8-14-25 - 7am - CNN Epstein, EPA Climate and Transing The Kids

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Or Michael Brownie, this is such.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
A riveting conversation. What are we going to talk about next?

Speaker 1 (00:09):
Oh? I just can't wait.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Bite me, just bite me. I do want to move
on to the other topics, but you sent text messages
in and I can't resist the text messages because goober
number eighty nine to seventy seven rights, and this just
proves that you need to leave the in depth analysis

(00:34):
about things going on in corporate America, government, our culture
to me and you just need to follow along and learn. Okay,
eighty nine seventy seven rights, Michael. My guess is they
will replace the toilet and urinal. Most commercial buildings are
moving away from urinals that actually flush. The new ones

(00:58):
I hate. These new ones are quite disgusting because of
the smell. As for the toilets, those will be replaced
with low flow toilets that require you to flush there twice,
require you to flush twice, thereby using the water that
should be used to flush the urinal and increasing actually

(01:19):
actually increasing water consumption too.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
Well.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
I can tell you that they did not replace the
urinals on the third floor with those kind of waterless
you know, low flow urinals, the kind of stink the smell. Yeah,
they're awful. Well they did not do that, they did
not change Well, I can't no, I can't attest to that. Yes,

(01:46):
I need to go check the third floor toilets to
see if they are low flow toilets. I don't know.
I will confess this because I'm such a god, I'm
such a dweeb. They have a sign on the door
that says closed due to construction. As I said, when
I first got here at five o'clock, I checked and

(02:09):
opened the door and turn the light on, and no,
nothing's happened. Then Dragon during the show asked, do you
think they turned the water off? So I had to
go check. No, the water's not turned off, So I
used the fourth floor toilet.

Speaker 4 (02:23):
It'll be easy for us to tell if they changed
out the urinals are not because the one on the
left is a very odd looking urinal. So yeah, we'll
be able to easily tell because it's a very non standard.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Right, and the if the standard non standard actually too.
The new ones have that little kind of cover on
the bottom where your pe kind of just kind of
goes under that little cover and supposedly supposedly completely drained,
but we know it doesn't because you can smell everybody's
peak absolutely awful.

Speaker 5 (02:58):
Ain't nobody cleans it? So it's I'll stand yellow.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh awful? Two three eight rites, Michael, Why would a
sane person get on the fifteen going up and down
Colfax when all the rides on it are the homeless
and derelic drunks, criminals, drug addicts. My wife, who's from Thailand,
would like to ride the bus. She thinks everybody's just

(03:23):
okay and the cops will take care of any bad actors.
I've had to explain to her not that way. In Colorado,
two hundred and eighty million dollars for a rapid bus
line on one of the most congested busy streets in Colorado,
Colfax Avenue, utter insanity. So we were going to begin,

(03:47):
and we are going to begin today with one of
the most glorious kind of self owning CNN sound bites
of all time. I think you'll love this one, so
I want you to listen. Uh, you know, the guy
that does the polling on CNN is always reporting the polling,
and maybe you don't seem because I seem all the
time because I've got CNN and Fox on in the studio.

Speaker 5 (04:08):
He's a young, nerdy looking kid, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
Harry Inton is his name. He's the young kid in
his arms are always flying and he's jumping back and forth.
He's so excited because he gets to be on the TV.
Well he he sadly destroys the hopes and dreams of
the female CNN host whose name I don't remember, and refuse. Well,

(04:33):
all you'll have to do is I'll send this to
Dragon him and he can put it up. But here's
how it goes.

Speaker 6 (04:42):
I would say that this is from at least a
political point of view, quickly turning into a dud of
a story.

Speaker 3 (04:47):
What am I talking about?

Speaker 1 (04:49):
Which is wild?

Speaker 3 (04:50):
Which is wild? Has been for three weeks exactly.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Take a look.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
The anchor at is just, oh, I know what you're
going to talk about, and it is wild. This is
happening wild.

