All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:17
October 29, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, the more I see of this French president, this Sarkozy guy, the more I like him, ladies and gentlemen.
He's on 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl.
I don't know when they taped the interview, but he had a lot of praise for America.
He admires the work ethic here and a number of other things.
But, you know, it's amazing.
He got to be walked out of the interview when Leslie Stahl started asking him about his wife, the divorce and so forth.
I mean, a French guy would go nets.
You know, where are guys on this kind of walking out on stupid questions like this?
By the way, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, 800-282-2882.
Here's how it happened on 60 Minutes Last Night.
Everybody's asking.
Even your press secretary was asked at the briefing today.
No comment?
Quite right to make no comment and no comments.
Thank you.
Sarkozy decided the interview was over.
Tiber no phone.
And off he went.
With the question about his wife left hanging.
Yeah, of course.
Nothing is not relevant to governing the country of France.
They just walked out of there.
All right, global warming news.
Been a while since we've played any of the three songs in our global warming rotation.
So let's go to number one.
Paul Shanklin, a white comedian, as Al Gore doing Johnny Cash.
That's our global warming update theme.
One of three.
This is from Florida State University and their climatological division up there.
Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next nine weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive year in the northern hemisphere as a whole for tropical cyclones.
Historically inactive.
During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date than this year.
However, the year is not over, they say, hopefully.
And we got this little rain event down there near Puerto Rico and so forth.
I mean, lots of rain, 10 to 12 inches, but it's going to curve out of the way.
It's never going to become anything more than a tropical storm.
It is not, according to forecasts, it's not going to become a hurricane.
So this is the fifth storm this year.
We had five last year, total of 10 since Hurricane Katrina.
The point here is that the global warming crowd predicted Hurricane Katrinas year after year after year after 2005 because sea surface temperatures had risen.
And of course, man was baking the planet.
And these catastrophic storms were off the charts.
Have people been predicting this?
And they have been dead wrong.
We're going to post this story at rushlimbaugh.com because there are just a couple of fascinating charts here that show this lack of inactivity.
And I have to, I was out of Las Vegas over the weekend, the annual Prostate Cancer Foundation charity golf tournament.
And I had some downtime after playing golf on Saturday morning, and I had a trusted little iPhone with me.
So I went back to the massive suite in the golf villas area in which I was happily ensconced and staying.
And I decided, I'll call up, just take a look.
I haven't had a chance to look at any websites today, so I'm cruising around and I see tropical storm.
No, take it back.
The television was on, and some meteorologist was going berserk about the possibility of a hurricane.
So I said, ooh.
So that's when I went to the website and I look at the models for this thing.
And they had it getting nowhere near us here in South Florida, according to the models.
And I just started thinking, boy, how exciting.
I started getting warning emails from meteorologists.
We might have a storm brewing out there, Russia.
Maybe you're headed to Florida.
You might be.
The weather community is so desperate for a hurricane.
They are so desperate.
It's like even these guys at Florida State who released this story that this is an historically inactive year, unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next nine weeks.
Season runs to the end of November.
Then they close it out with saying, this is, you know, other than the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, 1983, it had less activity.
But the year is not over.
Hopefully, dot, dot, dot, dot.
We could actually use some of the rain from this tropical storm.
I wish this guy with the granulated tire idea would go seed some granulated tires into this storm and steer it back our way.
You realize what 10 to 12 inches would do for Lake Okeechobee?
We'd end the stupid drought down here.
We could start watering our lawns and all this sort of stuff.
Winds, I think, are going to get to 50 miles an hour.
Other global warming news, rising temperatures could wipe out more than half the Earth's species in the next few centuries, according to researchers who published a study last week linking climate change to past mass extinctions.
The study analyzed fossil records, temperature changes over 500 million years and found that three of the four biggest extinctions, defined as when more than 50% of species disappeared, occurred during periods of high temperature.
So, wait, wait, wait.
500 million years, three of the four biggest extinctions defined as periods of high temperature.
So there's nothing new about what's happening now.
I mean, how can we have all these extensions with no talk of global warming, man-made global warming, 500 million years ago?
The upper end of the forecast rise would heat the Earth close to the temperatures of 250 million years ago when 95% of all animal and plant species became extinct.
And of course, that would mean liberal idiodictus would probably fade away and conservo erectus would hang around.
The two new species for humanity predicted by some British guy.
