All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:48
March 30, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, folks, in addition to the video of my acceptance speech last night after I won the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence, Media Research Center, annual gala.
Video posted at rushlimbaugh.com for members, audio posted for everybody, and a transcript is up there now.
I just got that done, so it's all waiting for you.
Greetings and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and it's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday!
We always strive to take more phone calls on Friday, putting even more pressure on Bo Snerdley, the official screener of calls.
Today, we've succeeded in that effort.
Sometimes Friday's no different than Thursdays or any other day in the number of calls we take, but these patterns develop.
If you want to be on the program, remember, when we go to the phones, the show is all yours.
You do not have to talk about something I care about.
It's a giant career risk that I take each and every Friday, turning the program over to you, a bunch of rank amateurs, lovable rank amateurs, but nevertheless, you are not highly trained broadcast specialists.
If you want to talk about something I don't care about, I will be happy to fake it on Friday.
Here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
All right.
Another letter, supposedly written by the female hostage in Iran, has been released.
I am unsure of this.
Snerdley tells me that the female in this contingent was the leader of that group of 15 that the Iranians took hostage.
Are you certain about that?
You certain that she was the leader?
You read it in one place.
When did you read it?
Was it today?
Two days ago.
Well, cast that aside because we don't just trust one source here at the EIB network.
We have to have triplicate sources before we go with anything.
Nevertheless, another letter.
I am stunned at the lack of attention by the drive-by media to the obvious violations of the Geneva Convention.
I mean, this female is being forced to dress up in Iranian garb and wear a burqa or whatever they call the scarf.
And of course, they're being paraded in ways that violate the Geneva Convention, but they're also being shown eating hearty meals.
And the latest letter written by the female hostage.
And by the way, folks, make no mistake about this, those letters are dictated, and this hostage is writing what the Iranians are telling her to write.
She makes a point.
I find this hilarious.
She makes a point of saying that she and her 14 fellow hostages are being treated royally.
They're being treated very well, quote, unlike the way we treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib, unquote.
The Iranians are spouting Ted Kennedy talking points.
The Iranians are putting U.S. Democrat Party talking points in the supposed letters that the British hostages are writing and releasing.
I mean, just within that context, it's hilarious.
It's not a humorous situation.
But, you know, the sad thing is, the thing that's very sad about this is that you know that there are some Dumkoffs in this country who read this in their drive-by newspapers and they believe it.
The Iranians probably laughing themselves silly too, knowing full well that the Democrat Party and the American left are eating it all up.
It's just sad.
New York Times today, prices at the pump are rising again, much as they do every spring as oil traders bid up the price of crude ahead of possible summer shortages.
Possibilities for more conflict in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East are adding to the surge in prices.
But there's something new this time, energy experts say in how drivers are reacting, or more accurately, not reacting, even as the price of gasoline has climbed over the last couple of months to a national average of more than $2.60 a gallon.
It's top $3 a gallon in many parts of the country, particularly along the left coast.
Now, in the late 70s, OPEC oil shocks and gas lines persuaded most Americans to sacrifice some of their pleasure trips and drives to the mall and ease up on the gas pedal and switch to the bus or the train or go out and buy these tiny little cars that are nothing more than lawnmowers with a couple seats on them.
But as Americans enter the sixth year of rising oil and gasoline prices, their shift in driving habits this time have been much less extensive.
What's more, in recent weeks, gas consumption's gone up, not down, and drivers are changing their daily habits only slightly.
Michael Matchat, 48 lawyer West Los Angeles.
I don't think about gas prices at all.
This is where gas prices are among the highest in the country.
Filled up his beamer was super unleaded at $3.39 a gallon this week.
Guess maybe if it was $10 a gallon, I'd think about it.
Yeah, it's well, easy for him to say.
He's driving a beamer.
It's not easy for him to say.
But look, there's a reason for this.
Why do you think it is that drivers aren't concerned about it?
When was the last gasoline was $3 a gallon when prior to the election?
And then it went down.
And this was one of the video samples they showed last night.
They didn't win an award, the Media Research Center thing.
It was a CBS news report, a Katie Couric CBS Evening News report, and some reporter out there chronicling falling gas prices.
This was in the conspiracy category.
And they found some DOLT driver at a gas station.
They stuck a microphone in his face, and his DOLT idiot drivers, well, you know, these prices are coming down.
