Speaker 1: Morning, Browning and Dragon. Yeah, my son the other day
Speaker 1: pointed out something interesting to me. You know, in the
Speaker 1: original Star Wars movie, how did they destroy the Death Star?
Speaker 1: They launched a bomb down a ventilator shaft. How did
Speaker 1: we destroy the nuclear targets in Iran? We launched bombs
Speaker 1: down the ventilator shafts. Life imitating art. Having a great day, guys.
Speaker 2: Yep, real quickly, a couple of points I want to
Speaker 2: make that I want to move on to an issue
Speaker 2: that's bugging me about wealth.
Speaker 3: This is from MSNBC This Morning.
Speaker 4: In a statement, director John Ratcliffe explains a body of
Speaker 4: credible intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate stores.
Speaker 2: Wonder that could be the historic and reliable source Masade
Speaker 2: and their friends were their moles inside the IRGC.
Speaker 4: Statement Director John Ratcliffe explains a body of credible intelligence
Speaker 4: from a historically reliable and accurate source. Indicates quote, several
Speaker 4: key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to
Speaker 4: be rebuilt over the course of years. This contradicts a
Speaker 4: leaked initial assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, which found
Speaker 4: that the bombings only set back Iran's program by several months.
Speaker 4: Resources with knowledge of the matter, tel NBC News that
Speaker 4: the agency also labeled its report as being low confidence.
Speaker 3: They categorize these things and.
Speaker 4: Comes as the President and his administration have been outright
Speaker 4: dismissing the assessment angrily doing so.
Speaker 2: They can't let it go. They simply cannot let it go.
Speaker 2: Is then a couple of text messages GUBA number fifty
Speaker 2: seven twenty two, somebody got it. You're exactly right, Michael.
Speaker 2: You know what I got out of that clip you played?
Speaker 2: That they don't play beach volleyball or beach football at
Speaker 2: that facility, an obvious reference to top gun. These are
Speaker 2: serious folks with no time to play. Yep, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Fifty four thirty one make Mike, May God bless all
Speaker 2: of the men and women our military.
Speaker 3: Hrah Jim.
Speaker 2: And sixty four or fourteen Yeah worth remembering Michael. Nobody
Speaker 2: mentions that the taxpayers you and me paid for iron
Speaker 2: to enrich uranium thanks to Obama, and now.
Speaker 3: We blew it up. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Sometimes we have to fix the screw ups of other people.
Speaker 2: Just like we do in real life. We have to
Speaker 2: do it in the world too. I want to go
Speaker 2: back to yesterday and Zilloran Mandani the guy that's won
Speaker 2: the Democrat nomination, not the socialists, not the fascists, not
Speaker 2: the Marxist nomination. He has won the Democrat nomination to
Speaker 2: be the next mayor of New York City. I've been
Speaker 2: reading more and more about him, and I've come to
Speaker 2: a conclusion that envy is probably one of the primal
Speaker 2: characteristics of those useful idiots that spouse Marxism and for
Speaker 2: Marxists themselves, and that ends up manifesting itself in all
Speaker 2: the public rhetoric that vilifies the wealthy. They cast the
Speaker 2: wealthy as inherently immoral, the wealthy or exploitative. They're always
Speaker 2: trying to use people, and I think that ignores completely
Speaker 2: the dynamic nature of wealth creation, because what they do
Speaker 2: in creating their wealth, they innovate their entrepreneurship, and that
Speaker 2: ends up expanding opportunities for everybody.
Speaker 3: Even if it's not directly.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody's all a dinner right now about Jeff
Speaker 2: Bezos and whatever his new life is. That they're, you know,
Speaker 2: in the vernacular used by the media, they're renting Venice.
Speaker 2: They're taking over all of Venice, Italy, not Venice the restaurant.
Speaker 2: I'd like to take that overneath there all day. Uh,
Speaker 2: they're taking over Venice and you know they're they're flying
Speaker 2: Why did I.
Speaker 3: Read something like, uh, either ninety guests or.
