October 25, 2025 • 32 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, as promised, I said, we're going to talk about
whether I said, we're going to talk about Republican the
Republican margin of victory in the state of Texas. This
is Steve Toe talking to Tucker cross and about his
race against Dan Crenshaw. And I think he makes some
(00:20):
very very astute points and we'll just play it and
let it go from there. So in two thousand and
it was twenty fourteen when Abbott became governor, when Ken
Paxson became the attorney general, those guys won with twenty
three and twenty four point margins over the Democrats. We're
(00:44):
winning now with eight point margins. Where did the margin go?
Where did these huge wins go evaporate to? And it's
not people moving into Texas? Seven out of ten of them,
Tucker Texas has still read from people moving into it
Republicans that are refugees, if you will, We're losing it
(01:07):
as our children, our kids are our kids are being
absolutely indoctrinated in the classroom in immigration.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
I grew up in California.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I was at Reagan's last rally in California in nineteen
eighty and it was a right wing state.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It was California was a bill.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Clinton lost California in nineteen ninety two and one West
Virginia in nineteen ninety two. So like people, and now
California is of course bright blue and West Virginia is
bright red.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Because California is a completely different state, Dude, immigration and
West Virginia has had less immigration than the other state.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
The big problem though, is that.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
Politicians like Dan Crenshaw refused to take on the teachers unions.
They refused to stand up to the teachers unions. Why
they're afraid of them? They spent tons of money and
Ranny went wind oar and her in her ilk scare
the heck out of these people. So Crenshaw is afraid, Sueeze.
(02:08):
I mean, it's the only thing I get. You can't
there's been zero activism on his part whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It's standing up to these people.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Next, we've got the issue of why does Dan Crenshaw
take up advocacy of Ukraine to a much deeper level
than he does our own country? Isn't that odd? And
the question here is raised is he getting paid for it? Well, listen,
(02:42):
I'm sure Dan Crenshaw wouldn't appreciate that question being raised,
but I think we should raise the question every time
there is money, American money flowing to foreign countries that
our people are arguing so hard for our money to
be sent there, because guess what you work for us.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
You hate ever to suggest that someone's doing something for
the money, right, But in Crenshaw's case, like his position
on Ukraine is so far how that it's obvious to
me he's being paid to have that position. But you
tell me, is sending one hundred billion more to Ukraine
(03:23):
or Ukraine's borders or these like really huge issues in
your district. It's the border is the biggest issue, the
US border, the US border, And when you ask people,
and this is not anecdotalist, empirical, there have been plenty
of people pulling in congressional district too. In Montgomery County,
why because it's the biggest red county left in Texas.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
The governor pulls it, we pull it. Other people are
pulling it.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
And it's people see the contrast between the way Ukraine
is being taken care of in the Texas border is not,
and they draw contrasts, and they should.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
It's kind of that simple, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Yeah, Steve toath answering the question who among Texas elected
officials support Dan Crenshaw, You need to know who among
Texas elected official supports Crenshaw.
Speaker 5 (04:19):
You know what's funny is when the day we announced,
we had I think thirty the most conservative members of
the Texas Legislature that endorsed me, and he came out
with a list of people to endorse him. Now, one
single member of Congress was bind him. No one really,
not one active congressman came out to endorse him.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Do you ever talk to members of Congress about him,
who worked with him? What do they say. I'm not
going to comment on that. I just yeah, I can't.
I just can't. Okay, I understand it. But it sounds
like he's not a favorite among his colleagues.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
Yeah, so a lot of you know, I came in
when I came into the legislature, I came in with
one of the biggest class, and since the Sharptown scandal
in the seventies, I think there are forty two people
in our class, and many of them have gone on
to serve in Congress in Washington, and I have a
good relationship with all of them. Yeah, but Crenshaw doesn't
(05:15):
sound like he does. Is he close to Cornyn? You know,
I don't know if they have a relationship or not.
I know that Cornyan is supporting him for obvious reasons.
But that's what are those reasons? Well, just they're both
donor class lobbyist centric people. We're called representatives because we're
actually supposed to represent the people that vote us into office,
(05:36):
and they're just some that just don't give a flying
flip about Oh that's obvious.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Well, in Crenshaw's cases, clearly he's hosted for them. I
got myself.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Twice Michael Berry's look at me, man, Now I drive
the school books.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
You could say, I'm just a good old boy.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
It then the batter Country Friday, washed in the blood
and wrapped in calm, A flung, a staunch defender of
the ray Satin. I grew up accustomed to the rail flag,
under the shadow of the crawls.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Down weather colors.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Now them mixed to the way, and some folks are
steal mad because the sound.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
This is Steve Toe answering Tucker Crossing about the video
of Dan Crenshaw's snapping at a young girl after she
asks about his comment about Jesus. This speaks to his
anger management issues. It also speaks to the idea of
(06:56):
his view of people. You're you're the plebes, you're the serfs,
you're the peasants. You shouldn't be asking me questions. I'm
the government. He has an arrogance about him that a
lot of people who know him, myself included, do not like.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
So it's not just you that he's a snapdad for
asking a question. I want to play a video and
maybe you can explain what we're watching. A young girl
comes up to him, looks very young in the video
and asks him about comments that he made about Jesus
(07:35):
during a podcast before we play this, can you tell
us with the backstory?
Speaker 5 (07:41):
So he was on a podcast and Dan wants to
show himself off as this intellectual. Dan's dumb. No a fact,
I'm not being mean.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
By the way, my dogs are dombini and I think
they're going to have and I have known. I don't
think that's a moral category. I'm not attacking, but he
is dumb, like head injury dumb, and I don't anyway.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Sorry, sorry to be mean.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
No, I think I actually think he's I'm going to
disagree with you. I think he's incredibly smart. I think
he's vacuous when it comes to wisdom, though maybe that's
what I'm referring to. Yeah, so I think he knows
a lot. And when I've sat and listened to some
of his podcasts and some of the different things, he's
(08:25):
a really smart guy, but he completely lacks the wisdom
to know what's to do with all those smarts. And
so he's doing this podcast with this guy and they're
talking about he brings up, well, the American people need
archetypes spider Man, Superman, and Jesus Christ. And he says,
and then real ones too, like Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln.
(08:48):
And they're like, what Jesus actually said, Jesus. Rosa Parks
is real, Jesus is not. Jesus is not. And so
this position, I guess probably I saw it on Wikipedia.
