Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, when you go to places like Chicago for your speeches,
to you add a hazard pay to your fee to
protect yourself, you should I.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Probably should start putting that into the contract. The little
polpoirix of just things that I collected last night as
I was scrolling through X and just kind of looking
through news stories, and they don't really deserve a lot
of in depth. They don't need a lot of explanation,
so we'll just go through them.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
First.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Is a woman by the name of Maher I forget
her first name, who is the CEO of National Public Radio,
a government funded competitor to iHeartMedia. And I know that
they're also, you know, listeners supported, but they also get
(00:51):
money from I don't care whether it's a million dollars
or ten million dollars or having much. It doesn't make
any difference to me. But if you're purpose national Public
Radio is to be don't choke when I say this
word is to be objective or fair and balanced or
(01:11):
whatever you want to call it. Do you really think
that this personifies that kind of outlook in life? By
the way, this is a Congressman Brandon Gill from Texas
twenty sixth Congressional District. Talking to her, I.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Believe that America is addicted to white supremacy.
Speaker 5 (01:34):
I believe that I tweeted that, And as I've said earlier,
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
My thinking has evolved over the last half decade. I
think her thinking evolved once she was called to task
to explain what you tweeted, you know, a half decade
ago or however long last week, I don't care. It
could have been yesterday. My thinking has evolved since yesterday,
(02:03):
since you started to ask the question. You know, she's
a pompous ass too, She just and many of this way.
So I'm not making a sexist statement here, But do
you ever just look at someone and just think you're
a pompous ass? Like that guy back there, the bald
headed guy, just a pompous As.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
It has evolved, why did you tweet that?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
To say, Okay, do you believe that America believes in
black plunder and white democracy?
Speaker 6 (02:33):
I don't believe that, sir.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
You say that its reference to a book you were
reading at the time, apparently the Case for Reparations.
Speaker 6 (02:42):
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
He tweeted about it. He said he took a day
off to fully read The Case for Reparations. You put
that on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Wait a minute, dragon, I won't be here to mom
taking the day off to read a book.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Thank goodness.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
I think that's one.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Of the when you feel out workday, You've got the options,
you got personal leave, you got those couple of personal
holidays like the Spirit Day or whatever that crap is,
and then you got vacation, and you got sick, and
you got book reading time, library time.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
I'm taking library time tomorrow or in.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
January twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
I apologies. I don't recall that I did no doubt
that your tweet there is correct. That I don't recall
that I.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Had no doubt that your tweet is correct. I was
just trying to virtue signal to anybody that's in supported
reparations that I support reparations too. So I was reading
a book about reparations. The truth is she never really
read the book. She just said it on X on Twitter.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
I love this, Okay, do you believe that white people
and inherently feel superior to other races.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Well, of course, because I put it on X, so
of course I feel that way, except do not.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
You don't. You tweeted something to that effect. You said,
I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how wide of me.
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 5 (04:18):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experiences.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Do you think the white people should pay reparations?
Speaker 6 (04:25):
I have never said that, sir.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Yes you did. You said it in January of twenty twenty.
You tweeted, yes, the North, yes, all of us, Yes, America, Yes,
our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations, yes
on this day.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came before.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Us, that.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I owe a lot to the people that came before me,
my parents, my grandparents, my great grand parents, to the
founding fathers, all, to everybody who's made this country what
it is. You know, I owe them something, and you
know what it is, a debt of gratitude.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
how many how much reparations have you personally paid?
Speaker 6 (05:22):
Sir?
Speaker 5 (05:22):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Okay, just for everybody else.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
I'm not asking anyone who's to be.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
What you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting is morally wrong?
Speaker 5 (05:33):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive.
Speaker 6 (05:36):
I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
You believe it's morally wrong though, of course, of course,
then why did you refer to it as counter productive.
It's a very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive, as well as
being tweeted.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
It's hard to be mad about protests in reference to
the BLM protests, not prioritizing the private property of a
system of oppression. Didn't condemn the looting. You said that
it was counter productive. NPR also promoted a book called
in defense of looting. Do you think that that's an
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
In defense of looting. I wonder if she took a
day off to read that in defense of looting. These
are the psychos that is the left in modern American society.
That's what they believe.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Again, I'm not asking that they not write the books.
I'm just asking people to pay attention in defense of looting,
there is no defense to looting.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was at my twin you read that book, But.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
This woman is a well read line sacker poop.
Speaker 6 (06:58):
I don't believe that I did read that.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Man.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
I'm really confused this This is the woman that runs INPR. Now,
there have been a lot of people fired, and I'm
not quite sure of you know, whether there's a board
of governors or how she became the head of NPR.
But if Donald Trump is looking for somebody to fire,
you're fired, I'd say, here, you know, this is probably
a pretty good example of somebody that you might want
(07:24):
to fire, you believe, and commerce I would suggest that
if you're looking for ways to save money, that there's
no need for something called National Public Radio. And yes,
I recognize that I'm trying to kill off a competitor.
I'm trying to kill off a competitor that's being funded
by all of you listening to me right now. No
(07:49):
matter what choice you make, you're funding somebody else to
propagandize a bunch of useful idiots. Tom Nelson, who is
really good at pointing out the insanity. We're gonna talk
a little more about the insanity of client. In fact,
we may just do it right now. But he's really
(08:10):
good about pointing out the insanity of climate stuff. He's
the founder of Guerrilla Science. He's also the producer of
a movie, Climate the Movie. And he's also, like me,
believes that CO two is a plant food and that
CO two is something that we ought to actually never
(08:32):
consider it to be a poisonous gas. He's speaking to
an award winning physicist by the name of Will Happer
on the problem among academics, the problem among those who
spend most of their careers and their lives and academics,
(08:54):
and those that I would point out are probably the
nerds among us. Yeah, I know that's a generalization, and
I know we have nerds that listen to this program,
but listen to what Professor Happer says about this detachment
from reality problem. There's a lot of truth here.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
If you've been.