Speaker 2: There's ninety private jets that have all booked parking spaces
Speaker 2: somewhere at an airport near near Venice, and that doesn't
Speaker 2: count the number of yachts from others that are in
Speaker 2: the area. They're taking their yachts to Venice for the wedding,
Speaker 2: and the locals are all upset because Venice itself is
Speaker 2: truly kind of overrun with tourists, such the point that
Speaker 2: you know we talk about traffic congestion pricing, well they
Speaker 2: have tourists congestion pricing where you actually now have to
Speaker 2: in order to get into Old Venice and some of
Speaker 2: the canals got you've got to purchase a ticket and
Speaker 2: go at a certain time and only say for a
Speaker 2: certain amount of times. So they're they're trying to control
Speaker 2: because this just being overrun so much. But critics of billionaires,
Speaker 2: critics of the wealthy, seem to focus on their wealth
Speaker 2: as being a symbol of inequality, and they never take
Speaker 2: the time to critically examine the mechanisms such as whatever
Speaker 2: technological advances they come up with, or the market efficiency
Speaker 2: of the efficiencies they come up with, or the retail
Speaker 2: innovation they can And I'm thinking about Bezos, the retail innovation.
Speaker 2: Bezos has made billions from first selling what books selling
Speaker 2: books online? There's this new thing go on the internet.
Speaker 2: What if I can sell some books in there. Well,
Speaker 2: we'll try to sell books. That would be an easy
Speaker 2: thing to, you know, to package and send out. Oh
Speaker 2: I can sell books, Maybe I can sell records. Maybe
Speaker 2: I can sell this, Maybe I sell shampoo. Now I
Speaker 2: can sell everything, and now I can get other people
Speaker 2: to sell stuff for me. I mean, so you may
Speaker 2: think that Jeff Bezil's wealth is obscene, or the weddings
Speaker 2: of fifty five million dollars for the wedding does seem
Speaker 2: a tad overboard. I mean, I know, the red Beard
Speaker 2: spent you know, forty five million, but you get the
Speaker 2: fifty five million for your wedding. You're getting a little
Speaker 2: overboard forty five million. That might be all right, but
Speaker 2: there's all this selective outrage, and all that outrage kind
Speaker 2: of obscures the economic benefits that millionaires and billionaires bring.
Speaker 2: Job creation. You know, the old saw about. Has a
Speaker 2: poor person ever given you a job? No, Generally it's
Speaker 2: people that you know, it's the millionaire next door, it's
Speaker 2: the person that lives in an ordinary house.
Speaker 3: God.
Speaker 2: You know, take Warren Buffett. You ever looked at warm
Speaker 2: Buffet's house. I think he bought the house. Don't hold
Speaker 2: me to this, but something like nineteen sixty five in
Speaker 2: Omaha lives in the same house. You know, drive drive
Speaker 2: some you know old you know, ten year old car
Speaker 2: or whatever it is to the dairy queen to get
Speaker 2: an ice cream cone. Riches well, maybe the second or
Speaker 2: third richest man on the planet right now, But they ignore,
Speaker 2: for example, like what Warren Buffett's done. And I say that,
Speaker 2: but look at Bill Gates. I despise Bill Gates not
Speaker 2: because of his wealth, but because of him and the
Speaker 2: things and the policies and the things that he pushes
Speaker 2: in terms of the World Economic Forum and all the
Speaker 2: stuff that he does in order to push his political
Speaker 2: ideology onto the rest of us, but not because of
Speaker 2: his wealth. So envy in that context becomes a barrier
Speaker 2: for anybody that's not critical thinking to understand the complexities
Speaker 2: of wealth, and that then becomes a driver of policies
Speaker 2: aimed at punitive redistribution of their wealth rather than public
Speaker 2: policies that focus on growth, which is exactly what.
Speaker 3: Trump's trying to do.
Speaker 2: Trump fully understands the marketplace, fully understands success and failure,
Speaker 2: and fully understands that it's the private sector that creates
Speaker 2: this wealth. As opposed to everything that Biden Obama and
Speaker 2: the current iteration of the Democrat Party as personified by
Speaker 2: Zoran Mandami, Alexandria A. Cassi Cortez and Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren and all the other useful idiots, that we
Speaker 2: ought to focus on punitive redistribution because these wealthy people
Speaker 2: are the problem, have caused.
Speaker 3: All the problems in the world. Well.
Speaker 2: Linked to that concept of envy is their own sense
Speaker 2: of entitlement. They expect that resources, whether privately owned by
Speaker 2: an individual or a company or anybody else, ought to
Speaker 2: be distributed based on fairness and not merit, not your contribution.
