The First Amendment Keeps Showing Up In Sports And In Court

Transcript

Clay Flies Solo This Week

SPEAKER_00 0:29

Hey folks, it's uh Klay Novak here. This is the Elsa Kurt Show with Clay Novak, and I'm flying solo this week. Elsa is down in Florida visiting those grandbabies that she loves so much. Um, so you've got me, and you've got me for an hour. Uh, give or take a little bit. I've got a whole bunch of topics to cover. So um, we'll just get into it right away. Um, and you'll have to bear with me as I'm doing all the controlling and all the talking at the same time. So here it is. Uh, first topic. SCOTUS, uh, right now. So uh as I'm recording, it is uh 1 p.m. Wednesday, correction. Yeah, Wednesday, 1st of April. Uh 1 p.m. Wednesday, 1st of April, as I'm recording right now. So SCOTUS, the uh Supreme Court of the United States, is currently hearing the birthright citizenship uh arguments. Oral arguments are ongoing. Um, interestingly enough, President Trump, for the first time in the history of the presidency and the Supreme Court, is in attendance. Uh, my understanding and everything that I've read so far is that this has never been done before. Uh, he has a sitting president has never sat in the Supreme Court uh for oral arguments. We all know that this is a topic that is near and dear to President Trump. It is one of the things that he uh ran on in this second term, but also on day one of this second term, he signed the executive order that said he is ending birthright citizenship. Um, so of course, in in you know, our normal government fashion and the way that things are designed, we've got checks and balances. And so what we have going on is um it's been taken to court, it's made it all the way through the appellate system and has made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Um, and now oral arguments are being heard. Um, it is very early. Uh obviously, this started this morning a few hours ago. President Trump made his way from the White House over to the Supreme Court, and at least for a portion of this morning, we'll see how the rest of it goes. But he is sitting in there listening to oral arguments as they go to the Supreme Court. Um so the significance of this is it can't be understated to put it mildly. Um, birthright citizenship obviously is a hot button issue for a lot of folks, uh, commonly referred to or referred to in another way as anchor babies. Uh, whereas uh illegal immigrants come to the United States, uh, either one or two, whatever, they have a baby. Uh the child is immediately given citizenship as it is born in the United States, which then allows the parents an inroad to becoming citizens, or uh it anchors them here because they have a child who is a you know naturalized born in America uh birthright citizen that they need to care for. Um and this, of course, you know, has been an ongoing argument for a very long time on whether or not this should be allowed uh, because it is a way for illegal aliens to remain in the United States uh without going through the proper channels because they've got a child that is born here. Um, you know, not long ago, just a few years ago, um, well, it's I I think it's almost 20 years ago, I saw the numbers. 2006, it was really about a 50-50 split uh across the United States about should uh birthright citizenship be allowed? And it was a very close to 50-50 split yes versus no. Um now, uh very, very different. Uh, and it's a sign of the times as the times change. Um, now it's more of a 70-30 split uh that birthright citizenship should be allowed, uh, and uh 30% it should not, uh, which is very interesting when you take it in the context of uh closing the borders. Um, you know, there's a obviously there's been a huge um move within this administration to close the borders. Again, something that President Trump ran on, but you've got the uh, you know, all the incidents that have happened in the last year, including Minneapolis and and everything else that's been going on with ICE and DHS and Border Patrol Services, uh encounters at the border, et cetera. So, you know, this topic reaching all the way to the Supreme Court is going to be significant. Um, and you know, the ruling, don't expect the ruling to come quickly, although you never know. Um, but today is oral arguments, it may last today, it may last longer, um, but you'll have to, you know, we'll all have to wait for the written decision from Supreme Court uh to determine the legality of not just birthright citizenship, uh, which is what's being reconsidered, is the definition of citizenship. Um, and that's what President Trump had asked this, the Supreme Court justices to consider is um, you know, define citizenship and is birthright citizenship legal, illegal? There's the legality of his executive order. Is that legal? Is it not? Um, and then really what is the final um determination going to be about birthright citizenship? Um, this is coming on a fairly busy time for the Supreme Court, interestingly enough. Um, and some infighting. I I have always pictured the Supreme Court as a group of eight. Um, you know, and and throughout time, no matter what the balance of the court is politically, I've always seen them as a group of nine um pretty intellectual, very smart people. Whether you agree with their uh belief system or not, doesn't matter. They are smart people, all of them uh longstanding judges, um, all of them obviously highly educated, etc. Um, there seems to be some significant infighting right now within the Supreme Court as it's being reported. So uh within the last 48 hours, uh the uh a decision came on the Colorado conversion therapy um hearing that went to the Supreme Court. So for those of you that aren't tracking, Colorado had a law in place that said conversion therapy uh was illegal, couldn't be done. And for if you don't know or if you're confused about what conversion therapy is, that's when a person seeks counseling or goes to a counselor uh to help them eat um, you know, weed through converting um, you know, whether or not they're homosexual, whether they're at on the LGBTQ uh spectrum, et cetera. Um and so what Colorado decided was a a therapist, uh, for lack of a better term, just an all-encompassing term, a therapist cannot uh provide uh advice, therapy, input, et cetera, on on someone converting or converting back, um uh specifically aimed at not allowing them to talk someone out of being gay or out of being you know on the LGBTQ spectrum. That was to focus, make