So this young woman at the Montgomery County tea party
(09:11):
on a Monday night asked Dan Crenshaw. She said, I'm
trying to get my arms around this, and then she
read the statement verbatim of what he had said on
this podcast, and he said, I can't get my arms
around that. And he said, you put a period after
Jesus and don't question my faith, and the whole place
(09:32):
just lost it.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
So let's play that not only mind about.
Speaker 7 (09:36):
Jesus about me to get anyone heard. Freshew said, quote,
the most important thing here is that we have the hero.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
Archetypes that we look out to.
Speaker 7 (09:50):
Jesus is a hero archetype of Superman is a hero archetype.
Greal characters too. I could name a thousand Rosa Parks
thrown and ready in quote, I'll help you put a
period of Jesus and no question my faith.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
So I think it's it's fair to you know, to
to not want to be attacked for your faith. Okay,
I'm with Crenshaw on that, but she wasn't really attacking
him on the say.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
She was asking like, what do you want to clarity?
What do you mean?
Speaker 5 (10:24):
Yeah, that was cli exactly like if you ever said anything,
You're like, I could have positioned that differently.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
If I said.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
I get asked that all the time, especially, I'll come
home my wife will be like, did you mean to
say that?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Okay? What should I have said?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I'm like, okay, yes, honey, that makes sense. Right, But.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
So you just say, Wow, I guess I could have
handled that different. I get That's not what I meant.
I would have put a period after Jesus, and then
I would have shut my mouth and laughed and laughed
at all totally. But instead he got all defensive at
this young woman and tried to ridicule her.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Oh, he attacked her instantly.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Yeah, what you're seeing on display there is a fragile,
very unhappy and above all hostile person.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Here is Steve Toath talking about the fact that, in
his mind Crenshaw lies about our intelligence agencies, that Democrats
created a fourth branch of government.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
I'll tell you, before.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Twenty twenty, before Assange, before Snowden, before Comy, it was
hard to get people to listen to things like this.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
This is cuckoo talk.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Now, all of a sudden you realize, wait a minute,
before you saw what they did to Trump. Wait a minute.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
He was asked by reporter whom I respect for Liam
Cosgrove well, coming out of Congress. This was earlier, this
is the spring, early summer, and he was asked about
legislation that he had voted for, and basically his position
was he intell agencies are not in any way playing
(12:04):
in American politics.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Here's the exchange.
Speaker 8 (12:07):
With data and with access to your you know bath
that you're addicted to, you can vastly manipulate an entire population,
which the Chinese have done.
Speaker 9 (12:16):
Were you worried that our intelligence agencies are doing the
same thing domestically?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
You might worry that, Well, I know that they're not.
They're not manipulating Americans.
Speaker 10 (12:26):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yes, a flow of information. Yeah, did you have some
evidence otherwise that you'd like to share? I mean, okay,
before the.
Speaker 9 (12:33):
Serious congressman you asked for an example of the US
intelligence agencies meddling in our information? What about before the
twenty twenty election, when fifty members came out and said
hunter byten laptop was Russian disinformation?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Does that count no? Because I mean they were, they
were retired, they were retired.
Speaker 9 (12:51):
But the NBA, the FBI had the laptop progress even
close to a TikTok.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
So.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
That I felt Again, I've just spent the last half
an hour sort of defending Crenshaw in a backhanded way.
I think he's a victim of the war on tariff.
I'm being honest, that's what I think. He's clearly so
damaged and screwed up in tragic personal life and all
the rest. But when I saw that, I thought this
(13:19):
is not a good person. Actually, the most.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Egreesious thing about that is that as I talk to
friends in DC, they see this like on a daily basis.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Oh yes, and sweet, see what this is the deep state?
Speaker 5 (13:38):
This is the deep state at work that he's denying exists.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
The intelligency's playing in American politics. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
So what the left has done is they've positioned this
fourth branch of government so that even when they're not
in power, they're in power. Yes, that's what they've created.
They've created a system whereby so you lose Congress, you
lose the White House.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
We don't care.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
They don't care because they have the fourth branch of
government that's still running the show.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
It's so blatantly on us.
Speaker 11 (14:12):
Or obviously it's from the King of Ding and this
other guy, Michael Barry.
Speaker 9 (14:19):
These are the kind of guys you're like a smacking airs.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Because who took this challenge in Dan Crenshaw in the
congressional district too race that the only people who say
bad things about the power structure in DC, they're the
only ones that are held accountable. If you go alonge
to get along, you're protected. You're part of the club.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
At the federal level, Like if you were to call
immigration or something like that, they'd laugh at you. Of course,
you're just a silly congressman. We don't care what you think.
Why would they? Why would they? Right, And they do
the same thing with the executive branch. They are just
completely aloof They don't care what we think. They don't
care what the elected officials. They don't care whether a
(15:11):
constitutionally elected person that holds office. They don't care what
you think, even though even though your your department, maybe
underneath an agency that you oversee is a citing member
of Congress.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
They don't care. If this is why Doge was a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, you know, really, no one's been until people are
really fired, people who work for us, then there's no
incentive for them.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
But here's the problem, Tuckers, that we've got a responsibility,
I think, as elected officials to say to the American people,
this is going on. I see it with my own eyes,
this is what's going on. Yes, And guys like Crench
are like, no, I'm going.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
To defend it.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Well, how could you defend them, So how could I mean,
he was asked specifically, the intel agencies have basically nullified
democracy because they are playing a role in American politics,
a very big role, and that's documented.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
It's not a matter of guesswork at this point. We
know that.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And it's, as you just said, anyone who works in
Washington sees it every single day. So like he's denying
that angrily, what does that say about his role?
Speaker 5 (16:15):
I mean he was asked specifically about the right about
Hunter Biden's laptop and it was called Russian disinformation by
the intelligence community. Yes, and he blew it off, completely
blew it off, just like they blew off.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Biden's daughter's diary. Of course, Well they put that.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
They put the people had it in jail for the
crime of having Ashley Biden's diary in which she said
she showered with her dad and it screwed her up sexually.
How couldn't it, That's what it's well exactly, how couldn't it.
But that was just they put the guy in jail
for that, I mean, for having it.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
The same players in government don't don't treat Republicans that way.
I mean, it's only people that say bad things about
the power structure of Washington, DC. They're the only ones
that get held accountable. No, it's so sick. It's just
(17:17):
so sick.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
And then we get to the issue, which has been
coming up again and again and again. How did Dan
Crenshaw get to be such an astute stock picker If
he's not trading, If he's trading on inside information, that's criminal.
If he's not, how'd he get so good at this?
Was he that good before he was in Congress? His
(17:39):
response is, I don't have that much money to invest.
