Speaker 1: Morning boys.
Speaker 2: Hey Mike, well done, because you took the words right
Speaker 2: out of my brain. Why is it always on the
Speaker 2: victim to do everything possible to de escalate a situation?
Speaker 2: Why is it on us to run away from somebody
Speaker 2: threatening us?
Speaker 1: We were all raised.
Speaker 2: In a time where you can't always walk away from
Speaker 2: a conflict. Sometimes you're going to have to fight. So
Speaker 2: why blame the victim? Have a great day?
Speaker 1: You know, because I'm a smart ass, I'm tempted to
Speaker 1: take the very beginning of his comment, and well, of
Speaker 1: course I took it because I'm brilliant, and I took
Speaker 1: it right out of course, of course, So why are
Speaker 1: you shocked by this? But I don't want to do
Speaker 1: that because you actually it's it's even worse than what
Speaker 1: you're thinking. Or maybe you're thinking it, but you didn't.
Speaker 1: You didn't take it to the next level. And the
Speaker 1: next level that I want to take it to is this.
Speaker 1: This this constant shift of everything to law abiding citizens
Speaker 1: and not allowing or permitting us to take actions. Is
Speaker 1: the result of this overgrowth of government and this idea
Speaker 1: that we and and look, don't get me wrong, I
Speaker 1: absolutely believe in civil rights. I believe in due process,
Speaker 1: both substantive and procedural. I think you need to do
Speaker 1: all of those things. But having said all of that,
Speaker 1: we've gone the pendulum has gone so far to the
Speaker 1: other side that we can no longer live in a
Speaker 1: free and open society. And so if you want to,
Speaker 1: if you want to understand, go back to me yesterday's conversation.
Speaker 1: You know, I really, I really struggled after yesterday's program
Speaker 1: because I and maybe I did, but I came to
Speaker 1: the conclusion that I don't care. I have to come
Speaker 1: to that conclusion a lot about a lot of the
Speaker 1: things that I talked about, saying that I just don't
Speaker 1: care because it's just how I feel and it's how
Speaker 1: important I think it is. So the conversation I had
Speaker 1: yesterday which lasted three hours, about the decline of Western civilization,
Speaker 1: what you just said is an example of that decline
Speaker 1: of Western civilization. That's a real life example. And this
Speaker 1: text message that I have because I've got to follow
Speaker 1: on from guber number zero four to three to three,
Speaker 1: that I want to share with you, which again exemplifies
Speaker 1: or really puts a fine point on this idea that
Speaker 1: it's always us and I'm sick of it. I'm truly
Speaker 1: sick of it. So zero four to three three wrote
Speaker 1: back and said this the way I let me back up.
Speaker 1: Let's go to the original text message. I live in Greaty.
Speaker 1: Just last night, my wife is at a shopping plaza.
Speaker 1: My daughter was in the store. My wife was sitting
Speaker 1: in the car with the window up. A thug with
Speaker 1: a tattooed face and the head came up to her
Speaker 1: car and was asking for money. My wife shook her
Speaker 1: head no. Then the thug put his face on the window,
Speaker 1: looking in the car. Now, let's just stop right there
Speaker 1: for a moment for me, not because I'm a scaredy cat,
Speaker 1: but because I understand human nature. That's an aggressive move.
Speaker 1: That is a threatening move. That's an indication that I'm
Speaker 1: trying to intimidate you by putting my face on your
Speaker 1: car window and getting fake. You know, only the glasses
Speaker 1: separating us. I'm trying to intimidate you. You won't give
Speaker 1: me money, I'm going to put my face on your window.
Speaker 1: Then he raised his jacket, exposing a gun and actually
Speaker 1: tapped his gun in a threatening manner. This was in
Speaker 1: broad daylight. So now I want you to think about that.
Speaker 1: Your daughter's inside. You're a mother, you're obviously concerned for yourself.
