Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, Michael, the media is going to be a mess
today and tomorrow. They're already what in themselves between the
return of Jimmy Kimmel and the launch of Kamala's.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Book and her big book tour.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Oh, I have to try and avoid this for a
couple of days. And that's the report from the factory floor.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
And that's the report from the factory floor. I forget
when it was yesterday, but sometime yesterday during the program,
I think it was near the end of the program,
Dragon played a talk back from someone who mentioned that
we were ignoring the greatest threat to humanity or something geoengineering.
(00:44):
And it caught me off guard because I wanted to
run down that rabbit hole. But I didn't want to
run down that rabbit hole because whatever it was I
was talking about, I wanted to Pini. He's talking about that,
So what are you doing? Are you trying to find that?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, I'm going to look for it, but I don't
think I can find it.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Where it Yeah, if you do, great, If you don't,
I don't care. Yeah, infact, I just really don't care.
Don't waste your time. Go back to your porn now,
don't you know? And I hesitated for a few seconds
because it's something that, you know, the language geoengineering is
(01:26):
so scary. I know for decades that geoengineering has been occurring,
but we called it like cloud seating or something, you know.
I went home and after taking care of a whole
bunch of stuff, I tried to come up with a
(01:49):
brief statement about geoengineering.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Michael, we cannot have a discussion about the climate crisis
unless we clue to discussion about the geo engineering warfare
that's going on. I am not denying the other impacts
that humans have caused in this climate, but we need
to discuss the geoengineering that is going on period.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
The geoengineering warfare. Take your tenfoil hats off for a moment. Now,
I do I hear the.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
It's going off for?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Is it just a test? Huh?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Yeah, No, it's it's an amber alert going on right now.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
It's an amber alerting. Okay, does that go across our broadcast?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
It doesn't seem to be at the moment, but okay,
the phone say keep an eye out for a sixteen
year old Hispanic female.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
All right, okay, Marjorie Taylor Green the Firebrand Fungus women
from Republican from Georgia, a Republican. She attracted a lot
of ridicule from the climate alarmist community, from the congregants
in the Church of the climate activists and all of
(03:13):
their media supporters because she held a press conference after
a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.
Just that and of it self, is hilarious to House subcommittee. Now,
why do we have subcommittees and subcommittees and subcommittees? Now, legitimately,
(03:36):
we have all these subcommittees because some of these broad
categories of oversight involve a lot of really niche issues
that need their own little group to study. So that's
a legitimate reason. But you mean, what the real reason is,
(03:56):
because every subcommittee has a chairman, and just being a
member of Congress isn't good enough. You want people to
call you chairman. So Chairman, Marjorie Taylor Green, that's a
badge of honor, that shows seniority. So the real reason
(04:19):
you have five two hundred and sixty seven point three
seven subcommittees just in the House. That doesn't count the
ten thousand subcommittees that you have in the Senate. It's
really yes, because there's a lot of issues to cover.
But it's so that every member of Congress, four hundred
and thirty five members of the House can all also
(04:39):
claim the title chairman. But I digress. Well, this was
a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency. Wow,
they can't even make their title efficient. And it was
on the topic of climate geoengineering. This was back last week.
This has been like I think exactly a week ago
(05:00):
jet maybe a September sixteen or so. It is a
subject of controversy and Congress you know, I'm sorry Chairman. No,
she's not the chairman of this one. But Congressman Green
no doubt attracted some of their ridicule herself by giving
the hearing a controversial title. Do you know what she
(05:20):
called the hearing? Maybe she is the chairman of the
subcommittee playing god with the weather a disastrous forecast. Now
her remarks to open the hearing, in which she laid
out a centuries long history, centuries long history, not recent,
(05:43):
not Democrats, not Republicans. Yeah, there's some billionaires that are
trying to do it. And originally it was I can
remember as a kid caring about cloud seating in Oklahoma
because we were going to a dry spell, so they
would throw whatever those crystals are then, you know, in
(06:03):
the sky, and crowds trying to you know, get some
rain going, you know, to save the wheat crop or something.
Nobody thought anything about it. But when you say it's
playing god with the weather, a disastrous forecast that is
purposely designed to get people's hackles up because I'm all
concerned that, oh my gosh, people are geoengineering the climate.
(06:29):
She did lay out a century's long history of our
attempt as human beings to either control the weather or
engage in what is now called geoengineering projects, which obviously
attracted ridicule from MSNBC, where you know, of course you
expect that MSNBC said. Green's hearing quote provided a platform
(06:56):
for her to peddle unfounded claims about nefarious government backed
efforts to help these people play god with the weather
and an attempt to obviously discredit their also scary climate
change agenda. Discredit who's oh soo scary climate change agenda?
You see how this is all topsy turvy, inverted inside out,
(07:19):
upside down. Who's whose side are you on? Whose side
are you not on? Is a climate change? They're not
climate change. It was this. This is the quote they're
ridiculing Marjorie Taylor Green for the hearing that quote provided
a platform for her to peddle unfounded claims about nefarious
(07:44):
government backed efforts to help these people play god with
the weather and discredit their scary climate change agenda. Well,
who has the In my opinion, who has the scary
climate change agenda? It's not Marjorie Taylor Green, who may
be crazy about geoengineering, but she's not crazy about climate change.
(08:05):
So let's distinguish between the two. I think what the
talkback is trying to imply is that while he says,
I don't deny that there are other factors that climate
change is being driven by geoengineering, Now here's the problem.
Don't jump to a conclusion with what I'm about to say.
