All Episodes
Dec. 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
December 20, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back, El Rushbow, not among billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic, secondhand, first hand, or otherwise fragrant cigar smoke.
Because of the Nazi-like restrictions in this city, you can't smoke, and now you can't eat.
And pretty soon you're going to have to eat all your vegetables, and it'll be people coming to your house to make sure that you do.
That's why we are only here for one day.
We'll be back at the EIB Southern Command tomorrow.
Aldermont's back, broadcast engineer, uh, who was the second string number one replacement back from repairing the dykes in uh in New Orleans.
You be honest, you just expected Christmas bonus time today.
Yeah, and and it of all the coincidental days for Aldermont to show up.
Anyway, glad you're with us, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limboa and the EIB network telephone number if you'd like to join us.
800-282-2882.
Chicago Tribune headline, hybrid interest may need refueling research firm says.
Not looking good out there.
Automakers ramping up plans for more gas electric vehicles, i.e.
hybrids.
Just as consumer interest appears to be waning, demand for hybrids has fallen as fuel prices have eased off their historic highs.
CNW marketing research says that a year ago, about 30% of car shoppers considered buying a hybrid.
They were willing to pay a premium of nearly $2,500 more than they would have for a conventional vehicle.
Which makes a lot of sense, does it not?
We've run the numbers on this.
We've been trying to help you people to show you that by the time you go overprice this car and overpay for it, the length of time and the number of miles it would take you to earn back or to save what you overpaid for the car will outlast the lifetime you'll have the car.
And that doesn't when you have to change the battery in it and do the maintenance of these things.
Uh this is just it's a statement vehicle, and the people that are going to have these cars to make statements out of have probably bought them.
When it comes down to a matter of economics, let's face it.
If you don't have to be driving around on one of those things, why in the world would you?
This month, a hybrid uh consideration.
Hybrid considerations at twelve percent.
Shoppers are willing to fork out only an additional eleven hundred dollars uh over what a normal priced car would uh cost.
Demand is falling along with fuel prices, and this has to upset the environmentalist wackos because they want this to be an emotional decision.
They want this to be a cause-oriented buy, and people are looking at this economically, uh, and that's a positive thing, in the sense that it means winning the argument, which reminds me I've got to get oh, before I get to it.
Uh let's see.
This is an ad age, Time Inc., Time magazine that just named all of us, uh, the people of the year.
And by the way, what could it this can only happen with a bunch of baby boomers running the magazine.
Only a bunch of baby boomers could decide that everybody is person of the year.
Put it on your resume, folks.
2006 Time Magazine Person of the Year.
At any rate, Time Incorporated has fired 27 mid-level and junior employees from its consumer marketing department.
Uh happened yesterday.
Uh, proving wrong that anybody who thought their jobs were safe until at least January when wide-ranging layoffs at most titles, magazine titles are due.
Time Inc.
uh.
has laid off more than 400 employees this year.
Uh Dairy Christmas.
Uh, you know what they got as their parting gift?
Normally when you retire, they give you gold watch or uh, you know, a little picture of what your pension will look like or something like that.
These people were given a mirror.
Uh and when they looked in the mirror said, You are Time Magazine's person of the year.
That was the gift thing.
I'm making it up.
They didn't really get it, but it would be it would uh how do you fire a person of the year?
It's a good question.
Oh, speaking, you know, just commenting on New York.
Uh you know, I'm getting close to if I lived in Chicago, I'd vote for Mayor Richard Daly.
And I kid you not, listen to this.
Mayor Daly's from Chicago Sun Times today.
Mayor Daly had a field day ridiculing Alderman for banning Foie Gras and suggesting that Chicago restaurants sharply Restrict artery clogging trans fats.
Now, Mayor Daly has a new target, mandatory calorie counts.
One week after Alderman Edward Burke proposed the idea, Daly shot it down with a sarcastic vengeance.
He argued that restaurant patrons can count their own calories, thank you, and make their own food choices.
Thank you.
He insisted that restaurants already forced to endure back-to-back bans on smoking in foie gras should be left alone by a city council with better things to do.
