All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
December 4, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, well, well, looky what I have here, ladies and gentlemen, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Wait till you hear this.
And when I read these two stories to you, your memory will be jogged as well as was mine.
I happily welcome you back, Rush Limbaugh, running the show here, highly trained broadcast specialist.
At the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com, went back to Mr. Snurdley's office during the break.
He said, that was a smoke an hour.
Smoke an hour.
And I said, I know.
And I exhaled.
I said, but you know, every day, every day we have to come in here and defend this country against the Democrats and the libs.
Every day is what we have to do here.
I hearken back to before this program existed prior to 1988, how this kind of stuff today would go unchecked, unchallenged, and everybody would believe it.
This NIE stuff and so forth.
Let me give you the lib position on this again.
When the intelligence says what the liberals want it to say, well, then of course it's reliable.
But when the intelligence doesn't say what the liberals want it to say, it's not reliable.
So the same agencies that supposedly got Iran wrong respecting its nuclear program are now to be believed because they say Iran has stopped trying to make a bomb.
And somehow this is bad news for Bush.
The spin here is just breathtaking.
And Dingy Harry, there's an AP story here.
Dingy Harry said, yes, we asked for this report.
Dingy Harry, well, Dingy Harry asked for it and does raise a question about the timing of its release.
Does it not?
Let's go back to the news archives.
Thanks to the good work of the people at Sweetness and Light, the blog.
Two stories.
First, an AP story, January 19th, 2006.
Headlines, Senator Clinton calls for Iran sanctions.
Senator Hillary Clinton called for United Nations sanctions against Iran and faulted the Bush administration for downplaying the threat that Tehran's nuclear program poses.
Folks, this is just almost two years ago.
Mrs. Clinton says, Bush is blowing this.
Bush isn't taking Iran seriously enough.
She went to the U.N. demanding a sanctions program in an address in January, a Wednesday evening in 2006 at Princeton.
Hillary Clinton said it was a mistake for the U.S. to have Britain, France, and Germany head up nuclear talks with Iran over the past two and a half years.
Last week, Iran resumed nuclear research in a move Tehran claims is for energy, not weapons.
Hillary Clinton said, I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and chose to outsource the negotiations.
The drive-bys are not going to remind anybody of their own previous reports like we are doing today.
So here's Mrs. Clinton through her spokesman today saying, well, this goes to show you just how diplomacy can work and that Bush's cowboy approach is not the way to go on this.
This is diplomacy.
This is exactly what Mrs. Clinton is saying.
Mrs. Clinton was upset diplomacy wasn't working from the French and the Germans and the Brits.
Even more in this story, there's a Washington Post story, and the date of this story is February 2, 2007, calling Iran a danger.
It's actually an AP story, but it ran in a Washington Post.
Maybe it probably did.
Calling Iran a danger to the United States and one of Israel's greatest threats, Senator Hillary Clinton said no option can be taken off the table when dealing with Iran.
But Clinton also called for a dialogue with countries hostile to Israel, including Iran and Syria, as a way to promote peace in the Middle East.
I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies, Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters on Thursday.
I believe we can gain valuable knowledge and leverage from being part of a process again that enables us to get a better idea of how to take on and defeat our adversaries.
So two stories about Mrs. Clinton demanding that the U.S. get tough with Iran.
Says Iran is a threat, calls Iran a threat to the U.S., one of Israel's greatest dangers, unhappy with the Bush administration's diplomacy or lack thereof.
So the report comes out today, the NIE, and of course, Mrs. Clinton forgets all that she has said here and blames the Bush administration for being too cowboy.
Every day, every day, we have to come in here and defend this country against the media.
Defend this country from the drive-by media, the Democrats, and the left in this country.
That's what the job has become.
I'm happy to do it.
Don't misunderstand.
The cleaning up the messes made by the drive-bys and correcting the lies and the distortions of Democrat presidential candidates in Democrats, period.
I'm sure you've seen moving on here.
I'm sure you've seen a poll from USA Today in Gallup, significant drops in support for Clinton and Giuliani.
National support for Hillary and Rudy significantly eroded over the past month.
Meanwhile, Huckabee's standing in the national poll has shot up to the point where he leads a group of four GOP contenders, basically tied for second place behind frontrunner Giuliani.
Susan Page of USA Today adds that results of this latest poll underscore the volatile nature of both the Democrat and Republican nomination battles with just one a month to go before the Hawkeye Kauckeye on January 3rd.
