All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
December 7, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at this headline.
U.S. poverty is moving to the suburbs.
Study finds.
Greetings, my friends.
Rush Limboy, you're a highly trained broadcast specialist, hosting a program which meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Behind this, the Golden EIB microphone, 800-282-2882, if you'd like to join us today, U.S. poverty moving to the suburbs.
I have never seen poverty on the move, but a study has located it and has chronicled poverty moving to the suburbs.
There are no pictures accompanying the story.
The only disappointing aspect of it is an associated press story.
I found it in the Seattle Times.
As Americans flee the cities for the suburbs, many are failing to leave poverty behind.
Well, what a bunch of idiots.
If you were in poverty and you moved to the suburbs, would you take your poverty with you?
I'm telling you, we are a nation of idiots.
If I were in poverty someplace and I was moving, I would not take my poverty with me.
But that's what the study suggests is happening.
The suburban poor outnumbered inner city counterparts for the first time last year, with more than 12 million suburban residents living in poverty, according to a study of the nation's largest, 100 largest metropolitan areas.
Alan Barube, who co-wrote the report for the Brookings Institution, said, economies are regional now, where you see increases in city poverty in almost every metro area.
You also see increases in suburban poverty.
I wonder how many of them are illegal.
Forget I said that.
Forget I said it.
I didn't say that.
Take it back.
Didn't mean it.
I know.
We were talking about this at dinner last night.
One out of every seven Mexicans working in America.
One out of seven.
That's over 10% of Mexican population working in the United States.
I also saw a story on the same day that crime rates where illegals live are way down.
The lowest crime rates in California are where illegals live.
Well, that's quite interesting.
At any rate, don't you notice something about the U.S. poverty moving to the suburbs study finds.
As Americans flee the cities for the suburbs, many are failing to leave poverty behind.
What does this tell us?
It means that when you leave someplace, your circumstances follow you.
Yet the Iraq surrender group and Democrats and liberals in the media think if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will stay.
Poverty follows us.
Everything else about us follows us where we go and move around, except terrorists.
Isn't it a beautiful thing?
So all we have to do is flee wherever we are and wherever the terrorists are, and they will stay where they are.
By the way, U.S. President George W. Bush will ignore unwelcome recommendations on Mideast policy from the bipartisan Iraq surrender group, especially on making contact with Syria and Iran.
This is from Arab commentators.
Well, let's hope.
Let's hope the Arab commentators are right.
They are saying essentially that Bush will ignore this.
He's not going to ask Iran and Syria in.
He's not going to do a bunch of these things that the surrender group reports.
Back to the audio soundbites now.
Madam Albright has weighed in, once again, perfectly happy and proud to display her ignorance about all of this to the world.
She was on Larry King Alive last night.
And King said, do you think this administration will sit down with Iran and Syria?
You have to talk to your enemies.
You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends.
Stop the tape.
You don't make peace with your enemies.
You defeat them, madam.
Madam Albright's definition of peace is the thing we have now with North Korea.
A whole lot of talking with the North Korean.
Jimmy Carter went over there.
Madam Albright herself went over there, sat down with this little wacko, this little pervert and pot-bellied dog-eating dictator.
And we got to get peace.
They're testing nukes or trying to, but we've got peace.
Cue this up to the top, Mike, if you will.
You don't have peace with your enemy.
You don't make, you know, when you make peace is after you have defeated them and at such time as you have dominion over them and you read them the riot act.
You give them the rules and say, here's what it is from now on.
That's how it used to work, and that's what led to peace.
Peace always follows victory.
It doesn't come from smoking a pipe, sitting down and jawing or talking and sharing stories with perverts about their favorite cognac or any of that.
It comes from defeating them.
All right.
I'll play now the whole Madam Albright bite without interrupting it.
You have to talk to your enemies.
You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends.
And there is no question that both Iran and Syria, especially Iran, has a great deal of influence in the region.
So I do hope that they consider talking with Iranians and Syrians.
It does not have to be in a one-on-one, as has been pointed out, but I do think they need to be brought into the process.
What do you mean, one-on-one?
One-on-one?
Brought into the process.
They are in the process.
You know what these people are talking about?
Go back to the early things she said.
You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends.
And there is no question that both Iran and Syria, especially Iran, a great deal of influence in the region.
What have we been doing?
We've been selling out our friends.
You sell out your friends, you make peace with the enemies.
Thank you, Democrats and liberals, because that's your definition of peace.
Make peace with the enemy, meaning appease them.