Speaker 2: I mean, for example, this company generally speaking, is a
Speaker 2: merit based company. One am I able to contribute to
Speaker 2: the company, both in terms of ratings, revenue, audience, cume,
Speaker 2: all of the things up by which were measured well,
Speaker 2: the mindset that focuses instead on perceived fairness that is
Speaker 2: exactly the basis for government intervention, and that government intervention
Speaker 2: manifests itself in things like wealth taxes, universal income programs,
Speaker 2: all of the social safety net program that we have
Speaker 2: and extend not to those who are truly the I
Speaker 2: don't know how to emphasize this, but the truly indigent
Speaker 2: among us that, through no fault of their own, through
Speaker 2: you know, physical maladies, through mental, you know, infirmities, whatever
Speaker 2: it might be that prevent them from being productive members
Speaker 2: of society. We've kind of agreed originally that we would
Speaker 2: have a social safety net for them, but instead that
Speaker 2: has just blown up to a point where government intervention,
Speaker 2: wealth taxes, all these income programs, nobody wants to think
Speaker 2: about the long term consequences of those, and those entitlement
Speaker 2: driven policies in the long run actually discourage productivity and
Speaker 2: innovation because what are they doing. They're prioritizing equal outcomes
Speaker 2: over equal opportunities. The most I think concerning trend that
Speaker 2: I think this election in New York shows is willful ignorance,
Speaker 2: the deliberate rejection of economic principles in favor of all
Speaker 2: the emotionally satisfying narratives that that y'all whoo was espousing.
Speaker 2: If all you think, remember the guy that ran from
Speaker 2: mayor in New York that you know the rent was
Speaker 2: too damn high, Remember what kind of national and international
Speaker 2: coverage he got, Because everybody thinks that everything and most
Speaker 2: everything is too high. I filled up with gas the
Speaker 2: other day, and while gas is at its lowest level
Speaker 2: in several years, I still think it's hot. It's too
Speaker 2: high because it's not where it.
Speaker 3: Was pre COVID. I don't think it's ever going to
Speaker 3: come down much than what it is. It is what
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 2: So when you play to people's emotions, someone who is
Speaker 2: living paycheck to paycheck or even less than that, and
Speaker 2: they go to the grocery store and they can't buy
Speaker 2: what they want, or they can't afford the apartment they want.
Speaker 2: Instead they instead of a one bedroom a they've got
Speaker 2: to rend a studio, or still instead of buying a
Speaker 2: two bedroom home, they've got to buy a one bedroom
Speaker 2: home where it's not as good a neighborhood as I'd
Speaker 2: like to be in. Well, that's not my fault, and
Speaker 2: I consider myself based on my tax returns I'm in
Speaker 2: the top. I don't know five or ten percent, But
Speaker 2: my ability to earn an income does not detract from
Speaker 2: somebody else's ability to earn an income. So don't blame me,
Speaker 2: and don't let other people blame you. It's ignorance. It's
Speaker 2: ignorance of free markets, which are not perfect. I grant
Speaker 2: free markets are not perfect, but they're better than anything else,
Speaker 2: better than what the other sides advocating, and free markets
Speaker 2: have lifted billions of people out of poverty, not just
Speaker 2: in this country.
Speaker 3: But all over the world, or they do.
Speaker 2: You know, the one thing that the nominee for mayor
Speaker 2: in New York has or maybe he has, but I
Speaker 2: don't remember specific He may or may not have called
Speaker 2: for price controls. He has certainly called for price controls
Speaker 2: in the sense that he wants government run grocery stores
Speaker 2: so that the government will set the prices of those groceries,
Speaker 2: because you know, the other groceries are price couching. So
Speaker 2: maybe in a way he is talking about price controls.
Speaker 2: But you think about price controls, we have in this
Speaker 2: country our own historical answer about what are the long
Speaker 2: term consequences of price control and price controls in ever,
Speaker 2: we lead to what higher prices. But if all you
Speaker 2: talk about is just price controls to someone who is
Speaker 2: so by their hatred of wealth, however you might define that,
Speaker 2: you're never going to get through to them. There's this
Speaker 2: persistent myth that wealth concentration is always detrimental to society,
Speaker 2: and you can find studies in the World Bank in
Speaker 2: other places that will try to make that claim.
Speaker 3: But what they do is they're ignored. Well, they're ignorant.