I would vote for this guy.
He said, I'm getting ready for Christmas, and you better believe I'm gonna eat and drink.
You think my family's gonna prepare my calorie count at home?
How far should government go?
Do we have to have a calorie count?
We have to put it on you as an employee.
Will you be walking around 24 hours a day in restaurants?
How much can we demand from the restaurant industry, Daly said?
Let's take our own responsibility.
When I go out, I want to enjoy my meal.
You know what you're gonna eat, whether it's a salad, a main meal, or a dessert.
You know what you're gonna have.
There's no guilt in that.
I don't want people to feel guilty.
Last night I had turkey.
I had mashed potatoes, everything.
I enjoyed it.
Moderation.
Let individuals figure that out.
I don't think it's up to I mean, everybody else to figure that out for us, meaning government.
Last week, this alderman Burke opened a new front in the war on childhood obesity.
He proposed that restaurants with ten million dollars in annual sales come clean on their menus and menu boards by posting calorie counts, sodium, and saturated fat content at least as large as the name of the menu item or price.
Wade till Bloomberg hears about this.
It's only a matter of time before this is actually going to happen in New York City.
Uh he said Alderman Burke said, I don't necessarily believe adults have to be controlled.
They ought to make their own lifestyle choices, whether smoking, drinking, or eating.
But we come to kids, every medical expert would agree that something needs to be done.
Parents need to be more aware of what the calories are.
Well, this adds up to is what I have always said.
These there is an arrogant condescension from elected liberal Democrat leaders to you, the average person.
You're just incompetent.
You don't know how to raise your own kids.
You don't know how to feed them.
You don't know how to get the best job for yourself.
You don't know how to save money.
You don't know how to be charitable.
You don't know how to take care of people who are less fortunate than you are.
You don't know diddly squat.
You do nothing but mess up your life and everybody else's life, causing pain and anguish for these politicians who have to look at it and take the blame for it.
Well, they're not going to take the blame for it.
They're going to blame you.
And so now calorie counts.
Ban Foie gras, ban trans fats.
Uh it's getting out of hand.
On Tuesday, Daily branded calorie counts, yet another subject unworthy of the Chicago City Council's time.
A second airline is embroiled in a religious row after a stewardess.
Where does this get printed?
What story what's a newspaper here?
That can't possibly be American paper.
You call them stewardesses and keep your job.
What is this?
Uh some UK paper.
At any rate, a second airline embroiled in a religious row after a flight attendant.
That's the correct term, decided to take um BMI to an employment tribunal because it refused to allow her to carry a Bible on flights to Saudi Arabia.
The flight attendant who has not been named claims that she has been subject to discrimination because of her faith.
She's understood to have deep religious convictions and carries a Bible with her at all times.
The Saudi government prohibits the public practice of other religions, and the possession of non-Islamic religious objects has often led to arrest.
That would be things like Bibles.
So the flying Imams can come here and disrupt the United States.
Demand to pray and disperse themselves on airplanes in the manner that the terrorists who hijacked the planes of 9-11 did.
They can demand prayer rooms at airports.
They can pray and do whatever they want on the airplane, and they can wear every symbol of their religion and item of clothing of their religion.
And we can't discriminate.
Because we are the evil majority, and We deserve to have to put up with people that we have made inferior and stolen from and all that treated meanly and so meanwhile.
Flight attendant can't carry her Bible on a flight into Saudi Arabia.
Our friends, the Saudis.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back in uh just a second.
Don't go away.
Your phone calls, other audio sound bites coming up.
And what I'm gonna get to when I when I get a chance here, um there's there's a story here, I'm looking for it.
It's in my stack, Patrick Michaels, who one of my all-time favorite scientists, and he is uh uh uh a man-made here it is, is it and made uh no, this is it, it's one of the first of two.
Man-made global warming denier.
Uh and he is brilliant, and he has the scholarship, and he has the science that can uh put the kabosh on much of the so-called consensus of uh of global warming.