Sell out your friends.
Hello, Israel.
We'll be happy to sell you out if we can make ourselves look good in this Iraq mess.
And we hope that Syria and Iran will help us to look good while we sell you out.
Thank you, Madam Albright.
You have crystallized for all of us exactly how liberals look at all of this.
Rick Santorum gave his, I guess, farewell address on the floor of the Senate last night.
We have a couple of bites.
Here's the first.
When we did this year, this summer, attempt to negotiate with Iran, we told the people of Iran that we are not on their side, that we want to make deals with people who oppress them, who torture them, who enslave them, who abuse them, and who kill them.
That's why we should not have entered into any negotiations in spite of the entreaties of Europe with this evil regime in Iran.
We should confront them and only confront them.
He continued with these remarks.
This is the call of this generation.
This is America's hour.
This is the hour that we need leadership.
Tertullian leadership who had a keen eye for the enemy and a resolve, in spite of the political climate, to confront it.
I ask my colleagues to stand and make this America's finest hour.
Fat chance.
I regret that the new Secretary of Defense is not up to the task, in my opinion.
Ooh!
Farewell address drops a bomb floor of the Senate.
We'll be back while we smile and contemplate the explosion.
And some more fireworks of a nature.
Between David Gregory and Tony Snow at the White House press briefing yesterday, we have two of these sound bites.
Here is the first of these exchanges.
On the evaluation of the report, it says the following, and the co-chairs say the following.
Stay the course is no longer viable.
The current approach is not working.
The situation is grave and deteriorating.
Chairman Hamilton says he is not sure whether the situation can be turned around.
Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war?
Absolutely.
And I think you need to read the report.
You've read the whole report.
No, I've gone through this report.
I've read the whole report.
All right.
And then it continued.
If you listen to the chairman, you'll have noted that he's not trying to...
David, please.
You get mad.
I'm just saying, those are all quotes.
I know.
I know they're all quotes.
I'm now going to try to proceed to try to place them in context.
Number one, they are not trying to score partisan points or to look back.
The one thing they've said is they're not doing look back.
The second thing is that they understand the difficulties.
They have adopted the goals that the administration has laid out.
Why don't you go back and read through some of these and I'll go ahead and deal with them.
So, David, when you get yourself informed here, come back, ask me some questions, and I'll be able to talk to you.
But if you're going to stay ignorant on these things, then please don't bother me and waste my time.
Just priceless, folks.
Now, as to this, there's no look back in this.
I have to disagree.
There's so much implied in this.
They may not say it, and they may have actually said Baker and Hamilton are not looking back.
But I mean, look at the media and the Democrats and liberals are allowed to spin it as though it is.
And they're able to create their own reality out there as far as what they report and what the Nimrods who still watch the drive-by media hear and see.
And so it is full of look back.
Everybody can say it's not a look back, and the commissioners can say, no, no, no, no, we're looking forward.
Well, how can you say it's not a look back when you proclaim it's grave and deteriorating and there's no hope?
Here is John in Sundance, Wyoming.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
Well, we're out here in flyby country, but we can still understand what's going on.
But I'm afraid these bureaucrats are going to lose this war for us.
And that's a scary thing.
They can't even plan for a victory.
How can they plan for us to get out of there?
They don't have a plan to get out of there.
Oh, that's easy.
Why, the model's already in existence.
The plan's already there.
Mogadishu?
Mogadishu, Vietnam, getting out is easy.
You just get out.
That's what's scary.
You get out, you claim victory.
We can't.
We've got to win this thing.
Well, no, no.
You can claim whatever you want.
You get out of there, claim victory, peace with honor, whatever the hell it is.
Iraqiization, as in Vietnamization, the recipe for quitting, I think virtually every human being's done it, so it doesn't take a lot of consultation to find out how to do that.
I can't believe these people don't understand what's at stake.
Well, that makes two of us.
But apparently, there are looking at the guidance, I've heard it referenced as the guidance of the midterm elections, plenty of people seem to not get it.
Well, I'm really sorry to hear that Al Simpson was a part of it.
Yeah, I yeah, he's a good comedian.
Yeah, well.
He had some of the funniest lines yesterday, and he's a likable guy.
I've met him a couple times, but I mean, some people would say they're unhappy Ed Meese was part of it.
But look at what one thing we don't know.
We don't know what went on behind closed doors.
We don't know who stood up for what, who lost, and who won.
They're trying to present the picture that every one of these commissioners agreed on everything, and that this is consensus.
