All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
January 6, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, we're back.
Great to have you with us, El Rush Ball, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's Friday.
We move on.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Yip, yahoo.
Ditto camming at rushlimbaugh.com for those of you who are subscribers.
And if you're just joining us and haven't been here in a while, we're video podcasting every day now.
In addition to the audio podcasts of every day's program, every afternoon, we send down a video podcast of the morning update.
I do that.
I record that right after the program's over.
And we do it on the DittoCam.
And they're good.
They're funny.
In fact, I got a lot of feedback on today's.
We need an investigation into the safety of journalists.
Touting mine safety.
More journalists are dying every year than miners, folks.
And nobody's talking about this because nobody cares, but I do.
And it was our morning update.
If you're at rushlimbaugh.com, if you don't do the podcast, you can see it.
Still watch it.
If you're a member, just go to the section in the upper right-hand corner of the website.
Not the ad strip, but the upper right-hand corner of the content page.
And you will just click on the right link, and you'll be able to watch the morning update every day if you don't want to download it automatically as podcast.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Mr. Snerdley, a lot of people apparently watching on the Ditto Cam wondered what in the heck I was so worked up about during the break.
Why don't you share that with us instead of just telling your staff on the other side of the glass?
Okay, I'm sitting here ravaged with the common flu virus, a fever today of 101.
I still got little aches all over the place, but I am here because I'm committed to service of humanity.
All right, we were talking about the NFL.
This is a wild card weekend, as you know, coming up.
But one of the big bits of news here is that the Chiefs, Kansas City Chiefs and the New Jersey Jets, have come to an agreement on compensation for Herman Edwards should he leave the head coaching position of the Jets to go join the Chiefs.
Now, what I was telling Snerdley was that I read the New York sports pages every day.
I read the daily news.
I read the New York Post.
And for how many years Edwards has been at the Jets?
And they haven't won diddly squat.
They got close to the playoffs championship game last year, but the kicker blew two kicks against the Steelers.
And they went into this season with the greatest of expectations.
Everybody gets hurt, and they're a 4-12 team.
And Herm says, I want a contract extension.
Herm says, I want more money.
I'm only being paid $2 million a year.
I want to stay.
I want to build this team, blah, Now, during this, whatever it is, four or five years at Herman Edwards, and I have no brief for Herman.
I don't know him.
But during these four or five years he's been there, you haven't found a negative word about Herman Edwards in the New York media.
They love Herman.
He's the greatest motivator.
He's a great, he's just a great guy.
Great quotes, great press conference.
Oh, we love Herm is always referred to as Herm.
Not Coach Edwards, not Coach Herman, but Herm.
They loved Herm.
Never, the Jets have been no different under Herman Edwards than they've been under any other coach.
They never won diddly squat.
They're an embarrassing team.
They are the laughingstock of New York, but never once was Herm Edwards associated with.
He was a great guy.
He was greater than any coach had ever been in New York, Herman Edwards.
Until two days ago.
Now that Herm wants to leave the Jets and go to the Chiefs, the same New York media, he's the worst coach that's ever been here.
He hasn't won Diddley Squad.
Who does he think he is?
All he wants is the money.
He doesn't care about the Jets.
He doesn't care about New York.
He doesn't care about us.
He doesn't care about the team.
All he wants is the money.
If the Chiefs want to hire a 4-12 loser, let them have a 4-12 loser.
Him again, big Herman Edwards, three yards in a cloud of dust.
He'll take the great kids of the offense and he'll turn it into zip zero nada, just like he made the Chiefs' office.
I said, wait a minute.
For four years, this guy walked on water, could do no wrong.
Now he's going to leave the great New York media, which did nothing but stroke him and load him up with praise and confidence.
And this is the thanks they get.
Herman Edwards, it just means he wants the money.
He cares about nothing else but the money.
He doesn't care about the Jets.
He said last week he was going to be here for the law.
He was lying.
I have never seen such turnaround.
I have never in my life seen such a turnaround.
Guy has gone from godlike status.
He may as well now be Satan's number one assistant.
It's just comical.
I'm sorry.
It's just comical.
