Speaker 1: Michael, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm a Colorado Native, and we've always called them things gilapanos,
Speaker 2: and we put.
Speaker 1: Them in our burritas, our tacos, and our into lay days.
Speaker 1: They have a good day, fellas, do do do do
Speaker 1: do do? Excuse me? Gouble number seventy five ninety two
Speaker 1: writes Michael, Americans have elevated the obsession of insignificant things
Speaker 1: to a national pastime. God like this entire program. They
Speaker 1: just stupid.
Speaker 3: And you know why, Well, we specialize in.
Speaker 1: We specialize in insignificant things because I I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know how you guys do it, but I'll tell
Speaker 1: you how I do it. When you I know, there
Speaker 1: are people, and I hope you're in this audience. I
Speaker 1: really hope you're in this audience. That you're on Fox
Speaker 1: News or what you know, O A N or Newsmax
Speaker 1: or whatever you're on talk radio, and hopefully it better
Speaker 1: be the situation with Michael Brown during the weekday and
Speaker 1: then the weekend with Michael Brown on Saturday. Maybe you
Speaker 1: do take the Sabbath off. I hope you do. But
Speaker 1: it is all politics all the time. Now, what you
Speaker 1: think about just sitting here where I'm sitting and six
Speaker 1: days a week. I'm expected the audience's expectation is now,
Speaker 1: some of you get, some of you get the joke,
Speaker 1: some of you do not get the joke. But when
Speaker 1: I leave here now today, I've got I've got a
Speaker 1: medical appointment to follow up on something I had done
Speaker 1: earlier on bellam Monday. So that's that's I'm gonna leave
Speaker 1: here and go see the doctor and hav him check
Speaker 1: this thing out and make sure everything's going the way
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be going. And and then I'll probably
Speaker 1: go home, grab the dogs, go for a walk, uh,
Speaker 1: and then come back to the house and this whole
Speaker 1: process starts all over again. And once again, I'll be
Speaker 1: sitting in my home studio, home office, and I'll have
Speaker 1: a couple of TV monitors on and I'll i and
Speaker 1: I work like I do here. I have two monitors
Speaker 1: connected to a to a Mac and then I have
Speaker 1: my MacBook Pro and I've got the iPad over here
Speaker 1: and everything will be on. And then and because the
Speaker 1: the mac book, we'll have a word document up on
Speaker 1: it and I will be making my notes, putting in
Speaker 1: my U r L links, writing paragraphs about certain things
Speaker 1: I want to say a particular way, and I'll do
Speaker 1: that until usually about four or five o'clock, and then
Speaker 1: I'll go upstairs. Tim and I will have dinner. Uh
Speaker 1: usually you know, during the week, she usually cooks, or
Speaker 1: we might go out to eat. Then we come back. Now,
Speaker 1: even when she turns on whatever movie we're going to watch,
Speaker 1: I'm still sitting with the iPad and the lap stop
Speaker 1: in front of me because the show prep show prep
Speaker 1: never stops. So when we when you when you hear
Speaker 1: Dragon and I or me, Dragon doesn't always participate because
Speaker 1: sometimes he's asleep pretending to be doing other things. I
Speaker 1: don't mind jumping off in some tangent like to cut
Speaker 1: are cut r job, and I don't mind doing that
Speaker 1: because you know what for me to mental break And
Speaker 1: may I just lecture you for a moment. You need
Speaker 1: it too, We all need it. I think politics is
Speaker 1: so infused our society, and part of the reason for
Speaker 1: that is too I think it's twofold. There may be
Speaker 1: other reasons, but I think the two major reasons are
Speaker 1: twenty four hours seven news coverage. You you can you
Speaker 1: can literally I'm using the word literally literally here. You
Speaker 1: can turn on a cable channel Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Newsmaccinia
Speaker 1: and you can't. You can for twenty four hours just
Speaker 1: do nothing but consume news and most of that percent
Speaker 1: of that is going to be political. Now why is that?
Speaker 1: Because when you think about all of the government entities
Speaker 1: that influence and or control our lives, politics infuses everything.
