All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
February 7, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away today, and this is your undocumented anchor man sitting in, Mark Stein.
No supporting paperwork whatsoever coming to you live from the Granite State of New Hampshire.
Great to be with you.
But if you're missing Rush, you can go to rushlimbore.com and there's all kinds of good material there.
Even if you're not a Rush 24-7 subscriber, you can get lots of little fun bits of audio and transcripts and pictorial illustrations and club gitmo type gear.
And if you're a Rush 24-7 subscribe, there's even more good stuff waiting for you there at RushLimbore.com.
Rush will be back tomorrow and he will be talking to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Secretary Rumsfeld has a new book out.
I think it's what's it called?
Known and Unknown, I think it is.
And it's the launch day tomorrow.
And so naturally he's launching it on America's number one radio show.
So he'll be talking to Rush about that tomorrow.
Known and unknown.
I'm a big fan of Secretary Rumsfeld.
He had a great strategic clarity.
He said something back in, I think this was back in 20 years ago in a speech.
He said something like, weakness is a provocation.
I put it in the foreword of my book.
And I think he's right that when you project weakness, it is a provocation.
And we've seen a lot of that in the last couple of years.
When you look at the way Vladimir Putin's Russia treats the United States with open contempt, when you see the way the Chinese treat the United States with open contempt, when you see the way Iran treats the United States with open contempt, Rumsfeld's right.
Weakness is a provocation.
So as I said, I'm a big fan of his, so I'll be interested to see what he has to say to Rush tomorrow.
I had lunch with him a year or two, a couple of years ago, just after he'd left the Pentagon.
And I had lunch with him at his favorite restaurant.
And it was interesting as I sort of sat down and slid into the seat.
He demanded to see my green card.
And I thought, wow, this is pretty serious.
This was before the Arizona law came in, so I couldn't respond.
That's racist.
He wanted to see my green card.
And I was kind of nervous.
I was thinking, oh, dear, I wonder, did I remember to renew it?
Is it up to date?
Did I have whatever it was the guy at the border said to me the other day, have you had your LPR validated?
Is that what he said to me, Tiffany?
He asked me whether I'd had my...
We were crossing the border and he said, have you had your LPR?
The border guard said, have you had your LPR validated?
And, you know, my attitude was, I said to him, you know, if I knew what that meant, I'd have made a career in immigration enforcement, wouldn't I?
I mean, who talks like this?
But anyway, Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to know whether I'd had my LPR validated.
And so I produced my green card, and it just turned out that I think he'd sponsored someone for U.S. immigration back in the early 50s or whatever it was.
and he wanted to see whether they'd redesigned the green card and what it looked like these days.
So we had a very...
That's what he's...
Yeah, that's what he told me.
Now, it's true, I hear a strange click every time I pick up the phone to call anybody since then.
But he did just tell me that it was because he wanted to see the new design of the green card.
Anyway, at the end of the lunch, we strolled back.
There was something he wanted to give me that was back at his office.
So we strolled back to the office, which is like three or four blocks away in the middle of Washington.
It was a very interesting experience.
I assume it's like this for him at lunch every day because we're standing at one intersection and there's these code pink female protesters.
I'm not sure whether they were of the sapphic or heterosexual persuasion, but they were these fairly fearsome looking code pink female protesters.
And they were, you know, Rumsfeld warmonger, demanding he be arrested immediately and put on trial and executed for all his crimes against humanity.
And then as they were shouting, you know, Rumsfeld warmonger, a van of plumbers came by and swung around the intersection and they wound down the inter and they wound down the window and were going, hey, go, Rummy, go.
So I guess one way or another it all evens out.
But I gather that's a fairly typical stroll back from his favorite restaurant to his office after lunch for Secretary Rumsfeld every day.
So he will be joining Rush tomorrow live when Rush returns to take you through another week of excellence in broadcasting.
Now let me just add one final thing on Rumsfeld.
He had a famous line he spoke, which is where his book title comes from.
He spoke of the quote known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns.
The ones we don't know, we don't know, unquote.
