All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
December 27, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today is the day that America is mourning the death of President Gerald R. Ford, 38th President of the United States.
We're going to be spending a little bit of time talking about Ford's legacy and the time at which he governed and how we evaluate him a little bit later on in the program.
But he is, he and his family, of course, is in the thoughts of all of us today.
President Ford took over this country at one of the most, maybe the most difficult time ever, certainly one of the most, and he held it all together.
If that's his surviving legacy, it's a pretty good one.
One of the hazards of being a guest host on a program is most of the audience doesn't know you, and they're always wary.
Face it, y'all wish Rush was here.
Well, Rush isn't here.
He's on vacation.
So you've got a guest host here, and you're willing to give them a shot, but you're not really sure about him.
So one of the things that I try not to do is go with my most indefensible thoughts.
My wacky is every talk show host has them.
Some things in which you're just way, way, way out in my case, I guess, right field, or even sometimes left field.
You try not to go with them because the audience is going to think you're nuts.
Now, on my own local program in Milwaukee, they kind of know that I'm a sensible guy and they hear me on all this other stuff, so they'll tolerate one or two weird wacko things.
Now, my criteria for an opinion is I've got to be able to defend it.
It's amaz that that shouldn't be a controversial statement, but it is.
How many liberals have the ability to defend any of their opinions?
They don't, which is why they ran Bush, lied, people died.
I can defend every position that I take.
I admit that I have some that I'm way, way, way thin on.
I'm in the minority, and I'm going to share with you one of those opinions in a second.
But to give you an example, I am okay with the fact that Florida State's in a bowl game tonight.
Florida State is six and six, and they made a bowl game.
Everybody thinks that this is proof that America has become a totally mediocre nation and that we will accept anything.
I'm kind of okay with the fact that Florida State gets to play an extra football game even though they went six and six.
I'm far more bothered by the fact that the Seattle Seahawks are going to make the NFL playoffs, and they might be eight and eight.
They have clinched their division.
They're eight and seven.
If they lose this weekend to Tampa Bay, they're still the winners of their division.
They're going to be in there at eight and eight.
Florida State's just playing a meaningless little bowl game.
There's no chance they have of being the national champion.
Seattle's still in this thing, and they're going to be eight and eight.
There's going to be a second team from the NFC at eight and eight.
Two teams in the NFL playoffs, two out of the twelve, two sixteen percent of the teams with a chance to win the Super Bowl, are likely to be eight and eight.
Now that bothers me.
Now to the more important topic that many of you are going to find indefensible.
It's what I believe, and I know I'm right, I just know that there aren't many people with me on this.
Israel is announcing that it's going to establish the first new settlement in the Palestinian territories in ten years.
This is prompting all sorts of anger among the Palestinians.
According to news reports, concern from the United States, and condemnation everywhere.
Well, my own opinion is that Israel never should have abandoned the old settlements, that Israel shouldn't have moved out of any part of the Palestinian territories, and that Israelis ought to be able to live anywhere they want to live.
And it's beyond me why that's such a minority viewpoint or it's so controversial.
The problem with Israel, and no one I think understands this, the problem with Israel is that most Israelis are naive.
We think of Israel as this tough, hard-bitten nation that learned so much from World War II and fully understands the terrible threat that it faces.
I don't buy it.
I think the Israelis are naive.
They've believed all along that you could reason with the Palestinians.
Give them what they want, and we can all live in peace.
We'll even give them part of our own country.
And then we can finally peacefully coexist.
Well, they were wrong about that.
Israel has abandoned most of its settlements in the Palestinian territories.
It has turned over governance of Palestine to Palestinians, and what do they have to show for it?
Hamas, which is a terrorist organization, is elected to run the country, and it's not even the most terrorist of the Palestinian groups.
The Israelis are despised by Palestinians more now than they were before they made any of these concessions.
Today's New York Times, the official voice of American liberalism, weighs in with an editorial in which it condemns the new Israeli settlements.
They argue, and I'm going to quote a few sentences here, Israel's space for peace diplomacy is tightly constrained.
It must reckon with a Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet that denies its right to exist and rejects the very notion of a negotiated peace.
Yet those facts of Mid East life do not justify authorizing a new settlement.
That self-defeating move adds nothing to Israel's security and needlessly complicates the quest for an eventual negotiated peace.
An eventual negotiated peace.
They've negotiated peace there for 30 years.
How many times have we seen an Israeli leader shake the hands of a Palestinian leader?
It's been going on forever, yet there's never any peace.