Speaker 1: But now you're worried. Oh my gosh, what if my
Speaker 1: daughter comes out? Why this is going on? Then what
Speaker 1: if he's shown a gun, he's tapped his gun. Look
Speaker 1: that I have? Oh really, look that I have? Kaboom, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I have. Now. The problem with all of
Speaker 1: that is, unless you've got surveillance footage, unless you've got witnesses,
Speaker 1: it's all now depended upon a prosecutor, and that they
Speaker 1: could very easily decide that you were in your car,
Speaker 1: you had the window up, you could have driven off,
Speaker 1: you could, you could have gotten out of that situation,
Speaker 1: and instead you chose to blow the guy away. Yes
Speaker 1: I did, you know, mister prosecutor. But he had his
Speaker 1: face against the window, he was tapping his gun. For
Speaker 1: all I know, he was going to pull the gun
Speaker 1: and either break into my car or shoot me. So
Speaker 1: I took defensive action to protect myself, which I think
Speaker 1: would be absolutely reasonable. But we've reached the point in
Speaker 1: Western civilization where that's not reasonable, and that's what pisses
Speaker 1: me off. Now. The follow up text Mike, the way
Speaker 1: I understand she screamed in the car. People in a
Speaker 1: little Caesar's witnessed what was going on. They came out
Speaker 1: of the store. In the meantime, my daughter came out.
Speaker 1: My wife sped away. She called me. She did not
Speaker 1: want to call the cops, which made me mad, because
Speaker 1: we have to get these gum off our streets. Can
Speaker 1: I get a hallelujah? Can I get an amen of?
Speaker 1: Eventually the cops did get called by my son. They
Speaker 1: contacted my wife and said they were going to review
Speaker 1: the surveillance footage. So at least there is some surveillance footage.
Speaker 1: I'm thankful her and my daughter got away unharmed, except
Speaker 1: for being really shook up. Excuse me, but what's to
Speaker 1: say the next person won't be so lucky? What's to
Speaker 1: say the fact that your wife just happened to be lucky?
Speaker 1: Now that scumbag, that scumbag, for all we know, is
Speaker 1: continuing to do the same thing. Now without denigrating the
Speaker 1: greedy police department, do you really think they're out there
Speaker 1: looking or will it just be one of those things where, oh,
Speaker 1: we have a bolo be on the lookout for, you know,
Speaker 1: some guy tattooed faced blah, blah blah. You know he
Speaker 1: was intimidating a woman in a parking lot and blah blah.
Speaker 1: And so you just have they just happened to see him.
Speaker 1: They're not actively looking. And in fact, for all we know,
Speaker 1: if he's homeless, he's moved on to to uh who knows,
Speaker 1: He's moved on to Firestone, he's moved on to Longmond,
Speaker 1: He's moved on, you know somewhere else's Fort Collins, who
Speaker 1: knows where he is. To pull the same thing again. Now,
Speaker 1: am I advocating for him to be killed. No, I'm
Speaker 1: not advocating necessarily to be killed. But you think about
Speaker 1: that situation. Now, go back to the Oklahoma law that
Speaker 1: I ascribed to you earlier. What that guy did is
Speaker 1: brandishing because he wasn't threatened, he didn't have a fear
Speaker 1: for his life. He was the one invoking the fear
Speaker 1: in this guy's spouse. He was the crow. He is
Speaker 1: the criminal, and even under the new Oklahoma law, what
Speaker 1: he did would still be unlawful. But had she had
Speaker 1: a weapon in her car, she could have pulled the weapon,
Speaker 1: didn't have to shoot, but could have pointed the gun
Speaker 1: at him. And knowing most people like that he probably
Speaker 1: would have turned and run because, oh my god, here's
Speaker 1: a crazy woman in a car with a gun. I
Speaker 1: really don't want to get in a shootout. But no,
Speaker 1: not in our society anymore, not at all. So between
Speaker 1: her screaming, you don't say whether or not you say
Speaker 1: your wife sped away. I'd like to I'd like to know, now,
Speaker 1: when your wife screamed, did he run off or did
Speaker 1: he continue to try to intimidate her as she was
Speaker 1: speeding away in the car. It's just it's just freaking
Speaker 1: unbelievable to me. And then you go back to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case Snope versus Brown. Now, I don't know,
Speaker 1: and I don't care how many AR fifteens you own,
Speaker 1: or if you even own an AR fifteen. But Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: is right. There are probably some twenty or thirty million
Speaker 1: AR fifteens, which means they are in common usage in
Speaker 1: this country. Ten percent of the population owns an AR fifteen,
Speaker 1: or roughly thereabout. It's clear, and forget that it's a
Speaker 1: freaking AR fifteen. It's a semi automatic long gun that
Speaker 1: shoots either five five six or two two three, a
Speaker 1: common caliber that's commonly used. It's not a weapon of war.
