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 look at this headline.
U.S. poverty is moving to the suburbs.
Study finds.
Greetings, my friends.
Rush Limboy, your 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.
That's the only disappointing aspect of it.
This is an associated press story.
I've 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 move 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 uh largest, 100 largest metropolitan areas.
Alan Barub, who uh co-wrote the report for the Brookings Institution, said economies are regional now.
Uh, where you see increases in city poverty in almost every metro area, you also see increases in suburban poverty.
Wonder how many of them are illegal.
Forget I said that.
Um I didn't say that.
Take it back.
Didn't 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 ten percent 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, it'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 Mid East 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.
That the surrender group reports.
Back to the audio sound bites 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.
Uh Madame 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.
Uh sat down with this little wacko, this little pervert and uh potbellied dog eating dictator.
And we gotta get peace.
They're testing nukes or trying to but we've got peace.
Cue this up to the top, Mike, if you will.
Well, You don't you don't have peace with your enemy.
You don't make you know when you 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, uh sitting down and joying 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 Madame Aldright 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?
What a one on one brought into the process, they are in the process.
You know what these people are talking about, they go back to the early early things she said.
You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, and there is and there was no question that uh 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, miss.
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 uh, 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 enslaved 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.
Churchillian leadership who had a keen eye for the enemy and a resolve, in spite of the political climate, to confront it.
I asked 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.
Farewell address drops a bomb, floor of the Senate.
We'll be back while we smile and contemplate the explosion.
It's some uh some more fireworks of uh of a nature between David Gregory and Tony Snow of the White House press briefing yesterday.
We have uh let's see, two of these uh sound bites.
Here is the first of these exchanges.
On the evaluation of the report, it says the following, and the co-chair 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.
Well, they're the report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war.
Absolutely.
And and I think you need to read the report.
You've read the whole report.
No, I've gone through the remote.
Okay, well, I've read the whole report.
All right.
And then uh it uh it continued.
If you listen to the chairman, you'll have noted he's not trying to David, please.
You get mad report.
I'm just saying those are all quotes.
I know, I know they're all quotes.
I'm 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 say 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 basically, David, when you 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 hate I have to disagree.
I 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 dem Democrats and Liberals are allowed to spin it as though it is, and they're they're able to create their own reality out there as far as what they report and uh what the Nimrods who still watch the drive-by media hear and see, and so it is full of uh look back.
Everybody can say it's now 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 uh 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 uh we can still understand what's going on.
But I 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.
Whoa, that's easy.
Why, the model's already in existence.
The plan's already there.
Mogadishu.
Uh yeah, 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.
Oh, no, no.
You can claim whatever you want.
You get out of there, claim victory, peace with honor, whatever the hell it is, aracization, uh, as in Vietnamization.
Uh the recipe for quitting, I think virtually every human being's done it, so it's it's there doesn't take a lot of consultation to find out how to do that.
But I I can't believe these people don't understand what's at stake.
Well, that makes two of us.
Uh, but but they apparently there are uh uh looking at the guidance, I've been heard heard it re referenced as uh the guidance of the midterm elections.
Uh plenty of people uh seem to not get it.
Well, I'm I'm really sorry to hear that Al Simpson was a part of it.
Uh yeah, I I uh he's uh he's a good comedian.
Yeah, well, he was he was he had some of the funniest uh 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 Mies was part of it.
But what 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 to every one of these commissioners agreed on everything, and that this is consensus.
But um uh I I'll bet you I know Ed Meese is a team guy, and if he disagreed with me, he's not gonna 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 uh just rolled over.
Now, the the end result may appear so.
Uh they may have been a minority here, depending on one of these you know recommendation after recommendation, but they're all team plays.
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.
Rosh, it's such an honor to talk with you.
I've been trying to trying to get in for years.
Well, here you are.
You've made it.
Well, here I am.
Rush, the the point I want to make, uh uh, because I don't hear anybody making this point, and your call screener uh said that I make it, so I'll make it, is that whether it's James Baker or or Madeline Halfbright or any of these people you're talking about, they 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 eighties during the Reagan administration, and you see how hysterical they reacted when 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 it's it's they're all over the place.
Look, uh, we we've been talking here for a couple of days about how talking never solves anything.
I just finished a riff on it.
Uh talking is not how you arrive at peace.
And made the point that uh, you know, you can talk about uh talking of the enemy and how it helped and so forth.
All it did, you know, we're 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 gonna talk to Iran for another two years on nukes, they're gonna be two years closer to getting them.
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.
Aren't a whole lot of words there, but when you 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.
Uh 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 uh and unassailable, unmistakable vision of victory, portrayed by her alliance with Ronald Reagan.
And she said that finally what broke their back was uh the announcement we were going to investigate the strategic defense initiative.
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 to 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 uh 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 uh Andropov because well, he refused to meet with every Soviet leader until Gorbachev, because he said, Why should I?
They're gonna die.
They're gonna die soon, they're gonna die.
These guys are old.
They're gonna 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 there beside themselves.
But Gorbachev came along.
Look at 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 they were beside themselves.
And by by continuing to claim it was Gorbachev, they can say it was finally sat down and talked.
And then, and we went to Reykjavik.
We went to Reagan, met with them at Reykjavik.
They almost got rid of nuclear weapons there.
C-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 uh Gorbachev ends up being the savior, and uh talking to him is what brought it about.
That's how they have revised history to make it appear like talking to your enemies.
Your salvation.
Back in a sec.
Well, uh big time advisor to Jimmy Carter has quit over the fact that Jimmy Carter bent the facts in his latest book.
What what is that mean?
What do we when you bend the facts?
Is that to rather the facts?
A longtime advisor to failed presidential candidate than President Jimmy, well, it wasn't a failed candidate.