Speaker 7 (09:17):
Sort of an a student all your life, you know
the teacher's patch, and you've come to Princeton or Harvard
or Stanford, you've really been detached from reality.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
You've never really had to see how the world works.
Speaker 7 (09:33):
You know, you've gotten top scores on exams and praise,
and but you know very little about, for example, how's
the automobile work really, and how's your food grown? And
how does it get from the farm to where you
buy it? And you know where does the electricity come from?
(09:57):
And why is it that there are most of the
time and you don't have black ops. I could do
much of the rest of it. Well, all of that
is completely foreigned. And so if you would, sometime in
your youth, spent a year or two in a practical
situation on a farm, or in a power plant, or
(10:19):
you know, in a trucking firm, I think you would
be a much more effective citizen.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Absolutely detached from reality. I think there are way too
many people that indeed are absolutely detached from reality and
We've done it to ourselves. We've done it to ourselves
because we have somehow decided that all of these people
(10:49):
that do all of this stuff are the best in
the bights among us. I simply don't think they are.
It gets to my point about I mentioned casually yesterday
that climate change seems to kind of be dying on
the vine. So yesterday I kind of dug into that
(11:11):
because I really do believe it. Let's think about what's
happened since Trump took office. He pulled us out of
the United Nations Paris Climate Accords, He's unleashed fossil fuel production,
he's cutting climate subsidies that were all part of the
Inflation Reduction Act, and he's chosen as the Secretary of
(11:33):
Energy an oil man that has appeared on this program,
Chris Wright, who helped create the fracking revolution. And then
you think about the fact that Democrats has spant the
past twenty plus years, maybe longer than that, describing climate
change as an existential threat. I mean, it was more
dangerous to us than the Chinese Communist Party or nuclear armageddon.
(11:57):
It was that climate change was the existence threat. And
all of that you then congeal to make climate policy
the highest priority under Biden. Remember Biden telling that little
girl how he was trust me, I'm going to kill.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Off fossil fuels.
Speaker 8 (12:13):
I thought white supremacy was the biggest threat in it.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Wait, that was last week.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
That was that was that's in pr you, it's all
in the existential threat.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
True, we should just give up. We should absolutely give up.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Now, once you think about other than Tesla, other than
the protests against really they're against Elon Musk, they're not
really against Tesla. But tell me what significant climate change
protests that you've seen since Trump took office now slightly
(12:55):
more than two months ago.
Speaker 8 (12:57):
It is funny, though, that these climate change people are like, hey,
let's help the climate by setting fire to something, just.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And setting fire to something that probably spews out more
toxic fumes, toxic smoke than anything else.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
They You've burned that needs to be burnt out versus
being able to be put out.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
In fact, has to have the fire blankets thrown over it,
because well, the water just makes things worse and endangers
the firefighters. But seriously, think back over the past two
and a half months, with everything that I just described
that Trump has done. The Climate Cords Chris ryde is
Energy Secretary, reversing all of the stuff out of the
Inflation Reduction Act, all of that stuff, And yet have
(13:45):
you seen a significant climate protest during that time?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Greta Tunberg. I looked up her. You know what she's done.
Greta Tunberg has.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Now marching in the streets of Copenhagen and New York
and other places, how to protest the treatment of Palestinians,
so called Palestinians.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
How dare you there's no drum.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Beat from the news media. Dragon's the only one that
still still has Gretituneberg on the board.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
How dare you there are no.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Remember the extinction rebellion protests that we blocked the traffic
in DC, Remember all of those? Yeah, I haven't seen
that climbing emergency. Remember how we always heard they're always
congressional hearings. They were always talking about climate emergencies. Have
you heard those? Go do a word search for climate emergency.
Speaker 9 (14:38):
You shut up with that.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
There's no more climate emergency. I guess that's all been
put on hold.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
How dare you?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'm gonna come in there, I'm gonna wring your neck.
I'm gonna think I hammerd to that board or to
that particular button.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
If I hear that one more.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Time, you're just upset because it's hot.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Now. It is true, It's true that Democrats still do
care very deeply about the climate change. And I'm not
saying the issue won't come back, but right now it's complete.
It's it's kind of disappeared, kind of like the you know,
g Jene Ping does to his generals. He just kind
of disappears them. Twenty three percent of Republicans, meaning that
(15:24):
what would that be? Seventy seven percent of Republicans. Twenty
three percent of Republicans view climate change as a serious
threat to the country. Meanwhile, seventy eight percent of Democrats
do so, only twenty two percent don't think so. Yet,
where are the Democrats? Where are they? Roger Pilke, a
political scientist and a climate policy expert, says executive orders
(15:48):
are for show. Legislation is for real, and there doesn't
seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything that Trump
is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, We've
done that dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and
then Biden went back in, and of course the media
and the Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as
(16:10):
the fires in la the hurricanes in North Carolina, they
always tied to climate change. I did find one local
story as I was digging around on this yesterday that
remember Mike Nelson, the meteorologist on the ABC affiliate channel
channel seven in Denver. And I know Mike Nelson, He's
(16:31):
a nice guy, but he really is a climate activist.
I couldn't stand to watch his weather reports because he
always tied everything going on in the.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Weather to climate.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Well Westwood had a story about even in retirement, Mike
Nelson is still pushing climate change. But elsewhere, you know,
you got to recognize there's extreme weather somewhere. What's what's
the weather report today? For example, the record high today
(17:05):
is seventy eight, And all anybody can talk about is
are we going to break the record?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Are we gonna break it? Are we gonna break it?
Speaker 10 (17:11):
More enjoyable than listening to a liberal have to eat
their own words.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
It's enjoyable, isn't it very enjoyable? So Alexis sent me
this SoundBite. I completely missed this yesterday during the during
the hearing. Oh it's Angus King, Senator Angus King is
grilling uh Tulsey Gabbert, Director of National Intelligence, and they
(17:39):
have this exchange.
Speaker 10 (17:42):
I want to move on one note that surprised me.
I've been on this committee now for this is my
thirteenth year. Every single one of these reports that we have.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Had, these are national threat assessments, the World Threat Assessment
about what are the dangers that we're.