But he and he writes about it in a very articulate way in the American Spectator today, but it's what gave me pause.
I started thinking, yeah, this is right.
He's exactly right.
But it isn't gonna sell anybody other than the academic community and others who have similarly endowed brains as I do, uh, who can read academics and understand them.
Not always agree with them, but still understand them.
Meanwhile, the globally walk global warming crowds uh is is got this movie with Al Gore, and they're showing it to sixth graders and even younger, and they come home after seeing the movie, mommy, mommy, mommy, iceland is melting, and we're gonna get flooded in twenty years, mommy.
What can we do?
Well, that's very easily understandable.
You tell a bunch of young kids that Iceland's melting and other glaciers are melting, and pretty soon your home's gonna be underwater.
And then what's the response to it?
Well, no, if you take a look at the core samples of rocks of the last two thousand years, and you look at the science, you find out the temperature, you've lost them.
It's just too hard to understand.
But your house being flooded because Greenland is melting.
That's easy.
Back in a sec.
Oh, we're back.
That's not the clapper commercial.
Uh greetings, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh here.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have half my brain tied behind my back just to uh make it fair.
I have a story here from TheAge.com.
And I just I just want to read to you the first sentence.
Uh in journalism, they would call this a great lead, L E D E. L E D E is journalism term, great lead.
This is the hook.
Viagra?
Pornography, partner swapping, artificial tongues, electrified rectal probes.
Are you interested in what this story is about?
Here's the rest.
No, they are not the ingredients of a new series of sex in the city.
They are the hardcore husbandry techniques behind a massive boom in the captive giant panda population.
This is how they've done it.
You know, these pandas.
You know, we take them away from uh the wild, and they're having trouble surviving in the wild because of all the bamboo steamers.
Because we've taken their food supply.
We put them in captivity and they don't breed.
Uh and we've had to figure out ways to make them breed, because everybody likes little cute pandas, panda babies and so forth, and they were on the endangered species list, and that's what this this lead is about.
Viagra pornography, partner swapping, artificial tongues, and electrified rectal probes.
The world's most famous endangered species make a comeback after record 31 births in zoos and research centers this year.
Chicom scientists say that they have developed a near 100% success rate for breeding the animals, and that first sentence of the story is how they're doing it.
I'm not gonna go any further and give you the details.
This is something for your mind and your imagination to uh to provide.
I just w once the animal rights people hear about this and start talking about whether or not there is abuse going on here, uh it'll be interesting to see.
Uh no, no, no.
The porn is not panda porn.
There's no such thing as panda porn.
They're they're they're showing them they're real porn.
I mean human porn.
Let me double check this.
You know, I I am not a pervert, and so I didn't read about the pornography.
That's let's see, what are they doing?
Now you've just Okay, to boost sex drive, uh, Viagra, the panda was excited for 24 hours.
They threw that out, uh, panted it a devagra didn't work.
Um we tricked another challenge was the risk of inbreeding to widen the genetic stock.
Researchers had to come up with a way to find a mate for even the least popular females.
See, even to male pandas, some female pandas are, you know, uh not as attractive as other female pandas are.
So they had to trick them in into uh uh mating with the female pandas that were not as attractive.
They all looked alike to me.
But I'm not a panda, so I don't.
Did you ever no turn out the lights?
The Viagra uh does it.
Uh the uh Well no, here's here's what happened.
This I was joking.
The the trick that they played on them is to put a fertile and attractive female into a breeding pin where she leaves scratch marks and droppings capable of exciting a male.
How would you like that as part of your sex life?
But at the last moment, the females are swapped.
The zookeepers introduce a new less popular uh mate uh who has been scented with the urine of the more attractive animals.
How would you like that as part of your sex life?
She is introduced into the mating pen, rear end first, so the male can't see the face of his partner.
It's apparently a coyote, ugly pandas.
I don't know.
Um it's the power of perfume here.
The urine in this species is uh, you know.
Perfume.
Uh when the males find out uh they get very angry when they've discovered a switch, they get very angry and they start fighting the female.
