3-19-25 - 9am - Nationwide Injunctions and Cooking is Bad for the Environment

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael, ignoring the current political issues here. If the commander
in chief were interested in using his authorities vested in
him under the Constitution with a rollout of a policy,
but to avoid these patchwork of preliminary injunctions, he might
have to go to the court and seek an advisory
opinion saying, hey, this is what I'm gonna do. You
guys aren't just gonna block it every three seconds, are you?

(00:22):
But of course he can't ask for an advisory opinion.
This cannot be the logical outcome of the constitution.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
It No, it cannot. And I dang it.

Speaker 3 (00:36):
That's probably one of the smartest things say I've ever
heard girl dad put together.

Speaker 4 (00:39):
I don't say it's the only smartly govern her girl DFSA,
But it's just I kept I had high hopes that
someday you actually would say something intelligent.

Speaker 3 (00:48):
I was waiting for something sarcastic or something to I
can't be coming.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
Where's he going to come? My legs that from under me?
Where's he going to? Where's he gonna? You know?

Speaker 4 (00:58):
But no, he's actually because you all this actually a
serious subject. Now, I'm really conflict. I'm conflicted because I
was going to move on. Oh, I got a lot
more about this I can talk about. So what say you,
mister producer.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
I don't care.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
I wasn't listening the last hour, so sure, go ahead continue.

Speaker 4 (01:18):
Okay, you know what, because it is that important, and
obviously it's important enough that right now both Fox and
CNN are discussing exactly the same thing. Now, CNN they're
quoting former Associate Justice Bryer quote, I do think Robert's
rebuke of Trump was appropriate. Okay, well, I'm shocked about that.
Over Here on Fox, flood of injunctions highlight Trump lawfare,

(01:43):
and they've got the sea. Bush had six, Obama twelve,
Trump sixty four, Biden fourteen, and already Trump fifteen. We're
not tomorrow's like too much. We're already up to fifteen
on Trump and Bush only had six, Obama had two. Well,
Trump won sixty four, Trump two fifteen. Wow, this is

(02:03):
pretty good. Oh that, I'm sorry, I'm gonna get to
tell them I should not do that. So let's let
me be clear about somebody. I think the independence of
the judiciary is sacra sact.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
It really is.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
I mean they but then I again, separation of powers
co equal branches of government, separate but equal, well not
not in that term, but they're equal branches of government.
They each have their own powers. They act as a
check and balance on each other. But it was never
meant to be an unchecked autocracy. And while while again

(02:46):
Article three, you know, I can't believe we have now
I don't. We've never talked that much about Article three.
The judge Section one, the judges, both of the Supreme
and inferior courts. Now, let me just back up. Section
one is pretty simple. But then that's the great thing

(03:06):
about the Constitution. It's all pretty simple if you just
listen to the words. If you would just apply the
plain meaning of the words, we'd be okay.

Speaker 2 (03:15):
Section one.

Speaker 4 (03:16):
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested
in one Supreme Court Comma, and in such inferior courts
as the Congress may, from time to time ordain and established.
So the Constitution established the Supreme Court. He gave Congress

(03:37):
the authority. This is why we call them Article three courts.
The founders gave the Congress the power other than the
Supreme Court, which is established by the Constitution, to establish
any other courts that you think might be necessary.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Now, why why would.

Speaker 4 (03:54):
They give Congress the power to do that because the
founders thought to themselves there may be need for additional
courts to decide some cases that would take the load
off the one US Supreme Court. The judges. Section one

(04:18):
still the same paragraph. The judges, both of the Supreme
and Inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior,
and shall at stated times receive for their services at
compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuation in office.

(04:39):
That's it for now, that's not for now. Just Article
three grants lifetime tenures to federal judges contingent on good behavior,
But nowhere does that mean that they are immune to
consequences when they abuse their power. And I think that

(05:01):
this increasing use is obvious when you look at the
chart the Fox News head up, this increasing use of
nationwide injunctions by an activist judge that's now become weaponized,
and it's weaponized solely to obstruct Trump's duly enacted policies.
And I don't think that now, kay, I'm not going

(05:22):
to say always, but most of the time, there's not
a clear constitutional or statutory basis for them issuing these injunctions.
They just don't like the fact that all they're doing.
Think again, think about the process, the PERI here's civil
procedure for you. You need to think about the civil procedure.
So I want to sue the government. I work for

