All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
December 12, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, Brian, did you remember to throw the switch in there on the ditto cam?
Yeah, it's good.
And so greetings back, greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
We are sizzling today.
We're in the kitchen.
We are in control of thermostat.
We're turning up the heat.
As though it's not hot enough outside.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, often imitated, frequently envied, never equaled.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, looky here, folks.
The poll numbers on the war, they're down.
The poll numbers on the decision to go to war are down.
The poll numbers on the management of the war are down.
Now, is this bad news?
Well, before you answer, I want you to think about something.
What if the war is going as good as the economy?
I know it's grammatically correct to say, well, but I want to say the economy is good because it's good.
Everybody knows the economy is good.
So what if the war were going as good as the economy?
Because, you know, the latest preoccupation with the mainstream media is, well, looky there, Mabel.
Oh, the economy is just talking right along.
Why, the economy has never been stronger.
But yet the Bush administration doesn't rate that well in polling data on the economy.
I wonder why that is.
If the economy is doing well, if it's doing good, if the economy is smoking, do you realize, folks, that they used to say that 5.5% inflation would 5.5% unemployment would lead to runaway inflation and we couldn't control it.
And we didn't want to go below 5.5.
Guess we're at 5% unemployment and we still don't have much inflation.
And we're still with tax cuts increasing revenues to the Treasury.
We are reducing the deficit.
More jobs are being created left and right.
The one negative out there is high gasoline prices.
And there are constant stories about the price of oil and how high it is and the price of gasoline and how high it is, even though it's not at anywhere near an historical high.
So while we've got all this great economic news, we still have all the bad news on the war, bad news on the decision to go to war, bad news on the management of the war, bad news on gasoline prices.
Should a nation have to coexist with BS polls?
Should a war effort have to suffer barbarous trisan polls?
Should a responsible journalist report a bunch of BS polls?
I'll tell you why I ask.
If you read the polls, America recognizes the Battle of Iraq is a mistake.
It's going badly.
It'll get worse.
Really?
Really?
The same crowd reports in similar polls that the economy is going badly.
The American people disapprove of the leadership and think it will get worse.
And yet, by every statistical measure, the economy is good.
It's better than good.
The economy is humming.
Employment up so much, the Democrats are no longer asking where are the jobs.
Employment is so low that it's half of that in France.
Home ownership is at an all-time high, and it's going so well that the ferret-faced Paul Krugman of the New York Times is talking about a real estate bubble that's going to burst here pretty soon.
Just like the NASDAQ bubble did, just like the high-tech bubble burst.
You just got these negative liberal economists out there waiting for this great economy to tank, and they know it has to tank because you can't cut taxes and run a war at the same time, and you can't reduce employment without inflation.
You just can't do this.
And yet every time we get economic news, guess what the lead of the story is?
The experts are stunned.
The experts are surprised.
The jobs created exceeded expectations of who?
A bunch of liberal experts.
Or manufacturing numbers that take whatever facet of the economy you want.
The experts are always wrong.
In fact, I'm going to tell you this, folks, there is much more documentation for a growing economy than for man creating global warming.
Man creating global warming is still a wild guess like every weather forecast is.
But documentation for a growing economy is there.
Provable, demonstrable in any which way you choose.
But nevertheless, you got more people thinking that we are responsible for global warming than that the economy is growing.
Do we get the bad news and does the bad news hurt?
Of course it does.
Do we get the good news and good news helps?
Of course not.
That's what we don't get.
We don't get the good news.
When a Republican's in the White House, we don't get the good news, the economy.
We get the war's going rotten.
The planning was rotten.
We have no exit strategy.
It's a mess over there.
Americans are dying and gasoline prices are higher than they've ever been.
And we got a terrorist attack just waiting to happen on this country's soil.
Is it any wonder there's pessimism out there?
Because there's a never-ending drumbeat of it in the mainstream press.
Look at some headlines just this week.
Media creates new star.
Mother camping outside Crawford.
This is this she-hand babe who's become now a tool of the left.
Then you've got this silly have the Rolling Stones, the wrinkled rockers, have pulled a Michael Moore.
And they've got this song about sweet neocon.
And I don't even think they understand what a neocon is based on the lyrics of the song.
I think these people think neocons are Christians, but anyway, they're getting into bash Bush.
