Speaker 1: What's going on? Thank you so much for listening to
this podcast. It is heard live every day from noon
to three on WBT Radio in Charlotte. And if you
want exclusive content like invitations to events, the weekly live stream,
my daily show prep with all the links, become a patron,
go to dpekclendershow dot com. Make sure you hit the
subscribe button. Get every episode for free right to your
smartphone or tablet. And again, thank you so much for
your support. Alrighty, so, all right, let's check in on
Charlotte Mecklenburg schools. Oh my gosh, ah so bad, y'all
so bad? All right, so I believe it was yesterday.
What's today today? Friday?
Speaker 2: Yet? No?
Speaker 1: Okay, I think it was yesterday that we mentioned Melissa Easley.
Speaker 3: She is a.
Speaker 1: Charlotte Mecklenburg School board member. She is also a teacher,
a teacher who does not know how to spell the
word pity, nor does she know proper punctuation. And this
is a teacher and a school board member. So she
had gone on to either the Facebook or the Instagram.
I'm not sure which platform, although they're both owned by
Meta at this point, so it doesn't really matter. And
in the wake of the Charlie Kirk assassination, she posted
a message that said the following Here is what I'm
going to say about today. Political violence is not okay,
no matter what side you are on. That is the
disappointing part. And I am saddened that this was yet
another political issue that caused a death. See, I feel
like the most disappointing part was was the murder? Was
the murdering? To paraphrase the late great philosopher Norm MacDonald.
I think it was the murdering that's the worst part.
And then the second part of her sentence here, I'm
not even sure what she's trying to communicate, but she's
a teacher, so maybe it's just going over my head
because I'm not a fourth grader or something. I don't know.
I'm sad in that this was yet another political issue
that caused a death. What was the political issue that
caused the death? The political issue caused the death, That's
what happened. Like this offloading of responsibility or ascribing to
a political issue that caused a death. No, it was
a leftist. It was a pro trans leftist. That's all
become very clear now. And he admitted it apparently in
the discord server. She then goes on to say, but
do not expect me to feel See if she had
just left it at the first sentence or the second
sentence there, if she had just said that first part
and nothing else, fine, no problem. But they can't help themselves.
She just can't help herself. She has to come along
and take a crap on Charlie Kirk and everybody that
follows him, because that's what she's doing here, Because she says,
do not expect me to feel sorry, pity, misspelled, or
mournful for the man that has gone around saying I
or my spouse are abominations, that we are mentally ill,
that we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. Okay,
I did a search. Admittedly it was through the various
search engines, so it's only going to be as accurate
as those engines are. But I found I did a
search for Charlie Kirk abomination, and never I found zero
results of him ever saying that they're an abomination. They
being Melissa Easley and her trans husband, and she I
think identifies as quote non binary, and her Facebook is
littered with gay pride posts all over the place, it's
like her, it's like the most it's like she thinks
the most interesting thing about her is like how she
has sex, which you no, it's not this idea though,
that it's about her. This is the narcissism of the left,
that you know. Charlie Kirk making comments and expressing opinions
based on his Christian faith that he believes homosexuality is
a sin. That's what he believes as a Christian. You
don't have to agree with him. That is not hate,
just like it's not hatred to say, oh, this person
is gambling too much, is an alcoholic. This is what
Charlie Kirk argued. He views these things as sins, but
for us to love the sinner and to try to
help them see the error of their ways. Again, you
don't have to agree with that, but that is not hate.
He expresses no hate for those people. He says he
wants to help those people because he doesn't believe what
they're doing is good for them. That the sin destroys
the person who is committing the sin. So I could
not find any mention of Melissa easily or her family.
And when it comes to the idea that they are
mentally ill. Yes, he does believe, or he did believe,
as do a lot of people all over the planet
believe that if you say you are the opposite sex,
that that is an indication that you are mentally unwell,
That that is a delusion, because there are universal truths
you are a man or a woman, and you cannot
change them just because you go under the knife, you
take some hormones, whatever the whatever you know, therapies you do,
will never change your genetics, your DNA. And we are done.