Here's another idea on how to cool the globe.
This is a guy, Ken Caldera, a scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.
Folks, this was in the New York Times as an op-ed.
It is not a spoof.
It is not satire.
Despite growing interest in clean energy technology, it looks as if we're not going to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide anytime soon.
The amount in the atmosphere today exceeds the most pessimistic forecast made just a few years ago.
It's increasing faster than anybody had foreseen.
Yeah, and the temperature rise is negligible.
But that's for another moment.
Even if we could stop adding to greenhouse gases tomorrow, the Earth would continue warming for decades and remain hot for centuries.
We would still face the threat of water from melting glaciers lapping at our doorsteps.
What can be done?
One idea is to counteract warming by tossing small particles into the atmosphere above where the jets fly.
This strategy may sound far-fetched, but it has the potential to cool the earth within months.
Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that blew up in 1991, shows how this works.
The eruption resulted in sulfate particles in the stratosphere that reflected the sun's rays back to space, and as a consequence, the Earth briefly cooled.
If we could pour a five-gallon bucket's worth of sulfate particles per second into the atmosphere, the stratosphere, it might be enough to keep the Earth from warming for 50 years.
Tossing twice as much sulfate up there could protect us into the next century.
A 1992 report for the National Academy of Sciences suggests that naval artillery, rockets, and aircraft exhaust could all be used to send the particles up.
The least expensive option might be to use a fire hose suspended from a series of balloons.
Scientists have yet to analyze the engineering involved, but the hurdles appear surmountable.
So we're going to pollute our way out of it.
This is what I said way back when.
What cools pollution is what cools the earth?
Mount Pinatuba was pollution.
This guy has resorted.
They're getting desperate.
Hoses?
Fire hoses attached to balloons?
That's a huge hose.
And how many hose are you going to need?
Hoses.
Sorry.
And we're back.
There's one more story here in the global warming stack.
And this is from James Lewis at the American Thinker.
And no offense, Mr. Lewis.
This is something I've been saying for many, many moons.
The headline says it all.
Earth climate is too complex to predict.
Science magazine just published a critical review of climate models by Professors Gerald Rowe and Marsha Baker at the University of Washington, Seattle.
It is echoed in New Scientist magazine, which puts it this way.
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions.
It is evident that the climate system is operating in a regime in which small uncertainties and feedbacks are highly amplified in the resulting climate sensitivity.
We are constrained by the inevitable.
The more likely a large warming is for a given forcing, the greater the uncertainty will be in the magnitude of that warming.
That's a science jingo and lingo, but what it means is that after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate modeling and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about global warming prediction we did decades ago.
What's more, that is a provable inherent limitation of the data data and models.
That means this is a scientific scandal.
The earth is way too complex, the atmosphere, to try to predict that.
They're going nuts there on Fox there.
This tropical storm, looky.
Ooh, they've got the cone barely touching us in Florida.
Now, we're not in the main track area, but they're moving a little west.
We could get this.
Oh, my, the local TV stations are going to start stories on going to the store to get wood to board up your windows and make sure you get plenty of water.
Get all your prescriptions filled new.
They can't wait for this stuff.
Disaster.
Disaster and pestilence and death right around the corner, lurking in the Caribbean, hopefully heading our way.
Thousand Oaks, California.
This is Nico.
Nico High.
Nice to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
Hello, Rush.
It's an honor to speak to you, sir.
Thank you.
I'd like to make two points, Rush, if I may.
Yes.
The first point is, I firmly believe that you single-handedly steered this country away from its second Civil War.
And the reason I'm saying that is liberals are imposing a foreign culture onto this nation.
But normally people resist foreign change and foreign elements in their society through the ballot box and the courts.
But if the ballot box and the courts have been usurped, how will the people bring about change without violence and bloodshed?
I believe for 20 years, Rush, you have been fighting to bring this flood of foreign culture to a halt.
And this last couple of weeks, it was evident with the Congress failures and the Harry Reid letter that you not only stopped that flood, you are really pushing this back.
So you made it possible that change in this country will still be possible without violence.
And the Liberals have pursued up to now dividing the nation, dumbing down our children, taxing the people into poverty, and putting folks in bondage, which they claim to help.
And all these are foreign concepts to the character of this nation.
And then I'd like to bring up the second point.
You may, but I first want to thank you for that.