The national telephone poll taken Friday through Sunday.
425 Republicans and leaning Republicans surveyed, 494 Democrats and leaning Democrats.
Each number has a margin of error plus or minus five percentage points.
And then there's this interesting story.
This is from Reuters.
I get the headline.
Timing of polls matters in politics.
Experts.
Oh, really?
Interesting that this story comes out just as Hillary is tanking.
Republican Rudy Giuliani has a strong lead in national presidential polls, but runs a distance second in early voting New Hampshire.
Mike Ackabee has an edge among Republicans in Iowa, but places fifth in nationwide surveys.
What's a voter to think?
Well, if a voter is going to vote based on polls, then the voters totally confused.
With such disparate results, opinion polls would seem to hold little value, but read properly, yeah, and by whom, and at the right time, political polls offer plenty of insight, experts say.
Most simply, national polls reflect what issues are important to voters, but they provide little information as to who is winning, the analysts said.
Early state polls are handier for judging the horse race of cast.
In the midst of Hillary beginning to tank here, we get a story from Reuters from pollsters saying, hey, these national, we got a USA Today poll out today.
Hey, Hillary and Rudy both tanking Obama and Huckabee are rising, but pay no attention to it, says Reuters, because national polls only reflect what issues are important to voters, but provide little information as to who is really winning.
Isn't this just peachy keen?
Folks, I really would caution you on paying attention to these daily polls and trying to take a lot out of them because they're meaningless.
Yes, you heard me right, Mr. Snerdley.
These polls are meaningless.
Just as they were meaningless six months ago, they are meaningless today.
If the polls had been useful six months ago, guess who would be the Republican nominee?
Rudy.
He'd be the nominee.
He was leading the pack by what?
Or Romney.
Take your pick.
And now it's Huckabee.
Huckabee wouldn't have had a chance anywhere if the polls six months ago were accurate.
McCain was also dead in the water, and McCain's starting to resurface.
They're meaningless.
Let me give you an analogy.
Bill Belichick, the head coach of the New England Patriots.
Boy, what a game that was last night, Brian.
What a game.
They got the Steelers on Sunday afternoon, 4:15 CBS in Foxborough.
Bill Belichick, in, I guess it was a Super Bowl game against the Rams in the Superdome.
The years run together.
But during the week leading up to the game, you know, the coaches do whatever they can to motivate their players.
And Belichick thought he'd get a videotape of a horse race from the Breeders' Cup from two or three years ago that nobody would remember.
And at the starting line, before the shotgun, before the shotgun start, he told the players, get pick a winner.
So the players all picked a horse that they thought was going to win.
Quarter through the race, quarterway, first turn, stops tape.
Who are you going to think is going to win now?
Players change their mind, pick various horses because their horses have lost their ground.
Some horses have pulled ahead.
Players change their mind.
Halfway, stops taping, okay, who's going to win now?
And players change their mind and pick winners again, different from the winners that they had picked at first.
Some stuck with their original guesses.
Three-quarters away through the race, stops the tape against who's going to win this horse race now based on what you see.
And they made their choices.
And so Belichick says, it doesn't matter what's happening right now.
There's no way you know who's going to win this race a quarter of a way into it, halfway into it, or three quarters of a way into it.
You don't know.
It's silly to be picking winners here.
You don't know who's going to win the race till the race is over.
And the horse that wins the race is going to be the horse that finishes it first.
So when we get to Sunday, guys, play all four quarters and finish strong.
He used it as a motivational.
So when I heard that story, I likened it to these polls.
All of this is meaningless right now, other than to provide the drive-bys a chance to shape your opinion of what's going to happen and to shape your perceptions of what's going to happen.
Quick timeout.
Back after this.
I want you to listen to how James Lewis at the AmericanThinker.com characterizes the national intelligence estimate.
He says, suppose you're a cop and you have to stop a well-known mafia hitman on a dark night driving his Cadillac.
You know, he's recklessly dangerous.
He's threatened you every day in public for the last 30 years.
What do you think death to America really means?
So you call a dispatcher, you ask them to tell you as much as they know about the suspect.
Specifically, does he carry a loaded gun?
You tell them it's urgent.
This is not a normal traffic stop.
This is nerve-wracking business.
You call for backup to be able to hit the suspect with overwhelming force if you need it, but you know that the lawyers will be after you if you overreact.