Speaker 6 (05:03):
Google searches for Epstein down eighty nine percent versus just
three weeks ago, falling through the floor. It is no
longer the top term searched, alongside Donald Trump's say that's
been trading off between tariffs and Vladimir Putin with obviously
the meeting coming up later this week, but at this
particular point the American people's interest in this story. It's
quickly becoming something of a nothing burger.

Speaker 7 (05:25):
So out of sight, out of mind maybe is applying here.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
A little bit.

Speaker 7 (05:28):
But has it impacted Have you seen numbers of impact?
This has impact in Trump's popularity, favorability, anything, No.

Speaker 6 (05:33):
Not really, I mean, take a look here. Let's take
a look at the overall numbers. Trump's approval rating in
July of twenty twenty five, who is forty five percent.
It's still well within that margin of vera here at
forty four percent. And you compare that to where he
was in his first term at this point he was
at thirty seven percent.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
So he's seven points higher, very.

Speaker 6 (05:50):
Much at a different political universe. Now significantly higher in
terms of his overall approval rating than he was at
this point in his first term, and more than that,
among Republicans. His approved is near a record high, covering
right at about that ninety percent mark. So now he
hasn't lost any of that base. And when it comes
to that center of the electric you know.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
What he does, he but he says that they haven't
lost any of that base. He you know, the signal
for a NFL referee for a personal foul. It's somewhat
similar to a personal foul, like he's calling a foul
that I can't believe Republicans support him so much.

Speaker 6 (06:24):
Is basically holding on there, and his overall approp rating
forty four percent is pretty gostarn good for him considering
where he was at this point in term Number one,
What do you.

Speaker 7 (06:33):
Think is behind it? Why there hasn't been more movement?

Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (06:36):
Why hasn't hasn't there been more movement? I think this
is pretty simple. Take a look here. Nation's top issue
is the Epstein case.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
This is the number of respondents.

Speaker 6 (06:43):
This isn't the percentage of response, This isn't the number
of respondents.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
And our last CNN Paul look.

Speaker 6 (06:48):
At this zero respondents said that the Epstein case was
the top issue. How about among independents zero independence and
that and among Republicans.

Speaker 3 (06:56):
And therefore overall just a single one.

Speaker 6 (06:58):
So, yes, there used to be a lot of interest
in this story. But the bottom line is that even
amongst those who had high interest in the story, it
wasn't something that they thought was all that important. And
as I said at the beginning, the interest in this
story has fallen off the table.

Speaker 7 (07:11):
Which also when you look at this and you compare
it to just the attention that Capitol Hill was giving
it Donald trump supporters were giving it, Congressional committees were
giving it, it is incongressive.

Speaker 6 (07:21):
I would just say this, Donald Trump has some of
the best political instincts of any politician I've seen on
this particular issue.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
You see it full well and clear.

Speaker 2 (07:28):
Oh, man is the anchor giving him the side eye?

Speaker 3 (07:31):
For me?

Speaker 2 (07:32):
The men he started saying that she gave him the
side eye. Woo, it was rough, Chris.

Speaker 6 (07:38):
I would just say this, Donald Trump has some of
the best political instincts of any politician I've seen on
this particular issue.

Speaker 3 (07:45):
You see it full well and clear.

Speaker 6 (07:46):
Because he has been saying, you know, if this is
not an issue, and it turns out that the a
lot of the American public actually seem to.

Speaker 5 (07:51):
Agree with him.

Speaker 7 (07:52):
Uh, if you dream it, it will become John that's apparently.

Speaker 4 (07:55):
Oh, if you dream it, it will become dude. If
sideye could kill did you see it?

Speaker 7 (08:01):
Lot?

Speaker 2 (08:01):
Got it?

Speaker 4 (08:02):
It's up that Michael says, go here dot com. It's
hear to the end. It's a wow.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
I mean she wanted to kill him. I think she
wanted to kill him at that point. And did you
see the little referee signal?

