For those of you who were listening right before the conclusion of the previous hour and you heard my attempted conversation with the liberal caller from Atlanta named Lisa, you heard what is going to be standard operating procedure for the next six months leading up to the election, especially if Obama's the nominee.
You heard what the next four to eight years are going to be like in this country if Obama wins the presidency in November.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
I can't tell you the number of people who have called me over the course of the recent past months or so.
And they've said, Rush, you know, I'm thinking about Obama.
If Obama wins, doesn't that mean that there's no more racism in America?
Does that mean it's over?
Oh, no, just the opposite.
You have to understand that racial discrimination is a business in this country to people like the Reverend Sharpton and the Reverend Dax.
And any criticism of a black president is going to be said to be racist.
You can count on it, folks.
If you heard that call, if you didn't, if you're just joining us, we had a call from a woman named Lisa in Atlanta who was tarring me as a racist when she was the actual racist because of my desire to see the Democrat convention break down exactly as it did in 1968 in Chicago with Democrats beating up on Democrats in the streets.
Mayor Daly's cops, his thugs, went out there and were attacking Democrats and the SDS was there and all the anti-war crowd to Jerry Rubens and the Tom Hayden's, they were starting fires and so forth.
And the Democrats sent Mayor Daly's thugs out there to beat him upside the head.
There have been countless commentators and columnists and pundits throughout the drive-by media lamenting the fact that if the superdelegates don't give this nomination to Obama, that they're going to have a repeat of 68 in Chicago.
Now, what the hell was that?
What happened to 68 in Chicago?
We all know it.
So you also heard with that call an attempt, just like is being attempted in North Carolina with their ad using Jeremiah Wright, the Obama faction and the Drive-By Media faction doing everything they can to stop any criticism whatsoever of Obama on the basis that it's racist.
And they're going to level a charge of racism at any critic in an attempt to intimidate and silence the critic.
I will not be.
I will not be silenced.
I'm not going to be intimidated by this.
This radio program is the Straight Talk Express.
And it is quite possible.
And I don't say this with any ego, but based on what we're hearing from the RNC and the McCain camp, it's quite possible that the real presidential campaign will happen on this program.
And the campaign for president is being run by the candidates is going to be all this flowery lingo that doesn't amount to anything, the so-called serious and civil debate on these so-called issues that we face.
But in case anybody thinks I'm just making all this up out of thin air, let's go back to March 6th this year.
The National Action Network president, the Reverend Al Sharpton, was on the O'Reilly factor.
And O'Reilly said, Barack Obama's got more popular, more elected delegates come convention time.
He's denied it because of the deals in the superdelegates.
What do you do, Sharpton?
You take to the streets?
What do you do?
If he is denied the selection of the nominee by superdelegates making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket.
Okay, what does demonstrating mean?
The Reverend Sharpton is the one who put this notion out there.
This was not the first time.
I think when he said it somewhere, O'Reilly, who has guests on his show, went out and got Sharp to repeat this on his show.
And therefore, Reverend Sharpton put it out there.
And I'm just trying to encourage Reverend Sharpton.
Now, Reverend Sharpton, I know that you have agents that listen to this program.
And I want to remind you of something, sir.
You said that if Obama is denied the selection of the nominee by superdelegates, making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only, Reverend Sharpton, you better prepare yourself because that's exactly what's going to happen.
Whoever wins this is going to be picked by the superdelegates.
And the way this thing is shaping up, the voters are not going to have had anything to do with it.
Neither one of your candidates, Reverend Sharpton, can win this nomination via the voters.
It's just that simple.
And I don't know how this is going to end up.
I don't know who's going to have the advantage in the popular vote.
And they start divvying up electoral votes in these states and the primaries.
Hillary's going to own that because Obama's lost seven of the 10 most populous states.
You Democrats had better come to grips with something.
The supers are the ones that are going to pick your nominee.
The voters will not.
And the superdelegates are actually, as somebody in the Canadian, a Canadian newspaper said, I have the analysis here somewhere.
The equivalent of murder is going to be committed by the superdelegates.
It's he saying it.
The equivalent are going to murder somebody and are going to murder somebody's supporters here because the Democratic process will not have been a factor once the Democrats choose a nominee.
And Sharpton said it here.
If he's denied the selection by superdelegates, making backroom deals, not by the voters, well, you not only see people like me demonstrating.
Il Rushbo rest my case.
Now, I want to remind you one more time.
