6-21-25 The Weekend Hour 2: Climate Nuts Shift Again – Now They Claim Agricultural Collapse

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA
director of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie,
You're doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with
Michael Brown broadcasting live from Denver, Colorado. It's the Weekend
with Michael Brown. Glad to have you joining the program today.
If you want to interact with the program, there's several
ways to do it. The easiest way is send me
a text message. You can do that either when we're

(00:21):
live on tape delay or podcast twenty four hours, seven
days a week. On your message app. The number is
three three one zero three three three one zero three.
Keyword Mike or Michael. If you want to engage in
social media, the most active place for me, I'm on Facebook,
Instagram and all of them. But if you want to
follow me on X formerly Twitter, it's at Michael Brown USA.

(00:42):
At Michael Brown USA. That's ron probably the most active
Last night on X again, another reason why you got
to follow me. One of the local mediorologists started talking
about the heat wave. We're having a heat wavey lind
Ron Stan heatwave in Denver, except for really not because

(01:08):
it's well, it's you know, late June and in Denver itself,
it gets hot. Even up in the mountains. It gets
warm this time of year because it's summertime. And once again,
the hyperbole is just off the charts about it's hot
in the summertime, and of course it's because of climate change.

(01:30):
So a meteorologist I should probably put in air quotes
because he's really a climate activist in my opinion, that
is on one of the local stations that I don't
really watch because they're so far left leaning that I
just can't put up with it. And as I said
on X last night, I really want my local meteorologist
to just tell me what the weather is, you know,

(01:52):
and maybe even give me a forecast for you know,
maybe one or two days out, maybe even give me
a seven day forecast, because beyond that, let's be truthful
where Denver's located, because we're right, you know, we're up
against the front range the Rockies, so the Cottonial Divide
is just to our west. You know, actually the divide
itself is probably thirty miles or so to our west.

(02:16):
And then we sit down on the plains and it's
you know, yeah, we're a mile high, but you got
that the mountains, which you know, kind of mess up
all of the fronts that come off the Pacific coast,
or the northwest out of Canada for that matter, out
of the Southwest. So our weather is very hard to predict,
and it's hard to fly in too. It's very interesting

(02:36):
to fly in this kind in this kind of altitude
and everything. So there's one station in particular locally that
I listen to because they are certified as Colorado's most
accurate forecast, and they also don't insert any bull crap
about climate change. There's actually it was a quaintton's of

(03:00):
mine on another channel since retired, that he just got
where it was more about climate change than it was
about the weather. Well, if you can't really predict accurately
three four or five days out, let alone seven days out,
then your bullcrap models that you use to tell me

(03:21):
what's going to happen you know twenty years from now,
is well it's bull crap. And I'm just getting old
enough that I've lived through all of these crises. We're
going to freeze to death, We're going to burn up.
It was global cooling, that it was global warming, and
now it's climate change. See how they operate. Words matter,
words really do matter. Well, anyway, this guy last night

(03:43):
on X had posted something about how we are experiencing
right now more one hundred day degree temperature? Is it
supposed to be one hundred degrees today than we have
in the you know, then we have over the past
ten years. Well, you know what, that might be true,

(04:05):
except if you go back twenty years or thirty years,
you'll find that Denver had one hundred degree weather even
earlier in the summer, which is my point about And
if you go back to the nineteen thirties, which I
tried to point out, you know, arguing with these people
or trying to debate them or to present them, present

(04:25):
them with actual data and studies that are contrary to
what they believe, really is proof that climate activists is
a religion. You know, those that belong to the Church
of the climate activists are truly a cult because you
cannot argue with them, you cannot debate them. They will
not accept any sort of empirical data. It just is

(04:48):
what they wanted to be, and they want it to
be what they wanted to be because it's all about control.
It's not really about the weather. Well, anyway, So I
present this guy with a study that shows that, you know,
greenhouse gas emissions, particularly human created greenhouse gas emissions, are
actually higher. But we've had lots of warmer periods, and

(05:11):
one recent, much warmer period was in the nineteen thirties,
particularly nineteen thirty six. Dust Bowl. Ring a bell with anybody,
And I also pointed out that the temperature gauge for
the Denver forecast, I'm not talking about the suburbs or
anywhere else, but for the record keeping for Denver used