Speaker 10 (17:57):
Facing and has mentioned global climate change is significant national
security threat? Except this one. Has something happened? Has global
climate change been solved?
Speaker 11 (18:10):
Why?
Speaker 10 (18:10):
Why is that not in this report? And who made
the decision that it should not be in the report
when it's been every in every one of the eleven
prior reports.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
You know what's great about that point is that's the
kind of shallow thinking that partisan numskull useful idiots US
senators do. Well, it's been in the previous you know,
one hundred reports, and now it's not in this one.
So why not because if it was in the previous reports,
(18:43):
then all of those must have been right. Did you
ever stop to critically think that perhaps the inclusion of
climate change as a as one of the existential national
security threats to this country was total, total, utter bull crop.
Did you ever stop to think about that, Senator? Of course,
of course they don't because they only think. First of all,
(19:03):
they don't think critically. Two, this is a question written
by a staffer and he thinks it's a got your question.
Speaker 11 (19:11):
I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this
annual threat Assessment has been focused very directly on the
threats that we deem most critical to the United States
international security.
Speaker 6 (19:22):
Obviously, we're aware of.
Speaker 11 (19:25):
Occurrences within the environment and how they may impact operations,
but we're focused on the direct threats Somewhere.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That's actually a brilliant answer. Uh, we're aware of the weather,
and in fact, when we're conducting operations, we actually have
meteorologists and forecasters that help us. I mean you talked
about even modern farming. You go to any modern farmer's home,
(19:54):
you'll find all sorts of data that they gather. You
go to any of the big ad companies, they have
complete departments that do nothing but forecast weather. Focus on
the weather. What can we expect? We have an el Nina,
el Nino? What we got going on? So, of course, operationally,
if you're about go to world, go to Normandy. What
(20:18):
did Eyesenower. Do Eisenower had to postpone the invasion why
because of the weather. But that doesn't mean that it's
a threat. It's something you take into consideration. She was
absolutely brilliant in that point. But it flies right over
his head because he's not listening anyway. He doesn't care
(20:39):
what the answer is. He only cares about making his
point so that he looks good to his federal travelers
and the Democrat Party, and he might actually make it
onto TV.
Speaker 6 (20:49):
Somewhere safety, well being and security.
Speaker 10 (20:51):
How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation,
political violence, which is the finding by the way of
the twenty nineteen Annual Threat Assessment under the first Trump administration,
you don't consider that a significant national security threat.
Speaker 11 (21:10):
For the intelligence community being aware of the environment that
we're operating in, is it? Given what I focus this
Annual Threat Assessment on and the IC focus this Threat
Assessment on, are the most extreme and critical direct threats
to our national security?
Speaker 10 (21:25):
Let me ask a direct question, who decided climate change
should be left out of this report after it's been
in the prior eleven.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What difference does that make? Well, here's the difference it
makes is he wants her to admit that it was
Tulci Gabbard that took it out, because first of all,
she's a trader, she's a former Democrat now working for
of all people, Orange Man bad. So he wants to
pin it on her now if he in, which he does,
(21:58):
but he'll never admit it. Stands how these reports come out.
He understands that there's an entire apparatus within the Office
of the DNI that puts these reports together, including the NSA,
the CIA, the DIA, every little intelligence operation within Homeland security.
Everybody contributes to this report and it eventually gets to
(22:21):
the DNI's desk for approval or disapproval, and she can
read through it, she can mark it up, she can
do her own markup, she can add and delete, she
can change words here or there. So ultimately she indeed
may have made the decision.
Speaker 10 (22:38):
But where was that to suit.
Speaker 11 (22:41):
I gave direction to our team at OD and I
to focus on the most extreme and critical national security threat.
Speaker 10 (22:48):
For the direction include no comments on climate change.
Speaker 11 (22:54):
Senator, as I said, I focus on the most extreme
and direct nation.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
That's not a response to it.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Absolutely is the response to the question. I told my
team to focus on the most serious and direct national
security threats to this country. That's what they did. And
guess what was not included? Oh, climate change? Because it
is not question.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Did you instruct that there be no there are no
finding in terms of climate change in this report?
Speaker 11 (23:25):
I don't recall giving that instruction.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
See, and here's where. And I understand the pressure. I've
been in the I've been in that hot seat before,
and so I understand the pressure and hindsight's twenty twenty right,
But my response would have been, uh, I didn't tell
them what to put in or not put in. I
told them to put in what is the most serious
direct national security threats. And this is what the staff
(23:51):
brought me, and I agree with it. What's his response
to he can't respond to.
Speaker 10 (23:57):
That final questions in a few short seconds that I
have left.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yeah, that's enough of him. That's enough of the bull
crap from Central Angus King. It's not that climate change
is no longer an issue. I think that the climate
is always something we should be thinking about. But now
(24:25):
going back to how do we get to where we
are with climate change right now?
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Anyway?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
But it's really a movement, it's a product of both
this country and northern Europe. The climate first voter, those
people who think that this is the existential threat, this
is the most important issue of our time, is a tiny, tiny,
tiny slice of the political landscape. They just occupy an
(24:53):
outsized amount of attention and time on social media in
universities and until recently, when finally, I would say, the
global financial sector, with the election of Trump, was able
to take a deep breath and exhale and say.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Finally, we don't have to kiss ass to.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
A bunch of Democrats that think that this is the
most important thing, and so we don't have to put
this kind of crap into our SEC filings anymore. Now,
they did make a lot of noise, but there were
a lot of them around to begin with. The climate
is just not that important to very many people around
the world. Now people still say it's important. But if
(25:33):
you gave them a list of topics, and this has
been proven by poll after poll after poll, you give
them a list of topics, and what are you most
concerned about? Where do you think climate change usually comes in? Oh,
if you got twenty, I'd say it's in the bottom
three or four. He comes in, you know, seventeen eighteen
or nineteen out of twenty or eighteen nineteen and twenty
(25:53):
out of twenty. So I think that climate change is
going the way of past environmental scares. Why did climate
change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade?
