All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
June 1, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Remember, my friends, the views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right.
98.5% of the time, I am your host, highly trained broadcast specialist Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from God.
Well, consumers apparently shook off their worries about higher gas prices during May.
Another drive-by media story of an exaggerated reality.
This is magical how this happened.
How did consumers apparently shake off their worries about higher gas prices during May?
What happened to make you people who were upset about high gas prices just shake it off?
Because you went out there shopping with enthusiasm at stores and malls and gave many retailers surprisingly solid results.
How in the world can it continue to be surprising when we get good economic results?
We have been in a roaring economy for I don't know how many months now, and yet the experts continue to be confounded.
This is an AP story, by the way.
A big exception, however, was Walmart stores, whose low-income consumers are feeling the biggest financial squeeze from a $3 a gallon gasoline.
Aside from that, retail sales through the roof.
We had some very nice surprises, particularly in the apparel sector, said an analyst at Thomas Financial.
It means that the consumer is solid.
Despite the worries of gasoline, consumers are still consuming.
It's going to be not too long from now that some Democrats are going to be wailing about too much consuming going on out there, as Ernest Hollings once did.
We need to slow down this economy out there.
We've got too much consuming going on out there.
Said that on Larry King one night.
Shoppers have remained resilient amid gasoline prices that hover around $3 per gallon, but the fear is that consumers will inevitably cut back their fear.
Who's fear?
Who's worried about this?
Nothing but a bunch of economists who are trying to make themselves look like they know what they're talking about.
The results of a 32-nation study of violence against dating partners among university students shows that about one-third are violent with their partner and women are as likely as men to be the perp.
Contrary to the widely held belief that dating violence is a male crime, women do about as much hitting of dating partners as men do, said Dr. Murray Strauss, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire.
At first glance, this may be hard to fathom given what the drive-by media has attempted, along with feminism, to establish as a template in the American people's mind, as in 90% of police reports, it's the male who is the aggressor.
That's because only incidents involving an injury get reported.
Men are more likely to cause an injury than women are.
There's probably another factor here.
Snerdley question.
If you had a girlfriend, that's just a hypothetical.
And let's say you're out on a date and she beats you up, she strikes you and so forth.
Are you going to go tell a cops about it?
Hell no, you won't.
There's no way.
You're not even going to tell your friends.
You fell down the steps or some such thing or you opened a car door into yourself or what have you.
Yeah, Snerdley says he'd be glad foreplay started early.
Anyway, there is the fear factor.
He said, a woman is more likely to get worried or scared when hit by a man and call a cops.
Real men don't do that.
See, I knew it.
I was right even before I knew I was right.
I knew they'd get that in the story.
Florida's governor cautiously entered the debate yesterday over whether rising global temperatures are to blame for an increase in the number of strong hurricanes, meeting with two researchers who say that global warming is threatening Florida with a long-term future of more bad storms.
Jeb Bush met with Peter Webster and Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute for Technology, the GIT.
They published research last year showing an increase in global hurricane intensity with a doubling of the number of category four or five hurricanes since 1970.
That increase coincides with a rise of nearly one degree Fahrenheit in ocean surface temperatures.
By the way, ocean surface temperatures this summer are not supposed to be as quote-unquote scalding as they were last summer.
Curry said, Yeah, it's very complex.
There's one thing, though, that we do know: if you increase these surface temperatures, you're going to get more intense hurricanes.
I think we can say, it's not totally conclusive, but with considerable confidence, that there is this connection between global warming and you people.
I'm going to change my whole tackle.
You people that buy into this are just a bunch of suckers and saps, and you deserve the fear and the panic that you're going to lead your life with.
These people are just absolute nutcases that are running around making these crises.
Crisis after crisis after crisis after crisis.
All calm, by the way, on day one of hurricane season, folks.
But don't take it for granted and don't relax.
All may be calm now, but all hell is going to break out before you know it.
By the way, this is inauguration day for Ray School Bus Nagan down in New Orleans.