(05:43):
end car or Noah, and I want to sue the
government because I'm one of the persons that got laid off.
So I because I'm a federal employee, I don't take
it to Denver District Court. I take it to the
federal district court because it involves the federal government taking
action against me. They fired me. So I sue Michael

(06:08):
Brown versus Donald Trump in federal district court. So I
file the case. And when I file the case, I
asked my lawyer seek an injunction in joining them the
federal government, in joining the administration from firing me. In

(06:28):
other words, issue an injunction that says you can't fire it.
So they ask for an injunction. At the time they
asked for the injunction, they also petition the Federal district court,
the local federal court here for a TRO a temporary
restraining order. In order to get the tro my lawyers

(06:51):
have to argue that it's more likely than not that
I will win the case seeking the injunctions up the firing,
and that there will be immediate harm if they don't
issue a tro Now, what's the immediate harm. Why I'm
not getting paid suddenly, I'm unemployed and I'm gonna be
harmed immediately because I've lost my benefits, I've lost my pay,

(07:14):
I've lost everything. You know, collect happens to people in
the private sector every single day, like will happen to
somebody somewhere today. Within the sound of my voice. I
hope it's not you, but I'm just saying, somewhere in
the country, somebody's gonna get fired today and they'll be
given their final paycheck, and if they want to continue
their health insurance, they'll have to either pay Cobra or

(07:37):
go find their own insurance somewhere, assuming their company had
health insurance. So my lawyers are going to argue that
there's immediate harm, I'm gonna lose all those things, which
I'm laughing because that's what happens all the time in
the private sector. But in the public sector. They're going
to tell the judge, oh, mister Brown's going to be
immediately harmed because he's going to lose a salary and
his benefits. So the judge says, oh, yeah, you're right.

(08:00):
So here's a tro And while I'm at it, I'm
going to extend the temporary restraining order that stops the
government from firing mister Brown to everybody across the country
that might happen to work for in CAR or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That's the nationwide injunction. And

(08:22):
I think those oftentimes are done without any sort of
constitutional statutory basis, and that trend threatens the balance of
power between these separate but equal branches of government. The
Founders had a remedy for judicial misconducting you what it is,
impeachment Now, politically and practically speaking, a removal of a

(08:45):
federal district judge right now is probably nearly impossible. There
probably would obviously, I don't think any Democrat is going
to vote to impeach now. In the House, I think
it's practical. I think they could actually pass articles of impeachment,
But when it gets to the Senate for a trial,
I think it becomes virtually impossible to do. But the

(09:09):
process itself of impeachment is lengthy, it's costly, its reputationally damaging.
So it can be just the threat of impeachment can
serve as a deterrent against overreach. But in order for
that deterrent to reach, It's like if you want to
make the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent

(09:32):
against crime, then you actually have to do the death penalty,
otherwise there's no deterrence whatsoever. It's like illegal immigration. If
you want to stop illegal immigration, you actually have to
enforce it. You have to show that you're willing to
deport people. And now we see people self deporting, we
see people showing up. Oh, I think I'll turn around

(09:52):
and go home. That's deterrence. Republicans have got to be
willing to wield each mist strategically, not necessarily to remove,
but to punish and deter judges who act as unlooted
policy makers. And that's exactly what they're doing here. So
let's go to the Federalist papers. When Alexander Hamilton wrote

(10:15):
in Federalists eighty one, he made clear that impeachment was
intended as a check on judges who engage. In Quoting
Federalists eighty one, a series of deliberate usurpations of the
authority of the other branches. What does that mean in
layman's terms, when judges assume the power of say Congress

(10:36):
and they legislate, or when they assume the powers of
the executive and they tell, oh, I'm going to exercise
the executive authority, not you. I'm going to tell you
who fire or not fire. I'm going to tell you
who you can send for an aid to or not
send for an aid to. I'm going to tell you
what departments you can establish are not established. That's assuming
the power of the executive branch. A nationwide judge, a

(10:59):
nationwide injunction is in effect a veto on the president's agenda.
It's a judicial veto, not a congressional veto. They don't
have veto power. The nationwide junctions allow a single unelected judge,
as I said in the last hour, often based on
forum shopping and judge shopping to impose their policy preferences

(11:21):
over the entire nation. Did you vote for that judge?
Have you ever voted for at the federal level? Have
you ever voted for any judge? No, because that's not
the process. I voted in November. I voted for Donald
I actually voted for a list of electors to go
vote for Donald Trump because I wanted the Trump policies,

(11:44):
not the Biden or not the Harris policies, which would
have been the Biden policies. So, while the Supreme Court
has indicated primarily in the the sense of Justice Alito,
Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorse such have expressed their why
do you think we think we should address this? If?

