All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
March 2, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hang on, still looking at something here.
Okay, guess we're ready to go.
Open Line Friday.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Happy to have you with us live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo!
Great to have you with us on the most unpredictable program on Radio Today program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
A program that combines irreverent humor with a serious discussion of issues with credibility on both sides of that equation.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, just remember, Open Line Friday is different in this way from Monday through Thursday.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about what I care about.
I don't care about it.
We don't talk about it.
I don't care what it is.
On Friday, though, when we go to the phones, the program is yours.
Just go whatever you want.
Even if I don't care about it, and even if I may act like I don't care about it, but we will still talk about it.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
A reminder, the second episode of the Half Hour News Hour airs Sunday night, 10 p.m. Fox News Channel.
Last week was a rerun, and it was a rerun because the Academy Awards were on, and that captivated most of the audience.
Even so, the rerun of the half-hour news hour attracted the largest cable news audience of the night by far.
Second episode, which I happen to think, as just my personal opinion here, is funnier than the first episode, including the opening skit with me as president and Coulter's vice president as Fireside Chat takes place.
Now, I was told that the fireside chat clip was going to be posted on YouTube, and I've been looking for it on YouTube, and I can't find it.
I find everything else about the show on YouTube, and I can't find it.
So I'm not sure that it's been posted.
We're trying to track it down now.
If it has been posted and I just don't find it, we'll get the link and link to it at rushlimbaugh.com eventually.
But remember, it airs 10 p.m. Sunday night, episode number two of the half-hour news hour on the Fox News channel.
Some more from the global warming stack here, folks.
Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, after Al Gore had had the big night at the Academy Awards, back in Tennessee, Al Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit.
50 people attending a summit on ethics in the media.
50 people.
He told them that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies, his movie, Slim Slideshow.
A 10-year University of California study found that essentially 0% of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas another study found 53% of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed that global warming premise.
He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action.
Here's what he said.
He says, I believe that it is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action.
Well, there are many reasons.
One of the principal reasons, in my view, is that more than half the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly.
And I say rejected, that's maybe the wrong word.
They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen balance as bias.
Al Gore is essentially saying that the drive-by media should stop reporting on any skepticism about global warming, that that represents bias.
That there is consensus now, and it's only a few stragglers who don't believe.
And to report both sides is bias.
This from one of the reputedly smartest guys in the world, reporting both sides of an issue is bias, according to Al Gore.
What does this tell you?
These are Stalinist tactics.
He can't deal with the fact that there is opposition and he doesn't want you knowing about it.
And here's that dirty little word consensus again.
I'm telling you, ask any legitimate scientist, this simple question, is science based on consensus?
And an honest, legitimate science will tell you no, science is not up for a vote.
That is all the power this movement has, the so-called consensus.
You may have heard this reported a number of times in recent months.
And I have this from National Geographic's website.
Simultaneous warnings on Earth and Mars suggest that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
One science, scientists, controversial theory is that the sun plays a major role.
That is what's controversial in the global warming movement, that the sun, the only source of energy in our planet, the only source of heat, the only source of any energy at all, the sun, reporting that that may be a factor in how warm or cold it is is controversial.
That's how out of whack this whole movement is.
Earth currently experiencing rapid warming, supposedly, which the vast majority of climate scientists say is due to humans pumping huge amounts of pollution in the air.
But Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
Why?
In 2005, data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide ice caps near Mars's South Pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Here is global warming on Mars.
Now, there aren't any humans there, but this would be a huge stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised if they blame it on the Global Surveyor.
And if they blame it on these Odyssey missions, that we've put machines up there and are traveling around, going all over the Mars surface, and that's creating a bunch of pollution that we, men and women on the Earth scientists, NASA, We're the ones responsible for the warming on Mars.
I'm really curious as to if I'm going to maintain sanity during the length of time this debate is going to be going on.
This is.
This is so obviously one of the biggest scams to come from the left, and it's so typical of every other scam that they've run.
For the LA Times today, a vast undersea wedge of gravel and grit holds the ice streams of West Antarctica in place like a doorstop, even as rising seas caused by global warming threaten to undermine them.
Damn it!
Why these wedges of gravel and grit are not giving way?
They ought to be giving way, damn it.
The Antarctic ought to be disintegrating before our very eyes.
It's not.
West Antarctica encompasses enough frozen fresh water, 7 million cubic miles, to raise sea levels worldwide 16 feet if its ice sheet disintegrates.