I have to wonder about this.
I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to be lowering prices, jump spurred the economy right before the election.
Which is patently absurd.
Here's a guy.
Prices are going down.
He was probably among the people griping and moaning about it.
Prices are going down.
He finds a conspiracy rather than ended up being happy about it.
Anyway, when the prices went up last year, there was, I mean, in the post-Katrina period and after, there was a drive-by media was all over the place.
And the Democrats were all over the place.
We need a windfall profits tax.
And we need to bring these big oil execs up.
And we need to have earrings.
And we need to find out why this is happening.
This is outrageous.
And the drive-bys are beating this drum day in and day out and getting everybody all agitated.
And the difference this time is that the media is not making a big deal of this at all.
And in a way, it's very instructive.
If the media doesn't go out there and raise holy hell about something, then it's obvious that a lot of people aren't going to be all riled up about it.
It also could be that people weren't riled up about it the first time it happened.
It's just the drive-bys were trying to create the impression they were because you can always find malcontents out there.
You take a camera and a microphone, and some people in this country will say anything that the reporter wants them to say in order to get on television.
And so that could be a factor, too.
But just remember this.
The next time gasoline prices, and they're going to come down, they always do during summertime.
You can make book on it.
Whatever the price is now, it's going to be lower in summertime.
The peak driving season happens.
One of the reasons the price is going up, they didn't mention this story, is that the refineries have to take some downtime in the spring, late winter.
They calculate this according to the calendar to retool to produce more gasoline and the new formulas that are required for the various parts of the country that are not being as produced in greater quantity in the winter because they have to refine some oil into heating oil and other such products.
They have to go down and retool of refineries to gear up for more gasoline, and that causes a shortage, temporary shortage, and that jumps the price a bit as well.
But it always comes down during the, from whatever it was in the spring, always comes down during the summer driving season because that's when people are out on vacations and so forth.
And it just works that way.
So they'll be down a little bit this summer.
Let's just see when the next time they spike up, which will probably be close to the election year, that's when the drive-bys will go batty and start blaming Republicans for it and Bush policies.
Right now, there's no election year.
So there's no sense in wasting time on dredging up all this emotion.
Besides, the Democrats are in charge.
Democrats are in charge in the House.
Democrats are in charge in the Senate.
And it's going to be very much more difficult to lay the blame for all this solely at the feet of the Republicans and the President, George W. Bush.
Now, some people in this New York Times story get this.
Some people are suggesting that with more dual-income families, high gasoline prices mean less to many families than they once did, and credit cards have eased the immediate pain at the pump.
Now, this is totally irresponsible journalism on the part of who wrote this?
Clifford Krause at the New York Times.
If this is the case today, then it was the case two years ago and a year and a half ago when gasoline prices were skyrocketing.
Two-income families are not new.
Two-income families can be traced back to the 70s and the 80s.
And the largest reason for the need for two-income families, sad to say, is high taxes more than anything else.
And credit cards aren't new.
So why wouldn't the New York Times and the rest of the drive-bys write this story a year and a half ago when gasoline prices were spiking upward?
Well, you know, it's not that big a deal, people.
Price impact is not that great.
Why, no, we got dual-income families out there.
It doesn't mean as much.
We made this point on this program in terms of real dollars.
When gasoline peaked at whatever it was over $3, it still wasn't as proportionally as high as it was 20 years ago in terms of the impact on the average family budget.
So this story, the New York Times, to me, is proof positive that news is not news.
It's packaged according to an agenda, and it is used to manipulate public opinion, not inform people as to what's going on.
He has this same reasoning to explain high prices today and why nobody cares could have been said a year and a half ago.
Brief timeout, back after this.
One more quick item before we head back to the phones.
By the way, Mike, in addition to Barack and the Magic Negro, we're going to need Grab Ball of Fire.
We got a global warming update today.
That stack just keeps growing out there.
A lot of stuff that I haven't gotten to in the past couple of days.
New York Times again, headline, New York City to reward poor for doing the right thing.
They're going to raise some private money.
Now, that's all well and good.
I'm fine and daily, but they don't need private money.
There is so much tax money that is being raised in New York that they don't need to go ask the private sector for this.
They're going to do it anyway.
The program is going to reward people for showing up and do what any responsible person would do.