I get the biggest charge out of watching these supposedly smarter than everybody else, members of the media.
I don't care if it's news, economics, sports.
They are all cut from the same cloth.
And good ridden, see you, Herm.
And now they're ripping the Chiefs and being a bunch of idiots for wanting this guy.
Yet just last week, Woody, please make a deal, Woody Johnson owner, please make it to keep Herm here.
Herm's great, blah, blah, blah.
What?
What?
Oh, parody.
There is no parody.
There is no parody in it.
Don't get me started on parody.
There's no parody in the NFL.
It's the biggest myth in the world.
There's always, you have to have, if a bunch of teams are going to go 11-5, 12-4, 10-6, you're going to have to have some 4-12 teams.
There's no parody in the NFL.
I mean, you can't say there's parody in the NFL when different teams are making the playoff rotation every year and there's a surprise team every year comes out of nowhere.
By the way, here's another interesting story.
There's a new coach at the Minnesota Vikings.
His name is Brad Childress.
And one of the reasons he was hired, because Philadelphia is close to the water, and the Minnesota Vikings need a coach with familiarity with water where boats float and go on trips, so forth.
His name is Brad Childress.
He's the offensive coordinator for the Philadelphia Eagles.
And I swear to you, I'm reading a story about this.
I think it was from some Minnesota paper.
And there's right in the middle of the story, Childress is no stranger to controversy.
While as the offensive coordinator of the Philadelphia Eagles, he was brought into the controversy that interrupted when Rush Limbaugh claimed that Donovan McNabb was not as good as everybody thought that he was just getting media preferential treatment.
So they're even trying to say their new coach has even got experience in controversy because of me and the movie.
He was drawn into defending McNabb during all of this.
I just, I don't know, I get the biggest kick out of it.
Andy McCarthy today, and actually another piece I want to share with you, Clarice Feldman.
She writes some great stuff, by the way, the AmericanThinker.com, one of our favorite blogs here.
Andy McCarthy, former United States attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Manhattan.
Andy tried several cases against terrorists.
He was, in fact, I think he was involved in the case of the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rachman.
And he's now a writer and senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Has his piece at National Review online today.
Now judges are leaking.
FISA judges discuss NSA surveillance with the Washington Post.
On Thursday morning, the Washington Post published an article that is jaw-dropping in the matter of factness with which reports and which are with which reports on an outrageous impropriety by at least two FISA court judges.
Now, the backdrop is that of the 11 judges who sit on the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, only one, the Chief Judge Colleen Kohler-Catelli, was briefed by administration officials about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program prior to its exposure last month by the New York Times.
Now, at least some of the other judges are upset about this.
Consequently, the administration has evidently agreed to brief the full court next Monday.
The paragraph that will be stunning to litigators and honorable federal judges is the following.
Some judges who spoke on the condition of anonymity yesterday said that they want to know whether warrants they signed were tainted by the NSA program.
Depending on the answers, the judges said that they could demand some proof that wiretap applications were not improperly obtained.
Defense attorneys could have a valid argument to suppress evidence against their clients, some judges said, if information about them was gained through warrantless eavesdropping that was not revealed to the defense.
This is eye-popping on several different levels.
First of all, judges speaking to the press regarding matters that may end up in litigation is always a major impropriety, regardless of what kind of matters are involved.
Canon 3 of the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct expressly admonishes, quote, a judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control.
This is so elementary to fairness and impartiality, the hallmarks of the judicial function, that it's almost surprising to find a rule about it.
But let's leave that aside for a second.
These are the judges of the FISA court.
Of the hundreds of federal judges in the United States, there are, as already noted, less than a dozen specially chosen for these weighty responsibilities.
They are selected largely because they are thought to be of unquestionable rectitude, particularly when it comes to things like leaking to the press.
To find federal FISA court judges leaking to the Washington Post about an upcoming closed meeting with administration officials about the highest classified matters of national security in the middle of a war is simply shocking.
And even more mind-blowing is to find them discussing what they see as the merits of the issue without having heard any facts or taken any submissions on the governing law.
And in the cowardice of anonymity, here they are speculating for the media about what positions they might take depending on how the administration answers their questions.