There's a pretty well known economist by the name of
(26:14):
Anthony Downs. Her little famous paper called the Issue attention Cycle.
It's shaped like a bell curve. You discover, oh my gosh,
look there's this potential problem, and then everybody gets all
excited about it, and everybody's oh my god, we got
to do something about it. And then everybody jumps on
the bandwagon. And then some people begin to realize as
(26:36):
a as a at the top of the bell curve,
oh oh this is kind of hard. Oh this is
kind of challenging. Oh this isn't really as bad as
we thought it was. Oh, maybe the data really doesn't
support where we are. And then the bell curve starts
to drop back down, and then your attention goes somewhere else.
(26:57):
It's kind of like the news cycle I told you
about Signal. You know, how long would that story have legs? Well,
it's had longer legs than I expected. Because now the
Democrats have finally found something that they can gel around
and attack the Trump administration on. And quite honestly, I
don't think I think Trump's handling it well, but I
(27:18):
don't think that Hesits and Waltz and some of the
others are handling it very well.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
And they're kind of giving it the additional legs.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
They ought to really learn the issue attention cycle and realize,
quit feeding it. Quit feeding it, your attention goes somewhere else.
And I think that climate change is following Professor Down's
(27:46):
attention issue attention cycle perfectly. Now you can also note that, Well,
let me take a break right here. I'll make this
final point about GDP next we'll be right back.
Speaker 9 (27:59):
Hey there, buddy, Just concern about your well being there.
I hope you're looking into that Coca Cola recall they
come out with lately. I wouldn't want you to get
a bad coke.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Oh get I get my coke from the finest drug
dealers on Federal Boulevard. They've got to have a fairly
new car for me to buy coke out of their car.
Speaker 8 (28:23):
So extensive background check.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Oh and of course, well, just like when I buy
my guns, on Federal Boulevard. I make sure I hey, guys,
mind if I do a background.
Speaker 6 (28:36):
Check, play credit real quick.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Yeah, name of your organization TDA. So I want you
to think about this decarbonization. The rate at which countries, businesses,
financial institutions, individuals are decarbonizing as a unit of GDP
(29:02):
is unchanged. So for the foreseeable future, I don't I don't,
I don't see that changing. It's it's it's not going up,
it's not going down. It's just kind of reached a plateau.
And and some people are continue to decarbonize. But if
you called just I think in the past couple of weeks,
I brought you the story about how business groups in
downtown Denver are beginning to bitch and moan and asking
(29:25):
the city council to make changes in the decarbonization required
of any you know, restoration, rebuilding, maintenance, or anything else
done to office buildings downtown because they have to do
all this decarbonization and it's simply financially unfeasible to do so.
(29:45):
And so I think, I think, just again, this goes
back to my whole concept of leadership, with Trump just
being a leader saying you know what, CO two. We're
not going to have that as a designated as a
pollutant anymore nuclear energy. We're going to declare that to
be a form of clean energy. So and drill, baby, drill,
(30:10):
of course. And Chris Wright talking about however, all the
things they are doing EPA taking all of the Inflation
Reduction Act, the you know, which was going to be
originally like some what was it going to be three
hundred and fifty billion or something, and that's turned into
trillions of dollars and they're starting to rain all of
that back in. That's leadership, and that encourages and gives
(30:35):
a backstop to the private sector to say, well, wait
a minute, if if the government's backing off all of
these mandates, then we're going to speak up. We're going
to speak up, and we're going to tell the city
council and the mayor in Denver, or or we're going
to tell the SEC or whoever else or the EPA
who's trying to enforce these things, that it's simply not
(30:58):
feasible economically to.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Do so, and we're gonna stop it. And if you
don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It, well, you know what, it's actually cheaper and in
many cases. I believe this to be absolutely true. It's
cheaper to go fight them in court than it is
to make the changes they want them to make. So
you go back and you think about Professor Down's issue
attention cycle. I think we're on the downward spiral of that.
(31:25):
Just like back in the seventies and the eighties, it was,
oh my god, we're going to reach four billion people.
Everybody's going to starve to death. Well, we're at what
eight billion people, and I don't know. I can actually
lose a little weight, Dragon's still losing some weight, and
we're both still eating pretty damn well too. Yeah, I
(31:49):
think that. I don't think it's gone away, don't get
me wrong, but I think we ought to recognize that
one of the Trump effects is leadership, and that leader
is having an impact in ways that I think occasionally
out of state. Take time out, go back to Tulca
Gabbard and Senator King. It's no longer in the report
(32:13):
because this administration does not consider and think about this.
The people that wrote that report, I would venture to
say at least fifty percent of them, our career civil
servants working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
who wrote the previous reports, and so they themselves know,
you know this crap we've been putting in here for
(32:35):
the past nine, ten years or whatever. Let's take it
out because it really isn't a serious threat. We know
that we have to deal with. Oh, it may be
hotter in Hell. If we have to go kill the
Hoothi's in Yemen and it's the middle of summer, it
may be hotter in Hell, and we know that, and
we take that into our operational considerations. But climate change, no,
(32:56):
let's don't do that. And Tulci Gabbert looks at the report.
He doesn't take it out because it's not there. We're
on the down side of that Bell curve, and it's
about Dunco
Michael, when you go to places like Chicago for your speeches,
to you add a hazard pay to your fee to
protect yourself, you should I.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Probably should start putting that into the contract. The little
polpoirix of just things that I collected last night as
I was scrolling through X and just kind of looking
through news stories, and they don't really deserve a lot
of in depth. They don't need a lot of explanation,
so we'll just go through them.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
First.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Is a woman by the name of Maher I forget
her first name, who is the CEO of National Public Radio,
a government funded competitor to iHeartMedia. And I know that
they're also, you know, listeners supported, but they also get
(00:51):
money from I don't care whether it's a million dollars
or ten million dollars or having much. It doesn't make
any difference to me. But if you're purpose national Public
Radio is to be don't choke when I say this
word is to be objective or fair and balanced or
(01:11):
whatever you want to call it. Do you really think
that this personifies that kind of outlook in life? By
the way, this is a Congressman Brandon Gill from Texas
twenty sixth Congressional District. Talking to her, I.