Seeking new solutions to New York's vexing high poverty rates.
The city, why do you think there's such a high poverty rate in New York?
Mr. Snurgly, you want to take a stab at this just off the top of your head?
Why is there such a high poverty rate in New York?
I mean, you've got 8 million people there.
It's, in many ways, the capital of industry in the country.
Why is there so much poverty in New York City?
It is, well, you're partially right about that.
New York is its own welfare state in addition to the welfare state created by the federal government.
And you couple this with a high taxation and plus all the giveaways that have come up.
If you give away poverty, and this is the thing that you have, the best way to understand this, just human nature, if you give away poverty, in other words, if you are willing to give everybody $20,000 a year in benefits, poverty line, this country is $20,000.
If you give some people $20,000, that's fine with them.
They'll accept it.
Which is one of the primary problems with liberalism.
Destroys ambition, destroys potential, creates dependency in people who are otherwise totally qualified and capable of going out and being more.
But it is because of the institutional contempt for average people that the American left has.
They don't think they're capable of anything.
They don't want them to be capable of anything.
They don't want them to be capable of learning anything.
We had the story about Chicago schools earlier this week where the mostly poor and minority kids can't pass tests and they're being passed anyway, moving up grade after grade after grade.
Somebody, I wouldn't be surprised if part of this is done on purpose.
Liberalism requires ignorance.
For liberalism to prosper, people must be, as many people as possible, must be ignorant.
That's why they accept all these conspiracy theories.
If they're not taught science, for example, if they're not taught biology, they'll believe all of this propaganda about global warming.
If they're not taught basic civics, they won't understand the way government works.
If they're not taught economics, they certainly won't understand even the most simple economic terms, such as low taxes equals high revenue and high employment.
If instead they're inculcated with class envy, despise the person who has a dollar or more than you, and live on the basis that life's unfair and you're getting screwed, and then rely on liberals and Democrats to come along and level the playing field, bamo, that fits the bill for them precisely.
And you created a legion of voters that'll keep voting.
Yep, if you're going to give me poverty, I'll vote for you and accept it.
And that's one of the problems with New York.
They are giving away poverty.
And they're doing it under the guise of compassion.
It's like during homelessness, y'all during the late 80s and the mid-80s, late 80s, early 90s, some of the solutions to homelessness were abominations.
Well, we're going to give them shopping carts.
Well, that's really compassionate.
That's really going to help.
Give them a shopping cart so they can wheel their meager possessions around.
Or we're going to give them email accounts.
Or we're going to produce videos to teach them how to dive in dumpsters for leftovers.
I mean, that was really compassionate.
But yet it was.
It was treated that way.
It was described as compassionate.
It was these people trying to help the homeless.
They weren't doing anything more than sustaining the circumstance.
So seeking new solutions to New York's vexing, they're not vexing at all to me, high poverty rates, the city is moving ahead with an ambitious experiment that will pay poor families up to $5,000 a year to meet goals.
Goals like attending parent teacher conferences, going for a medical checkup, or holding down a full-time job.
This pronouncement came from the mayor, Michael Bloomberg.
Well, now, they're already getting what they get from New York and the welfare state.
Then if they go get a full-time job, they'll be rewarded $5,000 for doing that, in addition to whatever they get paid the full-time job.
If they attend parent-teacher conferences, they'll get paid $5,000.
And if they go for a medical checkup or something like that, they'll get $5,000.
Now, folks, this is what normal people do every day.
it's called life and they don't expect $5,000 for, take that back.
They're going to now.
Because if you're going to tell one group of people, hey, we'll give you $5,000 to go to the doctor.
We'll give you $5,000 to go to a parent-teacher meeting.
Well, a lot of people could use $5,000 razor.
Why not me?
I already do it.
Why not reward me?
You know what this basic, this is paying for the bare essentials.
This is the bare minimum.
Go get a job.
You know, every time a homeless discussion came up, I would advocate, why don't we train these people to go to work?
And boy, the libs would say, well, easy for you to say where you have no heart.
What do you mean easy for me to say?
What's wrong with work?
Work is a defining thing in most people's lives.
It's a center of their passion.
It's achievement.
There are goals that can be met.
There's all kinds of great things that can result from work.
Where would we all be if we all said, screw work?
So now we're going to basically pay five grand to New York on top of whatever else poverty payments are for mediocrity under the program based on a similar effort in Mexico.