Does anybody predict that Antarctica's West glaciers are going to disintegrate?
Or crying out loud, you people, it is time to get with the program here.
This is getting ridiculous every day, more and more so.
And the extremes to which these consensus builders are going to convince you is bordering on the sublime.
In a sense, this new finding about the undersea wedge of gravel and grit is a measure of how much researchers have yet to learn about a remote continent of ice miles thick that is still responding to the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
Meaning, they can't predict anything.
Every time we look at the ice sheet, we find something new, said some guy.
Understanding these mysteries will be necessary to predict the behavior of global warming.
So now they got to figure out how to predict the behavior of the great ice sheet, which they can't figure out.
Hang in there, Rush.
We'll get better.
We'll get better.
We always try to take more phone calls on Open Line Friday, and to that end, we go to Carl, who's calling from near Chicago.
Hi, Carl.
Thanks for waiting and welcome.
Well, thanks a lot, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I heard you talk about the half-hour news satire show for Sundays.
I thought they did two pilots, and the second pilot's going to run.
Who makes the decision to make other pilots?
What's the life of the show?
Let me give you the lowdown on this.
By the way, speaking of which, I'm getting deluged with emails from people.
Rush, the clip is on YouTube, and it's linked on your website.
No, ladies and gentlemen, that's the old one.
That's the clip from episode one.
Episode two, which airs Sunday night at 10 o'clock, has a brand new skit featuring me as president that opens the show.
I was told that was going to be uploaded to YouTube yesterday, but I can't find it yet.
It's not there.
So there are two of them, and we've linked to the first one, obviously.
We're still keeping a sharp eye out for it.
Here's what happens: produced two pilots.
The second one airs at 10 p.m. Sunday.
The shows have to generate a certain rating in order for further episodes to be ordered.
The rating, of course, will determine spot rates.
The program has a cost.
The cost has to be met, a little profit thrown in.
So it all depends on how well they rate as to whether more episodes will be ordered.
I'm privy to a little bit of this that I can't repeat right now.
I mean, the process of getting it on the air has been something that's been going on a long, long time, and there are other factors involved.
I have no clue whether it's going to get picked up, whether I don't know that.
But all I know is that it got great pre-publicity before the first episode aired two weeks ago.
It got tremendous audience response the first night.
They'll see what happens on Sunday night and probably go from there.
But if it works, then what will happen is there'll be an order for 13 more episodes.
Well, is the show sponsored?
No.
It does not.
Well, it does not have a dedicated sponsor.
I mean, the Fox News channel has gone out and sold advertising in the program.
But here's the difference with this.
This is a program produced off-site.
This program produced in Los Angeles.
All Fox programming is produced in-house with existing Fox talent, existing Fox cameras, equipment, studios, and so forth.
So the cost of doing a native show on the Fox News channel, zilch.
It's already budgeted.
Pardon?
Is Ailes producing any of it or have much to do with the creative writing?
No.
No.
Roger Rogers is not involved in any of that aspect.
But he is the decision maker.
Well, Oberman and others are having a ball with it, and the good news there is they're watching.
Well, everybody in the cable news universe watched it.
And they poked holes at it and so forth.
And it got, as I say, it even got some favorable reviews from liberal reviewers.
I don't know what's going to happen with it, but I would love to see it get picked up.
Obviously, it's got, as I told you last time, the first episode aired and a lot of people said, well, yeah, I like it, but it was too generic.
I could have written more timely scripts.
You got to understand these things are produced six weeks before they air.
There's no way to be issue specific.
They had to evergreen them.
The second episode is much the same.
It's got a lot of evergreen in it and not a whole lot of issue specificity to it, even though I think it's a funnier episode.
And I'm glad it's going to.
We'll just have to see what happens with it on Sunday night.
Oh, good to hear it.
All right.
Thank you.
All right, Carl, appreciate it.
This is Laura in Grand Island, Nebraska.
I'm glad you waited.
Open Line Friday.
The program's all yours, so make it count.
Okay, Rush.
I have been a Democrat since I was 21 years old.
I've listened to you, and sometimes if I could get through the wire, I'd absolutely strangle you because I don't agree with everything.
But I just moved and I had to re-register, you know.
And by listening to you and all, I had registered as a Republican.
Yes.
Now, my problem is this.
When Nancy Pelosi took over, you know, Speaker of the House, I knew we were going to have problems because any grandmother that cannot control her grandchildren, like the kid was, you know, playing with the microphone and the little hammer, you know, and everything, and the papers, and she kept pulling it.