Mick Jagger's always said, we aren't going to get political.
We're the Rolling Stones.
We're going to transcend all that.
Well, the Stones are going out on a new tour.
They got a new album.
They're in their 60s, close to getting Social Security.
And they need to be relevant here.
And so they need to get some current issue to glom on to, get the press on their side.
The last time the Stones came out with a tour, everybody made fun of them.
The press made fun of them.
The press laughed at Jagger's wrinkles.
The press laughed at when they drove that Cadillac across the, I guess it's a 59th Street Bridge to the River Cafe for their big press conference, Steel Wheels Tour, I think it was.
And they made big fun of them.
Look at these old guys.
Now all of a sudden they're heroes because Bush is a creep, according to Mick Jagger in his latest song.
And of course, we got Maureen Dowd back and her rest and relaxation.
Her book writing didn't mellow her.
This woman is, she's with the nay rail babes today.
I mean, oh, she's as angry and hate-filled as she ever was.
No, I'm not going to read some of it.
Go read it yourself.
I got better things to do.
I'm not going to pummel this audience with daily negativity.
That's what we don't do.
This program is one of optimism, good cheer, and uplifting positive aspects of life.
That's why the audience here is so big.
Now, one of our favorite websites out there is the American Thinker.
And I have a piece here from today with The American Thinker by Noel Shepard.
Noel Shepard is an economist.
He's a business owner, and he contributes to the Media Research Center's newsbuster squad.
Brent Bozell and his boys have put up a new blog.
They got their own blog called The Newsbusters.
And they've got an RSS feed, so I subscribed to it last night, and it's cool.
For almost two years, since the current economic expansion began to really pick up steam, impartial economists worldwide have been wondering why so many Americans seem not to believe that a recovery is even transpiring.
Unfortunately, the cover story of the Washington Post's business section Saturday gives us all a perfect example of why this disconnect between perception and reality exists.
On the surface, this story was seemingly intended to address the absolutely fabulous employment report that was released last Friday.
However, given the party currently in power, the Post obviously felt it was more important to reign on what should have been a very delightful parade rather than stick to the facts imparted by this monthly employment survey.
Mercifully, the opening three paragraphs of this diatribe that appears to be more editorial than anything resembling a serious business piece aptly prepares the reader for the most almost suffocating chicken little motif.
Here's how the post story opened.
U.S. job growth jumped last month.
The unemployment rate held steady at 5%, the government reported yesterday.
Latest economic data to show the economy picking up steam yet.
President Bush's economic approval ratings remain low, weighed down by anger over Iraq and concerns about lackluster wage increases and stubbornly high gasoline prices.
And then, here's the third paragraph, a quote from your average man on the street that the Washington Post went to find some guy in Pasadena, Adam Judas, 40 Pasadena, California computer consultant and political independent.
Of course, has to be an independent.
I feel the economy is just not as good as it should be, said Adam Judas.
We're spending too many lives, resources, and money on Iraq.
There has to be a point where we say we can't help everybody.
We need to help ourselves.
Imagine that.
This is a business section, a major American newspaper.
In the second paragraph of an article is supposed to be discussing our nation's employment condition, the authors are addressing the country's anger over the war in Iraq.
What does that have to do with business, the economy, or the labor market?
For those who don't spend every waking moment trolling serious business periodicals for the latest scraps from Wall Street, economic articles typically quote the opinions of analysts and economists concerning data just released.
However, for a reason that is significantly more transparent than the publishers of the Washington Post seem to recognize, their authors chose to quote a computer consultant who didn't have anything to say about these employment figures or anything at all related to the economy for that matter, but instead wanted to voice a negative opinion about the war.
Isn't that special?
And they found an interview with, let's see, a nurse, 51-year-old Peg Dameron, Gilderland, New York, said she voted for Bush in 2000, but is disenchanted over Iraq, healthcare issues, and a failure to raise the minimum wage.
We're just belittling the poor.
Well, this is classic.
This is just, it's all made up.
But here's the answer.
And of course, the Today Show Today, Katie Crick, all happy.
This is the funny thing about it now.
The media is all happy to report this glowing economic news.
If you watch Today's Show Today or read any of your papers, they're going, you know, pedal of the metal to report all this great economic news.
And then they smile and they just ask their guests, why isn't President Bush getting credit for this?