(08:28):
But the problem is a lot of what Marjorie Taylor
Green said is demonsterbly true. But what somebody says that
is true doesn't mean that the conclusions that you draw
from a truthful statement are themselves true. I can say
(08:49):
that dragon red Beard has a long beard, but if
you draw from that statement, which is a true statement,
that it's only four inches long, that's not true, or
that it's blue. No, it's red. It's not black, it's
(09:10):
not brown, it's not blonde, it's red. Dragon. Huh gee,
think about that dragon redbeard. Wow, did you have a
did you have a marketing group come up with that
name for you? For that Moniker? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Lewis and Lee.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Oh, Lewis and Lee, they came up with it. Yeah.
That would scare the crap out of me to think
that Rick Lose and Kathy Lee were my marketing team.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
It does a little bit. They come up with much worse,
So I think I like that.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Oh yeah, I'm gonna say you skated by luckily on
that one. Yeah, so that's pretty good. It is a
simple fact, for example, that the United States government and
mostly state and local governments have indeed funded a wide
range of weather control and I'll use the word geoengineering,
(09:54):
geo engineering projects. Do you know how long we've been
doing this? Since at least nineteen forty seven. I could
find examples all the way back to nineteen forty seven,
long before you were born. Well maybe not you, but
clearly you and clearly me. Now in his own testimony
for hearing Chris Martz, who is a meteorologist that in
(10:18):
fact I follow him an x because his climate agenda
information and his rebuttal to most of the congregants in
the Church of the Climate Activists is spot on. Chris
Martz him Artz, if you want to follow him. He's
a meteorologist, he's a policy analyst. He's a member of
the Washington based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He has
(10:43):
himself detailed a long list of examples of government sponsored
geoengineering and weather control projects, complete with all the links
and all the footnotes, everything that you might need. So
you could either go to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
or you can go to Chris Mark's timeline and you
can find lots of this stuff. Now. He points out
(11:05):
that according to the EPA, nine US states nine currently
this is a quote. Nine US states currently facilitate active
cloud seating programs. California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah,
(11:29):
and Wyoming. Notice not all blue, not all red, a
mixture of red and blue states, although in almost every
one of those states California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
and North Dakota, Texas Utah and Wyoming. Almost all of
those are funded by state and local governments, not by
the federal government. I point that out because many people
(11:53):
jump to conclusions about the federal government is doing no
in these states that are actively in gaged in cloud
seating programs. They're being funded by state and local taxpayers.
Remember the floods down in Kerrville, Texas. If you go
back and do a well, if you had Lexus nexus,
(12:16):
if you did a search on Lexus and Neexus about
that flooding. The Texas media was filled with speculation, I
mean hundreds and hundreds of articles in which they sought
to blame the Texas cloud seating program as the direct
causal link of that disaster. That's what drives me nuts
(12:41):
about geoengineering. People draw while factually geoengineering or cloud seating
goes on and has been going on since nineteen forty seven,
that is not There's not a causal link between cloud
seating and disasters climate change now, no doubt, the experiments
(13:03):
and the projects are happening. So I want to be clear,
you're not a crackpot, and if you are concerned about
cloud seating, well you're not a crackpot. Because clouds eating
actually goes on. You might be a crackpot. However, if
you think that somehow there's some you know, nefarious intent
(13:24):
in doing so, or that there's some cause a link
between this and you know, a flood, or you know,
is raining this morning when I came in, I bet
overnight they secretly flew some planes over my house and
seeded the clouds to make it rain. I'm glad it
did because that means my sprinkler system didn't go off
this morning, and so I didn't spend a bunch of
(13:46):
money on water, which has gotten incredibly expensive in Douglas County.
April of last year, you can look it up New
York Times. Obviously not fans of Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green,
they ran a major story filled with climbing alarmist talking points,
detailing a project sponsored by, of all places, of the
(14:06):
University of Washington, which blows quote a fine mist of
tiny aerosol particles into the atmosphere. That goal is to
quote brighten clouds and bounce some of the sun rays
back into space, a way of temporarily cooling a planet
that is now dangerously overheating. According to the New York
Times reporters. I mean, that's just stupid. That's just stupid.
(14:32):
If you go onto Google, you know how, now you
can ask Google AI or sometimes I'll give you an
AI summary that will summarize current geo engineer geo engineering efforts.
They're being funded around the world, and it returns last night.
I didn't print it out, but my notes say it
got about three hundred wordstating detailing experiments in things with
(14:56):
exotic names like stratospheric aerosol injection stuck out in my notes,
marine cloud brightening, surface albedo enhancement. I thought you went
to Rocky mounta miss clinic to get that to get
your surface albedo enhancement. But maybe I'm mistaken, and space
based methods. Now, if you're jumping to the conclusion that
(15:20):
all these things are bad, well, then you have to
ask the question why could possibly go wrong with plans
like that. That's where it goes off the deep end
because I'm not convinced and I can't find any scientific
evidence to call, you know, causely linked one way or
the other, that this is something bad. Now, but let's
(15:42):
shift gears for a moment. At least one prominent billionaire
is also involved in this, and that might be a
source of some of the paranoia. Again the same New
York Times, they detail how Bill Gates. Yeah, that Bill
Gates began funding some geoengineering projects almost twenty years ago
(16:05):
in two thousand and six. This is New York Times.
In two thousand and six, the Microsoft founder Bill Gates
got a briefing from David Keith, one of the leading
researchers in sol geoengineering, which is the idea of trying
to reflect more than sun's rays. Mister Gates began funding
doctor Keith and Keith Calviera, another climate scientist and a
former software software developer, to further their research. Go back
(16:29):
to January twenty one. You can find a story at Forbes.
