for everyone and everything. Um I'm just I'm curious why you don't think so. Is it because of the length of experience that they have there? Like what's your reason for that? Because I I'm just curious.

SPEAKER_04: 17:18

I think, you know, by design, the idea of no term limits for um Supreme Court justices was so that they could not be swayed or influenced uh either way, or they couldn't use their influence to stay on the bench. It was a two-way street, right? That was all by design. Okay. So if you say I'm in this job forever, you can't inf you can't push me to make a decision in your favor because you have nothing to influence me with, meaning re-election, another term, etc., which is the problem that we have in Congress right now. Right. You know, all of the the donors, you know, right? Um, all of that that goes along with it. You don't have that as an issue within the Supreme Court. Um, and I and that's why I believe they shouldn't have term limits. Um that's just my opinion. I think that's how the frameworks defined it, and and and I think it works personally.

SPEAKER_08: 18:08

Yeah, no, that makes sense. I I genuinely didn't I genuinely didn't understand or know. So I I knew there was there were reasoning that I just simply didn't understand. So that makes sense actually. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, what else? Let's talk about let's talk a little bit about Town G Brown. Because, you know, obviously, well, you know, so we have this whole thing, right? That's it, it's it's the forever left and right, and uh the the left has been screaming about well, they've been screaming about Thomas and Alito all along. Um, they they despise both of them, particularly Thomas, right? I mean, more so him than anything. Well, I guess both of them. Um, but it's just it's it's just interesting because you and the other side of it is you have her, and now the controversy with her in this moment, there's quite a few technically, um, but her husband's firm is tied to cases before the court. And you know, what a surprise, the media goes completely deaf about that, but they'll talk about uh Thomas's um supposed um what was it?

SPEAKER_04: 19:08

He was getting money for something or plane rides and and some other things, I think. Yeah.

SPEAKER_08: 19:14

Right. So, you know, it it's it's just the constant, you know, uh we're gonna put a spotlight on this, but we're gonna ignore this. So, how about we do this really radical, crazy thing and apply the same rules and expectations of everyone? Can we just like I know it sounds like absurd to do that, but I know it's never gonna happen. I'm I'm a realist, guys. I am a realist, and that was pure sarcasm. I knew it was gonna happen. But you know if we're making comparisons between the two, we're talking about a woman who could not tell you what a woman was. Anyone remember that?

SPEAKER_06: 19:47

You provide a definition for the word woman.

SPEAKER_08: 19:52

Can I provide a definition? No. Yeah. I can't. You can't? Not in. Into contact. I'm not a biologist. I'm not a biologist, guys. I can't tell you what a woman is because I'm not a biologist. So, you know, I don't know. As I've never, I've just never heard uh Clarence Thomas say anything so certainly stupid as that. But whatever, you know, whatever to each their own.

SPEAKER_04: 20:20

She is the she is the number one successful DEI hire.

SPEAKER_08: 20:26

She truly is. She truly is. She truly is.

SPEAKER_04: 20:29

See, if you go back and you look at her work record, um she really was never even an a functioning active judge that made a determination on anything prior to the Supreme Court. Uh she is, you know, just I mean, you could take that clip alone and tell talk about level of competency, um, you know, et cetera, et cetera. Um, you know, and I think I've always said this, I think it was a missed opportunity uh for uh Marsha Blackburn to say, give me a legal definition of a woman.

SPEAKER_06: 21:03

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 21:03

That key word, right, with her being, you know, confirmation to be a Supreme Court justice, I think was was the word that was missing, right? Yeah. I'm not asking you to be a biologist, I'm asking you to be a judge and an attorney. Give me a legal definition of a woman.

SPEAKER_08: 21:16

You're so right. Opportunity missed.

SPEAKER_04: 21:18

Yeah, missed that one. But um, regardless, she's she's a massive. I but sticking to my own you know premise, she's there forever, right? Until and and the system was what it was. She was confirmed under the system as it existed. She will hold that seat forever. Um, and or until something drastic happens. Um, you know, there could be, like you said, there could be corruption potentially. That's the speculation with her husband, um, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So, you know, we'll we'll just have to see what happens with her. She could be a thorn in the side of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.

SPEAKER_08: 21:57

Yeah, it's it's insane when you think of that, right? Um just to be just to be completely fair, um, I'm gonna give you both sides of like the argument here. So um the left's argument against Thomas and Alito has been ethics crisis, loss of public trust, right-wing billionaires secretly influencing the court, flags equal insurrection. That was uh the wife, Alito's wife flew the uh flag, American flag upside down. That was that whole thing. Um, and wants them to resign for the good of democracy. Now, the right's argument against KGB, no, KB, yeah, KBJ, sorry, um, is they said if Thomas's friends are a conflict, then her husband's firm is too. Um, undisclosed financial interests are still undisclosed. Media outrage is selective, which we know that, not principled. Uh, ethics rules must cut both ways, which is what we were just saying. And if recusal is the expectation, then recuse, if not, stop using ethics as the political weapon. So, I mean, you know, this is the this is we're being fair here. We're giving both sides of the coin, both sets of, you know, generalized opinions on the topic. And and I I I think that it's simply um really a matter of just what we were saying, that um neither side actually wants ethics reform. They just want a scoreboard um to change whenever one is in in power or favor over the other.

