All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
November 30, 2009, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, yes, I know, ladies and gentlemen.
It's time to start here, and I'm here, and I'm ready to go.
Late arriving show prep.
I was only six seconds late in uh the opening the program at the appropriate time during the show open theme, uh, which you are hearing now.
Greetings, great to have you here.
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving weekend.
And now back to business.
800-282-2882, and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com by a wide margin.
Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation's most influential conservative voice.
This is a product of a poll done by CBS News and reported by state-controlled AP.
My reaction when I saw this, yeah.
This is news.
What a game to poll.
It's only 26%.
I don't believe the only 26%.
And of course, that doubles anybody else that's close to me by a wide margin, it says.
The radio host was picked by 26% of those who responded, followed by Glenn Beck at 11%, and Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin uh were next with a choice of uh of 10%.
Interesting in this poll, half of Americans chose laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier as a ceremony in which they'd most liked to participate.
That swamped the other choices.
Lighting the Olympic torch, tossing the coin to open a Super Bowl, starting the race at the Indy 500, ringing the opening bell at the stock exchange, and throwing out the first pitch at a world series.
Man, where did they find this sample?
Where did they f this is great, but where did they find the sample?
And of course, the drive-by is had to get in on this last night and this morning.
Here's the montage.
I know Paul finds Rush Limba the most influential conservative voice in the country.
Whatever you think of Rush Limbaugh, it's hard to doubt his conservative poll this morning.
A new poll by Vanity Fair in 60 Minutes found that Americans consider the talk radio host the most influential conservative.
There's a new uh 60 minutes Vanity Fair poll that asks the question who is America's most influential conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh by a long shot.
26% A new poll says that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the most influential conservative voice in the U.S. Rush Limbaugh is proving once again he's still the life of the grand old party.
A new poll by 60 minutes and Vanity Fair found 26% of Americans think he's the most influential conservative.
Many Americans consider radio host Rush Limbaugh to be the most influential conservative in the country.
And of course, notice how they all fall in lockstep.
As long as it has AP or CBS News, it must be real.
And so they all now report it.
Uh and I guess I guess they they think it's somehow bad for conservatism for this poll result to be there.
That's why they're eagerly reporting this.
Also, get this.
Obama's numbers in the Midwest are tanking.
It has been reported in a number of places, I noticed over the weekend.
But at Politics Daily, they have this.
Public policy polling says 56%.
This is in Arkansas, by the way.
56% disapprove of Obama's job performance compared to 40% who approve.
And get this.
Voters said by 55 to 45% that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had a better vision for America than Obama.
This is in Arkansas.
Obama's home state, public policy polling, PPP.
So the uh the polling, the polling news uh is it seems like all news is polling anymore.
Seems like most news is the result of uh of polls.
HR says I should go on vacation more often.
What about they go on vacation with a Thanksgiving weekend?
That that's uh no, no, no, no, no, it wasn't a vacation.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
That doesn't count against vacation time.
What how can it be if it's Thanksgiving weekend?
Everybody had it off.
Except poor people that had to work the NFL.
Um related stadiums and support people, Parkers, concession people, and things like that.
But um, Thanksgiving was Rock William.
Uh, had a bunch of family in.
Uh, they started arriving Monday, well, a week ago.
Uh the first wave, second wave showed up on on Wednesday, and then the the annual big blowout on Saturday.
It was a blast.
It was exhausting.
I need a vacation from the vacation, which wasn't a vacation.
I don't want to get caught.
I want to get caught admitting this was a vacation from the Boston Globe.
I'm only going to tell you this, because this is what happens when the idiots who run this country are allowed to run this country.
Advisors told Summers and others not to put so much cash in the market.
Losses hit 1.8 billion.
We're talking about the Harvard endowment.
It happened at least once a year every year in a room full of a dozen Harvard University financial advisors.
Jack Meyer, the hugely successful head of the Harvard Endowment, and Larry Summers, then the school's president, and now a chief economic advisor to Obama, would face off in a heated debate.
The topic cash and how the university was managing or mismanaging its basic operating funds.