Speaker 1: That's why I really taking the Lienburger's on walks. I
Speaker 1: don't put airbut my AirPods in. I've got my iPhone
Speaker 1: with me and my watch will notify me, if you know,
Speaker 1: if Dragon or Tamer or somebody sends me a text message,
Speaker 1: and I will stop and respond to the text message
Speaker 1: most of the time, depending on what it is. I'm
Speaker 1: also one of those guys that if you send me
Speaker 1: a text message just to tell me something and all
Speaker 1: you're doing is just in informing me of something, I
Speaker 1: may or may not respond to it. And it's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me the number of times that somebody will, you know,
Speaker 1: text me and say like, I can't think of an example,
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't I usually respond to your
Speaker 1: text messages.
Speaker 3: Hey, you'll do at least an acknowledgment onto that text
Speaker 3: bubble with the thumbs up or yeah.
Speaker 1: Thumbs up or something like that. But there are some
Speaker 1: that are just purely factual. And if you put me
Speaker 1: in a group text all almost immediately, even family, I'll
Speaker 1: remove myself from the group text. I despise group texts,
Speaker 1: but I get in trouble sometimes because from friends and
Speaker 1: co workers because I don't respond to text messages. Well,
Speaker 1: why you didn't ask me to do anything. You didn't
Speaker 1: ask me to acknowledge it. You just said, hey, sky's
Speaker 1: blue today. I looked up, Yeah, you're right, sky's blue today.
Speaker 1: So I just I go on. I'm more interested in
Speaker 1: watching the dogs. I'm more interesting in listening to the
Speaker 1: sounds around me. I'm more interesting in smelling the smells
Speaker 1: of the of the creek, or of the lake, or
Speaker 1: of the listening to the wind rustle through the aspen trees.
Speaker 1: I'm more interested in that because that's my refreshed time,
Speaker 1: and all of us need that in one form or another,
Speaker 1: whatever it might be. Some people might actually be gaming,
Speaker 1: although I consider that just to be more screen time.
Speaker 1: So I joked one time somebody sent me a text
Speaker 1: message about grounding, about how they literally go out in
Speaker 1: their backyard barefoot and there's a spot and they stand
Speaker 1: there and they say they're scientific evidence for it. I've
Speaker 1: never dug into it to see that it helps ground you.
Speaker 1: That it has a physical impact on you. Well, I
Speaker 1: believe that's just being outside has a physical impact on
Speaker 1: one thing. You get natural vitamin DED. We have a
Speaker 1: horrible lack of vitamin D in this country. People are
Speaker 1: vitamin D deficient. Might account for some of the COVID problems.
Speaker 1: But I say all of that to point out that,
Speaker 1: you know, when you do catch on to some of
Speaker 1: the stupid stuff we do, and then you mock us
Speaker 1: or you actually engage in it. Either way, we don't
Speaker 1: care because we think that helps balance out the program
Speaker 1: so that the program is not just. And I you know,
Speaker 1: you think about, you know a good example of this,
Speaker 1: how many of you would get pissed off when Rush
Speaker 1: was on air, and Rush, I'm just thinking, I'm not
Speaker 1: I can't prove this, but I would say usually it
Speaker 1: was a Monday, and he had had a great weekend golfing,
Speaker 1: and he had talked about golfing, and he would sometimes
Speaker 1: relay messages or emails that he had gotten about people
Speaker 1: bitching about you're talking about golfing, and I don't care
Speaker 1: about golfing, but you still listened. You still listened. So Michael,
Speaker 1: you said dragon before your wife and the list of
Speaker 1: people who might text you. That's adorable. The other day,
Speaker 1: not last night, before last, because I go to bed
Speaker 1: so early, Tammer sent me a text message while I
Speaker 1: was upstairs in bed, and rather than get up, I
Speaker 1: just laid in bed and texted her back. Is that?
Speaker 1: Isn't it? Pathetic? Dragon? Now?
Speaker 3: That sounds about right.
Speaker 1: Have you guys ever done that? Oh? Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: found it, Like, that's so stupid.
Speaker 3: I ain't getting up and going to the balcony and
Speaker 3: yelling back at you.