no mistake about it. Um that that got to the Supreme Court, and really what they said in an eight to one decision was that is uh a restriction of the First Amendment. You can't tell a therapist that they can't talk to someone about conversion, converting, converting back, et cetera. Like you can't stop that uh just because you don't agree with it. Um so they they they ruled, uh decided eight to one that that law within the state of Colorado is illegal. Um I knew when it was eight to one exactly who the one was, the dissenting opinion, and it was Justice Kitani Brown. Um, right? Kidani Brown, yes. Um, I knew it was her. Uh it just she is the most left, the most radical, the most um, you know, liberal of the justices. I knew if there was a dissenting opinion, it would be hers. Um so again, eight to one. So you've got the other, you know, Democrat aligned justices also agreed that it that this Colorado law was a violation of the First Amendment. And um, she was a dissenting opinion. That's one thing. Um the problem is that when she uh submitted her dissenting opinion, which there's always written versions of the opinions, both um supporting or uh dissenting uh for the ruling. Usually one justice will um speak for the the group, the you know, what each side of the decision, they will write a written decision that is endorsed um you know by the rest of the group, et cetera. So her is the lone dissenting opinion, wrote her own dissenting opinion, which my understanding was 35 pages long. Now, the 35 pages may or may not be significant. Um, what is significant was when this ruling was handed down, this decision was handed down, um, she read the entirety of her 35-page dissenting opinion in the court. Now, that decision, that dissenting um opinion goes into court record. It's published. You can read any Supreme Court decision that's ever been made, um, you can read both sides of the decision entered by the justices. Um, so that entirety of that 35 pages was going to go into the record regardless. She decided to read the entire 35-page dissenting opinion and has caught hell from truthfully the liberal, uh, liberal aligned, democratic aligned justices that sit on the Supreme Court. Not, not the, not the majority, not the not the uh the uh conservative aligned justices, the justices that that are close more close, most closely aligned with her belief system are the ones that have said this is ridiculous, it's unprofessional, um, this is never done, don't do this, um, et cetera. And and I think there was some criticism of her dissenting opinion and that she doesn't know, slash, understand, or grasp um the uh the First Amendment, the Constitution itself, which is pretty scary uh for Supreme Court justice. So um again, SCOTUS has been busy, they will continue to be busy. We want them to be busy. Uh what we don't want is a lot of things sitting out there waiting for an opinion. We want them to continue to move quickly. And and honestly, they traditionally do with the Supreme Court. So I'm happy that this is going on. I'm not happy about what happened with the uh Colorado decision. Um, I am interested very much in their decision on birthright citizenship. Um, but I I'm curious as to how everyone feels about President Trump seating himself in the courtroom uh at the Supreme Court and listening in on oral arguments when no president has ever done that. Um you can speculate why no sitting president has ever done that. Um maybe it's undue influence, um, propriety, checks and balances. There's a lot of reasons why they haven't done it, but they truthfully have not done it in the 250 years that the um the nation's been in existence. So why now? And what's the impact? Do we believe that it is impactful? Do we think it matters at all on how the justices are going to rule, decide, uh, submit an opinion? Um, I don't know. I I think it remains to be seen. Um, you know, the Supreme Court a few years ago uh in President Trump's last term, um, there and and really throughout the Biden administration, there was concerns, there was talk about packing the court, it was too unbalanced, conservative versus liberal, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And in reality, as we've seen, if you go back and look through the last couple of dozen decisions, it's been a very even break, and truthfully, a lot of times it's gone uh in the direction that most would not anticipate. In other words, you've got conservative justices um, you know, uh ruling in a direction that was not anticipated. So um SCOTUS has been doing their job, probably more so, arguably, most reliably, of any branch of government right now, uh, and they continue to move. So I'm I'm very interested in this specific decision uh and uh and then what we believe the impact of President Trump being present in the courtroom is. Please put it in the comments. I'd love to hear what everybody says uh if you think it matters at all. Um, you know, presidents have been violating what has been historical proprietary or uh, you know, uh proper conduct issues uh over the last few years. They've they've been breaking from traditional norms, so why not break from this one? But please put it in the comments. What do you think? Uh very, very interested. Um, uh not at all uh government related, at least not yet. Um, but for those of you who are paying attention, Jaden Ivey, who I'm a Chicago guy, I don't pay attention to the NBA anymore, but Jaden Ivey is a now former Chicago Bulls player who just a few days ago uh on his social media was in it, he was in his car and he went on a, you know, they're they're labeling it as a rant, but um, he expressed his opinion about uh Pride Month and how the NBA is forcing players and organizations to participate in uh or be a part of Pride Month. And uh Jaden Ivey expressed the fact that he as a Christian, as a believer in God, as a believer in Jesus, uh does not agree with um homosexuality and the LGBTQ community and that the NBA is forcing Pride Month uh activities and and Pride Month in general on the players. Um he posted that, and within hours, uh, the Bulls released him. Now, Jaden Ivey is not a superstar. He he was a high, very high draft pick at one point in time, who truthfully has not done well in the league. Uh his contributions have been minimum. So for the Bulls, it was probably business-wise a very, very simple decision to release him uh based on that. Now, as I dug into this, I found out that in the past he has had uh issues with depression