Fred, why isn't President Bush getting credit for this, Amos, or whoever the guest is?
Well, it's possible the economy is not that good.
High gasoline prices, instability, lack of confidence.
And then they go out and find people.
Yeah, I know the economy's good, but it just doesn't feel right.
Well, why doesn't it feel right?
Why doesn't it feel right?
You've got more people today doing better than they ever dreamed they would be doing.
You've got more parents today with more optimism about the future of their kids than parents have ever been.
You've got more kids coming out of college earning $150,000 on Wall Street for sweeping the floors.
You've got all kinds of robust economic activity, low unemployment, and still, never-ending bad news about Iraq.
Is it any wonder that there's bad feelings and pessimism about the future?
And then, of course, the specter of terrorism is always present.
The London bombings and, hey, it could happen here.
We're just a, we're, you know, we're just a heartbeat away from it happening here.
Who knows what?
So what if all that story is, what if all that BS about the war is not true, though, folks?
What if that polling data is not true?
What if there's good news in Iraq?
It just isn't being reported.
And you can look at the economy and ask the same question.
So it's a big issue out there, and a lot of people are scratching their heads over it, and supposedly they are at the White House as well.
But I'll tell you the bottom line of all this, at least as I see it.
In politics, as long as I've been alive, backpocket issues determine the fate of the next election, determine the outcome of the next election.
If the economy was humming, the challenger had no prayer.
Incumbent was a lock.
Well, guess what?
The left is so desperate.
They're doing everything they can to upset all these old bits of conventional wisdom.
And so they know they've got a good economy out there after talking it down.
They haven't been able to talk down the economy.
The economy has roared back regardless.
This is the crazy thing.
People's confidence is such that they're out there making the economy what it is because a strong economy is nothing more than all of us engaging in commerce and doing so with vigor.
And yet at the same time, many of you are feeling pessimistic and down and negative about it all, yet you're making it happen.
So even when things in your life are going great, somehow you can be persuaded they're not.
And most often it manifests itself this way.
Well, I admit I'm doing well, but you know, I'm worried about my neighbor Fred over there.
I'm worried Fred may lose his job.
And in Fred's kid, you know, just murdered a little girl down the street.
And they may have to go to jail.
I'm worried about all kinds of things.
That happened in New Jersey, by the way.
Murdered a girl down the street, actually next door neighbor.
At any rate, it is a testament here, folks, to the importance of optimism.
A testament to the importance of being up and of good cheer.
And if somebody wants to throw a negative party, just I'm not playing.
I'm not going to go.
Don't invite me.
I'm not going to participate.
It's like our old advice.
If somebody's going to have a recession down the road, say, fine, go ahead and have one.
I'm not participating.
I live in the United States of America.
If there's going to be a recession, I'll find my way around it.
A lot of people do, even during a recession.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue.
Your phone calls coming next after this.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
It's Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am America's anchorman now on the EIB network.
And we go to Whitney in Roanoke, Virginia.
I'm glad you held on, Whitney.
Thanks for your patience.
Oh, thanks for having me.
You bet.
I had a rational and intelligent argument, but now I'm a little nervous.
I'm not sure how I'm going to present it.
But it seems like to me that you just dismiss environmental concerns just right offhand.
And what I'm trying to figure out is, are you dismissing the harbingers of doom and gloom themselves or the environmental concern?
Am I just missing the harbingers of doom and gloom themselves?
Yeah, do you just not like to listen to them talk or do you just hate environmental policy?
I mean, is it possible to be an environmentally savvy conservative?
Sure.
Okay.
But I don't believe that there are any harbingers of doom and gloom in the environment out there.
So you don't believe in global warming?
No.
Are that the large ozone hole?
No, wait, Or that humans created the ozone destruction of the ozone.
No, no, no, no.
I don't because the hole closes every year and we don't do anything to close it.
So how are we causing it?
It's the same thing.
It's about that whole vortex and spinning earth sort of theory.
And that's maybe pseudo-scientific.
I just want you to clarify your position on the environment.
I mean, do you hate the environment?
You know, this is, I'm glad you called.
I really am, and I would love to talk to you about this.
So we're going to.
No, I don't hate the environment.
I don't hate anything.
Well, that's right.
You're an optimist.
I am skeptical of liberals.
I am totally skeptical of liberals.