But I'll bet you, I know Ed Meese is a team guy, and if he disagreed with me, he's not going to say so publicly, not after it's done and over with.
And I'll bet Simpson's the same way.
So I would be cautious in assuming that people on our side just rolled over.
Now, the end result may appear so.
They may have been a minority here, depending on one recommendation after recommendation.
But they're all team players.
I'll take that advice.
You think what?
I'll take that advice.
I like it when people take my advice.
It'll improve their lives.
Tom and Tampa, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Rush, it's such an honor to talk with you.
I've been trying to get in for years.
Well, here you are.
You've made it.
Well, here I am, Rush.
The point I want to make, because I don't hear anybody making this point, and your call screener said, and I make it, so I'll make it, is that whether it's James Baker or Madeline Halfbright or any of these people you're talking about, they all say, and Baker led today with, for 40 years, we talked to the Soviet Union.
The fact of the matter is, for 40 years, it didn't work.
It wasn't until Ronald Reagan came along and committed to defeating the Soviet Union that the Cold War ended.
And the biggest thing that I am so concerned about is that we're moving from a post-World War II policy of defeat the communist enemy to a policy of containment.
And this report is indicative of that, and I'm very, very concerned about it.
Well, you ought to be.
The forces of appeasement are always there.
The forces of appeasement were suppressed in the 80s during the Reagan administration, and you see how hysterical they reacted when Reagan was not among them.
All it took was Reagan making a joke about the bombing starts in five seconds before his Saturday radio address, and they thought the world was actually going to end because Reagan had said this in a joke.
The forces of appeasement are always there.
It's called liberalism.
And they're all over the place.
Look, we've been talking here for a couple of days about how talking never solves anything.
I just finished a riff on it.
Talking is not how you arrive at peace.
And I made the point that you can talk about talking to the enemy and how it helped and so forth.
All it did, we're talking to Iran.
We've been talking to Iran for three years on nukes.
And guess what?
They're three years closer to getting them.
We're going to talk to Iran for another two years on nukes.
They're going to be two years closer to getting him.
It's how this works.
The difference with Reagan was, as I said in the last broadcast hour, Reagan put some very threatening Pershing missiles in Europe aimed right at Moscow.
That's not appeasement.
And that's talking with a big stick.
There aren't a whole lot of words there, but when you've got missiles pointed at you like that with a president that you think, this guy is serious.
And then he starts talking about a strategic defense initiative, also known as Star Wars.
Margaret Thatcher has said it, I don't know how many times, this is just another indication of how tough it is to get history right.
Margaret Thatcher, who was there and who was part of it, has said openly countless times what brought the Soviet Union down was a persistent And unassailable, unmistakable vision of victory, portrayed by her alliance with Ronald Reagan.
And she said that finally what broke their back was the announcement we were going to investigate the strategic defense initiative.
The Soviets knew that we, as Americans, could do anything we set our minds to.
That we have the economy to produce the revenue to build it.
We have the brilliance and the freedom and the intelligence to create it, to perfect it and implement it.
They didn't.
They didn't have the money.
They didn't have the freedom necessary for it.
And magically, that's when all this talk of Glasnost and perestroika began.
And to this day, it is Mikhail Gorbachev celebrated as the man who ended the Cold War when nothing could be further from the truth.
And Libs like to say this because they have a love affair with communism, love affair with dictators and tyrants and thugs and these kinds of totalitarian states.
They also love to say that it was Gorbachev because they can then say it was the result of finally we talked to Gorbachev.
See, Reagan refused to meet with Andropov because he refused to meet with every Soviet leader until Gorbachev because he said, why should I?
They're going to die.
They're going to die soon.
They're going to die.
These guys are old.
They're going to die before anything can be done as a result of talks.
I got nothing to say to them.
Oh, that just infuriated the left.
It just sent them up the tree.
They were living with the monkeys.
They were out.
They were beside themselves.
But Gorbachev came along.
Look, that's why we created the word Gorbasm.
Gorbachev arrives in Washington for the first ever summit.
The first ever meeting between Reagan and a valiant, valorous Soviet leader.
And I'm telling you, that town had an orgy.
They were just so excited, they were beside themselves.
And by continuing to claim it was Gorbachev, they can say it was finally, he sat down and talked.
And then, then we went to Reykjavik.
We went to Reagan, met with him at Reykjavik.
They almost got rid of nuclear weapons there.
Sea Rush, talking does work.
It was irrelevant.
It meant nothing because Reagan never gave a dime.
