5-20-25 - 8am - Big Beautiful Bill and Hottest Summer Ever & Coldest Yet

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael Biden just demonstrated in the audio clip you just played,
if he rapidly reasserts himself, do you know what's coming
next is going to be false?

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah, that's true. Let's see if I can find I
just want to put a little touch on my comment
or a little fine point on my comment about Republicans.

(00:36):
So this there were one hundred and five House Republicans
that joined Democrats to expel New York Republican Congressman George Santos.
Remember that they voted to expel him when he was

(00:58):
charged with crimes, but before he was ever convicted. Now
there's a Congressman named la Monica McIver. I think she's
from New York. I may be right. I haven't looked
it up. I think she's from New York. She is
the one that when the Ice detention facility was mobbed

(01:20):
by these reporters, the mayor of Newark, various members of Congress.
She's one of the members of Congress. Obviously, she's a
Democrat who started boy slamming and touching and moving and
shoving federal law enforcement agents. Which if you want to

(01:42):
know what that crime is, and you don't, I would
offer you a way to, you know, because because how
many times did your parents say to you when you
would ask what does that word mean? And they would say,
look it up. Well, I'm your parent in this regard.
And if you want to know what the crime is

(02:03):
when you shove, push, you know, body slam, whatever it
might be, when you physically have an altercation with a
law enforcement office or that is a crime. And so
if you'd like to know what the consequences of that
crime are, then I suggest that as you're out and
about today, if you happen to see you know, a

(02:24):
state trooper, a Denver cop, or you know, a deputy
share from one of the local jurisdictions or something, why
don't you just stop, get out of your car and
just go running up to them and just tackle them.
But seriously, don't and see what happens. Seriously don't and
then tell me and then tell me you know, then
you can you can leave a talk back from jail,

(02:46):
if you can get access, you know, for your one
phone call, you can call and tell us on a
talkback what you've been charged with. Yeah, Dragon's right, don't
go do that. But she's she's been charged with a crime.
So my question for House Republicans, will you since you,

(03:08):
since one hundred and five of you joined in Democrats
to expel George Santos because he had been Now he's
since been convicted, but at the time that he was
expelled from Congress, he was just charged with crimes misusing
campaign finance funds, fraud and some other stuff which don't
get me wrong, or serious crimes and for which he

(03:29):
probably should have been found guilty. And he was found guilty.
He's apparently out begging for a pardon from Trump. Trump,
do not pardon this a hole. But my bigger, my
more important question is for Republicans, are you going to
now vote to expel because you have the majority need,
you don't even need a Democrat to do this, are

(03:52):
you going to vote to expel her? Hm? Now, the
other problem I have is and I don't want to
start going down this path. I could have been doing
it for weeks, but I just have refused to. But
this one really irritates me. The announcement from the US

(04:17):
attorney Elena Habib, I think is her name. I may
have that wrong, but I think that's her name. Pretty
well known lawyer, done a lot of work for Trump.
Good lawyer. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a
good lawyer. If you can use the word good lawyer
in the same sentence, Yeah, I beat you to the joke.

(04:40):
She's decided not to prosecute the mayor of Newark because
she says in the interests of justice, which that's what
they're supposed to pursue. I just don't understand it in
this particular, in these particular circumstances, she's decided not to
prosecute the mayor of Newark for engaging. Now, I don't

(05:03):
know that he actually attacked law enforcement ICE or CBP
or anybody else, but he did try to force his
way into the detention center. He traded. In fact, I
think he actually made it through the gates. So he
was trespassing. Now, if you're a j sixer and you
trespassed on the Capitol grounds, you languished in jail for

(05:26):
a long time. You may have been an elderly grandmother
from Paducah, but you ended up in jail and then
you got a prison sentence. You may have gotten some
of it suspended and probation instead, but you trespassed the
same thing the mayor of Newark did, and he's not
going to be charged by a Republican appointed US attorney.