I don't know about stopping a civil war, but you're really insightful here on a number of things, particularly how, and this is a warning that we have blasted from the EIB network studios for years, and that is the left's attempt to take over the courts and the judiciary with liberal activists so that the Constitution can be effectively rewritten, legal decision by legal decision by legal decision.
But what I found most interesting and a foresight that I couldn't have believed you would have had when I started listening to you in the early 90s is that when you beat this drum rush, is that these people are out to get us, and they are in the minority, but they usurp the media, so they sound like the majority.
So they set up the dynamics of a common foe on the one hand and being a savior on the other hand.
And I believe that is why they're challenging Bush, even though he's not on the ticket.
It's that they just want to instill in the people's mind, the majority, the silent majority, I may add, that there is a common foe out there.
And without them being the savior, we will be all doomed.
But in the meantime, the foe is our friend, and the friend or the savior is our foe.
And they managed through the drive-by media to instill that into the minds of the people.
That's exactly right.
They have created the notion, the image of massive, massive problems.
We have calamities and disaster and catastrophes staring in the face, head us down the road.
They, the people painting this picture falsely, then present themselves as the only people who can save us from it.
And how?
By taking a little more of our freedom each and every day, a little more of our money each and every day, a little more of the power that we have and live our lives our way and do it under the guise we all need to be saved.
That's a blueprint for the global warming hoax, Nico.
Absolutely, sir.
And if you I used an analogy this weekend where what destroys a body if you die is it's the one of the elements is removed, the soul is removed from that body and then the body is inevitably being destroyed.
The same thing happens with a house.
You take a house, pieces apart, and all the structures away, and by the time you have a heap of rubble, you've destroyed the house.
And they do the same thing by taking piece by piece of our social structures and fibers away so that in the end they sit with a heap of rubble and then we have become nothing more than a bunch of subjects to a monarchy.
And I believe that they won't call it a monarchy, but they want absolute power.
Oh, absolutely.
It's what animates.
It's what they're obsessed with.
Absolutely.
And there's no two ways about that.
Raj, may I make my second point?
Yes.
You know, I would have thought that when Harry Reid's letter came out that you would go up there and slap this guy on the upside of his head, proverbially speaking, of course.
But your public relations coup was just a brilliant, brilliant move.
And the way that you had acquired $4 million or now my tongue is twisting, I'm sorry, but that they could raise $4 million for the men and women in uniform.
And I thought each and every one of us in this country who enjoys this American dream should be making some form of expression of gratitude.
And I want to donate 10% of my sales of a new company that we started to MCLE.
And I want to stretch this right up to the end of the year through the Christmas.
I'm not scared to say it's a Christmas holiday season.
We manufacture a beautiful set of porcelain coffee mugs with a parchment motif and a scripture inscribed artwork on that, which is just very, very nicely done.
Just to say thank you for those folks who fight to keep us free.
And may I say my website, sir?
Sure, go right ahead.
It's www.faithmugs.com.
And if folks go in there and they enter the keyword rush into the discount box, they will also get a 10% discount.
And by the end of every month, we'll write a check to MCLEF for the other 10%.
And I've been to my bean counter and we worked out the number, sir, that we would gladly give that 20% away to keep us free and for the people in the country.
Well, that's very sweet.
That's very thoughtful.
I just hope you got a big server farm out there, Nico.
Because when we give on these rare occasions where websites out, they sometimes crash for a while.
So if that happens to yours, be patient.
It'll be back.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
We got audio soundbites still to come on the roster.
More of your phone calls and full stacks of stuff.
A brief time out here at the bottom of the hour.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
We are coming right back.
Okay, we're back.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to start here at number two, Mike.
Bobby Jendo, the governor-elect of Louisiana.
I want to go back and just share something with you.
Last year, actually in 2005, this is during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
I proposed the Limbaugh Plan for New Orleans, and this is how it sounded.
Okay, Libs, we've tried it your way for 60 years, and now we're going to try it our way.
Enterprise zones, school vouchers, turning renters into owners, rebuilding this place without rebuilding slums.
They're not going to rebuild it the way it was with the same architecture and the same structure politically and everything else.
It is a pretty decent opportunity here.
The Limbaugh Plan.
New Orleans had been run unchecked, and most of the state as well, for 60 years by liberalism.
It was a microcosm of exactly what will happen to a country or a community where liberalism has total control.
You saw people unable to help themselves, unwilling to help themselves, incompetent in that area.