It details how Bill Gates funding of another geoengineering project
called Straddles Control Pertribution Experiment SCUPEX. That program involves spraying
non toxic calci and carbonate that's a carbonate dust into
the atmosphere trying to reflect the sun's raisbacks. Oh, I've
(16:51):
got it. Mister Gates probably one of the most prominent
funders of such experimental climate control technologies. So yes, these
things are going on and you can go read these articles.
But the one thing that I don't want people to
do is to jump to the conclusion that because this
(17:11):
is going on, that it is having an effect on
the climate. In fact, if you're cloud seating or you're
doing this what was it called me pure my notes?
Back up the calcium carbonate non toxic calcium carbonate. By
the way, not just calcium carbonate, but non toxic calcium carbonate.
(17:36):
If you spray that over, say a twenty square mile area,
how could that possibly in a twenty square mile area,
how could that have an effect on what's the circumference
of the globe forty seven thousand miles or something, How
could that have an effect you know, even a third
of the way around the world, let along all the
(17:59):
way around the world. But that's what people do is
they hear geoengineering and it's Bill Gates, and they come
to the conclusion that somehow, my gosh, it's weird and
it's causing us to grow, you know, it's well, as
what's his name Alex Jones says, it's causing the frogs
to go gay, Yeah, gay frogs because of geoengineering. Man,
(18:24):
we all need to settle down not everything's a conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
Michael.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
What's this about Broad's subcommittees? I mean, can't they be
more respectful? I mean, can't they say female or gentle
ladies subcommittees, but Broad subcommittees. That's very disrespectful.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
I think, I don't know. Have you seen them? Have
you seen them? Well, now you know I'm not going
to take the bait. I refused to take the bait.
(19:09):
Now that I've pissed you off already this morning about
Jill Engineering, let me just go ahead and just see
if I can't make it even worse. Let's start this
segment with something that we came for, I don't know,
maybe four years or so, to regard just as a
part of American life, something that was unfortunate. He gave
(19:33):
dragons something to laugh about and to play and to
irritate you with. And of course i'm talking about the
Kamala Harris word solid. She's out on the book tour.
And of course, if you're trying to sell a book
based on your incompetence for four years, the best place
(19:57):
to go to sell your book is where the clapping
will be happily engaged in. What you ever is that
you have to say where the audience all you know, well,
we have twelve in our audience, so Rachel Matt Maddow
must have three or four. Uh. Listen to the answer
she gives to Rachel speaking abroad, Rachel Maddow just hit
(20:19):
me as I look at this video, I'm getting ready
to play and I'm looking at Rachel Wow. Hmmm uh,
in which she says she didn't pick Pete Budajig to
be your running mate for one reason, simply because well
he's gay.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
I guess, I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate
on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
It's hard to hear him with.
Speaker 7 (20:45):
You running as you know, you're the first woman elected
vice president, you're a black woman, and as South Asian
woman elected that high office, very nearly elected president, to
say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because
he was gay, it's hard to hear.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
No, No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 8 (20:59):
That's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he
is gay. My point, as I write in the book,
is that I was clear that in one hundred and
seven days in one of the most hotly contested elections
for president United States, against someone like Donald Trump, who
(21:21):
knows no floor to be a black woman running for
president United States and as a vice presidential running mate
a gay man, with the stakes being so high. It
made me very sad. But I also realized it would
(21:42):
be a real risk.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
No matter how you know. I've been an advocate and.
Speaker 8 (21:48):
An ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So
it wasn't about it wasn't about it right, So it
wasn't about any any prejudice on my part. But we
had short we had such a short period of time,
and the stakes were so high.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
I think Pete is.
Speaker 8 (22:09):
A phenomenal, phenomenal public.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Servant, and I think.
Speaker 8 (22:15):
America is and would be ready for that. But at
when I had to make that decision with two weeks
to go, you know, and maybe I was being too cautious,
you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk
about that.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
Maybe I was, But that's the.
Speaker 8 (22:38):
Decision I made, and I'm and I, as with everything
else in the book, and being very candid about that,
with a great deal of sadness about also the fact
that it might.
Speaker 5 (22:50):
Have been a risk.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
That's a comala cob selling, that's a that's a comble
of chefs didn't she just say in two minutes and
fifteen seconds that she didn't pick Pete Buddhajig because he's gay.
Isn't it what she said?
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Dragon, I was having a hard time staying awake during
that was the shrill of the voice kept me awake,
but the content of the words I was falling asleep.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
So let's analyze what she said. First, she denies she
said what she clearly says in her book that I
didn't Pete pick Pete Buddhajig because he's gay. The country
wasn't ready for a gay man, so I couldn't pick
him because I'm a black, you know, South Asian woman. Second,
she also admits what she clearly says in her book,
(23:41):
only she puts about I don't know two minutes and
fifteen seconds, or about three hundred meaningless words around the
same admission. You can't make this up. Did you miss
that over the past nine months? Yeah? I did too,
and I know Dragon did. So her books now on sale.
(24:05):
Do yourselves a big favor and go out and buy
something else. Uh. Yes, two minutes and fifteen second, I've
listened to that stupid SoundBite. I bet at least well,
this is probably the fifth time now. So I listened
to it three or four times yesterday. Did I listen
to it again when I played it just now? And
(24:26):
it's it's an admission that I did not Pete pick
Pete Budhajig because he is gay. She just uses a
bunch of different words to say exactly the same thing,
just for the fun of it.
Speaker 7 (24:41):
I guess, I guess i'd ask you to just elaborate
on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (24:45):
It's hard to hear him.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
It's hard to hear that you didn't pick him.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
With you running as you know, you're the first woman
elected advice.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
I mean, come on, all the identity politics, Rachel's about
to tell us with you running.