We are done bending the knee to this lie. You
guys had the rule of the roost. About ten fifteen
years ago, HB two here in North Carolina propelled this
issue sort of into the national arena. I was there
fighting it from the very beginning. I know all of
these arguments. I've been studying this topic for over a decade,
and you are promoting a lie, okay. And that's why
it is very easy for people like me to stand
up and give the truth to your lie. And it's
why Charlie Kirk was assassinated. It's because you cannot debate
the truth, you cannot argue against the truth, and so
you have to silence that truth. That's what's become very
clear now it's the same thing happening with Luigi Mangione,
this defense of evil acts. That's what we are seeing
because the truth does not need anything other than itself
upon which to stand right. Lies do lies require? What
about ism? Lies require?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: How come your people you need to do this? Or
what about this other person over there?
Speaker 2: Like you?
Speaker 1: All of this distraction when this story is Charlie Kirk
his assassination because he wanted to engage people in debate,
because he had a view of what is true that
different from yours, and you could not defend your truth.
He was defending the truth. And the truth is there
are only two sexes, and that is a triggering thing,
which in and of itself is another one of these lies.
That words are violence when they're not. Violence is violence.
So fine, you don't feel pity, you don't feel sorry,
you're not feeling mournful. Fine, you didn't have to tell
everybody that. I don't know why you felt the need
to tell. But then again, I don't know why you
need to tell everybody how you enjoy to have sex.
I don't get that either, But you know this is
what you do. You just just vomit everything out there
for everybody to know everything about you and all your feels.
And I'm sure that you will frame this through empathy
and inclusion. Talk right, you will try to use people's
empathy against them. You weaponize their empathy because people don't
they don't want to be mean.
Speaker 4: So you're like, I'm just you know, being empathetic to
all the people who are feeling like me right now.
I'm not doing it for myself. I'm doing it for
them so they know they're not alone. If you are
rejoicing in the murder of a person that you disagreed with,
you're not alone. And then she says, oh, wait, hang
on a second, before I do that, she has because
she has another comment here about the Second Amendment thing.
So I've got two clips that address what she is alleging.
And when I play these clips, you will see she
is a liar at worst. At best, she is ignorant,
and she is just regurgitating the lies that the Left
are saying about Charlie Kirk's positions because they cannot argue
against the truth, so they construct lies to defend their
own lies. So when I was a kid, my grandpa
died with Alzheimer's and before he died, my mom and
my dad took care of him as he got worse.
Forty years ago, there were no treatments and not much
support for caregivers and family. But things are different today
because of the work of so many people, including the
Alzheimer's Association of Western Carolina. It's a great organization with
awesome people with huge hearts. I've been a supporter for
twenty five years. This cause means a lot to me.
I participate in the annual Walk to End Alzheimer's and
I'm leading a Charlotte team again this year, and it's
called once again Pete's Pack. You can sign up and
you can join the team and walk with us. It's
on October eighteenth that truest field. Sign up at alz
dot org slash walk and then you can search for
my team name Pete's Pack. There's also a link at
thepetepod dot com. There's also a link in the description
of this podcast. Also, I'll be am seeing the Gastonia
Walk on October eleventh, and so you can make a
team and join that one too, or make a donation
and help me hit my goal of five thousand dollars.
If you do, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: There are a bunch of other walks all over the Carolinas.
You can go to alz dot org slash walk for
all the dates and locations. We're closer than ever to
stopping Alzheimer's. Can you help us get there? Will you
walk with me? For a different future, families, for more
time for treatments. This is why we walk. Charlotte Mecklenberg
school board member Melissa Easley posted poorly and grammatically incorrect,
poorly written post about how she doesn't feel sorry that
Charlie Kirk was murdered. No pity, p I T T
y or mournful. One of the things that you hear
leftists saying. A lot of people who share this view
never have heard Charlie Kirk say anything. Probably or they
maybe within the last week saw a compilation of some
clips or something, and one of them that you hear
is that he advocated the stoning of gaze. You've heard
this right. This is one of the one of the
things that the media and leftist but I repeat myself,
have been spreading. Here is what Charlie Kirk actually said,
in the full context. He's responded too. There's some YouTuber
who targets children named Miss Rachel and she gets political
and she's all, you know, pro pride stuff and all
of this, and she uses the Bible to defend her
commentary on h on LGBTQ plus two IA issues. Okay,
so that was the context of this discussion.