(05:35):
to be located at Stapleton International Airport, which was kind
of within the confines of Denver, but now it's literally
out west of town. It from my house. It takes
almost an hour to get out there, it's so far out,
and it covers something like, I don't know, somewhere between
fifty and one hundred square miles, I mean just square

(05:57):
mile after square mile of concrete. So of course the
temperature out there is going to be warmer, but still
you have to take any consideration the urban heat index
that you know from all of the pavement, the asphalt,
the concrete, the cement, the roofing materials, everything that just
creates hotter temperatures in an urban area that is a

(06:20):
well defined well you know, quantified effect, the urban heat
index effect. Well, this guy was just like totally refused
to engage rashly in the debate, and I knew I
wanted to talk about this today, about the latest scare,

(06:43):
and it's not It is part of the heat wave scare,
but it's the agricultural scare. Have you heard that one? Well,
here we go again, because as what's really happening, I
think is that the public interest in aim at change
and all the doomsday scenarios that we keep being told about.

(07:04):
I mean every doomsday scenario that I've been told about
since I've been alive, none of them, none of them
have ever ever come true. So I think public interest
and public fear mongery is just not working anymore. As
I said, you know, first you got global warming, then
extreme weather. So all the congregants in the Church of
the climate activists and their complicit media counterparts too have

(07:28):
pivoted on once again. And so now the latest scare
is subtle warming and rising CO two, which has proven
to boost crop yields and actually helped green the planet,
is somehow going to trigger an agricultural collapse. It's the
same tired, debunked narrative, but now it's getting repackaged and

(07:51):
all this is groundbreaking science. No, actually not you know,
NASA's own Day undermines claims a crop devastation, showing global
production of staple crops like rice, wheaten corn surging almost
fifty percent since the mid nineteen nineties, precisely when warming

(08:15):
is said to have accelerated dramatically. Now, notably, rice production
skyrocketed without significant expansion in cultivated land. But what does
that prove? What proves the tangible benefits of CO two
fertilization and agricultural innovation? And most, I would guess the

(08:36):
majority of the world consumes rice as a staple as
more so than perhaps wheaten corn. So what about these predictions?
Are we about to face an agricultural collapse? It's a
Weekend with Michael Brown. Be sure and follow me on
Exit's at Michael Brown USA. Subscribe to the podcast These

(08:59):
Situations with Michael Brown. That would get you all five
days of the weekday program. So it's the weekend program.
I'll be right back. Hey, s beehem with Michael Brown.
Glad to have you with me. I appreciate you tuning in.
So you need to run for the hills because we
have a new climate emergency, agricultural collapse. That's the latest one.

(09:22):
The United Nations International Panel and Climate Change, they did
a prediction back in two thousand and seven, and the
prediction was there would be an agricultural collapse in Africa.
They predicted a fifty percent yield reduction, which would indeed

(09:44):
be significant. Well, guess what happened agricultural output in East Africa,
Southern Africa. It actually soared in Ethiopia. You know, when
I just say that the name Ethiopia, we all tend
to think starvation and you know, and they can't grow anything.
Ethiopia alone increased agricultural output output by nearly sixty four

(10:10):
percent since two thousand and seven. Now that may may
not be a lot, but nonetheless it's an increase in
agricultural output. It is not a fifty percent decrease which
was the floor for the IPCC. And of course we
know that synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels are essentially

(10:33):
are essential in sustaining probably I would guess, half of
the world's population. Yet despite all these continued failures of
doom and gloom that the world is ending and we're
all going to burn up. You know, we're all going
to burn to death. There are journals like Nature, which

(10:56):
is what I want to focus on for a moment.
The journal Nature continues to publish papers that echo the
same unfounded fear mongering, and I think they do so
because it fuels funding. Now, I think that Chris Wright
and the others in the Energy Secretary and Zelden at EPA,

(11:20):
I think a lot of people in the Trump administration
are throwing up gigantic roadblocks to the Green New Deal
scam that's been going on for decades. And I think,
in addition to immigration, I think that is one of
the most significant things that Donald Trump has done. I mean,
there are many sign significant things that Trump's doing in

(11:41):
this second term, realigning world trade agreements, getting rid of
all the Green New Deal bullcrap like ev incentives and rebates,
and you know, an immigration. I mean, it's just it's amazing.
This guy's like the energized energizer bunny. Right now, let's
get back to the Nature magazine. It fuels funding the

