Lindsay Clancy Trial Enters Week 2, Plus Hero Civilian Shoots In -N-Out Gunman | 8.03.26 - The Grace Curley Show Hour 2

Sugar, spice, and everything nice. These were the ingredients chosen to create. The Grace Curley Show. Radio, TV, print, Grace Curley does it all. She sings, she dances, she acts. I'm waiting by the door for my pull-it service. She sounds hideous. She's just the worst. Yeah, she's a whack-up. She is, she is the devil. Now here's the millennial with the mic. He still leaves me both breathless and speechless. I love her. I love her. She is the best. Some will ask you to say grace. Grace Curley. Great! Welcome back, everyone, to The Grace Curley Show. Thank you for joining us. We will be talking to Nate Eaton at 1.30, who has been a great resource for us when covering the Lindsay Clancy trial. We will talk to him shortly. We also have a national anthem in the news, and we did spend the better part of the first hour covering two big stories. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. on with Dana Bash, a shameless, shameless, shameless hack. And also Sophie Cunningham speaking out for... Women and girls in sports, which has somehow, every time I read about this controversy, Jared, I find myself, like it's an out-of-body experience. I'm looking at this going, how is any of this controversial? How is saying that men and women are different and men? And I notice that one of the arguments that I hear a lot is, well, it's not happening or it's happening in very small numbers. And I just want to tell people on the left that that isn't as effective an argument as you think it is. Because what we've learned in New Jersey is a great example with the voter rolls there, the non-citizens, is whenever you tell us that something is insignificant, like it's a really, really small amount, eventually we find out that that number is actually a lot bigger. than you first told us. And in this case, I don't care if it's one time where a young girl at a track meet loses a spot because there's a man, a biological man competing against her. I don't think that's right. And I don't think we've been basing things. off of numbers in a lot of these situations, we typically base things off principle. And we typically have standards and rules so that if someday, like we've seen over the recent years, Jared, the number of athletes that are men identifying as women increases, we saw a dramatic uptick in that over the last few years. that we have rules in place so that it doesn't become what it's become now, which is this issue that you're not allowed to talk about without somehow being vilified. And one of the things Sophie Cunningham said in a profile that one of these outlets did of her where she first spoke out about this is that there's love in telling the truth. It's not a hateful thing to tell the truth.

And I've talked to people about this before on the issue of young people transitioning. One of the common misconceptions or narratives that I really try to fight against as a conservative woman is this idea that we are. attacking these young people or trying to make them feel worse or trying to exclude them or trying to make them feel less than in reality there's a lot of compassion on the conservative side for these young people who are confused and sad and thinking that this is the way that things are going to be fixed is by taking cross-gender hormones or therapy or or whatever it may be and we may disagree on what the solution is but there's no part of me that revels in the idea of someone being sad or being left out. That's not where this is coming from. But what I've learned over the years, and especially as a parent, is sometimes the truth is more important than shielding someone's feelings. Sometimes a hard truth has to be said. And there's nothing compassionate, just like there was nothing compassionate about Joe Biden opening up the borders and letting people smuggle in women and children and drop them from the border fence and bring them on these treacherous journeys and people drowning in the Rio Grande, just like there was nothing compassionate about that compassionate border policy. There's nothing compassionate about neglecting or denying reality. that's actually not the nice thing to do because they're the nice party, right? They've got t-shirts and signs and they're the nice ones and we're the mean ones. We're the ones who are evil and we're walking around making fun of people. That's not, at least I can only speak for myself. That's not ever where I'm coming from. And I refuse to be painted as someone who's trying to make people feel bad because I see things with two eyes and go, that doesn't seem right to me. This seems like a dangerous road to go down. This seems like a door we really don't want to open. If you want a separate league for people, I have no issue with that. But just because you are now identifying as a man, or I'm sorry, as a woman, does not mean that a biological woman should lose her spot or should feel unsafe. or shouldn't get the scholarship that she deserves. I don't think there's anything mean about that. And I think that making, especially women, this works a lot on women. And I'm speaking for my own experience. It's an effective thing. It's an effective thing to look at a woman and say, well, you're a bully. You're mean. Because that's always what we're fighting against, right? I don't be a mean girl. I want to be a mean person. And it's an effective argument because it's manipulation. It's like, oh, if you say this thing that's very obvious and very true. you're being mean to people. And so what does everybody do? They say, well, I'm either not going to say anything. I'm going to stay out of it. Or I'm going to let everybody know that I'm not with that mean girl, Sophie Cunningham with the blonde hair over there. I have a t-shirt on that says, you know, I agree with you guys. I think what she's doing is no, no, no, no, that's not me. People chicken out. They don't want to be in that spot where they're being accused of being mean. And