Speaker 5: Well, I want to respond to what Miss Rachel did next.
This is what and what Miss Rachel did next. And
this is what I was like in the minute I
saw this, it was like, I need Charlie's take on this.
She comes in and says, you know, folks, and so
she takes off the mits Rachel costume and the uniform,
et cetera. And she comes back and says and she's like,
now I'm just talking as Rachel, and she goes, the
reason I'm in this way is because I'm Christian, and
in the Bible it says love your neighbor, and really
I approach people in love. And if you're not doing that,
I guess you're really following the But you didn't say
that part you're not following the Bible. But that was
kind of the underlying He's there. So Charlie, what's going on.
Speaker 6: With that let's let's let let's let her say it
one twenty it, and then I got a dish.
Speaker 2: I've shared prayers on here before and said God bless,
and that's because my faith is really important to me.
And it's also one reason why I love every neighbor.
In Matthew twenty two, a religious teacher asked Jesus what's
the most important commandment? And Jesus says, to love God
and to love your neighbor as yourself. The law and
the prophets hang on these two commandments. There's no greater
commandments than these. Leave It's mentioned eight times love your neighbor.
So yes, everyone belongs, everyone's welcome, everyone is treated with
empathy and respect. It doesn't say love every neighbor, except
there are so many reasons. I stand strong in love,
stand with everyone. That's who I am, and the love
back and the God bless. If you disagree is to.
Speaker 3: Genuine Andrew, I would just jack'spoid. I'm ying and to know, like,
what do you think when miss Rachel quotes Scripture in
that way?
Speaker 6: I mean Satan's quote Scripture plenty.
Speaker 5: It doesn't just say love your neighbor, though it does
say love your neighbor, except in a sense as yourself.
Speaker 6: Behold on it. She's not totally wrong when she says,
first of all, the first part is Deuteronomy six three
through five. The second part is Leviticus nineteen. So you
love God, so you must love his law. How do
you love somebody? Here we go? Here we go? You
love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming
or affirming their sin. And it says, by the way,
miss Rachel, you might want to crack open that Bible
of yours. In a lesser referenced part of the same
part of scripture is in Leviticus eighteen is that thou
shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death.
Just saying, so, miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus nineteen, love
your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God's perfect
law when it comes to sexual matters. Now, so how
do you best love somebody?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 1: So let me stop there. He's making a rhetorical point
about her use, her selective use of scripture, right, and
she's relying on a particular passage that is immediately preceded
by something that she obviously doesn't agree with and is
not espousing either she's not out there saying stone gay people.
She's not saying that, but she ignores that part, but
then looks at this other part and says, I'm going
to use this and I'm going to cite this for
the kiddies who by the way, as I understand, they
were talking a little bit about this also in this
podcast where this Miss Rachel YouTuber is apparently recommended by
pediatricians all the time when kids have an inability to speak,
or they're stuttering or something, they're hesitating in their speech,
and the doctors are all like, oh, go have them
watched Miss Rachel, So like they're funneling kids to this woman,
which they are outraged about. That's part of what they
discussed also, but that's the context of what he's talking about.
He's not advocating that. He doesn't advocate that. He's pointing
out that she is being selective in the way she
is interpreting the Bible and then pushing that message out.
And what's most egregious is that the passage she is
relying on is like just one passage away from this
other part that she's editing out, and she's ignoring you.
Speaker 6: Love them by telling the truth. They have to be cruel.
You don't have to be on christ Like in your communication. However,
you certainly and I would love for miss Rachel to
respond to this is pride a Christian value? She thinks
it is happy Pride month. Everybody is being proud, something
that we should know. It's in fact, the scriptures tell
us the opposite pride go with before the Fall, that
pride is something we need to try to reduce in
our life to increase humility and increase piety.
Speaker 2: There is one.
Speaker 5: Say that I said, there is one list that pride'es on.