I knew we were in trouble.
She couldn't control a little bit.
It ceases to amaze me to learn how people make political judgments on the competence of elected leaders.
You knew that she was going to bomb because she couldn't control the grandkids in the House chamber.
That's right.
That was absolutely embarrassing.
I felt embarrassed for her.
But that's the drive-by media was talking about how wonderful this was that she could balance and bop the little grandkids on her knee while protecting the country at the same time.
Right.
She couldn't even protect the microphone or her papers.
But I got to tell you something else.
You owe me an apology.
While I was sitting here waiting to talk to you, you had to play that tape of Jim Carver.
And I can't stand to watch him, let alone listen to him.
So I shouldn't have said that, but that's true.
That's quite all right.
He's ran right now.
Well, you know, so we love Jim Carver here, and we play a lot of his audio.
He's fun to laugh at.
But where you and I disagreed is that just because, you know, I was a Democrat doesn't mean that I'm an illiterate liberal.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does.
Nine out of ten times, it does.
There are some Southern Democrats, Reagan Democrats.
There are some Democrats.
But why are they Democrats?
Yeah, well, I was from Missouri, and my grandpa was.
My dad was.
My mom was.
Yeah, I know.
People are Democrats because the family members were.
You still want to crawl through the wire and strangle me?
Whenever you said about all the Democrats being illiterate and liberal, because we aren't all that way.
I never said that.
Yes, you have.
No, I have never said a Democrat.
But you have implied it.
I think you heard.
No, I've not implied that they're illiterate.
I've implied that.
That we don't have good judgment.
That's true, but that's not illiterate.
Yeah, okay.
My discourse.
Yeah.
But I can't believe it.
The first time I tried to call you, and I got through.
Well, I'm glad you did.
It's happy to have you on the reservation.
So thank you for everything.
I'll probably continue to disagree on some things.
Like what?
You know, I don't know.
I don't know.
You're not going to disagree on much.
You're not going to disagree.
You just think you should, as a matter of principle, because you're a Democrat and I'm not.
Well, you know, I'm a great-grandmother, and I'm very proud.
I'm a very young great-grandmother.
But I think if we have a woman in as a president and all, I mean, just because her name is Clinton doesn't mean she's, you know, the wonderful person.
I'm sure she is.
I don't think, you know, people, the other heads of state and that, you know, different countries, they just, they kind of back off whenever they have to talk to a woman.
You know, that's more or less a man's job, I feel.
Well, I'm from the middle.
That's not universal.
I mean, people talk Condoleezza rice.
But I'll tell you what this indicates to me out there, Laura, and that is that if Mrs. Clinton gets a nomination, the idea that women are going to vote for her in droves is wrong.
I mean, you're going to have a lot of women opposed to her for a whole host of reasons, among them jealousy.
Jerry in Webb, Iowa, welcome to the EIB Network.
Good morning.
Good afternoon, I guess.
Mega Democrats.
Yeah, it was morning when you called.
It's afternoon now.
Thanks for holding on.
Okay.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Mega Ethanol Dittos from Buried in a March Blizzard, Iowa.
Yeah.
And God bless Charles and Heston.
You heard that and you liked that.
Oh, I love that.
That was fabulous.
Okay.
My point is talking about ethanol, you know, and I'm a corn producer and I'm benefiting from ethanol production.
And I'm a long way from an environmental acto.
And I didn't like to be lumped in the same group as an environmental wacko.
I haven't.
I haven't lumped the corn producers in it.
Okay.
A couple of things.
For the most part, you're right about ethanol.
Ethanol can only be.
And yet you're calling to disagree with me.
Well, I am.
I'm disagreeing about the point.
Ethanol is cheaper to produce than a gallon of gasoline.
Now, now, now, now.
No, no.
Now, down that.
Look, but you wouldn't have ethanol if you'd have the gasoline first.
Can you hang on here?
Because I know where you're going.
I want to wrap this up, but I've got to take a break.
Okay.
All right.
Talk to you in the afternoon.
Hey, I feel like we're in the NBA All-Star Game here.
All except the gun shots.
All right, we go back to Webb, Iowa, and Jerry.
And you're a corn producer, therefore you're big on ethanol.
And you were upset that I acquainted you with an environmentalist wacko, and I didn't.
Okay.
Along with that, you know, tell me there's an other side to a carbon credit.
I'm getting paid for my carbon credits also, but that's another story.