These superdelegates, they got a lot of things to think about.
It's not just who they think could best win the election.
I mean, that clearly is a factor.
But who are these supers?
Well, they're elected themselves.
They're grand poobahs.
Federal, state, local level.
These are big-time elected Democrats.
They're fortunes.
Some of them are union delegates.
Their fortunes are going to be tied to whoever they pick.
If they pick somebody can't win, then they are going to be picking somebody that can't help them win.
It might drag them down.
They're going to want to pick a winner, not just for the sake of the party, but for their own personal sake.
This thing hadn't even, you know, Howard Dean wants this thing over by June 15th.
You know, the pot's not even boiling yet, and people are already feeling the heat, people getting scalded.
We're still in the effervescent stage.
This has not yet boiled over, but it's going to.
And this was just, you know, less than a month and a half ago that the Reverend Sharpton is promising the Democrats he's going to take to the streets and demonstrate.
And we all know, you know, I think Al Sharpton's done some of his best work on the protest march.
He's very effective at it.
We've done many parodies here of Reverend Sharpton in that mode because he's talented at it and we know where it can lead.
And so he's the one that put this out in the public domain.
And that is that.
Let me see if I can have this at the top.
This guy from Canada.
Look at some of these headlines.
Obama problem is older voters.
Will the Democrats, here it is.
Will Democrats commit?
It's Germany.
It's not Canada.
I'm sorry, it's Der Spiegel.
Here it is.
Will Democrats commit political suicide by Gabor Steingart at Der Spiegel?
Democrat voters just can't make up their minds between Obama and Hillary.
In Pennsylvania, they denied him victory, but spared her defeat.
It'll be the job of the superdelegates to commit political murder, but will it mean suicide for the party?
After the confetti has been shaken out of the hair and the party balloons have deflated, what's left from Tuesday's election night is a disturbing message.
And that is there's nothing to celebrate.
The winner is the loser, but the loser is not the winner.
Clinton's victory was not big enough to snatch the nomination, but neither was his star power enough to woo the voters in the center.
Seems this race is jinxed.
He was handed a defeat when he needed a victory.
She secured a victory when an improbable triumph would have helped her.
Barring a miracle, Clinton's role at the Democrat Party convention in Denver in August will be limited to guest speaker.
But Obama will go into the actual presidential election badly damaged.
On the night of Obama's first primary win in the state of Iowa, this columnist, Gabor Steingart, wrote the following: Obama has scant hope of reaching the White House.
He's too young.
He's too inexperienced.
He's too vague.
And for many Americans, too black.
His magic words about the era of change, of hope, of an America he will unite, all that will evaporate like the morning midst.
He was right.
This prediction was confirmed in Pennsylvania.
The euphoria over the 46-year-old senator has, until today, only gripped 50% of Democrat voters who make up only a third of registered voters.
The Obama flame burns, but only in parts of society.
Obama receives more goodwill than actual votes, and his press is better than his real situation.
The voter groups, which are decisive for any president, distrust people who claim to be miracle workers.
Union officials clapped, but many of its members lowered their heads pensively.
These people want new jobs, but they don't want new government debt.
They want leadership, but Obama is only flashing his wallet.
He is a party favorite in times of dwindling party loyalty.
He excites the active members of the Democrat Party, the officials, young people, university graduates, not to mention that part of the party, a part which should not be underestimated, which is to be found within newspapers and TV stations.
After Tuesday, the situation for the Democrat Party is no easier.
The party seems to be cursed in this primary season as if Obama's supporters and Clinton's fans had sealed a diabolical pact.
They refuse him victory, but they spare her defeat.
But this game is approaching its terrible end.
The superdelegates who are independent from the party base will have to commit a political murder in the coming months.
Will it be Obama or Clinton?
For the party, the decision could amount to political suicide.
Again, this is Gabor Steingart in Der Spiegel, based in Washington.
And of course, play this soundbitter number 27 again.
After hearing all of this from Gabor Steingart at Der Spiegel, Bill O'Reilly asks Reverend Sharpton if Obama is denied this.
What do you do?
If he is denied the selection of the nominee by superdelicate making backroom deals not by the voters, well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket.
There is a rice crisis all over the world, ladies and gentlemen.
Americans are hoarding rice.
Sam's Club, a unit of Walmart, is putting limits on the amount of rice that people can buy.
This is happening in San Francisco.
It's happening in Thailand.