We've had to use firecrackers and a water hose to separate them.
How would you like that?
Well, some of you probably might like that in your relationship.
Artificial insemination has also helped boost panda numbers.
The use of hormones and lab testing of estrogen levels has uh has maximized the short fertility window of female pandas, which lasts about 72 hours per year.
How would you like that?
Actually, that ain't so bad.
Uh adult females now have an 85% chance of being impregnated, but the semen harvesting technique is likely to come as a shock to anyone used to thinking of pandas in terms of cuteness and innocence.
This sounds like a brutal species to me.
And, well, I was just asked by the broadcast engineer, couldn't we just get him drunk?
The females?
The males?
Well, come on, you guys, don't put me in a position to have an answer that.
Get them drunk.
Then what are they gonna be able to do?
Yeah, you're see yeah, yeah, I know that the I know that uh your the cliche is drink drink enough and you won't care what uh panda looks like, but there's also the performing end of this.
Anyway, the the the fact is that the um the uh porn is panda porn.
Uh the pornography involved here is uh panda porn.
Uh the um well, it's it's this it's it's it's tough here.
Uh folks, I mean, I I know this is a lot of a lot of kids are out of school and uh parents want their kids to grow up and be me and have them listening to this.
Uh and I've I'm gonna I'm gonna have to make sure that I uh I need to pre-read this.
I didn't read the whole story, but uh before I get into a discussion of panda porn, porn is not funny to a lot of people.
Up till now, this story has been quite engaging, uh quite illuminating, quite funny.
Uh and it's really changed the way we look at pandas.
Uh certainly has me.
Uh we haven't even gotten to the rectal probe.
I mean, there's there's uh we just we left off here at the males finding out they've been tricked and and being asked to mate with an ugly female, and they find out about it and they start attacking the female after hoses and fireworks to separate them, and next is uh the rectal probe.
Uh and that that's that's inserted in uh into the uh uh sedated male, uh, which is then connected to an electricity supply.
The charges gradually increased until the panda ejaculates.
All right, I promise.
So look, this is the simplest way to do this.
Uh the panda porn is simply wildlife videos.
They're having problems getting the pandas to breed in the zoo.
So they go out and they take videos, uh, wildlife videos, and you could almost say that National Geographics become a smut pedlar.
They go out and they get videos of pandas in the wild mating, and they get they show those videos to the pandas in the zoo.
Now, you know, that means pandas have to be able to watch television and comprehend what they're seeing on it, or a movie screen or what have you.
And I know some of some of you people are going to tell me your dogs watch television and see what's on it and react to it and so forth.
Oh, yeah.
And uh yeah, like my cat chases mice that she sees on TV.
Not.
But anyway, uh sometimes I'm told they add little music on these.
And it's just to show them how it's done.
Because in the captivity, they don't uh they don't learn how to uh how to do it.
Now, this is from the Australian, a friendly word of advice this Christmas.
Relax and enjoy it.
Don't feel guilty about taking home your Christmas turkey in a plastic shopping bag or turning on the lights on the Christmas tree.
They aren't acts of environmental vandalism or likely to accelerate global warming.
You could, of course, be forgiven for thinking otherwise since the publication of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, global warming hysteria has reached fever pitch.
It's not surprising, as the review was presented in terms carefully calculated to engender alarm.
It warns that climate change poses risks on a scale similar to those associated with the Great Wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century, and it requires immediate action.
There has been something of a political and media frenzy ever since.
But surprisingly little publicity has been given to a paper by a recognized authority on the economics of climate change, William Nordhaus of Yale.
Nordhouse is not a climate change skeptic.
He starts out with uh academic courtesy for the work of another another toiler in the vineyard of climate change economics.
The Stern Review, he says, is an impressive document, and although he questions some of its modeling and economic assumptions, he says its results are fundamentally correct in sign, if not in size.
However, that seemingly modest qualification about the size of the economic effects of climate change in fact hides a fundamental disagreement.
Before he's done, Nordhouse punches a huge hole before below the waterline of the whole analysis.