and some other things, which interestingly enough, uh is uh has come up. Uh there have been players uh within his team uh that have said, and across the league, uh who have said he clearly has mental health issues. Uh he clear it was the go-to answer. He has mental health issues. I hope he gets the help that he needs because he expressed an opinion that did not support LGBTQ based on his religion, his Christianity. Um so they have it was immediately labeled as a mental health issue, uh, not as a Christian belief issue, uh, not as a religious issue, but because he has had mental health issues in the past, that's what they labeled this as. And I believe wrongfully so. Um it's interesting, and I think it should be interesting for all of us that um Christian beliefs obviously have come under fire a lot in the last, you know, significantly through the Biden administration, but even before that, back when the Obama, when President Obama was in office, the Christian belief system has come under fire, and this is another example of that. Now, um there are you know a few things uh across the board. Um, you know, media outlets um and and sports pundits have been weighing in on this, many of them very negatively, um, and and talking about it in terms of, you know, uh comparing him to uh the opposite of a Colin Kaepernick when when in reality he he is very much in the same uh as a Colin Kaepernick in the sense that he is expressing his personal beliefs. Um the same people who have been defending Colin Kaepernick for as long as that's been going on, um, and uh and defending his ability to kneel and not stand for the national anthem and the fact that the league NFL has supposedly back blackballed him, are the same people that are going after Jaden Ivy and saying this is a bad business decision for you, there's repercussions for what you say, uh, you can't just go and say that in public. Exactly the same people, the same sports pundits that have been supporting and you know, and and been on the side of Colin Kaepernick are now on the opposite side of um Jaden Ivey, uh, interestingly enough, who truthfully expressed a religious opinion. Um I I think, honestly, there are concerns, there should be concerns for everyone that this is a religious persecution. I think there should be concerns for everyone associated with the NBA and the players' association on where the union goes on this. Um, the union, the players' union, should, in reality, step in and work on behalf of Jaden Ivey uh to protect him as a player and a member of the union. I will be very interested to see how that plays out because my guess is that the players union does nothing to support him. That's a guess. We'll see what happens in the coming days. Um, but I think that they will walk away from this. And remember, this is a league that has habitual, you know, conduct problems uh and and have had for a very long time. You've got players who abuse wives, abuse girlfriends, you've got, you know, all kinds of issues, disciplinary issues, conduct issues within the NBA. And yet when you've got a player like this who's who is uh expressing a belief based on his religion, uh, but it goes against the narrative of the league, he gets released. Um I think it's it's very interesting. I think a wrongful termination type lawsuit should be coming. I think a freedom of speech lawsuit should be coming. Uh, and I think that this is going to turn out to be an issue for the NBA uh in the long run. But it's also starting to span beyond basketball. Um you've got NFL players, a couple of NFL players, one of them, uh one of the Jets and one of the New England Patriots have expressed support for Jaden Ivey, uh taking his post, his social media post, reposting it, uh quoting from the Bible. Um and then, of course, that forces their league and their leadership, coaches, et cetera, to weigh in. Um, you know, the coach from uh the Patriots weighed in uh and tiptoed around it, uh, you know, and basically said, hey, there's a very fine line uh to walk here expressing your opinion as a player, et cetera, et cetera. Um, but I think this this could be the start of uh of a bit of a movement across sports, uh, I think for the betterment of sports, where you've got the Christian side of athletes, the Christian athletes expressing themselves and expressing their opinions, um, and they're, you know, they're being listened to uh or they're being allowed to. Um maybe and maybe not. We'll have to wait and see, but this is one definitely to pay attention to because it really does go beyond sport. This is about, again, First Amendment rights. This goes about wrongful termination based on religious beliefs, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, it also goes uh into the uh forced participation in pride events uh for athletes that don't support or or or have a religious opposition to it. So again, Jaden Ivey, Chicago Bulls, NBA. Uh, I don't think it's gonna move out of the news anytime soon. I I hope it doesn't. I hope it stays relevant, and I hope that people keep an eye on it uh because it does matter to us, I think across America, to make sure that just because he's an athlete uh doesn't mean that this is ignored. Listen, Colin Kaepernick's been in the news for as long as this thing's been going on. I think he's still under contract with Nike for crying out loud. So Jay Nivey should be no different. Um, a little bit uh back to uh government. Um was uh reported that uh President Trump is gonna get on TV tonight. I think it's 9 p.m. Eastern and give an update. The anticipation is that he is gonna give an update on Iran specifically. Um and then I think because he's President Trump, he'll probably go off book and probably talk about Supreme Court, but maybe not. Um but the guess is that tonight is an update on Iran. Um so as we've all seen, you know, the Strait of Hormuz continues to be an issue. Uh fuel continue, gas oil specifically, refined and unrefined continues to be an issue. Gas prices are going up. We're all feeling it at the pump. Um some people are willing to, you know, go with it. Some people are willing to wait it out. Uh, some people are becoming less patient with this. Um, but while all of that is going on militarily, we've seen you know continued strikes by both Israel and the United States. Uh, we've got a buildup of troops on the ground. Uh, there's 31st MU Marine Expeditionary Unit is on the ground. There's 1st Brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division