Going back to ethanol, the cost of production.
Right now, if price of barrel remains above $40 a gallon or a barrel, and at the present price of corn, ethanol will still continue to be economically feasible.
Okay?
Yeah.
And, you know, once again, obviously, it changes.
The second thing is this is the first time in 10 years, you know, that I've been paid a reasonable price for corn.
So, yeah, ethanol is not going to answer the whole world, but it's good for somebody.
I understand that.
You know, there's a great lesson here.
When domestic oil prices plunged to the $18 to $12, $10 a barrel mark back in the 80s, the domestic oil producers got killed.
But the consumers made out like bandits.
Absolutely.
So there's always, you know, in all news, economic, social culture, there's always good news, a company's bad.
Very rarely is it all or totally one way or the other.
My problem with ethanol is not so much what it is, is that it's being sold as a panacea.
It's being sold as an alternative fuel.
It's not.
Use of gasoline.
And it's got its own inherent problems.
Storage and transportation and so forth.
And it's, to me, there's a lot of irony in this because the left, which is pushing all of this, has traditionally occupied the sacred ground of being the ones who have all the compassion for the nation's poor and the world's poor and the downtrodden, the hungry, the thirsty, the distracted, the whole bunch.
And only their prescriptions will do wonderfully magical things to help people of downtrodden status rise above those obstacles in their way and become prosperous and affluent, which is absolute bunk.
So here they come with this brand new thing on ethanol.
And it has caused the price of corn to skyrocket, which is fine.
You love it.
You just mentioned it.
You got to raise your price for the first time in 10 years.
I'm happy for you.
Meanwhile, in Mexico, a tortilla is now four bucks or three bucks, and the weekly salary is four bucks.
Guess what?
They're going to be coming up here.
There's going to be riots in the third world over the price of corn.
It's a major food stock for much of the oppressed world, as it is even for the third, for the first world.
And all of these unintended consequences.
So there might be some marginal benefit, marginal, marginal, marginal environmental benefit to all of this.
There's going to be death, destruction, and riots on the part of the very people the left seems to think we need to save.
And of course, it's our global warming and our pollution which is destroying these pristine, poor, downtrodden, waste stuck back three centuries old environments and communities that these people live in.
And my problem is that I just, I have a frustration over how easy it is to sell snake oil to people in supposedly the most educated country in the world.
I mean, if you want to use ethanol, if you want to buy it, go and do so.
Be my guest.
But don't think you're saving the planet in the process because you are not.
And then all the other ancillaries that descend from this, everybody's going to be forced to do it.
As an alternative fuel, it's bogus.
I know you're going to call people going to say, but Russia, what South American country is totally ethanol?
Brazil?
There's some country that's always cited to me.
And they've been doing great with it.
I find it.
Brazil, they use sugar for it.
Fine and handy.
Whoopee-doo.
I don't hear anybody blaming Brazil for global warming.
But it will reduce the use of fossil fuel thrust, and it will reduce our imports of foreign oil from people who fund and pay for tariffs.
And that's why, Mr. Limbaugh, we must move forward.
I did some research.
I can't remember what I read.
I wish I could remember the quote.
But if this whole country went to ethanol, it would affect like 8% of the oil that is used, which is zilch.
And then that number would decrease every year as usage increases and so forth.
So, look, I've got no quarrel with you guys in the corn agriculture business being able to raise your prices and so forth.
My objection here is the continued selling of snake oil to people who get in this stuff and think that they're making a dramatic improvement in the world and the lifestyles of other Americans are reducing pollution and all this other stuff.
Well, it's just smoke and mirrors.
Bob in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Welcome to the program.
It's great to have you with us.
Rush?
Yeah.
Rush Limbaugh.
Yes.
Man, I'm on the first front here.
Rudy Giuliani, he has proven to be, well, I'm a little shook up here.
I told Snerdley that I was a born-again Christian, pro-Second Amendment, pro-life, who believes that Rudy Giuliana.
You believe in tax cuts?
Do you believe in tax cuts?
Do I believe in tax cuts?
Are you kidding?
I think we ought to abolish the tax system.
What do you think about global warming?
I'm just trying to get your profile here.
Oh, I'm not a seminar caller, I promise.
Global warming.
What about?
Oh, no, no, I'm not.
You're in a seminar caller.
You're giving me your qualifications.
I'm trying to establish them further.
Okay, okay.
What do you want me to tell you about global warming?
No, you believe it or not.