Speaker 1: Does it look like one? Yes? Is no? But that's
Speaker 1: the mantra that the left will tell you. So now
Speaker 1: we have out of the Fourth Circuit a decision that
Speaker 1: upholds a ban on an AR fifteen, and the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: for lack of any testicles, doesn't take the case up.
Speaker 1: Oh we want to. According to Kavanaugh, we went away
Speaker 1: because there's a few other circuits that are dealing with this.
Speaker 1: So maybe we can deal with it in this term
Speaker 1: or maybe the next term. In other words, maybe we'll
Speaker 1: deal with it. Let's just take the next term, so
Speaker 1: we'll deal with it two years from now, and then
Speaker 1: the decision will take oh maybe a year, so we
Speaker 1: might have a decision in twenty twenty eight for a
Speaker 1: ban that exists in twenty twenty five. We just can't
Speaker 1: do this anymore. We just can't keep doing it anymore.
Speaker 1: People's lives are in danger, and the people's lives who
Speaker 1: are in danger our most are predominantly the innocent, the
Speaker 1: law abiding. And it's the criminals they're getting away with everything.
Speaker 1: The protesters, the anti Semites that are using molotov cocktails.
Speaker 1: By the way, somebody raised an interesting question once he
Speaker 1: was denied the background check to purchase whatever. I don't
Speaker 1: have any information about what he was trying to purchase,
Speaker 1: but he gets denied. Now, let's stop and think about
Speaker 1: how everybody wants the federal government to just run everything.
Speaker 1: So the federal government sets up the next system. He
Speaker 1: gets denied because he's not the US that is that
Speaker 1: shouldn't shouldn't that cause in some database somewhere, a little pen,
Speaker 1: a little flag. Oh, we have a guy in Colorado
Speaker 1: Springs that was here on a Now I want you
Speaker 1: to think through this for a second. He came here
Speaker 1: on a tourist visa, which means he went into an embassy.
Speaker 1: I assume he came from Egypt, so because he's Egyptian.
Speaker 1: So let's just make that assumption for the sake of
Speaker 1: the argument. So he goes to the American embassy in
Speaker 1: Cairo or to a consulate office somewhere in Egypt, and
Speaker 1: he applies for a tourist visa. So he sits down
Speaker 1: with an employee of the State Department. What's the purpose
Speaker 1: of your visit? I want to I want to tour
Speaker 1: the country. I okay, what's your itinerary? What cities are
Speaker 1: you going to? I want to visit New York. And
Speaker 1: then I'm thinking about making a trip to Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: and I've heard that Colorado Springs is really nice. I'd
Speaker 1: like to see Pike's Peak. I'd like to go there
Speaker 1: and see the Garden of the Gods or something. And
Speaker 1: then okay, so how long are you going to stay? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, this tourist visas I think good for I
Speaker 1: think it's good for ninety days. I may be wrong
Speaker 1: about that, but whatever, it's good for. Okay. So, uh,
Speaker 1: do you have your tickets? Yes? Do you know where
Speaker 1: you're gonna stay? Yes? Okay, so tell me where you're staying.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah. So he's coming here as a tourist.
Speaker 1: Now when he gets here he applies for asylum, that
Speaker 1: alone should have raised a red flag. You're not, which
Speaker 1: is which is also why we should require if you
Speaker 1: want to seek asylum, you seek asylum in either the
Speaker 1: country that you're seeking asylum from or a country other
Speaker 1: than the United States, because if you get denied asylum,
Speaker 1: then you can stay in the If you went from
Speaker 1: Egypt to Kuwait, then you can stay in Kuwait. Not
Speaker 1: our problem, because we're not getting brand, not granting you asylum.