You saw a government that was ineffective in evacuating all the people out of there, even though they had numerous buses at their disposal.
And then in the aftermath, we saw the breakdown of civility and law and order and a number of other things.
And then the liberals started talking about, boy, it's just such a shame.
We've lost such of the just the wonderful culture, the vibrant culture of New Orleans.
And in large part, they were talking about the slum areas, the poverty areas.
And they somehow were just upset.
And so the Limbaugh Plan was proposed.
Let's try it a new way in New Orleans.
Great opportunity.
And lo and behold, Bobby Jindahl comes along, runs for governor, and is basically going to implement the Limbaugh Plan.
It was in Fox News Sunday yesterday, and Chris Wallace said to him, obviously, your biggest job is going to be continue the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.
What are you going to do about it?
New Orleans had challenges before the storms.
Let's not pretend like the storms created the crime problems, the housing problems, the educational problems.
The storms created a lot of new problems, but they've given us a chance to fix problems that were plaguing what I would call one of America's greatest cities even before the storms.
Let's be bold.
Let's make some real changes.
Let's not just rebuild the failed public housing complexes.
Let's not rebuild the failing public schools.
We have a very aggressive charter school, a very aggressive reform movement taking root in New Orleans.
Let's be aggressive.
Let's not just rebuild a large public charity hospital without also helping people afford private preventive coverage.
One of the most effective programs down here has been a GoZone program that has reduced taxes, given tax advantage treatment for people that want to invest down here.
Well, now, why?
How did this happen?
How did this, how did Bobby Jendahl end up getting elected in this state that's been run by liberal Democrats for all these years?
Remember, after Hurricane Katrina, the focus in the drive-by media was how the Bush administration didn't care because of the people's race down there and may have even rigged those levees to flood.
I mean, the conspiracy theories that abounded.
By the way, have you heard some of the conspiracy theories about the fire?
Some of the looney tune fringe kooks.
Honest to God, the funniest one I have heard, and this is on liberal radio, that the private security firm Blackwater, wait, the private security firm Blackwater set the fires in San Diego because they wanted those people who live there out because they want to build a new facility there.
And so the best way to get those people out of there and the cheapest way for Blackwater was to start a fire.
And that makes people afraid to go back and rebuild.
Honest, they believe this.
They believe it.
It's the same bunch of people that drive around 9-11 was an inside job, bumper stickers on the backs of their cars.
Do you think they really believe that?
If they thought 9-11 was an inside job, you'd have a civil war.
There would be a civil war now.
If they really believe this, I don't think these liberals believe half this stuff.
They just say it to make themselves feel better.
Now, some of these people articulating this do believe it.
Blackwater, of all entities now, Blackwater set the fires in San Diego.
So we had after Hurricane Katrina the same kind of conspiracy theories.
Bush wanted the levees to not hold so that New Orleans would be flooded.
He wanted all the residents out of there because he wanted the state to become Republican.
All of these conspiracy theories abounded.
Now, you tell me, how in the world did Bobby Jendahl win down there if the focus of the drive-bys was so much on the incompetence of FEMA and how Bush didn't care and how Bush was a racist and how Bush might have even steered the hurricane, how they knew it was coming, but nobody properly warned anybody.
I'll tell you how it happened.
People in Louisiana know full well that it was the local and the state people that made a mess of things down there, both before and after, and they simply got fed up with it.
Now, I mention this to you because the drive-bys are amazed.
They were stunned that this happened.
A person of color, not a Democrat, won a state governorship that the drive-bys of the Democrats consider theirs in perpetuity.
So they're stunned.
This is a classic illustration.
Despite the inundation, despite the wall-to-wall nonstop bias and drivel in the drive-by media, the people of Louisiana were unaffected by it.
They live there and they know exactly why things were in a shambles and what to do to fix it.
Here's another little example of Bobby Jendahl and his conservatism is Limbaugh Echo.
And this one's number two.
This is November 8th, 2006.
I said the following on this program.
Republicans lost last night, but conservatism did not.
And that is, to me, one of the fundamental elements of last night's results.
Conservatism did not lose.
Republicans lost last night.
fact republicanism being a political party first rather than an ideological movement is what lost amen 10-4 bobby jendahl's version of that chris wallace said hey what lesson do you think your party should learn from your campaign and your success in louisiana The reason Republicans did so poorly in 2006 wasn't that the country stopped being conservative.