This is the first day of hurricane season, and School Bus Nagan's inaugurated for his new term.
There's actually a sad story about New Orleans.
Let me find it here in the stack.
It's all about how, yeah, here we go.
Here's the headline: this is the Boston Globe.
In New Orleans, hopes fade for an end to violence.
As floods ebbed, so did murder rate.
Tehran Peeweed Jackson died in April in a thicket of weeds near a rusted chain-link fence in a part of New Orleans known as Central City.
His body was riddled with bullets.
It appeared to neighbors that Jackson tried to run from his killer and jump the fence just before he was shot.
Police said the retaliation was swift.
The man suspected of killing Jackson was murdered just blocks away the next day.
The bottom line of the story is that crime is creeping back to pre-Katrina levels.
Violence has returned to the city.
There have been 44 homicides so far this year, including 13 in April, 10 in May.
And while these numbers are well down from the 109 that occurred by this time a year ago, the city's population is down as well.
An estimated 221,000 people live in New Orleans now.
And using that estimate and current murder totals, the city would be on pace for 43 murders per 100,000 people in 2006.
2004, the city had 57 murders per 100,000, making it second to Camden, New Jersey.
The FBI will issue numbers for 2005 next month.
It's always sad news to hear about that as they try to recover.
I think I also saw that they've got 400 feet left.
The Corps of Engineers to make the levee repairs here on the first day of hurricane season.
Remember, all quiet on day one.
But don't be lulled, ladies and gentlemen.
Disaster, destruction, pestilence, misery, and despair are guaranteed in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
You heard it here from me, El Rushbo, on the EIB network.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
You know, she went up there, she went up there to Buffalo.
Democrat Party in New York had their annual convention, big convention up there.
She went up there and made it official.
She's running for Senate.
She's using a new campaign video to boast that she has delivered on her promise to bring economic development to upstate New York.
Do you remember her big campaign promise, by the way, from six years ago?
She promised to create 200,000 new jobs, generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York.
You know what the numbers are?
According to Public Policy Institute in Albany, the Empire State has lost 112,000 jobs overall since sending the former first lady to the Senate.
Mrs. Clinton acknowledged her jobs failure in an interview with the Syracuse Post Standard in April, but said it wasn't her fault.
No, I didn't have the benefit of a Democratic Congress, she told the paper.
But I think given the fact that that wasn't the environment that I had hoped for, we've seen some progress.
Yes, we have.
We've only lost 112,000 jobs.
Could have been a lot worse if I'd have had a Democratic Congress who would have run a lot more people out of this state.
Promised 200,000.
Also this, New York state Democrats who nominated Hillary Clinton to run for a second Senate term yesterday closed out their convention by passing a resolution calling the war in Iraq illegal.
Though media reports insist that Mrs. Clinton remains supportive of the war, Democrats gathered in Buffalo this week were seething with anti-war fever.
Even New York Party Chairman Herman Denny Farrell felt compelled to reaffirm his opposition, insisting, quote, everybody's been against the war.
The question is, what do you do to get out of the war?
And while Mrs. Clinton's operatives were successful in beating back a challenge from an anti-war candidate, Jonathan Ticini, they were unable to suppress support for Ticini's position with the Albany Times Union, saying, blah, blah, blah.
Bottom line is, Hillary Clinton can't speak about the war.
She did not talk about it at her convention appearance because the New York Democrats, in fact, they didn't declare this war illegal until she had split the scene, ladies and gentlemen, so as not to embarrass her.
They can't be honest with themselves, much less us.
Okay, back to the phones as we're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have in the process of doing the job the mainstream media used to do.
This is Tony in Kennesaw, Georgia.
Tony, welcome to the program, sir.
Tony?
Yes, sir.
Are you Tony?
No, I'm Lan Jones in Colorado City, Texas.
I'll tell you what, we're going to put you back on hold and find out what you want to talk about, Tony and Ian.
And here's Tony.
Okay, Tony, there you are.
I'm sorry, we got to the wrong line.
Not my fault.