The last figure I heard was point something of a Celsius degree rise in the last 60 years or something like that from a true scientist that wasn't brainwashed, that was not being funded by the government, that was from private.
Okay, you're good to go.
What was it that you wanted to say about Rudy?
That he's the man I want to vote for for president of the United States.
I want him to run our country.
I have a great fear that the terrorists were sitting over here fat and happy and spoiled, but the bombs hadn't started dropping here yet.
And we need someone who is capable of leading under pressure.
Rudy Giuliani, I don't care about his personal beliefs.
He has expressed the fact that he believes in law and he believes in constructionist judges to interpret the Constitution.
Did you see his talk at Stanford University on C-SPAN last week?
Did I see his talk at Stanford?
No, I haven't seen his talk at Stanford University.
He called me, talked to me about it, but I didn't see the speech.
He wants to put judges out there that will interpret the Constitution without ingesting his personal beliefs.
I've heard it.
Yes, he said that.
We always talk about activist politicians and we talk about activist judges, but we never talk about people who can actually lead.
Well, look, I'm glad you're for Rudy.
I understand why you're saying you're for Rudy.
You, by the way, are proof that Rudy's strategy is working.
One last thing before we go.
Well, no, no, no.
Yeah, well, what is it?
Just real quick, I don't know how much more time I have.
I have to tell you that you once said that your grandfather touched people that touched Abraham Lincoln.
You remember saying that?
Yes.
And now I have talked to a great American who has talked to some of the greatest Americans in this country.
Well, you're very kind, so you flattened it.
This is compliment therapy.
Well, really?
He's saying that because he knows I'm not good at accepting compliments.
He wants to make sure that I know that he's.
I appreciate that.
I understand your utility.
You have a talent, a gift from God, and you're humble about it.
Well, I appreciate your recognizing that, too.
Few people do, but I appreciate your recognizing that.
Have a great day, Rush.
You're a great American, and I'm glad you called.
I'm very flattered.
He proves Rudy's strategy is working on the judges.
I have explained that.
Rudy was the Republican base, has got a problem in that he is openly pro-life.
So, what Rudy has done in order to handle this is to say, well, yeah, I am, and I have always been, but I think it's crazy that there's Roe versus Wade.
Roe versus Wade is a lot rotten law.
We need to have a Democratic decision on this rather than a bunch of judges deciding what is morally right and morally wrong.
The people need to decide this.
And in that sense, I'm going to appoint strict constructionists to the court.
I like Roberts, and I like Scalia.
And I'm going to appoint other judges like that.
Well, the message that he wants conveyed is that he'll appoint enough judges that will overturn Roe versus Wade, despite his personal view on it.
And that is evidence that Rudy's strategy is working, at least with him and probably with some other voters as well.
Let's take a brief call, timeout, folks, and more calls coming up right after this.
Back to the phones.
We go to Becky in the hometown of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Well, maybe not hometown, but he's there.
Becky, how are you?
I'm doing great.
Is this Russ?
Terrific.
I'm glad you called.
Yeah, this is Rush.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
Oh, hey, Russ.
I just called to say thank you because I'm 22 and I was raised Southern Democrat.
Every member of my family is probably Democrat.
But thanks to listening to your show, I've been able to reform my ways and get a lot of good information, and I'm now a Republican.
Well, more importantly, are you a conservative?
Not so much.
I'm definitely not a liberal.
I guess I consider myself a conservative.
Well, look, if you're not a liberal, you're conservative.
There is axiom.
This is a truth of life.
Any person or organization who is, by definition, not conservative is or will become a liberal.
And the converse is true.
So you are conservative, and we welcome you to the fold.
Thank you.
And I'm happy to take credit for it.
How did this happen?
Actually, it would be thanks to my boyfriend.
Wait a minute.
I thought it was thanks to me.
Well, he introduced me to your show.
Okay, so it is every morning.
Yes.
He listens to your show every morning.
And I, at first, when I started listening to you, really didn't agree with anything going on.
And then I started to read the news a little bit more and take more interest in what was going on.
And it really did teach me a lot.
Well, you people are making my day today.
Look at all the converts we've got out there.
Look at all the converts that are happening here all over the world.
It's great.
Becky, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I try to squeeze as many people in here as possible.
So we move on to Vincent, who is 15 in Baystrip, Texas.
Hello.
Yes, I was just wondering.
I'm 15 years old, and I was wondering, this is global warming, right?