What immediately strikes Nordhaus, who has built his own models of climate change, is how radically different Stern's policy recommendations are from earlier economic models that use the same basic data and analytical structure.
In other words, policies to slow global warming tighten or ramp up over time.
And the truth is that the debate about the science of global warming has been taken over by the politicians and their associates.
And as evidenced by the most recent outrage, which was the letter from uh Jay Rockefeller in Olympia Snow to Exxon Mobil saying basically you will cease testifying or funding any people who do not believe global warming.
Uh this is I mean representatives, high officials, senators, elected senators, demanding of a U.S. corporation that it uh cease its right to free speech because it's not saying what Senators Rockefeller and Snow want to hear.
Uh any time a movement's in trouble, they can't handle dissent.
And that's where the global warming crowd is today.
Now, let me get to this point that I made earlier.
Here's Patrick Michaels in the American Spectator.org today.
Sealing the fate of Antarctica.
The scared de jour on global warming is a massive inundation of our coast, caused by rapid loss of ice from Antarctica.
It's a core point in Al Gore's science fiction movie.
It continues to be thumped by doomsayers around the world and the echo chamber of the alarmist media.
It's also a bunch of hooey.
If you could take the boredom, you could have read hundreds of news stories on this since in an inconvenient truth debuted on May 25th, but you'll find very little mention of a paper that appeared a mere six weeks later in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which should have stopped the whole show cold, meaning Al Gore Show.
The work is by Brenda Hall from the University of Maine and several co-authors.
First Gore's science fiction.
Now, have I not made my point?
Here is if I I don't have time to read this whole thing to you.
Even I, with the skills and the talents I have to draw you to this program as a magnet and keep you here until I leave.
Even this would be a challenge to read this in a compelling fashion, because it's scientific data.
Basically, what it says is that if you want to put the kibosh on the whole theory that Antarctica is melting, study the seal population down.
And the seal population, based on years and years of study and knowledge, does not indicate Antarctica is melting.
Now, that's the my synthesized version of this.
On the other side, what's it competing against?
It's competing against Gore's movie, which he properly refers to here as science fiction.
But look at who's watching Gore's movie.
Look at who we had a woman called yesterday.
Ten year old kid saw the movie, came home, mommy mommy.
Uh Greenland's melting, or whatever it was, and then the East Coast is going to be flooded, and it's all the earth, the earth is going to end in 30 years unless we do something.
Impressionable mind, you know, little kid like that, 10th grader, 10-year-old, whatever, uh uh adults, teachers are authority figures, you believe them at that age, particularly when they're not your parents.
Uh and and so, you know, she called, what should I do?
Should I complain to the school said, no, it's not going to do any good?
Teach your son to be a critical thinker.
Tell him not to accept everything he believes or believe everything he hears or sees in things like this.
But they're putting it in pictures.
So the question becomes right, how in the world are the skeptics of global warming who have just as much science on their side as the other guys, because they're the science on the other side is consensus science.
Uh after you read Patrick Michael's piece, which, believe me, I mean a certain group of people in the country able to read it, I could read it and understand it.
But taking what he's read and passing it along to you, um, and you'd understand it as well, but in a mass market situation, everybody can understand New York flooding.
Whether it's true or not isn't the point.
They can see it, and Gore's got a movie which visualizes it, portrays it.
You take young, impressionable little skulls full of mush, and not incident coincidentally, a bunch of adult skulls full of mush.
You know, the the the primary uh believers of global warming are liberals and Democrats, and again, the reason to explain it is their guilt.
They believe that we are just so big and selfish and powerful that we have the ability to cause this.
And that it is our uh uh unfair and discriminatory, racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic lifestyle that is leading to the excess use of precious resources, leading to pollution and all.
We are causing it, and as such, we have a duty to stop it.
Uh and it's the same crowd that that's constantly running around, never happy, they never smile, ringing their hands or in angst all the time.
And they love, you've heard the phrase, these people are happily miserable.
It's a way of deflecting attention from their own lives and getting involved in the cause as a way of saying, I matter.