And that's really working, isn't it?
This similar program in Mexico, that's really keeping people in Mexico, isn't it?
Under the program, parents would receive payments every two months for family members meeting any of a series of criteria.
The payments could range from $25 for exemplary attendance in elementary school to $300 for a high score on an important exam.
This is a disaster waiting to happen.
We're now going to compensate and reward people who are just in the process of pursuing things that are normal, doing well on a test, showing up when you're supposed to show up.
Who was it?
Some brilliant guy said 80% of success is showing up on time.
Well, some people can't do pay them $300 or $25 to do that.
Thank you, New York.
This is really going to fix it.
I was just talking about homelessness in the context of now paying people to be in poverty and people in poverty to do menial, mediocre things that everybody takes for granted.
Well, it turns out there's a companion story out of San Francisco requiring a trip back memory lane, back to the archives for a homeless update.
Clarence Frogman Henry from 1956.
Clarence Frogman Henry here with exciting vocal portrayal of our homeless update theme.
Title of Tune Ain't Got No Home.
This is Clarence impersonating a frog, a homeless frog.
All right, homeless update comes from San Francisco, which is probably the national capital of homelessness and has been for quite a while.
The story is from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Six months ago, Dave Tompkins, bereft after the death of his closest friend, looked at a map of the U.S. and tried to decide where to live.
His eyes fell on San Francisco, made a snap decision.
Two weeks ago, he finally arrived after hitchhiking from Jacksonville.
I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh.
Six months ago, the guy looks at a map and says, San Francisco's a place.
Two weeks ago, he shows up.
He hitchhiked all the way from Jacksonville, Florida with his white Labrador, Banjo Betty.
Tompkins counts himself among San Francisco's homeless, though technically he has a roof on his head.
It's a 1980 RV that he bought on Craigslist for $1,000.
But the 45-year-old divorced man who lives in about $400 a month on disability payments said his vehicle has accumulated so many parking tickets he fears he might lose it.
Tompkins' Westward campaign was motivated with the same impulses that historically propelled outsiders in San Francisco.
Temperate weather, tolerant culture, scenic beauty, progressive social.
Really?
Is this what inspires the homeless to go to San Francisco?
Let me read you the whole paragraph.
His Westward Ho campaign motivated by the same impulses that historically propelled outsiders.
So anybody that went west, anybody that migrated, say, to San Francisco, is no different than the homeless who are now doing it.
The reasons are temperate weather, tolerant culture, scenic beauty, progressive social values.
You think six months ago, when he's in Jacksonville, Florida, this is why he decided to go to San Francisco.
In his case, though, in addition to all that, Dave Tompkins sought a well-informed citizenry.
San Franciscans kept abreast of what's going on better than anybody, says Tompkins, a carpenter by trade.
And I also like the cultural diversity in the cuisine.
I didn't come for benefits, that's for sure.
It's the cuisine, the cultural diversity.
Handouts in San Francisco rank below cultural diversity in the homeless population.
The diversity, the culture, the progressive social values, the cuisine.
The cuisine in San Francisco.
I don't know how many of you people have been to San Francisco, but the cuisine that he's talking about costs a pretty penny to get in and consume.
So he's obviously not talking about that cuisine.
He's got to be talking about the cuisine at the shelters and the cuisine on the streets and so forth.
This story totally overlooks what a horrible problem homelessness is and has been in San Francisco.
Tompkins, it says here is much like many other homeless people in town who are here primarily because of the city itself and only secondarily because of public assistance.
In fact, a new count of the homeless released earlier this week in San Francisco tallied a 2% rise from two years ago.
They've jumped.
The homeless population out there has gone from 6,248 to 6,377.
And they did this count on January 31st.
And in a follow-up survey, 31% of homeless people noted they became homeless outside San Francisco.
Yo, Trent Rohrer, director of the San Francisco Human Service Agency, says that's close to a third of the people we counted.
It begs the question of why they came here.
I don't know that the answer is necessarily one of homelessness.
It's a combination of factors.
It's the cuisine, best public transportation system in the country.
We are a compassionate, tolerant city.
We're a sanctuary city.
And the homeless appreciate all this.
Plus, our cuisine.
In addition, he says San Francisco has a network of social support for the homeless, ranging from shelters to dining rooms to medical care.
