All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:20
March 1, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi.
How are you?
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Hosted by me, America's real anchor man, Rush Limbaugh, aka, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi.
Now, remember, I have never said I'm the smartest person in media.
You just think it.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Trumpet fanfare.
Time for a global warming update.
I love that.
The crazy world of Arthur Brown, one of our three global warming update themes in rotation.
Snow emergency has been declared in Minnesota, ladies, and it's March.
And it means that Punxitawney Phil was lying through his teeth when he said we were going to have an early arriving spring, plus a tornado warnings all over the South and the Midwest.
And of course, PMSNBC just published the travel itinerary for the body of Anna Nicole Smith on her way to burial.
They really did.
5.30 a.m. tomorrow, casket will be driven to Miami International Airport, board a private plane, fly over to Nassau, telling you this country is in therapy.
If you were not here at the beginning of the program, I'll repeat this.
A former Canadian defense minister is demanding that governments worldwide disclose and use sacred alien technologies, space alien technologies that have been obtained in alleged UFO crashes in order to stem climate change.
Paul Hellyer told the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, he's 83 years old, I'd like to see what alien technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation.
That could be a way to save our planet.
His theory is that these UFOs have gotten here with some court of super advanced propulsion.
It's real fast.
It doesn't pollute because nobody is blaming global warming on the aliens.
Oh, take that back.
I take that.
I stand correct.
Michael Crichton has done just that.
In a speech, Michael Crichton, to make a point, suggested that aliens are responsible for global warming.
His point was, if you believe in UFOs and if you believe in aliens, you are a prime suspect.
You're an easy target to believe in the hoax of global warming.
Now, when you hear this, this is a real guy.
He's 83 years old and he really thinks that the world's governments ought to admit that they've all got UFOs hidden away.
We ought to examine them, find out what propels them, what kind of fuel, what kind of propulsion, because obviously it's clean and it's quick and it's big and it doesn't pollute.
Now, this is not unusual.
If you think this is kooky, then correct yourself.
This is emblematic of the entire global warming movement, folks.
It's no more outrageous and is just as credible as this whole carbon offsets scam.
I can't, you know, we ought to go into business at EIB selling carbon offsets.
We could become gazillionaires.
All we have to do is tell people, look, you can buy carbon offsets from EIB and continue to drive whatever you want to drive.
Just don't change anything.
We'll handle it for you.
And you don't even have to know what we're going to do.
Just trust us.
We will take steps here at the EIB network to reduce carbon footprints so that yours can remain as large as you want it to be.
And all you have to do is pay us, say, $100,000.
$100,000, and you can live guilt-free.
It is time to corner the carbon offset market.
It's just as absurd as this idiot who claims that examining UFOs could solve global warming.
Another story, this is so dear to my heart.
This was in the Atlanta Urinal Constipation on the 26th of February, so just two or three days ago.
And the headline, Cars Improved the Air.
You know, this is something that I don't mention enough.
I've talked about this over the course of the many stellar years of this program's eminence.
However, it doesn't come up enough.
This is by Dwight R. Lee.
The motto of all environmentalists should be, thank goodness, for the internal combustion engine.
But it's not, is it?
The internal combustion engine is enemy number one, is it not?
The internal combustion engine is the target.
Fossil fuels are burned by the internal combustion engine.
For those of you in real, well, you know you've got three or four of them stacked up on concrete blocks in the front of your house.
The abuse heaped on the internal combustion engine by environmentalist WACOs was never justified, but a recent story on cow flatulence in the British newspaper The Independent makes the environmental benefits from gasoline-powered engines even more obvious.
Based on a recent study by the Food and Agricultural Organization, The Independent reports that livestock are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Now, remember, we discussed yesterday with Roy Spencer that greenhouse gases do not cause global, well, global warming or greenhouse effect is a natural thing here.
Many of you believe that the greenhouse effect is something that never existed on the planet until Americans invented the automobile, started driving around and building smokestacks and polluting.
And that's not true.
The point is that livestock are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than cars, more than airplanes, and all other forms of transportation put together.
And that is true.
Long before global warming became an environmental concern, however, the move from the power provided by animals to that provided by gasoline had greatly improved the environment.
The emissions that came out of the tailpipes of horses were much more lethal pollutants than those now coming out of the tailpipes of cars.
Horse emissions did more than make our town and city stink.
They spread flyborne diseases and polluted water supplies that killed people at a far greater rate than the pollution from cars and trucks ever have.
This is oh, so true.
You know, our favorite thing, conventional wisdom, says that automobiles, the internal combustion engine, have been an environmental disaster.