So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Headquarters finally calls back.
And to the best of their intelligence, they tell you the chances the suspect has a loaded gun is plausible but unlikely.
What do you do?
Well, that is exactly what President Bush is facing today.
Our intelligence community has labored mightily and brought forth a camel, a CYA committee, and judgment on the most dangerous rogue regime in the world today, the Khomeini cult, and its mouthpiece, Ahmadinezad.
Ahmadinezad has been completely clear about his murderous intentions.
He means to kill and blackmail you and all your allies, not just Israel, but the Arab states as well, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, sitting on the oil faucet for half the world.
Just for good measure, he has directly threatened Britain, France, and Germany, as well as a good old USA.
The UN agency, the IAEA, says that with 3,000 centrifuges running the Datanz plant that can produce enough fissionable material for a nuclear bomb in one year, the U.S. intelligence community puts it at three to eight years.
But the Iranians have consistently lied about their nuke activity, so the chances are near perfect that they're lying and understating their programs today.
Israel just bombed the smithereens, a secret joint Syrian-Iranian North Korean plant on the Euphrates River, which is believed by one of the foremost Israeli authorities to have imported plutonium from North Korea, ready to be molded into a bomb.
What does the fresh NIE estimate tell us?
A secret Iranian nuclear project, one that we don't know about, but which may already have produced a bomb, is plausible but unlikely.
As Michael Ladine writes today at National Review Online, this is exquisite CYA.
If Iran already has a nuke, the spooks, the spies, the Intel gang can't be faulted because they said it was plausible.
If it doesn't have a nuke, they can't be criticized either because they said it was unlikely.
My golly, it's good to have a $100 billion intelligence bureaucracy can't really protect us.
Here's the kicker.
If Iran already has fissionable material, they are vulnerable, invulnerable to attack.
So the spooks have thrown their hot potato right back at the White House and the Pentagon.
Our soldiers' lives are on the line right next door in Iraq.
Plausible but unlikely.
I bet the Pentagon is really grateful.
No wonder Ach Madinezad is laughing.
That's why I said it's a CYA report.
The whole thing is to cover their rear ends regardless what the truth ends up being.
Here is Jeff, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
Tittois, Drush.
Thank you.
Just wanted to take issue with you from what you said on Friday.
It's been eating to me all week.
First, I want to compliment you because you're blessed genetically to be in such great shape without exercise and that your blood work comes out.
And I just wanted the statement you made that you took kind of in the light of the drive-by media, you took a flawed, fatally flawed clinical study that said total cholesterol doesn't, reducing total cholesterol can reduce, can't reduce strokes.
And I'm very passionate about this.
They said the report said it doesn't.
They were shocked.
They were stunned to find that it doesn't reduce stroke.
It actually has more impact on heart disease.
It doesn't reduce stroke.
Yeah, and you didn't look at the fatal flaw in the study.
They're looking at total cholesterol.
The American Heart Association, American College of Cardiologists, and MSEP all agree that it's LDL cholesterol.
It's the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is the bad cholesterol that is the marker.
Total cholesterol brings in HDLs as well, as well as triglycerides and several other amino acids.
But if you look at reducing LDL cholesterol, there is a statin that has been proven and has indications from the FDA to reduce the relative risk of stroke.
Even with diabetic patients, it can cut that risk in half.
So I just have, I just, I'm worried about the patients out there that may have taken your supremely superior genetic makeup and someone who doesn't have to worry about their cholesterol.
Wade, that's not what I did.
I was not.
Some people may not have heard the segment that you're talking about, so let me briefly recap it for people so that your comments can be understood.
There was a story last week from some science bunch.
They've been studying statins and they've been studying cholesterol.
They were stunned to find out that drugs given to people with high cholesterol to prevent strokes actually didn't do that, work more on heart disease and so forth.
And my point was that this is not new, that every day we are given some new medical miracle solution or discovery.
Eating three milk duds a day will ward off Alzheimer's disease for an additional 10 years.
It's that ridiculous.
And then five years later, we'll find out that eating three milk duds has absolutely no effect on Alzheimer's.
And this has been going on my entire life.
So we've had people believing that these pills are going to make them healthy regarding cholesterol and stroke.
And all of a sudden they say, no, no, no, we were wrong.
And I'm basically mocking this whole process of how experts end up talking about that.
Then I get into my own personal history about my blood pressure and the blood work.