Speaker 4 (01:30):
Believe that America is addicted to white supremacy.
Speaker 5 (01:34):
I believe that I tweeted that, And as I've said earlier,
I believe much of my thinking has evolved over the
last half decade.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
My thinking has evolved over the last half decade. I
think her thinking evolved once she was called to task
to explain what you tweeted, you know, a half decade
ago or however long last week, I don't care. It
could have been yesterday. My thinking has evolved since yesterday,
(02:03):
since you started to ask the question. You know, she's
a pompous ass too, She just and many of this way.
So I'm not making a sexist statement here, But do
you ever just look at someone and just think you're
a pompous ass? Like that guy back there, the bald
headed guy, just a pompous As.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
It has evolved, why did you tweet that?
Speaker 5 (02:24):
I don't recall the exact context, sir, so I wouldn't
be able.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
To say, Okay, do you believe that America believes in
black plunder and white democracy?
Speaker 6 (02:33):
I don't believe that, sir.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
You say that its reference to a book you were
reading at the time, apparently the Case for Reparations.
Speaker 6 (02:42):
I don't think I've ever read that book, sir.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
He tweeted about it. He said he took a day
off to fully read The Case for Reparations. You put
that on Twitter.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
Wait a minute, dragon, I won't be here to mom
taking the day off to read a book.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Thank goodness.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
I think that's one.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Of the when you feel out workday, You've got the options,
you got personal leave, you got those couple of personal
holidays like the Spirit Day or whatever that crap is,
and then you got vacation, and you got sick, and
you got book reading time, library time.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
I'm taking library time tomorrow or in.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
January twenty twenty.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
I apologies. I don't recall that I did no doubt
that your tweet there is correct. That I don't recall
that I.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Had no doubt that your tweet is correct. I was
just trying to virtue signal to anybody that's in supported
reparations that I support reparations too. So I was reading
a book about reparations. The truth is she never really
read the book. She just said it on X on Twitter.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
I love this, Okay, do you believe that white people
and inherently feel superior to other races.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Well, of course, because I put it on X, so
of course I feel that way, except do not.
Speaker 4 (04:00):
You don't. You tweeted something to that effect. You said,
I grew up feeling superior. Ha, how wide of me.
Why did you tweet that?
Speaker 5 (04:08):
I think I was probably reflecting on what it was
to be to grow up in an environment where I
had lots of advantages.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
It sounds like you're saying that white people feel superior.
Speaker 5 (04:18):
I don't believe that anybody feels that way, sir. I
was just reflecting on my own experiences.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Do you think the white people should pay reparations?
Speaker 6 (04:25):
I have never said that, sir.
Speaker 4 (04:27):
Yes you did. You said it in January of twenty twenty.
You tweeted, yes, the North, yes, all of us, Yes, America, Yes,
our original collective sin and unpaid debt. Yes, reparations, yes
on this day.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
I don't believe that was a reference to fiscal reparations, sir.
Speaker 4 (04:42):
What kind of reparations was it a reference to.
Speaker 5 (04:45):
I think it was just a reference to the idea
that we all owe much to the people who came before.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
Us, that.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
I owe a lot to the people that came before me,
my parents, my grandparents, my great grand parents, to the
founding fathers, all, to everybody who's made this country what
it is. You know, I owe them something, and you
know what it is, a debt of gratitude.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
That's a bizarre way to frame what you tweeted. Okay,
how many how much reparations have you personally paid?
Speaker 6 (05:22):
Sir?
Speaker 5 (05:22):
I don't believe that I've ever paid reparations?
Speaker 4 (05:25):
Okay, just for everybody else.
Speaker 6 (05:27):
I'm not asking anyone who's to be.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
What you're suggesting. Do you believe that looting is morally wrong?
Speaker 5 (05:33):
I believe that looting is illegal, and I refer to
it as counterproductive.
Speaker 6 (05:36):
I think it should be prosecuted.
Speaker 4 (05:37):
You believe it's morally wrong though, of course, of course,
then why did you refer to it as counter productive.
It's a very different, very different way to describe it.
Speaker 5 (05:46):
It is both morally wrong and counterproductive, as well as
being tweeted.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
It's hard to be mad about protests in reference to
the BLM protests, not prioritizing the private property of a
system of oppression. Didn't condemn the looting. You said that
it was counter productive. NPR also promoted a book called
in defense of looting. Do you think that that's an
appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
In defense of looting. I wonder if she took a
day off to read that in defense of looting. These
are the psychos that is the left in modern American society.
That's what they believe.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Again, I'm not asking that they not write the books.
I'm just asking people to pay attention in defense of looting,
there is no defense to looting.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
I'm unfamiliar with that book, sir, and I don't believe
that was at my twin you read that book, But.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
This woman is a well read line sacker poop.
Speaker 6 (06:58):
I don't believe that I did read that.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
Man.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
I'm really confused this This is the woman that runs INPR. Now,
there have been a lot of people fired, and I'm
not quite sure of you know, whether there's a board
of governors or how she became the head of NPR.
But if Donald Trump is looking for somebody to fire,
you're fired, I'd say, here, you know, this is probably
a pretty good example of somebody that you might want
(07:24):
to fire, you believe, and commerce I would suggest that
if you're looking for ways to save money, that there's
no need for something called National Public Radio. And yes,
I recognize that I'm trying to kill off a competitor.
I'm trying to kill off a competitor that's being funded
by all of you listening to me right now. No
(07:49):
matter what choice you make, you're funding somebody else to
propagandize a bunch of useful idiots. Tom Nelson, who is
really good at pointing out the insanity. We're gonna talk
a little more about the insanity of client. In fact,
we may just do it right now. But he's really
(08:10):
good about pointing out the insanity of climate stuff. He's
the founder of Guerrilla Science. He's also the producer of
a movie, Climate the Movie. And he's also, like me,
believes that CO two is a plant food and that
CO two is something that we ought to actually never
(08:32):
consider it to be a poisonous gas. He's speaking to
an award winning physicist by the name of Will Happer
on the problem among academics, the problem among those who
spend most of their careers and their lives and academics,
(08:54):
and those that I would point out are probably the
nerds among us. Yeah, I know that's a generalization, and
I know we have nerds that listen to this program,
but listen to what Professor Happer says about this detachment
from reality problem. There's a lot of truth here.