Speaker 7 (24:58):
As a president, a black woman and a South Asian
woman elected that high.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
You're she left out. She's married to a Jew. Oh
my gosh, happy wash the hush on everybody. We should
at least recognize that she's black, South Asian and she's
married to a jew. So Rachel maddout lays out all
the identity politics.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
Office very nearly elected president.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Just very nearly elected president. And where was that.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
Say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because
he was.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Gay, and you said he couldn't effectively be on the
ticket because he was gay. That is precisely what she says.
Speaker 5 (25:36):
Hard, No, No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Well, that's not what I said. That's not what I said.
Now let me explain how that's not what I said,
because I'm going to now tell you that that is
indeed what I said. But and there's a butt in
there that.
Speaker 8 (25:51):
He couldn't be on the ticket because I'm sorry, no.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Pun intended a butt being in there.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
He is gay.
Speaker 8 (25:57):
My point is, I write in the book, is that
I was clear that Hey, back there.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Are you Are you paying attention to this?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I'm trying to okay, in one.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Hundred and seven days in one of the most hotly
contested elections for president United States against someone like Donald Trump,
who knows no floor to be a black woman running
for president United States and as a vice presidential running
(26:29):
mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high,
it made me very sad, But I also realized it
would be a real risk, what.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Would be a real risk to have a gay man
on the ticket no.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Matter how you know, I've been an advocate and an
ally of the LGBT community mind entire.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I'm not racist. I have black men.
Speaker 8 (26:58):
Our life, So it wasn't about it wasn't about it, right,
So it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part.
But short, we had such a short period of time
and the stakes were so high. I think Pete is
a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant, and I think America is
(27:23):
and would be ready for that.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
But I'm black in South Asian.
Speaker 8 (27:28):
To make that decision with two weeks to go, you know,
and maybe I was being too.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
So it would be a better decision if she had
three or four months to run the race, rather than exactly.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
See don't you miss this, don't you miss it?
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Come on a minute, admitted because they only had a
few weeks, right, So if you had a few months,
then Pete would have been a better choice.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Or what if she had even more identity politics in
herself and she was missing one key? I didn't think
politic group a gay male.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
I didn't not choose him because he was gay, But
I didn't choose him because he was gay.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
There you go. See see you're you're getting back on
the swing of things. We've got I be this is
a two week book tour. But this will be glorious.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
You know, I'll let our friends we should all talk
about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made,
and I'm and I, as with everything else in the book,
I'm being very candid about that. Yeah, with a great
deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have.
Speaker 5 (28:39):
Been a risk.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
It might have been a risk.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
We've you're right back, Michael, Are you telling me that
mister Maddow is a woman?
Speaker 5 (28:48):
My entire worldview is shattered.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Mission accomplished, Mission accomplished. So Trump yesterday signed an execut
you have ordered designating ANTITA to be a terrorist group.
Caroline Lovett made the announcement, and.
Speaker 9 (29:08):
Well for two long past leaders have offered platitudes while
political violence has been allowed to fester and innocent and
harm innocent Americans. There has been coordinated campaigns dating back
years spearheaded by radical left wing organizations centered on dehumanizing, intimidating, dosing,
and even attacking Americans whom they disagree with. These groups
(29:32):
have radicalized impressionable individuals to foment violence. An attempted transgender
assassin traveled to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's family home with.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Plans to end his life.
Speaker 9 (29:43):
An attempted assassin came within an inch of ending President
Trump's life in Butler, Pennsylvania, and on the campaign trail,
another attempted assassin tried to kill the president at his
golf club in Florida. A left wing assassin shot United
Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in the
heart of New York City. ICE agents are facing a
more than one thousand percent increase and assault for simply.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Doing their jobs.
Speaker 9 (30:07):
Violent radical left wing mobs engaged in illegal behavior, targeted
Jewish Americans and shut down America's college campuses. Under the
previous administration, left wing mobs burned down Tesla dealerships out
of quote protest of Elon Musk and his policies. In May,
a left wing activist shouting free Palestine murdered two innocent
(30:27):
Israeli embassy staffers outside of the DC Jewish Museum here
in Washington. These are just a few examples prominent examples
of the growing left wing political violence in our country.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Enough is enough, and, as President.
Speaker 9 (30:41):
Trump has promised, he will directly address the dark sources
funding and supporting this domestic terrorism to finally restore order
in our country.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
And he goes on to name Antifa. Now, current US
law doesn't really envision that designation for domestic groups, although
the definition of terrorism does fit these domestic groups. So
the President's taking the first step in what will probably
end up being a decision by the State Department that
(31:13):
will formally designate Antifa, which has for decades committed all
matters of atrostees as across Europe and across this country,
and they're designate it to be an international terrorist organization. Now,
when that comes, when that formal designation comes, not an EO,
that will give the Intel agencies and the Pentagon powers
(31:34):
to go after that armed wing of the Democrat Party.
Now over on x, Steve Guests points out that since
twenty sixteen, George Soros's Open Society Foundations now run with
the Sun Alexander, poured more than eighty million dollars into
groups tied to terrorism or to extremist violence. They sent
(31:57):
millions of dollars into US backed organization. But the Left,
they're not really sure about that.
Well, Michael, the media is going to be a mess
today and tomorrow. They're already what in themselves between the
return of Jimmy Kimmel and the launch of Kamala's.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Book and her big book tour.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Oh, I have to try and avoid this for a
couple of days. And that's the report from the factory floor.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
And that's the report from the factory floor. I forget
when it was yesterday, but sometime yesterday during the program,
I think it was near the end of the program,
Dragon played a talk back from someone who mentioned that
we were ignoring the greatest threat to humanity or something geoengineering.