Now there's pieces being run. In The Guardian. Here's an actual quote from a piece on Sophie Cunningham. Little girls, by the way, at her games with posters, Jared. Thank you for standing up for girls. She's like the hero. Caitlin Clark, and I really don't fault Caitlin Clark for saying I'm sticking to basketball. Caitlin Clark has had a lot of her own controversy. She's had a lot of her own stress for just playing the game and playing it well. She seems to be getting unnecessary flack. for being a white woman who's dominating the WNBA. She gets a lot of grief for it as is. So I don't blame her for sitting this one out. I really don't. Do I think it would have been cool if she stood by Sophie County? I'm sure. But, you know, everyone has to make their own choices. But now all these young girls are looking up to Sophie Cunningham and they just think she's like a superhero. And this is what the Guardian writes about it. Cunningham is now in the act accepting the role as the rights anti-black, anti-transgender, culture war ambassador, the role originally intended for Clark. Make that one make sense. What about Sophie Cunningham saying that she wants to protect girls in sports makes her anti-black? I would love to hear from black people about that if anyone out there is listening and... Whether you're black or not, it doesn't matter. But especially black people, like, do you agree with that? Do you think by her stating biological facts that that's somehow anti-black? Connect those dots from me. Like, walk me through. Show me your work on that. What about her arguments or her stance is anti-black? And why are you saying that originally Caitlin Clark was supposed to be in that role? Because she's good at basketball? Because she's good at the sport. She was supposed to be our anti-black ambassador. Who says we're not looking for an anti-black ambassador. We're not anti-black. There's a lot of black people who are conservative, actually. It doesn't matter. This is the left's problem. They see everyone through boxes and they see everything as these issues of where do you stand on this? And if you don't agree with me on trans genders and sports, then you don't agree with me on every other issue. It's how they got into this situation they're currently in with the DSA candidates, by the way. But we'll play more of this. We'll go back into this story. But I did want to highlight a story out of Idaho. with this in and out because I saw the headline over the weekend and it is very obvious why the media is kind of leaving this one alone because it's a good guy with a gun who shot a bad guy with a gun and that's never the narrative they want to put out there but I was reading some of the details in the New York Post and it's a really incredible story this this guy speaking of superheroes this guy the way

The sheriff said, they diverted the shooter and without a doubt saved many lives. Salinas later stood down to let police officers do their job as they streamed into the parking lot. My part is done, he recalled thinking at the time. What an amazing story that you see people running out of a restaurant. You're in your car. You have every chance to get away. And you grab your gun and say, all right, I'm ready for this. I mean, I have chills. It reads like a movie. And this is what we're always being told. Like, this is the guy, by the way. We're always being told is the problem. The 35-year-old man with a gun who's never used it before, but then he sees a tragic situation unfolding and he springs into action. I mean, just Bravo. I want to read his name one more time. Jim Jordan Salinas, 35 years old. Imagine how many lives he saved. 844-4-5-42. When we get back, we're going to talk DSA because a lot of these Democrats, the old-school Democrats, the James Carvels, the people who have, you know, their glory days were the Bill Clinton years, they are very disturbed to what they're seeing, the rise of socialism in their party. And they're... They're kind of trying to give an ultimatum, Jared. Good luck with that. Always a risky move. I don't give ultimatums. The thing about an ultimatum is that you have to be willing to make good on it. Otherwise, it's going to backfire. So James Carvel's looking at the Democrat Party right now, the big tent, as it were, and he's saying, it's me or the Socialists. And I've got a feeling this party's going to look back at him and say, we're going with the Socialists. Thanks, Carville. We're all set. We'll be right back. The Grace Curley Show will return. This is the Grace Curley Show. Today's poll question is brought to you by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Carpet. Now is the time to clean or update your home with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., visit their beautiful showrooms in Needham and Waymuth, or call 1-888-Kennady. Jared, what is the poll question and what are the results this far? Today's poll question, which you can vote in at Grace Curley Show.com, is are you following the Lindsay Clancy trial? Yes, every day checking in on major developments. I've only seen the headlines or no, not really. Yes, I am every day. Up to 6% now say they're following a yes every day. 60% say no, not really. 17% say they've only seen headlines. 16% say they check on major developments. Wow. Okay. And we will be talking to Nate Eaton in the next segment about today's updates in the Lindsay Clancy trial. I just wanted to mention because I alluded to this earlier, whenever a Democrat tells you you don't have to worry about something because it's not a big problem. It's not happening a lot. That's what a red flag should go up for you. Because they've told us this before, haven't they? They've told us that, oh, the border. It's not a big thing. It's not really happening. Oh, well, it's happening. But it's not happening in the numbers they're saying. Well, it's happening in the numbers they're saying, but it's a good thing that it's happening. And then it's fraud. If you find fraud and go, oh, Doge found this amount of money that's being used for fraud. Oh, that's a really, really small amount. Remember that? When Elon Musk was cutting programs, Jared, and it was like, that's 0.001% of the defense budget. That's barely anything. Then all of a sudden.