People in America, Filipinos, are hoarding rice and shipping it to their relatives back home in the Philippines.
And this is happening with other crops as well, but rice, corn oil, cooking oil, a number of things that you would consider staples.
Our prices are rising.
Supplies are dwindling.
There was a story from a woman in California who she just opened a new bake shop or something.
She needed to get some butter.
She went out to the grocery store.
No butter.
And of course, this is due to numerous things.
It's due to the rising price of transportation fuel.
But it's also due to the fact that a lot of crops that we used to grow for food are now being grown for global warming.
And in an absolutely delicious piece in Newsweek, Sharon Begley, we can't afford to make any more mistakes in how to save the planet.
She says you can stop berating yourself for buying that Spanish Clementine or New Zealand lamb.
Although lists of what you can do to save the planet, including eating locally buying food, that is grown nearby to reduce your carbon footprint, the calculation is more complicated than counting up your food's frequent flyer miles.
We can't afford to keep getting it wrong.
We've already overshot the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that'll preserve a planet like that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, said climatologist James Hansen of NASA, who is totally in a tank, politically and ideologically, for man-made global warming.
We can't afford to make any more mistakes in how to save the planet.
And this is all about the biofuels mess.
Biofuels, ethanol.
These have been Newsweek.
They're writing about it as a dismal failure.
And we can't afford to make any more mistakes like this.
Time magazine called it a scam.
She says the greenwashing, i.e. brainwashing, doesn't end with biofuels.
Only half of all hybrid vehicles on the U.S. market are more fuel efficient than their non-hybrid visions.
Yes, I ain't lying.
I ain't lying.
It's in Newsweek.
Only half of all hybrid vehicles on the U.S. market are more fuel efficient than their non-hybrid versions.
If the complexity of all this makes you decide to live however you want and make it up to the planet by buying carbon offsets, think again.
Offsets are transactions in which you pay somebody else, usually through a middleman, to reduce or soak up carbon emissions equal to those from eating, flying, or just plain existing.
Newsweek putting the kibosh on a lot of the accepted theories in global warming.
And we can't afford to make any more big mistakes like this, like ethanol.
Don't you understand everything liberalism does is a mistake.
The great society, the war on poverty, AFTC designed to eliminate it all, did it?
No.
Arguably, in many things, in many ways, it made it worse.
And yet we're not supposed to examine the results.
We're supposed to examine the good intentions.
We're supposed to say they care.
They care more than you, Limbaugh.
That's right, Mr. Limbo.
You don't even care at all.
Have done nothing to wipe out poverty.
At least these people have tried.
They care, and you don't.
That's the voice, by the way, of the new castrati.
Conservatism cares for people far more than liberalism ever could.
Conservatism is interested in results.
And that means people becoming self-sufficient, learning about their potential as human beings, setting out on a path to realize it using ambition, desire, passion, education.
You don't have that as a program from liberalism.
Liberals don't believe any of that's possible with people.
They want people to be indigent.
They want them to be poor.
They want them to be a little bit ignorant.
They want them to be dependent.
And so here we go.
Man-made global warming.
We're destroying.
You got to start driving hybrids.
Half the hybrids on the road get worse gas mileage and are more damaging to the environment than regular cars.
Ethanol.
Rice crisis.
Corn crisis.
Food price crisis.
You think all this is coincidental?
That we shift to ethanol and biofuels all over the world using crops that we normally use to feed ourselves and others?
And then the price of transportation goes up, price of production.
Supply and demand is very simple.
The more crops take off the market for food to put into fuel, you're going to have a supply shortage that's going to cause prices to go up.
But one little piece, desistance, Noel Shepard, newsbusters.org.
If you're interested, here's how the New York Times reported the news.
Back in 1994, with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Al Gore, the Senate upheld today an Environmental Protection Agency rule requiring that ethanol and other renewable fuels get a share of the gasoline additives market.
The Senate voted 51 to 50 to table an amendment that would have denied financing to the agency to carry out a rule guaranteeing renewable fuels a 15% share of the lucrative fuel oxygenate market in 1995.
That share rises to 30% in following years.
Under the Clean Air Act, oxygenates, which make fuel burn more cleanly, are to be added to gasoline in the nation's smoggiest areas.
Tabling the amendment offered by Democrat Senators Bennett Johnson, Louisiana, Bill Bradley, New Jersey, in effect kills it, clears the way for the EPA to carry out its program.