I am skeptical of any group of people who wants to say that we human beings in the advanced areas of existence in the great democracies of the world are single-handedly responsible for destroying the environment.
And if we don't stop now, it's all going to go away poof.
I don't buy that for a moment.
I think the modern environmental movement is simply the latest refuge for communists and socialists who are opposed to capitalism.
I think that's where I'm confused, is the terminology.
To me, conservation is not a liberal concept.
And it seems like being conservative with your decisions about the environment.
That's not irresponsible.
The thing you have to understand is the environmentalists are not concerned about the environment.
The environmentalists are using the environment as a platform to attack a way of life they disagree with.
And they're working, and it's succeeding with people like you, because after all, who doesn't want dirty water?
Or who wants dirty water?
Who wants dirty air?
And the environmentalists have set it up.
So if you disagree with them, oh, you must be for pollution.
I'm not for pollution.
I just want the facts straight.
There is more pollution in the underdeveloped world than there is in the United States.
We clean up more of our messes better than anybody else in the world does.
Well, then how at the same time can we be blamed for destroying the planet and destroying the environment?
We're doing just the opposite.
We're going out of our way to protect it.
We're going out of our way to do what we can to hold great and responsible stewardship over it.
But normal economic or environmental cycles, for example, go look at the, if you could find it, go look at a map of the way the earth looked hundreds of thousands of years ago, and you'll see the continents today don't even exist as they do today.
Oh, sure.
Sure, but there's 6 billion more people.
It seems like the cause and effect of that alone, without even the industry side of it, it's going to have an environmental impact.
Well, you know, Paul.
I would think.
I mean, isn't it, I just want to know is it responsible or wise to err on the side of caution as far as the environmental?
Look at, we're going to have a disconnect here because you're feeling about this.
Yeah.
And I'm thinking about it.
Right.
Well, you're right.
And I don't know how to get to your feelings.
I don't want to destroy your feelings here.
I don't own your feelings.
They aren't mine.
I'm not responsible for your feelings, so I can't talk you out of them.
But if you wanted to think about this rationally rather than feel about it, that's the appeal of the environmental movement.
They want you to feel like, oh, my God, we're destroying this great place.
I don't believe we have the ability to destroy it.
Right.
Now, I got it.
You interested in continuing this?
Sure.
Okay, well, hang on to the break and I'll give it another stab.
But you've got to let me answer the questions you ask me.
Okay?
All right.
And we are back.
Great to have you with us.
Sel Rushball here and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we go back to Whitney in Roanoke, Virginia.
I trust you're still there.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Let me just say a couple of things here, because you asked me, why am I dismissing all environmental damage and why do I believe what I believe?
And I want to try to explain it to you so that as you keep listening, you'll be able to put the comments that I make about all this into context and into perspective.
The first thing, in helping you to explain my attitude on the environment, I think the environment is a political issue.
I don't even think it.
I know it.
The environment is a political issue.
And environmental activists are liberals.
They are leftists.
Well, now, you know me.
I don't trust them.
I disagree with them.
I am suspicious of their motives.
I know who the environmentalists are.
I have listened to what they've said.
I've read what they have written.
I have debunked so much of what they have said.
Michael Crichton has written a book called State of Fear, in which he documents the way they lie, the way they make things up, the way they basically exist as fundraising organizations.
And they try to make people afraid.
They use fear to raise money.
They're also anti-capitalists.
They do not desire and they're big government types.
They want government controlling your property, what's called a wetland, and all sorts of things.
As to global warming, 1979, Newsweek magazine had a cover story on the coming global freeze.
Six years later, I'm watching ABC's this week with David Brinkley and a scientist named Michael Oppenheimer saying we've only got 20 years to stop global warming.
If we don't, and Brinkley said, well, can you prove it's happening now?
I said, no, but we need 20 more years, but we don't have time to wait those 20 years because if we don't act now, it's going to be too late.
So 20 years has gone by, and the environment still cannot prove that this is man-made.
They cannot prove that the current warming cycle that I admit we're in can be proved to be man-made and even man-caused.
There have been too many global heating and cooling cycles long before man came along and industrialized the planet.
And there have been way too many volcanoes spewing pollution that doubles the amount of the total of all the automobiles ever invented and manufactured in the world that tell me that we human beings are very vain on one hand.