Guess what happens a couple months later? A couple of, even maybe it was a year or two later, Nick Shirley comes around. Hi! Learing Center, just checking in to see where all the kids are since this is a daycare, isn't it? Turns out there's billions of dollars worth of fraud. And then they tell us with men and women sports, well, this isn't a real issue. It never happens. Well, it happened a couple times, but it's not going to keep happening. We don't have to worry about it. Why don't we just operate as though it's going to happen and we have to have a rule in place for when it does? What is the worst case scenario about that? What is the worst case scenario for saying even if... It only happens five times. Here is the standard and the precedent that we are going to follow here going forward. One lone wolf shooter every single time. Ah, we got to get rid of everybody's guns. One incident is all it takes for that. But one incident of psychotic amounts of fraud and you need more proof. Yeah, what did the guy from New Center Maine say to JD Vance? Well, do you have anything else? He's listing up all this fraud and bangor. He's like, do you have anything else? Is that all you got? Is that all you got, Mr. Vice President? Well, I want to give this example as well because there was a cut of the Democrat governor in New Jersey, Cheryl, and she was talking about this glitch. Whenever you hear the word glitch, Jared knows this too. Whenever you hear the word glitch, it is someone's pulling something over on you. Because I noticed it with like, oh, that email, there must have been a glitch and this is. There was no glitch. You forgot to respond to the email. The only glitch was happening in your brain. Oh, no, there was a glitch with that. The PDF wouldn't open. It wasn't a glitch. Don't blame technology, okay? Well, now they're blaming a glitch for the Motor Vehicles Commission, adding 6,600 non-citizens getting added to the state voter rolls. Want to know how bad it is? This is from, I'm serious. Jared, you're not going to leave it. This is from Politico, okay? Not exactly far right publication. There's little to stop non-citizens from registering to vote if they want to or even by mistake. This is in New Jersey. And election officials and campaign consultants from both parties believe that the number of non-citizens being added to the voter rolls is significantly higher than 6,600. Oh. Oh, yeah. Because the state has been automatically registering drivers since 2018 and her figures cover only June 2023 to June 24. In other words, this thing that wasn't a problem and then it wasn't a significant problem, there's not a significant amount of voter fraud. Well, we're creeping more and more towards it being not just a real problem, but a really big problem. Who would have thunk?

We've got Nate Eden talking to us about the Lindsay Clancy trial next. And then we're going to end the show with some national anthem news. Stay with us. The Grace Curley show is on the air. Welcome back, everyone, to the Grace Curley show. Our poll question today, excuse me, had to do with the Lindsay Clancy trial because I'm curious how much people are following this, mostly because as much as people tell me that they're not following it because it's too gruesome, it's too heartbreaking. They do bring it up to me a lot off the air and especially women. And someone that I'm really glad I was able to connect with is Nate Eaton. He is an awesome resource for us. He's an investigative journalist and host of courtroom insider on the courtroom insider YouTube channel. He's also the news director at East Idaho News. He's covering this day by day. We are now into week two of this trial. Nate, I didn't speak to you after the jurors went to the Clancy House. and actually walked around the house, how much do you think that that home and being able to see it physically and walk around? How much do that impact the jurors? Well, nothing can replace having firsthand experience going there. You know, as a reporter, I often think I know the scenario or the scene of something, but it's quite different when I get there. And I think seeing the actual home help them visualize just what happened inside. It's a relatively smaller home. They were able to see where the children were tragically killed. They were able to see the bedroom where Lindsay Clancy jumped from the window or fell from the second-story window. Then they also drove by the CBS and the restaurant where Patrick Clancy went the night his children were killed. Relatively close proximity, I mean, the jury trip was only about an hour to an hour and a half, and then they were back in the courtroom. Wow. And today, walk us through who has been on the stand so far. I know now we're getting into more of the medical experts, but walk us through what you're seeing here with what the prosecution is trying to get across and what the defense is trying to get across and kind of give us a background into some of these witnesses. So today has mainly focused on medical experts, a couple of witnesses from the state, like state police. But we're hearing that the focus so far this morning seems to have been Lindsay Clancy's mental health. We did hear from one doctor who treated one of her children who unfortunately passed away. But then we were hearing from the fact, from doctors who treated Lindsay and nurses who treated Lindsay. As I mentioned, she jumped from that second story window, fell from it, and attempted suicide, according to her defense.