Bingo!
There's the reason you can throw the cuisine and the tolerance and the diversity out the window.
Hilarious.
Who wrote this?
Elizabeth Fernandez, Chronicle staff writer.
All right, back to the phones.
You people have been patiently waiting.
This is Randy in Savage, Minnesota.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
I appreciate your waiting.
My pleasure.
Terra Dittos from a lovable rank amateur in frozen.
I love people that know their limitations.
Thank you, I do.
And I listen to you to expand those rights.
Thank you, sir.
You're welcome, sir.
You know, I've been walking around doing some stuff around, and I'm having some trouble walking because I'm trying to get my toes to uncurl after hearing Madeline Albright talk about foreign policies again.
Wasn't that amazing?
The real threat in the Iranian situation is our Navy being too present, too large, might be a mistake and an accident happen out there and trigger another war.
See, it just shows what I learned by listening to you.
Well, I didn't mean to curl your toes.
No, no, it was Madeline Albright that curled my toes.
But I'll be over, which is some bad flashbacks.
But the reason I called Rush was it seems to me you've got an obstacle to overcome in your pursuit of Peace Prize.
Because, see, by the fact that you let your actions stand on their own merit, means you're going to be bringing decorum, civility, propriety, humility back to the Peace Prize.
Humility being the key.
Absolutely.
And see, and because you would accept it and let your actions, like I said, just speak on their own merit rather than having a, I'm not going to say marketing, but a lobbying campaign by, say, the likes of, I don't know, Al Gore and the years-long lobbying campaign by Jimmy Carter.
You've got that obstacle to overcome.
They're expecting lobbying, and I'll be more than happy to go as your lobbyist over there if you want.
Well, see, but what you're saying is I'd have to do it myself.
A lobbyist can't do it.
Gore's over there.
Gore's over there lobbying for himself.
Carter went around lobbying him for himself.
Clinton's been lobbying for at least six years for this.
And of course, you're right.
I'm doing this the dignified way and letting my resume, merits, achievements, accomplishments, and devotion to liberty, freedom, and peace speak for themselves.
Absolutely.
See, and I'm pulling for you.
See, I'm quarter-Scandinavian, but the thing is, I'm Swedish, so they probably wouldn't expect me in Oslo.
Well, don't worry, I'm not going to send you as an emissary anyway.
If I were to really tackle this head, I'd have to go myself.
I would have to go to Oslo, and I would have to go to this Olaf, Olaf, whatever, and ask to make a speech.
Which, well, yeah, the easiest.
Snurdley's got a great idea.
Screw going over there.
I mean, this is, it would be.
They probably, I don't even know, would see me and let me make a speech, but I could send them a Nobel Peace Prize mug and a Nobel Peace Prize t-shirt.
We got two or three of them from the EIB store.
These guys have clearly shown over the years they can be bought.
It's just a question of the price.
That's not a bad idea.
We'll think about it.
It's Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
As you know, recent nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, recent award winner, the William F. Buckley Award for Media Excellence, awarded last night at the Media Research Center, 20th Annual Gala in Washington.
We go to T-Neck, New Jersey.
This is Adam.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
How are you doing, Rush?
I'm very well, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I'm a liberal, and I pretty much disagree with you on almost everything.
Thank you for being honest.
I appreciate that.
Well, you know, most liberals call here and say that they're conservatives, but they only disagree with me in a couple things.
But you are honest, and I appreciate that.
Well, I listen, I'm a big fan of honesty, and I'm a big fan of just honest debate.
And I want to put all the name-calling and all the talking points aside and just ask a very simple and what I think is a nonpartisan question.
And I'm just curious as to what you feel about it.
It regards Iraq.
And I was wondering if you believe that we should stay in Iraq as long as we should until we win, which I assume is how you feel.
And all things stay the same, and another Republican president gets elected and keeps us in Iraq, and the same kinds of things keep on happening, and we put more troops in, you know, 10,000, 20,000, whatever it is, and we lose more lives, and the war goes on.
Is there a point where you feel that if our president still wants to keep us there, where you could say, you know what, it's time that we say enough is enough and we should leave.
Is there a point where you would feel that?
And if so, what point do you think that might be?
I would only, accepting your premise and telling you what I think about it, I would only accede to that if I determined that that president, whether he be Republican or Democrat, or she'd be Republican or Democrat, had given up on the concept of victory.