Here they are preliminarily weighing in on the validity of defense claims in cases where FISA evidence was introduced.
This is inexplicable judicial misconduct.
If a judge pulled a stunt like this in a run-of-the-mill criminal case, it would be grounds for his removal.
To have FISA court judges doing it is astounding.
The administration would be well within its rights to decline to provide the briefing the FISA court has asked for, at least until the judges who spoke anonymously to the press come forward and explain themselves, if there can be any explanation for this.
A major problem of the whole FISA enterprise is the questionable constitutionality, not to mention the wisdom, of Congress's delegating judges who have no particular expertise by virtue of being judges to exercise what our executive branch national security powers, and amen to that.
We've got enough trouble with judges around the country in normal cases trying to take over the role of commander-in-chief or take away powers from the president that are granted by the Constitution under the Commander-in-Chief auspices.
And here we go, Congress appointing people who have no experience in it whatsoever because they're judges to exercise executive branch national security powers.
So regardless of what you think of FISA, judges who leak anonymously to the press on matters of this nature are unfit to sit on a national security court and note who's making them heroes.
Now, if we're going to have investigations, these FISA judges need to be investigated by Congress.
Arlen Specter needs to get going on this because I think McCarthy's exactly right.
This conduct is not just unethical, it's extremely unethical.
These judges would be removed.
Were any judge to talk like this about any case that is pending or taking place before him, he'd be gone.
Why do we assume that these judges serving on a secret court are any less activist and leftist than those who serve on regular federal courts?
In fact, we know that they are as activist.
There was one judge who resigned this court in a big show.
What was it, two weeks ago?
I forget this guy's name, Wacko, some absolute wacko resigned over something to do with this case, and it was a big cause celeb.
But these judges operate in secret.
Nobody seems to give a damn about that.
And Congress ought to bring them all before a committee and put them under oath and ask these judges if they've had anything to do with providing information to the press about the NSA project or if they had anything to do with this Washington Post piece.
Because I'm going to tell you, now they're leaking to the Washington Post.
First off, it was Ryzen and the New York Times.
Now there's a whole bunch of people leaking.
Some of them are in Congress.
Now we know some of these judges are talking anonymously.
All this talk about the law and the rule of law, it appears we have some judges operating in secret who think they run the country because they're a secret court and they get away with doing it.
They can even talk about what they're doing anonymously because it's secret.
If you ask me, and I know you are asking because I have empathy, and I know you're sitting out there, you're listening, and you are asking me, the only person right now in our government who is acting constitutionally is the president.
He has his commander-in-chief powers.
These judges have no role in warmaking.
Congress can only declare war or fund it, but they have no role either.
They can ask for all the right to participate with their resolutions and all, but they can't do diddly squat to start or stop a war.
All they can do is not fund it.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
I also mentioned Clarice Feldman, the American thinker.
She's written an open letter to the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, quoting extensively from the Andy McCarthy piece at National Review Online I just read to you.
She says, twice in recent days, we have seen published evidence of unethical conduct warranting disciplinary action on the part of FISA judges.
Since they have hidden their conduct under a cloak of anonymity, the normal process of filing complaints with the clerk of the FISA court is unavailing.
Therefore, I ask that you immediately institute an investigation to find out which judges are involved and seek appropriate measures to remove or discipline the judges involved.
And then she cites the Ryzen December 16th, 2005 story in the New York Times.
The relevant paragraph there.
According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John Rockefeller.
And of course, we made the point that how will anybody know that if his letter that he wrote to himself was secret?
So I have questions about Rockefeller and a judge, she said, presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence.
That's the FISA court, obviously.
So somebody on the court spoke to James Risd.
And now somebody on the court anonymously, one or two judges, is talking to the Washington Post.
So Clarice Feldman sends the open letter to Alberto Gonzalez, and it closes this way.
I urge you to act promptly and put the reporters and FISA judges under oath to get to the bottom of this apparent flagrant abuse of office.
Damn right.
Folks, this is an ongoing, now very public effort to undermine our ability to wage war against this enemy.
And we've got to find, hey, look, we've already got a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who says, I'll put reporters in jail if they don't give up the goods.