on the ground. Uh, it is now, for those of us that kind of made the assumption or were even in the know, you know, there's a contingent of special operators over there right now, as you would anticipate with anything like this. Um, but there's discussion about an increase of potentially up to 10,000 troops. Um, there is talk now of uh serious talk of boots on the ground. Um Karg Island, uh, which is uh geographically important to the Straits of Hormuz, but also has some um refinement capabilities for uh Iran, et cetera, et cetera. Strategically, Kark Island is important. Um so uh the president is anticipated, it's anticipated that he is giving an update. That's what this meet, this, this on TV appearance is supposed to be tonight, is an update on Iran. Latest reports, again, uh speaking Wednesday. So by the time you guys watch this, we'll know what the president said. You'll know. We'll I'll know, but right now I don't know. Um so we'll we'll have to see you know what he says. But um, you know, there is the there is the discussion about increase, there is troop increase, but at the same time, there's reports that Iran has asked for uh a ceasefire. Uh that will be interesting. Uh we'll have to see how that plays out. And so while the United States and Israel are prosecuting these attacks on uh Iran, uh you've got NATO sitting by. And President Trump has kind of gone on the offensive with NATO. And and listen, folks, I have never been shy about this. I am not a NATO fan. Um I lived and worked in a NATO environment on uh a couple of deployments, so I have a pretty good handle on how NATO works and and what is what they contribute versus what they don't. And right now, the NATO that exists uh in Europe um doesn't do a whole lot, truthfully. They don't bring a whole lot to the table. It's this this mishmash, this alliance that exists uh of a bunch of incapable nations that truthfully, only if they pull themselves together very quickly and under very shaky uh chains of command would they be able to defend Europe against anyone. Um, President Trump is upset because they contributed and have contributed almost nothing except complaints about the United States and Israel going into Iran. And that is their prerogative. As an organization, NATO can choose, either as individuals or as an organization, to support or not support what the United States is doing. However, um, you know, as a member of NATO, uh, and one of the primary Members of NATO and truthfully the greatest contributor to NATO, there's a little bit of grace and support and cooperation expected from our NATO partners. Right now, there's talk and even action of aircraft not being allowed to fly over French airspace that are participating in operations in Iran. There are talk of bases not being allowed to be used in NATO nations in support of operations in Iran, et cetera. And listen, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump have been very uh plain and blunt about this. Um we don't NATO needs us a lot more than we need them, truthfully. Uh and and while we're not asking for a lot, uh what we are asking for is a little bit of cooperation. Uh, we're asking for a little bit of support, uh, and we're we're asking for, you know, if you don't like it, that's fine. Uh, but but don't make it difficult. And so um, you know, they're complaining about oil and some other things. President Trump came out on X and basically said, hey, listen, we did all the hard work. Uh if you want your oil, go get it, or buy it from the United States. Um and listen, he's putting NATO on notice. And so is Secretary Rubio. And I think we're doing an evaluation of NATO on whether or not our participation and cooperation with NATO is of value at this point. I would tell you it's not what it was uh when NATO was established, nor even through the days of uh post-9-11. Uh NATO doesn't, you know, when when Ukraine kicked off and NATO got together and they said, hey, we need to stop Russia, um, the the powers, the big powers, assumed to be big powers in NATO were incapable. Um the German military could provide helmets. Helmets. That's it. Uh, Germany of all places. Um, you know, NATO is not what it it appears to be. So we, the United States, are reevaluating our membership to NATO uh and the value of our membership. So um that could be a seismic shift uh in the globe, truthfully. And and you know, President Trump is playing hardball, in my opinion, righteously, rightfully, um, to get them to pony up and be actual partners. Again, we're not asking for you to jump in with both feet, but we certainly would expect you to cooperate with things like base usage, airspace usage, et cetera. And so that's what I think is upsetting him and Secretary Rubio right now. Uh, and so they're working through it. So we'll watch and see what President Trump says on TV tonight, uh, see what the updates are for Iran, uh, and uh, and then obviously we'll see what happens with NATO afterwards. Um, let's see. Going back, domestic. Who else was bothered by this? This past weekend, Saturday, no kings protest across the country, right? Uh all 50 states. Uh supposedly, you know, there were locations hosting No Kings events. I think 3,000 locations uh were estimated, including all the major metros, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, uh, Minneapolis, New York, etc., etc. Um, estimates, and I think these are overblown, uh, but estimates are somewhere between 5.2 and 8.2 million people participated uh in the protests. Um did you guys see highlights? I saw highlights, and and no matter where it was, the highlights looked exactly the same. They were very, very homogenous in the sense that no matter what location it was, no matter what major metro area it was, um it was all middle age and older white people. I I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's what I saw on all the highlights. It was middle age and older, and I'm talking like 40s into 70s, and and even older in some cases, uh white people at the No Kings protests. Um these are the these are especially you know, the major metro areas. What these are, these are suburban dwellers who have ventured into the city for these, for these events. Uh disruptive in many, many cases. I know um, you know, Chicago was a traffic mess uh, you know, for this in Chicago. And I think there were maybe three different locations, one of them specifically downtown. I imagine in the other major metros, it was the same, it was similar. Um and I I