Speaker 6 (09:14):
If you've been.
Speaker 7 (09:17):
Sort of an a student all your life, you know
the teacher's patch, and you've come to Princeton or Harvard
or Stanford, you've really been detached from reality.
Speaker 6 (09:28):
You've never really had to see how the world works.
Speaker 7 (09:33):
You know, you've gotten top scores on exams and praise,
and but you know very little about, for example, how's
the automobile work really, and how's your food grown? And
how does it get from the farm to where you
buy it? And you know where does the electricity come from?
(09:57):
And why is it that there are most of the
time and you don't have black ops. I could do
much of the rest of it. Well, all of that
is completely foreigned. And so if you would, sometime in
your youth, spent a year or two in a practical
situation on a farm, or in a power plant, or
(10:19):
you know, in a trucking firm, I think you would
be a much more effective citizen.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Absolutely detached from reality. I think there are way too
many people that indeed are absolutely detached from reality and
We've done it to ourselves. We've done it to ourselves
because we have somehow decided that all of these people
(10:49):
that do all of this stuff are the best in
the bights among us. I simply don't think they are.
It gets to my point about I mentioned casually yesterday
that climate change seems to kind of be dying on
the vine. So yesterday I kind of dug into that
(11:11):
because I really do believe it. Let's think about what's
happened since Trump took office. He pulled us out of
the United Nations Paris Climate Accords, He's unleashed fossil fuel production,
he's cutting climate subsidies that were all part of the
Inflation Reduction Act, and he's chosen as the Secretary of
(11:33):
Energy an oil man that has appeared on this program,
Chris Wright, who helped create the fracking revolution. And then
you think about the fact that Democrats has spant the
past twenty plus years, maybe longer than that, describing climate
change as an existential threat. I mean, it was more
dangerous to us than the Chinese Communist Party or nuclear armageddon.
(11:57):
It was that climate change was the existence threat. And
all of that you then congeal to make climate policy
the highest priority under Biden. Remember Biden telling that little
girl how he was trust me, I'm going to kill.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Off fossil fuels.
Speaker 8 (12:13):
I thought white supremacy was the biggest threat in it.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
Wait, that was last week.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
That was that was that's in pr you, it's all
in the existential threat.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
True, we should just give up. We should absolutely give up.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Now, once you think about other than Tesla, other than
the protests against really they're against Elon Musk, they're not
really against Tesla. But tell me what significant climate change
protests that you've seen since Trump took office now slightly
(12:55):
more than two months ago.
Speaker 8 (12:57):
It is funny, though, that these climate change people are like, hey,
let's help the climate by setting fire to something, just.
Speaker 2 (13:07):
And setting fire to something that probably spews out more
toxic fumes, toxic smoke than anything else.
Speaker 8 (13:15):
They You've burned that needs to be burnt out versus
being able to be put out.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
In fact, has to have the fire blankets thrown over it,
because well, the water just makes things worse and endangers
the firefighters. But seriously, think back over the past two
and a half months, with everything that I just described
that Trump has done. The Climate Cords Chris ryde is
Energy Secretary, reversing all of the stuff out of the
Inflation Reduction Act, all of that stuff, And yet have
(13:45):
you seen a significant climate protest during that time?
Speaker 3 (13:50):
Greta Tunberg. I looked up her. You know what she's done.
Greta Tunberg has.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Now marching in the streets of Copenhagen and New York
and other places, how to protest the treatment of Palestinians,
so called Palestinians.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
How dare you there's no drum.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Beat from the news media. Dragon's the only one that
still still has Gretituneberg on the board.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
How dare you there are no.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Remember the extinction rebellion protests that we blocked the traffic
in DC, Remember all of those? Yeah, I haven't seen
that climbing emergency. Remember how we always heard they're always
congressional hearings. They were always talking about climate emergencies. Have
you heard those? Go do a word search for climate emergency.
Speaker 9 (14:38):
You shut up with that.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
There's no more climate emergency. I guess that's all been
put on hold.
Speaker 6 (14:47):
How dare you?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I'm gonna come in there, I'm gonna wring your neck.
I'm gonna think I hammerd to that board or to
that particular button.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
If I hear that one more.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Time, you're just upset because it's hot.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Now. It is true, It's true that Democrats still do
care very deeply about the climate change. And I'm not
saying the issue won't come back, but right now it's complete.
It's it's kind of disappeared, kind of like the you know,
g Jene Ping does to his generals. He just kind
of disappears them. Twenty three percent of Republicans, meaning that
(15:24):
what would that be? Seventy seven percent of Republicans. Twenty
three percent of Republicans view climate change as a serious
threat to the country. Meanwhile, seventy eight percent of Democrats
do so, only twenty two percent don't think so. Yet,
where are the Democrats? Where are they? Roger Pilke, a
political scientist and a climate policy expert, says executive orders
(15:48):
are for show. Legislation is for real, and there doesn't
seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything that Trump
is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, We've
done that dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and
then Biden went back in, and of course the media
and the Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as
(16:10):
the fires in la the hurricanes in North Carolina, they
always tied to climate change. I did find one local
story as I was digging around on this yesterday that
remember Mike Nelson, the meteorologist on the ABC affiliate channel
channel seven in Denver. And I know Mike Nelson, He's
(16:31):
a nice guy, but he really is a climate activist.
I couldn't stand to watch his weather reports because he
always tied everything going on in the.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
Weather to climate.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Well Westwood had a story about even in retirement, Mike
Nelson is still pushing climate change. But elsewhere, you know,
you got to recognize there's extreme weather somewhere. What's what's
the weather report today? For example, the record high today
(17:05):
is seventy eight, And all anybody can talk about is
are we going to break the record?