And a lot of people mocked him.
I think some guys, they gave him, somewhere in London or something, they gave him a British Commonwealth Award for Mumbo Jumbo or something like that, for that remark.
But in fact, Rumsfeld's words are actually very relevant and they have an appropriate humility in a complicated world because it helps to know that you don't know everything.
Unlike some presidents and commanders-in-chief, we could mention.
It helps not to blunder around like Secretary Clinton, a tourist in Arabia, demanding that Mubarak should be gone by now.
You know, what was that?
She just checked the either of the above, both of the above box.
No one knows what this administration's policy in Egypt is, because they're tourists in a very dangerous place when it comes to American foreign policy.
And Rumsfeld's line that it's important to know what you don't know, and it's important to be aware that you don't know everything you don't know, is absolutely critical when you're looking at something like Egypt.
And when you look at the fatuous things that, for example, President Obama said in his pathetic speech to the Muslim world in 2009, it's only two years, and it was hailed as a big landmark keynote address in Cairo to the Muslim world.
And everything in it is pathetic and cowardly and evasive.
He stood up, for example.
He stood up for the right of women to go covered in the United States.
But he didn't say a word, for example, about the women who don't want to go covered, Muslim women who don't want to go covered, who are forced into that garb by Muslim men.
He didn't say anything about the Muslim women who get honor killed, not just, you know, in Yemen and Jordan and Pakistan, but in Germany and in Scandinavia and in the United Kingdom and in Canada and the United States of America, victims of honor killing right here in the United States of America.
He didn't have a, but he congratulated himself doing what he always does, where he confuses narcissism for courage and integrity.
He congratulated himself on standing up for the right of women to wear head covering.
They don't need to hear that in Egypt.
So nothing the President of the United States, the leader of the global superpower, said in Cairo is the least bit relevant two years later.
It was a pathetic, forgotten, useless speech.
And so he finds suddenly he wakes up one morning and there seems to be some kind of revolution happening in Egypt.
And so he thinks, whoa, wait a minute, what's our policy on this?
Nobody knows.
The vice president, the secretary of state, his special envoy, everybody's saying different things on here.
And the question now about Egypt is, is Egypt going to fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood?
That would be as big an event in the transformation of American interests in that region as the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
Egypt regards itself as the most important country in the Arab world.
It's traditionally been a fairly secular pluralist country.
This regime has been there for half a century.
And before that, they had the playboy, King Farouk.
If you remember King Farouk, the Egyptian monarchy, I think the Egyptians, if there's any Egyptian scholars listening, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Egyptian monarchy actually came from Albania at the beginning of the 19th century.
It's a kind of hazy corner of my old history lessons I'm going on here, but I think they settle into that.
They basically been governing Egypt for about 150 years before King Farouk fell.
And he was like a playboy.
He was a celebrated playboy in the West because he basically cruised up and down the Riviera with various blonde hotties.
And in fact, he died.
Memory serves, he died in Italy with a blonde hottie alongside him.
But when they toppled the Egyptian monarchy, this dictatorship was supposed to represent secular pan-Arabism of the kind that was going to dominate the post-war era in the modern world.
What's happened in the 30 years that we've been giving $2 billion a year to the Mubarak regime is that Egypt has utterly transformed, utterly transformed, so that now the only viable alternative to the Mubarak regime, in other words, the force in the country that is perhaps capable of holding that nation together is not some nascent democracy movement, but the Muslim Brotherhood,
which has the support of an ever more fiercely Islamic population.
One way to look at this is to look at the photos which are out there on the internet, and they're worth taking a look at.
The photos of the female graduating class at Cairo University in the 50s and the 70s, the 90s, and then from just a couple of years ago.
And if you look at the one in the 50s, they look very little different from the female graduating class you would have seen at an East Coast Ivy League college.
The women, it's a black and white photo, and the women look like Donna Reed on the Donna Reed show 1957 or any other sitcom at the time, you know, whatever it was, Ozzie and Harriet, that kind of thing.
They look like the kind of women you'd find from Westchester County going to college or whatever.