(12:05):
I just I said last hour Justice Leader was stunned
that the Supreme Court thinks that it can allow a
lower court to just exercise this executive power so impeachment
despite what I cannot well, as I said last hour,
Justice Roberts, I think issued this statement because he feels

(12:30):
protective of this particular judge. Why would you think that
all of a sudden, of all these general nationwide injunctions
have been issued, why would Roberts step in in this
instance and say something? You know that Justice Roberts appointed
this particular judge to the phis A Court. Yeah, the

(12:54):
same fiz A court that authorized the spying on Donald
Trump's campaign, This same PHISA court that was blinded by
the false evidence support submitted by the FBI in order
to get the PHISO warrant. Yes, that judge appointed by
Justice Roberts. Now, I know that some lawyers would argue

(13:21):
that impeachment should be reserved for criminal misconduct, but I
don't think that's a proper interpretation. The Constitution is self
defines impeachable offenses as high crimes and misdemeanors, a term
that the founders deliberately left broad to encompass abuses of power.
Gerald former President Ford once equipped in an impeachable offense

(13:45):
is whatever a majority of the House considers it to
be at a given moment in history. And that's right
because that's the check and balance that the Congress has
against another branch of government, whether it be the presidency
or the judicial branch, the judiciary, which they believe is

(14:07):
violating their oath of office. Now, just the process of impeachment,
that can serve as an important signal. If one judge
sees another one of their peers facing impeachment for a
nationwide injunction, you might think twice about issuing a nationwide

(14:29):
injunction yourself.

Speaker 2 (14:31):
Michael.

Speaker 4 (14:32):
That's interfering with the judicial process. No, it's Congress exercising
its authority to say we think you are overreaching. And
so if other judges are thinking of overreaching, they might
think twice about doing it. Now, I know we live
in an era where the Democrats have normalized this kind

(14:54):
of lawfare, not just against Trump but against individuals, weaponizing indictments,
civil lawsuits, criminal threats of criminality.

Speaker 2 (15:04):
Look at the Jay sixers.

Speaker 4 (15:08):
Republicans for whatever reason, don't adopt similar tactics. But let
me emphasize impeachment in the context of these judges is
not an abuse of power, but I think you should
consider it as a measured response to the judicial excesses
that threaten constitutional governance. Now, historically judicial impeachments have been rare,

(15:35):
but they are impactful. Supreme Court Justice Chase, while unsuccessfully
impeached back in eighteen early eighteen hundreds, helped delineate the
boundaries of judicial partisanship. You ever heard of Judge Walter

(15:56):
Nixon impeach and removed for perjury? So it demonstrates that
the process remains viable when misconduct is clear. Now, while
current political realities, I say, make the Senate convictions unlikely,
the mere act of impeaching somebody, Impeachment doesn't mean removal.
Impeachment means that the members of the House of Representatives

(16:18):
think that you have abused your power, So we're going
to impeach you. We are going to file articles of impeachment.
We're going to outline what we think you have done
that is an abuse of your power, and then we're
going to vote on that, and if we get the
prerequisite number of votes, we're going to send those articles
of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. So the

(16:39):
very I would argue that the very hearing on articles
of impeachment against judges has the kind of effect that
it should have. Now, I'm not arguing for impeaching any
judge who rules against disconservative policy. The standard out to
be some sort of demonstrable pattern of activist ruling, particularly

(17:01):
those that extend beyond traditional judicial authority, to halt executive
actions nationwide. There's got to be some sort of framework.
So Congress has got to step into this very carefully
if they step into it at all, remember, you got
to do something. If you don't, we will have a

(17:21):
constitutional crisis.

Speaker 5 (17:23):
Good morning, you're listening to the situation with Michael Brown
marinating in insanity for eighteen years or nineteen, We're not
really sure. So sit back, grab a cup of coffee
or a diet coke, or if you're like me and
listen to the podcast, have to work, pour yourself a
glass of your favorite bourbon.

Speaker 3 (17:42):
Have a great day, Michael.

Speaker 4 (17:46):
Well, thank you for that wonderful introduction. Let's go to
the text line. So girl Dad leaves a follow on
to his talkback.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
Michael.