She was placed into the hospital, intubated, sedated, placed under a constant suicide watch with a law enforcement officer outside of her door. Now, her defense attorney really stressed today that she had a do not resuscitate order in her medical records, yet the hospital was doing everything they could to save her. stressing the point that Lindsay Clancy truly attempted suicide. There's been some hints maybe by the prosecution that it wasn't an authentic suicide attempt, that maybe it was more of a not as serious as it seems. But the doctors today were saying, no, it was quite serious. She was able to communicate using a whiteboard, writing messages on that, but she could not talk because she was intubated. They're also going through all of the medications that she was on. Before lunch, the psychiatrist talked about how she, her mental capabilities and how she was having hallucinations, insomnia, homicidal thoughts, suicidal thoughts. So she clearly was having some serious mental concerns before this, before the killings took place. And I think there's a little bit of confusion. from the public about what each side is actually trying to get across here. And what I mean is that when we talk about the medication, there seems to be this narrative that she's trying to blame the medical community for what she did. I don't think that's The argument here, I think she's pleading guilty to the fact that she killed her three kids. I think the question is more how much responsibility or culpability do these medical providers have for giving her all of this medicine? Have you seen any clarity in that? And do you think that my description of it is even correct? Yeah, I think so. I think so this is the criminal case. There are two civil lawsuits pending that she has filed, and Patrick Clancy has filed against the doctors, against the medical providers, against the hospitals. Those are separate. This case simply is focused on is she criminally responsible, criminally culpable for killing her three children. Uh, it's not going, no doctors are going to be charged. No medical facilities are on trial. It's simply her. She's not denying the fact she killed those kids. What she's saying is she shouldn't be criminally responsible because of the medication she was on and the failures in the medical system. Basically, she's criminally insane. The prosecution said, sure, she has said all along that, okay, she may have been on medication. She may have had postpartum issues, but. She knew enough to send her husband out to a restaurant and to CVS. This was pre-planned. She clearly had enough time to strangle those three children and then jump from the second-story window. As tragic as it is, and everybody agrees, it is extremely tragic. She still should be held criminally responsible because she killed those children. And Grace, this is one of those cases that, as you mentioned, a lot of people are like, oh, it's too gruesome. I can't follow it.

But it's also one that you ask anybody, and they're not quite sure what to think. Is she criminally responsible? A lot of people like, absolutely she is. A lot of people like, no, I've had postpartum. I can experience with it. I know what this is like, or I know someone who has. So it's going to be fascinating when the jury actually gets this case, what they end up going with because it is one of those that there's no question on if there were. Murders committed. Homicides committed. But in the eyes of the law, should she be criminally responsible for doing it? I want to ask you about the prosecutor because I have heard a lot of when I talk to people about this outside of the radio and I'm just, you know, at the park. And it's one of these stories, as you just mentioned, but people are following it. And they are, especially women, I hear a lot from people who have experienced postpartum in one way or another. And they do have strong opinions about the prosecutor. So I do want to get to that. But before we do, and this might be a dumb question, Nate, but she had a long history with mental health officials and doctors in the medical community. As far as like therapists or psychiatrists go, is all of that stuff available now to the prosecution and to the defense? Or does HIPAA still come into play for any of it? Well, I know that a lot of it has been sorted or released through the civil lawsuits that have been filed, and even the criminal lawsuit, or the criminal trial that we're following now. I don't, as far as HIPAA is concerned, I think because she's on trial, we've actually heard the doctors talking about her medical records that can release publicly. But it is, as you mentioned, she saw a lot of doctors. And she was on a lot of medicines, maybe not all at the same time, but she went from one to the other to the other. And those records have been out there. So I think once it hits the criminal level, once somebody's charged, the rights of unaccused, I don't know where the line is as far as what they can release. If it relates to the case directly, then, yeah, I think it does come out. I have had people all over the world. This morning I got an email from someone in South Africa from a woman saying, She had severe postpartum psychosis and thought about killing her children daily, and someone intervened and got her help. I interviewed a father last week, a father of five, whose wife had severe postpartum psychosis. They were in traffic. She jumped out of the car, ran in front of a semi, and was killed because the delusions were so serious. So it is a serious topic. I think this case is shutting a light on it. I think that... But then again on the other side, and I think the prosecution is kind of walking this line, and many people say doing a good job at it as far as saying, yes, we acknowledge the mental effects. But in the eyes of the law... Three lives are lost. Where is justice for them? Who, who, you know, contributes to them? We do know the father, Patrick, who has not been in the courtroom since he testified. He testified over the course of two days last week, and then he left. He is a witness for the defense and the prosecution. He has not slammed Lindsay. He has actually stood by her. He said the woman that did these things is not the woman I murdered. And he has...