(00:44):
And it caught me off guard because I wanted to
run down that rabbit hole. But I didn't want to
run down that rabbit hole because whatever it was I
was talking about, I wanted to Pini. He's talking about that,
So what are you doing? Are you trying to find that?
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, I'm going to look for it, but I don't
think I can find it.
Speaker 3 (00:59):
Where it Yeah, if you do, great, If you don't,
I don't care. Yeah, infact, I just really don't care.
Don't waste your time. Go back to your porn now,
don't you know? And I hesitated for a few seconds
because it's something that, you know, the language geoengineering is
(01:26):
so scary. I know for decades that geoengineering has been occurring,
but we called it like cloud seating or something, you know.
I went home and after taking care of a whole
bunch of stuff, I tried to come up with a
(01:49):
brief statement about geoengineering.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
Michael, we cannot have a discussion about the climate crisis
unless we clue to discussion about the geo engineering warfare
that's going on. I am not denying the other impacts
that humans have caused in this climate, but we need
to discuss the geoengineering that is going on period.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
The geoengineering warfare. Take your tenfoil hats off for a moment. Now,
I do I hear the.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
It's going off for?
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Is it just a test? Huh?
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Yeah, No, it's it's an amber alert going on right now.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
It's an amber alerting. Okay, does that go across our broadcast?
Speaker 2 (02:46):
It doesn't seem to be at the moment, but okay,
the phone say keep an eye out for a sixteen
year old Hispanic female.
Speaker 3 (02:51):
All right, okay, Marjorie Taylor Green the Firebrand Fungus women
from Republican from Georgia, a Republican. She attracted a lot
of ridicule from the climate alarmist community, from the congregants
in the Church of the climate activists and all of
(03:13):
their media supporters because she held a press conference after
a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.
Just that and of it self, is hilarious to House subcommittee. Now,
why do we have subcommittees and subcommittees and subcommittees? Now, legitimately,
(03:36):
we have all these subcommittees because some of these broad
categories of oversight involve a lot of really niche issues
that need their own little group to study. So that's
a legitimate reason. But you mean, what the real reason is,
(03:56):
because every subcommittee has a chairman, and just being a
member of Congress isn't good enough. You want people to
call you chairman. So Chairman, Marjorie Taylor Green, that's a
badge of honor, that shows seniority. So the real reason
(04:19):
you have five two hundred and sixty seven point three
seven subcommittees just in the House. That doesn't count the
ten thousand subcommittees that you have in the Senate. It's
really yes, because there's a lot of issues to cover.
But it's so that every member of Congress, four hundred
and thirty five members of the House can all also
(04:39):
claim the title chairman. But I digress. Well, this was
a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency. Wow,
they can't even make their title efficient. And it was
on the topic of climate geoengineering. This was back last week.
This has been like I think exactly a week ago
(05:00):
jet maybe a September sixteen or so. It is a
subject of controversy and Congress you know, I'm sorry Chairman. No,
she's not the chairman of this one. But Congressman Green
no doubt attracted some of their ridicule herself by giving
the hearing a controversial title. Do you know what she
(05:20):
called the hearing? Maybe she is the chairman of the
subcommittee playing god with the weather a disastrous forecast. Now
her remarks to open the hearing, in which she laid
out a centuries long history, centuries long history, not recent,
(05:43):
not Democrats, not Republicans. Yeah, there's some billionaires that are
trying to do it. And originally it was I can
remember as a kid caring about cloud seating in Oklahoma
because we were going to a dry spell, so they
would throw whatever those crystals are then, you know, in
(06:03):
the sky, and crowds trying to you know, get some
rain going, you know, to save the wheat crop or something.
Nobody thought anything about it. But when you say it's
playing god with the weather, a disastrous forecast that is
purposely designed to get people's hackles up because I'm all
concerned that, oh my gosh, people are geoengineering the climate.
(06:29):
She did lay out a century's long history of our
attempt as human beings to either control the weather or
engage in what is now called geoengineering projects, which obviously
attracted ridicule from MSNBC, where you know, of course you
expect that MSNBC said. Green's hearing quote provided a platform
(06:56):
for her to peddle unfounded claims about nefarious government backed
efforts to help these people play god with the weather
and an attempt to obviously discredit their also scary climate
change agenda. Discredit who's oh soo scary climate change agenda?
You see how this is all topsy turvy, inverted inside out,
(07:19):
upside down. Who's whose side are you on? Whose side
are you not on? Is a climate change? They're not
climate change. It was this. This is the quote they're
ridiculing Marjorie Taylor Green for the hearing that quote provided
a platform for her to peddle unfounded claims about nefarious
(07:44):
government backed efforts to help these people play god with
the weather and discredit their scary climate change agenda. Well,
who has the In my opinion, who has the scary
climate change agenda? It's not Marjorie Taylor Green, who may
be crazy about geoengineering, but she's not crazy about climate change.
(08:05):
So let's distinguish between the two. I think what the
talkback is trying to imply is that while he says,
I don't deny that there are other factors that climate
change is being driven by geoengineering, Now here's the problem.
Don't jump to a conclusion with what I'm about to say.
(08:28):
But the problem is a lot of what Marjorie Taylor
Green said is demonsterbly true. But what somebody says that
is true doesn't mean that the conclusions that you draw
from a truthful statement are themselves true. I can say
(08:49):
that dragon red Beard has a long beard, but if
you draw from that statement, which is a true statement,
that it's only four inches long, that's not true, or
that it's blue. No, it's red. It's not black, it's
(09:10):
not brown, it's not blonde, it's red. Dragon. Huh gee,
think about that dragon redbeard. Wow, did you have a
did you have a marketing group come up with that
name for you? For that Moniker? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Lewis and Lee.