Speaker 5 (08:14):
No, I missed that part.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
Yeah, it's just it's absolutely hilarious. But let's stop and
seriously think about this for a moment. Which came first
to chicken or the egg? Mhmm, put the cart before
the horse, whatever kind of little tripe phrase, you know,
little little things that you want to say. Perhaps did

(08:37):
you ever consider that perhaps the initial interest in this
was being driven by the cabal because the cabal kept
pushing it. And I remember, because I kept trying to
analyze what the cabal was saying about it and why
it may or may not be an important issue, And
many of you in this audience got really pissed off

(08:57):
at me, for why do you talk about Epstein? Well,
I'm not really talking about Epstein. I'm really talking about
the analysis and how this is being shoved in our
faces incessantly. And then well we move on because the
entire world is now adhd. We can't stay focused on anything.

(09:19):
So here we have another democrat media social media cabal
brainwashing hoax that just crashes and burns all around the
perpetrators instead of the intended target Donald Trump and the
and the cabal that complex. You know, organism of propaganda
fired its best shot, and it missed as wildly as

(09:40):
the White House could have possibly hoped. Well, so what
comes next? Well, the stage is now perfectly set for
the planned hearing this fall on the Epstein matter by
James Comber and the House Oversight Committee, for which an
array of Democrat officials have been subpoened to appear and
testify under oath to be kind of interesting. It will

(10:02):
now be the Republican's turn to go take the ghost
of Jeffrey Epstein and hang that ghost around the wrinkled
necks of those who truly deserve it. Oh, I don't know, Bill,
Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, all the others known to have
been frequent guests on Epstein Island or his either houses
or is well, maybe facility, maybe his his brothels, if

(10:23):
you will, for lack of a better word. And you know,
I shouldn't even say that, because I actually, I truly
I don't care whether they were adults or children, teenagers.
I really feel sorry for these victims because they really
got suckered into this entire you know, decrepit really yeh,
despicable behavior. We reap what we saw in life, and

(10:49):
I'm telling you the Democrats have sown a real mess
for themselves when it comes related to everything Epstein. Now
next story. Now fair warning because a group called Common Dreams. Oh,
he just wants me to settle down and just relax
a storm moment. Common Dreams they have a story up.

(11:16):
The e p A is abandoning the ten Commandments of
climate change. I'm sorry, of climate policy. So it really
is a religion. Whenever you get you know, there it
goes Brown again talking about all the activists in the
Church of the Climate, the congregants in the Church of
the Climate Activists. Well, Common Dreams Dot Org says, yes,

(11:40):
the e p A is abandoning the ten Commandments of
climate policy. Now you need to understand that the writer
of the story, some apparent you know, nutjob named Rabbi
Jenny Rosen literally compares the efforts by the by Lee's Elden,
who's EPA administrator, compares the efforts by Lee Zelden to

(12:04):
rescind the agencies insane twenty ten indagerment finding. In fact,
later in the program, I want to go back to
the endangerment finding again related to plant food, carbon dioxide
COE two, the building block for all of life on
planet Earth two is the equivalent of just burning the
Ten Commandments. Now you can go read the story. It's

(12:25):
a common Dreams dot org. If you want to read
I really want, you can go to Michael says go
here dot com. Simply, I think last night, I'm saying,
you know, Tamas backdown in uh New Mexico. And so
I'm being the wild and crazy guy that I usually
am when she's gone. So I'm sitting around the house

(12:48):
with the dogs and I and we're having you know,
peanut butter and jelly for dinner, and it's it's a
great life. It's a great life. Peanut butter, jelly and
a shot at tequila and life. Life is good. And
I come across. I don't listen a lot to the
Joe Rogan program, the Joe Rogan podcast. I only do
when there's someone that I'm interested in that I'll listen

(13:08):
to it. And even then I don't listen to the
entire thing. I'll listen to snippets or I might start
it until I kind of start losing interest and I
and I move on, Well, what Cobb my attention was
over on x formerly Twitter. Uh tupacabra to, I don't
know who this person is posted that Luna and Rogan

(13:31):
bond over the conspiracies surrounding the Arc, the Arc of
the Covenant, and go over the infamous CI, the CIA's
remote viewing transcript, and some some big some big names
you get mentioned. I'm not going to do the whole
thing because it's it's like nine minutes long, but here's
how it starts out.