And this guy has the gonads to ask compared to what?
You know, you watch Westerns and those things are sanitized.
You don't understand it back in the old days when the horse and buggy or the horse were the primary mode of transportation, the ox or what have you.
Manure was everywhere.
It was in the streets.
You had flies.
You had insects flying around.
You had stunk.
It was a literal method.
Why do you think the buggy whip was eventually gotten rid of?
Human beings are always trying to improve their standards of living.
Human beings have always, since the beginning of time, tried to improve their lifestyles.
They've tried and they have sought and they've succeeded in finding a more advanced way of living.
And it is those advances which are now coming under attack by global warming hysterics, hoaxers, and plain out-and-out liars.
And it's based on the notion that everything in the past was pristine and beautiful.
It was like the Garden of Eden before we came to this continent, before we polluted it with syphilis and horses and all that.
It was pristine.
And even after that, it was all nature.
Anything animals do, that's fine.
That's nature.
What man does.
See, we are exempt from nature because we are evil, particularly American men and women.
You ought to research this on you if you don't believe me, but you should, because it was, you know, this is, it just is logical.
It stands to reason, and it is irrefutable that back in the days when horses and so forth were the primary mode of transportation.
Have you ever been to a horse farm?
You ever been to a barn?
You ever walked into a barn?
Imagine living in a town that smelled like one and looked like one no matter where you went.
In front of the saloon, in front of the blacksmith's place, in front of the bordello, in front of your house.
That's what it was.
The internal combustion engine cleaned things up, made life easier, and it's now under attack by a bunch of people that, frankly, folks, should not be given anywhere near the time of day.
And they still don't get it.
They don't want to get it.
Still have some more global warming news in the stack.
We'll get to it as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
By the way, we had a drive-by call from Joe in West Palm Beach.
He said, Rush, surprised at you.
Yesterday, you gave us the details of the story.
A Florida legislator wants to outlaw the use of the word illegal immigrants and aliens.
Doesn't like either term when talking about illegal immigrants or aliens because it's humiliating and it's to put down.
And besides, this woman who's from Miami, this legislator said the aliens reminds her of people from out of space, out of space.
And so Joe in West Palm Beach says that we should be talking about space immigrants.
The guy up in Canada should be talking about space immigrants, not aliens, because you can't talk about space aliens flying UFOs because it's actually it could because those people are from out of space.
But you see, they are screwing around with the language again.
If we're not careful in the illegal immigrant alien, you know, this stuff doesn't just go away when these people propose this.
It gets laughed at at first, but it just keeps percolating, if not here somewhere else.
Get used to it.
Get ready.
Susan in Colfax, Wisconsin.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
I was asked to get right to the point, and it was about the word that is used wasted in regard to soldiers.
And I just wanted to say how much that hurts people who have lost somebody in war.
Oh, I totally understand.
You're talking about Senator McCain last night on the Letterman Show and his informal announcement for the presidency.
Yes, Ann Obama also mentioned it, and it's been mentioned by others, too.
And it is so hurtful.
I'm going to play devil's advocate with some people on this.
I understand wasted hurts.
Yeah.
But I want to give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt.
I think he misspoke, and I think it was unfortunate.
I think this is the way.
I can't speak for Obama.
I think Democrats do think that there's no such thing as valor in war because they're anti-war and anything that happens in war is bad.
And I do think that about them.
And McCain, I think, you know, he's been a supporter of the war, Susan, but he has been very publicly opposed to tactics.
He's been very publicly opposed to the way that it has been waged.
And I think that's the context in which he meant wasted.
I think what he's, and again, I'm just guessing, but what he's saying is that we haven't fought this thing to win it.
We've been in sort of a stalemate for too long.
And if we're going to commit to winning, let's go win it.
And that's why he's been supporting the additional troops for the surge, which, according to Ralph Peters today in the New York Post, is working big time.
Yes.
Do you have to be in a war that you win in order to be called a hero?
Is it an unpopular war?
I mean, were the men at the Alamo, were their lives wasted?
The term wasted is wrong, whether the tactics are bad or not.
These men answer the call to their country, and if they put their life on their line for their country, you can't put that in the context of wasted.
I'm not defending the use of the word, and I agree with you totally that it's misused every time it is when it's related to the deaths of a military personnel anywhere, at Iraq, anywhere else in combat.
My idea of a wasted life is a life not well lived.
And when you choose to live your life with valor and courage and commitment, you just can't use that term.
And that's why it's so bad.
Amen.
Look, I still think it was more a slam against the president than it was the soldiers.
Oh, I'm so tired of the president being slammed.