publicly supported her. He has since moved on and gotten married, but I think it might be a different case if he were coming out saying, no, I, you know, he should be held responsible. He said the day this happened, it was one of their best days, but he also testified to the months and years of severe mental health episodes that his wife experienced after they had their children. I've heard from a lot of people who think that the prosecutor in this case is, I don't want to say being too harsh because, as you just pointed out, this is an extremely gruesome case and three beautiful lives were lost. But that there's something about the way she's delivering these questions or these accusations that is like unsettling to them. Have you heard that from anyone? Have you gotten that feedback? I know you say some people think she's doing a good job. I've actually heard from a lot of women who don't like the way she's doing this. Yes, very much so. That seems to be the overwhelming feeling. And, you know, I'm not taking either side here. I think she isn't a difficult spot where it's an emotionally charged case. I mean, I saw one headline saying it's a saddest case in America where she has to go in there, present the fact you can't show much emotions to the prosecutor. Now, you can be a little, I guess, gentler or softer around the edges as far as the way you question things. But these are really hard questions. And she is gruff. She is kind of, you know, just straight to the point. Lindsay Clancy's attorney, on the other hand, is very experienced. And he's come across, I think in some aspects is sympathetic in the fact that he says, we don't object to any of this. You know, I've covered trials before where the defense attorney comes off as arrogant and mean and bullying. Not in this case. He's saying we admit it happened. And he's come out and said, I don't like the way the prosecution is handling this case. When we saw the images on Friday of Lindsey Clancy and the cuts across her throat and her wrist, he had them blown up in big poster-sized images to show the jury that this is how serious it was. And, yeah, there are different people that don't like the way the prosecution's handling it or the defense. It'll be fascinating when the defense takes over to see what happens with the case and if it does turn the kind of the mood in the courtroom. How did you think both sides handled Patrick Clancy on the stand? Because I do think. that that is a particularly heartbreaking aspect of this is that after the fact people and we always see this Nate like people want to pass judgment and they want to play Monday morning quarterback for how you could have avoided something like this and you know if it's coming from a place of how do we avoid this for women and for families in the future then that's one thing but if it's just to add on I think to this man's suffering I I really bristle at that. How did you find this line of questioning about his life with Lindsay and his role as a husband and a father?