Speaker 8 (13:51):
Well, what's interesting is the CIA allegedly located the Arc
of the Covenant.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
I think the remote viewed.

Speaker 8 (13:57):
They remote they remote viewed it. You can actually find that.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
No or Bail one time start talking about all this
remote viewing stuff that you could you could see things
that you couldn't otherwise see, you know, remote viewing it
with some phenomenon by which you could you could see
through mountains or you could you know. It's kind of
like on the back of magazines when I was growing
up as a kid, you could spend you know, a

(14:23):
dollar twenty five cents and you get X ray vision
glasses remote viewing.

Speaker 8 (14:28):
Yeah, yep, but it was in the Middle Eastern country.
They weren't able to locate the actual I think the
New York Posted article on it where they actually had
the handwritten notes on the Arc of the Covenant location
and they remote viewed it. You should ask me, yeah,
I'm serious about it.

Speaker 1 (14:40):
Did they go there and see if they're correct?

Speaker 2 (14:42):
I think Joe Rogan has some of the best audio
technicians in the world. The audio on the Joe Rogan
podcast is phenomenally good.

Speaker 8 (14:52):
I don't know, it's like Indiana Jones.

Speaker 4 (14:53):
But decades ol CIA documents on Arc of the Covenant
resurface and mid classified group textpat.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
What wait, like, yeah, it was the.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
Group text argument that caused this stuff to be.

Speaker 8 (15:04):
No check out, pull up the New York Post one,
because they actually have the handwritten notes from the remote
viewer that actually documents it.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
Okay, it should be like the New York Post. That's
so funny, but there we go. PP one.

Speaker 8 (15:19):
This is wild because it actually goes into descriptions of
angels too, and so actually if so an enoch it
talks about well if you if you scroll down, now
that's that you can probably click on the scribe because
it'll show you all the documents from the actual declassified file.
This is also on CA doty was this happened recently?
This was like a couple months ago that this just
kind of came all.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
Up, right, But what year was this project?

Speaker 8 (15:41):
Nineteen eighty eight, eighty eight five December nineteen eighty eight.

Speaker 1 (15:43):
Wow, So scroll down eighty eight they found the arc of.

Speaker 8 (15:47):
The allegedly, allegedly they remote viewed it. We don't know
if they bought up this president then Reagan go down
Bush Senior. Okay, so scroll down and then you'll see this.
So this is like so they're going through in the notes.
You have to read it, but you can scroll down.
This is kind of drawing where is the remote viewer?
So you have like the different things that are describing it.

(16:08):
And if you keep going, you'll see like a cherubum.
Keep going, You're.

Speaker 2 (16:12):
Going to see angel. You're you're going to see the angels.
So this is what the CIA was doing during the
latter years of Reagan and George H. W.

Speaker 1 (16:23):
Bush.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
I mean, you really can't make this crap up. Really,
it's just simply unbelievable. Here's another one that I think
I'm squeeze in real quickly. Harvard law professor emeretis Alan
Dershowitz tells Adam Carolla what he really thinks about the Obamas.
It is hilarious.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
Now.

Speaker 5 (16:42):
It's to the point where I do not like them.
I think of them as bad people. I don't like
them either.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
I have to tell you that I like them very much.
I had, you know, many social endeavors with them.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
He invited me to the White Ass over.

Speaker 6 (16:54):
And over again, including to the Medal of Honor for
Shimon Perez, dear friend of mine, was the Prime Minister
of Israel.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
But I don't like them as people.

Speaker 6 (17:04):
I remember Michelle Robinson when she was a student, and
she was very radical.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
Obama was not.

Speaker 3 (17:12):
I mean, he was.

Speaker 1 (17:13):
Known as a kind of middle of the roter when
he was at Harvard.

Speaker 6 (17:16):
Goschool, and I think during the beginning of his first
term he was a little bit more of that.