All in the end, thanks to Nobel laureate Al Gore.
Ethanol, a requirement now, because of the votes of Al Gore.
And because of that, we've got a crisis crisis, a rice crisis, rising food price crisis, rising gasoline price.
All this from liberals who just really care about all of us.
And we are back here on the one and only EIB network, Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and secondhand premium cigar smoke.
Back to the phones we go to Chuck in Brandon, Florida.
Hello, Chuck.
Yes, hello, Rush.
To begin with, I've been listening to you for 19 years, and my wife and I strongly admire what you do.
Thank you, sir.
However, I'm one of them so-called thugs that you referred to, a Chicago policeman from 68, that was one of Daly's so-called henchmen, which we weren't, by the way, Rush.
The media then was no different than it is today.
They didn't show everything that these rabble rousers were doing under the direction of.
Wait, wait, wait just a second.
You know, I understand why you're called.
You don't understand.
I was proud of the cops.
There was a term, you know, Daly's goons, Daly's thugs.
The point to me was that Daly had sent you guys out to beat up on his own people.
Absolutely not.
These were all, this was a put-up job by Eugene McCarthy, if you remember, going back that far.
You mean Daly had nothing to do with it?
Well, yes, he did.
Let me tell you.
We had to stand there for three or four days while they were throwing bags of urine, excrement, bags of lye on people.
We had several policemen that got hurt, and they wouldn't let us do anything.
We had to stand there.
Now, I'm sure I'm not the only policeman that was there that listens to you, Rush.
A lot of us were very, very conservative.
And finally, when Daly went wild at the convention where he got up and said, I'm not going to put, then they allowed us to arrest these people and lock them up.
Okay.
You know.
Well.
But we weren't thugs, Rush.
No, no, no.
It was a term of endearment.
Look at, you go back to 1968.
I remember now that you paint that picture.
I remember you guys having to stand around and take all that garbage, and you weren't allowed to do anything.
And finally, Mayor Daly went up to the podium and he sent you out.
He gave you permission to quell this stuff.
To actually lock them up and throw them in the wagon and take them and lock them up.
And these same rabble routes, I think Abby Hoffman was one of them.
I know you'll further remember when they finally went to trial.
Remember how they disrupted that Judge Hoffman's court?
Yeah, absolutely.
You know, but what was Judge Hoffman's first name?
Julius.
That's right, Julius Hoffman.
And I'm not mad at you now.
Don't get me, because it's taken me 19 years to get in on this line to call you up.
But a lot of people, the media, they see, they took little selective pieces.
They showed us whacking a few of them that resisted and were fighting with us.
They didn't show the other things that were going on prior to.
And that's my point.
And I'm sure that, like I said, I know there must be a lot of policemen.
I'm 76, and I'm sure there are a lot of policemen today that listen to you.
And, you know, they know where I'm coming from, you know.
But we were not thugs.
We put up with a lot.
However, it only took us one day to get rid of them, all them riots and all that rabble routing going on.
That's right.
But how many days had you had to sit there and stand there and take that stuff?
Well, three, four days.
Three or four days.
And nope, you're right.
The media didn't show that.
Well, they showed some of the standoff.
They showed these people protesting.
Then finally, you got in gear and you ended this thing.
But remember, the Democrats lost that election in a landslide to Richard Nixon.
I understand that.
And that was because what the country saw was Democrats rioting, and they saw in a Democrat city defined by the mayor's power, Richard Daly, and the police force.
You know, here's the better way to have said it would have been the Democrat mayor orders his police force to go in and finally quell these riots, and that was on television.
There were some fires that were set and so forth.
And so what the people of the country saw was total anarchy among the Democrat Party in a huge Democrat machine city.
See, right across the street from both those hotels, you had the Blackstone and the Stevens.
That's what they called the Hilton at that time.
They had Grant Park, which is just a huge park.
And that's where they were all camping out and getting their meetings together and deciding what they were going to do and climbing poles, et cetera, et cetera.
And we couldn't do anything.
We were told we could not.
We could not do anything.
Finally, they turned us loose where they said, lock these people up.
And that's exactly what we did.
Again, it was selective showing on television.
But you know why they finally gave you permission to act?
Because they were content for these Democrat protesters to do what they did with no violence about it because that was their voting block.
I mean, this is an anti-war convention in 1968.
But finally, it couldn't take it anymore because it was starting to cause more harm than good because people were more interested in what was going on outside the convention and all what was going on inside.