If you invest one hundred dollars on inside information, it's
still a crime. His point is, I'm not rich. That's
not what any of us said. Wouldn't say you were.
But there are a lot of people that aren't rich
and they don't get to trade on inside information.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
There was this kind of amazing moment right after COVID
when people started taking a look at the performance of
various members of Congress of stock portfolios. And you know,
I personally know hedge fund managers who've underperformed the market. Right,
people do this for a living, maybe billions some years.
They just don't. You know, it's very hard to beat
(18:19):
the market, But Dan Crenshaw did somehow, he made a
lot of trades, including after getting classified briefings on COVID policy,
and he was called out on this, and he wasn't
the only one. I mean, Nancy Pelosi famously, but Dan
Crenshaw did pretty well. And you know, I don't think
there's any evidence suggests he's like a market expert, So like,
how exactly do that? Did that work? And this was
(18:41):
his response. He didn't, you know, he immediately started attacking
anyone who asked him, and he said, you don't let
us trade stocks. You don't let us make any money either.
We haven't gotten a pay raise since two thousand and eight,
So I mean, I don't think members of Congress are
overpaid exactly, but they're paid all multiples of what the
average person makes, and they get a lifetime pension, so
it's pretty good deal and free healthcare and dental. So
(19:01):
it's like he's clearly very focused on money. He was
vicious too about the way he said it.
Speaker 5 (19:08):
I mean, the level of anger in his voice that
he would be questioned about the way he's trading stock
or what he gets paid. So the average taxan is
paid seventy six thousand dollars. Dan Crenshaw's making one hundred
and seventy four thousand dollars of your tax dollars. He's
been paid by our tax dollars in taxes, of course,
(19:30):
and he thinks he should make more well for a
young man to the lifetime value of the package he's
he could, which he's already gotten because he's already served
multiple terms. Right, So is many millions of hellos over
the course of life. Yeah, yeah, it's crazy. It is crazy. So,
I mean it does Like, what do you make of
the stock trading? How did Dan Crenshaw beat the market? Well,
(19:54):
multiple people have talked about it, and multiple people over
the years have said that we've got to stop at
because we have access. They have access to information that
the average person doesn't have access to it. And it's
really not a lot different in Texas. Again, we're the
eighth largest economy in the United States. I see deals that
are coming our way, and I could, I could own
(20:15):
stock in those companies, but my wife and I've chosen
to stay out of the market, and for that very
simple reason either at all at all. So, I own
real estate, I own some rental houses and that's that's
my retirement. But I don't want to be I want
to appoind I want to avoid the appearance of evil.
This has been an issue, this one all the way
(20:36):
back to remember Eric Canter very well. Eric Canter was
thrown out of office Dave. I can't think of his
last name. He's a I know them both, yeah, But anyways,
Canter lost because of his defense and voted against legislation.
This is going back ten twelve years that would have
stopped this, and the American people have just had enough
(20:57):
with it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
They just have absolutely had enough of it.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Toward the end of the week, I look at my stack.
I used to love when Rush would Peter he'd tap
his you know, pull together his stack of papers, and
I loved that.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
It was one of the many things I loved about
Russia show.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
But I see stories that we didn't get to and
I think to myself, I don't want the week to
go by and we don't get that in So this
was a story out of Louisiana. Fox News broke this.
I don't know if it was earlier this week or
late last week. They arrested one of the folks who
(21:36):
was in the hamas attack on Israel on October seventh
in Louisiana. Now, you know, when I was growing up
and up until relatively recently, you knew that the world
was an unsafe place. You knew there were savages around
the world, and you took comfort in the fact that, well,
(21:58):
at least they're not here. But then we started letting
him in. All they had to do was get here,
and they were let in. Well, bad people do bad things, period,
That's the way that works. Here was a story from
Fox News.
Speaker 12 (22:12):
Federal prosecutor say the thirty three year old man took
part in the Hamas attack on Israel, then traveled to
the US on a fraudulent visa. Senior correspondent Jonathan Sara
as more on what we're learning.
Speaker 11 (22:22):
Jonathan, Yes, Andra, he was living here in the US legally,
at least on paper. Investigators say he lied on his
visa application by failing to disclose his alleged connections to
paramilitary groups. He was living in Lafayette, Louisiana. His name
is Mahmoud al Matadi, and according to the criminal complaint
filed in US District Court, evidence shows that on the
(22:45):
morning of October seventh, twenty twenty three, al Matadi learned
about the Hamas invasion, armed himself, gathered others, and crossed
into Israel with the intention of assisting with Hamas's terrorist attack.
That coordinated assault involved rape, torture, case napping, and the
deaths of twelve hundred people. Investigators say Almatati's phone used
(23:05):
a cell tower located near Kibbutz kafar Aza, the location
of one of the worst massacres in.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
That attack on Israel. The court filing.
Speaker 11 (23:15):
Also includes social media photos that investigator Shape say shows
Alma Tadi wearing the red headband of the National Resistance
Brigades or NRB, a Gaza based paramilar very show.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I hate the climate holes.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You know this. I came across this audio. It's a
fellow named Matt Ridley.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
This is a guy who was the science editor at
the Economist magazine, which is an international magazine, and I
would argue leans a little left. This is a magazine
that has pushed the climate hoax for years. Listen to
what he now says about that. This is not a
(24:21):
guy with just some conspiracy opinion. This is a guy
who was rather learned on the issue.
Speaker 10 (24:27):
What is the reality of climate change and the human
impact on that process.
Speaker 13 (24:33):
Well, the average temperature of the planet does seem to
be going steadily outputs since when since the mid eighties.
So he went down in the seventies.
Speaker 10 (24:42):
I remember all the fears about the I say, yes,
in the seventies. So we were told the planets about
the freeze in the seventies.
Speaker 13 (24:48):
Yeah, it was fair, and that wasn't a fringe of
view by the way. It was you know, covers of
Time and Newsweek and the luck kind of stuff people
have forgotten. Yeah, it was going to be six degrees
of cooling and you know, it was going to be
amazing changes.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
And that didn't happened.
Speaker 13 (25:00):
It bottomed out and started warming gently, and since then
it's warmed at you know, about a quarter of a
degree per decade on average across the last thirty forty years.
And it's maybe they say it's one point five degrees
above pre industrial levels now, but pre industrial levels did this,
(25:21):
you know, So which bit do you want to prove?
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I mean, we know.