SPEAKER_04: 23:19

So yeah, I think the one thing that you have never heard, not that I can recall from the uh Republicans, that you have heard multiple times from the Democrats, and that is pack the court. Um Republicans have said consistently the system is what it is, nine's the number, you know, we we wait, we wait our turn, we wait, you know, if you don't like it, get a get a better president, you know, et cetera. Um, they have never said we're gonna swing the the strength of the court by adding justices, and then, you know, while there's a Democrat in office, then we pack the court with the people that we want, and then we swing it the way that it you know gives us the advantage, et cetera, which has been the argument for a while. Um, you've never heard, I've never heard um Republicans ever even bring that up. I may be wrong, but I I can't recall off the top of my head ever hearing that. So I think that difference in you know party ethics, which, you know, like you said, is part of the argument with the justices themselves.

SPEAKER_06: 24:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 24:20

Um, but you know, when you want to when you want to change the rules, they're like an oldest child, which I always my older sister about, right? You know, change the rules in the middle of the game when things don't go your way, but that's how they're acting, is like an oldest child. Um, because they, you know, they're losing, uh, they don't like it, and so they're gonna just change the game itself, and and that's how they want to operate. So um, I don't think President Trump should. I don't think he should get involved. I don't think the justices should resign, going back to the Alino Thomas thing. Um, and I think that uh they just ride it out. I I think they do what they're supposed to do is SCOTUS, you know, justices on Supreme Court, and uh we just move forward.

SPEAKER_08: 24:56

Yeah, yeah, fair enough. I like it. It works for me. We'll see what happens, right? Oh, what do we got next? Bombs, borders, and bowling checks. Um TG versus the Pentagon budget. I'm gonna give this one over to you. Uh so just quick intro. The new National Defense Authority Act is out, and Marjorie Taylor Green is loudly in the no column, uh, mostly because she hates, not I'm sorry, not because she hates the troops, but because she's tired of funding everyone's border but ours. Those are basically her words. Um so go ahead, Clay. Give them the Yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 25:31

So that the NDAA is out. I have right here, this is from this is the House Armed Services Committee's document. This is their summary document. It's 30 pages. Um if you as an American citizen, and I encourage everybody to be involved, if you're wondering how and where your tax money is being spent, this is 900 billion dollars. 900 billion, okay? And and it doesn't outline where every single dollar and every single allocation goes. However, this is the bulk of it. It gives you at least an idea where it's at. One of the primary things that Marjorie Taylor Green does does not like, does not appreciate, is there's$400 million going to Ukraine. Um, so that's one of her big beefs. There's the continued support of uh Israel is outlined in here, uh, et cetera. Now, I will tell you that in this 30-page document, it does give you a great feel for where the priorities lie within the Department of War. Um, one of them, however, is not an allocation of any kind to rename it officially to the Department of War, because you can change the sign all you want on the outside of the building, um, but until Congress approves it, it's still the Department of Defense, regardless. Um so, but it but it's all laid out in here. Um, and and there's a lot of good things in here. There's the elimination of VEI and then the associated cost savings with that. There's um allocations in here for um or directions and guidance for improving housing, uh, feeding of our soldiers, the the um the process for which we procure and develop equipment. It gives direction on equipment to be purchased, things that are important to the to the department itself. Um, but what it doesn't do, which bothers me, it does it somewhat indirectly, but it doesn't do it directly. I think it's very important in the National Defense Authorization Act to outline who what is the greatest threat to the United States and why, and how the money is being allocated to counter that. The first thing that is specifically mentioned, the first foreign power that's specifically mentioned in the NDAA, and it's all the way in the back, is China. Now, it does not outline China as our number one threat to the United States. It does talk about Indo-Pacific influence by the United States to counter China, removing China in any way, shape, or form in our uh procurement and development process for defense. Um it talks about Israel, it talks about Russia-Ukraine, it talks about ISIS, uh, Iran, counterterrorism, and some other things. But it doesn't say China's our biggest threat. It doesn't say anybody's our biggest threat. Um it just happens to mention China first. I personally think that that's a mistake. Um, so that that to me is a problem. However, the document itself is is, and again, this is the summary, and it's 30 pages. Okay. So you can imagine what the NDAA actually is. I was gonna ask you that too. Like how we're I've read them before. I haven't read this one yet in in whole, but they're big. Um, and and you really have to know eight million acronyms to even get through it. So um the summary is a good document to get into. Um, there are, you know, like I said, there's a lot of things in here about cost removal. Um, you know, there's some some restoring, like this is one of the most interesting ones, and it's very Pete Hegsif. Um, restoring lethality and the warrior ethos is in here. Um and the very first thing under that heading is prohibits men in women's sports at the academies. Takes it right off. Right off. Okay. Um, you know, restores meritocracy is the next bullet. Um, ends diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the Department of War is the third bullet, right? Prevents a military new Green Deal, fourth bullet, right? And then expands faith providers, fifth bullet. So, you know, that's got Pete Hags' name written all over it is okay. Um, he is the secretary, so that's kind of the way it works. The page after that is securing the border. So you can tell where the priorities lie within this. Um, it does kind of put a stick to big business in that, you know, they've said, hey, we we need big business to work for us, not us to work for them, which is kind of how things go in procurement and development right now. Um, so it it's a good, again, it gives a good doc good documentation and a good summary for all of you that are out there who want to see where your tax dollars are going. But Marjorie Taylor Green, among others, uh, she's just the loudest right now, has said she's not gonna vote to approve this. Keeping in mind she hasn't voted for anything since she announced her departure from Congress. She's been absent for every vote, but she said she's not gonna vote for this. Um, because her explanation is that this is not America first. By sending$400 million to Ukraine, this is not America first. For supporting Israel, this is not America first. And really, to me, what she's showing is that she doesn't understand international diplomacy, and she doesn't understand that America first doesn't mean every single dime, dollar, penny of American money stays inside of America. You have to understand that us supporting other nations around the world in form and fashion, sometimes financially, benefits America more than not doing it. And that's where America first really lies. I don't I've said this a million times. Ukraine to me is a NATO problem. And there is allocation in here to discuss NATO, NATO responsibilities to counter Russia. That's all included in the NDAA, but it does say that there's$400 million allocated to Ukraine itself. And that's where she has a problem. But I think it also shows her ignorance and that she has a problem with that, not taking into account the entire document. Sure. So that's kind of where I sit.