Speaker 3: Well, listen, the Bible says, have a sober view of yourself, right, yes, yeah,
And it also says in Matthew eighteen six through four,
if anyone causes one of these little ones, those who
believe in me to stumble, it would be better for
them to have a large millstone hung around their neck
and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of the things that cause
people to stumble.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And so it's very simple. So how do you
love somebody you love them so much to correct their error?
And so let's just you know, take the pride conversation
out because people think it's an identification. But it's not
just sexual behavior, but it's if you meet an alcoholic
or you meet a drug addict, do you affirm their struggle? No,
you say you're better than this. Let's get you free
from that. Let's get you free from that activity. So,
miss Rachel, you're actually not loving anybody, You're doing the opposite.
Speaker 1: That's his position. You can disagree with it, but he's
obviously not advocating sconing gay people, which is what you
hear people on the left now saying it's not true.
Game on Week one starts now and every touchdown brings
you closer to a payout. With Draft Kings sports book
and official sports betting partner of the NFL, this isn't
just football, it's first touchdown fireworks. Anytime TV rushes live
bets that ride every momentum shift that DraftKings every play
is your next shot to win. Will the Panthers win?
Will we even get a touchdown? New customers bet just
five dollars and get three hundred dollars in bonus bets instantly,
plus get over two hundred dollars off NFL Sunday ticket
from YouTube and YouTube TV, So your season starts now.
Download the Draft Kings sports Book app and use code
pete to get three hundred dollars in bonus bets instantly
when you place your first bet of five dollars or
more plus over two hundred dollars off NFL Sunday ticket
from YouTube and YouTube TV, but you got to use
promo code pete. In partnership with Draft Kings. The Crown
is yours. Gambling problem called one eight hundred gambler In
New York call eight seven seven eight hope and why
or text hope and why force seven three six nine.
In Connecticut, help is available for a problem gambling called
eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven
or visit CCPG dot org. Play responsibly on behalf of Boothill,
casino and Resort Kansas. Fees may apply in Illinois twenty
one plus. Age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction void in Ontario.
Bonus bets expire seven days after issuance. See Sportsbook dot
DraftKings dot com, slash promos NFL Sunday Ticket offer for
new subscribers only and auto renews until canceled. Digital games
and commercial use excluded restrictions apply additional NFL Sunday Ticket
terms or at YouTube dot com slash go slash NFL
Sunday Tickets slash terms Limited timeoffer. Going over this post
from Melissa Easily, Charlotte Mecklenburg School board member, and playing
some audio debunking the lies the misquotes that the left
is promulgating in the wake of Charlie Kirk's death in
order to justify, rationalize their evil, their hatred, and to say,
I'm not sure he should have been murdered.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 1: Here's a bigot, an a racist, and all these other things.
And when you actually hear the arguments that he is making,
you realize, oh, they are misquoting him. They are taking
a part, a portion of his answer out of context
in order to advance a lie. Right, That's what they
are doing. So the next one that Easily posts is that, remember,
according to Charlie Kirk quote, it's okay to sacrifice a
few for your Second Amendment rights end quote. Okay, Well,
first off, I don't think that's actually a quote, and
I know you, being a teacher and all, I'm sure
you would adhere to the highest academic standards as a journalist,
former reporter myself. I will tell you you don't put
quotes around something, right, that is not something that somebody said.
So let's hear what Charlie Kirk said, because here's the
clip of him talking about the trade off in a
free society between security and liberty. This is what he said.
Speaker 6: Now we must also be real, We must be honest
with the population. Having an armed citizenrycomes to the price,
and that is part of liberty. Driving comes to the price.
Fifty thousand, fifty thousand, fifty thousand people die in the
road every year. That's a price you get rid of driving.
You have fifty thousand less auto fatalities. But we have
decided that the benefit of driving, speed, accessibility, mobility, having products,
services is worth the cost of fifty thousand people dying
on the road. So we need to be very clear
that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero.
It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them. You're
having more fathers in the home by having more armed
guards in front of schools. We should have an honest
and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should
not have a utopian one. You will never live in
a society when you've an armed citizenry and you won't
have a single gun death. That is nonsense, it's drivel.