So, hey, let's subpoena Risen, bring these people in, find out who's doing this, because these are clear violations.
Plus, in all this, this FISA court being built up to mythical status as though it's untouchable and the final authority.
This thing is being portrayed as even more powerful than the Supreme Court.
And it's not.
Darren in Canada.
I'm glad you waited.
I appreciate your patience.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Russia.
I'm just wondering if I could have your opinion on an article I read.
Life on the left just got a lot scarier, according to my newspaper this morning.
According to a Stanford University physicist and environmental scientist, Ken Caldera, he's discovered that actually forests may contribute to global warming.
And as I'm reading this, I thought, man, I'd love to hear Russia's opinion on this.
They did a simulation where they ran a computer simulation where they covered the North American continent with forests, and they actually discovered that the surface temperature jumped by three degrees Celsius.
That's even more Fahrenheit.
And what they've discovered is, according to him, and I quote him, he talks about how, in other words, dark forests absorb the sun's energy like a black car in a sunny parking lot.
And then here's the hypocrisy that made me laugh out loud.
That said, Mr. Caldera said, I still think that we should protect forests because, I quote, I like forests.
They provide good habitats for plants and animals.
So in other words, even though forests, he said, absorb energy and then actually release it and make the earth warmer.
Having said that, they're still a good thing because I like them because they're nice things.
All right.
All right.
Two things on this come to mind.
First, there isn't anything that doesn't cause global warming today, and there's no natural disaster or climactic climatic event that is not the result of it.
Snowstorms in December, global warming.
More hurricanes than ever, global warming.
Dolphins not doing what we think they should do, global warming.
Penguins not being able to reproduce as easily in the global warming.
Now everything is said to cause it, and it's always man-made, and it's always supposed to be weird destroying the planet.
There's nothing we can do about it, by the way.
We've gotten to that point now.
That's number one.
And I've got a break coming.
Can you hold on to the break here, Darren, because I've only got five seconds here before I have to go to that break.
Sure.
Yay, it's good.
We'll be back.
We'll continue.
Because I got the story here, too.
And I saw the quotes that you read.
And the whole thing's laughable.
I mean, what good of this guy's research?
And how much does he believe it if he'll chuck it?
Back in just a sec.
Okay, we're back on Open Line Friday.
Got Darren from Canada with us.
Let me give you a little bit more detail about the story.
It is from the Canwest News Service.
Forests may contribute to global warming.
Study little cooling moisture.
Premature at least to plant new trees to cool the earth.
That's a bad idea.
People think we need to plant more forests.
One of the environmentalists wackos, we've got to plant more forests.
We need more photosynthesis.
We need to convert more CO2 to oxygen.
Blah, And it starts out this way.
Canada's forests may actually be worsening global warming rather than cooling the planet, says a controversial study by a Stanford University physicist.
Doesn't mean we should start bulldozing the forest to fight global warming, though, because forests are still valuable ecological features in many ways.
Really?
Foresters, did you know that forests are still valuable, still valuable ecological features?
But we say it's premature at best and even dead wrong to plant new forests and maintain existing ones in the belief that this will cool the earth.
Now, Darren got it right.
They actually say that they did a computer model and they flooded the region.
What was it?
The team covered much of the northern hemisphere.
with forests and they saw a jump in surface air temperature of nearly three degrees Celsius because the theory is that dark forests, the dark trees, the leaves, absorb the sun's energy like a black shirt or sweater that you would be wearing and don't reflect the heat back.
And as such, that's causing global warming.
Now, my first observation, Darren, and by the way, thanks for holding on.
My first observation is, well, there goes the whole theory of man-made global warming because there's more forested area of the United States today than there was when we were founded.
Do you know Thomas Sowell had a great piece, and I didn't get to it yesterday, but I've got it somewhere over there in one of those stacks.
It was all about how the greens, the greenies around the world in this country, are lying about how we're exploiting land and we're running out of land.
He said the percentage of the country that is urban developed is 5%.
And you know, if you look, if you look at a nighttime satellite shot of the Earth with the cities on the east and west coast lights lit up, you can see where people in the country live.