We've got animal rights people telling us that we're no different than rats and insects.
We've got the environmentalists on the other hand telling us we are so powerful that we have the ability to destroy this, which we didn't create.
You asked about ozone.
Do you know how ozone's created?
Well, you mean with coffee machines and car exhaust and all that?
No, no, no, no.
I mean atmospheric ozone.
That's where the ozone hole is.
Do you know how that ozone's created?
No.
The sun manufactures it, interacting with other elements in the world.
Right, with oxygen and creates O3.
Right.
Right.
So let's assume that President Bush wanted all Democrats to get skin cancer.
So he orders the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to destroy the ozone layer.
Right.
We couldn't do it.
But if we did, it wouldn't just give the Democrats skin cancer.
It would give us all skin cancer.
Exactly.
But the point is we couldn't do it.
Right.
We couldn't destroy the ozone layer.
We would have to put it sound.
We would have to find a way to send fire trucks to the sun and put it out.
And what was the point of Reagan signing the Montreal Protocol, ending CFC production or restricting it at least?
It's all irrelevant to me.
The ozone hole closes.
When's the last time you heard about the ozone hole as a big issue?
No, it's been years, and all we've done is drive more cars, burn more fuel.
We cool and do these sorts of things.
All of these, the other day, some environmentalist group came out and said, it's too late.
No matter what we do, we cannot solve and stop global warming.
It's too late now.
Well, my reaction to that is, if there's nothing we can do to stop it, then there's no way we could have caused it.
Because if we caused it, we simply stop what we're doing to cause it.
And they say it's too late.
These are just fear-mongering people who are on the left or turning this whole issue into a political issue.
You have this astronaut, Eileen Collins, and she's flying all over the world in the space shuttle.
She looks down and she sees what she thinks is destruction.
I think she saw development.
You know, you go by, if you didn't know better, drive by a plot of land where it's all plowed up and torn up and they're getting ready to build a subdivision of homes there.
You would think, my God, what came along and destroyed this if you didn't know it, if you had no clue what had come along, if you didn't know that bulldozers had come in and plowed that land and dug it up in preparation for laying sewer lines and all that to build a subdivision, you would have think, my God, we're going to hell in a handbasket.
Right.
Well, by the same token, when you're flying over the earth, and I do this all the time, and you see rivers and streams after a heavy rain, they're always brown.
The Mississippi River is brown as it can be after a heavy rain.
The idea that rivers and streams are blue these days is a figment of people's imagination based on artwork.
They're not.
Swimming pools are blue, and the ocean is blue if you have a blue sky.
You ever seen the ocean when it's overcast?
It looks gray and green and dank and all that?
Looks entirely different.
Doesn't mean it's any dirtier that day than when the sun's out and the sky is clear.
But the reason this appeals to you is because nobody wants to destroy the planet because it sustains us.
And so people come along and say, all these cars and all these barbecue pits and all that, why they have to be having an effect.
And your common sense says to you, and you couple it with your emotions, yeah.
Well, I think I'll cut back.
And so you think everybody should cut back.
And in so doing, you're protecting the environment.
My contention is that human beings living their lives technologically advanced and improved at all times in this country and around the world in democracies are cleaning up their messes as fast as we make them.
We are making, in fact, just the other day, what are we to make of this, Whitney?
Some congressman or representative in Northern California said, you know what?
It's not automobiles that have been causing smog.
It's cow flatulence.
Did you hear about that?
No, and California is its own country as far as that.
I mean, I don't even listen to anything that comes out of California.
Well, okay, well, then why do you listen to what the environmentalists say?
Again, Roanoke, Virginia, we live is just streams and rivers and lakes everywhere.
I live near a paper plant, and it's on the Jackson River.
And if you want to fish, you've got to fish above the plant.
If you fish below the plant, there are no fish.
But there are fish if you go above it, right?
Right.
Okay, so the fish are smart enough to go where they can survive.
That's true.
But wouldn't you think there's something about the plant that's killing the fish?
No.
No, really.
No.
Are they finding a bunch of dead fish floating in the river?
No, they just don't live there.
They've moved away.
Or there's carps.
I mean, you're not going to eat that.
I guess you could.
I mean, it is.
If there's rampant fish death, and I keep hearing this, I want to see the bodies.
Well, no, I do.
I do.