Speaker 13 (25:24):
That in the medieval period it was warm of them
today because you find whole forests that are emerging from
melting glaciers. Now, well, there were forests in fifteen hundred,
where there's no glass, there would have been no glacier
there now, so the glaciers come and then gone away again.
So we're not in a period of unprecedented warms. We're
not in a period of unprecedentedally fast warmths. We're not
in a period of increasing extreme weather flood strout storms.
(25:48):
There's no increase in the either frequency or severity. But
at the same time, the common docs that we're putting
in the air is having a very measurable effect that's beneficial,
and we refuse to take that into a can and
that is global greening.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Is there is more green.
Speaker 13 (26:06):
Vegetation on the planet now compared with the nineteen eighties,
equivalent to a continent the size of North America that's
been added of green vegetation. That's an enormous impact. It's
approximately sixteen or seventeen percent more green vegetation on the
planet now than there was in the eighties. And that's
because carbon dioxide is plant food, and when it's more
(26:29):
in the air, the plants grow better, particularly in arid areas.
Now that's had an effect on crop yields. It's not
the only effect on crop yields. But it's fifte percent,
quite a good improvement, and if you add the dollar
value of that up, it's very hard to make it
smaller than the dollar value of the increase in warmth
(26:50):
that has effected, you know, done damage, because even the warmth,
you know, that means a few people.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Are dying in winter.
Speaker 13 (26:55):
And yet there are so many vested interests now in
continuing to about it as a crisis and funded as
a crisis, that I'll not get a hearing for what
I just said.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So I have long been of the opinion.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
That Texas, Oh see if I can find that I've
been holding onto this and just never got to it.
On green energy scams, it's a fellow named Dave Walsh
who's the former president of Mitsubishi Power Systems, and he
did an interview with Steve Bannon, and a listener sent
(27:35):
it to me, and it's four minutes twelve seconds. I
don't generally invest that kind of time in something I
don't know what it's going to be. But I start
listening to it and I realized, this is exactly what
we've been talking about, the reason your energy costs go
through the roof, the reason the grid goes down is
we're not make even in Texas, we're not making good
(27:57):
decisions based on the best energy at the lowest cost,
which is what consumers would want. We are subsidizing, regulating,
and mandating inefficient forms of energy like wind and solar
in order to what save the Earth or something. It's
all crop so longer audio clip for minutes twelve seconds
(28:22):
than we normally play. But I felt like cutting it
any lower. I wanted you to hear this info, give
this list.
Speaker 8 (28:28):
When it was just the consumer and the average schmo right,
the tech oligarchs because they're all progressive lefties. It was
all a climate crisis and you had to have renewables.
If it's going to cost more, well that's what it
costs to save the plants.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
So you're gonna pay for it.
Speaker 8 (28:40):
When it comes to AI and comes to what.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
They need, which is energy and water.
Speaker 8 (28:45):
Hey, they're talking about many nuclear reactors, they're talking about
gas plants called they don't care. I don't hear any
I don't hear any big thing that we need more
wind farms for the AI. They're not prepared to go
down something that that's not sustainable, right, I mean, you're
seeing a total shift and this to what galls me.
The same guys that put in money for these left
wing politicians to basically have a neck carbon zero and
(29:07):
that was their big religion when it comes to their
own money, and it comes to they now woken up
to the fact that hey, if we're going to compete
with China, we need massive amounts of power. I don't
hear any wind farms. I don't hear any solar coming
from them. They want real power that's there all the time, sir.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, that's the number. The issue.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
AI, just like some endplants, deal plants, car plants, semiconductor plants,
and human beings need baseload twenty four hour a day
electricity supply.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Rubles don't provide that.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
Of course, the AI mobiles and denizens come out with
that right away. They can't get by on part time energy. Oh,
let's let the people continue to try to get by
on part time energy. Let the rate payers get by
on that, but let's have baseload for us. What would
make the most sense is if they build their own
instead of plugging in and taking advantage of rate payers
having to build out two and a half billion, three
(29:55):
billion dollar gas plans to support them incrementally, let them
pay for that, and then you've got public.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Policy issues that need to be addressed.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Suches in Pennsylvania, Google showing up buying and existing six
hundred and seventy megawat dam from Brookstone just for the
purpose of Brookfield having to be able to brag about
baseloaded energy that they've purchased. They're robbing that from the
public system, from the pjam public system that's already in
shortage because of shutting down coal nuclear plants attempting to
(30:26):
replace them with expensive renewables.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
They're already in massive short.
Speaker 8 (30:33):
I want to go to another topic and Ash you
probably stay through the break for a couple of the
other side. Here's another thing I don't get because you've
got these boards where consumers with fever. You've got the
two bedrocks of the mega movement, Florida and Texas. And
in Florida all they're doing is building solar all over
the place, and in Texas it's all wind. How did
(30:56):
we have two MAGA states with the reddest populations we
got and people on the tip of this How do
we have a situation where they're going down the path
for the average Schmendrick right that you're going to have
solar and expensive as how are you going to have wind?
Speaker 2 (31:11):
How did that happen?
Speaker 4 (31:14):
It happened in this state. This is a regulated state,
unlike Rep. Parrison state is his state. By the way,
going forward AIRCOT plan the next five years is entirely
solar and battery storage. New capacity additions for air cotnew
the next five years a compounded disaster. Florida worse with
regulated utilities who are heavily donated, heavy heavy donators to
(31:35):
packs wind up in full control of energy policy for
Florida through the state House, state Senate, and the governor
backing them because they're major donors, they're massive donors, they
get their way. They basically control the inputs provided by
the Public Service Commission, who was appointed by the governor
and approved by the state Senate, all heavily impacted by
the donor class of Duke Energy, FPL and TCO the
(31:57):
go ahead and push forward these plans that are massively
beneficial to their bottom line because the capex involved with
these plans is five times to six times more than
it would be if they were building basic combined cyclic
gas power plans. So therefore they get a rate benefit
from that eleven and a half percent guaranteed return on
delta investment. Therefore, the utilities are all for the continuance
(32:20):
of solar power for the people. Now when it talks
to AI, hey, I can't live with that. They need
twenty four hour day, really power like the rest of us.
As Satisfatuday, thank you and a midnight
Okay, as promised, I said, we're going to talk about
whether I said, we're going to talk about Republican the
Republican margin of victory in the state of Texas. This
is Steve Toe talking to Tucker cross and about his
race against Dan Crenshaw. And I think he makes some
(00:20):
very very astute points and we'll just play it and
let it go from there. So in two thousand and
it was twenty fourteen when Abbott became governor, when Ken
Paxson became the attorney general, those guys won with twenty
three and twenty four point margins over the Democrats. We're
(00:44):
winning now with eight point margins. Where did the margin go?