(05:50):
And I want to know why now. In the letter
in which she or the public statement that she released
not necessarily a letter in which she and now these decisions,
she said it was in the interests of justice. And
she has invited the mayor of Newark to go on
a tour of the facility with her because, as she

(06:11):
points out, which is fine, but nobody I'm mad. I
never thought otherwise. She claims that we have nothing to hide. Uh,
it's spick and span, it's clean, it's it's safe, it's sanitary,
it's you know, it's not it's not like that New
Orleans jail where you had ten high crime I mean
serious crime like murder, attempted murder. Uh. Prisoners escape New

(06:37):
Orleans and never cease to amaze me. It's it's it's
not like that kind of jail. You know. Some of
the das that have prosecuted some of these criminals, the
da that the assistant DA's and their families have left
town until those prisons. This is how dangerous these criminals

(07:01):
are until they're captured or until they feel like it's
safe to come back. They've they've they've left town. Yeah,
so anyway back to New Jersey. I don't know why,
but this is the spinelessness of Republicans. Let's talk about
the big beautiful bill from him, the Reconciliation Bill. So

(07:25):
I haven't heard anything, and I don't see anything on
Druge or anywhere else. I haven't checked my xpeed yet.
But Trump's supposed to be up on Capitol Hill today
trying to bang heads and get Republicans in line to
vote for this reconciliation bill. Now, I have told you,

(07:46):
either on the weekday program or the weekend program, probably
both places, that there's a lot of things in that
bill that I don't like. But and I understand that
some Republicans are opposed to the bill because they don't believe.
They believe that some of the savings are on the

(08:08):
back end, that a lot of the spending is on
the front end. Others believe just the exact opposite. As
I pointed out, some of the Green New Deal is
actually not eliminated. Some of it is phased out, some
of it is not phased out at all. Some of
it is phased out over a four year period, which

(08:28):
means that if there is a Democrat president in four years,
they could just reinstate all of them, or they could
just stop the phase out. So there are a lot
of things about the bill that I don't like, but
there's a whole bunch of stuff about the bill that
I do like. Probably the over arching thing that I
like about the bill is that it is at least symbolically,

(08:52):
not necessarily in the details, but symbolically it represents the
things that Trump ran on, tax cuts for everybody, and
don't buy into this thing about well Democrats are out
there screaming, you know, Bernie, in particular, we're going to

(09:13):
give billions of dollars in tax cuts, you know, for
the wealthy and the middle class and the lower class
are going to well, first of all, the lower class
don't pay taxes, Bernie, so forget about that. And the
middle class is going to have to pay for all
these tax cuts for all these billionaires, the billionaire oligarchy. Well,
it's bull crap. The Trump tax cuts from twenty seventeen

(09:36):
benefited everybody and continue to benefit everybody, and if they
go away, they're going to affect everybody. It's going to
impose trillions of dollars in tax taxes on everybody from
billionaires down to middle class folks. So I'm with the

(09:57):
And this includes money for border security, includes money for
the military, all of which is debatable, but it's the agenda.
And so from a pure political point of view, despite
nit picking the bill apart, I could spend the rest
of the program nitpicking the bill apart, but I'm not

(10:17):
gonna do it. I'm not gonna do that. Why because
in terms of just pure unadulterated politics, I want the
bill passed because I want to see the Republicans act
as a team. I want to see Republicans actually fulfill

(10:38):
some campaign promises, even if they're fleeting, even if it's
smoking mirrors. I want you to do it. It gets back
to this Lomnica MacIvor this congresswoman. I'd like to see you.
Could you could we at least get a censure. I

(11:01):
think expelling her would be as good because she's now
been charged with the crime, just like George Santos was
charged with the crime, and you voted one hundred and
five of you you know you, As I wrote an
X Republicans bitch and moan about Democrat tactics, but never
utilize them too, so that I'm misspelled it. You's wrong too.

(11:25):
Republicans bitch and moan about Democrat tactics, but never utilize them,
so that Democrat actions have consequences. Republicans just like to complain.
Here's a chance to do more than just complain. Vote
for the big beautiful bill. Vote vote for reconciliation. And
by the way, I know that many Senators are already
dividing about it, fighting about it. They're already divided. We

(11:49):
may not have enough votes in the Republican Senate to
do it, but you know what, get it over there.
Don't worry about the senators until you get the bill
passed in the half. I hope Speaker Johnson has the
cajones to pull together everybody and get that done. Anyway,

(12:10):
I wanted to get that done before I moved on
to what I had teased about yesterday, The hottest year ever.
I maybe you haven't seen it, but if you haven't,
you should have seen it if you do any reading
at all. Everybody, all the major media outlets are claim
claiming and screaming some version of that twenty twenty four

(12:32):
was the hottest year ever. And the coldest year of
the rest of your life. Now that's a really good
psychological framing evoke fear and inevitability in the same sentence.
But it only works if you ignore both the contacts
and the history, because the headlines are not scientific conclusions.