Okay, I was pregnant when I was talking to myself there.
Sometimes it makes more sense than talking to me.
Yes.
I'm just getting sick and tired of the mentality of these New Yorkers and really the liberals as a whole.
Once an amount is awarded to them, they're entitled to it year in, year out, and it can only be increased.
It's grandfathered into their budget.
Where, you know, the comment that you made at the end of the last hour, a lot of the money that was awarded to them previously was for infrastructure improvements that have since been completed.
They don't need that amount anymore.
And, you know, Schumer made the comment because Georgia, we had our Homeland Security budget increased by about 40%, and he said something about the administration obviously thinks more of the Georgia peanut farmers than the citizens of New York.
But what you've got here is a legitimate concern over Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta is the busiest airport in the world.
Is that not a legitimate terror target?
Well, let me tell you this, too, about One of the things they're upset about in New York, like the New York Post cover today is just excellent.
Washington to New York.
Terror, what terror?
Feds slash our funds to boost Hicks in sticks.
Now, they're upset about money going to Wyoming and Kentucky.
Did you know that up until recently, you could go, I'm told that Wyoming did not have any air security, any of the background checks or metal detectors or not nearly like they have at other airports.
It was much easier to board an airplane and go to New York from Wyoming or wherever you want to go than other cities because they had not ramped up their security at Wyoming airports.
Well, Rob, that would be impossible because, you know, it's all been federalized now, and we all know that you can't professionalize until you federalize.
This is a day of absurdities.
Good line.
I don't know if it's true.
I've had a couple emails from people in Wyoming who've made that point.
At any rate, let me tell you, you have to understand New York.
And one of the things that I learned shortly after I got there, and I lived there for eight years, and I still go back.
My condolences.
Oh, no.
You know, New York is, I love it in so many different ways.
But it is the biggest small town in America.
It's amazing how provincial New York is.
Everybody thinks that New York has this screw everybody else attitude that once you go west of the Hudson River, nothing really exists.
And I guess, you know, the headline of the New York Post sort of illustrates that.
But they really, really are provincial.
For example, Marsha Clark.
Marsha Clark, who prosecuted OJ, apparently lived for a day somewhere in New York.
Every time there was a story, not every time, but frequently, Marcia Clark was, her New York experience and how it shaped her life was a central part of many stories.
So New York has this provincial attitude.
Somebody's there for a year or a day and they get famous going somewhere else.
They are a New Yorker, even if they weren't born there.
It's in the sports pages.
It's in the news pages.
It really is.
It's the biggest small town in America in the sense that they have this tremendous pride that everybody who's anybody has to have a New York connection.
If they don't have a New York connection, they're nobody, no matter how big they are.
Well, unless they become an embarrassment and then New York disowns them.
Oh, no.
They embrace their embarrassments.
Well, I guess so.
Oh, no, no.
What do you mean?
Disown them.
With regards to this Homeland Security funding, what I wish we could all embrace is the fact that what they're trying to do is allocate funds based on need instead of based on prior expenditure.
And if the entire federal budget were based that way, where we're going to budget this year based on this year's need, not based on what we spent last year, increased it by some multiple.
Never going to happen.
See, this is a classic illustration of baseline budgeting, by the way.
Here we've established an amount of money that New York is going to get for X, in this case, Homeland Security.
Now, all of a sudden, they've gone in and budgeted this the way you've described budgeting should be done.
Okay, do we need this amount of money?
What was this money spent on last year?
Okay, a lot of it spent on capital improvements, repairs, and so forth.
All right, those have been done.
We don't need to keep spending on them because they've been done.
So we're not going to spend anymore.
Ergo, we get a cut, and everybody is up in arms.
You have cut our budget.
They're still getting more money than anybody else is getting on the Homeland Security budget.
But it just illustrates baseline budgeting in the federal budget.
You're exactly right.
They never look.
Why do you think the food stamp people advertise?
Food Stamp Department advertises in newspapers to solicit customers to come in and get on food stamps because they're afraid their budget will be cut in the ensuing years.