Speaker 1: And that's what I would have had to have gotten up, right,
Speaker 1: I had to take my seapap off, gotten up, walked
Speaker 1: over to the stairway to the balcony and yelled, and
Speaker 1: she would have had the TV on, So I had
Speaker 1: had yelled even louder because Tamera, because she wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to hear me, and she'd be like, didn't she
Speaker 1: be mad because I was yelling?
Speaker 3: And since the mother in laws there, I'd have to
Speaker 3: put on some boxers while I went to the balcony.
Speaker 4: And that ain't happening, so anyway, that's that's all I
Speaker 4: got to say about that.
Speaker 1: And I don't know why I wanted to do that.
Speaker 1: I just felt like I just felt like I wanted
Speaker 1: to do it. Let's talk for a minute about now
Speaker 1: where did it go on that? Dirade, I've lost my
Speaker 1: spot here. I think we're in a real pivotal moment
Speaker 1: with our energy and the economic future of the country.
Speaker 1: And the Inflation Reduction Act that Biden in the Democrats
Speaker 1: shoved down our throat had all these energy subsidies, but
Speaker 1: it wasn't just about the dollars and cents. It wasn't
Speaker 1: just about the money of the Inflation Reduction Act was spending.
Speaker 1: It was also about the kind of energy system that
Speaker 1: we want. It's about the reliability. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: that's what the Inflation Reduction Act was about. I'm saying
Speaker 1: that this is the inflection point that we're at that
Speaker 1: it is about the kind of energy system that we want.
Speaker 1: It's about the reliability of the grid. It's about the
Speaker 1: cost of living for every single one of us. But
Speaker 1: it's also about the integrity of the process by which
Speaker 1: that Act was passed and what we are led to
Speaker 1: believe that Republicans are doing about it, So what's really
Speaker 1: happening This, again, is one of those things that I
Speaker 1: go down the rabbit hole about when I'm sitting down
Speaker 1: there at that desk thinking about the next day's program.
Speaker 1: About okay, because I casually mentioned yesterday about how they
Speaker 1: were unwinding some of this stuff, and I made a
Speaker 1: note when I said that because I thought, I really
Speaker 1: want to see the details of what they're doing. Well,
Speaker 1: the current proposal is to phase out some of these subsidies.
Speaker 1: It's not determinate them immediately. And I think that what
Speaker 1: they're doing, what Republicans are doing, is dangerous because knowing
Speaker 1: how DC works, unless you just cut off that limb,
Speaker 1: it's turning, you got gangreen. You need to amputate it.
Speaker 1: And the Inflation Reduction Act in those subsidies are a
Speaker 1: gang green on the economy and they need to be excised.
Speaker 1: They need to be sought off and thrown in the
Speaker 1: medical wastebind somewhere. But that's not what Republicans are doing.
Speaker 1: It turns out they're actually creating an illusion. So the
Speaker 1: the IRA passed into this stupid idea that they were
Speaker 1: going to fight inflation and promote green energy at the
Speaker 1: same time. In the course of doing that, they created
Speaker 1: all these subsidies solar, wind, evse, biofuels, anything you can
Speaker 1: possibly manage imagine other than oil and natural gas or
Speaker 1: for that matter, nuclear And they promised, they told us
Speaker 1: that those subsidies would deliver cheap, clean energy and would
Speaker 1: help us, you know, be the world's leader in climate action.