(12:56):
What are they? Well, this is the cabal market using
a marketing slogan to reinforce the narrative, and that narrative
is that today's warming is not just unusual, but it's unprecedented,
and of course it's catastrophic. Now that claim falls apart

(13:16):
the minute you simply ask a question, which gets to
the whole concept of critical thinking. So the headline to
National Geographic says this twenty twenty four was the hottest
year ever, but it might be the coldest year of
the rest of your life. Oh, the subhead is Earth

(13:38):
continues to break temperature records, but if it doesn't feel
that way, you might be experiencing this subtle mind trick. Okay,
So when you read that headline, what what do you
think the question ought to be If twenty twenty four
was the hottest year ever compared to what, what do

(14:00):
you compare it to last year? Ten years ago? One
hundred years ago. Do you compare it to every previous year?
What do you compare it to? So if you've want
to keep it, if the Church of the Climate Activists
want to keep the panic running running, then every year
must be declared the hottest. Every anonymaly anomaly has to

(14:24):
be a historic anomally, it has to be well, it's
it's an aberration, and every event must be framed as
proof of worsening climate extremes. So that's not about climate science.
That's about church dogma. That's about your church belief, your

(14:47):
church faith, and the Church of the Climate Activists are well,
they're heretics. They're absolute heretics because it's about maintaining an
illusion of a crisis so that they can justify more
money and more censorship of dissenting views, and I think,
most importantly, more control over your life. So I tried

(15:15):
to unpack the manipulation in other stories that I've done
about you know, all the climate crap that gets shoved
down our throats all the time. In order for climate
change to be perceived as an existential threat, the warning

(15:39):
has to be portrayed is not just rapid like it's
right here and it's happening, but it has to be unprecedented.
That's why every temperature record today is measured not against
a full climate history, but against a very narrow window
of the industrial era. It's measured against a time period

(16:02):
from eighteen fifty to present. Now conveniently that time period
eighteen fifty to twenty twenty four, because that's they're claiming
twenty twenty four was the hottest ever. That concide that
coincides with the end of the Little Ice Age, which
is one of the coldest stretches of the Holocene. Global

(16:27):
average temperature when you look at the Little Ice Age enigma,
which you can you can find the Little Ice Age
a rigm enigma in several substuct articles. Global average temperature
change everything from the year zero through the year two hundred,

(16:50):
four hundred, six hundred, eight hundred, year thousand, year twelve hundred,
the year fourteen hundred, year sixteen hundred, the year eighteen
hundred all remained between ze old degrees celsius and zero
point five degrees celsius the Medieval Warm period, and then
the Little I say, from about fourteen hundred to eighteen hundred,

(17:13):
where it dropped to on average zero degree centigrade to
below zero degree centigrade as an average as an average temperature,
and then it starts doing the al Gore Michael, there's
no such thing as a good lawyer, and the only
difference between the skunk and the lawyers or skid marks
in front of the skunk. Oh, come on, I need

(17:36):
a new one, not once I've heard before. We should
just do all lawyer jokes. See, you know just now,
I don't want to start down that path today. I'm
not gonna do it. Do it? So what gets omitted
from this idea that wait a minute, why the hot

(18:00):
net year ever narrative? To get to that, you've got
to erase the past. What gets omitted are the much
warmer periods that came before, including what's called the Holocene
thermal maximum that occurred between nine and five thousand years ago.
And during that time period, almost all of the northern

(18:23):
hemisphere was significantly warmer than today, despite despite CO two
levels that were higher than they are today pre industrial
CO two levels. Now, how do we know that, Well,

(18:43):
the glaciers are currently retreating, and of course that that's
you know a reason for pantic But what if you
stopped and thought about what What do the retreating glaciers reveal. Well,
in the Canadian Rockies, they're discovering ancient forests that are
carbondated to over five thousand years ago. There are Bronze

(19:07):
Age artifacts that in places in Norway, Austria, Switzerland where
you know the beautiful mountains, beautiful glaciers. Well as some
of those glaciers began to melt, guess what archaeologists are
finding weapons, clothing, tools, even wooden skis dating back thousands

(19:33):
of years, many from the Bronze Age or maybe even earlier.
Those discoveries reveal what that humans regularly traversed high elevation
passes that today are buried under ice, and we're clearly
ice free during these warmer periods of the Holocene. Life Science,