(12:02):
scientists who are actually activists, the universities all the research institutions,
they all profit from this perpetual alarm bell going off.
And the more dire that their predictions are that they make.
The richer the rewards, and the more money they get
to study the very predictions that they calculate. Nature has

(12:22):
an article published three four days ago, Impacts of climate
change on global agricultural accounting for Adaptation. It's a perfect
case study in how so called scientific narratives are actually
manipulated so they can perpetuate irrational climate fears because the

(12:44):
models behind those predictions they're contrived. They selectively tune all
the variables. Imagine, you know the Wizard and the Great Oz, Well,
he's back there, you know, he's that back there turning
the dials. Well, just imagine all these climate cultists are
back behind the curtain. Trump's pulling the curtain bi you

(13:05):
know away. And what do we find. We find all
of these so called scientists were who are really activists,
fine tuning the dials so they can get the results
they want while absolutely ignoring the realities of what we observe.
It's once again it kind of it ties exactly in

(13:25):
with the first hour about you really can't believe everything
or almost anything that you read, and you now can
no longer really believe anything that you see. Well, they
refuse to believe what they see. They don't see the data,
So we have to manipulate the data. You know, the
typical garbage in garbage out paradigm, which is exactly what

(13:46):
they they're doing. You know, it was garbage data. You
put into a perfect model, you get garbage results. Right, Well,
if you put perfect data into a garbage model, you
still get garbage's results. And here's the kicker. The paper
in Nature is not groundbreaking, so I use some AI

(14:11):
and started digging into it. Turns out it's recycled nonsense.
They actually just relied on a bunch of previous sleep.
It's almost like it was more of a meta analysis
than it was any sort of new research. But it's
presented as all this new research. And of course it
was heavily funded by influential organizations like the Carnegie Foundation,

(14:32):
the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, the
Sloan Foundation, several philanthropic entities like the Heising Simon's Family Fund,
and the Ray and Dogmer Dolby Fund. That background right
there just illustrates the vested interest in promoting this alarmism,
and that in turn becomes this vicious cycle. They promote

(14:56):
the alarmism, that gets funded by people whose foundation and
organizations support the alarmism because they want more globalist control,
and therefore that drives more funding and more policy influence,
all driven by fear. Now, if you want to understand
why the paper seems to be scientific nonsense, and why

(15:16):
it's essentially a rerun of the uns already debunk production
predictions and how the real world ad data demolishes their narrative,
then you want to keep going because the paper claims
all the significant negative impacts on agriculture from what are

(15:37):
truly just incremental increases in global temperature and atmospheric CO
two levels. But when you really start to scrutinize it,
it becomes clear that the Nature article in the Nature paper,
if you will, actually relies heavily on climate models that
are designed specifically to amplify the fear, and those models

(15:58):
employ un realistic assumptions about agricultural resilience and the impact
of CO two. I'll give you an example. They underestimate
the substantial benefits of CO two fertilization because what does
that do you asked? You go ask any farmer or
rancher and they'll tell you that CO two fertilization will

(16:21):
significantly enhance their plant growth efficiency and the productivity the
yields of their crops. So elevated CO two, which we're
told is a bad thing. Which is elevated, I shouldn't
say elevated, but it's increasing. It's not nearly as high
as it's been in the past in terms of the
life of the planet, but it is so. In nineteen

(16:46):
thirty six, for example, this was in my Twitter feed,
which is why you should be following me on x
at Michael Brown USA. So I put the figures there.
I'd actually pull it up. I don't remember them exactly.
But in nineteen thirty six, when the hot steer's in record,
I think maybe may still be the hottest year on record,

(17:06):
CO two levels were actually less by i'd say it
on average one hundred parts per million then what it
is today. So you can't blame CO two if you're
going to claim that, oh, CO two is causing the
increase in heat. Now we'll look back to nineteen thirty six.
So they're exaggerating and ignoring the real world observation. Why

(17:31):
because they have to create the crisis. It's the weekend
with Michael Brown. Be sure and send me text messages.
The number if you have any tell me anything, ask
me anything. The number on your message RAAP is three
three one zero three. Keywords are either Mike or Michael.
Hang tight, I'll be right back tonight. Michael Brown joins

(17:52):
me here, the former FEMA director of talk show host
Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're doing a heck of
a job the Weekend with Michael Brown. Hey, so begin
with Michael Brown. Thanks for joining in if you want to.
You know, if you like what we do on the weekend,
I think you'd like what we do during the week too.
So on your iHeart app, just search for and then