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Oh, Lewis and Lee, they came up with it. Yeah.
That would scare the crap out of me to think
that Rick Lose and Kathy Lee were my marketing team.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
It does a little bit. They come up with much worse,
So I think I like that.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Oh yeah, I'm gonna say you skated by luckily on
that one. Yeah, so that's pretty good. It is a
simple fact, for example, that the United States government and
mostly state and local governments have indeed funded a wide
range of weather control and I'll use the word geoengineering,
(09:54):
geo engineering projects. Do you know how long we've been
doing this? Since at least nineteen forty seven. I could
find examples all the way back to nineteen forty seven,
long before you were born. Well maybe not you, but
clearly you and clearly me. Now in his own testimony
for hearing Chris Martz, who is a meteorologist that in
(10:18):
fact I follow him an x because his climate agenda
information and his rebuttal to most of the congregants in
the Church of the Climate Activists is spot on. Chris
Martz him Artz, if you want to follow him. He's
a meteorologist, he's a policy analyst. He's a member of
the Washington based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He has
(10:43):
himself detailed a long list of examples of government sponsored
geoengineering and weather control projects, complete with all the links
and all the footnotes, everything that you might need. So
you could either go to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,
or you can go to Chris Mark's timeline and you
can find lots of this stuff. Now. He points out
(11:05):
that according to the EPA, nine US states nine currently
this is a quote. Nine US states currently facilitate active
cloud seating programs. California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah,
(11:29):
and Wyoming. Notice not all blue, not all red, a
mixture of red and blue states, although in almost every
one of those states California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
and North Dakota, Texas Utah and Wyoming. Almost all of
those are funded by state and local governments, not by
the federal government. I point that out because many people
(11:53):
jump to conclusions about the federal government is doing no
in these states that are actively in gaged in cloud
seating programs. They're being funded by state and local taxpayers.
Remember the floods down in Kerrville, Texas. If you go
back and do a well, if you had Lexus nexus,
(12:16):
if you did a search on Lexus and Neexus about
that flooding. The Texas media was filled with speculation, I
mean hundreds and hundreds of articles in which they sought
to blame the Texas cloud seating program as the direct
causal link of that disaster. That's what drives me nuts
(12:41):
about geoengineering. People draw while factually geoengineering or cloud seating
goes on and has been going on since nineteen forty seven,
that is not There's not a causal link between cloud
seating and disasters climate change now, no doubt, the experiments
(13:03):
and the projects are happening. So I want to be clear,
you're not a crackpot, and if you are concerned about
cloud seating, well you're not a crackpot. Because clouds eating
actually goes on. You might be a crackpot. However, if
you think that somehow there's some you know, nefarious intent
(13:24):
in doing so, or that there's some cause a link
between this and you know, a flood, or you know,
is raining this morning when I came in, I bet
overnight they secretly flew some planes over my house and
seeded the clouds to make it rain. I'm glad it
did because that means my sprinkler system didn't go off
this morning, and so I didn't spend a bunch of
(13:46):
money on water, which has gotten incredibly expensive in Douglas County.
April of last year, you can look it up New
York Times. Obviously not fans of Congressman Marjorie Taylor Green,
they ran a major story filled with climbing alarmist talking points,
detailing a project sponsored by, of all places, of the
(14:06):
University of Washington, which blows quote a fine mist of
tiny aerosol particles into the atmosphere. That goal is to
quote brighten clouds and bounce some of the sun rays
back into space, a way of temporarily cooling a planet
that is now dangerously overheating. According to the New York
Times reporters. I mean, that's just stupid. That's just stupid.
(14:32):
If you go onto Google, you know how, now you
can ask Google AI or sometimes I'll give you an
AI summary that will summarize current geo engineer geo engineering efforts.
They're being funded around the world, and it returns last night.
I didn't print it out, but my notes say it
got about three hundred wordstating detailing experiments in things with
(14:56):
exotic names like stratospheric aerosol injection stuck out in my notes,
marine cloud brightening, surface albedo enhancement. I thought you went
to Rocky mounta miss clinic to get that to get
your surface albedo enhancement. But maybe I'm mistaken, and space
based methods. Now, if you're jumping to the conclusion that
(15:20):
all these things are bad, well, then you have to
ask the question why could possibly go wrong with plans
like that. That's where it goes off the deep end
because I'm not convinced and I can't find any scientific
evidence to call, you know, causely linked one way or
the other, that this is something bad. Now, but let's
(15:42):
shift gears for a moment. At least one prominent billionaire
is also involved in this, and that might be a
source of some of the paranoia. Again the same New
York Times, they detail how Bill Gates. Yeah, that Bill
Gates began funding some geoengineering projects almost twenty years ago
(16:05):
in two thousand and six. This is New York Times.
In two thousand and six, the Microsoft founder Bill Gates
got a briefing from David Keith, one of the leading
researchers in sol geoengineering, which is the idea of trying
to reflect more than sun's rays. Mister Gates began funding
doctor Keith and Keith Calviera, another climate scientist and a
former software software developer, to further their research. Go back
(16:29):
to January twenty one. You can find a story at Forbes.
It details how Bill Gates funding of another geoengineering project
called Straddles Control Pertribution Experiment SCUPEX. That program involves spraying
non toxic calci and carbonate that's a carbonate dust into
the atmosphere trying to reflect the sun's raisbacks. Oh, I've
(16:51):
got it. Mister Gates probably one of the most prominent
funders of such experimental climate control technologies. So yes, these
things are going on and you can go read these articles.