SPEAKER_08: 30:51

And particularly with uh with Israel, I I just read, I wish I had saved it so I could pull it up here, but uh, I just read recently, and I don't know the dollar amount, um, but in the language apparently with these agreements with Israel is part of that is that they have to spend a certain percentage or dollar amount in the US on US on US, in US, uh, as part of like a contingency for the support.

SPEAKER_04: 31:22

So it's not just this um, you know, bank machine that they're taking out of the so I I can pull the bull, it doesn't have a dollar amount, but I think what you're referring to is this. So it says directs the establishment of the U.S. Israel Defense Industrial Base Working Group to study opportunities for greater collaboration on defense production and potential integration of Israel into U.S. national technology and industrial base. So, really what that means is we are pulling them in, they're becoming a partner in defense development, in which case they spend money on development and also spend money on purchasing essential US equipment for their own defense. So we're not bearing the burden for all of this, but it does help in, you know, um, and then you've got established, oh, here's another one establishes and authorizes$35 million for a new emerging technology cooperative program with certain partners, including Israel, to jumpstart development and testing of cutting-edge technologies, including AI, quantum, cybersecurity, robotics, and automation. So there you go, right? It is about a financial partnership that benefits defense for both nations, where Israel foots part of the bill. It's not just the US funding everything and then they buy the product in the end game.

SPEAKER_08: 32:31

So yeah, because I I think the um the impression that the MGTs of the world are are giving is that places like it, well, we'll just specifically say Israel, because that seems to be the biggest issue for a certain portion there, um, that they're just taking and taking and taking, and there's no, there's no relationship here other than a give, give, give on our part. Um, and that's you know, couldn't be further from the truth. And, you know, we're talking about President Trump, who is the deal maker, that is his thing. Like the money, the business end of operations is his thing. He's not gonna he's not gonna be giving and giving and giving with nothing coming back in return in some way, shape, or form. So let's be, you know, let's be real about that. And I don't, I don't, I don't like the, you know, I don't know if it's willful uh misleading or if it's ignorant misleading, but it's still misleading people into thinking that the relationship is other than what it is. So I just found that very interesting.

SPEAKER_04: 33:29

Yeah, and and so you know, there's um it's a good document. I again, please, if you're not familiar with defense, like intimately familiar with defense, I do not recommend you go get the full NDAA. You're gonna drive yourself crazy. But this is again, it's a House Armed Services Committee summary document. It's a PDF, it's out on you know, out on the web. You can get it. I printed it myself. Um it didn't, folks, it didn't take I didn't call anybody I know, I didn't, you know, get any of those connections, literally pulled it off the internet. Um I think everybody can appreciate and understand uh as a taxpayer. Um it does give you some focus on uh you know where the Department of War is headed and how they're allocating funding uh for the next year. I just wish that it said in a no bones about it way, the greatest threat to the United States is. Um and how are we using this$900 billion to counter that? Um, that's what's not clear to me.

SPEAKER_08: 34:24

Interesting. Yeah, no, it's a good perspective. Uh definitely. I I absolutely, of course, commend you for actually getting the the documents, the paperwork there, because most people, and you know, I'm not knocking anyone, there's no shade to anyone, including uh Marjorie Taylor Green, for asking questions, for raising concerns. But you know, the the answer to that is to do what Clay just did. Well, I have questions, I get some answers, I will go get those answers so I can speak on this. So, you know, just food for thought. Anyone who's curious, take Clay up on that and go read it. I'm not going to because I'm just not that curious. Because I have you. I have you to tell me. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, let's keep going with uh with your guy Pete. Oh boy. So uh drone wars and the fog of war. Does America deserve to see the strike? What do you think about that?