Speaker 5 (17:21):
But once he was reelected.

Speaker 6 (17:23):
You're absolutely right, he became his true self came out.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
He's not a nice person. He's not a nice person.

Speaker 6 (17:31):
He's a smart person, he's very smart, but he's not
a nice person.

Speaker 9 (17:35):
Well, this article in the left wing rag Common Dreams
It maybe digital, but a left wing rag only proves
that they worshiped the creation rather than the creator, as
laid out in Romans chapter one, and yes, they loved
the creation, they worshiped the dirt, but they hate God

(17:56):
and the law of God. Cue the Captain Planet theme. Dragon,
I wondered where that.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Was coming from. So I apologize that you actually followed
my advice and went on and read the article. But
it proves my point about how it truly is a religion.
Climate active activism is a religion. And to your point,
which is I thought very well, put they worshiped the creation,

(18:27):
not the Creator. Yeah, they they miss the entire point.
Golley too. We've had a couple of really good talkbacks today,
which is unusual for this crowd because they're usually pretty
damn stupid that we just kind of blow them off.
But really too good was one which ate up almost
an entire hour, and this one is has completely derailed.

(18:49):
I wanted to talk about transgenderism, but no, no, no,
now we're talking about worshiping the earth. By the way,
did you hear the weather? Heer the weather during that break?

Speaker 1 (18:59):
Dragon, it's going to be ninety eight today.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
The record is what one hundred? Yes, now I know
what the answer is because you told me earlier. Uh huh,
But I keep hearing that, you know, the record is X,
like today the record is one hundred, and we keep
falling short of reaching the record.

Speaker 5 (19:18):
Correct, So.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
All of this claim that it's hotter than it used
to be, then why aren't we exceeding the record?

Speaker 4 (19:28):
And really the only we've only reached one hundred degrees.

Speaker 5 (19:35):
One time so far this year.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
And I thought it was a couple of weeks ago,
which actually I'm off by about six weeks.

Speaker 5 (19:42):
I think it was July.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
I thought you said July first.

Speaker 5 (19:46):
Hey, either were July one July the first week or
so in July?

Speaker 2 (19:50):
Do you remember what it was?

Speaker 5 (19:51):
Was like it was one hundred exactly?

Speaker 2 (19:53):
Oh it was one hundred.

Speaker 3 (19:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (19:54):
And was that a record breaker or was it just
one hundred degree?

Speaker 4 (19:57):
I don't know if it was a record breaker for
that day. That's the first and only time Denver has
reached one hundred degrees.

Speaker 2 (20:04):
Wow, Wow, it's a scortyr, I don't I you know.
I think what we should do is eliminate HVAC systems
air conditioning, because it's made us soft, it's made us whimpy,
and we should just like, can you imagine sitting in

(20:25):
now this morning, It wouldn't be so bad. It cool
off a little bit overnight, But can you imagine sitting
in this studio, particularly after the sun's beat down on
these windows for like six seven hours before, you know,
like you know, well, well, Ryan wouldn't know the difference anyway,
because Ryan lives it. You know, let's be honest. Ryan

(20:46):
lives outside and one of the homeless encampments, and so
he's out there in the heat all day anyway, which
is you know why, that's why he comes into work
so early. Yeah, so you have some air conditioning. I
think that I hear several stories that wokeism is kind

(21:07):
of dying on the vine. I think this happens to
be one of those stories. But it's not exactly wokism.
It's kind of perversion. There's an Arkansas law that bars doctors,
well actually broader than that. It bars medical professionals writ large,
from inflicting transgender related drug hormone therapies, mutilation, mutilation, surgeries,

(21:34):
whatever you want, however you want to describe it. I
do think it's mutilation on minors, and the courts have
now ruled that that can be enforced. And it's not
the trial I mean, the trial court ruled that. But
now the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision,
in an eight to two decision pretty significant eight to
two that was issued tuesday, the court overturned a previous

(21:59):
law on the Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act, the SAFE Act.
I really get tired of the acronyms that was past
four years ago in Arkansas. Now, the Safe Act prohibits
doctors from performing the surgery such as breast or genital
removal on miners. It prohibits them from prescribing puberty blockers.