But the one thing that I don't want people to
do is to jump to the conclusion that because this
(17:11):
is going on, that it is having an effect on
the climate. In fact, if you're cloud seating or you're
doing this what was it called me pure my notes?
Back up the calcium carbonate non toxic calcium carbonate. By
the way, not just calcium carbonate, but non toxic calcium carbonate.
(17:36):
If you spray that over, say a twenty square mile area,
how could that possibly in a twenty square mile area,
how could that have an effect on what's the circumference
of the globe forty seven thousand miles or something, How
could that have an effect you know, even a third
of the way around the world, let along all the
(17:59):
way around the world. But that's what people do is
they hear geoengineering and it's Bill Gates, and they come
to the conclusion that somehow, my gosh, it's weird and
it's causing us to grow, you know, it's well, as
what's his name Alex Jones says, it's causing the frogs
to go gay, Yeah, gay frogs because of geoengineering. Man,
(18:24):
we all need to settle down not everything's a conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (18:31):
Michael.
Speaker 6 (18:32):
What's this about Broad's subcommittees? I mean, can't they be
more respectful? I mean, can't they say female or gentle
ladies subcommittees, but Broad subcommittees. That's very disrespectful.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
I think, I don't know. Have you seen them? Have
you seen them? Well, now you know I'm not going
to take the bait. I refused to take the bait.
(19:09):
Now that I've pissed you off already this morning about
Jill Engineering, let me just go ahead and just see
if I can't make it even worse. Let's start this
segment with something that we came for, I don't know,
maybe four years or so, to regard just as a
part of American life, something that was unfortunate. He gave
(19:33):
dragons something to laugh about and to play and to
irritate you with. And of course i'm talking about the
Kamala Harris word solid. She's out on the book tour.
And of course, if you're trying to sell a book
based on your incompetence for four years, the best place
(19:57):
to go to sell your book is where the clapping
will be happily engaged in. What you ever is that
you have to say where the audience all you know, well,
we have twelve in our audience, so Rachel Matt Maddow
must have three or four. Uh. Listen to the answer
she gives to Rachel speaking abroad, Rachel Maddow just hit
(20:19):
me as I look at this video, I'm getting ready
to play and I'm looking at Rachel Wow. Hmmm uh,
in which she says she didn't pick Pete Budajig to
be your running mate for one reason, simply because well
he's gay.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
I guess, I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate
on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
It's hard to hear him with.
Speaker 7 (20:45):
You running as you know, you're the first woman elected
vice president, you're a black woman, and as South Asian
woman elected that high office, very nearly elected president, to
say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because
he was gay, it's hard to hear.
Speaker 5 (20:58):
No, No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 8 (20:59):
That's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he
is gay. My point, as I write in the book,
is that I was clear that in one hundred and
seven days in one of the most hotly contested elections
for president United States, against someone like Donald Trump, who
(21:21):
knows no floor to be a black woman running for
president United States and as a vice presidential running mate
a gay man, with the stakes being so high. It
made me very sad. But I also realized it would
(21:42):
be a real risk.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
No matter how you know. I've been an advocate and.
Speaker 8 (21:48):
An ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So
it wasn't about it wasn't about it right, So it
wasn't about any any prejudice on my part. But we
had short we had such a short period of time,
and the stakes were so high.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
I think Pete is.
Speaker 8 (22:09):
A phenomenal, phenomenal public.
Speaker 5 (22:12):
Servant, and I think.
Speaker 8 (22:15):
America is and would be ready for that. But at
when I had to make that decision with two weeks
to go, you know, and maybe I was being too cautious,
you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk
about that.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
Maybe I was, But that's the.
Speaker 8 (22:38):
Decision I made, and I'm and I, as with everything
else in the book, and being very candid about that,
with a great deal of sadness about also the fact
that it might.
Speaker 5 (22:50):
Have been a risk.
Speaker 3 (22:56):
That's a comala cob selling, that's a that's a comble
of chefs didn't she just say in two minutes and
fifteen seconds that she didn't pick Pete Buddhajig because he's gay.
Isn't it what she said?
Speaker 2 (23:08):
Dragon, I was having a hard time staying awake during
that was the shrill of the voice kept me awake,
but the content of the words I was falling asleep.
Speaker 3 (23:20):
So let's analyze what she said. First, she denies she
said what she clearly says in her book that I
didn't Pete pick Pete Buddhajig because he's gay. The country
wasn't ready for a gay man, so I couldn't pick
him because I'm a black, you know, South Asian woman. Second,
she also admits what she clearly says in her book,
(23:41):
only she puts about I don't know two minutes and
fifteen seconds, or about three hundred meaningless words around the
same admission. You can't make this up. Did you miss
that over the past nine months? Yeah? I did too,
and I know Dragon did. So her books now on sale.
(24:05):
Do yourselves a big favor and go out and buy
something else. Uh. Yes, two minutes and fifteen second, I've
listened to that stupid SoundBite. I bet at least well,
this is probably the fifth time now. So I listened
to it three or four times yesterday. Did I listen
to it again when I played it just now? And
(24:26):
it's it's an admission that I did not Pete pick
Pete Budhajig because he is gay. She just uses a
bunch of different words to say exactly the same thing,
just for the fun of it.
Speaker 7 (24:41):
I guess, I guess i'd ask you to just elaborate
on that a little bit.
Speaker 5 (24:45):
It's hard to hear him.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
It's hard to hear that you didn't pick him.
Speaker 7 (24:50):
With you running as you know, you're the first woman
elected advice.
Speaker 3 (24:53):
I mean, come on, all the identity politics, Rachel's about
to tell us with you running.
