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 uh DittoCam?
Yeah, it's good.
So greetings back, uh greetings and welcome back, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
We're 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 uh the poll numbers on the war, uh, they're down.
The poll numbers on the decision to go to war are down.
They pull 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's good because it's good.
Everybody knows the economy is good.
So what if the war were going as good as the economy?
Uh because you know the the latest preoccupation with the mainstream media is welly there, Mabel.
Oh, the economy is just just token run along.
Why, the economy's 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's 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 uh 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 a 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.
So should it should a nation have to coexist with BS polls?
Should a war effort have to suffer Barbara Streisand 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, is going badly, it'll get worse.
Really?
Really?
The same crowd reports in similar polls that the economy's 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 high-tech bubble burst.
He got you've got these negative uh uh 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.
There, in fact, I'm gonna 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 Republicans 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.
Meet Media Creates New Star, Mother Camping Outside Crawford.
This is this she-hand babe who is who is who's, you know, become now a tool of the left.
Then you've got this silly head, 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, uh, 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 Glamon to get the press on their side.
The last time the Stones came out with a tour, but he made fun of them.
The press made fun of them.
The press laughed at Jagger's Wrinkles.
The press laughed when they drove that Cadillac across the uh, 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.
Uh 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 she's with the NARAL babes today.
I mean, it's oh, she's as 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 Shepherd.
Noel Shepherd is um an economist.
He's a business owner, and he contributes to the uh 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 uh I uh 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 rain 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 the almost suffocating chicken little motif.
Here it hears how this 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 a rock 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.
Said Adam Judas.
We're spending too many lives, resources, and money on a rock.
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 uh an interview with uh uh let's see, a nurse, uh 51-year-old Peg Dameron, Gilderlin, New York, said she voted for Bush in 2000, but is disenchanted over a rock, health care 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's show today, Katie Currick, all happy.
This is the funny thing about it now.
The media is all happy to report this glowing economic news.
If you watch a Today Show today or read any of your papers, they're going, you know, ball hell pedal of the metal to report all this great economic news, and then they smile and they they just ask their guests, why isn't President Bush getting credit for this?
Fred, why is it President Bush getting credit for this, Amos, or whoever the guest is?
Oh, possibly the economy is not that good.
I gasoline prices, instability, like of.
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 didn'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 grand 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 that just isn't being reported?
Hmm.
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 um 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, and 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 this is the crazy thing.
People's confidence is such that they're out there ex making the economy what it is, because a strong economy is nothing more than all of us engaging in commerce and doing so uh with vigor.
And yet at the same time, many of you are feeling pessimistic and down and uh 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.
And 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, um, it is a testament here, folks, to the importance of optimism.
A testament to the importance of of uh being up and of uh and of good cheer.
And if somebody wants to throw a negative party, just I'm not playing, I'm not gonna go.
Don't invite me.
I'm not gonna participate.
It's like our old advice.
If they're gonna somebody's gonna 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 gonna 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 anchor man now on the EIB network.
And we go to Whitney in Roanoke, Virginia.
I'm glad you uh 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 gonna present it, but it seems like to me that you just dismiss uh the 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?
Uh 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 but I I don't believe uh that uh uh there are any harbingers of doom and gloom in the environment out there.
So you don't believe in global warming.
No or that uh the large ozone hole.
Oh no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Or that that humans created the ozone.
No, no.
Destruction of the ozone.
No, no, no, no.
I don't because it the whole the whole closes every year and and we don't do anything to close it.
Um so how are we causing it?
It's the same thing the the whole vortex and uh you know spinning earth sort of theory.
Yeah, well, I and that's maybe pseudo-scientific.
I I just you know it I just want you to clarify your position on the environment.
I mean, you hate the environment.
You know, th this is I'm I'm glad you call.
I really am, and I would love to talk to you about this.
Mm-hmm.
Uh so we're we're going to.
Um no, I don't hate the environment.
I don't hate anything.
Well, that's right, you're an optimist.