(18:13):
preset this station six thirty KHOW six three zero KHOW.
And when you preset that, then you can listen to
us live Monday through Friday from six to ten Mountain time,
just like you do on the weekend. I think you'll
like what we do during the week Two. If you
like this, you know what's funny is during the break

(18:34):
I have a computer on my laptop in front of me,
but I also have another computer monitor, several, but I
have one right in front of me, and I thought,
let's just out of curiosity, let's jump over to the
Drug Report real quickly. Well, your honor arrest my case.
The Drudge Report, of course, the headlines are all about
Israel and Iran, which I don't plan to get to today,

(18:59):
but maybe maybe not. But when you scroll down below
the fold, as you would a newspaper, right in the
center where your eye would naturally go is a picture,
a black and white picture of somebody in a in
a fountain, you know, one of these urban fountains you
might see in the middle of a downtown area somewhere,
sticking their head in the spry spraying water. And then

(19:23):
here are the three headlines on the Drudge Report right now, Saturday,
June twenty first, at eleven thirty five Mountain time heat
wave with one hundred degree tempts will affect one hundred
and seventy million developing run for the mountains. It's all

(19:43):
about fear. The headline under that New York City to
ninety eight degrees fahrenheit exclamation point. Yeah, I've been in
New York where it's been hot like that. Stinks. It's humid,
it's nasty, it's June. It's summertime in New York. And

(20:05):
then third, the third headline under that scary picture of
a person desperately trying to cool off. Oh, hurricane season
slowest start in twenty years. Wow. I guess the climate
does change and it doesn't always fit the narratives, does it.

(20:26):
So back to the Nature magazine article because I want
to finish kind of deconstructing it. When you think about
elevated CO two, well, obviously that's going to help a
plant grow faster. It will therefore use water more efficiently,
and that will produce a higher yield from whatever that
crop is that you're growing. And that's just a fact

(20:50):
that you ain't have. Don't even go research it, go
find and fight. Everybody should know a farmer, and everybody
should know a rancher, because if you want to know
a true environmentalist, get to know a farmer and rancher.
They know better how to take care of their of
the land and the climate and the earth than anybody else.
And they will tell you that, yeah, this, these these

(21:12):
elevated levels of CO two and CO two based you know,
fertilizers help us to grow more productive crops, that you'll
have more yields to them. But when you look at
the Nature article, it uses exaggerated temperature sensitivity parameters, and
that then inflates any potential negative outcomes. But the real

(21:36):
world observations such as there is a consistent rise in
global agricultural productivity over the past several decades, well, that
contradicts exactly what they're trying to fear monger about that
we're about to face some sort of global agg catastrophe

(21:57):
because of increased CO two. And that's because you're driving
too many cars individually, you're breathing, you're exhaling too much,
you're farting too much, there are too many cows, you're
eating too much meat, you're using too much air conditioning.
You see, you just it's you got to stop all
of that. All of those models that they use seem

(22:22):
to ignore or certainly don't properly take into account the
measures that farmers and ranchers use to increase crop productivity.
They diversify their crops, and in this case, diversity is
not a bad thing, it's a really good thing. They

(22:43):
change and improve their irrigation methods. They and don't be
afraid of this word. But they will genetically improve different
varieties of crops, and they will genetically alter those crops
so that they are specifically grown for reasons billience against
heat or drought conditions. And those are practical things. You know,

(23:07):
we've been genetically altering crops since man first spliced you know,
trees and things to grow different crops. But I think
the most practical All of those are practical. But what's
great about them is they're adopted widespread all over the world,

(23:29):
and that's why you see crop productivity increasing all over
the world. And so the paper just completely ignores that's
not fair. The paper does not reflect the complexities or
the realities of what farmers and ranchers actually do globally.
So it makes all these excuse me, it makes all

(23:51):
these alarmist predictions without any acknowledgment whatsoever of how farmers
and ranchers historically adapt and the innovation that they are
always seeking and using all over the world. And so
by emphasizing a worst case scenario that creates the fear

(24:11):
that drives the policy agenda, rather than doing what you
would think scientists would want to do, and that would
be to inform genuine agricultural planning and adaptation. So that
led me to dig into You know, there's a great website,
Our World and Data. If you've never dug through that website,