Uh longtime advisor.
Well, he was, too.
He got snookered uh creamed, wekkoed in uh 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.
Uh the book is Palestine Peace, not apartheid.
The Atlanta Urinal Constipation.
Uh 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.
Uh political science uh said he picked up a copy of uh uh 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, it's just 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, your next sir, glad you waited.
Uh Megadiddo Spirit's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
Uh, in regards to the Bible defiling incident, uh, 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 sooner see gold stars and just finish getting an A and show and tell.
I they're slaves to their biases and fears, Hamilton and O'Connor, and and they're just happy on agreeing on nothing as though it's absolutely everything, and it just frothed me.
I the child the child is conditioned to act who he is, rather than being a passive 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 the surrender council committee, who simply think their goodness is a means to an end.
That is that.
They smile and 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 uh full mass, Rush.
I I want you to comment.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, I have a question.
What kid are we discussing here?
Uh we're talking about O'Connor and uh Hamilton and and and the 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 that he would defile a Bible, and I just the medioc just the mediocrity that an eight-year-old child is is more aware through conditioning in his lifestyle by living it than our own politicians who are just passive slaves to their to their guilt and self-pity.
Um 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, and I just find it sad that grown 50 and 60 year olds don't have a more basic understanding like some child is just a you have to I'm I'm I'm I'm clueless here.
We're uh what are you when you say a child, are you talking about any eight-year-old is smarter than Baker Hamilton?
Are you Yes.
Okay.
Let me rephrase that.
Any that child is a metaphor.
I mean, for example, I've been I've been there was a Wait, wait a minute.
The the the child we're talking about here is a Muslim boy who was thirteen.
He was expelled for urinating on a Bible in an Australian school.
He burnt pages from the Bible and spit on it.
You're s uh uh there's Muslim schools all across this nation.
In fact, I you know I mean you you have all these he is a metaphor of how in in the mu in the Muslim counterculture, you you have I mean the mistakes are being are being raised and being taught and should have a better.
Okay, I get it.
I get it.
I get it now.
I get it now.
You uh 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 that the uh I'm not but I get it now.
Well, Rush, my my counterpoint was now if a Christian had done that to the Quran, Diane Sawyer would want to interview the family.
How come this had happened?
And you know what I'm saying?
There'd be an investigation for torture.
Oh, yeah, sixty minutes.
You know, it would be on sixty minutes, fine time high.
And 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.
Um so it's out there.
It's 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 are acting as though they just finished uh a grade school drama presentation and they're just happy they're gonna get an A for for for being good and being nice and being good people.
And and they are more utterly clueless than this this this thirteen year old and shrouded with hatred in Australia, and he understands this.
Well, this is I mean that's that's I know that that's a great definition of arrogance.
I I th I think that uh in in order to to have this kind of arrogance and condescension, you have to assume that uh these things that are happening all over the world are really not happening to you.
And that we even when they happen in your country that they don't threaten you.
Uh it's uh they're just sort of like random isolated episodic events, uh sort of like when the airplane crashes and you're not on it.
It's interesting news story to watch, but yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
You still get on the next airplane, you're scheduled to get on.
Uh and I think that's how you look at this.
Well, airplanes crash, uh cars drive into trees, SUVs throw their drivers and passengers out the door, terrorists blow up New York.
Uh that's just gonna happen.
And we have no business being in Iraq, and we're humiliated, and a 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 uh and they want the uh the accolades.
I appreciate the phone call.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
I don't care about that.
Well, there's this uh New York Times is mad at the uh at the Democrats for reneging on the uh 9-11 panel recommendations.
Uh this is an editorial uh 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 uh implement implement that one recommendation remaining from the nine eleven 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 uh campaign.
Now, everybody's got Barack Obama mania out there.
In fact, uh uh they're having Obama gasms.
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.
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.
Uh the word was um 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 this is sophistry.
This is hero worship.
This is.
I mean, can you can you imagine such a report on any Republican candidate other than John McCain?
Now, let's move on to Obama, uh Barack Obama and have our Obamagasm.
Uh he was also on CNN's situation room with host Wolf Blitzer.
And Wolf said, uh former Senator Max Celand, uh, 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 uh war in the first place, uh, and I 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 uh of what's taking place there.
Uh and I uh many of the recommendations that they put forward uh mirrored uh 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 uh 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 uh 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, you know, I said I was uh I was over in Hanoi.
And I was talking to uh actually talking to the grave of Ho Chi Minh.
He's in one of my idols.
I could never have brought myself 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 gotta get out of Iraq and we gotta get out of there by 08.
And it's a failure.
It's disintegrate, it's fall apart.
Lo and behold, Mr. Baker went out there, read my exact words.
When he announced the findings, this is gonna 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, you know, they're gonna take ownership of all this stuff in January, and it's it's just gonna be a hoot.
It's just gonna be a hoot to watch this stuff.
Now, I'm not saying it isn't going to be serious, but especially all these Democrats jockeying for the president.
Jim Inhoff, a uh 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 uh is uh uh what would you say is a rival of uh in Hoff.
They'd be 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 uh needing air conditioning and using fans to keep themselves cool uh up in the Arctic Circle and just thought it was a disaster just waiting to happen.
It's only a matter of time.
And Inhoff uh called the whole thing irresponsible, and uh and Miles O'Brien responded, but he had to get nudged yesterday by some other member media to wake up, or he would have uh fallen asleep and stayed asleep during the uh during the whole thing.
Dan Gaynor testified, he's uh director of the business and media institute.
Uh 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 uh now that the melting ice caps represent just the opposite.
Just 30 years ago, where we're 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 gotta think about this.
I don't have time to explain it.
I will tomorrow on Open Line 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