SPEAKER_04: 35:21

Um there's there's two dangers in releasing the the footage itself. Uh so um the first one is, and this is about classified capability. One is you never want to release something that is going to tip the enemy on how you acquired that information. In other words, I don't know what kind of drone they were flying. This is really, folks, this is about the September 2nd, the double tap, as they keep calling it, or the reattack, whatever you want to call it, the two strikes on the same boat, um, where there's accusations of killing survivors. Um, and so the you know, the push right now is to release the full drone footage and allow everybody to see um what uh you know the vice admiral, who is the um special operations commander who authorized the second strike, uh, you know, was looking at uh in the operations center when he said, Yeah, go ahead, hit it again. Um But again, so to go back, first concern is is there anything about the footage itself that would that would tell the enemy how did they get that? How do they have such clear camera capabilities? How do they have X, Y, and Z? Whatever is on there, does that tip the enemy off to say, well, if they can do that, they can see this. If they have that capability, then we need to figure out a way to counter that capability, et cetera. So you never want to tip off the capability itself. In other words, the drone, the type of drone, the type of camera work, the type of transmission, whatever it is, you never want to tip anybody off. So if there's a risk of exposing classified capability, then no, they should never release the drone footage in any capacity. Second, if if they do release the drone footage and they release it as you know, clear and unredacted, I can promise you two things are gonna happen. One, people who have no idea what they're looking at are going to interpret it the way they want to, the way that their brain sees things, they are gonna say, well, this is clearly what happened. Having no no experience looking at drone footage, having never seen a drone, don't know what they're capable of, etc. Right? They're gonna misinterpret and they're gonna see what they want to see. Um, the second part of it is it's gonna be AI's immediately. Somebody's gonna take that footage, right? Through AI, and then we're gonna lose track of what reality looks like very, very quickly. Um, and it's gonna be, you know, either AI'd or edited to a point where the news outlets, as dishonest as they are, are gonna use it in whatever form or fashion they choose.

SPEAKER_08: 37:45

Oh, no question about it. No question about that part. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. You know, uh you just touched on such a huge important part to all of this that the the whole AI aspect of it is it is so dangerous and out of control. I mean, it it's beyond out of control, and you can't, you know, it goes back to what we were talking about before. It is so hard to trust anything that you hear or see, or whether it's from the government, whether it's from Joe Schmoe on the internet, um, because it is so accessible to everyone um to make these, and it's just getting, it's just improving and improving and improving, you know, and even people who who are well versed in being able to uh identify AI video or AI images are struggling. So now you take it to the next level uh of something like this, and like you just said, and then the mainstream media gets hold of that, they run with it, and all you need to do is is air one time for it to be real, you know, to be for it to be fact in people's minds. And we're in such an incredibly dangerous time with all of that. So I, you know, I I I get it, you know, we all like the we've become the transparency um uh administration where you know they just are airing their live cabinet meetings, and and I love all that, and I think that's terrific. Something like this for all the reasons that you stated, proceed with caution, basically, right?

SPEAKER_04: 39:17

Yeah, and and let's be honest, this from the time this story broke, there has been repeated jump to conclusions and erroneous reporting from the media. The very first report that came out was that SEAL team six was dispatched. This is the most absurd thing, was dispatched to fly out and kill the survivors, like literally fly out in the water, right? Which is crazy. That was beyond crazy. Then it was, you know, Pete Heggs sitting in there going, hit him again, which what happened. And then there was the order that said, kill everybody. Um, you know, and so you know, even at this point, ABC News was the first one, Martha Rabbit, who I can't stand, was Like, hey, listen, here's how this worked. Um, and and now you've got all these people, these uh, you know, uh attorneys, former JAG officers within the Army, the military across all branches. You've got you know all these folks. The ACLU is now suing uh the DOJ and I think the State Department uh to protect uh these boats uh over this strike on September 2nd. Yes, the American Civil Liberties Union uh is suing our own government to protect uh people who are dragging drugs into anyway. Um regardless, I I think given the opportunity and it and any ability to protect the integrity of the footage itself, I think that Department of War should release it. However, I think that is impossible to do. Um and therefore I don't think they should. That's just my perspective. And again, folks, those of you that watch or listen every week know I am not a Pete Hegsith fan. I am not trying to protect that guy at all. I just know that this is a factor of war that we have been using, a capability we've been using for the last 25 years religiously. I I'm I'm part of this, believe me. Um, and and so I I think that this is really nothing new. I think it's much ado about nothing. Um, and I'm not trying to protect the Sec War uh because I'm I'm not, but I I really don't think they should release the footage.

SPEAKER_08: 41:20

But the question is, do you think they will? No, no, I don't think you don't think so.

SPEAKER_04: 41:25

Not unless directed to.

SPEAKER_08: 41:27

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 41:28

The only person who's gonna direct them to do that is the president, and I don't think he's gonna do it.