Speaker 1: What about your bull crap. First, let's understand what the
Speaker 1: subsidies really were. They were not tax credits in the
Speaker 1: traditional sense. They were not rewarding you for being profitable
Speaker 1: or engaging any sort of product product productive activity. You know,
Speaker 1: a tax credit means that you have done work, you've
Speaker 1: manufactured something, you've provided a service of some sort which
Speaker 1: has resulted in a profit to you that's going to
Speaker 1: be tax and the tax credit is against those taxes
Speaker 1: that you're going to owe. Well wait a minute, if
Speaker 1: solar wind or evs are not producing profits, then the
Speaker 1: tax credit isn't going to do you any good. So
Speaker 1: they're not rewards for productive activity. What were they? They
Speaker 1: were actual cash handouts to businesses that otherwise in a
Speaker 1: free market, would never survive. Their products were more expensive,
Speaker 1: they were less reliable, they were less efficient than the alternatives,
Speaker 1: and those so called subsidies they called tax credits in
Speaker 1: the bill distort the energy market. It drives up costs,
Speaker 1: it makes the grid less reliable, and the cost was
Speaker 1: trillion dollars estimated to be a trillion dollars over the
Speaker 1: next decade. So the Republicans run in twenty four, including Trump,
Speaker 1: they're going to terminate those subsidies. We were promised decisive action.
Speaker 1: We were going to eliminate all the market distorting handouts.
Speaker 1: So that leads me to dig into what the House
Speaker 1: Ways and Means Committee is doing. And it is not
Speaker 1: a true repeal. It's not an immediate end to the subsidies.
Speaker 1: It's their phase outs. And the phase outs don't even
Speaker 1: begin for four years, so they could easily be reversed
Speaker 1: by future congresses. Now, why do you think Republicans might
Speaker 1: want to do that? Now, I'm not going to sit
Speaker 1: here and tell you that they all have evil intentions,
Speaker 1: But it seems to me that if you're going to
Speaker 1: start a phase out and it doesn't start for another
Speaker 1: four years, you are betting or assuming or hoping whatever
Speaker 1: verb you want to use, that in four years, the
Speaker 1: Democrats will control the Congress and they'll undo what you did,
Speaker 1: trying to pacify you and me. That's how cynical I've
Speaker 1: gotten about how this Congress is operating. They're not doing
Speaker 1: what they said they would do. I know, shocking news, right,
Speaker 1: But the problem is the process of the phase out approach.
Speaker 1: That means you're never really going to have savings because
Speaker 1: lobbyists will get involved and they'll phase out the phase out.
Speaker 1: They'll start, you know, trying to carve out exceptions to
Speaker 1: the phase outs. They'll try to eliminate the phase outs.
Speaker 1: And by eliminating the phase out, I don't mean that
Speaker 1: they're going to eliminate the so called subsidy. They're just like, hey,
Speaker 1: don't do the phase out, just trying to get rid
Speaker 1: of it, just you know, just kind of let it
Speaker 1: either get rid of it or let it expire, do something.
Speaker 1: So the bottom line is these phases out don't even
Speaker 1: start until after the next presidential term, which means Duck
Speaker 1: spell this out the next four years, next three half
Speaker 1: plus years will continue to give out that money, which
Speaker 1: is why Congress needs to enact the recision and actually
Speaker 1: pull that money back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, bro, I mean, if you go to Kansas. It's
Speaker 2: Elderada are Kansas River and the car River. I guess
Speaker 2: it all depends on your perspective.
Speaker 1: No, it all depends on your dialect and your you know,
Speaker 1: the region you come from. Beauty This to brain a Vista.
Speaker 1: Don't you dare say a brain of Thista around Buna Vista.
Speaker 1: The locals will rip you a new one. So I
Speaker 1: find it funny, Uh funny, I find it interesting. I
Speaker 1: find it fascinating that one. You know, soda, pop or coke?
Speaker 1: You know what do you like? You know you always
Speaker 1: use the term soda.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so what's it to you?
Speaker 1: A coke? An coke? Yeah, I'm gonna get a coke.
Speaker 1: And always I always have a hard time. Like some
Speaker 1: people will say, ask me, hey, do you have time
Speaker 1: to have lunch? And I'll say not, I don't have
Speaker 1: time for lunch this week. But I've got time. If
Speaker 1: you want to go get a drink, well, I really
Speaker 1: don't mean I want to go at two or three
Speaker 1: in the afternoon and go have you know a Martinzeah,
Speaker 1: I'll meet you somewhere and I don't care where it is.
Speaker 1: It's Starbucks. I can get some iced tea at Starbucks,
Speaker 1: or I'll go to the met you to McDonald's.
Speaker 3: I don't care, So it would be more of a
Speaker 3: want to go for coffee?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I don't drink coffee.