He never gave an inch to these guys, never gave anything up.
Be glad to talk to you, but here are the terms.
So while we talked, the Democrats got disappointed.
The liberals got disappointed.
Nothing ever came of it.
But Gorbachev ends up being the savior.
And talking to him is what brought it about.
That's how they have revised history to make it appear.
Talking to your enemies is salvation.
Back in a sec.
Well, a big-time advisor to Jimmy Carter has quit over the fact that Jimmy Carter bent the facts in his latest book.
What does that mean?
When you bend the facts, is that to rather the facts?
A longtime advisor to failed presidential candidate and President Jimmy, well, he wasn't a failed candidate.
Longtime advisor.
Well, he was, too.
He got snookered, creamed, wackoed in 1980.
Good for him.
Longtime advisor to failed President Jimmy Carter quit yesterday amid allegations that Carter embellished and made up facts in his new book that is full of Carter's pro-Palestinian propaganda.
The book is Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
The Atlanta Urinal Constipation reports that longtime Middle East advisor Kenneth Stein quit over what he saw as the bending of facts by Carter in the book from the newspaper.
Longtime advisor to President Jimmy Carter has resigned his position as a Carter Center Fellow for Middle East Affairs in response to Carter's new book.
Being president doesn't give one the prerogative to bend the facts to reach a prescribed reality, said Kenneth Stein, the first executive director of the Carter Center.
Political Science said he picked up a copy of Carter's latest book, Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid, last week.
After reading it, he decided to quit.
Cut and run.
He didn't form a commission to make the decision.
He just came up with it on his own.
Stein bluntly criticized the book in a letter to Carter, Emory President Jim Wagner, and John Hardman, the Carter Center's current executive director.
Well, now, he lied.
I mean, what is this bending the facts business?
He didn't not only bent the facts, he made them up.
A made-up fact is not a fact.
Jimmy Carter.
Bruce in Fort Wayne, Indiana, you're next, sir.
Glad you waited.
Megaditto Spirit, it's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
In regards to the Bible defiling incident, I find it interesting that a child is more aware and has a better basic understanding of the issues at hand than grown men and women who are patting themselves on the back as though they'll soon receive gold stars and just finished getting an A and show and tell.
They're slaves of their biases and fears, Hamilton and O'Connor, and they're just happy on agreeing on nothing as though it's absolutely everything.
And it just frosts me.
The child is conditioned to act who he is rather than being a passive puppet to his instincts like these people.
The kid is who he really is and knows more what's at stake than our very own politicians and some role models, God forbid.
The kid is more in touch with the consequence of what's happening through his own lifestyle than the surrender counsel committee who simply think their goodness is a means to an end.
That is that.
They sly on joke and carry on after the recommendations towards us inferiors.
They act like it's now time for milk and cookies.
And I just don't know how the public can I'm hoping by 08 this mediocrity will reach full mass rush.
Wait, I have a question.
What kid are we discussing here?
We're talking about O'Connor and Hamilton and this surrender committee.
I'm saying the child is more aware of what's going on by defiling the Bible than our own politicians who are happy with just doing this surrender committee in regards to the recommendations that you were discussing this entire show.
And I just find it interesting that a child who, again, won't get interviewed by Diane Sawyer, unlike a Christian child, if he would defile a Bible.
And I just, just the mediocrity that an eight-year-old child is more aware through conditioning his lifestyle by living it than our own politicians who are just passive slaves to their guilt and self-pity.
You're talking about the story from Australia where the Muslim boy was expelled for urinating on a Bible?
Yes.
So what you're saying is that that story shows more of a reality of what we face in the world today than the Baker Commission indicated they understand.
Well, the child understands what's going on more than Hamilton O'Connor and all these people.
Just by being who he is at that stage in life, I just find it sad that grown 50- and 60-year-olds don't have a more basic understanding like some child is just...
Okay, you're going to have to...
I'm clueless here.
What are you...
When you say a child, are you talking about any eight-year-old is smarter than Baker Hamilton?
Yes.
Okay.
Let me rephrase that.
That child is a metaphor.
I mean, for example, I've been, I've been, there was.
Wait a minute.
The child we're talking about here is a Muslim boy.
He was 13.
He was expelled for urinating on a Bible in an Australian school.
He burnt pages from the Bible and spit on it.
And there's Muslim schools all across this nation.
In fact, you know, I mean, you have all these.
He is a metaphor of how in the Muslim counterculture, the stakes are being raised and being taught, and children have a better life.
Okay, I get it.
I get it.