I just had a physical and so forth.
And actually was not tying that to drugs in any way, shape, manner, or form.
I was trying to say that we're all different and that we're all going to get something someday, regardless of our genetic makeup, that nobody has yet cheated and defied death.
It's going to happen to all of us at some point.
And no matter how healthy we are in one or five areas, something is going to go wrong and we're going to get something.
That was my only point.
I'm not knocking drugs.
I wasn't mocking the drug in that story.
I'm mocking the researchers and the scientists who get people all worked up about these things.
And then some months or years later, oh, oh, oh, sorry.
We were wrong.
Well, you painted with a broad brush there, Rush.
Let's talk about someone who is.
Well, okay, hang on.
I got to take a profit center timeout.
We'll continue our discussion here in mere moments, Jeff.
Well, is that ever true?
Real life, that's what happens.
And as discussed on this program, back to Jeff in Grand Junction, Colorado.
We left off with you saying that I was painting with too broad a brush.
That's correct, Rush.
And I just wanted to go back to the stroke patient, someone who is at risk of stroke.
And who is, by the way, who is at risk of stroke?
Isn't everybody?
Let's say that the greatest risk of stroke, someone who already has cardiovascular disease, already has some blockage of arteries within their body.
And basically, There's two ways to look at it.
You have the genetic inclination, like if your father passed a stroke, passed from a stroke, like myself, and that's why I've studied this intricately.
And then there's lifestyle.
And lifestyle, you know, from stress to diet to alcohol to the whole gamut.
And when you said that the experts have proven that drugs such as statins can't reduce the risk of stroke, you were incorrect.
Well, all right, then I'll take it on the chin here for the drive-by media.
But I don't think I said that they can't.
I think they said they were surprised that it didn't in their clinical trials.
And in the clinical trial you quoted, and it was a fatally flawed trial, clinical trial.
Well, I should have known.
It's a drive-by media, but they were quoting these doctors.
Yeah, and once again, they were wrong.
Well, what is your level of expertise in this, Jeff?
I mean, you obviously have a deep passion about it, your family, so forth, but you sound like you have passion beyond even that.
Well, yeah, my father passed from several strokes.
And upon his passing, I looked at my life and decided to do something completely with it.
And I was a sales representative, so I decided to get into pharmaceutical sales and focused on cardiovascular disease.
Really?
You are in pharmaceutical sales.
That's correct.
Wow.
You mentioned a drug earlier, a statin that is effective that you found on reducing stroke.
Correct.
And I'm not at liberty to say the name of the drug or the company I work with.
You're not at liberty to say that.
No, I've not.
Oh, that's too bad.
Yeah, but any doctor could tell you.
And it's the most prescribed drug in the history of medicine.
So does it begin with an L?
Yes.
Okay, I think I'm deluded.
So we got a almost blew it.
Almost said the name.
I don't want to get you in trouble.
I don't want to get in trouble.
So you sell the stuff.
Yes, I do.
And it's my life work, and I do have passion.
And you said, even when you said that it affects cardiovascular disease and not stroke, strokes are caused by cardiovascular disease.
Stroke is a lack of blood getting to the brain.
Yeah.
So if it helps in cardiovascular, you know, treating cardiovascular disease, it's going to help with anyone who may be having a stroke.
Well, you know, I'm, you have a good point here.
There could have been an agenda behind this story.
Who knows what it is?
The drive-bys love to create havoc and crisis and then say, oops, sorry, here's another crisis because our first crisis was wrong.
It could well be that you got somebody out there trying to sabotage the drug you work for, sell, and so forth.
And so it could be the case.
I frankly, again, was simply trying to zero in on the process by which we're all told of this stuff.
And I'll state my point and make it again.
Every day, people are doing things, taking things, not eating certain things and eating certain other things because they have been told that that's healthy and that's not healthy.
And this will prevent this and that will prevent that.
But this will cause that.
And that will cause this.
And then every so often we find out that what we were told was wrong.
And the whole aura or the whole atmosphere, the context in which this stuff happens is to promote fear that we're all killing ourselves.
We're going to die unless we do this, unless we do that.
Global warming, the same thing.
And so that was the focus I was taking.
I mean, I've cited these examples countless times.
Coffee was going to kill you, not good for you.
Now, nicotine, giggage, horrible.
Oh, banned it.
Might guard against Alzheimer's.
Parkinson's one of the two, forget which.