Speaker 3: Right, But see that's the same thing, right, don't drink?
Speaker 1: Right? So what do I What do I say to them?
Speaker 3: If the depending on what the intention is, Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 3: If the intention is to actually slam a few back,
Speaker 3: then no.
Speaker 1: Do you want to go drink? See?
Speaker 3: Is what I go for a drink? For a drink
Speaker 3: is a social let's go hang out? Where go drink is?
Speaker 1: Well, that's social, but with a specific purpose of drinking, gotcha.
Speaker 1: Whereas this is the social purpose of oh, we're going
Speaker 1: to have something in our hands that we can sip
Speaker 1: on while you tell me whatever woe you want to
Speaker 1: tell me about, which, by the way, I charge one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars an hour for that in case any of
Speaker 1: you want to do that, and it's cash up front,
Speaker 1: it's going to be in my Venmo account. Before I
Speaker 1: show up at the McDonald's. I can't decide what I
Speaker 1: want to go on with. There's not much else to
Speaker 1: tell you about the rewriting of this bill. The while
Speaker 1: they while they while they claim that they want to
Speaker 1: get rid of the special interest, they call them special
Speaker 1: interest giveaways. That's what they keep telling, you know, conservative media.
Speaker 1: Two of the largest ones stay completely intact. They don't
Speaker 1: even try to phase those out, the subsidies or the giveaways,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call them. For clean fuels that
Speaker 1: includes biofuels, those are actually extended. And then for carbon capture,
Speaker 1: and the one for carbon capture really fascinates me because
Speaker 1: carbon capture is the idea that CO two in the
Speaker 1: atmosphere is somehow cause of climate change and it's going
Speaker 1: to destroy the planet. There was some thing on television
Speaker 1: last night where they actually used the phrase that if
Speaker 1: we don't do if we don't change our ways, were
Speaker 1: maybe it's Bernie talking about something that I think it
Speaker 1: was Bernie that we are really but that we are
Speaker 1: truly going to destroy the planet. And I thought to myself,
Speaker 1: how can you possibly think that. I mean, even if
Speaker 1: we had nuclear annihilation of humankind, the planet would still survive.
Speaker 3: I think I had given you a story last week
Speaker 3: that you completely ignored about the allergy season is so
Speaker 3: much longer now because of oh oh. He holds up
Speaker 3: his finger like he actually kept the story. Now he's
Speaker 3: looking through his little filing cabinet to see if he's
Speaker 3: even got it. I don't have that, but nothing because
Speaker 3: you didn't keep that story. But yes, the allergy season
Speaker 3: is longer now because of global warming, and because of
Speaker 3: global warming, plants are blooming sooner and lasting longer.
Speaker 1: And that's bad because it causes allergy.
Speaker 3: Our allergies are going to be affected longer in the season.
Speaker 1: Okay, So which is more important to have more plant
Speaker 1: growth and productivity from plants, which, by the way, you
Speaker 1: know put more oxygen in the air, by the way,
Speaker 1: but which caused some people to have allergies. So we
Speaker 1: should just what we should do is just eliminate plants.
Speaker 3: I just find it fascinating. The way the story was
Speaker 3: presented is that allergy is bad, you know, and you
Speaker 3: know we're suffering more because global warming because the plant
Speaker 3: are growing more, because the plants are growing more.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh well, the same with carbon capture. So the
Speaker 1: whole presumption on carbon capture is that if we don't
Speaker 1: eliminate whatever the process is, that you know, whatever your
Speaker 1: manufacturing are doing is putting CO two in the air.