I get it now.
I get it now.
I misunderstood.
I thought the way you were talking, you thought it was a Christian boy who understood because a Muslim urinated on the Bible.
But I get it.
Well, Rush, my counterpoint was, now, if a Christian had done that to the Koran, Diane Sawyer would want to interview the family.
How come this had happened?
And you know what I'm saying?
Hell, there'd be an investigation for torture.
Oh, yeah, 60 minutes.
You know, it would be on 60 minutes, prime time high.
And this thing is not even being covered.
I'm thinking outside your program, correct?
And if I'm not mistaken.
Well, no, it's in the Australian newspaper.
So it's out there.
It's in the Australian newspaper.
No question it's out there.
I just find it interesting.
I guess my major point was, I mean, you have all these Hamilton O'Connor who are acting as though they just finished a grade school drama presentation, and they're just happy they're going to get an A for being good and being nice and being good people.
And they are more utterly clueless than this 13-year-old enshrouded with hatred in Australia, and he understands this.
Well, this is, I mean, that's, I know, that's a great definition of arrogance.
I think that in order to have this kind of arrogance and condescension, you have to assume that these things that are happening all over the world are really not happening to you.
And even when they happen in your country, that they don't threaten you.
They're just sort of like random, isolated episodic events, sort of like when the airplane crashes and you're not on it.
It's an interesting news story to watch, but yip, yip, yep, yep, yahoo.
You still get on the next airplane.
You're scheduled to get on.
And I think that's how you look at this.
Well, airplanes crash.
Cars drive into trees.
SUVs throw their drivers and passengers out the door.
Terrorists blow up New York.
That's just going to happen.
And we have no business being in Iraq.
We're humiliated.
And the country's divided and we need consensus.
We all need to get along.
And the job of the Commission is to make everybody love them because they already love themselves and they want the accolades.
I appreciate the phone call.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
I don't care about that.
I don't care about that.
Well, this is the New York Times is mad at the Democrats for reneging on the 9-11 panel recommendations.
This is an editorial entitled Cherry-Picking Campaign Promises.
New York Times says, the victors seem to be having second thoughts.
Instead of attempting wholesale committee reform in the first weeks of Congress, Democrat leaders may punt the idea toward oblivion in some sort of a study panel, according to the Washington Post.
Nothing could be more disappointing to voters.
Surely the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation's security far more than their credibility if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.
The Times doesn't get it.
The Democrats don't want to do that implement that one recommendation remaining from the 9-11 panel because they'd have to reform themselves.
And they don't want to reform themselves.
They love to reform Congress and oversight when the Republicans are doing it, but they don't want to reform themselves.
This doesn't mean they're not going to investigate.
This doesn't mean they're not going to try to gut intelligence, intelligence gathering and this sort of thing.
It's just, they're just saying, we're not going to do it the 9-11 Commission way, even though they promised.
It's one of their big promises during the campaign.
Now, everybody's got Barack Obama mania out there.
In fact, they're having Obamagasms.
But Bill Schneider at CNN is holding out for Al Gore.
Yesterday evening during CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Bill Schneider did a package on former Vice President Al Gore and his current media omnipresence.
Here is a montage of what old buddy Bill said.
Al Gore has become the king of all media, his own cable TV network, a hit movie, now a DVD, an appearance on Oprah?
What's going on?
Two names stand out in the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
Clinton and Obama.
Some Democrats look at those names and worry.
Can they get elected?
Is there, shall we say, a third way?
Enter Al Gore.
Electability?
Gore's been elected, many Democrats feel.
The problem is, no great excitement.
Wonder why?
That's Gore's big hurdle, to kindle some excitement.
He may be trying to do that by creating the new Gore.
The new Gore is passionate and authentic.
A modern-day Savonarola denouncing the sins of the Bush administration.
A comeback story?
That could kindle some excitement.
Bill Clinton was the comeback kid once.
Now maybe it can be Al Gore.
I just can't get over it.
Every time I listen to this guy, I get the impression he thinks I'm in the first grade.
And then I'm just a total dunce.
The word was Savonarola.
Look it up.
Google it, Wikipedia.
I can't tell people everything.
At some point, you people are going to have to get by on your own.
I cannot take valuable broadcast time to define words.
You look it up if you want to know what it means.
It's not worth it.
It's a Bill Schneider report.
Don't waste your time here.
This is sophistry.
This is hero worship.
This is, I mean, can you imagine such a report on any Republican candidate other than John McCain?