Then we had Oatbran.
Yes, Old Bran was the miracle food.
It was going to clean you out.
It was going to keep you clean, so forth.
Sorry, we were wrong.
So I think it's more a media formula that I was attacking there.
But I'm glad you called and attempted to set the record straight here in this.
I appreciate it.
Bill in Maryville, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Well, I think a lot of these studies are correlation correlational in nature.
Correlation is the degree of association between two variables.
And if you have a plus one correlation, that means they're absolutely correlated.
If you have a negative one correlational coefficient, there's no association at all.
But no matter what the correlation coefficient, it doesn't imply causality.
And I think what they do is they take a bunch of variables, throw them together, and do these correlation coefficients, and they see what comes out with a reasonably high correlation.
The only way you can determine causality, for example, if X causes Y, let's say you have waist size and intelligence, and you want to see if those two factors correlate.
Well, they might correlate pretty high.
So you might say, well, people with large waists are more intelligent than people with smaller weights.
I can accept that, too.
So the only way to prove it is to take one and test it against the other with a test like a t-test or an analysis of variance.
Now, there was an example that I heard of where a guy did a study with 20 factors, and he did 20 t-tests.
And when he was asked, why did you do 20 t-tests, he says, well, I understood how to do that.
Well, the correct way to do it would have been analysis of variance, where you can test a lot of variables at the same time.
And that's where you get a degree of significance.
And that will statistically imply causality.
Well, I wanted to correlation won't.
See, when you get causality and correlation, and then you come with causality, your example that you gave about larger waist size indicating a higher IQ, higher IQ.
That's absurd, but yet there are people doing things just like that.
Well, I think if you eat three milk duds, you are less likely to give birth to a deformed child.
I mean, it's absurd what's out there.
I think what they're doing is they're just taking a lot of factors, variables, and throwing them into a pot and see what correlates with what.
They may be doing that.
But more interesting to me is their motivation for doing it.
And you've got a bunch of people out there who are searching desperately for money.
Scientists, so-called scientists wanting research grants.
And so all they've got to do is say, we've done this causality correlation study.
We've found X.
No, there is no such thing as a causality correlation study.
Sorry about that.
You're right.
See, and that may lead them to something, and then they should do the causality study.
The example I gave you about the guy who did 20 T-tests and four or five of them showed to be significant.
Well, the more that you do, the more chance you have of them showing significance.
Whereas he d he used the wrong procedure.
Statistically, he didn't understand the correct procedure.
So, to prove something that has statistical significance, you can't do it by correlation.
You have to do it, for example, like with an analysis of variance where you would get 0.95 or a 0.99 statistical significance.
Right, but you're still projecting and guessing because you can't test everybody.
No, but if you're saying, you can't put, well, I know that the pollsters say about political polling and so forth.
But I'm still more interested in what's driving this because it is producing some of the most cockamamy, outrageous, unbelievable things that we're being told about our health and about any number of other aspects of life.
It's a joke.
Well, I'm sure you're right.
It's the search for money and it's published or perish in the academic world.
Well, you know, there's also something else behind this, and there's a political ideology involved, and that's liberalism, and it's nannyism, and it's nobody knows what to do to take care of themselves.
Only we who do these studies, the smart people, the elites, only we can tell you how to live because you're too stupid to know how to live.
And so you've got to be told, for example, that you shouldn't go to McDonald's or that you shouldn't have this or whatever.
It just, frankly, it irritates me because it's insulting to people.
What is wrong with people just living their lives?
You realize how much micromanagement the liberals in this country would love to purpose.
That's what global warming is all about, folks, is telling you how you can and can't live, where you can and can't go, what you can and can't drive, what bags you can and can't use in the grocery store.
It's absurd.
It's frankly absurd, and it bothers me to no end.
But people end up believing this because nobody wants to get sick and nobody wants to die.
Well, throw the suicide candidates out, but I mean, nobody wants to die.
So people will eat this stuff up and start doing all of these things.
And it may end up being harmless, but it still irritates me that there is this attempt to have this much control over people's thoughts, their attitudes, and their actions.
I must take a break.
I'm glad you called out there, Bill.
Be back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
Our last caller had a point, folks, and it is a continuing fundamental problem in science.
Give you to illustrate another example from global warming.
Global temperatures have increased over the last 50 years.
Not a lot, but they have.
And guess what?
CO2 has increased in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.