I think 90% of the population lives near the water, including rivers.
So, which makes sense.
That's always the way humans have settled.
So it means that whatever we're doing, I mean, if that much forested area can raise temperatures three degrees Celsius, then what does it mean to everything else?
CO2s, fluoro, chloroflorbins, whatever they are, irrelevant, chloro-fluorocarbons, irrelevant.
But then, as Darren points out, the guy goes on to say, you know, even despite this, I want forests protected.
I like forests.
They provide good habitats for plants and animals.
So now, what did you say your reaction to that was when you read it?
Well, it was the hypocrisy of it all.
If we were talking about SUVs, then if they're causing global warming, you get rid of them, you outlaw them.
But forests are causing it, but I like them because they're warm and fuzzy.
Well, SUVs keep my kids safe.
Exactly right.
Exactly.
So he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
If he really has this earth-shattering discovery, and if global warming is being pretended as the catastrophe, and it is, it's being portrayed as the catastrophe.
They're going to wipe us all out.
Well, that's okay.
We should be wiped out because we need to save the forests for the habitat for plants and animals.
But you know, Rush, I almost felt a wave of pity after I read it because I thought, these guys have nothing left to hug.
They hug trees and they stab them in the back.
What's left to hug?
Hug trees, stab them in the back.
Yep, that's it.
The latest culprit, forests.
And look, let's take it down to even a more root level, if you will allow me.
The real culprit is leaves.
The real culprit is leaves, because that's what provides the dark portion of a forest that allows the heat to be trapped.
Snerdley says he saw a National Geographic show last week that the Earth's core is slowing and that that's creating global warming.
The core?
The core where we've never been, we've never been to the core of the earth, other than in a movie where James Mason and the duck.
I remember that disaster movie voyage to the center of the earth.
Yeah, well, that's the only time we've ever journeyed to the center of the earth.
That's the only time we've ever been there, and that was in a movie.
So essentially, we've never been there.
So the Earth's core is slowing, and that's going to create global cooling.
It is the Earth is now cooling.
National Geographic, the Earth is cooling because the Earth's core is slowing down.
And we're all doomed.
And yet, and yet, with all the forestation out there, that's why temperatures are rising.
You know, as we're all doomed, we're all doomed because global warming is happening.
The Arctic ice sheet, but this is not true either.
The Arctic ice sheet's getting bigger.
A lot of glaciers are getting bigger out there.
The wackos are trying to put out pictures that show it getting smaller.
But now we've got global cooling because the core is slowing down.
Yeah, but that's the same bunch that let those penguins die.
If it was National Geographic, it was the same bunch that during March of the Penguins let those three penguins die because it wasn't their role.
They're filming nature and they're filming an episode here to show us how man-made global warming is impacting negatively species on the planet.
I'm going to chronicle it of penguins.
Penguins are three feet in the ravine.
Just go down there and get them.
Three feet down.
It was a pet duck.
Ducks served like a canary into mine, I guess.
That's why you take it to the center of the earth.
Animals were popular in movies back then.
I'm going to have to order that movie.
That was a fun movie.
Scary.
Dinosaurs down there, all kinds of stuff.
It was.
But nevertheless, folks, it's always been a joke.
All of this global warming, hysteria, global cooling, it's always been a joke.
We might be warming up.
We might be cooling.
I don't know which is which, but whatever, it's because of forces way beyond our control.
We're not in charge of it.
We're not responsible for it.
We can't start it.
We can't fix it.
We can't stop it, so we can't cause it.
If we were causing global warming, we could stop it, and we can't.
If our actions are creating more violent hurricanes, we can stop what we're doing to cause.
We can't.
So therefore, we can't cause these things.
By the way, Forbes magazine, January 9th, issued.
Forbes, by the way, one of my all-time favorite magazines.
Bye-bye, Kyoto.
One thing George W. Bush got exactly right was Kyoto.
The treaty isn't working, and a lot of folks who bought into it are now looking for an exit strategy.
This is by Dan Seligman.
Final paragraph: after many years of European chatter about the monstrous evil perpetrated by Bush rejecting Kyoto, it is of possible interest that the increase in carbon emissions in the U.S. during those years was slightly lower than it was elsewhere where they were actually obeying the Kyoto Protocol.