(24:31):
I would encourage you to go do it. It's called
our World in Data. Now, some of the data you
may not like, but data's data. Well, they have one
They have a chart crop yields worldwide from nineteen sixty
one to twenty twenty three. So that's a fairly significant

(24:53):
period of time, and they are crop yields that are
measured in tons per heck tear. The heck tear is
one hundred square acres I think. So it starts back
in as I said, from nineteen sixty one to twenty
twenty three. Now bananas and potatoes have just zoomed in

(25:15):
terms of their crop yields, maize, rice, wheat, barley, soybeans,
peas beans, cocoa beans. Those of all beans and cocoa
beans have slightly increased, but I would say objectively they've
stayed pretty much the same. Everything else is a significant

(25:36):
increase in crop yield during that same period. Fro nineteen
sixty one to twenty twenty three. All the congrad gets
in the Church of the climate activists kept telling us
that all this unprecedented global warming and CO two increases,
we're going to decrease crop yields. Yet yields for those
essential crops maizea white rice, wheat, potatoes have steadily and

(25:59):
signific ethically increased. Those are observed yield increases, which is
obviously different from the catastrophic scenario that gets portrayed based
on models from the climate alarmis. It is a deliberate ignorance,
a deliberate turn the head and don't look at the

(26:20):
observable realities. And of course the use of the models,
that's not an accident, that's a purposeful strategy designed to
create the fear. So all the activist scientists, and I
use that deliberately because I do believe there are air
quotes here scientists who believe in the scientific method and

(26:46):
they don't mind. In fact, they want to be challenged
because they're seeking the scientific truth. But they're also activists scientists,
and they're activist journals, they're activist institutions, and they all
benefit directly from maintaining all of that alarmism because that
can that ensures all the continued funding all the public attention,

(27:10):
and so they create papers like this one to perpetuate fear,
not illuminate the truth. The observable data worldwide is unequivocal.
Despite incremental warming, which I freely admit it occurs, an

(27:31):
increase CO two, which I freely admit, is there, global
crop yields continue to rise steadily. So the Nature article,
like lots of others before it, is simply part of
the ongoing strategy trying to, you know, fear the public
into supporting restrictive climate policies. And I believe those policies

(27:55):
are far more dangerous to our food supply than any
slight climate very And it's gotten so bad that now,
just like on the Drudge Report, contradictory, you know headlines
here heat waved with a one hundred degree tempt to
gorn to effect one hundred seventy million people, That headline
is desired is designed to make you scared. New York

(28:17):
City's ninety eight degrees fahrenheit. It's underlined with an exclamation point,
as if that's Abbnoral. No, that's not abbeynoral. Hurricane season
slowest start in twenty years. How do you account for that?
If we're seeing all the warming because it takes warm
air overcoming across those waters to create a hurricane. And

(28:40):
this is the slowest start in twenty years. It's all
part of the plan. It's all part of the plan
to extend control over how you live your life. So
find a meteorologist that does not preach from the pulpit
on television about climate change. Meteorologist who is a meteorologist

(29:03):
and will tell you today's weather and what he thinks
and predicts the weather might be seventy two hours from now.
If they start preaching to you about climate change, change
the channel. It's the Weekend with Michael Brown. Don't change
the channel here. Text me any question or comment to
this number three three one zero three, use the keyword
Mike or Michael. Go follow me on X at Michael

(29:25):
Brown USA. You can see some of these charts. I'll
be right back. Hey, welcome back to the Weekend with
Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me. I want
to go to a couple of text messages. Some of
these go back to what we talked about in the
earlier part of the program. Let's see there there was

(29:47):
a really good one earlier about this comes from Goober
number thirty six thirty nine. Mike. I grew up in
the seventies in the San Fernando Valley, southern California. I
am Latino and my question is do you think illegally
have their own underground economy They could be sanctioned somehow
to help to help move them to self deport Please

(30:08):
share your thoughts. Well, there's no question in my mind
there's an underground economy, and in that underground economy you
can see it sometimes it surfaces when they send remittances
remit incenses back to their home country. I had to
go to the service desk at a local grocery store
recently and there was a big sign for Western Union

(30:32):
and it caught my eye because the sign was pretty
much about if you need to send money to families
in other countries, use Western Union. And I thought, well,
of course, that's how they take some of their cash
and they send it back to Mexico or else, Salador
or wherever it might be. Doesn't mean the difference. It
could be anywhere. But could that underground economy be sanctioned?