But I think it's I think it's worth it. I
think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some
gun deaths every single year so that we can have
the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights.
That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks
like this. They live in a complete alternate universe. So
then how do you reduce? Very simple people say, oh, Charlie,
how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How
did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have
armed guards outside of baseball games, that's why. How do
we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed
guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the
shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks.
How do we stop all the shootings at gun shows?
Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows.
There's all these guns because everyone's armed.
Speaker 1: Does that sound like he was saying it's okay to
sacrifice a few people for our Second Amendment rights? Is
that what he's saying? Life is about? Trade? Offs. This
is Thomas Sole. There are no solutions, there are only
trade offs. His analogy to car deaths is one you
have probably heard before if you've ever been around people
talking about the Second Amendment in a debate format, because
this is a pretty well worn and I don't say old,
but it's been around a while. That, yes, if you
want to reduce the number of automobile deaths, which is
more than gun deaths, if you want to reduce automobile
deaths to zero, right, And that's the argument that we
got to take gun deaths to zero, then you would
ban all cars, right, But we don't do that. We
don't hear anybody calling for that. This is his argument.
And so then you get this. You have to then
weigh the cost and the benefits. And what he clearly
says is we should have a reductionist view, in other words,
we should want to reduce these deaths. He wants to
help do that. Yes, absolutely, everybody wants to reduce gun deaths.
How do you do that? And when the utopian vision
comes into play, they say ban all the guns, and
that's just silly. You can't. And I've had this argument
myself with gun grabby folks over the years, what do
they say, take all the guns? And my answer is, okay,
walk me through that. How does that happen? Because you've
got as many guns as there are people roughly, who's
gonna go get them, who's gonna go take them? You're
gonna ban them? You start kicking indoors because those people
got guns and they do not want to give them up.
And so if you're actually interest in reducing gun deaths,
you're actually going to have more gun deaths as soon
as you ban them, because you're going to have firefights
between people who refuse to give up their guns. So
that's the utopian vision, which is absurd. Utopia is not
one of the options. But once again, evil lies. These
are the lies that you're being sold that, oh, we
can do zero gun des we can get to zero
gun deaths. And what he's arguing is that a cost
benefit analysis would indicate that in a free society there
is always going to be gun deaths. And he's exactly right,
unless you ban all the guns and murder all the
gun owners. And then after that, when you have a
completely disarmed population, well then you could stick a whole
bunch of shots in their arms with any given pin.
I'm sorry, No, that's too soon. Probably too soon?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 1: You hear me talk a lot about incentives, right, Well,
let's talk about incentive trips, the kind that companies offer
employees to fire them up and reward their teams. If
you own a business or you work somewhere that offers
these incentive trips, first off, good for you. But also
there is a custom app that's a game changer for
these trips. It's called Incentive Tripkit. Private group messaging, shared photos,
your itinerary, travel details all built into a single, easy
to use app. There's even a traveler locator so Carl
from Accounting doesn't get left behind. The best part about
incentive trip Kit it's totally private. No email captures, no
sign ups, no cringe ads. It's simple, clean and secure.
And when the trip is over, Incentive trip Kit turns
those highlights into a professional storytelling video. So think about it.
When you launch next year's incentive trip campaign, that video
becomes your greatest motivator. Talk about a return on investment. Right,
You got to check out incentive trip Kit for your business.
Visit Incentive trip Kit because great trips deserve even better
returns from the WBT text line from somebody who is
anonymous seven oh four number his comments on black pilots
he wouldn't trust DEI explained what did he mean by that?
I haven't heard anyone explain him saying that, well, you
know me, mister or ms anonymous texter, I am a
giver and so I give to you an easily found
YouTube clip of Charlie Kirk responding to this very question
because he took all sorts of questions over the course
of years on college campuses, and he has asked about that.
This would have been from three months ago.
Speaker 7: Yeah, so last year you said something about de I
unqualified black polots. You see a pilm a black pilot.
Don't you think it was irresponsible statement suggesting that maybe
these pilots AREN'TQUI.