I love him.
I got grief yesterday, last night, because I was perceived as slamming the president on this on the good neighbor policy with the Iranians.
By the way, Susan, thanks for the call.
You're dead on right.
I couldn't agree with you more, and I appreciate the call.
I'd love to compliment you, but I guess I can't do that today.
Well, sure, you can, because I'm under orders to accept compliments to learn how to do it better.
Because normally, see, when I get a compliment, I get all nervous.
I know, no, And people have told me you're denying people who want to compliment you the pleasure it gives them to do so.
So basically, I'm being told I need to learn how to receive better.
Oh, well, yeah, I can understand.
You are humble, and you're a decent man, and that kind of flattery embarrasses you, and that's why we love you.
Well, thank you.
That's right.
I don't consider myself anything special.
That's why it does.
It embarrasses me.
You're right.
It doesn't want to get a present.
You know, I get a birthday present.
I haven't done anything but live a year.
Big deal.
I also agree with you about Valentine's Day.
I don't go for all that stuff either.
Well, congratulations.
That makes two of us.
Yeah, it's just commercialism as far as I'm concerned.
And if you love somebody, you tell them when it moves you to do so.
Exactly.
Exactly.
You have no truer words have ever been spoken.
Thank you.
No truer words.
Tell them when you feel moved to.
Yes.
Not when they demand it.
Exactly.
That stab's the worst thing it can possibly happen.
That's coercion.
Love has nothing to do with that.
It takes away the sincerity of it.
Oh, I wish I could talk to you all day.
I know.
See, that's accepting a compliment.
People that's arrogance and egotistical.
It isn't.
I appreciate it, Susan.
Thank you.
We love you, Raj.
Thank you.
Love you too.
Appreciate it.
She's right about this.
I understand exactly what she's talking about and how the word can upset, especially people who have lost family members in combat, this one particularly.
All right, a brief timeout.
We'll come back.
We'll continue here in Mere Moments on the EIB Network.
Stay with us.
Thank you.
I mentioned this in our last call.
The good neighbor meetings, good neighbor policy between the Iraqis, the Iranians, Assyrians, and us have a few items on this today.
I caught hell last night from a couple people in the email.
I'm sick of you bashing Bush.
It's bad enough when I have to listen to other Republicans bash Bush.
I cable DV.
You don't know what you're talking about, Fallujah.
You'll be talking about anything, solder.
And now here you are.
It's not going to affect the policy at all if we talk to them.
The war plan stays the same.
Why are you going some sick and dirty bashing Bush?
They were all over the place.
No, no, no, no.
I've not heard from the White House.
I didn't expect to hear from the White House.
I got my mind right on this.
And I wrote a couple of these people back last night.
I said, Look, you have to understand where I'm coming from.
I want to back these guys.
But six weeks ago, they say this has no chance.
And I applaud them to the roof because this is this notion that they email.
Well, we talked to the Germans in World War II.
We talked to the Japanese in World War II.
It isn't the same.
We didn't go out there and say we weren't going to.
And the level of talks that we had with the Germans and the Japanese, we didn't get together with the Germans to figure out how we'd solve the problem with Japan.
And we didn't get together with the Japanese and ask them, how can we solve the problem with Hitler?
So I, you know, this, but I see what I mean when I say I am the bulwark and the rock.
None of this moved me, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm just sharing with you the criticism and the grief and the veritable shouting.
Some of this stuff was in all caps, which means people are shouting.
And I said, I want to support these guys.
You people got to know this.
But I mean, we go six weeks ago, two weeks ago.
They tell us this is never going to happen.
We're never our workers.
We isolate our enemies.
We don't sit down and break bread with them and have tea and play the state farm good neighbor jingle.
And then lo and behold, they do it.
And then they slough it off on the Iraqis.
And they say it's the Iraqi.
Well, the Iraqis told us Alec told us he's going to talk to them regardless, so we're going to go along.
And I'm just saying, it really, I mean, from my standpoint, six weeks ago, they say they're not going to do it.
I praise the move.
I defend it.
I support it.
What am I supposed to do now?
Just cast away what I really think in order to be a cheerleader?
Apparently, that's what some people in the audience want, but that's not me.
Now, let's look at the stack here.
First up is a New York Times story: Iran to take part in Iraq security conference, the Good Neighbor meeting.
The top Iranian national security official, Ali Larajani, indicated Wednesday that Irani officials would probably take part in a regional security conference on Iraq next month, which would include the first high-level diplomatic contacts between American and Irani officials in more than two years.
Yeah, and prior to that, we talked to him all the time.