That it won't be because that's not how budgeting works.
There are automatic increases built into the federal budget every year.
That's why this joke of cuts in the federal budget is nothing but a joke.
The budget's never gotten smaller since I've been alive.
It's the attitude that fuels defense contractors to sell $300,000 hammers because at the end of the year, if they didn't spend it this year, they can't get it next year when they might actually need it.
Well, that's not...
You can't turn the amount back in and expect to ever get it again.
Yeah, the $300,000 hammer is simply because they know they'll be paid for it.
I mean, Walmart can't charge $300,000 for a hammer because nobody'd buy one.
But Lockheed Martin can charge $600,000 for a toilet on a C5 because the government's going to pay for it.
And that's Lockheed Martin's exactly the case I was thinking of and one that I'm quite familiar with down here.
And a lot of that is end of the year.
We've got to justify these expenditures or we won't get them next year when we actually need them.
Washington doesn't work that way.
And of course, New York hasn't ever worked that way.
So it is what it is.
And you've got your finger on it.
You've got your finger on the pulse.
I got to run, Tony.
This is Wayne in Trenton, New Jersey.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, I've been listening to you since the late 80s.
And when I heard your take on this Homeland Security, I almost ran a red light.
It's not what you guys think.
And I sell the equipment that they're buying for this.
And it's not like your previous call at all.
All right, so you have a vested interest that goes into these scenarios.
And the problem is that the Bush administration, after 9-11, cut out all the normal grants that the Bush used to buy with.
You there?
Yeah, you're breaking up on me a little bit, but I'm following you.
Yeah, I'm following you.
I just want you to keep going.
I'm not going to let you know.
So the problem is it's only Homeland Security.
There is no way to tap into any other sources to get this equipment.
We are greatly underfunded right now, and I'm sorry that...
What kind of equipment are we talking about here, Wayne?
I love...
Let me just put it this way.
Detection equipment, and when it detects it, to identify what the source is, I can't go into the specifics of it for obvious reasons.
Okay, so you're into the surveillance business.
Detection business and mass transit.
I'm telling you, we are so underprepared.
And the fact that now you're getting a 40% reduction, these agencies can't plan out because they don't know how much they're going to get the next year.
And these programs take one, two, three years just in development, not implementation.
So, I mean, your previous call is taken on it is completely different.
So what you're saying is not only are we not prepared for hurricane season, we're not prepared for the next big attack by terrorists.
The next attack is definitely going to come.
And are we going to stop it as we have stopped other attempts yet?
Okay.
You're breaking up on me again.
Sorry, but I got to go.
Thanks very much, Wayne, for the call.
Well, I guess this Prince Albert guy is a real stud, just announced he's fathered his second love child.
I know.
Oh, no.
Max Mayfield's on.
There's got to be a hurricane somewhere.
CNN has, is there a hurricane out there?
Max Mayfield's on CNN.
This is unprecedented.
Max Mayfield's on, and there's no hurricane.
At least there's, I haven't heard of one.
Fox just ran this map.
AccuWeather's got this map of the areas of country, New York and the upper East Coast.
Very high probability in red that you're going to get creamed.
Goes all the way down around Florida, Gulf of Mexico, as though it's something new.
Look at this headline.
U.S. braces for new hurricane season after a devastating year.
Really?
Are you braced?
A lot of good being braced is going to do anybody.
Are you braced?
I mean, how many people are just out there stopping what they're doing today, bracing for hurricane season?
I will guarantee you that the people who make this country work are out working and going about their normal daily routine, whatever it is, and they are not panting.
Oh my God, it's hurricane season.
Wait, I got to brace.
What do people do when they brace for something anyway?
You stand rigid, you get ready, something's going to hit you.
I guarantee you, nobody's doing it.
It's hyperbole.
Back to New York, this budget cut business.
The favorite word, favorite word, underfunded.
We are underfunded, underfunded on virtually everything.
Can I pose a new, of course I can because I'm hosting it's my show.