(22:20):
They can't prescribe cross sex hormones, and they can't refer
children miners for those kinds of treatments. So if you're
a you know, a PCP or a general practitioner, you
cannot are a pediatrician. Can you imagine it? Why would
you go to a pediatrician that would just say, you

(22:41):
know what, your kids growing up raging hormones. Isn't quite
sure whether he wants to be a boy or a
girl or not. He'll eventure girl at it. I remember
my mom My mom told me one time. I find
kind of funny now in hindsight, but our family doctor

(23:02):
when I was growing up was Tammer's dad, my dad,
my father in law. Yeah, my father in law delivered me.
My mom told me that he used to say, because
she was worried that I wasn't eating enough. You know what,
his advice was, He'll eventually get hungry and eat. You
know what, that's the kind of doctor I want. I

(23:26):
want a doctor who has real world, real life experience,
and I want to take my kids to the same
kind of pediatrician. I would hope you would too. Oh
your kids confuse about whether he's a boy or girl
or not, Well, it's going to be kind of difficult.
You know. Maybe you might want to see a psychiatrist
at some point, but right now, let them cut let
them figure it out, let them go play doctor, let

(23:48):
them go play with themselves, and they'll kind of figure out.
Oh that felt kind of good. You know, I'm kind
of glad I got one of those feels kind of good,
you know what. So I the fact that they prohibit
doctors from referring children for those kinds of treatments I
think is perfectly legitimate. Now, of course, the lawmakers have

(24:09):
cited the procedures often irreversible effects on fertility, bone density,
physical development. That's how they justified the law. The Court
wrote this. The question is whether this nation's history and tradition,
as well as its historical understanding of ordered liberty, support

(24:31):
the right of a parent to obtain for his or
her child a medical treatment that, although the child desires
it and a doctor approves it, the state legislature deems
inappropriate for minors, this Court finds no such right in
this nation's history or tradition. Can we get a hallelujah? Please?

(24:54):
Can we get a hallelujah? Now? This decision, this eight
to eight to two decisions in the Eighth Circuit follows
a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee's similar ban
on transgender procedures for miners. The Eighth Circuit judges in
this eight to two decision actually refer to that case

(25:15):
multiple times in their opinion. If this case in the
Eighth Circuit ever makes it to the Supreme Court, I
think they'll uphold it too. I don't think that who knows,
they'll appeal it because they got some NGO that's funding
in so I'm sure that will get appeal because the
lawyers want to turn the fees. The Arkansas law had
been blocked since twenty twenty one by a federal district

(25:37):
judge because there was a lawsuit brought by four transgender
miners and two medical providers. Those planners were arguing that
the evolved that the law violated their First and fourteenth
Amendment equal protection and due process clauses. Now, I've tried
to strict I've not read the case. I don't generally

(25:58):
bringing these stories until i've read the case, so I'm
not really quite sure what their First Amendment claim was.
But the appeals Court rejected the arguments and said, to
the contrary, the act does not classify based on transgender status,
much like the Tennessee law upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Act effectively divides miners into two groups. In one

(26:22):
group of miners, they're seeking drugs or surgeries for the
purposes that this law prohibits. In the other group, are
miners seeking drugs or surgeries for purposes that the act
does not prohibit. Now, the Republican leaders in the Arkansas
Paulit Bureau obviously praised the court's decision. The Attorney General said,

(26:45):
I applaud the Court's decision, and I'm pleased that children
in Arkansas will be protected from experimental procedures, and Sarah
Huckaby Sanders, the governor, said Arkansas's first in the nation
law to protect kids from life altering gender experiments is
back in effect. Yeah. I think this wokeism and this transgenderism.
I started to post on X the other day and

(27:07):
decided not to because I knew people have misread it.
But there was a gay group that had been quoted
by someone that I follow on X talking about how
they were sick and tired of the l g B
t Q I A two plus plus whatever it is.
Now it's it's like, you know, might as well just
read the alphabet, because that's this is not what they

(27:30):
that these gay groups were pushing for. And they're right.
This has gone way over the line, and I think
we're starting to pull it back.