(19:53):
if you're interested, Live Science back in twenty twenty three
as an article twenty five things found frozen in Europe's
Mountain ice. For all of you always looking for an argument,
go read that article. It's it's pretty fascinating. And now
we have also in addition to that, we've got dozens
of peer reviewed reconstructions to show widespread warming across Europe,

(20:18):
Asia and the Arctic. All these you know, here's what
boggles my mind. None of these observations are new, but
they're routinely omitted from climate reports, and they're almost always
omitted from media coverage because they contradict the core message
that modern warming is uniquely dangerous and that modern warming

(20:43):
has never occurred before. You know that. I like to
say that I believe in climate change, that it has
always changed, and that it always will and it does
so over eons, you know, a thousand years here, five
thousand years there, and so, you know, assuming that mankind survives,

(21:03):
you know, yesterday we had was it yesterday? Or yeah,
I guess had domin yesday. Day's Tuesday. So over the
weekend sometime Hillary Clinton made some comment about how evil
it is to you know, we're coming to the patriarchy,
or something about women need to go back and have
more kids because of the declining birth rates. Well, wait

(21:26):
a minute, if we can stop or reverse the declining
birth rates mankind, you know, actually I think that Elon
Musk has actually said that we're humans are going extinct.
Well I hope we don't, and you know, well obviously
I hope we don't, but I hope we don't. For

(21:47):
one particular purely selfish reason. Now I'll be extinct, but maybe,
you know, future generations won't, and they'll have to grapple
with the fact that all of the stuff that they
learned while they were in school, you know, either or
from their grandparents or their great grandparents or they're great
great great grandparents about oh my god, climate change is
so bad. So what if we are actually entering a

(22:11):
warmer period and the glaciers do melt and we survive,
and we are actually able to sustain an even greater population,
or we're able on you know, less achereach to grow
more food, and so the dwindling population is able to

(22:34):
feed itself and we're able to survive because nothing says
that we're going to burn up in hell from these
horrendous temperatures that are increasing by oh, on average zero
point one degree c inenttegrade or maybe even one point
five degrees integrade. The point is, none of these observations

(22:56):
are new. The point that I made just a second
ago is that the they get omitted. So when you
read the National Geographic headline about twenty twenty four years
the hottest year effort, hottest year effort compared to what
because if you want to go back beyond, way behind
eighteen fifty, Oh yeah, there were a lot warmer periods

(23:19):
than twenty twenty four. So why would they omit it,
Why would they be silent? Well you probably know the answer.
But here's the uncomfortable truth. I think it's the public,
if it wasn't just the minority, and it is a
minority that are members of the Church of the climate activists.

(23:42):
If the general public were shown a clear picture of
past climate, especially that Holocene thermal maximum, the entire narrative
of all this unprecedented warming would collapse. It would collapse
like these bridges do all the time. Because the world
was warmer before across nearly every land surface at pre

(24:05):
industrial levels of CO two. Then all the current warning
must be understood differently. And if the warning is not exceptional,
then it isn't automatically catastrophic, and that undermines and here's
where it gets to why it's truly omitted, Because all

(24:28):
of those facts undermines the premise for every single net
zero policy, for every declaration of a climate emergency, and
actually for the continued relevance of either the IPCC or

(24:49):
the Paris Climate Accords. Or whatever bull crap the Colorado
Pollit bureau passes or the Jared Polus pushes down our
throats about, you know, getting the net zero for this
or that destroys all of that, which brings us to
two powerful new peer reviewed studies, each one reinforcing the

(25:09):
reality of widespread Holocene warmth. One reconstructs land temperatures across
Africs from multiple proxies different locations, and then the other
study analyzes an eight thousand year old oyster shell to
estimate ancient sea surface temperatures in the Pacific. You put

(25:30):
the two studies together and they deliver a huge body
blow to the idea that this modern warming is either
unusual or it's alarming. But I guarante nte that you
will not find that anywhere in the mainstream media outlets.
And of course the IPCC, all the members in the

(25:51):
Paris Climate Accords, all of the church members of the
churchly climate climate activists will almost certainly ignore of those studies.
It's amazing to me that we continue even in the
face of and again let me add a footnote. I'm

(26:16):
completely agnostic about different forms of energy production. I'm for
all of them, but I want a baseline. I want
a baseline that says that whenever I go turn on
the light switch behind me, the flights will come on,

(26:39):
or that, you know, as we get into summertime and
I walk into this studio where the air conditioning has
been off, and so I flipped the thermostat and I
change it to seventy or seventy two degrees, that it
will eventually get cool in here, or vice versa, for
the for the winter time, that when I walk in
here and it's you know, it's colder than a well digger's,

(27:00):
that I can change the thermostat and it will eventually
get warm in here. But for that to happen, I
have to have a reliable and constant baseline source of energy. Now,
I don't care what that is. I don't think it
can be wind, and I don't think it can be solar.
And we've seen that, we saw it in Portugal and Spain.