Speaker 1: But when he when he applied for asylum, and god,
Speaker 1: then was there nobody any was there, no bureaucrat anywhere
Speaker 1: that looked around and said, wait a minute, he applied
Speaker 1: for asylum, but he's here on a tourist visa, and
Speaker 1: the tourist visa, according to our data base, is expired.
Speaker 1: So he's overstayed his visa u CBP dirt bag number
Speaker 1: two six five, last known address, Go pick him up,
Speaker 1: get him deported. Of course we didn't do that because
Speaker 1: the f and bureaucracy is too huge, too wieldy, doesn't
Speaker 1: care and quite frankly wants them to get the asylum. Then,
Speaker 1: so you got a guy on a tourist visa, overstayed
Speaker 1: the visa, then he applies for asylum, then he goes
Speaker 1: to buy a firearm and gets denied.
Speaker 2: Huh.
Speaker 1: And that didn't set off a little peing somewhere. That
Speaker 1: didn't raise a flag somewhere. The point is for everyone
Speaker 1: who clamors all the time for the federal government to
Speaker 1: step in and fix this or fix that? Are you
Speaker 1: freaking kidding me? Are you? You must be some kind
Speaker 1: of stupid because the federal government doesn't seem to be
Speaker 1: able to do anything right except take care of criminals
Speaker 1: or illegal aliens. And I know Trump's trying to fix that.
Speaker 1: But you think about to see if I can swerve
Speaker 1: back into the discussion about the Supreme Court case. You
Speaker 1: think it's going to be difficult to deport twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty million illegal aliens? What happens when you try to
Speaker 1: confiscate twenty or thirty banned ar fifteens. I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be mister macho. I'm trying to be mister practical.
Speaker 1: Who's going to be the first person to say, Nope,
Speaker 1: I don't have and if you want to come in
Speaker 1: my house, you need to have a probable cause search
Speaker 1: warrant to come into my home. And even then somebody
Speaker 1: somewhere is going to deny entry and they come in
Speaker 1: your I mean, what you really think about this? A
Speaker 1: law enforcement first of life, I would hope that a
Speaker 1: lot of leos would refuse to enforce this. I would
Speaker 1: hope that a lot of FBI agents, eight even ATF
Speaker 1: agents would refuse to enforce it. But can you imagine
Speaker 1: in the United States of America, anybody that has a
Speaker 1: law enforcement uniform on or not I don't care. Maybe
Speaker 1: they don't have the inform they got, They've they've got credentials,
Speaker 1: they've got a badge, and they knock on your door.
Speaker 1: Can I help you? Yes, we're here to take your
Speaker 1: AR fifteen's they've been banned and the court has not
Speaker 1: ruled on that. So we're gonna start enforcing the band
Speaker 1: and we're here to take your AR fifteen. Is there
Speaker 1: at any point? Is there any point at all in
Speaker 1: which anybody says, no, No, you're not Is there everybody?
Speaker 1: Everybody says they will. Everybody says, oh, yeah, they're not
Speaker 1: gonna take my gun. Really, I don't believe it.
Speaker 3: You can't get to have done at all at any You.
Speaker 4: Want to tell me about that? One said the trends.
Speaker 4: I think I pretty much picked up on it. But
Speaker 4: the transcript does show in the car Michael, she can't
Speaker 4: get to her gun with any or at all eads.
Speaker 1: Oh, he said, It depends on the car, because I
Speaker 1: can grab mine real quickly.
Speaker 4: When I'm in the car if somebody's already got their
Speaker 4: hand on theirs. Oh, but do you think you can
Speaker 4: get to yours quicker than they can?
Speaker 1: There been times when I've been approached sitting in a car.
Speaker 1: We're already have my hand on my gun. My understanding
Speaker 1: with this woman was he walked up and just showed
Speaker 1: the gun and then tapped it. Me mean, he's already
Speaker 1: got it in his hand. No, I think I be wrong.