Talked to him, Carter talked to him until he lost his voice, and his cardigan got holes in it.
The EU has been talking to the Iranians about nukes, and the nukes are growing, and the UN's been talking to him.
And so, yeah, a lot of great track record out there on talking to him.
Well, what harm can come of it?
What harm can come talking to?
It doesn't mean the war plan is going to change.
Well, I'm not sure about that.
One of my fears is that the decision to throw in here might mean that somebody up there thinks, ah, they said, we're at the end of our rope.
We've got to find a new way out of this.
It's a genuine fear that I have.
The Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki set a date on Wednesday for the conference.
It is to be held March 10th in Baghdad.
Let me call up the calendar here.
I need to find out what's happening on March the 10th.
What day of the week is that, March?
It's a Saturday.
Slow news day.
Make sure this.
Yep, March 10th is a Saturday.
So Maliki is deciding when it's going to happen, and it's going to happen in Baghdad.
The agenda will be how to rescue Iraq from a civil war that claimed at least two dozen more lives.
Now, this is the New York Times, and I'm naturally skeptical, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that this sentence is accurate.
The agenda will be how to rescue Iraq from a civil war that claimed at least two dozen more lives.
A civil war is what will happen if we leave.
There is no civil war in Iraq.
There might be some sectarian violence going on in a part of Baghdad, one city, but it is not the country.
There's no civil war in the north.
There's no civil war in the south.
There's no civil war in the west.
And it's arguable that what's happening now is a civil war.
But anyway, here's the agenda.
We're going to bring the Iranians in who are responsible for this and ask them what we can do to rescue Iraq from a civil war that the Iranians are sponsoring and funding.
And they're providing personnel and, of course, the bombs and explosives.
All right.
So New York Times, Iran to take part in Iraq Security Conference, the Good Neighbors Meeting.
The Associated Press has a story.
Iran's participation at summit, uncertain.
Iran's level of participation at Iraq summit, uncertain.
Arab nations still have doubts.
Iran's level of participation remained uncertain today as Iraq pushed ahead with plans to hold a March 10th conference with its neighbors and key Western countries on the Iraqi security crisis.
Some Arab neighbors, like Egypt, for their part, still have grave doubts the gathering will accomplish much.
They're right.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshar Zabari said Wednesday the Iranians had agreed to participate in a meeting with Iraq's other neighbors, but he said that they've got some questions about a separate session that will be held the same day with the five permanent UN Security Council members, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and the CHICOMs.
His words seem to indicate that Iran was at least partly unhappy with the arrangements for the conference.
Iran has had little public comment on the conference so far beyond saying it would weigh attending the generally supported regional efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Yeah, and in the meantime, in a story dated today, now the stories Wednesday for the New York Times.
Oh, yeah, Iran's going to be there big time.
Thursday, it's not shooting it.
Iraq's going to show up.
Today, later today, this news hit.
Iran's president blamed the United States and Israel for the world's problems Thursday.
This is about the billionth time he's done it this year in a lecture to Sudanese officials and intellectuals during his visit to Sudan.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments came as Iran and Sudan face mounting international criticism.
Iran over its nuclear activities and Sudan over the conflict in Darfur.
In his lecture Thursday titled Iran and the World, Ahmad Dinejad reiterated his arguments that he's made repeatedly throughout the standoff with the U.S. and its Western allies over Iran's nuclear activities.
There's no place in the world that suffers from divisions and wars unless America or the Zionist fingerprints are seen there.
Ahmad Dinejad told his audience in Farsi, translated into Arabic.
He urged Muslims to rally behind Iran and accused detractors of Iran's nuke program of trying to prevent a developing country from making scientific advances.
All right, this is nothing new for Mahmoud to run around and say that the world's problems are caused by the Israelis and by us, the Americans.
So I do remain skeptical of the good neighbors thing.
I know a lot of you think that it's a tripwire, that it's a gimmick.
And if it's tactical, then I will back off.
As I said yesterday, I was very clear about this.
This is just a tactical move and it doesn't affect any other aspects of the policy, the war plan or whatever, then fine, go out and have your tea and crumpets and like a good neighbor.
Well, but you say that, HR says, a lot of neighbors don't like Iran when they get together.
Well, guess who's going to Saudi Arabia?
Mahmoud Ahmad Dinijad is going to make his first official state visit to Saudi Arabia.
You're going to go up there and he's going to go talk to the royal family about whatever.
Well, you might say, I would too, if you were Mahmoud, because the Saudis are afraid of everybody there is afraid of the Iranians.
So why buckle to them?
Everybody's afraid of them.
So we're going to buckle to them.