Speaker 3 (17:09):
Are we gonna break it? Are we gonna break it?
Speaker 10 (17:11):
More enjoyable than listening to a liberal have to eat
their own words.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
It's enjoyable, isn't it very enjoyable? So Alexis sent me
this SoundBite. I completely missed this yesterday during the during
the hearing. Oh it's Angus King, Senator Angus King is
grilling uh Tulsey Gabbert, Director of National Intelligence, and they
(17:39):
have this exchange.
Speaker 10 (17:42):
I want to move on one note that surprised me.
I've been on this committee now for this is my
thirteenth year. Every single one of these reports that we have.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
Had, these are national threat assessments, the World Threat Assessment
about what are the dangers that we're.
Speaker 10 (17:57):
Facing and has mentioned global climate change is significant national
security threat? Except this one. Has something happened? Has global
climate change been solved?
Speaker 11 (18:10):
Why?
Speaker 10 (18:10):
Why is that not in this report? And who made
the decision that it should not be in the report
when it's been every in every one of the eleven
prior reports.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
You know what's great about that point is that's the
kind of shallow thinking that partisan numskull useful idiots US
senators do. Well, it's been in the previous you know,
one hundred reports, and now it's not in this one.
So why not because if it was in the previous reports,
(18:43):
then all of those must have been right. Did you
ever stop to critically think that perhaps the inclusion of
climate change as a as one of the existential national
security threats to this country was total, total, utter bull crop.
Did you ever stop to think about that, Senator? Of course,
of course they don't because they only think. First of all,
(19:03):
they don't think critically. Two, this is a question written
by a staffer and he thinks it's a got your question.
Speaker 11 (19:11):
I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this
annual threat Assessment has been focused very directly on the
threats that we deem most critical to the United States
international security.
Speaker 6 (19:22):
Obviously, we're aware of.
Speaker 11 (19:25):
Occurrences within the environment and how they may impact operations,
but we're focused on the direct threats Somewhere.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
That's actually a brilliant answer. Uh, we're aware of the weather,
and in fact, when we're conducting operations, we actually have
meteorologists and forecasters that help us. I mean you talked
about even modern farming. You go to any modern farmer's home,
(19:54):
you'll find all sorts of data that they gather. You
go to any of the big ad companies, they have
complete departments that do nothing but forecast weather. Focus on
the weather. What can we expect? We have an el Nina,
el Nino? What we got going on? So, of course, operationally,
if you're about go to world, go to Normandy. What
(20:18):
did Eyesenower. Do Eisenower had to postpone the invasion why
because of the weather. But that doesn't mean that it's
a threat. It's something you take into consideration. She was
absolutely brilliant in that point. But it flies right over
his head because he's not listening anyway. He doesn't care
(20:39):
what the answer is. He only cares about making his
point so that he looks good to his federal travelers
and the Democrat Party, and he might actually make it
onto TV.
Speaker 6 (20:49):
Somewhere safety, well being and security.
Speaker 10 (20:51):
How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation,
political violence, which is the finding by the way of
the twenty nineteen Annual Threat Assessment under the first Trump administration,
you don't consider that a significant national security threat.
Speaker 11 (21:10):
For the intelligence community being aware of the environment that
we're operating in, is it? Given what I focus this
Annual Threat Assessment on and the IC focus this Threat
Assessment on, are the most extreme and critical direct threats
to our national security?
Speaker 10 (21:25):
Let me ask a direct question, who decided climate change
should be left out of this report after it's been
in the prior eleven.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
What difference does that make? Well, here's the difference it
makes is he wants her to admit that it was
Tulci Gabbard that took it out, because first of all,
she's a trader, she's a former Democrat now working for
of all people, Orange Man bad. So he wants to
pin it on her now if he in, which he does,
(21:58):
but he'll never admit it. Stands how these reports come out.
He understands that there's an entire apparatus within the Office
of the DNI that puts these reports together, including the NSA,
the CIA, the DIA, every little intelligence operation within Homeland security.
Everybody contributes to this report and it eventually gets to
(22:21):
the DNI's desk for approval or disapproval, and she can
read through it, she can mark it up, she can
do her own markup, she can add and delete, she
can change words here or there. So ultimately she indeed
may have made the decision.
Speaker 10 (22:38):
But where was that to suit.
Speaker 11 (22:41):
I gave direction to our team at OD and I
to focus on the most extreme and critical national security threat.
Speaker 10 (22:48):
For the direction include no comments on climate change.
Speaker 11 (22:54):
Senator, as I said, I focus on the most extreme
and direct nation.
Speaker 6 (22:57):
That's not a response to it.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Absolutely is the response to the question. I told my
team to focus on the most serious and direct national
security threats to this country. That's what they did. And
guess what was not included? Oh, climate change? Because it
is not question.
Speaker 10 (23:19):
Did you instruct that there be no there are no
finding in terms of climate change in this report?
Speaker 11 (23:25):
I don't recall giving that instruction.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
See, and here's where. And I understand the pressure. I've
been in the I've been in that hot seat before,
and so I understand the pressure and hindsight's twenty twenty right,
But my response would have been, uh, I didn't tell
them what to put in or not put in. I
told them to put in what is the most serious
direct national security threats. And this is what the staff
(23:51):
brought me, and I agree with it. What's his response
to he can't respond to.
Speaker 10 (23:57):
That final questions in a few short seconds that I
have left.
Speaker 2 (24:03):
Yeah, that's enough of him. That's enough of the bull
crap from Central Angus King. It's not that climate change
is no longer an issue. I think that the climate
is always something we should be thinking about. But now
(24:25):
going back to how do we get to where we
are with climate change right now?
Speaker 4 (24:30):
Anyway?