Yet here we have a large segment of the world, including a large segment of the American people, saying that the Israelis shouldn't be establishing any of these settlements in Palestinian territories.
This is somehow provocative.
About whom else would we ever say that?
One of the great causes of the American left of my lifetime was bringing down the old racist government of South Africa.
South Africa was led by minority whites.
The majority of the population of the nation was black.
Yet the whites were the ruling class of the nation.
Gradually that ended.
There was a transition in place that allowed black majority rule of South Africa.
Can you imagine if the position of the United States during that time was that in order to ease the transition and not be provocative, we're not going to allow any blacks to settle in Pretoria.
We're going to leave that to the white South Africans.
No one would have ever taken that stance.
What serious person would suggest that no American Jew can build a home in the South?
Yet we're told that Israeli Jews can't build houses in Israel.
To me, that's absurd.
How about this one?
After 9-11, there probably was no community in America more devastated than Staten Island in New York City.
A significant number of the police officers and firefighters that were killed in the World Trade Center lived on Staten Island, one of the boroughs of New York.
Can you imagine what the reaction would have been had someone suggested?
In order to facilitate the healing of the people of Staten Island, no Muslims can live on Staten Island.
No one would have ever suggested that.
Yet, without batting an eye, the New York Times, which prides itself on its tolerance and its open-mindedness and its hatred of bigotry, is willing to run an editorial saying that Israelis can't, of their own choosing, live in Jerusalem or any of the other Palestinian territories.
It not only is practically wrong, and it is practically wrong.
All of this acquiescence on the part of Israel has gotten Israel nothing.
It's morally indefensible.
It's outright religious bigotry.
Because the Palestinians are so hateful and because the Palestinians so despise Jews, we're going to sit by and endorse a policy position that says Jews can't live where they want.
I think it's an outrageous position.
And I believe that Israel started losing Israel when it began to make concessions with regard to these settlements.
The only way for Israel to survive is for the Palestinians to accept that they live in a nation that's going to have Jews in it.
And Jews are going to run that country.
That is what the nature of Israel is.
The Palestinians can't accept that, which is why every time they're given land and every time a settlement is shut down, they want more.
More, more, more.
If Israel was reduced to two square blocks in downtown Tel Aviv, the Palestinians would be determined to get those last two blocks.
So I think it's important that this settlement be established.
It's important that Israel send a message that it isn't going to roll over anymore.
And I realize there's a Malays in Israel.
They are absolutely shocked at what happened in the conflict this year when they tried to fight Hezbollah.
They don't know what to do about the fact that the Iranians are talking about annihilating them.
They're concerned that they have lost some of the strength of their military.
And they are very, very pessimistic about ever reaching an accord with the Palestinians.
They're not even sure if Israel can survive.
What they need to do is buck up a little bit.
And I think the establishment of the settlement is exactly the right message to send.
And it is morally correct.
There's nothing wrong with an Israeli Jew living in Israel.
1-800-282-2882 is the number on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'm your guest host, and my name is Mark Belling.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
One of the reasons why I'm okay with Florida State being in a bowl game is I like the fact that there's like 900 bulls.
There's a football game every night for like six weeks.
That's just beautiful.
To the telephones in New Jersey, Josh, it's your turn on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark, how are you today?
I'm great, thank you.
Mark, I'm a part-time rabbinical student, and uh I have a small business uh here in New Jersey.
I was listening to you on the radio.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I've been in Israel this year.
I will tell you that there was a Malaysia after the war.
And the people feel that they need to do something.
It's not as bad as it sounds, but you know, to put a settlement in, it is their land.
And uh I don't want to go into biblical prophecy.
Uh that's not this is not a problem.
No, none of that is important.
I mean, uh to me, this to say that Israelis can't live in Israel is an abs and an absurdity.
There has been way too much appeasement of the Palestinians.
What Israel what Israel owes the Palestinians is the right to live there.
If they follow the law and they don't kill anybody, they don't owe them anything else.
It's the same thing that any nation owes its citizens.
But instead, because the Palestinians have been have used terrorism, because they keep demanding more and more and more, Israel keeps giving.
And the idea that these settlements should be so inflammatory is blatant racism.
The Palestinians can't handle a couple of apartment buildings that have Jews in it in the middle of what they call Palestine.
I mean, give me a break.
They are the problem, not Israel.
It's in the middle of Israel.
Can I tell you we were driving down the street on a highway, just like you or I would in America?
We see what we think is a uh a barrier to keep us from one side of the road to the other.