Where did these huge wins go evaporate to? And it's
not people moving into Texas? Seven out of ten of them,
Tucker Texas has still read from people moving into it
Republicans that are refugees, if you will, We're losing it
(01:07):
as our children, our kids are our kids are being
absolutely indoctrinated in the classroom in immigration.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
I grew up in California.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I was at Reagan's last rally in California in nineteen
eighty and it was a right wing state.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
It was California was a bill.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Clinton lost California in nineteen ninety two and one West
Virginia in nineteen ninety two. So like people, and now
California is of course bright blue and West Virginia is
bright red.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Why is that?
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Because California is a completely different state, Dude, immigration and
West Virginia has had less immigration than the other state.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
The big problem though, is that.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
Politicians like Dan Crenshaw refused to take on the teachers unions.
They refused to stand up to the teachers unions. Why
they're afraid of them? They spent tons of money and
Ranny went wind oar and her in her ilk scare
the heck out of these people. So Crenshaw is afraid, Sueeze.
(02:08):
I mean, it's the only thing I get. You can't
there's been zero activism on his part whatsoever.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
It's standing up to these people.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Next, we've got the issue of why does Dan Crenshaw
take up advocacy of Ukraine to a much deeper level
than he does our own country? Isn't that odd? And
the question here is raised is he getting paid for it? Well, listen,
(02:42):
I'm sure Dan Crenshaw wouldn't appreciate that question being raised,
but I think we should raise the question every time
there is money, American money flowing to foreign countries that
our people are arguing so hard for our money to
be sent there, because guess what you work for us.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
You hate ever to suggest that someone's doing something for
the money, right, But in Crenshaw's case, like his position
on Ukraine is so far how that it's obvious to
me he's being paid to have that position. But you
tell me, is sending one hundred billion more to Ukraine
(03:23):
or Ukraine's borders or these like really huge issues in
your district. It's the border is the biggest issue, the
US border, the US border, And when you ask people,
and this is not anecdotalist, empirical, there have been plenty
of people pulling in congressional district too. In Montgomery County,
why because it's the biggest red county left in Texas.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
The governor pulls it, we pull it. Other people are
pulling it.
Speaker 5 (03:50):
And it's people see the contrast between the way Ukraine
is being taken care of in the Texas border is not,
and they draw contrasts, and they should.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
It's kind of that simple, isn't it.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Yeah, Steve toath answering the question who among Texas elected
officials support Dan Crenshaw, You need to know who among
Texas elected official supports Crenshaw.
Speaker 5 (04:19):
You know what's funny is when the day we announced,
we had I think thirty the most conservative members of
the Texas Legislature that endorsed me, and he came out
with a list of people to endorse him. Now, one
single member of Congress was bind him. No one really,
not one active congressman came out to endorse him.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Do you ever talk to members of Congress about him,
who worked with him? What do they say. I'm not
going to comment on that. I just yeah, I can't.
I just can't. Okay, I understand it. But it sounds
like he's not a favorite among his colleagues.
Speaker 5 (04:54):
Yeah, so a lot of you know, I came in
when I came into the legislature, I came in with
one of the biggest class, and since the Sharptown scandal
in the seventies, I think there are forty two people
in our class, and many of them have gone on
to serve in Congress in Washington, and I have a
good relationship with all of them. Yeah, but Crenshaw doesn't
(05:15):
sound like he does. Is he close to Cornyn? You know,
I don't know if they have a relationship or not.
I know that Cornyan is supporting him for obvious reasons.
But that's what are those reasons? Well, just they're both
donor class lobbyist centric people. We're called representatives because we're
actually supposed to represent the people that vote us into office,
(05:36):
and they're just some that just don't give a flying
flip about Oh that's obvious.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Well, in Crenshaw's cases, clearly he's hosted for them. I
got myself.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
Twice Michael Berry's look at me, man, Now I drive
the school books.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
You could say, I'm just a good old boy.
Speaker 6 (06:06):
It then the batter Country Friday, washed in the blood
and wrapped in calm, A flung, a staunch defender of
the ray Satin. I grew up accustomed to the rail flag,
under the shadow of the crawls.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Down weather colors.
Speaker 6 (06:29):
Now them mixed to the way, and some folks are
steal mad because the sound.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
This is Steve Toe answering Tucker Crossing about the video
of Dan Crenshaw's snapping at a young girl after she
asks about his comment about Jesus. This speaks to his
anger management issues. It also speaks to the idea of
(06:56):
his view of people. You're you're the plebes, you're the serfs,
you're the peasants. You shouldn't be asking me questions. I'm
the government. He has an arrogance about him that a
lot of people who know him, myself included, do not like.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
So it's not just you that he's a snapdad for
asking a question. I want to play a video and
maybe you can explain what we're watching. A young girl
comes up to him, looks very young in the video
and asks him about comments that he made about Jesus
(07:35):
during a podcast before we play this, can you tell
us with the backstory?
Speaker 5 (07:41):
So he was on a podcast and Dan wants to
show himself off as this intellectual. Dan's dumb. No a fact,
I'm not being mean.
Speaker 3 (07:52):
By the way, my dogs are dombini and I think
they're going to have and I have known. I don't
think that's a moral category. I'm not attacking, but he
is dumb, like head injury dumb, and I don't anyway.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Sorry, sorry to be mean.
Speaker 5 (08:05):
No, I think I actually think he's I'm going to
disagree with you. I think he's incredibly smart. I think
he's vacuous when it comes to wisdom, though maybe that's
what I'm referring to. Yeah, so I think he knows
a lot. And when I've sat and listened to some
of his podcasts and some of the different things, he's
(08:25):
a really smart guy, but he completely lacks the wisdom
to know what's to do with all those smarts. And
so he's doing this podcast with this guy and they're
talking about he brings up, well, the American people need
archetypes spider Man, Superman, and Jesus Christ. And he says,
and then real ones too, like Rosa Parks and Abraham Lincoln.
(08:48):
And they're like, what Jesus actually said, Jesus. Rosa Parks
is real, Jesus is not. Jesus is not. And so
this position, I guess probably I saw it on Wikipedia.
So this young woman at the Montgomery County tea party
(09:11):
on a Monday night asked Dan Crenshaw. She said, I'm
trying to get my arms around this, and then she
read the statement verbatim of what he had said on
this podcast, and he said, I can't get my arms
around that. And he said, you put a period after
Jesus and don't question my faith, and the whole place
(09:32):
just lost it.