It was the party stopped being conservative.
It's not enough to want power for the sake of wanting power.
As the Republican Party gets to its principled roots, it'll see more enthusiasm among voters.
Voters don't want you to pretend to be an imitation of your opponents.
They want you to stick to your principles.
Be and be honest.
Even if you disagree with a voter, tell them where you stand now.
This is Louisiana.
This is Bobby Jendel.
This is how he campaigned.
He won the governorship in a liberal state by talking to Republicans this way.
Uh many, many massive lessons here to uh to be learned for other Republicans seeking office.
Don't try to outliberal the liberals, or don't think you can be 20 liberal in certain states and attract liberal voters away from liberals, because the liberals are going to go with a genuine article each and every time.
This is Brian in Nashville, Tennessee.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
How are you doing?
Um, i'm Rush.
I um, I used to be in the middle.
I'm in the military right now and?
Um, i'm in the active duty side and i'm in the Tennessee.
I'm national Guard right now.
Um, i've been in their act twice um.
The PKK is a terrorist organization but the Kurds are friends with?
Um, with everyone in the U.s military and the Iraqi people they have.
We absolutely have absolutely no trouble whatsoever with Kurds in the north and the United States military does not want to?
Um open up a northern front in the war on terror.
Um, because there's about approximately 4,000 PKK militia members and 100,000 Turks massed along the border of Iraq and Turkey.
The U.S. military wants to keep the supply line open with Europe to Turkey and with an impending war with Iran possibly, we want all the allies that we possibly can because we got Iran surrounded essentially with Mahmoud Abdijah wanting to destroy.
So what are you saying?
If the Turks decide to invade the Kurds, we're going to send it out?
Yes, I think we would.
I think we would.
The Kurds love us.
The Kurds do love us.
And the Turks, the Turks love us.
So it's like Turkey.
Well, the Turks are mad at us.
Well, the Turks are mad at the Democrats, but Bin Laden loves them, so I guess it works out.
They're mad at Turkey.
It's tough to set that up.
We went in there and liberated Iraq for the express purpose of making sure that what used to happen to Kurds by Saddam doesn't happen again.
That'd be tough.
It will never happen again so long as we are there.
We are the defenders of freedom.
Right.
Well, okay, since you've been there, what are the odds the Turks are going to launch an attack on the Kurds anyway?
Well, approximately nine days from now, President Bush is, I heard, I read an article that he's supposed to meet up with Turks and, I guess, give his final decision.
But we have offered to put more U.S. troops in the North, and they kind of shot us down on that.
They essentially want us to pick a side.
Wait, wait, Who shot us down on the idea of putting troops in the north?
The Kurds or the Turks?
The Turks.
The Turks shot us down.
It's not an acceptable.
Well, I understand that.
I mean, if they're planning an attack on the Kurds, the last thing they want or we want is them to run into a bunch of our guys.
True.
It's almost like two friends fighting.
You almost just want to stay out of it.
I'll bet it doesn't happen.
I'll bet it doesn't happen.
The Turks, I think, would have moved already.
I saw something last week that no immediate plans, they said.
Now, that could just be strategery, you know, the shuck and jive, the ropodope.
But this will be a challenge for Bush to head this off.
But there are other supply line routes.
The administration says that they have worked.
You have to assume that that is true.
That's what people work in the Pentagon doing is planning for all of these possibilities and contingencies, even the ones that you can't predict.
Brief timeout.
Thanks, Brian, for the phone call.
Be right back.
And we're back.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being.
Should be allowed to have Colleen in Bergen County, New Jersey.
I'm glad you called.
It's great to have you with us.
Okay, longtime listener, second time caller rush.
I'm very nervous.
Well, don't be.
You're the best.
You are.
You're the best.
I just want to talk about the program Planet in Peril that I watched.
It was on CNN last night.
I don't know if you watched it.
Nope.
I know what it's going to do.
I know what it's going to say.
I know how they're going to lie.
I know how they're going to get things wrong.
I know what Anderson Cooper did the other night, claiming 40% of Greenland is melting when it's not.
So, no.
It's a propaganda series.
It's no different than a Michael Moore movie.
Exactly.
No, I agree.
But do you, what I came away with this was has nothing to do with the planet melting.
It has to do with the extinction of wildlife.
No, no, it's a series.
And last week, in promoting the series, Anderson Cooper said that 40% of Greenland is melting.