Through the first half of this decade, Meyer repeatedly warned Summers and other Harvard officials the school was being too aggressive with billions of dollars in cash, according to people present for the discussions.
Anyway, Harvard and uh and Summers ignored all the advice, and the endowment is now down almost two billion dollars.
And Larry Summers is in charge of our economic recovery.
These idiots end up, these eggheads end up in charge of things, and the next thing you know, trouble ensues.
Now, this this uh this stuff at the White House, these two these two intruders at the uh at the White House, uh I'm I'm I'm not so sure we're not being scammed here by the White House.
Uh I I it turns out that these two people know Rashid Khalil Kahil Khalil, who is the anti-pro-Palestinian anti-Israel advisor to bro to Obama.
He these two people, this guy was on a board, his name's since been scrubbed, but his name was he was on a board with Rashid Khalili, I think that's his name.
Uh, and apparently these two people's faces were not unfamiliar to Obama.
I'm still collecting data, but I got something sent to me just before the program starts.
I don't have the time to digest it right now, but when it's the Obama White House, remember we're not dealing in the universe of reality.
Now, something clearly is going on up there.
The Secret Service, there were two checkpoints where these people's names were not on the list and yet they were passed on to the next checkpoint and ultimately admitted.
Now, I know most of you have never been to the White House in an official function, but I have a number of times, and I know what it takes to get in there.
And it takes every time you get in there, you have to give them your secrets or your social security every time.
And they run a new background check on you.
And I gotta think that it's no it's been that way for the White House Christmas parties.
It's been that way when I've been invited uh to somebody see in the executive branch oval office.
It doesn't matter.
You don't just walk in there and you, if your name is not on a list, you don't get in there.
You you need it, you need an ID yourself, and you have even people at work in the White House running around with ID tags on America's most influential by a wide margin conservative has to go through the Secret Service, multiple checkpoints to get in there.
Each even I'm just just like a regular guy.
But these two people didn't.
Come on, folks.
We're being asked to believe that the Secret Service let these two people in with no names on a checklist.
Oh, yeah, well, fine, go on to a state dinner, and they end up in a photo with the president of the United States and with the vice president and his wife.
Uh and you know, at first, at first the news was, oh, oh, is the president safe?
Oh my god, oh my god, how could this happen?
And then later, like even the perky when Kathy Couric met them, nothing here, folks.
Nothing to worry about.
I met them, they're nice and sweet people.
So the original story was, hey, it's bad news.
The president was that oh my that's secret.
The president was never in trouble.
The president was always safe, it was never Obama.
I'm demanding a full-fledged investigation.
Let me tell you where you ought to Be investigating Obama, and that's global warming and the hoax at the IPCC and the climate research unit.
Another full stack on that today, by the way, and it's just getting worse and worse and worse.
But you know, I guess, no, this is not what happens when you do a state dinner in a tent.
It should be no more e it should be just as difficult to get into a tent as it is to get into the White House.
The reception, by the way, was in the White House in the blue room.
That's where the picture was taken.
They got into the White House before they went to the tent.
Now, I, you know, I didn't get born, I was not born on a turnip truck, and I didn't fall off of one.
And this just doesn't happen.
I have no idea what the explanation for this is.
But they don't live in the university at a universe of reality up at the White House.
We know that.
Now everybody's asking me, what do you think about this Tiger Woods thing?
Well, uh, my friends, since I don't trust much of what I read in the media.
It's hard to know what happened.
But I will say this.
Whoever wrote Tiger's statement that publicly was published on his website, has been released, did not do him any favors.
It says, and I promise you this will never happen again.
No one can ever if this was an accident, you can't make that promise.
Nobody can ever promise an accident will not happen again.
And that's what he said that.
I promise you this will not happen again.
He took the he took it all on himself.
It's my responsibility, my fault, but I promise you this will never happen again.
Uh well, the reason they're blowing it up is because he hasn't said anything beyond the statement.
The reason they're blowing it up is because there are vac there's a vacuum out there, and the reason they're blowing it up is the media.
The media has got the gossip media claims he's having an affair.