Speaker 2 (09:33):
So let's play that not only mind about.
Speaker 7 (09:36):
Jesus about me to get anyone heard. Freshew said, quote,
the most important thing here is that we have the hero.
Speaker 5 (09:48):
Archetypes that we look out to.
Speaker 7 (09:50):
Jesus is a hero archetype of Superman is a hero archetype.
Greal characters too. I could name a thousand Rosa Parks
thrown and ready in quote, I'll help you put a
period of Jesus and no question my faith.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
So I think it's it's fair to you know, to
to not want to be attacked for your faith. Okay,
I'm with Crenshaw on that, but she wasn't really attacking
him on the say.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
She was asking like, what do you want to clarity?
What do you mean?
Speaker 5 (10:24):
Yeah, that was cli exactly like if you ever said anything,
You're like, I could have positioned that differently.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
If I said.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
I get asked that all the time, especially, I'll come
home my wife will be like, did you mean to
say that?
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Okay? What should I have said?
Speaker 4 (10:38):
Right? Right?
Speaker 2 (10:40):
I'm like, okay, yes, honey, that makes sense. Right, But.
Speaker 5 (10:44):
So you just say, Wow, I guess I could have
handled that different. I get That's not what I meant.
I would have put a period after Jesus, and then
I would have shut my mouth and laughed and laughed
at all totally. But instead he got all defensive at
this young woman and tried to ridicule her.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Oh, he attacked her instantly.
Speaker 3 (11:03):
Yeah, what you're seeing on display there is a fragile,
very unhappy and above all hostile person.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
Here is Steve Toath talking about the fact that, in
his mind Crenshaw lies about our intelligence agencies, that Democrats
created a fourth branch of government.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
I'll tell you, before.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Twenty twenty, before Assange, before Snowden, before Comy, it was
hard to get people to listen to things like this.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
This is cuckoo talk.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Now, all of a sudden you realize, wait a minute,
before you saw what they did to Trump. Wait a minute.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
He was asked by reporter whom I respect for Liam
Cosgrove well, coming out of Congress. This was earlier, this
is the spring, early summer, and he was asked about
legislation that he had voted for, and basically his position
was he intell agencies are not in any way playing
(12:04):
in American politics.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Here's the exchange.
Speaker 8 (12:07):
With data and with access to your you know bath
that you're addicted to, you can vastly manipulate an entire population,
which the Chinese have done.
Speaker 9 (12:16):
Were you worried that our intelligence agencies are doing the
same thing domestically?
Speaker 2 (12:21):
You might worry that, Well, I know that they're not.
They're not manipulating Americans.
Speaker 10 (12:26):
They're not.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yes, a flow of information. Yeah, did you have some
evidence otherwise that you'd like to share? I mean, okay,
before the.
Speaker 9 (12:33):
Serious congressman you asked for an example of the US
intelligence agencies meddling in our information? What about before the
twenty twenty election, when fifty members came out and said
hunter byten laptop was Russian disinformation?
Speaker 2 (12:45):
Does that count no? Because I mean they were, they
were retired, they were retired.
Speaker 9 (12:51):
But the NBA, the FBI had the laptop progress even
close to a TikTok.
Speaker 7 (12:56):
So.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
That I felt Again, I've just spent the last half
an hour sort of defending Crenshaw in a backhanded way.
I think he's a victim of the war on tariff.
I'm being honest, that's what I think. He's clearly so
damaged and screwed up in tragic personal life and all
the rest. But when I saw that, I thought this
(13:19):
is not a good person. Actually, the most.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Egreesious thing about that is that as I talk to
friends in DC, they see this like on a daily basis.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Oh yes, and sweet, see what this is the deep state?
Speaker 5 (13:38):
This is the deep state at work that he's denying exists.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
The intelligency's playing in American politics. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
So what the left has done is they've positioned this
fourth branch of government so that even when they're not
in power, they're in power. Yes, that's what they've created.
They've created a system whereby so you lose Congress, you
lose the White House.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
We don't care.
Speaker 5 (14:04):
They don't care because they have the fourth branch of
government that's still running the show.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
It's so blatantly on us.
Speaker 11 (14:12):
Or obviously it's from the King of Ding and this
other guy, Michael Barry.
Speaker 9 (14:19):
These are the kind of guys you're like a smacking airs.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Because who took this challenge in Dan Crenshaw in the
congressional district too race that the only people who say
bad things about the power structure in DC, they're the
only ones that are held accountable. If you go alonge
to get along, you're protected. You're part of the club.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
At the federal level, Like if you were to call
immigration or something like that, they'd laugh at you. Of course,
you're just a silly congressman. We don't care what you think.
Why would they? Why would they? Right, And they do
the same thing with the executive branch. They are just
completely aloof They don't care what we think. They don't
care what the elected officials. They don't care whether a
(15:11):
constitutionally elected person that holds office. They don't care what
you think, even though even though your your department, maybe
underneath an agency that you oversee is a citing member
of Congress.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
They don't care. If this is why Doge was a
good idea.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Yeah, you know, really, no one's been until people are
really fired, people who work for us, then there's no
incentive for them.
Speaker 5 (15:34):
But here's the problem, Tuckers, that we've got a responsibility,
I think, as elected officials to say to the American people,
this is going on. I see it with my own eyes,
this is what's going on. Yes, And guys like Crench
are like, no, I'm going.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
To defend it.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Well, how could you defend them, So how could I mean,
he was asked specifically, the intel agencies have basically nullified
democracy because they are playing a role in American politics,
a very big role, and that's documented.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
It's not a matter of guesswork at this point. We
know that.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
And it's, as you just said, anyone who works in
Washington sees it every single day. So like he's denying
that angrily, what does that say about his role?
Speaker 5 (16:15):
I mean he was asked specifically about the right about
Hunter Biden's laptop and it was called Russian disinformation by
the intelligence community. Yes, and he blew it off, completely
blew it off, just like they blew off.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Biden's daughter's diary. Of course, Well they put that.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
They put the people had it in jail for the
crime of having Ashley Biden's diary in which she said
she showered with her dad and it screwed her up sexually.
How couldn't it, That's what it's well exactly, how couldn't it.
But that was just they put the guy in jail
for that, I mean, for having it.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
The same players in government don't don't treat Republicans that way.
I mean, it's only people that say bad things about
the power structure of Washington, DC. They're the only ones
that get held accountable. No, it's so sick. It's just
(17:17):
so sick.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
And then we get to the issue, which has been
coming up again and again and again. How did Dan
Crenshaw get to be such an astute stock picker If
he's not trading, If he's trading on inside information, that's criminal.