Nations that obeyed the Kyoto Protocol put more pollutants and garbage into the atmosphere.
In fact, here's the way it starts: the year just ended was a fateful time for the Kyoto Protocol.
It was the year in which the treaty negotiated in 97 formally took effect.
It was in February.
It was also the year in which Kyoto became operational, i.e., a whole bunch of rules were adopted at a conference in Montreal.
That was in November.
Finally, 2005 was the year in which it became painfully obvious the treaty was a fiasco.
It was obvious to some of us long before the results were in.
We understand liberals.
We understand who these madcap environmentalist activists are.
They're simply displaced communists.
They're anti-corporate zealots.
They're anti-capitalist.
It's real simple.
Once you know who they are, you can take what they say and put it through that filter and you can answer every objective they claim to have.
Steve in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Great to have you with us on the program.
Steve, hello.
Good morning.
Hi, how are you, Steve?
Fine.
I was a 1970 when I graduated after 18 years of secular education.
I was a staunch greenie because of my tetra education.
For over 30 years, I've been a marine biologist, ecologist, systematist, earth scientist.
And one thing, the greenies are really blowing it.
They're really blowing it because, you know, solar energy is supposed to be the panacea, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, where are they putting the big panels?
They're putting them out in the deserts, right?
All the wasteland.
The deserts actually reflect heat, solar energy, back out into space and keep a balance of heat on the earth.
When you put the panels in the deserts, they're absorbing the heat and keeping it on the earth.
Well, isn't that the idea, though?
You need to keep the solar system.
No, the solar panels convert heat to electrical energy.
Yeah, because it's also keeping a lot more heat than normally would be kept on the earth.
So the greenies are actually polluting the earth by putting solar panels out in the deserts.
Okay, slow down for a second.
I'm not an expert on solar panels except in this one.
When I bought my first house in Sacramento, I was required to have them on there.
Right.
So they were on the house.
And solar panels in small areas actually can affect the microclimate because it's actually absorbing more solar energy on the Earth than normally would be kept on the Earth.
It's actually capturing it.
Okay, well, that was my question.
But before I get to the question, all I was told was this is going to reduce your consumption of electricity and it didn't.
Well, yeah, it will.
But the biggest problem is putting all the solar panels out onto all the deserts because the deserts are responsible for reflecting a lot of energy back out into space or heat so that the Earth doesn't heat up too much.
Right.
Okay, let's go.
When we put solar panels out there, the Earth will heat up, not to mention the plan on putting solar panels out in space to make the Earth look bigger and then projecting the heat back down to Earth.
That'll certainly overheat the Earth by doing that.
Right.
Okay.
Hang on a second here.
Now, let me, because let's put this in the context of the previous call.
We just had the story about the Stanford scientist who has discovered that forestation actually absorbs heat and is actually increasing global warming because the dark color of the leaves is like a black car, black shirt.
So the reason I can't buy into that is because the deserts are very massive, especially in the southern hemisphere, and they are reflecting a lot of energy back out into space.
And over the time, the Earth has warmed up and cooled down in an oscillation fashion.
And any given decade, we could be in a slight warming or slight cooling, but the Earth is not warming up overall.
There's no doubt about that in my mind.
That's right, because what you're saying here is that the desert counteracts what happens in the forest.
The Earth has these ecosystems that work naturally.
I've even read that when they were worried about all the clear cutting down on the Amazon.
Oh, no, we're destroying the great ecosystem that gives us the Panama Canal.
You're going to totally goof it up.
No rainfall.
And we found out that Europe all of a sudden magically was growing more forestation.
The Earth competence, it's bigger than we are, folks.
It's bigger than we are.
Well, I have one question for you about your solar panels in the desert.
Now, let me ask the question.
If the solar panels in the desert are robbing the, or are preventing the desert from doing what it normally does, and that's reflecting heat, that's because the solar panels are capturing the heat and holding it.
Yes, they're converting a lot of the heat and the light, actually, to solar, to actual electrical energy.
But in the process, there's also a lot of heat absorption on the Earth that would not normally be there.