don't what I don't understand is they continue to have these year after year. I think this is the I don't know, third, fourth, something. I don't know. Um it's it's changing no one's mind, truthfully, right? They it's civil protests, and thankfully they stayed mostly civil. I know that there was reports in LA of some tear gas usage. I know that there were some um vandalism that went on. I know that there was an ICE facility that was attacked, uh, in the sense of like throwing some some rocks and bricks and things like that. I I don't think anybody, I don't think there was any exchange of gunfire anywhere, but um incidences of violence were very few and far between, which is good, right? If you're gonna protest, civil protest. That's what we're all civil disobedience is is you know one of the foundations of America. I'm all about it. Um it's not changing anything. Um, and that's the thing about these repeated, you know, cause protest causes where it's over. No, it's like be, you know, the BLM protests and now no kings protests is that after the first one, maybe after two, no one, no one is jumping to that side because of what you're saying or what you're doing. Truthfully, no one is. In fact, all you're doing is pissing people off. Because people who were on your side, who are trying to get somewhere, and you're blocking traffic and you're making you know things more difficult for them, you're not helping your cause. Um, so you know, the no-kings continue to go. Um, I don't think they're helpful. I don't think they change anything. In fact, I think they're, you know, diminishing return, if not negative returns at this point. I I just don't believe that anyone um watched this, drove past it, saw it, heard about it, and went, you know, I gotta get in on that. I didn't believe it before, but I believe it now. Or, man, this is definitely changing my mind. I don't think it does any of that. Uh, and so, you know, the external funding that comes from this, and we all know about it. You know, they said it was 500 organizations contributing over$3 billion. Um, and then the normal names pop up, Soros and others that were funding all of this, um, you know, make it very disingenuous. There are people that have come forward and said, hey, I was getting paid. You know, me and my friends were getting paid between 20 and 40 bucks an hour to go participate in this. Again, very disingenuous. Um, and truthfully, I think counterproductive. So, you know, we'll see how long or how many more years the no kings protests last. Um, we all know it's hollow. We all know that if you lived in a in a place that had an actual king, you wouldn't be protesting in public. Um, ask the people in Iran what happens in a dictatorship when you protest. You know, 40 to 50,000 of you get killed in the streets, because that's what just happened a few weeks ago in Iran. Um that's what happens. Uh, not, you know, you don't get to have the the you know the grannies on the guitars and and you know, people singing and and all of those things, that's which is what goes on at these. If you haven't seen the highlights, go ahead and Google because it's entertaining. Um you that's what you don't get to do that when there's an actual king. Um, they don't allow those kinds of things that happened Saturday across the United States. So again, disingenuous, I think counterproductive. Uh, hopefully they end uh and it all just goes away. Um so we'll see what happens. Uh what else have we got? Um tell you what hasn't gone away. Lines at the airports, they've gotten better. Don't get me wrong. Uh, but you know, Congress walked out. Uh they voted, uh, they didn't pass funding for DHS, and they all walked out and they went on vacation, uh, which is shameful. Um, I mean, really, really shameful because you've got uh agents of DHS, uh Border Patrol, and and and others, TSA specifically, what we're talking about now, are not getting paid. Uh so many of them are, you know, uh calling out. Uh, some of them are quitting because they have to go make money. Uh, but you know, President Trump sent ICE in. Uh, and what happened? They went in. What did what people thought was going to happen was that ICE was going to go in there and they're going to start body slamming people and they were going to make massive arrests all over all the airports and this and that. And essentially none of that has happened. Have there been arrests? Yes. Had there been people who needed to be arrested because they run, you know, uh uh extradition orders and some other things like deportation orders? Yes, that did happen. Um, but for the most part, uh what those ICE agents have done has been uh I've seen them walking around uh handing out bottles of water for people waiting in lines for for four hours. Uh I've seen them hold lines, uh hold places in lines for allowing people to go to the bathroom. Um I've heard them assisting uh TSA as a whole, you know, searching, organizing lines, those kinds of things. Um they have generally, and I don't think in any case that I can think of, made things worse. They've made every case better, uh, although to varying degrees, right? There are still three, four hour lines at some airports. There's some airports that the lines have gone down drastically. Um, regardless, um, Congress went on vacation. Um, and I'm talking to you, Lindsey Graham, among others. But pictures of Lindsey Graham at Disney, at Disney, you've got TSA agents and others working, not getting paid, and him and all of the other people in Congress, uh lazy asses, and uh, and I'm calling them out. They they take more vacation. Look it up sometime. The number of vacation days uh that you and I, normal people get uh, you know, per year, you're lucky, extremely lucky if you get anywhere between 30, if you get 30 days or more per year, right? And even the ability to bank those. Go ahead and look sometime and see how many days Congress works per year. You will be astounded if you don't already know. Um, half a year is about what they work, uh, in in office required, et cetera. Um, and now they're on vacation, they're on a break. And uh literally many of them on vacation. In fact, TMZ of all places essentially put out uh a notice like, hey, if you can find pictures of any members of Congress on vacation, please send them to us. And it happened. Uh Lindsay Graham at Disney. Uh, there are others. There's uh picture of Bernie Sanders, uh, Marco Rubio uh flying first class, you know, on their way to wherever they