And I talked to my driver and I asked him, um, why are the barriers so high?
He said, Well, if someone starts uh started shooting at us, we would stay we would hide behind there until the police came.
This is a nation where every day you don't know if you're gonna come home in the same shape that you left your your house in.
You know, I can guarantee you what you said about Staten Island is absolutely true.
That you can't prevent people from living places, and there are Arabs who live very peacefully among the Jewish people.
What people have to accept, and it's been a hard pill for a lot of people to swallow, is that the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the Palestinians.
Thanks, Josh.
Bristol, Tennessee.
Kyle, it's your turn on Russia's program.
How are you doing, Mark?
I'm great, thanks.
My question is this, and I really don't know the answer, so maybe you can educate me.
Do the Palestinians have the right to choose where they want to live?
And can they live anywhere within the state of Israel?
and just what is their you know, what's their position there in Israel?
Well, they do they do have a couple of they do have a couple of requirements.
They're not supposed to throw rocks or drive car bombs or kill people or try to overthrow the government.
But other than that, yeah, I mean that that's been the entire problem.
Palestinians have been living in what is Israel.
Now there's been argument about whether or not Israel should be there in the first place.
Israel was created after World War II, as specifically as a Jewish state, and the Palestinians have had a problem with that.
But the fact of the matter is that it's happened.
And Israel has tried be again and again and again to to work something out so that the Palestinians would be satisfied living in a nation that they didn't govern.
And they've never been able to be satisfied.
They keep demanding land, and now they demand what I think is basic ethnic cleansing.
You talk about what happened in Kosovo.
What is saying that there can be no Jewish settlements anywhere in the Palestinian territories other than complete ethnic cleansing of part of Israel?
How can you ethnically cleanse a Jewish state of Jews?
To me, it's just absurd, and Israel never should have agreed to abandon any settlements.
It ought to be the most basic of their demands that the Palestinians accept the notion of Jewish settlements, even in the areas that right now are being governed themselves by Palestinians.
Thanks for the call, Kyle.
Larry in North Home, Minnesota.
You're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
Uh I just uh really responded to your uh uh description of the situation in Israel.
I've been studying Islam now quite intensively for about the last three and a half years, and I think the problem is many people look at this problem through Western eyes, with the idea that sooner or later anything can be negotiated.
But the Palestinians and militant Islam, they look at it through Islamic eyes.
And through Islamic eyes, the only purpose for negotiation is a temporary truce until they can assemble the power to uh overcome the enemy.
So that uh truce and negotiation just aren't in their lexicon the way they are in the w the lexicon of a Westerner.
Well, that's because they're not looking for peace, they're looking for victory.
And uh you talk about I think you're right, and that's an outstanding point that you make about Western eyes.
We have not grasped the amount of hate in the Islamist movement.
And for those not familiar with the word, the Islamist movement is the part of Islam that is demanding a jihad that believes that Islam is the only religion that can survive.
They want a holy war.
Well, how do you deal with those who believe that only one religion can survive?
In the case of Israel, how is Israel supposed to deal with residents of the nation of Israel who don't believe that Jews ought to be in Israel?
It is an impossible demand to ever negotiate or to ever accept.
And the idea that you give, give, give, give, give, only works if the other side is willing to deal.
Now I'm looking at this with Western eyes also.
But mine aren't naive.
And I really think that the Israelis, perhaps because they so desperately wanted to believe that they could have their own Jewish state and have it in peace, they've accepted things that I think have not been realistic or practical.
In the meantime, American governments, including sadly, President Bush's and I and President Bush is probably the strongest friend of Israel that the United States has ever produced.
They're bothered by all of these settlements because that they're always trying to manage things.
If we can get through this month, if we can get through this year, well, if there's a settlement, there's going to be more Palestinian violence.
We looks like we're able to talk to Hamas.
Let's do that.
But that doesn't deal with the overall reality that every time you back down to Palestinians, they always want more.
I don't think you can satisfy them.
Thank you for the call, Larry, to uh Riverside, California and Peter.
Peter, it's your turn.
Hello.
Hi.
Uh what the previous caller just said was is true, and what's happening today is a great example in that the Israelis are being blamed for building houses when they had an agreement with the Palestinians some time ago that they would not build houses if the Palestinians would stop bombing them.
And the Palestinians didn't stop bombing.
So what are the Israelis supposed to do?
Just it's you're you're exactly right.
The Palestinians can break every single accord.