Speaker 6: But I'll tell you exactly what I said and why
I said it. Okay, I said, if the pretext I
went through a whole wind up, I said, United Airlines
is saying that they want forty percent of all the
pilots to be people of color or women. We have
learned that that we have relaxed standards anytime that we
try to reach Rachel quotas. Anytime we reach racial quotas,
we relax the standards standards or air traffic control professors
or college admissions. Therefore, when it comes to pilots or surgeons,
if I see somebody who is black, as I said
on the show, I'm going to hope that that person
is qualified. That's what I said, which of course is legitimate,
because they're begging the question. We're not hiring based on
merit anymore. We're hiring based on race. So when you
see a black pilot, you wonder, boy, is that person
there because they earned it or because they were placed there?
That's what DEI does. It makes you ask questions you
otherwise would not ask.
Speaker 7: So the airline industry is going to take an unqualified person.
Speaker 6: Just based off the version they're qualify, not correct, under.
Speaker 7: Quest qualify, underqualified, whatever, uncertified, and put them in a cotpit. No,
and risk people's lives.
Speaker 6: Those are two different things, under and on or two
different things. Of course, United Airlines will not take someone
off the side of the street and put them in
a pilot pilot, But in order to reach a forty
percent goal, they might cut corners, they might accelerate the
process in order to reach a goal. We know this
through all sorts of DEI examinations and projects over the
last ten years. When you when you can, you have
to choose in life, either excellence or racial quotas will
end up being the most important, and both cannot simultaneous,
simultaneous exist. It's never happened before.
Speaker 7: Okay, So when we talk about DI, well, who benefits
the most, because black people really don't. It's only like
maybe three to four percent of black people actually benefit
from those programs. So who benefits the most?
Speaker 6: I'm not sure your question. I mean, theoretically, if forty
percent of all pilots end up being black people are.
Speaker 7: But that's not I actually looked it up. It's only
like maybe about six percent of pilots.
Speaker 6: Their goal is forty percent, right, that's the point is
like that that's actually a great point. So they wanted
to go from six percent to forty percent, and so
you have to wonder, Boy, you go from six percent
to forty percent, there's going to be a relaxing of standards.
Speaker 7: Okay, I guess the way.
Speaker 6: I'm all right.
Speaker 1: So that's what he said. That's what he meant about
black pilots and by the way, on this this is
also true that when you codified this is what happens.
Also when he mentioned universities, when you have affirmative action,
you had kids getting admitted into colleges that were not qualified.
That then creates this It creates this idea among the
entire student population and even those outside of that campus.
When they know that kids are being promoted or admitted
based on race, they now start asking when they encounter
anybody from that school of the same race that was
getting the benefit, they started asking, well, is this person
actually qualified or did they just get in there because
of the color of their skin? A right, That's what happens.
This is the that's the negative downside of these DEI policies.
I've talked about that for years. So that's what he
actually said as opposed to what people are saying on
social media now. Melissa Easley, Charlotte Mecklinberg school board member,
not content with her dumb assery, doubled down on it, saying,
I made a social media post on my personal Facebook
page regarding the death of Charlie Kirk. As I stated
in my post, I do not condone political violence which
is occurring with more frequency in our country, but I
thought crime was down. I want to be clear that
I was speaking freely as an individual citizen, which is
a right afforded to us all, and not on behalf
of the Charlotte Meckliberg Board of Education or as a
board member. So this is the clown nos On clown
knows Off that like John Stewart Stephen Colbert always do
where it's like, well, I'm just a comedian, and then
of course they give you like the straight news, I'm
gonna tell you what to think about stuff, and then
when you challenge them on their dumb assery, they're like,
I'm just a comedian. Cloud knows On. She says, my
comments reflected my personal views and should not be mischaracterized
as celebrating violence or the loss of life. Now, to
be fair, I don't think she was celebrating violence. I
think she was just celebrating her ignorance. That's what it
looked like to me. All right, that'll do it for
this episode. Thank you so much for listening. I could
not do the show without your support and the support
of the businesses that advertise on the podcast, So if
you'd like, please support them too and tell them you
heard it here. You can also become a patron at
my Patreon page or go to thepetecallanershow dot com. Again,
thank you so much for listening, and don't break anything
while I'm gone.