SPEAKER_08: 41:31

Right. Yeah. Okay, I like it. All right, what do we got? Let's fix. Let's see. Do do do do the right one? Yes, yeah. Uh okay. I don't know if you guys saw this one, but Nokohoma's student says she was punished and flunked because she argued from a Christian worldview about gender in a writing assignment. She was told her views were uh demonic. Uh, the university now says it's just a grading issue. Of course they do. Of course that's what they say. Uh so again, she wrote a she wrote an essay from a biblical perspective describing transgender ideology, this is the demonic part, um, as demonic. Her instructor gave her a failing grade, allegedly calling her views harmful and suggested she should not express them. A student appealed, like public, and the university put the instructor on leave and said her conduct was under review while insisting um they value free expression. So, I mean, this this is the kind of thing that we we've been talking about for how long now with these universities suppressing and punishing uh conservative and Christian uh speech and perspectives. Uh you hear this, you know, on a daily basis that somebody is either being flunked out or being um um asked to leave or just simply demonized for um not towing the ideological line. And you know, good on her for coming forward with it and making it public. Um, you know, it's ironic, right? This is, and I don't know if this campus specifically, but you know, a lot of these campuses have no problem posting uh satanic club uh gatherings, but you know, but Christian perspectives. Nope, that's a no.

SPEAKER_04: 43:17

So the kicker is this is one, it was essentially an opinion piece that they were supposed to write. It was, you know, part of the assignment was your opinion. So she expressed her opinion. Um the instructor is a they them pronoun. Um, and so that, you know, she probably knew when she wrote it that there was, you know, the potential for pushback, but she stuck her guns, good for her. Yeah, she took the assignment. The instructor, while she met actually every requirement of the assignment, she provided information, she provided opinion, uh, she provided information to support her opinion, etc. She met every requirement. Um, the instructor, it was a 25-point assignment, and I don't know what that means on the larger scale, but a 25. She gave the the instructor who is either an assistant professor or a teaching assistant, one or the other, um, gave her a zero out of 25. Not just partial credit, gave me no credit.

SPEAKER_08: 44:12

No credit. Zero. But I didn't like, so zero credit. Right.

SPEAKER_04: 44:15

I know I asked you for your opinion, but and and and so the student, you know, protested. She put in a formal complaint um to the university, and the university, my understanding is that the university actually they were acting but not communicating with the student until this hit the news cycle. And then when it hit the news cycle, they were like, Oh, yeah, we've been talking to everybody. We've been talking to the professor, we've been talking to the student, we've been talking to so-and-so. Actions are being taken, we're reviewing everything, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The student has come forward, and you're right. So the assistant, the whoever the professor is, whatever the teacher, instructor is, has been put on leave. It's all being reviewed, but the student has come out and said, they weren't saying anything to me. I have no idea what was going on until it hit the news cycle, and then of course the university reached out and said something. Um, but the question is, how many other students have had this happen to them from that instructor or any other instructor on the Oklahoma campus? Um, and and what adjustments are being made for them? Um, you know, this just sheds the light, as every one of these small incidents does, sheds the light on a much larger problem across many, many campuses. And folks, I hate to break it to you. Just because the university is in a you know flyover state, a red state, a conservative state, uh, you know, belt uh Bible belt state, uh, whatever you want to call it, don't assume that the that university has the same values as you you think the state does, because the reality is is they don't. The universities, universities are universities, and they are incubators for liberal thought process and and you know um indoctrination and all those other things. I don't care what state it's in, and I don't care what school it's it is. There is that potential there, and this is a great example of in the heart of America at the University of Oklahoma, right? This is happening, and it's happening today as we speak.

SPEAKER_08: 46:09

And I and I I would hope that this would go without saying, you know, we're not, we're not shouldn't write a piece um calling transgender people trash or garbage or bad people, or she's saying the the belief system and this type of ideology is demonic. She's using biblical reverence, she is basing this from a biblical perspective. Um, she's not, you know, and where I'm going with this is that she is she's basically speaking truth with grace, which is what we should be doing as Christians. We should not be um saying hurtful, hateful things towards, well, towards anyone. Um, but since this is the specific subject, uh transgender people, we should be speaking in love and truth and biblical truth, which is you know what she was doing. That was the essay, that was her position. So this wasn't um, you know, some Christian girl, some holy roller attacking anyone. She was asked for her opinion, she based it in scripture. This is what scripture says, this is the perspective of it. Yes, I know the Bible does not use the word transgender. So let's let's not get on that whole topic. We all know what we're talking about here. Um, so yeah, there's a big difference between and and and I would hope that my Christian friends and followers and viewers um remember that, you know, that you absolutely all day long speak truth, but do it with grace and compassion and kindness. You don't have to be nice, you have to be kind. Big difference. Um, so yeah, and that's what she was doing. And and I applaud her so much. And anyone else who is standing up for themselves that way, and it's so sad that the only way that you can is to make it so pub public and hope and pray for it to get picked up and people to notice, because otherwise they'll just steamroll you and they'll flunk you, and you have really, you know, very little recourse. Or by the time that you do, whether it goes to court or or whatever, you know, so much time is passed and money spent to defend yourself. Um, so it's a sad world that we live in that this is the case, but it is.

SPEAKER_04: 48:20

Yeah, it's uh and again, it's happening, it's happening everywhere. Don't think you're saved by geography, don't think you're saved by you know ideology. This and folks, uh you know, even the places where you think that this is the most protected, okay? Uh Notre Dame, right, the preeminent, most prominent Catholic university in the United States has taken all references to Catholicism out of their mission statements. Okay. So this type of mindset is changing everyone. So don't think that just because you're at a quote unquote religious institution, uh, that the these things aren't happening. So if you've got college-age kids, uh, you know, tell them to you know, stick to their guns, uh, they will be protected in the long run or in the short run. Um, but we can't let these things go untouched, unpunished, unnoticed, uh, and and you know, unresolved.