were going. Uh United Airlines, I think it was United, or maybe it was American, one or the other, basically revoked uh the special privilege of Congress members to jump the line and get on the plane uh as a result of this, which I love. In fact, I think they should all do it. And if the airlines don't do it, airports should certainly do it. Uh make them stand in line with everyone else, with the general public, uh, because that's who they are. Uh at this point, they are the general public. They're nothing special and should be allowed no special privilege until this is fixed. Um so, you know, DHS is working, TSA is working, uh, Congress is not working, they're on vacation. And we should all be ashamed. And we should all hold them accountable. Uh, and we should all remember this in November when it rolls around. Uh, we can't, we cannot allow them to continue this sort of behavior, this sort of activity, and uh and just let it pass. It's reprehensible. It is. Uh, it's it's absolutely shameful. There's no reason for this. Uh let's see, what else have we got? Uh okay. Um I'm gonna say this one is gonna be pretty short, folks, but if you haven't seen it, um some of the oral the opening arguments or oral arguments, uh, I think it's even classified still as pre-trial in the Charlie Kirk murder have been publicized, and the headlines are fake. There was a headline that came out that said, it's been proven that the bullet in the Charlie Kirk murder did not match the gun that they found. This is based off of a submission by defense counsel of a single uh note uh by someone in ATF that is included in the trial or included in the file that said something along the lines of that. And every news outlet ran with it, jumped on it, grabbed it, and and put fake headlines up there. Uh and the fact is, it's just not true. It's just, it's just not true. Uh whether the bullet matched or not, there's ballistic evidence in there in the file that says it did. There is a note in there that says that it didn't. Um, but what they grabbed was, of course, the headline that uh, you know, the defense grabbed that and they knew they played the media to a T. They played social media to a T. Uh, and that's exactly what happened. They got what they wanted, which was the massive headline that said, This is all a lie, it's all fake, the bullet doesn't match. This is JFK, this is OJ Simpson all over again, right? Um, and that's what they're doing. And the and the public, of course, exacerbated the problem. They took it, they reposted it, you know, they they uh screenshotted it, they put it on their own social media, and it ran everywhere. And the reality is it's just not true. So what you've got, I think what this qualifies as is you've got the defense that is jury, they're trying to, you know, taint the jury, the potential jury. Um everybody now is gonna see this. They've seen it. Most people have heard it, and it says, you know, oh, well, all they know is the headline. The bullet didn't match, so obviously this guy is innocent. Um so now walking in the door, any potential jurors are gonna be tainted by these headlines. Um, so I guess it begs the question, and this is uh, you know, First Amendment uh question as well. Um, how much of this, especially in the opening stages of this trial, should be public? I think in the truest sense, it should all be public. The problem is that freedom of the press, um, you know, and and our accessibility as American citizens to a trial like this is important, but we can't trust the media at this point to report uh accurately. So, how much of this should be publicized, especially in the opening stages before anything is established, et cetera, et cetera? Um I I think it's because of social media, and I think there should be some re-examination of our court process in that um, you know, evidence uh and and pretrial procedures. We need to at least consider whether or not we're doing the right thing as far as allowing the media in uh to report on this. I don't know. I I don't have an answer. Um I know it's a slippery slope, and I'm for sure not um endorsing cutting the press out. I'm not endorsing, you know, limiting public exposure. I'm not limiting, you know, in in favor of limiting freedom of speech, but I think there's a danger here right now. Um, and I think we at least need to look at how things are being done procedurally. I again, I don't have an answer. If you've got one, um please let me know. Put it in the comments. I'd love to see it. It would be fantastic. Um, so um, yeah, looking forward to more on that. Um, I think that you know this Charlie Kirk trial is gonna go on probably for a long time. And when I say a long time, I'm talking a year, years uh plural, probably. Um, we probably won't get any resolution on this anytime soon. Um, so stay tuned on that. Uh what else have we got? Uh just a couple more. Um this one I I'm not I am I am far from a tabloid kind of guy. Um, but this again points to where the media's at. I don't know if you guys have seen this. By Brian Noam, uh Christy Noam's husband, uh, it just came out that he has been participating in some online um cross-dressing something. Uh it seems like from what I've seen in bits and pieces, that he has been dressing up in you know, women's clothing with some prosthetic breasts and some other things, and he's been sending pictures to people online. Um listen, man, whatever your thing is, it is what it is. I have to be honest, for the first 24 hours, maybe even 36 hours that this was in the press, the news cycle, I thought it was completely AI because that's the world that we live in. I thought it was AI. I thought the pictures were AI. I thought the story was garbage journalism. I thought this was absolute paparazzi, you know, national inquirer kind of crap. Um, because again, that's the world that we live in right now. It turns out that it's not. And at least as it stands right now. When I say right now, I'm saying two o'clock, almost 2 p.m. on the East Coast uh on Wednesday, the first of April. Um, you know, President Trump has made a statement about this. Uh, you know, former Secretary Noam has made a statement about this, asking for privacy as the family deals with this. Um it's shocking because it does seem more tabloid-ish. It does seem more made up than it does reality. Again, listen, I'm not judging him as a person. They they've got issues within their house, they've got issues within their marriage, he has issues, you know, as a person, whatever