And all I hear about is America and how they're going crazy and all the liberals in America and how they're going crazy about global warming.
Right.
The question is: is global warming.
What other countries are involved in this?
It's actually a good question.
Around the world, you can go to Great Britain and the liberals there are sounding the same alarms.
The socialist democracies of Western Europe are all sounding the same alarms.
However, their focus, the finger pointing is basically at us because they don't drive big SUVs.
They drive little, you know, these bubble cars and these lawnmowers with a couple doors and a roof on top.
We're the targets of this.
The primary polluters in the world are exempt, for example, from the Kyoto Protocol, China being the lead.
This is an effort to pickpocket the United States to get our money, to tax us, to blame us.
We are the most advanced civilization, and thus we are mostly to blame.
We have the most technological advancement.
We've got the most industrialized economy.
We are the targets.
And you don't see other people being blamed.
And I don't know how big an issue it is, for example, down in Colombia or Brazil, Argentina, or any of that.
But that's because the left in this country, in concert with the United Nations and the Western European socialists, this is just their latest rallying cry to point fingers of blame at the United States.
It's no different than when they were trying to scare everybody to death over the forthcoming nuclear Holocaust because of Reagan in the White House.
Of course, the Soviets were the good guys.
Gorbachev was the savior.
It was Reagan that was going to blow us all up.
It's predominantly politically an American issue.
And of course, the drive-by media are pure sycophants.
The drive-by media challenge not one assertion.
Here we've got the state of Iowa, most of the state of Iowa, been declared a disaster area because of blizzards.
A global warming seminar sponsored by Minnesota Public Radio canceled last night because of a blizzard in Minnesota, where they're used to getting a lot of snow.
Not one story in the drive-by media about maybe this might mean is no global warming going on.
Not one.
You wait.
This is March, and I guarantee you before this month is out, somewhere in this country, there's going to be a record high temperature or close to it.
And they're going to zero in on it.
And they're going to say this is global warming.
And this is evidence of it.
They're going to totally forget about the fact we've had these blizzards, record cold, all the accidents related to it as contravening the theory of global warming.
The media is in the tank on this.
Nobody else is really to blame for it, Vincent, but us.
This is it Rain or Ryan?
Ryan in Vancouver, Washington.
Hi.
How's it going?
Yeah.
I just wanted to ask you if you think the Libs are going to get control.
If they do, I'm saying, which I hope to God they don't, because I'm a conservative.
But make a long story short, I'm just wondering if you think they could control our government, our country, do you think our democracy, our government will fail in the next 25 years, which I hope to God it doesn't?
Do I think democracy will fail, meaning will we lose freedoms and so forth, the democratic form of government?
Exactly, yeah.
The Libs in control.
No, they won't be in control for 25 years.
Okay, that's good.
They're sowing.
Now, look, it's always under threat.
I don't mean to treat this in a haphazard way.
Assaults on freedom and democracy are constantly happening, and they're mounted by liberals.
Oh, yes.
Global warming is a great example of this.
But no, the things are cyclical.
They're going to lose elections.
They're setting themselves right now for a huge landslide defeat in 08 or 012 at the national level.
Look, we conservatives are very cheerful.
We're optimistic people.
We recognize the threats that we face every day, particularly posed by domestic enemies.
We're fighting two wars here.
We're fighting a war against terror, and we're fighting the war against the left in this country, which is hell-bent on getting rid of as much freedom and liberty as possible in exchange for a larger government with more regulation.
They think that's fair.
They think that we would end up with a more equitable distribution of assets and so forth and so on.
It's constantly under threat.
But I guarantee every generation has thought we're going to hell in a handbasket during their time, that we've always been in the last days, defined as the end of America.
They've always thought things have never been worse.
But more and more people are beginning to ask questions like you.
More and more people are conservative and are going to hold on.
But you get illegal immigration.
There are a lot of issues that threaten this, and you play a role here in stopping the tide.
It's the natural, seems like a natural perquisite of government and large bureaucracies to grow and grow and grow, and to do so, to deny people freedom, property rights, and this sort of thing.
And they're working on the young skulls full of mush in school on that basis, too.
But have faith.
As long as you're vigilant, millions and millions others are.
Breaking points are always reached where they're not going to put up with it anymore, and the libs are dispatched for a while.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
And don't forget the second episode, Half Hour News Hour, 10 p.m. Sunday night on the Fox News Channel.
We'll see you on Monday.
Hope you have a great weekend out there, my friends.
▲
Export Selection