Speaker 4 (17:57):
If I had ten more seconds, it would have said, quote, Wow,
that's what it feels like to leave a talkback that contributes,
not derails.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
Close quote. But the lawyery in me.

Speaker 4 (18:07):
Is really frustrated at these injunctions, irrespective of whether I
like the policies. Me too, I'm really tired of it,
as I'm tired of being told what I can and
cannot do.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
I just it.

Speaker 4 (18:22):
I really do have an authority problem, and it's it's
really not enough that government like Chuck Schumer is all
upset because Hey, I made my money, and I'd like
to spend my money the way I'd like to spend
my money. Tara and I were looking at stuff that
we're having done on the house, and we know at
some point we're going to replace their air conditioning unit. Yeah, God,

(18:43):
I dread that. But the government has raised the cost
of just charging your outside air conditioning unit, just you know,
recharging the free on or whatever from about fifty dollars
to about one thousand dollars in recent years so that
we can save the old zone layer. And not is
it enough that they've raised the cost of all refrigerated

(19:04):
food isms by forcing the use of less efficient, more
costly forms of cooling and commercial refrigeration units in reefers
of whatever sort. And it wasn't even enough that the
Biden administration, I'm sorry that the that the Autopin administration
wanted to force you all to give up your gas
stoves in favor of the more costly, less efficient evs
for the same purpose until we realize that, oh my god,

(19:25):
Elon Musk makes those teslas, so we need to burn
them and trade them in either burn them, which doesn't
really I don't think is good for the environment. I
don't think it is. I may be wrong, going to
be staying corrected, but I think burning an EV and
lighting those batteries and all that toxic smoke it produces,

(19:47):
I don't think that's good. But that's what they're doing
because they don't really care about the environment, do they.
Mark Kelly proved that when he bought Mancinerity, Kelly traded
him his tesla's for a couple of.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
What were they were?

Speaker 3 (20:03):
They forded the Chevy Tahoe.

Speaker 4 (20:06):
Chevy Taho. Yeah, Chevy Tahoes, big ass Chevy Tahoes, the.

Speaker 3 (20:10):
Fuel efficient all electric Chevy.

Speaker 4 (20:13):
Oh wait, yeah, no, you need to rethink that before
you say that. You need to go back and ask
him what the what is the EPA's estimated MPG on
that one? Well, now we've talked about no a lot.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They now want you
to stop cooking food entirely. You save the ozone layer
real quick.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Source SYS.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (20:32):
He is the MPG for the Chevy Tahoe, the twenty
twenty five Chevy Tahoe.

Speaker 4 (20:36):
Yeah, let me gets uh fourteen city eighteen highway. You're
not far off Kai as well, because I drive a
Jeep Grand.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
Cherokee fifteen city twenty highway.

Speaker 4 (20:51):
Yeah, I average in the Jeep Grand Cherokee. I average
both high because I do both highway. And you know
on the little thing that you think you have computers
to say you how it what your MPG is between tanks.
I average about to twenty.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
Two miles a gall Ooh look at you, I know,
and that's I'm and I'm a leadfoot too.

Speaker 4 (21:13):
Anyway, Now, Noah wants you to stop cooking food entirely
to save the ozone layer, especially if you live in
Los Angeles March thirteen. According to the UPI, the volatile
organic compounds released into the air while cooking food contributes
to potentially harmful ozone pollution. Noah researcher say. Noah researchers

(21:39):
say that the potent and often pungent volatile organic compounds
is that what you call a fart to scientificity, isn't
a fart a pungent and volatile organic compounds anyway. Noah's
researchers say that the potent and often pungent volatile organic
compounds given off from cooking food are now responsible for

(21:59):
over a coure of the ozone production from VOCs generate.
Those are the compounds volatile organic compounds generated by human
activity in the LA Basin. The amount of ozone produced
by cooking and Los Angeles is about equal to the

(22:20):
amount of ozone produced by VOCs from field vehicles. Research
scientists and Chelsea Stockwell says we knew from our research
that chemical compounds from cooking can make up an important
fraction of VOCs present in urban air, but they were
not well represented in inventories or included in air quality models.

(22:43):
Given the known chemical reactivity of these compounds, their omission
from air quality models may be a blind spot when
it comes to urban ozone production. I think Noah needs
to come to Denver and check because I think people
cook in Denver.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
Two.