Speaker 1: He just kind of like pointing to it, like, you know,
Speaker 1: tapping the handle, like see what I got, But give
Speaker 1: me some money. That was threatened.
Speaker 4: There was this textra zero two two five, I love
Speaker 4: your show. Action beats reaction. She should have parked where
Speaker 4: she could see him coming and already had her gun
Speaker 4: out with when it was apparent he was approaching her.
Speaker 1: I saw that, and I and I thought to myself, Oh,
Speaker 1: how do you know when someone's coming or not coming? Right?
Speaker 4: You've got three sixty around you. How you're gonna be
Speaker 4: able to spy absolutely everybody coming in your direction?
Speaker 1: Right, and someone's walking one direction sees you pull up
Speaker 1: and they decide, oh, there's a there's a mark, I'll
Speaker 1: go after that mark instead. So who knows? But again
Speaker 1: that that's that's the problem with this whole complex set
Speaker 1: of rules we've established. Look, gone went the wild, wild West.
Speaker 1: I have to think about that for a minute. Uh,
Speaker 1: the the polite societal answer is no. But I do
Speaker 1: believe we've made it so complex to exercise a god
Speaker 1: given natural right of self defense that in essence, people
Speaker 1: are afraid to exercise the right of self defense. And
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, I understand, I think I understand
Speaker 1: that if you if you exercise that right of self defense,
Speaker 1: even if you've not committed a crime, you're still subject
Speaker 1: to a civil lawsuit because well, you just took someone's
Speaker 1: life away. Now, yeah, they may have been trying what's
Speaker 1: that stupid one we have on the taxpayer relief shot? Well,
Speaker 1: understand he was robbing him, but he didn't have to
Speaker 1: shoot him. That's the kind of people that will then
Speaker 1: go sue you in a wrongful death lawsuit because you well,
Speaker 1: we know he was robbing you, but you know you
Speaker 1: did have shooting. Oh all right, See if I can't
Speaker 1: finish up this Supreme Court case, because I really do
Speaker 1: want you to understand the insanity that's going on in
Speaker 1: DC right now. So the Supreme Court's denial of sert
Speaker 1: in Snope the Brown that's the case from just a
Speaker 1: few months ago, really does reveal a fractured bench. So
Speaker 1: you got three of the justices openly dissenting a fourth Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: This signaling in openness to you know, hey, we probably
Speaker 1: should review this. I just don't want to do it
Speaker 1: right now. So to kind of reset, the case challenges
Speaker 1: Maryland's ban on AR fifteen rifles under the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: That follows the Fourth Circuit's ruling that AR fifteen's fall
Speaker 1: outside constitutional protection. Now that alone, I can't believe that
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying. But that's the Court's decision that
Speaker 1: in AR fifteen is not protected by the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Some explain to me how that works. Now. Granted I've
Speaker 1: not because I've been focusing so much on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court in show prep, I had not read the Fourth
Speaker 1: Circuit opinion. Maybe I'll try to do that today and
Speaker 1: tell you what the reasoning was for the Fourth Circuit's decision.
Speaker 1: But Justice Thomas was the author of the primary descent.
Speaker 1: He wanted to hear the case, and he was arguing
Speaker 1: that the Fourth Circuit's decision conflicts with DC versus Heller.
Speaker 1: That's the two thousand and eight case that held that
Speaker 1: there is an individual right to keep in bear arms. Gee, really,
Speaker 1: let's see a well regulated militia being necessary to the
Speaker 1: security of free state. The right to keep and bear
Speaker 1: arms shall not be infringed. You. I say that all
Speaker 1: the time, and it seems pretty clear to me. But
Speaker 1: then I guess I'm got a sick of mind. And
Speaker 1: Thomas also cited New York State Rifle and Pistol Association
Speaker 1: versus Bruin. But here are the points that Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: was trying to make. First, regarding burden of proof, he
Speaker 1: argues that the Fourth Circuit was wrong in requiring the
Speaker 1: challengers to prove that AR fifteens are protected by the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, rather than placing the burden on Maryland to
Speaker 1: demonstrate some sort of historical precedent for the banning of
Speaker 1: an AR fifteen. He's arguing that you've got the burden
Speaker 1: of proof completely inverted. It's wrong the government who is
Speaker 1: trying to take away the Second Amendment of protections for
Speaker 1: an AR fifteen. They've got the burden of proof to
Speaker 1: show that under the Second Amendment it is there is
Speaker 1: historical precedent for doing so, which obviously there is none.