And so people go, wow, voila, increasing CO2 is causing temperatures to increase when nobody knows that.
That they both increased over time is easy to show, but to prove cause and effect is much more difficult, and it requires faith and consensus.
Scientific faith and consensus.
Nobody will admit that faith is indeed involved in the scientific community, but there's no way that they can say that CO2 is causing the temperature increase.
There's no way they know this.
See, see, they've got a hypothesis they want to be true.
There's a political aim tied to it as well.
Adam in Tampa, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're next.
Thank you, Rush.
Good day.
I just wanted to give another take on the announcement of the NIE.
What I think most people are missing, I'd like to have your comment on it.
If anything, I think this would force Israel to become more proactive and preemptive.
They didn't need any justification to take out the Syrian installation recently.
Now, all of a sudden, their biggest ally who they thought was going to kill the water all of a sudden is apparently taking a military object off the table right before the festival of Hanukkah tonight.
They've always had a fortress mentality.
I can't see how this is going to do anything but even reinforce that and possibly prompt further military action in the Middle East.
They're going to have to.
It always is going to fall on the backs of the Israelis in that part of the country because the Intel community here has just tried to have it both ways to, you know, CYA and get a bunch of people off the hook on it over here.
I read the Jerusalem Post this morning.
The Israelis don't believe this.
The Israelis think that this is not a correct assessment.
So it's not, there is not a consensus, ladies and gentlemen, on the intelligence community.
Frankly, I'd more trust what the Mossad had to say about this than I would trust the 16.
The NIE is a wild guess, a snapshot in time of 16 intelligence agencies.
And just because there's a little fog out there and you can't see through the fog and not know what somebody's doing doesn't mean they're not down there doing it, being hidden by the fog.
And every nuclear power, aside from us, every nuclear power has reached its nuclear objective under the cover of darkness.
They have done it in secret.
They've not done it out in the open.
So it's not, this is for them to conclude, which they didn't do, by the way.
Plausible that they're working on, but it's unlikely.
Well, that doesn't help anybody.
And it certainly is not going to be enough for the Israelis to say, oh, okay, we can relax.
Iran's actually not doing it.
Fine.
Let's go on and live our lives.
Speaking of Hanukkah beginning today, get this.
A group of Israeli environmentalists is encouraging Jewish people around the world to light at least one less candle this Hanukkah to help the environment.
The founders of the Green Hanukkah campaign found that every candle that burns completely produces 15 grams of carbon dioxide.
Even estimated 1 million Israeli households light for eight days, they said.
It would do significant damage to the atmosphere.
The campaign calls for Jewish people around the world to save the last candle and save the planet so we will not need another miracle, says the campaign's co-founder, who runs the Arcata Environmental Consulting Firm and the WyNet website's Environmental Forum.
Global warming is a milestone in human evolution, requires us to rethink how we live our lives.
And one of the main paradigms of that is religion and how it fits into the current situation.
I'll tell you what, if I were Jewish, I would be flabbergasted.
One of these days, one of these days, these environmentalists are going to take on a group of people, going to say, screw you.
And they're going to read them the riot act and tell them to go to hell in a handbasket.
To light one less Hanukkah candle to save the planet?
Co-founder Tom Wegner, who heads the PR firm Update Marketing Media, spread the campaign via mass emails and through social interaction websites like Facebook and Hook.
He said no money has been invested in the campaign, but it already raised awareness around the world and made people realize they have to consider the environment this Hanukkah.
So the religion of global warming, Jewish people are being told now the religion of global warming should take precedence over Judaism.
Religion and its effect on global warming.
And of course, the only religion that is pure and doesn't have any effect on global warming is global warming and the believers.
Wegner said he didn't consider the campaign anti-religious.
The unlit candle could be the shamash, which is not required for the mitzvah, he said.
But he said he would encourage people who do not keep mitzvah not to light a Hanukkah at all for environmental and educational reasons.
You just wait for these people, these lunatics, these absolutely deranged people, these environmentalist wackos, at some point, as in every wacko movement, they are going to go way too far against the wrong group of people.
And somebody with a backbone is going to just come up and say, go to hell and leave us alone.
You wait.
Yeah, we're going to get into presidential politics in the next hour, but another damning article written by Hillary for Foreign Affairs on how Bush is not doing enough, not being strong enough, tough enough on Iran.
All that and much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
Can't wait, folks.
▲
Export Selection