And of course, that then the domestic violence stuff started.
It's all it's all rumor here that's fueling all of this.
That's why I don't know what to think of it because I do not know.
I'm like every one of you.
I hear rumors about all kinds of people about all kinds of things.
What what what guess what's happening now?
The Florida Highway Patrol is thinking about trying to get a search warrant for his hospital medical records after he was treated to see if there if they can find any evidence of domestic violence.
Once again, law enforcement authorities are chasing around people's medical records.
In Tiger Woods case, he is not required to make a statement to the authorities.
Now he's gone out and hired a lawyer, a guy's known as the Johnny Cochran of Orlando.
He's a media lawyer.
You hire a lawyer, it's it's it's it's more than just uh, you know, running into a fire hydrant.
People start thinking.
People start speculating.
So I have no idea, folks, and I I just I don't want to join the uh the speculation train, which is uh which is runaway right now.
I've got to take a brief commercial time out.
We'll come back with all the rest of today's program, including the latest updates on what's happening in this entire hoax known as man-made global warming.
And we are back, El Rush both serving humanity simply by showing up.
Now, while the cops in Florida are trying or thinking about getting a search warrant for Tiger Woods medical records, we've got this cop killer laid up in Washington, he's being surrounded, a mass cop killer who, by the way, massacred four police officers, was on the streets because almost ten years ago, in the face of a great protest, then Governor Mike Huckabee pardoned him in Arkansas.
This may be Huckabee's Willie Horton.
Uh, you know, this is we we we have we have this.
We're spending all these law enforcement resources trying to track down Tiger Woods medical records and whether or not something's going on in his house between himself and his wife.
And we've got this manhunt for a guy that shot and killed four people Thanksgiving Day down here in Jupiter, Florida.
I mean, it's just a it's a waste of resources to be spending all the but the media drives this stuff.
You know, the Florida cops are getting interested in it because the media is interested in it, and they think they gotta follow up on it, and they're gonna look like they're being derelict and they're in their duty.
And then you have the famous guy aspect of this.
Hey, famous people can't get special treatment.
We got to give Tiger the same cream we give anybody else, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So this is it all fits.
It all fits a pattern of how the media really at times defines certain behaviors, including even in the uh in law enforcement.
But the uh the this guy who massacred four cops in Washington State was on the streets because ten years ago, and this just bugs me that all these politicians and all of these legal people, all of these pointy-headed intellectual academics and people with no backbones and spines, who cannot withstand public protest and compromise principle, and let a guy like this out pardon him.
It's just disgusting.
Now, we all know, and we are all learning more and more each day.
Just what a hoax.
The entire man-made global warming movement has been and is.
We are learning volumes each and every day.
I told you last week we have two universes.
The universe of lies and the universe of reality.
In the universe of lies today, the Associated Press, upfront money needed to ease UN climate deal.
Money on the table, perhaps $10 billion a year or more, could help close a deal in Denmark next month, Copenhagen, and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010.
But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the UN conference could end in discord.
Upfront money, this is a pull quote, upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich North and poor South, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States.
So they're doubling down.
They're doubling down on the hoax.
They're pumped, they're pushing for upfront money now before the whole thing is outed as a big lie.
Of course, it already has been outed as a big lie.
And I predicted this last week.
They're going to double down and act like it's not happening.
And in fact, Carol Browner came out saying, hey, you know, the couple of email is don't change a thing.
She's EPA director.
Uh they don't change a thing.
We this is we got 2,500 scientists out there.
No, no, no.
You do not have 20, you have 2,500 political hacks led by four pseudoscientists who are disguising themselves as scientists.
They're actually hacks and political scientists.
And the jury's, the jury's in on this.
The jury's no longer out.
Thomas Lipson, the American thinker, the BBC received copies of some of the climate research unit emails more than a month ago, but did nothing about them.
Sitting on explosive evidence of fraud.
The UK Daily Mail reports the BBC has become tangled in the raw over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.
One of its reporters has revealed that he was sent some of the leaked emails from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago, but did nothing about them.
Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages, which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU's head Professor Phil Jones to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views.
Paul Hudson, BBC, failed to report the story.
This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC's unquestioning acceptance in many of its programs that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.
So the theory also now is that the emails were leaked before they were hacked.
They were leaked and they were sent.
Who knows who else got them, but the BBC got them a month before we heard about them and sat on it.
How many other news organizations got these emails and sat on them, forcing the leaker to go ahead and hack and put everything up on his own website.
This sequence of events strongly suggests, my friends, that an insider leaked some of the emails to the BBC, hoping they would be incriminating enough to intrigue somebody when faced with the media stonewall, the insider then chose to post the complete files where they could not be quickly extinguished.
So it and here's the story from um uh the UK Times Online scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
I mean, they're not even pretending that they want to prove their claims, folks.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The CRU, climate research unit, forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under freedom of information legislation.
The emails say we're going to destroy it before we release it.
They have hijacked the peer review process.
Like I said last Wednesday, if anybody in the mainstream science community values their reputation and science as a as a profession, you demand the investigation to get this cleaned up.
And we're back, El Rushball and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network by a wide margin.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most influential conservative in America in a CBS News vanity fear poll, as reported by the Associated Press.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations, said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 50 or 150 years.
The UEA, University of East Anglia, climate research unit, was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under freedom of information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they are collected.
The revised figures were kept, but the originals were stored on paper and magnetic tape, and they were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The original data dumped to make space when the CRU moved to a new building.
This is the equivalent of throwing away pictures of your kids when they were young.
Because you don't have room for them anymore, all in the aim of saving space when moving, if we are to believe this, which of course we are to believe none of it.
We all know what happened.
We all know why this is being done.
It is a worldwide fleece of money from the Western nations, particularly the United States, being orchestrated by a bunch of far-left radical hacks who seek to attack individual liberty and freedom and capitalism.
Now, here's the P.S. today.
In a story from the UK Guardian.
Leaked emails will not harm UN climate body, says Chairman.
Rajenda Pachari says there is virtually no possibility of a few scientists biasing the IPCC's advice after the hacking of the database at UAE.
There is virtually no possibility of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body.
Its chairman said today.
His name again is Rajendra Pachari.
He defended the intergovernmental panel on climate change in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel's fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.
The processes in the IPC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias, it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report, he said.
Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified.
So I think it's very transparent, a very comprehensive process, which ensures that even if somebody wants to leave out a piece of peer-reviewed literature, there is virtually no possibility of that happening.
That's just an out and out lie.
Because it just did happen.
It happened All over the place at the CRU at East Anglia.
But here's the real, here's the real danger of this.
This is now a whitewash.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And the headline of this story is, by the way, digging in on climate fraud.
The IPCC leadership is a few scientists turned politicians who have helped the politicians turn scientists like Gore to exaggerate the science.
Most of the climate researchers have just been going along for the ride, content to let the power players make up stuff so they can enjoy continued funding.
I read that this guy Phil Jones, or maybe it's it's it's Michael Mann.
I'll have to get the story here dig it down further from the stack, over a recent period of time has received over 22 million dollars in grants.
One of these head honchos at the CRU, over 22 million dollars in grants.
A lot of people will lie for a lot less than that.
Now you you say that you're going to throw away and dump the original temperature data because you don't have room for it.
Can anybody say Rosemary Woods?
And the 18 minute gap on the tape of the Nixon's tapes in the Oval Office.
Oh, Rosemary Woods, where are you now?
Amazing how history repeats itself.
Now, I spoke with my official climatologist Roy Spencer about this.
And he's he's uh he's very alarmed because science has been corrupted here, which is my whole point on Wednesday.
Science and the media, academia, uh, and government are now the four corners of deceit in the world, and science has been corrupted.
And it's been corrupted, actually, long before this, but this is the biggest blow that it has taken.
These scientists are going to have to endure the intergovernmental panel on climate change leaders saying it's no big deal.
Here you have the head UN organization which is leading the fleecing using the data provided by the CRU.
The IPC said, but that's a few emails.