They can then go in and elect a bunch of terrorists, which is what Hamas is as their governance, and the Israelis are supposed to say, but we'll abide by all of the bad agreements that we've agreed to in the past.
I think that that is an unfair demand to put upon Israel.
I think that it is imperative that Israel goes forward with this settlement and send a message that this is still their nation and they're not going to tolerate not being able to live there.
I'm the guy from Milwaukee, so I come out to New York to do the program.
I'm hearing all these stories that travel is terrible.
By the way, have they finally cleared out the Denver airport, or is there still a backlog there?
We're hearing about that for days and days and days.
Well, all right, it's after Christmas, it's supposed to be busy, so I show up at the airport like a dork two hours early.
I have made sure that I follow all of the rules because I know how bad the lines are at the security checkpoints.
I've got the toiletries in the clear plastic baggie, everything's sorted, nothing's over three ounces.
I know all the rules.
And I got no time for people who are, but this is only there's only three ounces of toothpaste in here, but it's a seven-ounce tube.
All these debates that I've seen.
I'm completely ready.
I get through and I show up and there's nobody in the line in front of me.
This is the beauty of living in Milwaukee, I suppose.
I walk right through, take the plastic baggie out, they scan the whole stuff, got the shoes off, the belt off, and I'm through, and I know I have two hours to kill before my flight, which turned out to be three hours.
So I get to New York, unpack all of my stuff, and there indeed are all of the toiletries and everything else, but there's no toothbrush.
I remember everything that I have to check and everything that's banned and everything in the right size, but I got no toothbrush.
I may as well have not brought anything at all.
So I go down to the lobby of the hotel and I, you have toothbrushes here?
Yes, we have a toothbrush.
She's probably looking at me like a complete knob because most people are going in and buying toiletries because you can't carry the toiletries anywhere.
I'm the guy that forgot the one thing that you still can bring, which is a toothbrush.
And will you want do you want to so I get this toothbrush?
This is a New York toothbrush.
First of all, it's in uh, you know, I get to stay in a spiffy little hotel here in New York that the EIB puts me up in.
So they've got this.
Well, we have a travel kit toothbrush, and you should see this.
I mean, you couldn't clean your tat your cat's teeth.
And they have a real toothbrush, but it's a New York toothbrush, and it's in like this gold packaging.
And you want to do a room charge?
Yes.
Okay, fine.
I charge it to the room.
Brush my teeth, and it occurs to me.
I have now charged the Rush Limbaugh program for a toothbrush because it's on the hotel bill.
How closely does Rush scrutinize these bills?
I I'm going to be the guy that charged a toothbrush to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Very uneasy about this.
Some auditor somewhere is going to find this.
You mean to tell me Rush Limbaugh is so cheap that he's charging his toothbrushes to the company?
No, no, no.
That was this dorky guest host who came in from Wisconsin.
I won't have any coffee tomorrow.
That'll make up for it.
Uh John Edwards is back in the news.
Remember John Edwards?
That's the problem.
No one does anymore.
Every magazine in America, the showdown begins, and here they they have Hillary on the cover right next to Barack Obama.
Nobody else.
In the meantime, here's John Edwards.
Remember me, John Edwards?
I was your vice presidential candidate.
We almost won.
Remember me?
Well, John Edwards isn't comfortable with the fact that everyone has forgotten who he is.
So he's going to declare his candidacy for the presidency tomorrow, and he's going to go down into the guts of Hurricane Katrina Ravage New Orleans.
What's the district that's apparently the ninth district of the it's the ninth ward of the ninth district, whatever the part of New Orleans that's still most screwed up is, where he's going to go down and declare his candidacy for the presidency because he's going to repeat this theme that he used when he ran for the presidency the first time around.
People forget that before Edwards was the running mate, he actually Ran against Terry in 2004, and he's going to repeat the same theme in 2008, this tale of two Americas.
There's two Americas, there's the America for the rich, and then there's the America for everybody else.
And we're forgetting about the America for everybody else.
That's his theme.
So he's going to go into the middle of New Orleans, standing amongst probably the worst possible destruction that he can find, declare his candidacy for the presidency and say that he's going to represent all of those who have been left behind.
You know where John Edwards himself lives.
He doesn't live in New Orleans.
He doesn't live in a slum.
He lives in a three million dollar estate in North Carolina, and right now, as we speak, they're doing remodeling work on it.
He's a super rich trial lawyer.
He's not poor.
He's one of the guys who has gotten ahead during this time, not because he's made anything, but because he sued people.
Anyway, he's uh he's running.