I am 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 gonna 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 uh opposed to capitalism.
Well, I think that's where I'm confused is the terminology.
To me, conservation is not a liberal concept.
And uh uh it seems like being conservative with your decisions about the environment that's not the responsible.
The thing you have to understand is uh the the the environmentalists are not concerned about the environment.
Right.
The environmentalists are using the environment as a platform to attack a way of life they disagree with.
Right.
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?
Right.
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.
And we make Well, then how in 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 and responsible stewardship over it.
But but normal economic or environmental cycles, for example, go look at the uh if you could find it, go look at a uh 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 uh as they do today.
Oh, sure.
Sure, but there's seven billion or six billion more people.
It seems like the cause and effect of that alone, without even the industry side of it, it's gonna have an environmental impact.
Uh well, you know, Paul.
A million anything has an impact I would think.
I mean, isn't it I I just wonder if it is it responsible to or wise to err on the side of caution as far as the environment.
You look it, we're gonna have a disconnect here because you're feeling about this.
Yeah.
And I'm thinking about it.
Right.
Well, you're right.
And 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.
You're they aren't mine.
I can't, I'm not responsible for your feelings, so I can't talk you out of them.
Right.
But if you wanted to think about this rationally rather than feel about that's the appeal of the environmental movement.
They want you to feel like, oh my God, we're destroying this great place.
I'll tell I don't believe we have the ability to destroy it.
Right.
Now I I gotta you interested in continuing this?
Sure.
Okay, well hang on to the brick and 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.
Cell Rush Ball here and the excellence in broadcasting network.
And we uh we go back to Whitney in uh in Roanoke, Virginia.
I trust you're still there.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Uh let me just say a couple of things here.
Um, because you you want it 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 uh as you keep listening, you'll be able to put the comments that I make about all this in into context and into perspective.
The first thing in 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 written what I've I've read what they have written.
I have I have uh debunked so much of what they have said.
Michael Crichton has written a book called State of Fear, in which he documents the um the way they lie, the way they make things up, the way they uh basically exist as fundraising organizations, and they they try to fear uh make people f afraid.
They use fear to raise money.
They're also anti-capitalists.
Uh they they do not desire uh uh 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.
Uh six years later, I'm watching ABC's this week with David Brinkley and a scientist named Michael Ipe Oppenheimer is saying we've only got twenty years just to stop global warming.
If if we don't we it and and Brinkley said, Well, can you prove it's happening now?
He said, No, but we need twenty more years, but we don't have time to wait those twenty years because if we don't act now, it's gonna be too late.
So twenty 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 uh 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 this in the world, uh 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 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 Uh well, you mean with coffee machines and car exhaust and all the no I mean atmospheric ozone, that's where the ozone hole is.
Do you know how that ozone's created?
Uh no.
The sun the sun the the the sun manufactures it interacting with other elements in the right.
Right with oxygen and creates O three.
Right.
Right.
So let's let's assume that President Bush wanted uh all Democrats to get skin cancer.
So he orders the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to destroy the ozone layer.
Right.
You we couldn't do it.
If we wanted, it wouldn't just give the 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 if we we would have to put that 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 the Reagan signing the Montreal protocol, you know, ending CFT production or restricting it at least.
Uh Uh it it's all irrelevant to me.
The ozone hole closes.
When's the last time you heard about the ozone hole is a big issue?
No, I've got to be able to do that.
It's been years, and all we've done is drive more cars, burn more fuel, we cool and do these things 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 it's if there's nothing we can do to stop it, then there's no way we could have caused it.
Right.
Because if if if it if we caused it, we simply stop what we're doing to cause it.
And they say it's too late.
Right.
These are just fear-mongering people who are on the left who are turning this whole issue into a uh 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 think is destruction.
I think she saw development.
You know, you go go by, if 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 on a handbasket.
Right.
Well, by the same to by the same token, when you're flying over the earth, and I've do this all the time, and you see uh rivers and streams after heavy rain, they're always brown.