Speaker 3 (27:38):
Brownie. Anything beyond LGB is basically WTF.

Speaker 2 (27:44):
I have a good day, No, feez, Sherlock. That's that's
that was pretty good. Yeah, you guys are kind of
on a roll today that it worries me because you
know what it means. It's gonna plummet real quickly because
they're going to expend whatever creativity they have today and

(28:05):
for the next two months, it's just going to be crap,
just total utter crap. Let me address something that a
texture just sent in. I don't have my I don't
have notes about this in front of me, so this
is just off what I remember zero four three three,

(28:25):
writes Micha or Michael, the smartasses stop that.

Speaker 5 (28:30):
I was hoping it's fantastic, keep doing.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
I was hoping you could clarify it too.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
I have admit that is kind of funny that one,
but it's just unnecessary because I don't have to read it.
I just I don't want it. Then, I was hoping
you could clarify something for me. My wife told me
that there was a case in front of the Supreme
Court to ban same sex marriage. I was just wondering
if you know that, if this is true or not.
I have a hard time convincing her to not believe

(29:02):
everything she says, sees on the internet or here's on
the news. Okay, well, let's first straighten out a couple
of things. There is not a case yet in front
of the US Supreme Court, not to ban same sex marriage,
but to overturn the oberess. This is why I need

(29:27):
my notes oberfelt, I think was the case that approved
or found constitutional same sex marriage. The case arises out
of and again I forget Kentucky or Tennessee. It is
the court clerk or the county clerk, whichever one it was,

(29:48):
that issues marriage licenses. She is suing claiming that the
Supreme Court case, which requires her to issue same sex
marriage license is violates her First Amendment rights. That's where
the litigation currently stands. The Supreme Court has not even

(30:10):
in fact, I don't even think it's gotten to the
appellate division appellate level yet. I think it's still at
the trial court level. I may be wrong about that,
but that's what I think. Here's why I think this
case will fail. I hears I see stories, Oh my gosh,
Clarence Thomas is going to vote Clarence Thomas and the
leader are going to vote to oh, you know, to
ban same sex marriage. That is not one. That's not

(30:32):
what the case is about. The case is a First
Amendment case, a First Amendment religious belief case that this
either appointed or elected county clerk believes that her First
Amendment rights are being violated because the Court says she
must issue same sex marriage marriage licenses. The reason I

(30:55):
don't think this case is going to go anywhere she's
an elected official, and whether it's Kentucky or Tennessee is irrelevant.
It could be Colorado, it could be any number of
states that they all now allow same sex marriage. I
don't see how it's a violation of her First Amendment
because she is performing a ministerial duty. She is following

(31:21):
state law. If she wants to go out and say
that she objects to same sex marriage, nothing prohibits her
from doing that. But when she runs for office, knowing
the laws of her particular state, she is bound to

(31:42):
follow those laws, and that is not a violation of
her First Amendment rights. She can still in fact, she
could even this might cost her her job among the electorate.
But if two men or two women walk in and
apply for a marriage license, she is duty bound by

(32:03):
the law to provide them that license. If she wanted
to say to them, I think you're committing a sin,
I think you're wrong, I think you're going to go
to hell. I don't want to do this, but I'm
required to do this, she could probably say that and
get by with it, because that's her First Amendment right
to say it now it might cost her politically because
remember there's there are legal issues and there are political issues.

(32:26):
I had not intended to spend any I mean, I
wasn't even on my radar today until you sent that.
But I do remember reading about it and thinking, oh
my gosh, here we go again. And you know what
this is really you know what's really about. This is
really a political issue that Democrats are using trying to say,
oh my gosh, see, we've got to elect a president
because we can't have Clarence Thomason and Ledo and Gorsich

(32:49):
on the court anymore. We got to get more, you know,
Kanji Jackson Brown