If he's not, how'd he get so good at this?
Was he that good before he was in Congress? His
(17:39):
response is, I don't have that much money to invest.
If you invest one hundred dollars on inside information, it's
still a crime. His point is, I'm not rich. That's
not what any of us said. Wouldn't say you were.
But there are a lot of people that aren't rich
and they don't get to trade on inside information.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
There was this kind of amazing moment right after COVID
when people started taking a look at the performance of
various members of Congress of stock portfolios. And you know,
I personally know hedge fund managers who've underperformed the market. Right,
people do this for a living, maybe billions some years.
They just don't. You know, it's very hard to beat
(18:19):
the market, But Dan Crenshaw did somehow, he made a
lot of trades, including after getting classified briefings on COVID policy,
and he was called out on this, and he wasn't
the only one. I mean, Nancy Pelosi famously, but Dan
Crenshaw did pretty well. And you know, I don't think
there's any evidence suggests he's like a market expert, So like,
how exactly do that? Did that work? And this was
(18:41):
his response. He didn't, you know, he immediately started attacking
anyone who asked him, and he said, you don't let
us trade stocks. You don't let us make any money either.
We haven't gotten a pay raise since two thousand and eight,
So I mean, I don't think members of Congress are
overpaid exactly, but they're paid all multiples of what the
average person makes, and they get a lifetime pension, so
it's pretty good deal and free healthcare and dental. So
(19:01):
it's like he's clearly very focused on money. He was
vicious too about the way he said it.
Speaker 5 (19:08):
I mean, the level of anger in his voice that
he would be questioned about the way he's trading stock
or what he gets paid. So the average taxan is
paid seventy six thousand dollars. Dan Crenshaw's making one hundred
and seventy four thousand dollars of your tax dollars. He's
been paid by our tax dollars in taxes, of course,
(19:30):
and he thinks he should make more well for a
young man to the lifetime value of the package he's
he could, which he's already gotten because he's already served
multiple terms. Right, So is many millions of hellos over
the course of life. Yeah, yeah, it's crazy. It is crazy. So,
I mean it does Like, what do you make of
the stock trading? How did Dan Crenshaw beat the market? Well,
(19:54):
multiple people have talked about it, and multiple people over
the years have said that we've got to stop at
because we have access. They have access to information that
the average person doesn't have access to it. And it's
really not a lot different in Texas. Again, we're the
eighth largest economy in the United States. I see deals that
are coming our way, and I could, I could own
(20:15):
stock in those companies, but my wife and I've chosen
to stay out of the market, and for that very
simple reason either at all at all. So, I own
real estate, I own some rental houses and that's that's
my retirement. But I don't want to be I want
to appoind I want to avoid the appearance of evil.
This has been an issue, this one all the way
(20:36):
back to remember Eric Canter very well. Eric Canter was
thrown out of office Dave. I can't think of his
last name. He's a I know them both, yeah, But anyways,
Canter lost because of his defense and voted against legislation.
This is going back ten twelve years that would have
stopped this, and the American people have just had enough
(20:57):
with it.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
They just have absolutely had enough of it.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Toward the end of the week, I look at my stack.
I used to love when Rush would Peter he'd tap
his you know, pull together his stack of papers, and
I loved that.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
It was one of the many things I loved about
Russia show.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
But I see stories that we didn't get to and
I think to myself, I don't want the week to
go by and we don't get that in So this
was a story out of Louisiana. Fox News broke this.
I don't know if it was earlier this week or
late last week. They arrested one of the folks who
(21:36):
was in the hamas attack on Israel on October seventh
in Louisiana. Now, you know, when I was growing up
and up until relatively recently, you knew that the world
was an unsafe place. You knew there were savages around
the world, and you took comfort in the fact that, well,
(21:58):
at least they're not here. But then we started letting
him in. All they had to do was get here,
and they were let in. Well, bad people do bad things, period,
That's the way that works. Here was a story from
Fox News.
Speaker 12 (22:12):
Federal prosecutor say the thirty three year old man took
part in the Hamas attack on Israel, then traveled to
the US on a fraudulent visa. Senior correspondent Jonathan Sara
as more on what we're learning.
Speaker 11 (22:22):
Jonathan, Yes, Andra, he was living here in the US legally,
at least on paper. Investigators say he lied on his
visa application by failing to disclose his alleged connections to
paramilitary groups. He was living in Lafayette, Louisiana. His name
is Mahmoud al Matadi, and according to the criminal complaint
filed in US District Court, evidence shows that on the
(22:45):
morning of October seventh, twenty twenty three, al Matadi learned
about the Hamas invasion, armed himself, gathered others, and crossed
into Israel with the intention of assisting with Hamas's terrorist attack.
That coordinated assault involved rape, torture, case napping, and the
deaths of twelve hundred people. Investigators say Almatati's phone used
(23:05):
a cell tower located near Kibbutz kafar Aza, the location
of one of the worst massacres in.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
That attack on Israel. The court filing.
Speaker 11 (23:15):
Also includes social media photos that investigator Shape say shows
Alma Tadi wearing the red headband of the National Resistance
Brigades or NRB, a Gaza based paramilar very show.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
I hate the climate holes.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
You know this. I came across this audio. It's a
fellow named Matt Ridley.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
This is a guy who was the science editor at
the Economist magazine, which is an international magazine, and I
would argue leans a little left. This is a magazine
that has pushed the climate hoax for years. Listen to
what he now says about that. This is not a
(24:21):
guy with just some conspiracy opinion. This is a guy
who was rather learned on the issue.
Speaker 10 (24:27):
What is the reality of climate change and the human
impact on that process.
Speaker 13 (24:33):
Well, the average temperature of the planet does seem to
be going steadily outputs since when since the mid eighties.
So he went down in the seventies.
Speaker 10 (24:42):
I remember all the fears about the I say, yes,
in the seventies. So we were told the planets about
the freeze in the seventies.
Speaker 13 (24:48):
Yeah, it was fair, and that wasn't a fringe of
view by the way. It was you know, covers of
Time and Newsweek and the luck kind of stuff people
have forgotten. Yeah, it was going to be six degrees
of cooling and you know, it was going to be
amazing changes.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
And that didn't happened.
Speaker 13 (25:00):
It bottomed out and started warming gently, and since then
it's warmed at you know, about a quarter of a
degree per decade on average across the last thirty forty years.