Speaker 2: They favor the simplistic slogans decrying what I just described
Speaker 2: myself as top five or ten percent and what's their
Speaker 2: pjority of the top one percent. Well, that is anything
Speaker 2: but critical thinking. So when you take envy that I
Speaker 2: started out with, you add the idea of entitlement and
Speaker 2: throw on top of that willful ignorance. Now you have
Speaker 2: a narrative that prevents any sort of meaningful and rational
Speaker 2: or logical discussion about economics. And that narrative not only
Speaker 2: misrepresents the nature of wealth, but then erodes trust in
Speaker 2: institutions like both markets and governments, because the argument becomes
Speaker 2: that markets can't do it. Markets create wealth inequality, and
Speaker 2: we've got to have the government come in and redistribute
Speaker 2: everything so that everybody's treated fairly. Have you always been
Speaker 2: treated fairly?
Speaker 3: Dragon?
Speaker 2: Nobody's ever treated fairly. Life itself is not fair. So
Speaker 2: these policies that get born out of that kind of mindset.
Speaker 2: You know, we've got to tax the wealthy. Let's put
Speaker 2: a surcharge on the wealthy. I mean, even Trump, And
Speaker 2: I think Trump's done it politically. I don't think he
Speaker 2: really believes it, but I think he's done it, you know, politically.
Speaker 2: When he's been asked before about you know, do you
Speaker 2: think we how to increase increase taxes on the wealthy,
Speaker 2: And he has said I'm just paraphrasing here, but he
Speaker 2: said something to the effect that I'm sure they could
Speaker 2: afford to pay a little bit more. Well, I wish
Speaker 2: you wouldn't do that, because that just feeds into the
Speaker 2: cabal's idea that the wealthier the source of all of
Speaker 2: our problems. When you propose as most Western nations, just
Speaker 2: look at Europe, socialized Europe, and we're going down the
Speaker 2: same path. Put steep taxes on high earners, which economists
Speaker 2: warn will drive investment overseas, will reduce domestic growth in
Speaker 2: this country. And what we ought to do is recognize
Speaker 2: that again? Who did I hear?
Speaker 3: Oh? I know what it was.
Speaker 2: It was one of my dead scrolling through Facebook and
Speaker 2: I came across to Dave Ramsey and Dave Ramsey had
Speaker 2: a little video. He puts his little snippets up on Facebook.
Speaker 2: Apparently I didn't know it. I don't know how I
Speaker 2: ended up looking at it, but there it was, and
Speaker 2: I watched it because he was talking about how corporate.
Speaker 2: You know, some guy was complaining about his corporate taxes
Speaker 2: and Ramsey just let into him about you don't pay
Speaker 2: corporate taxes. Yeah, you write the check because you had
Speaker 2: to fill out a corporate income tax form. But where
Speaker 2: did you get that money to pay those corporate taxes?
Speaker 2: And the guy was kind of blubbering around like, well,
Speaker 2: you know, a guy looked you know, it came out
Speaker 2: of my business. Yes, Then if you didn't plan for
Speaker 2: those corporate taxes, if your accountant was really lousy, if
Speaker 2: you didn't have an accountant and you didn't realize you
Speaker 2: needed to price your product or service at a certain
Speaker 2: level to cover those.
Speaker 3: Costs, then that's on you.
Speaker 2: So if you had to write a check and you
Speaker 2: had to take money out of savings to pay it.
Speaker 2: Then you didn't have your product priced correctly because nobody
Speaker 2: pays corporate taxes. Those are built into prices, prices, but
Speaker 2: nobody wants to talk.
Speaker 3: No, Nope.
Speaker 2: The useful idiot, as personified by that nominee in New
Speaker 2: York distorts everything about economics.
Speaker 5: About your merit based company and what you contribute as
Speaker 5: far as merit to it. We know that you contribute
Speaker 5: an off a lot of fertilizer. Do you know that
Speaker 5: really rich, brown, stinky stuff. Yeah, you supply a lot
Speaker 5: of that.
Speaker 2: It's high quality fertilizer. High quality manure. Can we use
Speaker 2: We talked about manure yesterday in the context of language,
Speaker 2: and somebody was using the word manure instead of bull crap.
Speaker 3: I forget what it was.
Speaker 2: Sixty eight twenty five rides mikea wh in regards to
Speaker 2: Bezos and what he's doing or any billionaire. Remember every
Speaker 2: paradise has its serpent. Okay six eight five six zero, Michael,
Speaker 2: what you just said about socialism is fascinating envy, true
Speaker 2: human nature. It's what gets people to vote for socialism.