And it's not.
40% of the Greenland ice shelf is melting as they promoted this thing.
We just had a story here about how the world warms up too much, 95% of all species will go extinct.
No, We are.
No, it's man who is killing the animals.
It has nothing to do with.
It's got nothing to do.
I'm not saying that this program.
Wait, You're telling me what you watched, Planet in Peril, was nothing to do with global warming.
It had to do with how man is wiping out wildlife.
That's how I, yes, that's exactly right.
Oh, well, this is a new one.
What wildlife's being wiped out?
Well, they said that there's only 5,000 tigers left in the whole entire world.
That's in the zoos.
That's in the zoos.
In the wild.
In the wild.
Well, then there's that many in zoos, too.
We got it handled.
No, no, no.
But they were saying how it's the, you know, it's, what is that again?
When the animal feeds and the animal kills and what the animal feeds off, and even the insects that feed off of the animal that the animal just killed.
And the plants that grow, if one animal is missing from the planet, what happens?
Well, if you believe that you asked what that's called, when the animals eat each other and the insects then take over the carcass and then the seeds.
The chain of life or whatever.
Well, it's two things.
If you're watching CNN, it's called destruction of the habitat.
If you don't watch CNN, if you have a brain, it's called the food chain.
And it's been around ever since that there's been things to eat.
So do you believe if you take away animals from there, meaning if man goes in and starts killing off, like they killed off the, they showed in Yellowstone Park when they put back the wolf, because they had taken the wolf away from Yellowstone Park and they put the wolf back in and all of the plantation that has flourished all of because of the food chain of the wolf coming in and eating the elk.
Now that's this is something I know something about and it's a shame if you're telling us what CNN did.
The mistake in the first place was the hubris of a bunch of forest managers taking the wolf out of there.
Talk about natural habitat.
Why did we move the wolf?
We moved the wolf because the wolves were eating other animals that visitors to the park wanted to see.
And so we were worried that the wolves are going to wipe out the bison or buffalo, whatever it was.
I don't remember what.
So we took them out of there.
Then the animals that the wolves were eating started thriving and trampling everything.
So they had to bring the wolves back in.
They admitted the mistake.
Now they're compounding it.
The wolves are in there doing what wolves do.
They're eating vegetation.
They're trampling all over it.
It's nature.
It's nature, Colleen.
And we can't, you know, when we start trying to manage this stuff for reasons other than our own survival and thriving over the obstacles that the environment presents us, we're not capable of this.
This kind of management is ludicrous.
And the fact they took the wolves out of there and I have to bring them back in and are now upset they brought them back in.
It's just, it ought to be so illustrative as to illustrate the folly of all this.
You're the best, right?
We are not wiping out.
We are not wiping.
Look, have you heard that the polar bear population is dwindling?
Yes.
It's not.
No, I believe.
No, it's not.
The polar bear population is growing to the point it's becoming a problem in certain places.
It's moving, too, because of the so-called warming.
The polar bears, they're not idiots.
They're not going to sit there and let their habitat go away.
They're moving to where they can thrive.
This is what every species does.
Yes.
You rush, you're the best.
You really are, because I was afraid when I was going to say this that you were going to think I was liberal because the last phone call I made with you, I think you saw I was liberal in my thinking, but it was about when you were.
That's not what I think.
I remember you, Colleen.
I think that you're, I'm glad you called me here for some quick counseling.
I'm an animal lover.
Well, I know you're an animal, and that's the hook.
They do this show where man is evil.
First, we're destroying the planet with global warming.
Now, we're wiping out tigers.
We're wiping out the polar bears.
And if you got grandkids who saw this or kids that saw this and they come in, mommy, mommy, mommy, we're wiping out the polar bears.
And you don't want the kids to be unhappy, so you got to do something about saving the polar bears.
It's a hook.
It's the way the liberals get to your heart because we all love animals.
We think they're the cutest little things, and we don't want to harm them.
Other than when we need them to eat to stay alive, which, you know, we offer that.
Supposedly, Mrs. Clinton is not happy with Charlie Wrangell's tax plan.
The problem is that Charlie Wrangell's tax plan is her plan.
She was on Stephanopoulos.
Well, no, somebody was.
Wrangell was.
We'll play the sound bites.
I just casually read the transcripts.
We'll get into it when we get back.
That and lots more.
▲
Export Selection