I'm just telling you, I don't believe liberals, Whitney, and you shouldn't either, whether they're talking about the economy, whether they're talking about abortion, whether they're talking about Judge Roberts, or whether they're talking about the environment, because it's all aimed at advancing a liberal agenda, which is largely an anti-capitalist agenda, a big government agenda, and they want people to be as concerned about it as they can be because you'll give up some of your freedoms in order to protect the environment.
When you give up your freedoms, government gets the freedoms that you had.
But these companies that invent things to clean up the environment, I mean, that's a capitalist endeavor.
I'm sure they make a fortune making.
So, so what's wrong with that?
They're cleaning up.
Well, I mean, that's great.
I mean, I don't see how it's anti-capitalism if a new company comes along with a new idea and makes a load of money off of it.
Well, because listen to what they say is the reason.
They're blaming the United States for all this pollution.
Look at the Kyoto Protocol.
China is a bigger polluter than the U.S. could ever hope to be.
They're exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.
Which is ridiculous.
Well, of course, the Kyoto Protocol is nothing more than the world's attempts to get its hands into our back pockets.
Right, okay.
And to force us to be less competitive and less advanced economically so as to level the playing field.
We are the world's superpower.
They're coming after us every which way they can, wanting their money, our money with their hands in our back pockets or what have you.
But look, I don't want to get sidetracked here.
Let me give you my fundamental reason for this.
Politics aside.
Okay.
And I'm just going to get as personal as I can here with you.
Appeal to my emotion, Rush.
Pardon?
No, I'm not going to.
No, I'm not going to appeal to your emotion.
All right.
Well, I don't know where I'm going to appeal to.
I'm just going to tell you why I don't believe this stuff.
Okay.
I believe in creation.
I believe in God.
I believe that the idea that human beings have the ability to destroy what we couldn't create if we had to.
No human being from start from scratch.
We can't even explain the existence of the Earth scientifically.
We got to go back to something called the Big Bang, and then we've got to try to make guesses as that we were all spermzoid promozoics.
And then we came out of the ocean.
We had to walk four legs and two legs, but nobody really knows for sure.
We have these theories.
The other day some theory was just debunked big time, and I don't remember off the top of my head what it is.
But the idea, if you look at this planet and you look at all the changes this planet has undergone that we can document historically for thousands of years, the forces that cause change on this planet dwarf the combined efforts of all human beings today.
We couldn't anymore move a continent.
We couldn't anymore destroy a mountain.
We couldn't anymore drain an ocean.
We couldn't anymore destroy ozone.
We couldn't anymore raise the temperature if we were freezing to death.
We couldn't steer a hurricane away from where it's headed.
We can't stop a thunderstorm.
We can't make a clear sky rain.
We can't do one thing climatologically that we wish we could do when we're faced with disaster or when we're faced with drought.
We can't make it stop raining.
We can't cause it to rain.
We can't raise the sea level.
We can't drain a river.
We can't fill a river.
We can't create the water out of nothing that will fill a river that used to run robustly and now is dried up for other economic reasons or evolutionary reasons.
We can't do any of these things.
We don't have the capacity.
We don't have the wherewithal.
We don't have the knowledge.
We don't have the equipment.
We're basically a bunch of passengers along for the ride on this planet.
The idea that we can destroy this is simply above my ability to comprehend.
Look at how Eileen Collins, the shuttle astronaut, spoke of how thin the atmosphere is.
I know.
Right?
Well, okay.
No, she's got a good point.
Look at how thin that atmosphere is.
Compared to the planet itself, it is really thin.
You go up above 15,000 feet, you can't breathe without oxygen tanks.
That's barely three miles.
Three miles.
Three miles in the middle of the universe sustains us.
Right?
That's right.
It's been around for how many hundreds of thousands of years?
How many volcanoes have belched pollution into it?
How many jet planes have been flying around?
And yet we're just as sustained as ever.
Back in 1979, Paul Ehrlich wrote a book.
Once we get to 2 billion, 3 billion people on the planet, there won't be enough food.
We'll all starve.
We've got 6 billion people on the planet, and we're still feeding them.
There are places, well, but it's not the fault of the planet, and it's the fault of local governments who don't give people the freedom to exist in a capitalistic free market economy.
I agree.
But the nations of the world that do produce food are able to provide aid when it's necessary.