Now, that's one problem.
The other big problem is they want to put a whole series of solar panels out in space on both sides of the Earth to make the Earth look a lot bigger so it can capture more solar energy, then beam that heat, that energy, back down to Earth.
Well, that's also going to be heating up the Earth as well.
Yeah.
Well, didn't, what was it?
Somebody, help me out on this, you guys.
There was some idiot that wanted to put a giant mirror somewhere over the northern, over the North Pole or something to warm it up up there to reflect sun.
Remember, we had this story late last year?
It wasn't solar panels.
They wanted to put, they were going to try to put a giant.
Oh, that's right.
They were going to put aluminum foil over the glaciers.
That way they were going to put aluminum foil over the glaciers so the sun wouldn't melt them.
Have you heard that?
There's all kinds of crazy plans.
The problem is this.
If you go back to Earth history, you'll see that the problem is it's stupid.
It's grown and shrunken dramatically over time in an oscillation fashion.
And that's going to happen continually.
Well, that's because it's bigger than we are.
We think we can control all this.
These people are a bunch of ego.
On one hand, they think we're no different than rats and cows and trees.
On the other hand, we are so powerful and we're so vain that we can.
The idea of tin foil on the glacier is just absurd.
Before you even start talking about oscillation.
Oh, this is going to be good.
Prescott, Arizona.
Hello, Phil.
You're next at Open Line Friday.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, how are you?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, yeah.
Hear you fine.
Well, I don't hear you fine.
You sound pretty muscled like you're a muffled like you're on a cheap phone, but I can make it out.
Okay.
Well, what I wanted to talk about was that you were mentioning how Bill Clinton never seemed like he was interested in tackling huge national security issues.
But I've seen an example in the Wen Ho Lee case where they actually railroaded Wen Ho Lee so they could at least look like they were tackling national security.
This is a fascinating case, and I don't think enough people, A, know about it or B, remember it.
Wen Ho Lee, Chinese descent, working out at Los Alamos, right?
Los Alamos Nuclear Lab.
Wen Ho Lee was accused by the Clinton administration of stealing secrets and sending them back to China during the whole period where the Clinton administration was involved in all this funny money coming in from China in the 96 presidential campaign and the John Wong Charlie tree days and all of this.
There was never, this man was kept in jail for I don't know how many months, but at one point when they took him into federal court, a federal judge, and he sent me his book, Wen Ho Lee sent me his book, and it opens with this judge's apology.
The judge, I forget his name, federal district judge, apologized to Wen Ho Lee for everything the United States government had done to him, falsely accusing him, keeping him in jail.
This is unprecedented.
I mean, sometimes charges are dismissed and they're thrown out or what have you.
The judge made it plain that he was apologizing on behalf of the United States government for what had happened to Wen Ho Lee.
And Phil's point here is he's taking off on the opening monologue today, which is the Clinton administration during the 2000 had this CIA plan to try to leak phony information to the Iranians so that when they put their nuclear bomb together, it wouldn't work.
Now, the point of this was that the Clinton administration knew in 2000 and Iranians are working on nuclear weapons.
And they didn't do anything about it.
And they had this CIA plan that was so bad that it was doomed to fail, and it did.
And his point is, Clinton just wanted to look tough on this stuff, just wanted to look big on this.
So we indict Wenho Lee when no evidence, keep him in jail.
And it was worse than what happened to Ray Donovan.
Where do I go to get my reputation back?
And now he's filed a countersuit.
I think the last I heard was he's filed some sort of a countersuit.
But I won't forget what this judge said to him as his book opens, apologizing profusely for the entire U.S. government for what he did.
And of course, you know, the mainstream press and all of Clinton's buddies hardly gave it scant attention.
Folks, this is the bunch that did the Waco invasion, Ruby Ridge.
What other example I'm leaving out, but we talk about civil liberties today and how we're losing them.
That's bunk back just a second.
Stay with us.
Because even with a cochlear implant and only eight electrodes in my ear where you have 40,000 hair cells, I could tell it wasn't compressed.
Got to take a break here, folks.
One hour of Open Line Friday remaining.
▲
Export Selection