If that president is not going to attempt to finish this off and win it, then I would suggest it's time to pull out of there.
And if that had ever happened, by the way, you'd see the troops wanting out too.
They would be the first to know that we weren't serious about it.
You don't see that.
Now, the troops are frankly very angry at all this talk in this country.
They are very much behind this mission, very much for it.
They want to complete it.
I can't really agree with all that completely.
There are reports on both sides that say different things.
So I don't want to get into a left-right talking point kind of discussion, although I can appreciate it.
I'm not giving you talking points.
Well, I'm just saying there are people that are soldiers who have come out and said that this war is not going well.
It's not being administered properly.
And there are people that said that there are four.
Yeah, yeah, but there's very few of them.
The vast majority of them are signing up to go back.
This is a volunteer force, my friend.
Well, yeah, but volunteers.
They're under during and you get sent back the fourth time.
That's not really a volunteer anymore.
The fact that their volunteer force matters.
Sure, the CBS can go out and find a few stragglers.
Well, anyway, regardless, that's not my point.
My point is, it's not a question necessarily of giving up on victory.
I mean, even in something like poker, you have to know that if you're in a hand that you're not going to win, it's better to fold and here's what troubles me with the premise of your question.
And I'm just going to tell you right out front: the premise of your question is that somewhere in their mix, we can't win.
We are the United States of America.
We never lose unless we defeat ourselves.
The idea that there are so many Americans absorbed with the concept of the United States losing this is repugnant to me and makes me sick.
The Democrat Party today, and this is not a talking point, the Democrat Party today is oriented and cemented to the defeat of this country because they seek the defeat of this president.
They own it.
They have the deed to defeat.
I don't countenance the whole premise or the concept of defeat.
Americans hate losing.
Real Americans hate losing.
And the fact that you are absorbed with trying to define the precise moment when we lose is something that truly bothers me, not just about you, but the countless other Americans who think or feel as you do.
This country didn't get to be what it is with that kind of attitude.
It will not stay what it is if that attitude becomes prevalent or the majority.
I sincerely urge you to change your focus.
Try to become positive.
Try to become exemplary of the American ideal, doing the right thing, victorious, liberating oppressed people, which we have done since our founding, and in the process securing our own freedom and national security, about which Iraq is clearly a central front.
This is not something about which to be focused.
Okay, when are we going to say we lose?
And when can we get out of there and bring our troops home?
When can we do that?
That you've already lost.
Attitudes like that secure defeat.
And if you're thinking that way about things you want to achieve in your personal life, you've already lost that too.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Open Line Friday.
We have a Barack Obama update.
Actually, it's an Al Sharpton update coming up.
That means Barack the Magic Negro.
Oh, Wendy, wait till you hear this one.
Wendy substituting today dawns off on a little international crusade for light bulbs.
That's coming up the next hour.
But I've been thinking about something here, and I just got an email note from my attorneys at the Landmark Legal Foundation.
We had a call just a minute ago, a guy suggesting that I need to ratchet up my effort for the Nobel Peace Prize because Gore is over there lobbying for it by making speeches on global warming.
And here's the upshot.
This is what we've decided to do.
This is the civilized way.
This would be in keeping with the dignified approach that I have maintained, a stance I've maintained throughout this competition, quote unquote.
My lawyers at the Landmark Legal Foundation are looking into the possibility of filing an objection with the Nobel Committee over the unethical tampering for this award that Al Gore is engaging in.
This is clearly above and beyond the pale.
I mean, this might happen in high school class president elections and so forth, but this is shameless.
It's not just tampering, it's pandering.
Al Gore flying.
Look at the carbon footprint.
Look at the carbon footprint just to get over there and make a speech.
He could have made a DVD in his mansion in Nashville, outside Nashville, and sent that.
But he flew over there to give a speech about global warming.
And of course, the Nobel Committee is one of the principals there was in attendance and made some very positive comments about this.
Al Gore actually behaving in a way totally opposite that which he recommends in his movie.
And they're sitting over there going, gaga.
And to me, this is unethical.
This is tampering with the entire process.
So we're looking into the possibility we're considering filing an objection with the Nobel Committee over the unethical tampering Al Gore is engaging in in his quest to win the Nobel Peace Prize awarded in October of this year.
▲
Export Selection