Speaker 7 (24:58):
As a president, a black woman and a South Asian
woman elected that high.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
You're she left out. She's married to a Jew. Oh
my gosh, happy wash the hush on everybody. We should
at least recognize that she's black, South Asian and she's
married to a jew. So Rachel maddout lays out all
the identity politics.
Speaker 7 (25:21):
Office very nearly elected president.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
Just very nearly elected president. And where was that.
Speaker 7 (25:27):
Say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because
he was.
Speaker 3 (25:29):
Gay, and you said he couldn't effectively be on the
ticket because he was gay. That is precisely what she says.
Speaker 5 (25:36):
Hard, No, No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 3 (25:37):
Well, that's not what I said. That's not what I said.
Now let me explain how that's not what I said,
because I'm going to now tell you that that is
indeed what I said. But and there's a butt in
there that.
Speaker 8 (25:51):
He couldn't be on the ticket because I'm sorry, no.
Speaker 3 (25:54):
Pun intended a butt being in there.
Speaker 5 (25:56):
He is gay.
Speaker 8 (25:57):
My point is, I write in the book, is that
I was clear that Hey, back there.
Speaker 3 (26:05):
Are you Are you paying attention to this?
Speaker 2 (26:07):
I'm trying to okay, in one.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Hundred and seven days in one of the most hotly
contested elections for president United States against someone like Donald Trump,
who knows no floor to be a black woman running
for president United States and as a vice presidential running
(26:29):
mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high,
it made me very sad, But I also realized it
would be a real risk, what.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Would be a real risk to have a gay man
on the ticket no.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Matter how you know, I've been an advocate and an
ally of the LGBT community mind entire.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
I'm not racist. I have black men.
Speaker 8 (26:58):
Our life, So it wasn't about it wasn't about it, right,
So it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part.
But short, we had such a short period of time
and the stakes were so high. I think Pete is
a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant, and I think America is
(27:23):
and would be ready for that.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
But I'm black in South Asian.
Speaker 8 (27:28):
To make that decision with two weeks to go, you know,
and maybe I was being too.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
So it would be a better decision if she had
three or four months to run the race, rather than exactly.
Speaker 3 (27:42):
See don't you miss this, don't you miss it?
Speaker 2 (27:46):
Come on a minute, admitted because they only had a
few weeks, right, So if you had a few months,
then Pete would have been a better choice.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Or what if she had even more identity politics in
herself and she was missing one key? I didn't think
politic group a gay male.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
I didn't not choose him because he was gay, But
I didn't choose him because he was gay.
Speaker 3 (28:10):
There you go. See see you're you're getting back on
the swing of things. We've got I be this is
a two week book tour. But this will be glorious.
Speaker 8 (28:19):
You know, I'll let our friends we should all talk
about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made,
and I'm and I, as with everything else in the book,
I'm being very candid about that. Yeah, with a great
deal of sadness about also the fact that it might have.
Speaker 5 (28:39):
Been a risk.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
It might have been a risk.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
We've you're right back, Michael, Are you telling me that
mister Maddow is a woman?
Speaker 5 (28:48):
My entire worldview is shattered.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
Mission accomplished, Mission accomplished. So Trump yesterday signed an execut
you have ordered designating ANTITA to be a terrorist group.
Caroline Lovett made the announcement, and.
Speaker 9 (29:08):
Well for two long past leaders have offered platitudes while
political violence has been allowed to fester and innocent and
harm innocent Americans. There has been coordinated campaigns dating back
years spearheaded by radical left wing organizations centered on dehumanizing, intimidating, dosing,
and even attacking Americans whom they disagree with. These groups
(29:32):
have radicalized impressionable individuals to foment violence. An attempted transgender
assassin traveled to Justice Brett Kavanaugh's family home with.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
Plans to end his life.
Speaker 9 (29:43):
An attempted assassin came within an inch of ending President
Trump's life in Butler, Pennsylvania, and on the campaign trail,
another attempted assassin tried to kill the president at his
golf club in Florida. A left wing assassin shot United
Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson right in the back in the
heart of New York City. ICE agents are facing a
more than one thousand percent increase and assault for simply.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Doing their jobs.
Speaker 9 (30:07):
Violent radical left wing mobs engaged in illegal behavior, targeted
Jewish Americans and shut down America's college campuses. Under the
previous administration, left wing mobs burned down Tesla dealerships out
of quote protest of Elon Musk and his policies. In May,
a left wing activist shouting free Palestine murdered two innocent
(30:27):
Israeli embassy staffers outside of the DC Jewish Museum here
in Washington. These are just a few examples prominent examples
of the growing left wing political violence in our country.
Speaker 5 (30:40):
Enough is enough, and, as President.
Speaker 9 (30:41):
Trump has promised, he will directly address the dark sources
funding and supporting this domestic terrorism to finally restore order
in our country.
Speaker 3 (30:51):
And he goes on to name Antifa. Now, current US
law doesn't really envision that designation for domestic groups, although
the definition of terrorism does fit these domestic groups. So
the President's taking the first step in what will probably
end up being a decision by the State Department that
(31:13):
will formally designate Antifa, which has for decades committed all
matters of atrostees as across Europe and across this country,
and they're designate it to be an international terrorist organization. Now,
when that comes, when that formal designation comes, not an EO,
that will give the Intel agencies and the Pentagon powers
(31:34):
to go after that armed wing of the Democrat Party.
Now over on x, Steve Guests points out that since
twenty sixteen, George Soros's Open Society Foundations now run with
the Sun Alexander, poured more than eighty million dollars into
groups tied to terrorism or to extremist violence. They sent
(31:57):
millions of dollars into US backed organization. But the Left,
they're not really sure about that.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.