Speaker 1: And so we have to figure out a way to
Speaker 1: capture that carbon and then do something with it. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but do something with it. So that's a
Speaker 1: really dumb idea. Yeah, I told we did the story
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago about or I did a Michael
Speaker 1: Brown minute about it, about a company up in Boulder
Speaker 1: that did a funding round raise some one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty some million dollars because they have a prototype that
Speaker 1: does carbon capture that lowers the amount of heat needed
Speaker 1: to forge iron or steel, and so by lowering the heat,
Speaker 1: you lower the carbon output or something. And I thought,
Speaker 1: what captured my eye about that story was they raised
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty some million dollars. You had to
Speaker 1: stay that. Colorado gave them an eight million dollar subsidy
Speaker 1: or tax credit or whatever it was. But taxpayers gave
Speaker 1: them eight million dollars. And I'm thinking, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: you raised one hundred and eighty six You couldn't raise
Speaker 1: one hundred and ninety four million. And we're pushing that
Speaker 1: because oh Pols was out there. Oh look, we we're
Speaker 1: so happy about this because we're going to reduce the
Speaker 1: you know the amount of carbon. We're going to meet
Speaker 1: our you know, carbon zero by twenty thirty, twenty fifty
Speaker 1: or whatever it is. I don't care. I want carbon
Speaker 1: in the atmosphere. So here we are Republicans telling us
Speaker 1: that they're going to get rid of the Inflation Reduction Act,
Speaker 1: and they actually keep the subsidies for bio fuels and
Speaker 1: carbon capture expensive unproven technologies. And when I say unproven technologies,
Speaker 1: I mean that because a place in Boulder is a prototype. Now,
Speaker 1: there must have been enough either institutional investors or angel
Speaker 1: investors or I don't know. I never saw. I never
Speaker 1: saw once their prospectives, So I don't know how likely
Speaker 1: it is that they'll succeed or not. I you know,
Speaker 1: if that's what they want to do, investors want to
Speaker 1: put the money in that, and they can succeed at it, well,
Speaker 1: then hallelujah. But the next question is can you commercialize it?
Speaker 1: You might be able to create the apparatus for the
Speaker 1: carbon capture, is it scalable and can it be commercialized?
Speaker 1: Any savvy investor would ask that question that that so
Speaker 1: let's say they do, Okay, Well, now you've got to
Speaker 1: go sell it. You've got to commercialize it and sell it,
Speaker 1: and it will it be sellable at a certain price? Point,
Speaker 1: I don't know because how much is it going to
Speaker 1: cost to do it? And what's what's the cost benefit ratio?
Speaker 1: There is nothing in the story about what they're trying
Speaker 1: to accomplish even has a cost benefit ratio. So these
Speaker 1: giveaways that we're doing, nobody can point to me that
Speaker 1: it's going to benefit us in any way except it is.
Speaker 1: By the very nature of just calling a carbon capture.
Speaker 1: People then assume that it must be good, that oh,
Speaker 1: it's it is what it is, and because it is
Speaker 1: what it is, it's therefore good. No, not really. So
Speaker 1: if we can tinue down the path of them lying
Speaker 1: to us, which I know is a shocker to you,
Speaker 1: and not really doing what they tell us that they're doing,
Speaker 1: when do you think Trump will realize this? Because you
Speaker 1: know how many times does Trump talk about the you know,
Speaker 1: the pseudonym Inflation Reduction Act and how stupid that was
Speaker 1: and it didn't really actually cause the inflation. I think
Speaker 1: in Trump's mind, some staffer needs to pull them aside
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, the big beautiful bill that
Speaker 1: you're talking about doesn't really do I mean it right
Speaker 1: now has I haven't studied this yet, but I'm going
Speaker 1: on the assumption that the stories I've read so far
Speaker 1: really do the House ways and means Committee really is
Speaker 1: enacting the tax proposals, but that's only part of the
Speaker 1: big beautiful bill. The Big Beautiful Bills are supposed to
Speaker 1: also include the recision of all these subsidies, and so
Speaker 1: far apparently it does not, which means that even though
Speaker 1: inflation ticked downward, it met the expectations at two point
Speaker 1: three or two point four percent, whatever it was yesterday,
Speaker 1: which is a good sign, doesn't mean it won't tick
Speaker 1: back up when we realized that, oh, we're still spending
Speaker 1: all that money, So that means higher costs for taxpayers,
Speaker 1: and that will eventually result in rising energy prices. The
Speaker 1: grid won't get any more stable, and as far as
Speaker 1: getting closer and closer to energy independence, that's going to
Speaker 1: be distorted. And speaking of distortion, that will result in
Speaker 1: more market distortions. So there's no real client, there's no
Speaker 1: real climate benefit, even if I thought that we somehow
Speaker 1: needed to benefit the climate. So it's it's just another
Speaker 1: example of everything that you read or hear from the
Speaker 1: cabal you need to take with a grain of salt.