That's no big deal.
It's okay to hide or destroy data.
It's okay to fudge the data so that cooling trends don't show up, and to interview interfere with the peer review process by bullying journals into not publishing research by skeptics, all of which happened.
This is what legitimate scientists are truly afraid of.
The IPCC has destroyed scientific discipline with this remark by the uh by the chairman.
A few emails?
Yeah, it doesn't harm what we're doing here.
Getting rid of the data?
No, that doesn't harm what we're doing here.
Fudging the data so that cooling trends don't show up.
Remember, in these emails, they one of the somebody wrote to somebody, it's devastating.
It is devastating that we can't explain the earth cooling.
Meaning it's it they don't they don't have a reason that they could give for the earth cooling that would also support the whole global warming thesis.
It's devastating, so they hide it.
They say we've got to delete this data.
We've got to make sure it doesn't get out to these people who are using freedom of information acts and requests to uh to get the data.
The peer review process has become a joke because the peer review process is where all of this fraud's supposed to be turned up, supposed to be outed, supposed to be found, but these magazines, the journals where they so-called peer review takes place, themselves were bullied into not publishing research by the skeptics.
So the IPCC, this is what Dr. Spencer is afraid of, is going to destroy scientific discipline.
Mainstream scientists who should not have let it happen.
And again, uh this is this there ought to be outrage throughout whatever is mainstream science these days.
I don't even know what is mainstream science anymore.
But where but the people who are genuinely into science for science's sake, uh then they they have to be leading the charge on this because this guy that runs the IPCC Has just affirmatively destroyed scientific discipline and replaced scientific discipline with something like consensus, which doesn't belong in science.
Now, Phil Jones, the guy at the CRU, Hadley CRU at East Anglia.
His global temperature record, which included the rings of three trees in the Siberian forest.
Phil Jones' global temperature record was the single most important study that was supposedly demonstrating man-made global warming.
Now the head of the IPCC, Pachori, is suggesting a few rogue scientists are not important to the whole research process.
And it's more than just a few rogue scientists.
They have destroyed the automobile industry, perhaps.
Look at the industries that they have destroyed with this hoax and this data.
It is monumental.
Look at the money they have spent, look at the money they have caused people to lose.
It is it is just astounding what a few people here pulled off with the help of a charlatan by the name of Al Gore, a former vice president of the United States, who stands to make gazillions of dollars on all this.
And now they're still, they're they're ramping up for Copenhagen, the poor nations in the world supposedly demanding 10 billion a year to sign it.
And uh and and uh and and Gore won't Gore will not face debate, and no none of these people will debate anybody.
They will they will not let anybody see their data.
They destroy the data, or they alter, they make it up.
You know, in science, my friends, it only takes one research study to disprove a theory.
It just takes one research paper.
When you're talking about real science, just one research paper can destroy an entire theory.
Well, there have been a bunch of research papers that with science destroy this hoax, and they have been suppressed.
They have not been printed in respected journals.
The the authors of these uh research papers have been personally attacked by name and by innuendo, being called deniers and so forth.
This is how the University of Lies, or the universe of lies operates.
This is the left, wherever you find it.
Marxists, socialists, communists, liberals, progressives.
This is how they do everything.
I want you to think about something, uh, ladies and gentlemen, before we go to the break here, as we go to the break.
Let's take a walk down tobacco road, shall we?
Another teachable moment.
You remember big tobacco, don't you?
What was it about big tobacco that got big tobacco into so much trouble with the leftists?
Didn't it have something to do with covering up research that proved tobacco was not what we were told?
I recall something about manipulating and hiding research by big tobacco, claiming tobacco wasn't harmful, was a hoax perpetrated with the help of phony scientists and their phony research, bought and paid for by big tobacco.
We had congressional testimony on this, 60 minutes exposed it, went to town on all this.
It was the crime of the century and to this day.
There are class action lawsuits filed against big tobacco.
Somebody was just awarded a hundred gazillion dollars the other day for 25 years of emphysema because she was lied to.