The Mississippi River is brown as it can be after heavy rain.
The idea that rivers and streams are blue these days is that 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?
Right.
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 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, uh, in this country and around the world in democracies, uh are cleaning up their messes uh as fast as we make them.
We are making uh uh in fact, guess that just the other day, what are we to make of this, Whitney?
Some 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 it's 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 you can but there are fish if you go above it, right?
Right.
So my 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?
Uh no.
No, really.
No.
Are they finding a bunch of dead fish floating in the river?
Uh no, they just don't live there.
They've moved away.
Or there's carts.
I mean, then you are you're not going to eat that.
I guess you could.
I mean, it is a very good thing.
If there's if there's ramp if there's rampant fish death, and I keep hearing this, I want to see the bodies.
Right.
Well, no, I do.
I do.
I'm not looking, I'm just telling you, I'm I I don't believe liberals, Whitney, and you shouldn't either.
Whether they're talking about the economy, whether they're talking about abortion, or they're talking about Judge Roberts or they're talking about the environment, because it's all aimed at advancing a liberal agenda, which is a 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 what's wrong with that?
They're cleaning up the money.
No, I mean that's great.
I mean, I I 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 the what they say is the reason.
They're blaming the United States for all this pollution.
Right.
Look at the Kyoto Protocol.
China the is 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.
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, uh our money with their hands in our back pockets or what have you.
But look, I want to get sidetracked here.
I let me give you my fundamental reason for this.
Politics aside.
Okay.
And and I'm just gonna get as as personal as I can here with you.
Appeal to my emotion rush.
Pardon?
No, I'm not gonna no, I'm not gonna appeal to your emotion.
All right.
Uh well, I don't know where I'm gonna appeal to.
I'm just gonna tell you why I don't believe this stuff.
Okay.
I believe in creation.
I believe in God.
I 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 scrap.
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 spermazoid chromozoics, and then we've came out of the ocean, we had to walk four legs and two legs, but nobody really knows for sure.
We have these theories.
Uh there were the other day some theory was was just debunked big time, and and and I don't remember at 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, you 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 uh 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 uh above my ability to comprehend.
Look at how Eileen Collins, the shuttle astronaut, spoke of how thin the atmosphere is.
All right.
Well, no case.
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.
Right.
That's 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 two billion, three billion people on the planet, there won't be enough food, we'll all starve.
We got six billion people on the planet, and we're still feeding them.
There are places around well, but it's not it's not the fault of the planet, and it's not because it's the fault of local governments who don't give people the freedom to exist in a capitalistic free market economy.
But the 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 by singing a bunch of songs on a weekend.
But my my point is easy for them, they're millionaires.
Take a 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.
It's pretty delicate.
If we were ninety 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 uh 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 in within that context, it is so uh 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 a couple of million miles in the in the relationship to the whole universe is nothing.
I mean, it's 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 uh necessities for life and the sun to find this duplicated somewhere gonna be pretty statistically difficult.
I just don't believe that we have the ability to just damage?
Yes.
Can we fix the damage?
Yes.
But can we stop the cycles that are gonna 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 that uh 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.
Uh and then we had stories years ago about how islands were sinking so fast in the sea because the ozone hole and people are 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.
So and by the way, when it gets to 100 degrees in the summertime, what's the first thing people think?
Ooh, 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 is common sense.
Common sense.
Of course you can you look at this could go on forever.
But common sense there you you could no, but I mean you you could you could certainly uh engage uh in in some destructive things, but does 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 that uh 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 bats, 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.
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 Limbo.
Limbaugh.
Well, fact check.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.
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.
All right, we'll see when we get there.
All right.
Folks, this is still really I I I'm I'm just sorry.
I went so long uh uh the previous segment, I have to stop again for uh for a uh sponsor timeout.
Uh and I I try not to do this, but it was the felt it was on a roll, it was important to continue this.
I hope you understand a woman's life and the environment were on the line, and I have to say her.
We'll be back after this.
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