Speaker 1: Because while yesterday I casually mentioned that, yeah, we were
Speaker 1: going to do these get rid of these subsidies. In
Speaker 1: further digging, turns out, well, there are a few things
Speaker 1: here and there, because this is the really the evil
Speaker 1: brilliance of the politicians. Eliminate a subsidy, so you can
Speaker 1: claim that you're eliminating subsidies at the same time that
Speaker 1: you're not really eliminating any of them. You're phasing them out.
Speaker 1: And the phase out doesn't start for four years because
Speaker 1: in four years you might have a Democrat controlled Congress
Speaker 1: and they can just reverse everything that you've done. Wow,
Speaker 1: can we survive as a republic? I would contend that
Speaker 1: people evolve us the earth evolves.
Speaker 2: So if allergies season is longer and people might not
Speaker 2: have allergies anymore, or we're all gonna die.
Speaker 1: One of the two. I think we're all going to die.
Speaker 1: We're all just coming to an end. Remember back in April,
Speaker 1: I forget exactly when it was, but that Milwaukee County
Speaker 1: Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was accused of helping an illegal
Speaker 1: alien escape detention by ice while the alien was in
Speaker 1: her court room, put him in the jury box with
Speaker 1: her with his lawyer. I think he was there for
Speaker 1: domestic abuse charges or something, and then she helped him
Speaker 1: escape back out through the back the jury box door
Speaker 1: and out through the back door, and then she got arrested.
Speaker 1: She had arrested for obstructing and impeding and proceeding before
Speaker 1: a US agency, which is a felony, and concealing an
Speaker 1: individual to prevent their discovery and arrest, which is a misdemeanor. Well,
Speaker 1: she appeared in court and she's been suspended from her
Speaker 1: duties by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. And then she was
Speaker 1: indicted yesterday on the same two charges, obstruction of a
Speaker 1: u US agency and conceding a person from arrest. The
Speaker 1: indictment based on witness testimonies, including her own court clerk
Speaker 1: and another judge and the defendant's lawyer. Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: want to say that if I would expect them to
Speaker 1: tell the truth, don't get me wrong, but when your
Speaker 1: own court clerk and one of your co workers, and
Speaker 1: then when the defense lawyer, of course, I understand again,
Speaker 1: I understand why they would because they're not going to lie,
Speaker 1: and they're not going to lie for someone who's accused
Speaker 1: of committing a crime. I just find a deliciously ironic
Speaker 1: that her own clerk, another judge sitting in that same circuit,
Speaker 1: and the defense lawyer that was involved in the case
Speaker 1: all testified before the grand jury, and of course they
Speaker 1: returned an indictment. The char just carry a maximum penalty
Speaker 1: of six years in prison and a three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars fine. Now, obviously it's a non violent offense.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that it's her first defense, so she's not
Speaker 1: likely to get six years in prison. She may g
Speaker 1: it define because this goes against the very legitimacy of
Speaker 1: our judicial system. Now she's expected to enter a plea
Speaker 1: at a hearing scheduled four tomorrow. Of course, her lawyers
Speaker 1: claim that she was that she's innocent, that she didn't
Speaker 1: do anything wrong. And of course Democrats, just like they
Speaker 1: run to these detention centers, all in support of drug dealers,
Speaker 1: child rapists, human traffickers. The mayor of Milwaukee, and of
Speaker 1: course Bernie Sanders all call it authoritarian by the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: that what they did by arresting her is authoritarian. So
Speaker 1: if we now crossed that rubicon where enforcing the law
Speaker 1: is authoritarian, I I, in a really perverted way, love
Speaker 1: this case because whenever Democrats scream about no one is
Speaker 1: above the law. Hello, Hello, anybody out there,