(27:22):
But if it turns out to be fossil fuels, I'm
okay with that. If it turns out to be nukeasse,
I'm okay with that. If it turns out to be hydrogen,
I'm okay with that. Whatever it turns out to be,
I'm okay with that. And if you still want to
have your solar panels, guess what, I don't care. If
you want to drive an ev I don't care. I

(27:42):
just want reliable, solid, consistent, baseline forms of energy. And
then if you want to tack on little things here
and there you want to have, you know, like I
still want my own little nuclear power plant, you know,
in place of my air compressor outside my house, so
that I've got my you know, I'm talking about going

(28:03):
off the grid. Yeah, they'll take me off the grid.
Brown's got his own Nigga actor in his backyard. It's
not beyond the realm of possibility. But as long as
we keep buying into the hype of the church of
the climate activists, then the majority of Americas, the majority

(28:23):
of people worldwide, will believe that somehow these renewables are
our only salvation. And whenever there's a headline about the
hottest year ever ever, that gets the headline and nobody,
nobody contradicts it. And that drives me back. Why are
there very few Irish lawyers because they can't pass the
bar see And I knew the minute I said that

(28:48):
that it was start this avalanche I.

Speaker 3 (28:51):
Think it was the fact that you said, ha, beat
you to it that set them off. If you would
have just let it lie and walked right over it it,
we'd have been fine. But since you pointed it out,
they've got to try. They've got to be the a
holes that you.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
Are, which I admire. True Gubit eighty thirty Michael Warning
conspiracy theory. No, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory.
Could the Church of the climate activists be setting us
up for blaming blaming the overdue Carrington event as a
result of man's effect on causing the changing climate. Of course,

(29:28):
of course they will. I think the last carryingan event
was in the eighteen fifties. Sometimes it's a massive burst
of solar plasma and magnetic fields and it hurts our
it's our atmosphere. And when that one occurred in eighteen
fifty whatever it was, telegraph systems completely failed all over

(29:50):
the world. Some of the operators that were sitting at
their telegraph machines got shocked. You could see auroras as
farce ieled, the northern lights as far south as the Caribbean.
Now think about if that happened today at this very moment.
If we had a Carrington event right now, of course
they would somehow try to blame a solar flare. To

(30:14):
put it in a really simple vernacular, if a Carrington
event occurred today, it's the equivalent of an electromagnetic pulse.
It would fry everything all you're all the testless. It's
like the sun vandalized everyone. Just fry the batteries and
all the electronics. The south driving cars would just I

(30:37):
suppose they would just quit operating. All of the electronics
and all of my cars would stop working. Everything in
this building would stop working. I mean, the generators would
kick on, which would be hilarious, but the electronics would
be fried. So as much as the as the uh
generators in the back would be spewing out diesel fumes,

(30:58):
which smells really good when they're working, as much as
they would be trying to power electricity, and they and
they probably would power electricity. There's nothing to power, so
the laptop's dead. The broad the towers would be fried.
Everything would be fried. Oh my gosh, it would be
it would be an arm again. It'd be an apocalyptic event,

(31:21):
and it would happen worldwide, And I don't know, I
know there was one in eighteen fifty or thereabouts. Does
anybody know when one was before that? Send me a textment.
I don't know when. Maybe it was before recorded history.
I don't know. But whatever timeline they are, they're not
on a timeline. But if they were on a timeline,

(31:43):
or if let's say that you know it happens every
hundred years or so, well, yeah, we're probably in a
time period to have another one. Now. I think right
now solar activity is at a minimum. I think I
read somewhere, but right now it's at a minimum. But
maybe that's the sign. Maybe that's a sign that one's
about to just boom. First dragon, they'll give us a

(32:05):
day off, or we can just come in and talk
to ourselves. Yeah, we'll just do that. Coming up next,
Alexandri Accassia Cortes is in the news. Yes we might call.
The next segment holds that starting out live where the

(32:29):
Jewish women we can together in gossip