it is that he's into, that's on him. I don't really care about that. Um, but the fact that that the news that we watch and see, when our instincts, when our guts go to um, that has to be AI. When that's your initial reaction to things uh as a default, that's that's the problem. That's where we're at right now. Uh, and that's what I really, really thought this was with Brian Noam. Um, I thought this was AI. I thought it was all fake. Uh, and it turns out I was wrong. Uh it's crazy as it's as it stands right now. Um, let's see, what else we got? Um listen, this one's painful. Tiger. Oh, did we all see this? Tiger Woods. Third car crash in a number of years. Um, you know, down in Florida where he lives, uh, rolled his uh very expensive uh Land Rover, put it on its side. Uh initial claims from Tiger were that he was uh looking at his phone, changing the radio station as he was driving. Uh thankfully, no one was hurt in this. Uh I don't know how fast he was going. I know if you're f if you're driving fast enough to put your Land Rover on its door in what seemed to be a very residential neighborhood. I don't know. Um, but you know, his mugshots didn't look good. Uh reports, police reports say he was found with two uh oxycodone, I believe, uh, in his pocket, which in and of itself is not necessarily a crime. I can promise you that he has been prescribed painkillers time and time again for everything that his body has been through as a professional golfer. His back has been jacked up for years. His last car crash, he destroyed his leg. Um he couldn't walk on it for months, uh, etc. I know the guy's been on painkillers. He probably lives with a prescription for painkillers, as many people in the United States do. However, uh, you you can't drive while you're on painkillers, which is the assumption. Um, he did blow 0.00, uh, so no alcohol in his system. However, he did refuse a urinalysis, which in the state of Florida, uh, as with many states, when you refuse the the testing, it's an automatic guilty plea. Uh so admission of guilt. So he refused the urinalysis. Uh he has been charged with uh driving while uh driving under the influence, um, which again, it's not necessarily just alcohol, it can be uh, you know, it's not necessarily intoxication, but under the influence. So under the influence of drugs, including prescription medication, and that's kind of where Tiger's at right now, he has uh put out a statement that says he is stepping away from golf uh for a while uh to, you know, get himself straight and right. And I think for everything that Tiger has meant to the sport, um, and the fact that truthfully, in all of his uh accidents that have gone and happened, you know, they the one who's been hurt the most is Tiger. And we I think we all just want him to get better. I know over the last few years, as he's been on TV a lot with his son Charlie and even his daughter, who's caddied for them, um, it's been great to see him acting as a dad uh on his what seems to be his good days. And I hope for more of those for Tiger. He is important to the world of sport. I would like to see him, you know, get himself right and get back on the golf course again. Um, but in the meantime, he shouldn't be driving uh and he should fall under the same, you know, laws as the rest of us. Uh if his driver's license is suspended, Tiger shouldn't be driving for himself anyway. Like there's no reason that guy shouldn't have a professional driver that takes him around, but it is what it is. Um but he should lose his license if that's whatever the determination, legal determination is in the state of Florida. I do support that. I don't think he should be given any special privilege because he is Tiger Woods. Um, but I would like to see Tiger, you know, right himself and be better for himself and be better for his kids. Uh so good luck to Tiger. Uh and and uh hopefully he can he can get that way. Um let's do some pure sports. We don't do a lot of pure sports on here, but this one I think is uh uh where is it at? Where is the banner? There it is. Um I'm a sports guy. I do follow sports. So this year, for those of you that follow baseball and some of you that don't, uh the Major League Baseball has instituted the automatic balls and strike system, automated balls and strike system. So essentially you still have an umpire standing behind home plate who is calling balls and strikes as they have done traditionally for generations. But now, if the catcher or the pitcher uh or the batter uh believes that a a call uh is erroneous by the home plate umpire, you've never been able to argue balls and strikes, let alone replay balls and strikes until now. Um but now, you know, if somebody thinks that the home plate umpire's balls and strikes call is uh wrong, they can challenge it. The rules are That each team starts with two challenges per game. You can use them anytime you want. And as long as you're correct, you keep those two challenges. If you are wrong, then you lose it for every time that you're wrong. So you get two wrong answers per nine innings, but you can have as many right answers as you want. And so this is the first time it's happened. Now, listen, we've only been a week into baseball. And the amount of challenges that have gone out and have been overturned is astronomical. And it's important if you're a baseball fan, you know, and you've watched baseball your entire life and you've seen thousands of bad calls over the years, and you're starting to see right calls, and it makes you feel a little better. It makes you wonder how long Major League Baseball is going to let umpires continue to stand behind home plate and call balls and strikes, and how long it is until they just remove them and just use the ABS system to call the balls and strikes and just leave it at that. Um and there are there most home plate umpires. I just looked up the stats before I started recording. Most home plate umpires, depending on how many games they've been behind the plate, are are calling somewhere between 250 and 650 pitches. If they've spent maybe three games back there, they're probably, or four games back there, they're they're they're in that 650 range, where one or two games are in that 250 range. Um and there are umpires out there who have had 12 challenges against them uh in those higher numbers. Uh there's actually an umpire in there who's only in the 350 pitch range and has been challenged 10 times and had have has had seven of them overturned. Um