SPEAKER_08: 49:13

Absolutely. And um, being that, well, guys, today is uh as usual, we like to give you this reminder each time. Uh, today is Wednesday. We are recording on Wednesday. We will watch this all together uh on Thursday. And uh I am wearing this particular shirt because today is three months uh since Charlie Kirk was assassinated. This is uh in memorandum of him. Well done, faithful servant. And uh yeah, I just wanted to take a moment and uh just acknowledge that it is three months, which is crazy. And you know, every every time these little uh anniversary moments of this come up, I I always recall exactly what it's gonna be one of those moments. Uh and I'm sure for a lot of people of the where were you when this happened? And you know, and I I was sitting right in this spot prepping for our show, and I got the text from you, and then from that point on it was on. So yeah, so God bless Charlie Kirk and next, because I'll start crying. So moving on. Moving on. Uh Viral Cleps to Sent Up Dreams Crockett. Okay, I'm so glad we're moving on.

SPEAKER_04: 50:24

Is this little uh let me let me grab this one and get it started? So as as most of us know, Jasmine Crockett from the uh great state of Texas uh is uh was uh a uh member of the House of Representatives. Uh and since there's been redistricting authorized in Texas, her district has gone away, and therefore her seat uh with it. So uh what she has decided to do is run for the one of the two Senate seats for the great state of Texas. Um and let me tell you the reverberations that have come out of this. Um actually, yeah, let me do that and then we'll and then we'll go into it. But so understand that that there is a little bit of a heated GOP race. So Senator Cronin um is the is the incumbent. Um he's he's almost guaranteed to secure his seat. There hasn't been a uh statewide a Democrat elected for a statewide uh in a statewide election in 35 years, and the and the last one was the uh the governor of Texas, but there hasn't been a blue senator from Texas in forever. Um so there's a Republican there, there's two challengers that are coming after him on the Republican side. On the Democrat side, um, you know, Mr. Crockett declared herself as the people that Republicans are afraid of, that the president is afraid of, uh, that everyone is afraid of. Uh she is uh going up against a uh a man named Calerico, uh, who is uh he's a teacher, um, he's kind of a more of a centrist, uh, or closer, at least he's a he's a he's studying ministry, I think, as a Lutheran. Um and so his views present themselves as more centrist, but he is a Democrat, okay? And and so there was actually some hope that because he appears or presents as more of a centrist, that he would have a shot uh at this seat. Um but now, and he was running against uh man named Aldred, who's a former NFL player um who was promising. As soon as Crockett declared, Aldred dropped out.

unknown: 52:26

It's crazy.

SPEAKER_04: 52:26

He's like, I'm not even playing this. Now he is flipping over and he is going to run for a house seat uh to try and get some blue back into Texas. Uh but she has declared uh that uh she is the one to beat, and and truthfully, because she's an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party, uh, they are a little confused as to what they should do about this because the reality is she's not she might win the Democratic primary, she won't beat this guy Calo Rico, she's gonna get murdered in the statewide election. But she has said she does not need Trump supporters or Republicans to get elected in the state of Texas. Okay, how delusional she is. But if you want to see how delusional she is, let's just see her first ad cam in her campaign to be a U.S. senator.

SPEAKER_05: 53:13

They have the new star, Crockett. How about her? She's the new star of the Democrat Party, Jasmine Crockett. They're in big trouble. But you have this woman, Crockett. She's a very low IQ person. I watched her tweet the other day, and she's definitely a low IQ person. Crockett. Oh man, oh man. She's a very low IQ person. Somebody said the other day she's one of the leaders of the party. I think you gotta be kidding. Now they're gonna rely on Crockett. Crockett's gonna bring them back.

SPEAKER_08: 53:50

I feel like I have to do a parody video of that. Oh, please. Please do. I feel like I must. I love, I love the I love that arm crossed. I think I might have some false eyelashes upstairs somewhere. I might I might have some.

SPEAKER_04: 54:07

You know, all the way up until the end. Yeah. All the way up until the end where it says crock it for U.S. Senate. You would think that this is a you know from Talerico. You would think this is from Cronin. You would think this is from somebody. That's her own campaign, put that together, thinking that that is gonna help her in some way, shape, or form. Yeah. Listen, folks, I've said this. She's and we're taking AOC into this thing, like Crockett is the dumbest politician, national level politician. I I and Harono's in that group, who is a moron, right? AOC's in that group. There's a whole large group of dumb people. She is, in my opinion, the dumbest of all of them. Um, and this her assuming that she can win this seat proves that she just really is that dumb.

SPEAKER_08: 54:55

Oh, yeah. Yeah, well, I think she'll get, you know, from her own party, she'll she'll get that nomination. She'll be their she will absolutely be their front runner because you know they have no choice. Yeah, exactly. There's no choice. She's she will be she will be the one. Gotta love it. Well, you know, I mean, it's gonna be entertaining for sure.