Now the left went and put big tobacco, well, didn't put them out of business, but they forced him to diversify warnings on the labels and so forth, can't smoke anywhere, secondhand smoke kills first hand smoke kills all the few rogue scientists in the global warming hoax, don't disprove the data.
Golly gosh, my friends.
I have an article here, RICO convictions of major tobacco companies affirmed.
DC Circuit Court of Appeals 92-page percurium opinion upholding the judgment issued by the D.C. District Court In August of 2006.
Well, this is how the big warmers should be treated.
Exactly.
And Al Gore is the biggest of the big warmers, along with Phil Jones and Michael Mann and everybody else at the CRU place at East Anglia.
There should be legal consequences for this fraud.
I remember those.
Waxman held those hearings.
That's when the CEOs said nicotine was not addictive.
Remember all that?
We've been through this before.
Except last time the left was out destroying a capitalist entity.
This time they're circling the wagons around one of their own, which is genuinely destroying capitalism.
Back in a second.
All right, let's grab a couple phone calls here and say we did it.
Uh in the first hour, we'll start Libertyville, Florida, I'm sorry, Illinois.
And it's John.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, I have to say I'm kind of surprised at your outrage over the suppression of uh scientific data when it was something that the Bush administration was so dedicated to.
There's dozens of examples of them suppressing and censoring any data that would support global warming.
I didn't recall you making a peep about that.
Uh, because there there isn't any data that supports global warming.
That's the whole point.
Well, then why then why would they choose to censor so much of it from government report?
Uh didn't censor anything.
They refused to go along with the hoax.
They were censoring data that did not prove what the global warming people wanted it to prove.
You're just wrong.
You're simply lying about that.
There's loads of evidence of them removing language from government reports that support...
You know, scientific theories about global warming.
There is a dozen other times.
You're missing the point here.
Uh you're you're you're just being totally guided by your ideology, by your liberalism, by your partisanship.
There is no man-made global warming.
Do you understand that?
There was nothing to suppress.
Anyone that suppressed data that said there was man-made global warming was doing us a favor.
They knew it was a hoax and they were not spreading lies.
It's that there is no man-made global warming.
There is no need for Obama national health care reform.
There is no need for tax crap and spend.
There is no need for further stimulus.
There is no need for Obama.
There is no need for liberalism.
There is no need for you.
You are a menace.
You pose a threat to freedom and liberty of your fellow citizens because you are too blind to understand what the people you respect are doing.
And you're going to be the first they come for.
Because you're the easiest to get because you're the most gullible and the most uninformed.
People like you, John, will give up your freedom if it means putting Bush in jail.
God save our country from people like you.
There is no.
How can you call here today and say global warming data was suppressed by the Bush administration?
Snerdley ought to get a raise for finding you.
Good.
God.
We just got a call from the universe of lies.
Todd in Springfield, Illinois.
Help me out here, my man.
Hello.
Rush, dittoes, dittoes, dittoes, dittoes.
What a great fall call to follow.
Thank you, sir.
You are you are a genius.
Hey, I called to make a point, but you're so much better at it than I am.
I just seen you do it.
I want you to remind your listeners how the grandpa and grandma hackers in Florida that hacked in on Newt's Newt's phone calls were treated by the media.
You know what?
That will be an interesting story to retell.
Uh for those of you who haven't heard this, thank you for reminding me of that, Todd.
For those of you who haven't heard this, let me just give you the uh the tease.
A 75-year-old couple going Christmas shopping.
Somewhere in North Florida, were driving around and listening to cell phone calls, as we all do in our cars.
They were just monitoring cell phone calls.
And lo and behold, they heard a conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner, and they thought it was so historic that they called a Democrat in Congress to tell them about it and send him tape.
Stay tuned, folks.
A new series of unbelievable stories and things that you might have heard but have forgotten.
I'll remind you of them.
All about the hoax of man-made global warming.
I'm just gonna read you the headlines.
Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat.
I'm gonna first tell you the story about the 75-year-old grandparents listening to cell phone calls like we all do in their Cadillac, uh, and then get to the stack.
It's amazing stuff.
▲
Export Selection