There's also a story out today, mentioned it a little bit earlier.
Joe Biden, the senator from Delaware, is entering the presidential race for the, I believe, 27th.
How many times has Biden run?
Nobody ever pays attention to Biden's runs.
You don't even remember when he drops out because nobody ever takes seriously the fact that he's why does Joe Biden think that anyone wants him to be president of the United States?
Didn't he get caught plagiarizing something during one of these presidential runs?
Yeah, he where did he go to school?
Did he plagiarize something when he was in school, or what did he plagiarize?
He gave a speech.
Yeah, Neil Kinnock, I'm told, the labor leader in England.
Biden plagiarized one of his speeches, so that ended it, that presidential run.
Maybe he thinks as long as he gives his own speeches this time around, he can win.
As for Edwards, mentioned earlier that I'm okay with Florida State playing in a bowl game.
Well, here's another oddball opinion.
No one thinks this, but I think Edwards can win.
I really do.
The Democrats never choose who you think they're going to choose.
That's what the Republicans do.
The Republicans always choose the guy that takes the lead a year earlier.
That's what happened in 2000 with President Bush, this President Bush.
In 96, Dole was the early leader.
Nobody ever seriously challenged him.
Last time before that, we had an open fight.
The first President Bush ran as the sitting vice president.
There were opponents, but he was the prevailing front runner.
He won.
Same thing with Reagan in 80, Ford in 76, President Ford who passed away today.
He was the presumptive nominee in 700.
All the way back in his in the last 50, 50 or 60 years, the Republicans have chosen the person who was the front runner the year before.
The Democrats always pick somebody who you never thought would have gotten it.
Look at who they've chosen.
In 2004, no one thought it was going to be Kerry.
Throughout the entire year of 2003, the guy that was leading was Dean.
There was this big Dean was appealing to the internet crowd.
Dean was appealing to the passion of Democrats.
Dean was appealing to the ideals of the left.
Well, then Dean imploded and Kerry, who was muddled along, did well in the Iowa New Hampshire caucuses and went on and won the presidency.
Clinton looked to be dead after the Jennifer Flowers revelation came out.
He survived, a little governor from Arkansas, Carter.
All the way through, the Democrats have tended to choose candidates that you wouldn't expect them to choose.
Now my thinking on this is this.
I don't think Hillary's going anywhere.
I haven't bought into this from the beginning, and I don't buy into it now.
Hillary has been the Democratic front runner for president simply because she was the one Democrat that everyone had heard of.
The Democrats don't choose their candidates that way.
Every time you try to anoint someone as their candidate, somebody else gets it.
They tried to do this with Ed Muskie in 1972.
They tried to do it with Teddy Kennedy.
The person the Democrats are supposed to choose is never the one that they do choose.
The fact that there's this incredible infatuation right now with Obama.
Everywhere Obama goes, he draws these enormous crowds.
That tells you that there's something fundamentally flawed with the Hillary candidacy.
If Hillary was really the choice of so many Democrats, Obama wouldn't be getting the attention that he's getting.
So the way I see this is Obama is going to be the Howard Dean of 2007.
Just as Howard Dean dominated the polls, became the Democratic front runner in 2003, got the endorsement of a number of Democratic leaders.
Remember when Al Gore even endorsed Dean?
All of that happened.
I think that's going to happen with Obama.
And then Obama's going to fizzle and we're going to realize that he isn't really ready to be president.
Hillary, though, I think is going to deflate.
Once she falls behind Obama in the polls, which is going to be sooner rather than later, she's going to keep sinking.
She's not going to know how to deal with it because she's never really run a contested race in her life.
She was handed the New York Senate seat the first time around, had no real opposition last time.
She's never been behind in an election ever.
She's going to become shrill and she is gradually going to deflate.
I would be surprised if she even is on the ballot when the Iowa caucuses come around.
Edwards, I expect to keep plugging along.
This two class America talk is stuff that the lefties just love.
They're going to perceive him as somebody who can actually win the presidency because he's from the South.
I think he has a real chance.
And he's the one Democrat that's out there and running right now that I actually fear.
No one else thinks this, do they?
No one else says that John Edwards is going anywhere.
Well, John Edwards will be happy to know that I think that he has a chance to win the Democratic nomination.
My name is Mark Belling and I'm in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
One of the conservative magazines that I like a lot is the Weekly Standard.
It's the magazine that Bill Crystal and Fred Barnes do.
On the back page every issue, they have a parody.