If this is not tactical, if this is strategic, if we're really, really, really serious about having the Iranians solve this problem, count me out.
That's all I'm saying.
We are entrepreneurs here at the EIB network.
We see an opportunity.
We seize on it.
And translate Can't Do Spirit.
When we see a trend, folks, we get out in front of it.
All right, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
This is Steve.
You are next, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, it's really an honor to call you.
Thank you.
Rush, in your ongoing admonition for us to follow the money trail, I wanted to ask you if you knew who sells these carbon offsets, who has the right to sell them, and where do I get a distributorship?
There is, there's this outfit in California.
I'm going to have to reconsult the Schwarzenegger story on his jet because he is, I don't know if he's buying carbon.
There's a company that sells carbon offsets in California.
And the next break, I will get it.
And it's sort of a strange name.
That's why I can't remember it.
Okay, Rush.
I don't think they're offering franchises, though.
Listen to this phrase.
Since there's no controlling legal authority, who's to say that I can't counterfeit these things and start selling them on eBay?
Nothing.
There's nothing that you go out and sell them.
All you got to do is say you're going to go plant some trees.
Yeah, hey, not now.
And then just realize if somebody says, what trees are you planting?
Well, the lumber companies are planting trees every day because they chop them down every day for paper.
So and a number of things.
So the trees are being planted every day, and we're taking care of your carbon footprint for X amount.
This is a way to make sure you do not have to Sacrifice any of your precious power usage.
Now, if this is an affront to the whole world, does the whole world get a piece of the action?
Like, if Al Gore burns his lights a little bit too long one night, does he send the aborigines a check for it?
No.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
What, what, what, what, I don't know that Gore is, Garb, here, let me, here's, here's.
I've got a story from the AP.
This is an incredible story, by the way.
It is a rewrite of the first story on his power usage at his house.
And even by the standards of the Associated Press, it's just off the wall here.
Group skeptical of global warming notes Gore's home is a big energy user.
Following criticism by a conservative group of Al Gore's large home energy consumption, a Gore spokeswoman defended the former vice president's lifestyle, saying he invests in enough renewable energy to make up for the power consumption at his home.
So now, this think tank or this watchdog group has become conservative since the story was first reported.
That's the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying that Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption and hence emissions of carbon dioxide.
The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.
Now, this is the big, this is the, I guess, the kicker.
The utility records show that the Gore family paid an average monthly electric bill of about $1,200 last year for its home.
It's 10,000 square feet.
They used about 191,000 kilowatt hours in 2006.
According to bills reviewed by the Associated Press, the typical Nashville house uses about 15,600 kilowatt hours per year.
The group said that Gore uses nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours last year and that his average monthly electric bill was about $1,359.
Spokesman for the group said his group got its figures from the Nashville Electric Service.
But company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.
Now, the Gores have not denied any of the figures because you don't have to get permission from the utility company for the figures.
They are public.
They are available.
Those records are public, and the Gore camp has not even disputed them.
Now, this is the Pièce de Résistance.
To get to your question, Gore, who also owns a home in the Washington area, has said that he leads a carbon-neutral lifestyle.
To balance out other carbon emissions, the Gores invest money in projects to reduce energy consumption, said his spokesman, Callie Kreider.
Now, nowhere in this article is a shred of proof that Gore is carbon neutral.
And in fact, I would submit to you that carbon neutral is impossible as long as you are breathing.
It's not possible to be carbon neutral.
This whole thing is a scam.
So his carbon neutrality comes from solar panels and compact fluorescent bulbs.
But if he were doing all of that, his bills wouldn't be so high.
Since this environmentalism is the religion of the left, doesn't this sound an awful lot like the selling of indulgences during the Middle Ages?
Yeah, I've had a bunch of people make that comparison.
You could basically, correct me if I'm wrong here.
You could basically go to the church and get permission to sin.
For money.
For money.
Just give the church money and they would absolve you of the.
One other thing: if you speak against Environmentalism, they will bring you up before the Inquisition.
Well, yeah.
Well, we are called by those people global warming deniers.
Yeah, now, if you bring this all to light and nail these to the door of the church, you know what that makes you a modern-day Martin Luther.
Yeah.
Fine, we'll start the new religion of Russism.
Look, I appreciate call David.
Steve, yeah, I've got a run here.
But the whole thing is plastic banana, good time rock and roll.
It's spony bologna.
It's a house of cards.
It's a bunch of mirrors.
But yeah, go on eBay and sell some carbon offsets.
See what happens.
Back here in just a second.
Stay with it.
Work.
▲
Export Selection