You're exactly right.
So Daly gives you guys finally the go-ahead to quell this stuff.
That was the year that Richard Nixon ran on a law and order platform, and the Democrats had a cow because they called it a code word for racism.
I remember it well.
I remember it just like yesterday, and it's something embedded in my mind.
And basically, every other policeman that was down there in that general area.
And, you know, that's the way it was.
But again, the people that I really got mad at were the media because they only took their little selective bits out.
Well, welcome to the real world.
You know, I know that, you know, and we knew it at the time.
And most of the policemen, believe it or not, at that time, they were not Democrats.
They were Republicans.
At that time, we were the lowest paid, largest police department in the United States.
That's true.
New York and Chicago was well ahead of us.
Or New York and L.A., rather.
Let me ask you a question.
You may not know this.
It's not a trick question, but I want to see if you can tell me why.
Because a lot of people around the country at the time this was happening, 1968, this is 20 years ago, 40 years ago, sorry, 40 years ago.
A lot of people were trying to, just average Americans, what the hell are these anti-war people doing protesting at a Democrat convention?
Why aren't they protesting Nixon?
Why were they protesting in Chicago at the Democrat convention?
Why are they protesting against their own party, essentially?
Well, if you remember going back, you had Eugene McCarthy.
He was the senator from, I want to say, Minnesota.
I could be wrong.
I can't remember that well.
But he was primarily, everything stemmed from the Stevens Hotel.
That was their headquarters where all the rabble-rousers like Abby Hoffman and, oh, God, a couple of the others.
No, you had Tom Hayden running around up there.
Yes, exactly right.
He wasn't Rennie Davis running around.
He was one of the guys right away.
They really gave Judge Hoffman the trouble.
Absolutely.
They were just disgusting what they did.
And Hoffmann.
They're all the Democrats.
They're all Democrats.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And Hoffman didn't, he couldn't control the courtroom.
It just was total chaos in his courtroom.
But anyway, I just, that's why I called up.
And again, you're doing a great job.
And, you know, like I said, I've been listening to you, my friend, for 19 years at least since you've been on.
My wife and I had married.
Chuck, I actually want to apologize to you because you're right.
The use of the word thug to describe you guys is totally inappropriate because the criticism was not aimed at you.
There actually wasn't any criticism.
It was just you had a Democrat city, Democrat mayor, Democrat convention.
Finally, it was a Democrat mayor, ordered his police force to start cracking heads against Democrats.
You know, all my life I've heard that, you know, from different people, not necessarily you.
This is the first time I heard you really say anything about it today.
But all my life about what brutes Chicago policemen were.
We really weren't.
We had a great police department, and I'm very proud that I was a member.
And by the way, all those people that were down there, you didn't go down there on your own.
You had to be there.
And we put in long hours, 12, 14 hours, you know.
And at that time, we didn't get compensated for it.
We didn't get extra time off of it.
Not only that, you had to take bags of excrement being thrown at you.
You had to have to sit there and smile about it because you were ordered to stand down.
The memories now are coming back vividly.
Chuck, thanks for the call.
I really, really, really do appreciate it.
Thanks so much.
A brief time out here.
We'll be back and roll right on after this.
Okay, which of you in there are going to be the first to drive it?
Dawn's going to be the first to drive it.
How come Dawn always gets to be the first to drive the new car?
Okay, she's a girl.
She gets to go first.
General Motors brought us, but I've been telling you, Malibu, they brought their Malibu by yesterday.
Beautiful red color.
It does not look like my memory of a Chevy Nalibu.
I mean, this is a stylish, sharp-looking car.
She's going to drive it out this afternoon and tool around.
She'll report in.
And then it's up to Snerdley and Brian to roll it down.
Yes, I've got the keys right in here.
I have the keys right in here in my cigar humidor.
And I've got the window stick up and everything about this car.
30 miles to the gallon, four-cylinder.
Done something special with the valves to get every bit of mileage out of every drop of gasoline possible.
You know, the GM people have been doing that.
We have been lamenting over the course of many broadcast years here that if General Motors really wanted to succeed, that they would advertise on this program.
And they have been now for about six months, and we're very proud of that.
And the Malibu is, it's a four-cylinder car.
It's perfect for right now, 30 miles per gallon.
You just heard the story.
Half the hybrids on the road get less mileage.
They're less fuel efficient than that standard automobiles are.