(30:57):
Well maybe, but I'm not quite sure how. I'm not
quite sure how that would happen, or this question from
fifty five to sixty five, Michael, isn't a dreamer an
illegal who was brought into this country as a child? Yes,
brought into the country. Or sometimes they also conflate and

(31:19):
use someone whose parents mother and dad are in the
country illegally and then give birth. That child is a
US citizen, but sometimes it's conflated with the labeled dreamer
because of the parent's illegal status. Well, let me finish
the question. Michael isn't a dreamer an illegal who was

(31:41):
brought into this country as a child. Question is what
should we do with these kids through who knew no
fault of their own are here illegally. These will be
the difficult people to remove and should we isn't it
a reward for those children if we allow them to
stay ill gotten gains? As it were, fascinating way the

(32:03):
way that you phrase it, because the question is what
should we do with these kids who threw no fault
of their own are here illegally? Now if they were,
if they were already born, and let's just use Mexico
as an example because it's close. If they are already
born and they're three years old, and mom and dad

(32:24):
are illegals, and they come across the Rio Grand and
they settle in Denver or La or Chicago or wherever.
That's truly a dreamer and they really were brought here
through no fault of their own, and they had no
control over that because they're three freaking years old. Yes,
they're here illegally, and yes, it will be difficult to
remove them, because I'm not sure that morally we should.

(32:48):
Because if they're three years old and when they were
brought here, and they're now sixteen, seventeen or twenty five
years old or older, and they've gone to college here,
they're working somewhere, then yes, I think we need to
figure out some exception for those so called dreamers, because
I think it will be difficult. But here's what I

(33:10):
find fascinating with the way you phrased the text. You ask,
isn't it a reward for those children if we allow
them to stay. No, I don't think you can call
a reward for the children, because, as you admit, they
were brought here through no fault of their own. They

(33:34):
had no choice, So I'm not sure it's technically a
reward for them. It's a reward for their family. But
it's like, Okay, I won the lottery because mom and
dad bought the ticket, and now I get to benefit
from them winning the lottery. That's just because I happen

(33:54):
to be their child. It's not a reward for them
ill gotten gains. Ah See, I don't know. I don't
think so, because again we I think we both would agree,
or maybe we all agree, maybe not with five five
sixty fifty five sixty five. They were brought here through

(34:16):
no fault of their own, and I think that's the key.
And I do think that that would cause a political
upheaval if we were to say, okay, we got to
we're sending them back to a country they don't know,
whereas the parents, we would be sending them back to
a country that they do know. But then do we
want to separate that family versus a family we might

(34:39):
separate because of criminal activity. I mean criminal activity like murder, rape, robbery,
you know, those those sorts of things, drug dealing, trafficking. See.
I think that's what I mean by the Overton window
has shifted. I think we are now at a point
where we can well maybe not with Democrats, but I
think conservatives can now rationally have that conversation, and I'm

(35:04):
not sure where I stand on it. I think I
tend to believe that if they were brought here through
no fault of their own at a very young age
where they had no control whatsoever, maybe even up to
the age I don't know, fifteen or something, sixteen. Yeah,
I think we got to figure out something to do
with those kids, because I think it's morally wrong to say,
now you have to go back to you know, you

(35:26):
got to go back to Guatemala, a country that you've
never even been to in your entire life. No, I
don't think that's right. But that's a conversation that as
long as the borders were wide open under Biden and
we had a flood of illegals, nobody was turning off
the bathwater. Then No, I don't think we could have
had that conversation. But I think Trump this is another

(35:48):
Trump effect of Trump turning off the bathwater. I mean,
the flow of illegals to this country has virtually reached
zero zero, So we've stopped the blood. The bathroom's no
longer being flooded, and I think now we can have
a conversation. Before I think it would have been politically,

(36:10):
it would have been a killer zero one ninety five rights. Mike,
Dreamers aren't US citizens, but a Democrat created label for
miners who came illegally. Eh, it's I mean, I get
your point, But did they come illegally or were they
brought illegally? I think there's a huge difference, and we

(36:30):
ought to be honest about that. It's the weekend with
Michael Brown. The text line obviously as open as it
always is, the number three three one zero three keyword
Mike or Michael will be right back.