Speaker 2: Human nature is also what causes socialism to fail. If
Speaker 2: the harder someone works the more it is taken from
Speaker 2: you to give to people to not working, that will
Speaker 2: fail in record time. Just food for thought. Yeah, we've
Speaker 2: kind of.
Speaker 3: Seen it over and over and over again, haven't we.
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 2: Fifty two thirteen Michael Squirrel. Last year I had a
Speaker 2: credit card get closed because I couldn't make payments. I
Speaker 2: did keep my house, however, so it was worth it.
Speaker 2: I appeared in court today to make payment arrangements after
Speaker 2: being served. Did you know this too is a civil suit? Yes,
Speaker 2: just like immigration, there are absolutely no state consequences for
Speaker 2: my non payment of my debt, and they can't come
Speaker 2: after me because of sanctuary laws. Well, wait, we don't
Speaker 2: have debtor prisons in this country, so you can't go
Speaker 2: to prison for not paying a debt. Well, they can
Speaker 2: garnish your wages, they can have a hearing on assets,
Speaker 2: and you know, try to sell off some assets. No,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what your point is. How many citizens,
Speaker 2: how many citizens stopping payments and credit and debt would
Speaker 2: it take for Colorado to change? All wars are bankers
Speaker 2: wars and money talks. I've already taken the credit score hit,
Speaker 2: so I'll put my money into something make money. What
Speaker 2: I have to say I have saved to pay this
Speaker 2: just saying thanks for all you do.
Speaker 3: How can you get that one?
Speaker 2: Not quite sure understood that, Mike two sixty sixty five.
Speaker 2: If blowing up a Newke site, would you see elevated
Speaker 2: radioactive levels? Depends on how deep it's buried. You might
Speaker 2: over time, but you might not immediately two two five five.
Speaker 2: Losing human asset on the ground is what's left of
Speaker 2: rany and police and military are indiscriminately attacking people, something
Speaker 2: Jennifer Griffin never has to worry about. I'm sure they're
Speaker 2: attacking people right now because they're trying to They're trying
Speaker 2: to show what little force they can to keep the
Speaker 2: population at bay. The old saying goes, and it's actually
Speaker 2: true that personnel is policy, meaning whomever you elect or
Speaker 2: whomever you hire, that's going to reflect what your policies are. Well,
Speaker 2: Michael Bloomberg is a demonstrable example of that. The New
Speaker 2: York University State Energy and Environmental Impact Center's fellowship New
Speaker 2: York University's New York New York University State Energy and
Speaker 2: Environmental Impact Center.
Speaker 3: Easy for you to say, well.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm thinking about is what kind of money
Speaker 2: laundering scheme is that place which Bloomberg's philanthropic nonprofit named
Speaker 2: after himself, provided two seed grants worth five point six
Speaker 2: million dollars in twenty seventeen, has long placed and paid
Speaker 2: the salaries of officials in at least ten state attorney
Speaker 2: general offices nationwide. I saw this and my first thought was,
Speaker 2: and I haven't taken the time.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 2: New York University, funded by Michael Bloomberg with two grants
Speaker 2: worth five point six million dollars, that New York University
Speaker 2: gives fellowships that then place paid salary officials in ten
Speaker 2: state attorney general's offices around the country. Attorney's general offices
Speaker 2: around the country. That seems to me to be a
Speaker 2: conflict of interest and something certainly not right about it,
Speaker 2: if not outright illegal. In the past two years, internal
Speaker 2: emails obtained by the Free Beacon Freebacon show the program
Speaker 2: has expanded to state level public service commissions, often those
Speaker 2: overlooked agencies that regulate utility companies and permit energy infrastructure
Speaker 2: like pipelines and power plans. The commissions also implement state
Speaker 2: renewable energy standards that force power providers to generate electricity
Speaker 2: through price your green sources. Well, now I'm curious how
Speaker 2: many in Colorado, how many in your state either the
Speaker 2: phil Wiser and the Attorney General's office or the Public
Speaker 2: Utilities Commission in Colorado or whatever they call your commission
Speaker 2: in your state, or in your state's attorney's attorney general's office,
Speaker 2: how many people are working there whose salaries are paid
Speaker 2: by a fellowship that's paid by Michael Bloomberg to New
Speaker 2: York University's Environmental Center that then gives the fellowships out.
Speaker 2: Oh so, if you don't think that personnelist policy, I
Speaker 2: would bet you a dollar to a donut that every
Speaker 2: single individual in every single public utility commission or every
Speaker 2: single AG's office whose salary is paid by the fellowship
Speaker 2: just happens to reflect the political ideology of that group.