I am doing something important, I'm saving the planet.
There's not one bit of intellect that's gone into their decision.
It's total emotion based on good intentions.
Who's against saving the planet?
Who in the world wants New York flooded?
Wait, that's the wrong question.
Some people probably would.
Uh But I mean, who who in the environmental movement right now?
Who in the world wants dirty water?
They've set it up.
If you oppose the environmentalist wacko agenda, why you must be for dirty water.
You must want to breathe polluted air.
And of course, this masks what this whole movement is about.
And the these movies on global warming and so forth are all about having as many Americans admit that we are all at fault, uh, leading to a path of global destruction, planetary destruction, not just damage, not pointing out that even if this happens, there will be plenty of good and there will be plenty of benefit from it.
And that the world, by the way, of which we have no control, uh, you know, how many hundreds of thousands of years ago do you think the land masses and the continents were the same then as they are today?
But everybody's historical perspective begins with their birth.
They think no longer than when they think they're gonna die, and they think that New York City is going to be New York City the way it is for the next hundred million years.
I get a clue it won't.
Even if the Earth survives that long, it something's gonna happen.
The people that live a hundred million years from now, whether they're robots or whatever, uh, they're gonna be reading about us in history just as we read about the cavemen.
Uh minor differences, of course, in technological advancement and so but uh everybody is it's understandable, but when you add the baby boom generation to it with all this narcissism and self-focus and self-absorption, and everything is about me, me, me, me, me.
They and their kids can be made to believe that they are the cause of all of this pestilence and all of this destruction, and then accompanying it, of course we must fix it.
Of course we must atone.
Why we must make amends, why we have destroyed the planet, and in the process, we're causing malaria and AIDS and destruction and starvation and thirst in Africa.
And we're destroying the Middle East, and we blew up Japan with our atomic weapon.
Oh, we are horrible people.
There's a collective guilt that is assumed.
So all this stuff plays it.
You say who's behind it?
People who want to control government.
And people who want to get there democratically.
I mean, the idea is to get as many Americans as possible accepting the notion that the U.S. is guilty, that we are causing the major environmental problems, challenges, or whatever, and that they will then vote for these liberals to put them in power so they don't have to take it over.
They'll just vote for them and in so doing make the statement yes, we are not qualified to live our lives individually.
Yes, we can't do it by ourselves.
Yes, we need your help and guide to you.
We need you, Al Gore, and your ilk, to protect us from ourselves and to protect the planet and to protect us from enemies around the world.
That's where it's all headed.
It's sinister.
What are they going to do when China surpasses us in the missions?
What missions?
What are you talking about?
E-missions, e-missions.
China's gonna well, China can't be guilty of anything.
The question is what's gonna happen, what are the Yalgores and these types going to say when China becomes a greater polluter than the U.S. is in just three years, 2009, everything stays the same, that'll happen.
China will have a right to.
They're a poor country.
Have you seen the way their people live?
And why?
Because we have stole bamboo steamers.
Where do they sell?
Here.
Chinese laborers make what?
75 cents to build Nike so Michael Jordan can become a multi-million.
This that's how it's played out.
The Chinese are ultimate victims.
Not of their government, but of us.
They have a right to pollute.
We deserve this.
We have caused this.
They're three-eyed fish in the Soviet Union.
We caused it because we threatened them with nuclear weapons for 40 years in the Cold War, and we forced them to ramp up militarily instead of feeding their people.
And they their streams had no choice but then to get polluted and leading to three-eyed fish and ten feet frogs and so forth.
This is how it plays out.
I mean, they're all in there laughing, and I know it sounds funny because I say it in a humorous way, but this is exactly the thought.
Why is China not subject to the Kyoto Accords, even though they're worthless?
Why were they exempted?
Precisely because of what I just said.
It's a shame we have commercials on this.
Well, actually, it's not.
Uh back in just a second.
Stay with us.
All right.
Uh, people have been patiently Waiting on the phone, and I've had diarrhea of the mouth here for the last 45 minutes, so let's get some of these uh people have been patiently waiting.