Are they not?
That's true.
Absolutely.
The only thing that gets in the way is the warlords who steal the food that we give.
and of course the rock stars who think they're doing something less than a bunch of songs on a weekend but my point is They're millionaires.
Take a look at this.
We orbit around the sun.
We are roughly 93 million miles away from this sun.
If we were 95 million miles away from it, we wouldn't exist.
Be too cold.
Pretty delicate.
If we were 90 million miles away from it, we would be boiling and we would never exist.
The precision with which this planet functions and operates within its own solar system around its sun, and not one thing we couldn't affect this orbit if we wanted to.
If we were getting too close to the sun, there's nothing we could do to stop it.
It is so precise.
I hear all these people talk about there has to be, there have to be other places in the universe with life.
I'm not so sure because you take a look at the size of this universe and look at the Earth and its relationship to the Sun within that context.
It is so it we can't, we can't even measure how small this precision is.
That if we were just off, if our planet was just off, you know, a couple of million miles in the relation of the whole universe is nothing.
I mean, it's literally zero, statistically zero.
And yet, for this to be recreated somewhere in the universe, the odds of this, and I heard a NASA scientist say this, the odds of the life-producing conditions that are so precisely met on this planet with its atmosphere and all of its ecosystems that produce the necessities for life and the sun, to find this duplicated somewhere going to be pretty statistically difficult.
I just don't believe that we have the ability to damage?
Yes.
Can we fix the damage?
Yes.
But can we stop the cycles that are going to happen regardless, the heating and the cooling and the climate and the weather?
No, we can't.
We're not responsible for destroying the ozone because we can't create it if we did, and yet the ozone hole closes.
How do you explain this?
You explain it by telling people that, well, you can't explain it.
The environmentalists will say, well, it's a natural phenomenon, but the hole wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for us.
And then we had stories years ago about how islands were sinking so fast in the sea because the ozone hole and people getting skin cancer.
You don't see those stories anymore.
You saw them once or twice, and that was it.
They're trying to gin up a bunch of fear and they're trying to get to people and make them afraid.
And by the way, when it gets to 100 degrees in the summertime, what's the first thing people think?
Global warming.
That's how subtle and seductive it's all been.
I'm just telling you, I don't buy any of this notion that we are causing it because we couldn't if we wanted to.
Well, then how does the public who wishes to be informed, like myself, on environmental facts, which scientists do I listen to and which common sense?
Of course you can look at this, this could go on forever.
Common sense.
No, but I mean, you could certainly engage in some destructive things, but do you destroy the ability of man to survive?
No.
But I mean, there's damage done to the planet.
Use this kind of thinking that is seductive.
We should never have built the first house in this country because something got destroyed to do it, something necessary to prolong life.
Right.
They don't want us cutting down trees now.
Of course, well, beautiful things happen when you do cut them down.
You get baseball batch, you get houses, you get all kinds of things.
And trees are a renewable resource.
Common sense.
Common sense.
And don't forget that the people trying to make you feel guilty are a bunch of liberals.
And if you keep that in mind, you'll have a healthy skepticism about what they say.
And that's all I'm saying.
That's my call for you to elucidate this subject for me so that I feel better informed now.
I'm happy to have helped.
I'm a little long in this segment, folks.
I deeply apologize, but I, as host, considered it to be worthwhile.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay right where you are.
Don't believe Rush Limbaugh or Factcheck.org when they debunk our ads.
Our ad ran on CNN, so it must be true.
Not only did Judge John Roberts defend an abortion clinic bomber, but Judge Roberts drove the bomber to the clinic himself.
Drove it.
And used his own cell phone to trigger the explosion.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq.
Stop Judge Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court before he kills again.
For my George Soros and they're all friends of Nazi Pelosi.
All right, we'll see what we get there.
All right, folks, this is really, I'm just sorry.
I went so long the previous segment.
I have to stop again for a sponsor timeout.
And I try not to do this, but it was felt it was on a roll.
It was important to continue this.
I hope you understand a woman's life in the environment.
We're on the line, and I have the saver.
We'll be back after this.
A couple of questions I want you to chew on, folks.
If we didn't refine oil and burn it, essentially, what else would we do with it?
What's it for?
Senator Cole, if we didn't burn coal, what else would we do with it?
▲
Export Selection