Now, let's move on to Obama, Barack Obama, and have our Obamagasm.
He was also on CNN's A Situation Room with host Wolf Blitzer.
And Wolf said, former Senator Max Cleland here in the Situation Room yesterday said it's already over.
Bring those men and women home now before more U.S. troops have to die.
What do you say, Mr. Obama?
This was a poorly conceived war in the first place, and I wish we had not gone in.
I thought the Iraq Study Group did a terrific job of providing, for the first time in a bipartisan fashion, a realistic assessment of what's taking place there.
And many of the recommendations that they put forward mirrored recommendations that I made in a speech in Chicago three weeks ago.
Oh, my God.
The one thing I would like to see is for us to start initiating a phased withdrawal to send a strong signal to the Iraqi government, as well as to neighbors in the region, that we're serious about changing course.
Getting out, yes.
I can't believe he said this.
This is Bill Clinton-esque.
Obama has Clinton down better than Hillary does.
Well, Hillary never had Clinton down.
That's one of her problems.
But sidetracked.
Did you hear Obama say that the report contains many of the recommendations that I made in a speech in Chicago three weeks ago?
I mean, folks, that's Clinton-esque.
Oh, yeah, I was over in Hanoi, and I was talking to actually talking to the grave of Ho Chi Minh.
He said, one of my idols.
I could never have brought myself to take up arms against that great man.
He just wanted peace and freedom for his people.
And I said, Ho Chi Minh, you know, I love you, man.
We got to get out of Iraq and we got to get out of there by 08.
And it's a failing.
It's disintegrated.
It's falling apart.
Lo and behold, Mr. Baker went out there, read my exact words when he announced the findings.
This is going to be fun.
You know, folks, you think it's fun now.
Wait till these people actually become the majority in January.
Right now, they're still in the fantasy world of it, but they're going to take ownership of all this stuff in January, and it's just going to be a hoot.
It's just going to be a hoot to watch this.
I'm not saying it isn't going to be serious, but especially all these Democrats jockeying for the president.
Jim Inhoff, a senator from Oklahoma, in one of his final actions as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, yesterday held a hearing to investigate whether the media have overhyped predictions of global warming.
The media often fail to distinguish between predictions and what is actually being observed on the earth today, Inhoff said.
Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.
By the way, one of the reporters that was in the room during the heating was a hearing was Miles O'Brien of CNN, who fell asleep.
Miles O'Brien is a, what would you say, is a rival of Inhoff.
They've been going back and forth here because O'Brien is one.
He did this big, long special two-day report on global warming that showed the SEALs needing air conditioning and using fans to keep themselves cool up in the Arctic Circle and just talked, it was the disaster just waiting to happen.
It was only a matter of time.
And Inhoff called the whole thing irresponsible and Miles O'Brien responded, but he had to get nudged yesterday by some other member media to wake up or he would have fallen asleep and stayed asleep during the whole thing.
Dan Gaynor testified, he's a director of the Business and Media Institute, testified that 30 years ago, reporters tried to convince the public we would all freeze to death in a predicted new ice age.
And that was the Newsweek cover.
And in fact, do you know what the Newsweek, if you go, if you look at that Newsweek story from 1975 or 79, whenever it was, we've run the cover graphic, the picture to cover on our website many, many, many, many times.
And if you read the story, they actually talk about melting polar ice caps as a sign of a new ice age.
I kid you not.
And now the now the melting ice caps represent just the opposite.
Just 30 years ago, we were heading into a new miniature ice age.
Gaynor further said, in more than 100 years, the major media have warned us of at least four separate climate cataclysms, adding that there is a media obsession with former Vice President Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Lie.
Australian climate change researcher Robert Carter said the press employs frisbee science that is invariably alarmist in nature.
Naomi Oreskis, a professor of science studies at the University of California at San Diego, told the panel yesterday, while scientists still argue over the details, there is a consensus the climate is changing.
Now, consensus in politics is one thing, but as Michael Crichton has said, you've got to think about this.
I don't have time to explain it.
I will tomorrow at Open Eye on Friday.
There cannot possibly be consensus in science.
Science is or isn't.
What is in science is fact.
There can be no consensus.
You can't have people say, yes, there is global warming and others say, no, there isn't, and come to an agreement on it.
We are either having global warming caused by man or we aren't.
You cannot ever have consensus in science.
It is impossible.
Back in just a second.
My friends, don't doubt me and don't argue with me.
Consensus in science is impossible.
It cannot happen.
If there is consensus in science, there's no science.
▲
Export Selection