SPEAKER_04: 55:14

Well, it it keeps her in the national spotlight, it also helps with funding for the Democrat Party. Um, you know, and that's really what they're using her for. She is a social media darling, yes, um, not in the state of Texas, uh, in her very small in her district that doesn't exist anymore. Um, but but mostly at the national level, uh, which is why they love her and which is why they're gonna keep her at the forefront in any way that they can. She's just not gonna be successful. She's she is, you know, a black female version of Beto Auroric for as long as it lasts, is what she is.

unknown: 55:45

Yeah.

SPEAKER_08: 55:46

But I love, you know, the irony doesn't, I'm sure it doesn't escape anyone that for the the very same reasons that the left loves her, you know, they're they're like, she speaks full truths and she combats racism and she's so charismatic, and you know, are the same things that the right is making fun of because it's all personal insults, race baiting, and sound bites. That's it. There's no substance, there is no depth, uh, there's no deep knowledge and understanding of of the the issues. She's sound bites, that's it. So when it comes down to any kind of debate or any kind of answering any real questions, uh just the the sound bites alone will will be fodder for entertainment, but it is it's just crazy to me. I can't even, it's just laughable, and I appreciate the please do the video. Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 56:37

Please do the video.

SPEAKER_08: 56:38

Yeah, the video is just amazing, and I definitely will have to replicate that. So stay tuned, guys. It'll happen. Oh, all right. That's all we could say on her. Uh, this, this, this guy, this guy. Well, this is no surprise. Listen, I mean, this is all left uh left run media. Um, I if you had asked me beforehand, if he said, Do you think he's gonna get renewed? I would have said, Of course he's gonna get renewed. Of course he is. There's no question about it. Um, another year. So he's got another year behind the desk. If there's one thing America was begging for, it's more Trump jokes and lectures from a millionaire Hollywood.

SPEAKER_04: 57:15

I I am I am surprised he got renewed. Truth. Are you? I I was not only because of um of uh what's his name? The guy who already got canceled. Um yeah.

SPEAKER_08: 57:25

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

SPEAKER_04: 57:33

I I just you know, if you watch, you know, um Stewart, John Stewart, which John Stewart hosts one day out of the week, um, you know, that is the that's the the you know punching bag show, and it's designed that way. It wasn't originally, but it is now. Okay, fine, you know, Colbert, you know, he he is done. I I really thought that Kimmel was gonna go the same way, and you know, Fallon was gonna survive because he is the least political of all of the shows. Um I am surprised. I the suspension was not a surprise, um, but I am surprised that they gave him another year, uh, truthfully. Uh now I it may be his last, but but don't be surprised if you see a change in content. That could be that maybe that may be part of the contract. The contract may be limitations on what he can and can't say, shouldn't shouldn't say, and back off the politics uh and make it more entertaining, and we'll see what happens. Um and and so we'll see.

SPEAKER_08: 58:30

Yeah, yeah, there certainly could have been a lot of uh not even well, I guess negotiating, you know, in the background. I'm saying, you know, if you kick me, I'll do this. Or right. Don't make me don't make it. I don't know where to go, what to do. I'll behave, I swear, just give me another year. Yeah, yeah. Oh gosh. Well, I mean, listen, I've I literally have never watched him. I've uh obviously seen clips on you know social media and really only for the purpose of you know making fun of him or just criticizing uh the things that he says and does. But that's about it. Never watched them. I did once upon a time watch the man's show for segments here and there. I thought that uh listen, I'm sorry, I thought the man's show was kind of funny. Shockingly, you know, like it's just like that jaw-dropping kind of humor. So I missed that guy. He was pretty funny, he was pretty tolerable. Uh now, not even remotely, but yeah, I don't know. They can just enjoy their propaganda machine and do what they do, and the people who watch it will continue to watch. And uh slight segment, I know we're like just about out of time. Um, but I I just want to talk about very quickly, and I'm sorry I didn't mention this beforehand. This just reminded me. Uh, this whole Netflix purchasing Warner Brothers, and that is a bad, bad deal for anyone who watches any kind of mainstream stuff. If you think it's bad now, it's only going to get worse with that. So I don't know if they can even stop it at this point. I would think that it's good.

SPEAKER_04: 59:50

There are going to be efforts to stop it. Um, there are gonna be. Yeah, uh conglomerate too big, um, all of those things, too much control over media. So I think that uh Congress. Potentially going to get involved to stop this merger uh of Netflix buying Warner Brothers um and and that whole merger. Um and I'll tell you, there's there is some concern inside the production side of Hollywood.

SPEAKER_06: 1:00:14

Interesting.

SPEAKER_04: 1:00:15

Okay. Because they think if it if it does get too big, it's gonna change everything for everybody. Um it's gonna be so big, it's a it's a non-compete essentially, and you're gonna have to follow suit with what they do, otherwise you're just not gonna survive. So there are some concerns inside Hollywood on on what this was gonna do to the entire industry. So I I I'm not betting the farm that it's actually gonna go through. So we'll see what happens.

SPEAKER_08: 1:00:38

Yeah, yeah, I hope not. And you actually have people, you know, who are normally highly combative to anything. Um who you would have thought would be all for this, or at least not have a problem. Uh Elizabeth Ward has actually spoken against this as well. So, you know, that's interesting in itself. Yeah. Um, so if you if you're getting joined forces here, which never happens uh these days, yeah, it tells you a lot, really, tells you how scary that really is. For sure. If if they're gonna join forces. So yeah. Um did we do our last one?