Speaker 1: He also makes a great textual argument, or I should say,
Speaker 1: to be more precise, a textual analysis. Justice Thomas argued
Speaker 1: that AR fifteens are bearable arms under the Second Amendments
Speaker 1: playing text because they're weapons of offense widely owned by civilians.
Speaker 1: That's that's an encapulation, encapsulation of the Heller case right there,
Speaker 1: weapons of offense widely owned and used by civilians. And
Speaker 1: then he analyzed the historical tradition. He said that Maryland's
Speaker 1: ban lacks support in historical firearm regulation. And he went
Speaker 1: even further and criticized the Fourth Circuit for invert or
Speaker 1: for inventing a dangerous and unusual category unsupported by precedent.
Speaker 1: I've got to I've got to go read the Fourth
Speaker 1: Circuits case.
Speaker 3: How is it?
Speaker 1: How's a AR fifteen in a spacecial category? The only
Speaker 1: thing that's different when you take away an AR fifteen's appearance,
Speaker 1: it's putting it in really simple vernacular. It's a dear rifle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: That's that's all it is. Thomas specifically said that allowing
Speaker 1: this kind of band to remain in effect, relegates the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment to a second class right. For anybody who's
Speaker 1: arguing that Justice Thomas ought to resign so that Trump
Speaker 1: can get another appointee on You're out of your freaking mind.
Speaker 1: There's no greater justice right now in my opinion, in
Speaker 1: Clarence Thomas, I hope he lives to be one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty years old, and I hope he stays on
Speaker 1: the court as long as he can. Let's let's go
Speaker 1: to Justice Alito and Corses. Now again, they descended, they
Speaker 1: voted to grant Cirt, they wanted to hear the case,
Speaker 1: and they joined Thomas in his descent. But they didn't
Speaker 1: author separate opinions. But their alignment with Justice Thomas suggests
Speaker 1: that they have agreement on a misapplication of Bruin. That
Speaker 1: the Fourth Circuit's reliance on dangerous and unusual standards that
Speaker 1: I just mentioned contradicts Bruin's mandate to evaluate the historical
Speaker 1: analogs about how you know the Second Amendment has how
Speaker 1: firearms have evolved into common use. AR fifteen clearly meets
Speaker 1: that standard. But they also talk about the circuit split
Speaker 1: concern the split among the circuits. Lower courts have inconsistently
Speaker 1: applied the Bruins standard to assault weapon bands, and they
Speaker 1: argued that because you have these different standards, we need
Speaker 1: to hear this case so we can finally set a
Speaker 1: standard by which if you want to regulate AR fifteens
Speaker 1: or any of the guns, here's the standard by what
Speaker 1: you've got to do it now. Kavanaugh was pretty interesting
Speaker 1: because his statement concurs in denial, yet hints that he
Speaker 1: actually would support overturning the ban. For example, when it
Speaker 1: comes to common use. As I said earlier, he notes
Speaker 1: that AR fifteens are legal in forty one states. They're
Speaker 1: owned by somewhere between twenty and thirty million Americans. And
Speaker 1: the reason he states that is he's pointing out that
Speaker 1: under the Heller's common use standard, this ban in Maryland
Speaker 1: is probably unconstitutional, to which I would once again say, then,
Speaker 1: why the hell didn't you hear the case future review?