so what you're seeing is better baseball. Uh, you're seeing better balls and strikes. But I think also what you're gonna start seeing is you're gonna start seeing umpires quitting. Uh, you are gonna see baseball, uh, the human element of baseball is about to go away. And and because you've got umpires who are they don't like being challenged, it's a personality thing. We've known that if you watch baseball at all, that was one of the immediate that was why you could never argue balls and strikes. It was the one of those unwritten rules in baseball. If you argued balls and strikes with a home plate umpire, you immediately got ejected. And so that kept it out of the game. Well, now it's in the game. Uh, and I think all of these umpires who truthfully have been making bad calls over the years, um, or even the umpires who've been making good calls over the years don't like being challenged, and that's what is happening now. And I think they're not gonna like it. And I think you're gonna see a whole bunch of umpires that, if not in the middle of this season, uh certainly at the end of the season will opt not to come back. And you will see that element of uh the human element of baseball will very quickly uh go away. I I think uh home plate umpires will be back there to call um foul balls, foul tips. You'll have them back there to call plays at the plate, throws home for the catcher, um, those sorts of things. But I think the uh part about calling balls and strikes is about to go away. Um and if you're a baseball traditionalist, you hate to see that. But that's the way baseball and sport in general is going. Uh, you know, since in uh instant replay has been introduced, and it's been introduced in various ways across various sports, uh, but the humanity of of the games are all fading away and relying upon the absolute correct call no matter how long it takes. Uh, and now it's uh it is really mechanical versus uh you know kind of the true nature of sport, which most of us grew up with. So watch baseball, don't watch baseball, but uh you're about to see a major shift in um in baseball, honestly. I think you're about to see umpires leave the game, uh, which again is a seismic shift. Okay, um, last thing as we are approaching, approaching the end. I think I've covered everything. I'm going through my list here. Uh yep. Okay. So the last thing is uh, you know, Elsa and I do the comment section. And this past week, uh I didn't even see it. Uh I saw Elsa made a uh put that she posted on on Facebook and on uh Instagram on social media. Uh some gentleman, I don't know where he was from, uh, was quote unquote his words, terrified that I have, you know, my background is what it is. Um the Elsa took that. The guy said he was terrified. It was terrifying uh that I had these on my wall. Uh and and Elsa took that and and made a you know a little bit of a spoof out of it. And the the reactions were everything that you would assume. And we're talking hundreds of reactions, thousands of likes, a lot of uh forwarding, a lot of replays, uh, et cetera, reposts, etc. Um, and and she got chastised a little bit for, you know, that's not very Christian of you, because we all know Elsa. That's Elsa's base, right? Is she's a very Christian person. And, you know, some people were unappreciative uh of her, you know, kind of picking on this guy, and they said it wasn't very Christian of her. Um, I got chastised, of course, by people who, you know, think I'm a maniac or whatever. I don't know. They think it's unnecessary. Uh, the vast majority of of our audience and the people who saw it are very supportive. Um, but a lot a number of folks asked even why I have them. Um, first of all, a number of people said, you know, this guy, this dude, people refer to me as dude, um, didn't know why I was on, I keep coming up on Elsa's show. Folks, it's the Elsa Kurt show with Klay Novak. I'm Klay Novak. That's me. So um it it says it right there at the bottom, right? Clay Novak. Um, I co-host the show. I have been for two and a half years. Um so first, I'm not just, you know, I don't come on her show. I'm I'm on the show and it's our show. Um secondly, I'm an author. Uh and and I wrote a series of books, right? There's there's one of them right there, Cross to Bear. That's the second book in the Terry Davis series. And Terry Davis uh is the hero of an action fiction series that I wrote, and he carries that pistol and he carries that knife, right? It's advertising, people. It's advertising. That's what it is. This is all it's marketing, right? We this is my and my background looks like this, whether I'm on my podcast or I'm a guest on somebody else's podcast, and I do a couple of other ones, warlockers, one of them, cops and soldiers and um that kind of stuff. And and I've been a guest on dozens of podcasts. My background looks like this. Um, so for those of you that were wondering, and for those of you that didn't know, I'm Clay Novak. I co-host with Elsa, and that's why I have that background. And if you're terrified because of it, that's on you. Like you're not getting any support. I do, I I love all of you that supported it. Uh, there was a lot of funny responses out there. People talking about, well, you know, if that terrifies you, don't come to my house, or you definitely don't go to Texas and some other things. Uh, and I appreciate all of that support. Uh, Elsa and I both do. And so we love you guys, and we definitely appreciate you being on board. Uh, that that comment and then Elsa's response sparked a lot. So I thought it was appropriate that for this week's comment section, uh, you know, segment that we uh we touched on that one. And uh so thanks for hanging with me for an hour. Uh, I'm happy to do this when Elsa's not around. It's difficult. Uh I love the banter back and forth with her. It makes it so much more enjoyable. But we always do this every week and we do it for all of you uh as much as we do it for ourselves. So we love you guys and we uh we appreciate you popping in. Again, put it in the comments section, whatever it is, questions, comments. We love them, we look at them. Obviously, we talk about them every week. And uh, as always, from me, keep moving, keep shooting.

SPEAKER_01 51:13

The headlines will change by tomorrow, but the patterns won't. Thanks for spending this time with us. We'll be back to keep asking the harder questions and telling the quieter truths. Until then, stay grounded, be discerning, and we'll see you next time.