Let me pose a new perspective on this, a different way of looking at this.
And it builds upon a brilliant point that I made earlier.
I guess New Yorkers are really worried that we have a problem with terrorism, despite their continual ridicule, liberal New Yorkers, ridiculing Bush and the administration, and Bush lied, and this isn't necessary.
Bush created a terrorist, Bush is this, Bush is that.
The one guy in the country trying to do something about terrorism is the one they criticize.
And now, all of a sudden, when they get slashed 40% of their security budget from Homeland Security, they act like they're really at risk for something up there.
You have to get it straight.
We're either at risk or we're not.
But here's the added angle, ladies and gentlemen.
Why isn't this a civil liberties issue?
I mean, the liberals, New York and everywhere, get all upset.
They just go into a tizzy when we intercept enemy communications or when we try.
We get upset when we put potential terrorists in prison and interrogate them to try to find out when the next attack might be.
And they want to put in jail any members of the military who mistreat prisoners.
Any effort that this country makes in an intelligence gathering way, in a surveillance way, to try to find out when the next attack is going to be so that we can prevent it.
Well, the liberals bloody murder, they start screaming.
All hell breaks loose.
And they accuse Bush of spying on Americans.
And they do what they can.
They get the ACLU and other groups.
And they get motivated, mobilized to stop all of this.
And yet, they have no problem growing the federal government if it means sending money to states to prepare for an attack.
So intelligence gathering is bad.
To go out and learn who might be planning another attack, how and when and where.
We can't have that.
That's a civil liberties.
It's a violation of civil liberty.
People can't spy on the American people.
Bush is a criminal.
Bush is Hitler.
So what do we do instead?
We make sure the federal government gives us money so that we can prepare for the next strike.
And if we don't get the money, then we're not prepared for the next strike.
Now, what really, folks, makes more sense, having a really robust intelligence gathering operation to try to find out who's going to do what, where, when, or to start spending money crazily and wildly in a bunch of places in hopes that when the attack comes, we'll be able to deal with it a little bit better.
So I guess preparing for the attack and getting ready to deal with it is preferable to preventing it.
Does this make sense to anybody?
I mean, this is just Chuck Pure liberalism through and through when you get all panicky over so-called budget cuts when real efforts to prevent attacks are undercut, sabotaged, and prevented.
You libs out, you are whacked out.
You are just, you're blinded with rage and hatred and other kinds of emotions here, and you fail to see things that are just commonsensical.
You really think that an additional 40% of what you're supposed to get is going to ensure you don't get hit?
Because here's the question.
Ask yourselves this honestly.
Can we ever be fully prepared?
Is it possible to ever be fully prepared?
Meaning that no matter where an attack is, we're ready, be it at a port, be it in a train station, be it at a bus station, be it at an airport, be it at a city.
Are we ever, ever going to be fully prepared?
On the other hand, with an adequate intelligence gathering operation, combined with proper preparations on the ground to deal with an attack or in a city where we might learn an attack is going to happen, mobilize to stop it from happening, have first responders up.
Does it make sense to slice out fully half of this equation?
Because I'm telling you, the American left has done everything it can to sabotage the key element in preventing another attack, and that's intelligence surveillance.
They're doing everything they can to sabotage it on the basis of civil liberties.
And Bush is spying on the American people.
And this is why these people cannot be trusted at this time in this nation's history to lead it.
Steve in Fort Walton Beach, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Well, you once again made the point much more eloquently than I could, but the question was...
Well, then why did you call?
You beat me to it.
I'm sorry.
I'm just kidding.
I'm in a good mood here today.
What is preparedness?
Is it two federal agents for every civilian to keep an eye on my back?
And can we afford that?
That's a good question.
What is when we're talking about fully prepared?
Let's take New York.
They're upset because they've been slashed 40% of the budget they were going to get.
What is being fully prepared?
How many agents does it...
But it's more than just agents.
You have to allow that even the agents may screw up and an attack might happen.
So what is being fully prepared?
You've got to be fully prepared to deal with the attack after it happens, save as many lives as possible.