It was just so heavy, so hard to listen to. You know, this is a husband who's been through just an unimaginable heartbreak and pain and discovering this, his children, his whole family gone, basically. And I think he did very well on the stand. He didn't break down sobbing. He was very composed. The one time we really saw him kind of. experienced hardship is when he was asked to talk about his kids, and the three children were shown on the screen, and he's talking about things they enjoyed and liked to do, and he really started to breathe deep, and some was worried that he hyperventilated. In fact, there was a break. He testified, and they went to break after they played the 911 call. He was not in the courtroom for that. They came back, and they had to call two other witnesses, because he wasn't quite ready to go on the stand. He needed a little bit of a break. Completely understandable. I think the majority of people... are sympathetic toward him. They feel for him. There's a beautiful playground that has been built in their community in honor of these three children. I put photos on my Facebook page where, you know, he has tried to remember them in a positive, helpful way, and in a way to raise awareness of mental health and the serious... nature that needs to be taken in. Nate, really quick here before we have to break. I'm getting a text from 339 that says, would you ask Nate to explain what evidence has come up about her search histories? I know that there was, we talked at one point when I had you on about that she was searching for medication for one of her kids, which kind of goes against this idea that it was premeditated because why would you be getting medication for your child if you knew you were going to do something like this? But has her search history... come up with anything that would move people in the direction of thinking this was premeditated? She was searching for suicide type of things. She was searching for the restaurant, the day of the event. She was at 3V distance. It was a restaurant that they normally didn't go to because it was further away. I originally thought this restaurant was like an hour away, but my producer drove it. She said it was only about 15 minutes from the house, so it wasn't too far. She was searching, you mentioned, she called the CBS to talk about some Mira lax for her child who'd been to the doctor that morning. So, yeah, there was some Internet history that came up as far as searching for suicide types of mental health issues like that. That has come up briefly. I am curious, and we don't know if there will be further witnesses that talk more about that. They do have, the prosecution has a list of 182 witnesses. So far, I think we've been through 20. I mean, they're moving through these fairly quick. The defense has kind of argued against all of these witnesses saying it's repetitive, that they're piling on, that there doesn't need to be this many experts from the state police or the local police or whatever that do it. So far, the judge has allowed them all in. And it could be that the defense, when they take over, really stresses her internet search history to say she was mentally ill. She was somewhat searching for help or looking for ways to end her life. And maybe that was something that she found when she did it. Nate Eaton, I really appreciate you coming on, as always. You're a great source for us. And, Nate, please give people your X handle so they can follow you and follow this case.

Yes, you can follow it at Nate News Now and then every night on our courtroom insider YouTube channel, it's just courtroom.insider at 9 o'clock Eastern, I do a live recap of what happened that day in court. So we kind of boil down the six or eight hours of testimony into an hour program and you can send in questions and I'm happy to answer those to the best of my ability. Thank you, Nate. It's a very hard case and you're the right guy to cover it. We appreciate it. Before I went to Perfect Smiles, I didn't realize how much my TMJ was affecting my daily life. It was just, it was making me grumpy. I was grumpy grace. And Jared knows this. I'm not grumpy grace a lot. Not at all. If I'm grumpy grace, I either haven't had my coffee. Something's a miss. And this whole place goes off its axle when I'm grumpy grace. But it was just, it was this constant tension in my jaw. And it was when I was driving, when I was eating. And when you, when you take the joy out of eating. your life really does change. I look at things and be like, I can't eat that. And there's no worse. Well, there's worse feelings, but that's a bad one. And so what happened for me is I got Envisaline with Dr. Tam at Perfect Smiles. He, he is an expert in Envisaline. But I didn't realize this. He's also an expert at TMJ. So when I started with Invisaline, I noticed my TMJ went away. And I talked to him about it. And he said, it's because we not only fixed your teeth cosmetically. We fixed your bite. We kind of had this. this whole approach to just making sure your mouth was working properly and that has taken away the tension and the TMJ. So I've had just an incredible experience with perfect smiles. I highly, highly recommend calling Melissa talking to her, tell her you heard about it on the Grace Curley show. Shows gets a kick out of that. And everyone there is awesome. Whether it's TMJ or straightening out your teeth or having a teeth cleaning or getting veneers, they have you covered every step of the way. And they're going to work to make your smile exactly what you wanted to be, your perfect smile. So go to perfect smiles.com or call them at 603-595-6699. That's 603-595-6699. Change your smile. Change your life. We'll be right back. Missed today's show? Catch the stories everyone's talking about. Listen anytime, anywhere. Subscribe to the Howie Car Radio Network wherever you get your podcasts.

This is the Grace Curley Show. That's Martha Reeves. And Martha Reeves is the lead singer of the Motown group, Martha and the Vandellas. And they performed the Star-Spangled banner at the first woman's pro baseball league. And they definitely caught everyone's attention with this rendition. Jared, give me a little bit. Oh, say, can you see by the dawns' early light. What's so proudly we hail at the twilight's last gleaming, whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous sky. All right. I just want to say people are saying it's worse than Fergie's. Don't disrespect Fergie. Okay, that thing still, that performance still ran supreme. By the way, it's not their fault. Their last hit was 1964. Who is saying, let's get these ladies to sing the national anthem? That's just mean, cruel and unusual. Nice trying, Martha. We'll get them next time. Everybody has an off day. Take it from me, people. Howie cars coming up next.