Speaker 2: Now Bloomberg got to give him credit. He might have
Speaker 2: been inspired by George Soros, because George Soros did something
Speaker 2: similar which we're all aware of. He actually purchased higher
Speaker 2: crime rates throughout the country because he put his money
Speaker 2: to get left wing district attorneys who side with the
Speaker 2: criminals instead of their victims.
Speaker 3: Elected.
Speaker 2: The center's work in attorney general offices where Bloomberg funded
Speaker 2: fellows have participated in litigation accusing the fossil fuel industry
Speaker 2: of causing global warming. Has prompted conflict of interest concerns
Speaker 2: over the use of private funding to public lawsuits. It's
Speaker 2: work in state regulatory agencies, on the other hand, is
Speaker 2: a new development, one that suggests the center and its
Speaker 2: funder seek to play a more active role pushing green
Speaker 2: energy development at the local level. Somebody, I would think
Speaker 2: in the local media might be a little curious about
Speaker 2: whether or not Phil Wiser or the Colorado Public Utilities
Speaker 2: Commission has anybody working for them. That happens to be
Speaker 2: funded by this New York University Environmental Center that is
Speaker 2: funded by Michael Bloomberg, specifically for these fellowships. So an
Speaker 2: essenceeer get paid by Michael Bloomberg. It's just money laundered
Speaker 2: through the New York University fellowship program. Now why would
Speaker 2: they do that?
Speaker 3: Pretty simple?
Speaker 2: They want to deprive us of electricity on behalf of
Speaker 2: their you know, Church of the climate activists, speaking of envy.
Speaker 2: Michael Bloomberg net worth undred and six billion dollars. No
Speaker 2: matter what the climate does, I guess that Michael Bloomberg
Speaker 2: will continue to live the lifestyle. He continues to live
Speaker 2: with his own yachts, his multiple homes, his private jets,
Speaker 2: his Manhattan penthouses, and other places that he has, and
Speaker 2: his carbon footprint will remain the same, while he puts
Speaker 2: people in other places to go after the fossil fuel
Speaker 2: industry that actually fuels his jet and his air conditioning
Speaker 2: and his heating and his food and everything else. Here's
Speaker 2: an example. This is the Louisiana Public Service Commission. They've
Speaker 2: got somebody rule of Thabata. She's a DEI activist, a
Speaker 2: former policy fellow at a Muslim advocacy group, and a
Speaker 2: recent graduate of Loyola University Chicago School of Law. A
Speaker 2: job posting for the ROW echoed the twenty twenty three contracts,
Speaker 2: stating that the NYU Fellow would be sponsored by the
Speaker 2: YU Impact Center and handle regulatory matters related to the
Speaker 2: clean energy future, climate change, and energy justice. I think
Speaker 2: energy justice means you'll leave Michael Bloomberg alone. He'll be
Speaker 2: able to afford the energy that you and I won't
Speaker 2: be able to afford because he will be funding all
Speaker 2: of these people to regulate everything that you're doing. Unbelievable
Speaker 2: after authorities suspended rent on behalf of undocumented Democrats imported
Speaker 2: to you know, replaces. They might consider banning window shades
Speaker 2: to make it more convenient for illegal alien peeping toms.
Speaker 2: From a psyche called Heartland, Ohio, a thirty eight year
Speaker 2: old man in the United States illegally was arrested for
Speaker 2: allegedly looking into the window of a thirteen year old
Speaker 2: girl in Butler County, Ohio, according to the Sheriff's office.
Speaker 2: The Sheriff's office got the report on June eleven that
Speaker 2: jose wore as Vichis was looking into the girl's window
Speaker 2: while making sexual gestures. Bilchies looks like a nice enough fellow,
Speaker 2: isn't that mugshot?
Speaker 3: Boh Now?
Speaker 2: Fortunately for him it did not take place in one
Speaker 2: of the democrats many sanctuary jurisdictions, So guess what I
Speaker 2: could be and was called in to assist in the arrest.
Speaker 2: So if you're looking for multicultural enrichment, you don't have
Speaker 2: to go looking for it. Multiculturalism will come looking for
Speaker 2: you just peeping through the windows, So make sure you've
Speaker 2: got your window shades pulled up so they can peek in.
Speaker 7: I heard this Zohan guy say something in response to
Speaker 7: Trump of like, call it democracy or call it democratic socialism.