What is being fully prepared?
How much is it going to cost?
That's the question.
How much is it going to cost?
And how much is it going to take to be prepared for the next hurricane?
We're all braced for the next hurricane.
Now, this is interesting.
This is because I mentioned this yesterday.
The local governments down here where we all live in South Florida, from Palm Beach County to Broward to Miami-Dade, have all said to their residents, you are on your own.
School bus Nagan in New Orleans, you are on your own.
We can't get you out if you don't get yourself out.
You're going to have to take control of your life.
This is up to you.
In New Orleans, they said there is not going to be a shelter of last resort like the dome.
We're not going to have that anymore.
Category two, mandatory evacuation.
It's up to you.
Now, I find that interesting because these are disasters that we know are going to happen.
We can be, quote unquote, prepared for hurricanes.
Of course, here in South Florida, there's a number of people that say, well, we're not prepared.
Driving around, and I still, people haven't put roofs on their house.
They'll got that blue stuff up there.
They haven't prepared it, and people are not taking it seriously, and so forth and so on.
So, we're not fully prepared down to them.
People don't care about it one way, and not everybody's going to.
Most people are going to assume can't happen two years in a row, just can't happen two years in a row.
Statistically, the odds are can't happen two years.
So, the bottom line is the governments are saying you got to handle it yourself.
But when it comes to this Homeland Security business, it's not up to anybody individually.
It's up to governments to do it.
The government in Florida, governments in Florida, New Orleans have pretty much admitted the limitations of government on everything.
They said to citizens, you're on your own.
And these disasters, as I said, hurricanes, we know they're going to happen.
We don't know.
And we have ample warning, by the way.
When every one of them hits, we know within a day or two where it's going to hit approximately.
We have ample warning.
No such ample warning exists for your typical terrorist attack.
Absolutely.
So that's a great question.
What is being fully prepared?
The answer is: governments in Florida are going to regret ever saying this.
Sorry, you're on your own.
But in a terrorist attack, that's tough because nobody knows when one of those is coming.
Let's see.
Who's next?
Bob in Silver Spring, Maryland.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
What I'm about to tell you, I hope shocks you and your listeners.
I'm one of 15,000, and that number is growing daily by the hundreds.
Legal Americans being held hostage, along with our fiancés and fiancé visas, by the State Department, while they simultaneously reinvent, rewrite our laws to accommodate the millions of illegal immigrants.
They passed an act called the Marriage Broker Act back in December, unknown to the public.
And what they've done is shut down all worldwide fiancé migration visas to this country indefinitely.
Why?
Because they claim they have to have new information from the petitioners, myself and 15,000 others.
I found these numbers just two days ago when I called through the congressman and the State Department and so forth.
Okay, so you know what this sounds like to me?
Here's my first take.
I'm not trying to interrupt you, but my first take is we can control it.
We can control immigration, and they do it all the time.
Look at what's happening to you.
Right.
Illegally.
They have no timetable for publishing a form, which we are required to provide them with in order to get these visas passed.
Well, why are you doing it this way?
Why don't you just, where is your fiancé?
In Russia.
Well, get her a plane ticket to Guadalajara.
That's what she was saying.
She's saying, why can't I just drive across the Canadian border?
She's going to drug dealers.
Get her into Mexico and get her in with a coyote and come on in.
That's the same thing she's saying.
Or she says, why don't I sell my home and my cars and everything and leave this country and live over there happily ever after?
Yeah, I mean, that's, I mean, you joke about it, but that's apparently.
If she came in through Mexico, nobody wants to stop her.
Right.
Want to make her a citizen?
She'd be the backbone of America.
This is unbelievable.
No, I know it is unbelievable, but it's sadly reality.
You have not shocked us only because we know this.
It's nonsensical.
It's why people don't understand this.
Makes no sense whatsoever.
You're just one of countless thousands, tens of thousands, trying to go through the legal immigration process in this country.
And you're running into obstacles left and right, plus this new one that you just described.
Right.