Speaker 2 (23:02):
I'm not sure, but.

Speaker 4 (23:03):
I think they do. I think whenever I go to
lunch today, somebody might cook that food. I would just
remind you that the climate cultists, the members of the
Church of the climate activists at the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, are the same idiots who have intentionally and
systematically defrauded the global temperature records over the past sixteen

(23:28):
years in order to create an illusion, an absolute illusion
of global warming. And all we have to do is
go over to Steve molloy at Junk Science, where he
reports that more climate cheating revealed. He tweeted out on
August of last year, warming in US max temperature since

(23:50):
nineteen seventy entirely caused by fake data from at Noah Climate.
He has keful of graphs. Graph one shows the raw
thermometer data shows almost no warming. Graph two, but when
the raw data gets adjusted by Noah, about one point
three degrees fahrenheit of warming is fabricated. Then he has

(24:12):
a third graph. The data entirely fabricated by Noah shows
about four degrees of warming. Almost half of noah temperature
data is fabricated. Fabricated data gets blended with the raw
data raw data for the final result, and then he
does quite conveniently for us a short video.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
Here everyone seeing my lay here.

Speaker 6 (24:35):
For first time that I've ever seen, the media has
admitted that climate hosters are literally just making up temperature
data and pretending that the made up temperatures are real.
In this article comparing this year's global temperature with last
year's global temperature, Bloomberg News admitted, quote NASA and Noah
rely on a statistical analysis of the likely temperatures to
fill into the gaps.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
End quote uh, Bloomberg Bloomberg line, did you.

Speaker 6 (25:01):
Catch that likely temperatures? What's a likely temperature? A likely
temperature is an estimated or just made up temperature? What
do I mean by that? Here's an example from the
Bell Glade, Florida temperature station. Note the temperatures in the
red box. They are all followed by the letter E
meaning estimated. For some unexplained reason, all the temperature data

(25:22):
from the Bell Glade station has been estimated or made up,
not measured since two thousand and six. This is not
just some localized problem at the Bell Glade station. As
my friend Tony Heller has previously revealed at his website
realclimatescience dot com, almost fifty percent of the temperature data
in the US Historical Climate Network are estimated, meaning just

(25:42):
made up or fabricated or faked.

Speaker 3 (25:44):
Why do they fabricate temperatures? Does it matter you decide?

Speaker 2 (25:49):
Comedy.

Speaker 6 (25:49):
Heller also produced this graph showing the effect of the
fabricated data. The effect of the fabrication is to cool
the past and warm the present so as to create
a warming trend where there is none in the actually
measured data.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Now that's really important to note.

Speaker 4 (26:02):
It's to create a fake decrease in cooling while creating
a fake increase in the warming, so that the gap
is wider, so it creates more panic. This is what
the Church of the Climate activists do. Their religion is
all based on falsehoods.

Speaker 3 (26:21):
I doubt this is accidental.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
So when you see climate.

Speaker 6 (26:24):
Holsters engaging in temperature debateabookie, like trying to figure out
whether this year was warmer than last year, you can
take comfort in the reality that they are essentially arguing
about which wolf is worse, the one in Little Red
riding herd to the one and three little pigs. Stay
up with the latest on climate fairy tale, follow me
on acts of junk science at my website junk science dot.

Speaker 2 (26:41):
Com, and he really is good. He is very worth following.

Speaker 4 (26:47):
So once an agency like NOAH has proven to be
an intentional disseminator of fraudulent information, why allow them to
remain in existent? I think Elon Musk ought to train
the sites of DOGE on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

(27:10):
and while they they might as well look at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research up in Boulder too. Sitting
on those beautiful flat iron mountains on public space, public
open space. Yeah, go try to build a filling stationary
convenience store and open space and see what happens. But
build InCAR on open space and the people of Boulder
will love you for that. Now, where do we start

(27:32):
with all of this? Los Angeles? And what are they
telling you about Los Angeles? That the volatile what's the
volatile organic compounds that are created by cooking is increasing
the ozone and that's increasing the infected what does it say,

(27:55):
are now responsible for over a quarter, So that's more
than twenty five percent of the ozone production from those
are generated by human activity such as cooking.

Speaker 2 (28:04):
So you need to stop cooking.