It's an attempt to do what Rush always tries to do, which is to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
So they'll take some news item or something and kind of exaggerate it a little bit.
The problem with doing that sort of thing is you can't make parodies of the left anymore.
There is an editorial in today's New York Times that if I read it anywhere else, I would be convinced it is a parody.
They put it on the bottom of the page like they're trying to sneak it in there.
I'm going to read you the first four paragraphs.
And this is not a parody.
The headline on the editorial is meat, MEAT, meat, and the planet.
Now, just when I saw the headline, I knew this had to be good.
They write, when you think about the growth of human population over the last century or so, it is all too easy to imagine it merely as an increase in the number of humans.
Well, yeah, that is how I would imagine an increase in the human population would be an increase in the number of humans.
But only the New York Times could follow that sentence up with the word but.
But as we multiply, so do all the things associated with us, including our livestock.
At present, there are about 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo, and about 1.7 billion sheep and goats.
With pigs and poultry, they form a critical part of our enormous biological footprint upon this planet.
Just how enormous was not really apparent until the publication of a new report called Livestock's Long Shadow by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Consider these numbers.
Global livestock grazing and feed production use 30% of the land surface of the planet.
Livestock, which consume more food than they yield, also compete directly with humans for water.
And the drive to expand grazing land destroys more biologically sensitive terrain, rainforests, especially, and then anything else.
But what is even more I am not making this up.
But what is even more striking and alarming is that livestock Are responsible for about 18% of the global warming effect.
More than transportation's contribution.
The culprits are methane, the natural result of bovine digestion, and the nitrogen emitted by manure.
Deforestation of grazing land adds to the effect.
Now, first of all, can you imagine what the reaction has been every single time?
One of us conservatives or one of us skeptics about global warming has suggested that this might be a natural phenomenon when we have tried to point out that animals actually have more emissions than man produces, even with all of our hydrocarbon emissions.
We've been ridiculed.
Oh, yeah, right.
Global warmings because of the cows.
I've tried to tell the story on my own radio show in Milwaukee about the impact here of emissions from animals, pointing out how silly it is to presume that man is responsible for warming the planet, and I'm laughed at.
Now we have a report, however, that gets the official imprimatter of the New York Times.
Well, unfortunately it does appear as though animal manure is a greater contributor to global warming than transportation.
Understand what they've admitted here.
Cows and pigs answering nature's call has a greater impact on global warming than the SUV and every other car out there.
So what do they want us to do about that?
And by the way, you notice that they somehow are blaming this on man because the population of humans has expanded, the population of livestock is therefore expanded, and the livestock are going out and doing their business, and therefore we're warming the planet.
So what do they want to ban now?
They're telling us that it absolutely is indefensible to drive an SUV, instead we're all supposed to be in driving Priuses.
Are they going to ban ribey's?
Filet mignon, no more pork chops.
The larger point here, and I'm not disputing that there might be a global warming impact from methane.
Because everything causes everything else.
We live in a planet in which each species, including man, is interdependent on other species.
Things are occurring.
Stuff happens, particularly appropriately here.
But none of it is anything that we can control.
It's the natural result of human beings living on the planet.
This is why the planet has alternately warmed and cooled throughout its entire history.
Man isn't causing it any more than the cows are causing it, even if they are both causing it, and that is not a contradictory statement.
It's just what is going on.
And every time something happens, something else corrects for it.
The fact that the left is now acknowledging that animals may be as responsible for global warming as man is proof of my larger point that we aren't doing anything to this planet.
Whether it's warming or not is not the result of any human activity that can be controlled.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush talks a lot about the drive-by media.
And isn't the case of the Duke Lacrosse players a perfect example of that?
This was a story that everyone seemed to understand before they knew anything.
Minority victim, raped by brutal athletes, It fit into the story that they wanted to tell.
Bunch of spoiled rich kids going to a prestigious university, taking advantage of a woman, taking advantage of her status in life, taking advantage of the fact that she's an adult dancer.
It just fit into the story they wanted to tell.
And even in the North Carolina community, the politically correct types demanded that something be done.
This is a shameful moment in Duke history.
The entire case is falling apart, yet the prosecutor won't let go because he can't process just as many in the media can't process the fact that they may have had it wrong all along.
The alleged victim in the case is now acknowledging that she may not have been the victim of sexual penetration, which completely contradicts the story that she told in April.
There's no physical evidence, so they only have the word of someone who has changed her story.
It may well be that none of it is true.
What is certainly clear is that there is not a case that's prosecutable.
▲
Export Selection