Adam Bloomfield, Michigan.
Thanks for your patience and welcome.
Thanks, Rosh, Megadiddos, and uh Merry Christmas from Warnings about the influence of the drive-by media.
Uh same to you, sir.
Thanks very much.
Um, my comment is a response to those people who believe that New York and places like that will be underwater if the green uh the Greenland ice gaps about.
Um Viking Chronicles all state that Viking are like Greenland was farmable back in 900 and uh 1000 AD.
And if it's farmable, there's obviously less ice than there is now because it's unfarmable now.
And places like Iceland and lower uh lower Great Britain weren't underwater then, so why would they be underwater now?
Even if you accepted that people like you and I were wrong and global warming was existed, and Greenland's melting.
Yeah, exactly.
Right.
Uh you know, the the the the the bottom line is it may happen.
Uh New York was underwater.
There was there there was, if you go back and look at ancient globes of where we think the continental land masses were, there used to not be in North America.
Well, there was, but it was there are theories at Antarctica.
They're looking at ice cores and finding fossils and things could not possibly have lived at the North Pole to have become fossilized.
It had to be somewhere else.
Who knows what's happened?
Folks, we are so insignificant here.
This is the point.
Can you imagine if the global warming movement instead of global warming was you know what?
The continents are moving.
Oh no, do you realize if this keeps happening, New York is going to be at the equator?
What could we do?
What could we do?
Nothing.
It's no different than they tell us the atmosphere is warming.
The eye that we are so insignificant here, it boggles my mind.
There's just no, there's just no concept of history.
There's no historical education about things that deals with with really ancient things.
Uh this is I think this is frustrating.
Because people are gullible.
Everybody wants to believe crisis.
Every generation without fail thinks it's in the last days, or members of it, that it's never been as bad as it is now.
We're going to hell in a handbasket.
Rush, I don't care what you say.
It might have been bad, but it's worse now.
The people think this.
And that when they have that attitude, they're susceptible to all kinds of doom and gloom scenarios.
And then certain among us are eager to accept the blame.
For whatever I'm not a shrink, so I can't analyze that to great extent.
Janina Philadelphia, you're next on the program Hello.
Perpetual ditto, and uh Merry Christmas, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
I'm going back to the Iraq issue in the last hour.
Uh you're asking for motivation.
And uh one of the motivations I see behind the surrender group, I think that uh Baker knows if we pull out, the Saudis will fill in where we left off.
And uh, if the president ignores them, he could say, look, I tried.
You know, I told him what to do.
He didn't listen to me.
So he's hedging his bet there.
You know.
And as far as the Democrats are concerned, bottom line, they want the Iraq issue off the table by 08 because they can't run on this issue.
They'll never get in the White House with the war going on, so they need it out of here.
So anything, whatever it takes, get the troops out of there, get this thing over so they don't have to answer, they don't have to have a plane.
By the way, you know something, Janine, you are very shrewd, and you must have a good memory, and I can't remember the source.
I'm not saying you didn't come up with this on your own.
I'm sure you did.
But we had two two weeks ago, uh it might have been Robert Novak or some insider journalist who had this secret report uh that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want Iraq on the table in 08.
That they want it off because neither party wants to run on it uh in the in the presidential sweepstakes, nor in the congressional and senatorial races.
They don't want it anywhere near there.
Uh and uh you what you said about the Democrats attitude about it, I don't know.
They the uh I'm I'm more cynical about these people.
I that I I mean I can understand that they might not want it on the ballot in 08, and they might not, but I don't think they think it's gonna keep them out of the White House.
I think they think it's a big winning issue.
Uh, particularly if they can continue to pace the news everywhere that we're losing it.
And that they will get us out if they're elected and so forth.
Uh I m the the the cynic in me just knows that uh way too many of them want us to lose.
Or reasons that we don't have time to go into again here.
We're out of time.
Back in just a second.
Okay, folks, had a great time today, as always.
A thrill and a delight to be with you, and tomorrow we'll do it all over again and look forward to it.
Export Selection