Speaker 4 (28:07):
So while Bobby Kennedy Junior is trying to get rid
of processed food, they just want us all to eat
nothing but processed food or just not eat at all,
probably just so you'll die off, Just die off. But
if you die off, don't you release carbon And that's
probably gonna be bad too, So they if you don't
want you to even exist in the first place, that's
what they really want. These truly are climate cultis. And

(28:31):
wait until the climate cultie in Colorado find out that
cooking is adding to the ozone problems. You know what
I really love, you know, I love the smell of
jet a. We talked about this earlier. Dragon things like
the diesel and the generator fires, up out here.

Speaker 2 (28:48):
You know what else?

Speaker 4 (28:48):
I like the smell of ozone. M give me some ozone,
baby and dragon.

Speaker 5 (28:54):
Good morning, Michelle, uh coober here four four four zero.

Speaker 3 (29:00):
Why don't you guys look up the seventeenth Amendment.

Speaker 2 (29:04):
Let's go from there. Tell me what you think. Thank you,
go today, Love you guys. Players.

Speaker 4 (29:12):
All right, let's do that real quickly. The Senate of
the United States composed of two senators. We stayed elected
by the people there at for six years, have one vote.
The electors in each state shall have the qualifications for
the elections of the most numerous branch of the state legislators.
When vacancies happen the representation of any state in the Senate,
the executive authority of these such stational issue rich of

(29:34):
election via the legislatures, may empower the executive thereof to
make temporary appointments until the people feel the vacancy by elections.
Legislaure may direct this man shall be construed us to
affect the election or term of any Senator. Okay, and
what's your point? Apply it to what that's right? That's right.

(29:57):
I have a disconnect, So text me back and tell
me what you mean by that. So I had to
look up the terminology for the for terrorism, not domestic
but just terrorism. The dictionary defines terrorism as the unlawn.
And I'll tell you why, because of these teslas. I

(30:20):
mentioned Tesla's in the last segment. Made me think about
all the burning of the teslas. And I know that
many people are calling it domestic terrorism. And I naturally
have a anytime somebody puts a an adjective or some
sort of uh well, just any sort of clarifier or

(30:45):
adjective or word in front of a crime, I tend
to imedially go to hate crimes because I hate hate crimes.
But listen to the definition of terrorism the unlawful you
use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians in the

(31:05):
pursuit of political aims late eighteenth century, and its origin
in reference to the rule of the during the French Revolution.
So it's a French origin. Hmm, maybe it does apply.

(31:30):
Here's an excerpt from a story from the Las Vegas
Review Journal. A suspect who police said set multiple teslas
on fire, used so multiple teslas, used molotov cocktails, shot
three rounds into the cars at a not a dealership,

(31:50):
at a collision center, a Tesla collision center early Tuesday morning,
still in the louse. According to the Metro Police Metropolitan
Police Department, the suspect, who police said is wearing all black,
is accused of damaging at least five Teslas, two of
which were engulfed in flames at two forty five am,
and then the word resist was also painted on the
door of the facility.

Speaker 2 (32:11):
At least three gun shots were fired into the cars
this well.

Speaker 4 (32:15):
According to the Assistant Sheriff Dori Corin, it was a
targeted attack against a Tesla facility. It's now being investigated
by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTF. Violent
acts like this, said the Special Agent in charge. Violent
acts like this are unacceptable, regardless of where they occur.

Speaker 1 (32:39):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
I think it does.

Speaker 4 (32:41):
Fit the definition of domestic terrorism, and I do think
that the applicable statutes ought to be used when they
find this dirt bag, to throw the dirt bag in,
you know, in jail for as long as possible. The
violence of the left is astonishing and it's obvious that
they don't care about the environment.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
We can talk all we want to about how they the.

Speaker 4 (33:06):
Church of the Climate activists, they care about clean air
and clean water until it doesn't suit their purposes. And
then we will take what used to be the darling
of the left and an electric vehicle. Why if you
drove an internal combustion engine, you didn't care about Mother Earth.

(33:27):
All you cared about was your own selfish desire to
get from point A to point be as efficiently and
cheaply as possible. And those teslas were probably bought with
taxpayer subsidies. And now they're polluting the air in Las
Vegas and wherever. They're burning them and damaging them and
causing other people's insurance trick. Can you imagine what the

(33:48):
cost of ensuring a tesla's going to be when the
insurance companies start underwriting and realize that, oh, holy caw,
you want a tesla, you're more likely than not to
be vandalized, how your car completely burned?

Speaker 2 (34:01):
The Left go suck it.