Speaker 1: Kevinaugh went on to predict that the Court should impresumably
Speaker 1: will address the AR fifteen issues soon, and goes on
Speaker 1: to criticize the Fourth Amendment, reasoning as questionable. Well, then
Speaker 1: why not settle it now? Why make people suffer under
Speaker 1: a ban that likely a majority of the Court's going
Speaker 1: to overturn. Why make them suffer under a ban while
Speaker 1: you wait for other circuits to make a decision so
Speaker 1: they can help inform your decision. Why do you think
Speaker 1: you were appointed to be an associate justice of the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court to make decisions. And this gets back
Speaker 1: to a part of the court's his oracle reasoning that
Speaker 1: drives me crazy, strategic avoidance. He wants the Court to
Speaker 1: wait for a case with a stronger procedural posture, such
Speaker 1: as a final judgment from a different circuit. No, don't
Speaker 1: you have a case. You know, you can write your
Speaker 1: opinions however you want. You don't have to wait for
Speaker 1: other circuits. So the denial leaves intact Maryland's ban, although
Speaker 1: it does to be fair, it signals potential future action
Speaker 1: and a potential overturning of the ban because you've got
Speaker 1: Thomas lead On Gore such already steadfastly opposing it, and
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh hinting at opposing it. But Robertson Barrett's silence pathetic,
Speaker 1: absolutely pathetic. So for now, the Fourth Circuit ruling stands
Speaker 1: another example of how the federal government our institutions are failures.
Speaker 3: Michael, it sounds like we actually could use some new legislation.
Speaker 3: How about if you take somebody's life in an act
Speaker 3: of self defense that you are not found to be
Speaker 3: criminally liable for, you should be protected from a civil
Speaker 3: suit for a wrongful death, thoughts, I would.
Speaker 1: Have a problem with that. I would have a problem
Speaker 1: with that at all. So barely a week after we
Speaker 1: learned that the Antarctic ice is experiencing a massive I
Speaker 1: mean a massive expansion as measured by the satellites from NASA,
Speaker 1: scientists at the Universe of Helsinki put out a study.
Speaker 1: They got a really great solution to the loss of
Speaker 1: Antarctic ice. Bell we have an expansion. So Helsinki has
Speaker 1: a study about how to stop the loss. I know,
Speaker 1: you make it sense. However you want to make it
Speaker 1: sense now? My guess is that these scientists in air
Speaker 1: quotes are probably the beneficiaries of a bunch of government grants.
Speaker 1: So they spent the summer of twenty twenty three studying
Speaker 1: ammonia emissions caused by the poop from penguins at a
Speaker 1: coastal site near the Maribillo Base, a permanent year round
Speaker 1: research site that's run by Argentina. Okay, so what so far,
Speaker 1: so good? Right, wait to hear what the research discovered.
Speaker 1: The team measured ammonia concentrations at that coastal site during
Speaker 1: the astral summer of twenty twenty three, they found that
Speaker 1: penguin colonies, particularly ones containing around sixty thousand of these
Speaker 1: adeli penguins, acted as massive sources of gaseous ammonia. Now,
Speaker 1: ammonia in the atmosphere is a key ingredient in forming aerosols,
Speaker 1: and those particles are essential for creating cloud condensation nuclei,
Speaker 1: which allow water vapor to condense and form the clouds.
Speaker 1: More clouds can reflect sunlight and reduce surface temperatures, making
Speaker 1: this process highly relevant for sea ice retention in climate
Speaker 1: regulation in the polar environs. But ammonia has obviously been
Speaker 1: for years under represented in climate models. They don't like
Speaker 1: to put that in the models when they talk about
Speaker 1: how you know the Earth is warming. Well. The study
Speaker 1: recorded ammonia levels between January tenth and March twenty of
Speaker 1: twenty three, and when the wind blew from the penguin colony,
Speaker 1: ammonia concentrations surged more than a thousand times what the
Speaker 1: background levels it normally were. And even after the penguins
Speaker 1: migrated at the end of February, the soil that was
Speaker 1: enriched with laol iguano kept emitting ammonia for weeks and
Speaker 1: that surprised the researchers and the data confirmed that these
Speaker 1: penguin hotspots around the Antarctic coasts could be releasing ammonia
Speaker 1: levels comparable to those found in agricultural fields. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't know out here on the Eastern plains during the summer.
Speaker 1: But that's not the end of the story.