And it's maybe they say it's one point five degrees
above pre industrial levels now, but pre industrial levels did this,
(25:21):
you know, So which bit do you want to prove?
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I mean, we know.
Speaker 13 (25:24):
That in the medieval period it was warm of them
today because you find whole forests that are emerging from
melting glaciers. Now, well, there were forests in fifteen hundred,
where there's no glass, there would have been no glacier
there now, so the glaciers come and then gone away again.
So we're not in a period of unprecedented warms. We're
not in a period of unprecedentedally fast warmths. We're not
in a period of increasing extreme weather flood strout storms.
(25:48):
There's no increase in the either frequency or severity. But
at the same time, the common docs that we're putting
in the air is having a very measurable effect that's beneficial,
and we refuse to take that into a can and
that is global greening.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
Is there is more green.
Speaker 13 (26:06):
Vegetation on the planet now compared with the nineteen eighties,
equivalent to a continent the size of North America that's
been added of green vegetation. That's an enormous impact. It's
approximately sixteen or seventeen percent more green vegetation on the
planet now than there was in the eighties. And that's
because carbon dioxide is plant food, and when it's more
(26:29):
in the air, the plants grow better, particularly in arid areas.
Now that's had an effect on crop yields. It's not
the only effect on crop yields. But it's fifte percent,
quite a good improvement, and if you add the dollar
value of that up, it's very hard to make it
smaller than the dollar value of the increase in warmth
(26:50):
that has effected, you know, done damage, because even the warmth,
you know, that means a few people.
Speaker 2 (26:55):
Are dying in winter.
Speaker 13 (26:55):
And yet there are so many vested interests now in
continuing to about it as a crisis and funded as
a crisis, that I'll not get a hearing for what
I just said.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So I have long been of the opinion.
Speaker 1 (27:12):
That Texas, Oh see if I can find that I've
been holding onto this and just never got to it.
On green energy scams, it's a fellow named Dave Walsh
who's the former president of Mitsubishi Power Systems, and he
did an interview with Steve Bannon, and a listener sent
(27:35):
it to me, and it's four minutes twelve seconds. I
don't generally invest that kind of time in something I
don't know what it's going to be. But I start
listening to it and I realized, this is exactly what
we've been talking about, the reason your energy costs go
through the roof, the reason the grid goes down is
we're not make even in Texas, we're not making good
(27:57):
decisions based on the best energy at the lowest cost,
which is what consumers would want. We are subsidizing, regulating,
and mandating inefficient forms of energy like wind and solar
in order to what save the Earth or something. It's
all crop so longer audio clip for minutes twelve seconds
(28:22):
than we normally play. But I felt like cutting it
any lower. I wanted you to hear this info, give
this list.
Speaker 8 (28:28):
When it was just the consumer and the average schmo right,
the tech oligarchs because they're all progressive lefties. It was
all a climate crisis and you had to have renewables.
If it's going to cost more, well that's what it
costs to save the plants.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
So you're gonna pay for it.
Speaker 8 (28:40):
When it comes to AI and comes to what.
Speaker 2 (28:43):
They need, which is energy and water.
Speaker 8 (28:45):
Hey, they're talking about many nuclear reactors, they're talking about
gas plants called they don't care. I don't hear any
I don't hear any big thing that we need more
wind farms for the AI. They're not prepared to go
down something that that's not sustainable, right, I mean, you're
seeing a total shift and this to what galls me.
The same guys that put in money for these left
wing politicians to basically have a neck carbon zero and
(29:07):
that was their big religion when it comes to their
own money, and it comes to they now woken up
to the fact that hey, if we're going to compete
with China, we need massive amounts of power. I don't
hear any wind farms. I don't hear any solar coming
from them. They want real power that's there all the time, sir.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, that's the number. The issue.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
AI, just like some endplants, deal plants, car plants, semiconductor plants,
and human beings need baseload twenty four hour a day
electricity supply.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Rubles don't provide that.
Speaker 4 (29:34):
Of course, the AI mobiles and denizens come out with
that right away. They can't get by on part time energy. Oh,
let's let the people continue to try to get by
on part time energy. Let the rate payers get by
on that, but let's have baseload for us. What would
make the most sense is if they build their own
instead of plugging in and taking advantage of rate payers
having to build out two and a half billion, three
(29:55):
billion dollar gas plans to support them incrementally, let them
pay for that, and then you've got public.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
Policy issues that need to be addressed.
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Suches in Pennsylvania, Google showing up buying and existing six
hundred and seventy megawat dam from Brookstone just for the
purpose of Brookfield having to be able to brag about
baseloaded energy that they've purchased. They're robbing that from the
public system, from the pjam public system that's already in
shortage because of shutting down coal nuclear plants attempting to
(30:26):
replace them with expensive renewables.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
They're already in massive short.
Speaker 8 (30:33):
I want to go to another topic and Ash you
probably stay through the break for a couple of the
other side. Here's another thing I don't get because you've
got these boards where consumers with fever. You've got the
two bedrocks of the mega movement, Florida and Texas. And
in Florida all they're doing is building solar all over
the place, and in Texas it's all wind. How did
(30:56):
we have two MAGA states with the reddest populations we
got and people on the tip of this How do
we have a situation where they're going down the path
for the average Schmendrick right that you're going to have
solar and expensive as how are you going to have wind?
Speaker 2 (31:11):
How did that happen?
Speaker 4 (31:14):
It happened in this state. This is a regulated state,
unlike Rep. Parrison state is his state. By the way,
going forward AIRCOT plan the next five years is entirely
solar and battery storage. New capacity additions for air cotnew
the next five years a compounded disaster. Florida worse with
regulated utilities who are heavily donated, heavy heavy donators to
(31:35):
packs wind up in full control of energy policy for
Florida through the state House, state Senate, and the governor
backing them because they're major donors, they're massive donors, they
get their way. They basically control the inputs provided by
the Public Service Commission, who was appointed by the governor
and approved by the state Senate, all heavily impacted by
the donor class of Duke Energy, FPL and TCO the
(31:57):
go ahead and push forward these plans that are massively
beneficial to their bottom line because the capex involved with
these plans is five times to six times more than
it would be if they were building basic combined cyclic
gas power plans. So therefore they get a rate benefit
from that eleven and a half percent guaranteed return on
delta investment. Therefore, the utilities are all for the continuance
(32:20):
of solar power for the people. Now when it talks
to AI, hey, I can't live with that. They need
twenty four hour day, really power like the rest of us.
As Satisfatuday, thank you and a midnight
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. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.