And this is a sharp-looking car.
So Dawn will drive it.
She will report about this.
You can probably see the Malibu.
It's what it's www.gm.com slash explore.
In fact, when I said last week that we're going to be bringing one of these things by, I got some emails from people who said that they have one and that they love it.
Speaking of ethanol biofuels, this is from Hindu.com.
But it's Dateline, New York.
Increasing demand for liquid biofuels like bioethanol and biodiesel.
The conversion of agricultural land for their production and increased use of natural resources could be detrimental to women in rural areas, according to a United Nations study.
The study calls on the member states of the UN to adopt measures to ensure that women have the same opportunities as men to benefit from the increased production of biofuels.
Biofuel production certainly offers opportunities for farmers, but they'll only trickle down to the farm level, especially to women, if pro-poor policies are put in place that also empower women, said one of these studies authors, Yana Lambrew, in a study entitled Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels, Production, Minimizing the Risks to Maximizing.
I am not making this up.
There is actually a special interest group oriented toward gender and equity issues in liquid biofuels to make sure that all the newfound riches trickle down to women, and this is the United Nations.
We live in a world of genuine nut crackpots.
Dean in Dallas, nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Yeah.
Hey, what's the deal with Newt?
I saw him the other night appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi and calling for government action to address climate change.
I mean, what's the deal?
Is he gone to the dark side now?
Well, have you heard?
He issued a statement.
of people were upset about this.
He's issued a statement to explain why he did it.
Have you seen that?
No, I haven't.
Will you want me to read it to you?
Sure.
You sound really excited.
Well, I'm upset.
I'm upset.
You got to listen to this with an open mind.
Are you ready?
Yes.
All right.
Many of you have written me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with Nancy Pelosi for the Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by Al Gore.
I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons.
First of all, I want to be clear.
I don't think we have conclusive proof of global warming.
And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.
But.
Yeah.
But here's what we do know.
There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure that we do the right thing for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren and their children and grandchildren and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and all the other freaking children to be born for the next 30,000 god years.
Conservatives are missing from this debate.
And I think that's a mistake.
When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of just yell no.
I have a different view.
I think it's important to be on the stage to engage in a debate, to communicate our position clearly.
Is anybody doing that?
No.
There's a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation, a green conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in.
Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former.
That's why I took part in the ad.
Don't buy it.
Does all you're buying that?
Not at all.
Why not?
I don't know.
Maybe my children want to be able to drive around in cars in the future like I have and my parents, and maybe their children want to be able to have air conditioning in their homes, you know, in August in Dallas.
And we need to burn the coal.
We need to drill for gas.
Have you heard what happened in Kansas?
No.
The governor there, Kathleen Sebelius, was rumored to be Obama's number one VEEP choice.
Has just, I think I read this last night.
We're not going to add any more coal-fired power plants.
We're not going to do it.
We don't have anything else.
If they're not going to let us use nuclear geothermal, but it causes earthquakes.
Geothermal.
It's like wind power.
Now people are starting to complain about the noise from these windmills.
Have you heard about this?
Yeah, yeah, I heard that.
You know, here's, you know, I can understand wanting to be in the debate.
My promise, problem with this is, from what I read that Newt said, we're going to accept their premise.
Even though he says there's no proof and he's not convinced that there's global warming in man-made, we still have to be in the debate.
Well, when I see him on the air with Nancy saying what he said, I get the idea that he's for it.
Well, that's the opponent of it.
The power of the pictures.
He's appearing with her, accepting her premise.
Yeah, I know.
And that's why he had to issue the statement.
If there were somebody on our side actually out debating their premise and coming up with alternatives.
But see, this is, I was talking to a friend of mine who is a very activist conservative in the philanthropy area and is a policy wonk.
And she said, Rush, doesn't it make sense for us to just almost exactly what Newt said, just get on board with this and then get our own ways of fixing it?
She said, it's apparent that the majority of American people accept this.
It's too late to change their minds and argue.
We have to get in a debate as though the American people are right and then stop the left from what it's doing by advancing our own ideas.
And I said, you lose the debate when you accept their premise.
You lose the debate.
You have already conceded that they have a leg up.
Anyway, that's Newt's explanation.
And I hear you when you say, you want your kids to have a better life than you had.
That's what you essentially said.
And you instinctively know that if we start down a path like the liberals want to on this, your kids are screwed.
There's a slate.com piece today, the headline, drop out Obama.