Speaker 7: It's a fight against inequality. And I guess the whole
Speaker 7: democratic part is supposed to make me feel better, except
Speaker 7: for the part where North Korea is the democratic Republic
Speaker 7: of career or some.
Speaker 3: Crap like that.
Speaker 7: And oh yeah, what happened to taxation without representation? I
Speaker 7: don't know about you, but when I look at my taxes,
Speaker 7: I don't see myself represented.
Speaker 2: When you look at how when you look at how
Speaker 2: it's spent, you don't see yourself represented either. So to
Speaker 2: prove my point from the last segment about how they
Speaker 2: personnel is policy, here's an example. Yesterday there was a
Speaker 2: Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts chaired by Ted Cruz.
Speaker 2: They were interviewing several people about the different ways that
Speaker 2: the Chinese Communist Party and other foreign nations pour millions
Speaker 2: of dollars into all these advocacy groups, which then go
Speaker 2: to the Sierra Club and other organizations that then like
Speaker 2: the New York University, then plant people into these you know,
Speaker 2: AG's officers, these regulatory commissions. And one of the witnesses
Speaker 2: was a guy by the name of David R. Kush
Speaker 2: he's a senior operative at the far left anti development
Speaker 2: group called Public Citizen. He was the star witness for
Speaker 2: the Democrats at the hearing. The Republican witnesses were the
Speaker 2: Kansas Attorney General Chris Koback, Scott Walker, president of the
Speaker 2: Capitol Research Center, which has done a lot of work
Speaker 2: researching efforts buddies foreign interest, and Creuz alleged in his
Speaker 2: opening statement and throughout the hearing that these groups have
Speaker 2: been injecting millions of dollars into these advocacy groups in
Speaker 2: order to target the oil and gas and coal industries.
Speaker 2: The exchange was pretty fiery.
Speaker 8: Oh sure, so, homicide is legal term that refers to.
Speaker 2: By the way, I should point out that during the questioning,
Speaker 2: our Cush focused in on his advocacy for what he
Speaker 2: and all of his other minions in the Church of
Speaker 2: the Climate activists referred to.
Speaker 3: As climate homicide.
Speaker 8: Homicide it means, oh sure so, homicide is legal term
Speaker 8: that refers to It's essentially a blanket term for any
Speaker 8: form of unlawful killing, and an unlawful killing is causing death.
Speaker 8: Causing a death means substantially contributing to it or accelerating it.
Speaker 8: The mental state could be negligence, knowledge, recklessness.
Speaker 6: So you wrote an article in twenty twenty three entitled
Speaker 6: quote cuting big oil for climate deaths, and that article
Speaker 6: oil and gas executives could be prosecuted, not just sued,
Speaker 6: but criminally prosecuted for homicide, for murder based.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 8: I mean, I would be careful with the wording because
Speaker 8: murder again is definitely we're not arguing that they could
Speaker 8: be prosecuted for first degree murder.
Speaker 3: That's killing with you know, intent.
Speaker 6: But you want to put them in prison for homicide
Speaker 6: them as criminals. Put them in murderers get put people
Speaker 6: who commit homicide in jails with violent criminals. And your
Speaker 6: position is this is a reasonable and rational thing that
Speaker 6: we should put companies in America producing eight point five
Speaker 6: million jobs, we should arrest mail.
Speaker 3: Is that correct?
Speaker 8: It could be the case that some executives should be
Speaker 8: prosecuting that way. Of course, you can't put a corporation
Speaker 8: in jail, so there are other remedies.
Speaker 6: Presumably you'd put the corporate officers in jail, Yes, you can.
Speaker 6: You'd prosecute them for don't let there be any ambiguity.
Speaker 6: And by the way, Senator white House was really eager
Speaker 6: to make clear that you're the minority this year. The
Speaker 6: witness he wanted, he was eager to introduce Surti is
Speaker 6: saying that is a moonbeam wacky that you want to
Speaker 6: prosecute people creating jobs and producing energy for murder.
Speaker 2: They literally want to apologize for the lousy equality of
Speaker 2: the Senate hearing room video.
Speaker 3: They won't put people in prison for well.
Speaker 2: I can't do it for first degree murder because you
Speaker 2: know that requires you know he's killing another person, but
Speaker 2: you're killing the environment, So I guess that's a homicide.
Speaker 2: That's our second third degree murder manslaughter. But we ought
Speaker 2: to put them in prison for it. Goodn't grief