Speaker 2 (24:31):
But it's really a movement, it's a product of both
this country and northern Europe. The climate first voter, those
people who think that this is the existential threat, this
is the most important issue of our time, is a tiny, tiny,
tiny slice of the political landscape. They just occupy an
(24:53):
outsized amount of attention and time on social media in
universities and until recently, when finally, I would say, the
global financial sector, with the election of Trump, was able
to take a deep breath and exhale and say.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
Finally, we don't have to kiss ass to.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
A bunch of Democrats that think that this is the
most important thing, and so we don't have to put
this kind of crap into our SEC filings anymore. Now,
they did make a lot of noise, but there were
a lot of them around to begin with. The climate
is just not that important to very many people around
the world. Now people still say it's important. But if
(25:33):
you gave them a list of topics, and this has
been proven by poll after poll after poll, you give
them a list of topics, and what are you most
concerned about? Where do you think climate change usually comes in? Oh,
if you got twenty, I'd say it's in the bottom
three or four. He comes in, you know, seventeen eighteen
or nineteen out of twenty or eighteen nineteen and twenty
(25:53):
out of twenty. So I think that climate change is
going the way of past environmental scares. Why did climate
change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade?
There's a pretty well known economist by the name of
(26:14):
Anthony Downs. Her little famous paper called the Issue attention Cycle.
It's shaped like a bell curve. You discover, oh my gosh,
look there's this potential problem, and then everybody gets all
excited about it, and everybody's oh my god, we got
to do something about it. And then everybody jumps on
the bandwagon. And then some people begin to realize as
(26:36):
a as a at the top of the bell curve,
oh oh this is kind of hard. Oh this is
kind of challenging. Oh this isn't really as bad as
we thought it was. Oh, maybe the data really doesn't
support where we are. And then the bell curve starts
to drop back down, and then your attention goes somewhere else.
(26:57):
It's kind of like the news cycle I told you
about Signal. You know, how long would that story have legs? Well,
it's had longer legs than I expected. Because now the
Democrats have finally found something that they can gel around
and attack the Trump administration on. And quite honestly, I
don't think I think Trump's handling it well, but I
(27:18):
don't think that Hesits and Waltz and some of the
others are handling it very well.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
And they're kind of giving it the additional legs.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
They ought to really learn the issue attention cycle and realize,
quit feeding it. Quit feeding it, your attention goes somewhere else.
And I think that climate change is following Professor Down's
(27:46):
attention issue attention cycle perfectly. Now you can also note that, Well,
let me take a break right here. I'll make this
final point about GDP next we'll be right back.
Speaker 9 (27:59):
Hey there, buddy, Just concern about your well being there.
I hope you're looking into that Coca Cola recall they
come out with lately. I wouldn't want you to get
a bad coke.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Oh get I get my coke from the finest drug
dealers on Federal Boulevard. They've got to have a fairly
new car for me to buy coke out of their car.
Speaker 8 (28:23):
So extensive background check.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Oh and of course, well, just like when I buy
my guns, on Federal Boulevard. I make sure I hey, guys,
mind if I do a background.
Speaker 6 (28:36):
Check, play credit real quick.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Yeah, name of your organization TDA. So I want you
to think about this decarbonization. The rate at which countries, businesses,
financial institutions, individuals are decarbonizing as a unit of GDP
(29:02):
is unchanged. So for the foreseeable future, I don't I don't,
I don't see that changing. It's it's it's not going up,
it's not going down. It's just kind of reached a plateau.
And and some people are continue to decarbonize. But if
you called just I think in the past couple of weeks,
I brought you the story about how business groups in
downtown Denver are beginning to bitch and moan and asking
(29:25):
the city council to make changes in the decarbonization required
of any you know, restoration, rebuilding, maintenance, or anything else
done to office buildings downtown because they have to do
all this decarbonization and it's simply financially unfeasible to do so.
(29:45):
And so I think, I think, just again, this goes
back to my whole concept of leadership, with Trump just
being a leader saying you know what, CO two. We're
not going to have that as a designated as a
pollutant anymore nuclear energy. We're going to declare that to
be a form of clean energy. So and drill, baby, drill,
(30:10):
of course. And Chris Wright talking about however, all the
things they are doing EPA taking all of the Inflation
Reduction Act, the you know, which was going to be
originally like some what was it going to be three
hundred and fifty billion or something, and that's turned into
trillions of dollars and they're starting to rain all of
that back in. That's leadership, and that encourages and gives
(30:35):
a backstop to the private sector to say, well, wait
a minute, if if the government's backing off all of
these mandates, then we're going to speak up. We're going
to speak up, and we're going to tell the city
council and the mayor in Denver, or or we're going
to tell the SEC or whoever else or the EPA
who's trying to enforce these things, that it's simply not
(30:58):
feasible economically to.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
Do so, and we're gonna stop it. And if you
don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
It, well, you know what, it's actually cheaper and in
many cases. I believe this to be absolutely true. It's
cheaper to go fight them in court than it is
to make the changes they want them to make. So
you go back and you think about Professor Down's issue
attention cycle. I think we're on the downward spiral of that.
(31:25):
Just like back in the seventies and the eighties, it was,
oh my god, we're going to reach four billion people.
Everybody's going to starve to death. Well, we're at what
eight billion people, and I don't know. I can actually
lose a little weight, Dragon's still losing some weight, and
we're both still eating pretty damn well too. Yeah, I
(31:49):
think that. I don't think it's gone away, don't get
me wrong, but I think we ought to recognize that
one of the Trump effects is leadership, and that leader
is having an impact in ways that I think occasionally
out of state. Take time out, go back to Tulca
Gabbard and Senator King. It's no longer in the report
(32:13):
because this administration does not consider and think about this.
The people that wrote that report, I would venture to
say at least fifty percent of them, our career civil
servants working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,
who wrote the previous reports, and so they themselves know,
you know this crap we've been putting in here for
(32:35):
the past nine, ten years or whatever. Let's take it
out because it really isn't a serious threat. We know
that we have to deal with. Oh, it may be
hotter in Hell. If we have to go kill the
Hoothi's in Yemen and it's the middle of summer, it
may be hotter in Hell, and we know that, and
we take that into our operational considerations. But climate change, no,
(32:56):
let's don't do that. And Tulci Gabbert looks at the report.
He doesn't take it out because it's not there. We're
on the down side of that Bell curve, and it's
about Dunco
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!