SPEAKER_04: 1:01:09

Yeah, well, I'll just hit it real quick.

SPEAKER_08: 1:01:10

Yeah, okay, let's put this up. I knew you wanted to touch.

SPEAKER_04: 1:01:13

Yeah, so um baseball, you know, for those of us of of our age where we remember the golden age of steroids and juicing within baseball. Yeah, you know, the baseball hall of fame has essentially banned, uh unofficially banned the known steroid users, the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and others, uh, that whole era of the late 90s that uh, you know, you either loved or hated baseball. Um, but so those guys, the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and that crowd are beyond their normal um eligibility for the Hall of Fame. They're in what is, you know, the secondary process called the Veterans Committee, where they have to get a certain number of votes from a much smaller voting pool, um, and their opportunities get further apart. So it's not an every year vote. Um, and they have just been told in the latest voting you are not eligible for the Hall of Fame. And I think their next opportunity is maybe three or four years from now where they will be reconsidered. Um so baseball is still standing on, you know, whatever morals you think that it has or hasn't. But, you know, let's let's go back and Pete Rose is still not in the Hall of Fame. Shoeless Joe Jackson and the White Sox from 1918 are still not in the Hall of Fame. So there are some things that baseball and the baseball writers stand on, whether you agree with them or not, but steroids is one of them where they're not budging. However, the fans want a lot of these players in and they voice that publicly. They're also voicing support for Colin Kaepernack yet again, which I can't understand. Last weekend, for those of you that do or don't follow sports, the starting quarterback from the uh Indianapolis Colts blew his Achilles tendon, which was you know, just the thought of that is gross. Um, so of course, um Indianapolis is out searching for backup quarterbacks, and they pulled uh, you know, a 44-year-old uh retired quarterback in on Tuesday and worked him out, and they're probably gonna sign him. But in the meantime, so many fans have said, why are they not bringing Colin Kaepernick in for a tryout? The guy hasn't 44 years old and retired. He's only been retired for a couple of years. Colin Kaepernick hasn't thrown a football in like, you know, half a decade. I mean, it's been six or seven years, but yet he still amazingly comes up, and it's the fans, it's not even the organizations, because you'll never get support inside the NFL for him. But the fans are bringing him up that they still want him to get another workout. I will never understand that or even the support for the steroid folks in baseball. I I just sports fans to me are are the you know, I and I'm a sports guy.

SPEAKER_08: 1:03:39

Yeah, I used to be a sports gal, yeah.

SPEAKER_04: 1:03:41

Yeah, you there's so much um, you know, kind of diversity within this, you know, the sports fandom world. But that one support for Kaepernick just blows me away. Can't get it. I don't know.

SPEAKER_08: 1:03:50

Yeah, and you know, if you want to just talk on ability or um, I don't know, stats alone, probably. I'm pretty sure he was kind of crapping out uh at the end there.

SPEAKER_04: 1:04:00

He was in one good season, yeah.

SPEAKER_08: 1:04:01

Yeah. So I I don't get the appeal, you know. So if somebody said, Well, I just want to talk about his uh, you know, him as a player, not as a social activist or whatever you want to call him. Um, yeah, I don't think it was that impressive, guys. That your memory that short, you know, I don't know.

SPEAKER_04: 1:04:16

I mean I think the Colts didn't bring him in.

SPEAKER_08: 1:04:20

Everything, right? Yeah, no, definitely not. Yeah, I mean, you know, to me, he's always gonna be the the start of why uh we stopped watching football in our home. And it that makes me sad. And yeah, I mean, great reason, right? You know, the the day he walked out on the training field uh wearing uh pig socks, you know, uh that was it. That was it for me. I was like, yeah, yeah, I'm done. I think I'm done. You know, so yeah, so that is it, guys. We covered them all, we threw something extra in there. Um, yeah, we will uh we'll we're looking forward to joining you guys in the the comment section for sure. Clayton Quismo.

SPEAKER_04: 1:04:58

Yeah, hey folks. Uh next week, uh, and we've done this for the last couple of years, we have tried to do something a little bit different in our last show before the holidays, which will be next week. Um, so if you have any, you know, what did we do? We've done um favorite Christmas things, we've done lists, we've done all kinds of fun stuff uh last couple of years. Um if you have any ideas, something you'd like to see us do, uh please put it in the comments section. If not, Else and I will come up with something. You will probably not get uh a bunch of politics next week. You'll get something a little lighter, a little more celebratory, a little more holiday focused. But we'll do a different show next week, and then uh we will take our normal holiday break because Else and I like the holidays too. So um, but next week should be our annual holiday show, something a little different. And uh until then, from me, keep moving, keep shooting.

SPEAKER_08: 1:05:41

Take care, guys.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:42

Terry Davis wanted a quiet life, the Midwest, a rifle, a little feast. But trouble keeps finding him on every inch of American soil. From cornfields to the Capitol, the enemy hides in the top. And when the country needs one man to stand up, Terry does what he's always done. The fight for America.