Which nobody knows about.
No, which proves we can control it.
We're being told we can't control this inflow.
Enforcement won't work and so forth and so on.
Look.
Well, look, we're just going to add this to our mix.
I appreciate your call.
Didn't know that this had happened uh, but we add it now to our, to our mix and our roster and our stack of essential stuff here.
On this whole issue, I appreciate the uh, the call Bob.
I got to run because of the constraints of time.
Back in just a sec i'm going to answer a question for you very intelligently uh, wisely and simply.
In terms of being prepared for a hurricane, there's just one thing, you need, a full tank of gasoline in your car.
That's it, that's the.
I mean, that's common.
Well, I mean, you could, you know shutters and all that sort of stuff.
But if you want to talk about being really prepared, a full tank of gas and hit the highway Dave uh, if you think you're going to get hit, that's the sensible thing to do.
From the NEW YORK Times today, the studies on Arctic sediment, by the way, we had the news yesterday that uh, they've been studying uh, all the core samples up there at the Arctic Circle and they are convinced that uh, 55 million years ago, that there was a tropical paradise up there uh, so that of course, we know that there's been ice ages and warming and so forth long before there was humanity.
But it's another part of the story.
The studies on Arctic sediment that appear today in a journal Nature, tell a dramatic story of polar warming and cooling over millions of years.
But what they tell petroleum geologists may be just as striking, though there is little mention of it in the papers published in the journal Nature.
Some scientists involved in the work said that huge amounts of organic material from dead algae and plants embedded in the ancient sedimentary layers suggested that the center of the Arctic ocean could hold vast oil deposits.
Several of the researchers said they were reluctant to focus on that aspect of the work, saying that it would be unfortunate if their climate studies prompted new oil exploration that can liberate more greenhouse gases and further warm the climate.
So they're a dishonest bunch of poops.
One of the authors, Hink Brinkhaus of the University OF Utrecht in the Netherlands, was not shy when he first pointed this out to reporters in 2004.
This week he said he remained confident.
The prospect was real.
The entire Arctic Rim is already one big exploration machine.
Dr Brinkhaus said I was nearly crucified for talking about this by some of the more politically environmentally friendly people out there, but it is a fact.
If the oil exists, who is that?
If the oil exists, it would probably take decades to develop techniques for exploiting such mid-ocean deposits.
Dr Brinkhaus, with this 90, so they're doing all this research.
They found all this warming and cooling.
They found large deposits of oil, but they were reluctant to mention that because going and getting it might raise global temperatures and global warming.
We can't have that, so they tried to hide the facts.
Destined, Florida Brett.
Welcome nice to have you with us.
Hello hey Rush, it's an honor to talk to you today, thank you, thank you very much hey, I got a question for you.
Yes sir, how much money would it take to be spent in New York City to prevent another 9-11?
Didn't those attacks originate somewhere else outside of New York City?
You mean like at airports in Boston and Washington and Newark?
Correct.
Also, why aren't we spending money at those airports instead of in New York?
Right.
Hmm.
That's not going to sit well with New Yorkers because those airports were not attacked.
New York was.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm a hick from the sticks.
So I've forgot about that.
I'm sure they think that too.
But look, it is a good question.
How much money would it take to be fully prepared?
How much money would it take to be fully prepared?
With liberals in charge, the answer is much as you have, as much as we can get.
Liberals' motto is, we've got what it takes to take what you've got.
Ah, the Spencer Davis group.
All right.
I'm just sitting here scanning tomorrow's morning update, which you podcasters will be able to see here in about 20 minutes via podcast download.
And it's our list of helpful hints to New York City on how they can overcome this horrible budget slashing that they've withstood from the hands of Homeland Security.
The concept is in New York, you can't depend on anybody else anymore.
You've got to handle it yourself.
Tax yourselves into security.
And we have some ideas here.
It'll be in tomorrow's morning update.
Have a great day, folks.
Openline Friday, also tomorrow.
And that's always fun.
Can't wait.
▲
Export Selection