You look at the 1970s, picture from 1978.
Again, the female graduating class.
They're all modern, westernized women uncovered in Western dress.
Then you look at the photograph from the 1990s.
Suddenly, half the women are covered, and some of them still look like Westerners, half the women are covered.
And then you look at the picture from 2005, and it is a sea of covered women.
Egypt, the Egypt of King Farouk, the Egypt of General Nasser, the Egypt of Anwar Sadat has gone, gone.
And what has happened is that that society has changed, and it's changed in its view of Islam, and it's changed in respect of what it wants from a government.
All the money we gave to Mubarak in the end can't hold up against big demographic cultural changes.
In the end, foreign policy isn't about writing a check.
It's not even about sending an unmanned drone over to bomb you once in a while.
Foreign policy, foreign policy, and the investment of the so-called realists in America in stability is always a waste of time because there is no such thing as stability.
And you can't just say we're investing in stability because we're sending Mubarak $2 billion every year.
It doesn't work like that.
Unless you're in there moving things in your direction, they're going to move in some other fella's direction.
And the way it's gone in Egypt over the last 30 years is it's moved in the Muslim Brotherhood's direction.
We're going to talk about that.
Well, I'll say a word as well about, before we're done here today, about the Reagan centenary.
Because when I get depressed at what Republican leadership says about this and that as we face a huge crisis, one of the things that's comforting and dispiriting is to go back to what President Reagan was saying 30 years to find so much of it still stands up, but that so few Republican leaders today would be willing to use those kind of lines.
So we'll talk about the Reagan centenary and lots more still ahead.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein, infra rush on the EIB network.
Let me just give you one statistic on Egypt.
Just to show you what we're dealing with here.
A couple of years ago, Mubarak's regime banned female genital mutilation, right?
Because he's like Mr. Secular.
He was our secular dictator.
That's where he got the $2 billion, female genital mutilation.
He banned it.
And as a result of that spectacular ban, female genital mutilation rates in Egypt have fallen from 97% to 91%.
In other words, Mubarak was a largely ineffectual leader.
He banned political challenges to him, but he did nothing for the cultural transformation of Egypt.
And he was unable to do that.
In fact, we were giving $2 billion to a guy who wasn't really in control of the situation.
And whatever happens in the next few months in Egypt, Egypt is likely to wind up with a regime that is just as authoritarian but is perhaps more reflective of the people's disposition on a lot of these things.
And that's the reality of the world.
In a democratic age, you can't buck demography.
This is who the Egyptian people are.
Now, you think about it.
You think about those pictures in the streets in Egypt, how few women there are there.
You compare them, for example, to the demonstrations even in Lebanon a couple of years ago, where Lebanon was full of all these attractive-looking women who would be underdressed, regarded as criminally underdressed in any other, almost any other country in the Middle East.
Or if you even look at the demonstrations in Tunisia just a few weeks ago, and then you compare them with what's happening on the streets of Egypt.
It's a revolution of young men on the streets of Egypt.
There's not a lot of women there because the women are all in the clitoridectomy clinic getting their female genital mutilation topped up.
Down from 97% to 91% since President Mubarak banned it.
Hey, let's go from female genital mutilation back to the subject of Detroit because that's the kind of smooth segue you expect from a professional broadcaster.
Let's go to Matthew in Midland, Texas.
It says here, Midland and Odessa.
Are you between the two, Matthew, or in one or the other?
I actually live in Odessa.
Okay.
Great to talk to you.
Nice to talk to you too, Matthew.
Well, if anybody really knows Detroit, they know that they've had one of the top ten symphony orchestras in the nation.
Right.
And that ad the other night, or last night, didn't even, you know, didn't mention the symphony, even though that was quite a shining star of the city.
They've been on strike for the past season.
This whole season, they've been on strike.
The management has basically run the symphony into, I think, five to seven million dollar deficit a year and are unable to fulfill the contracts that were set and have required a pay decrease from about $30,000 for starting pay.
But just so we understand this, Matthew, let's just get this right.
The Symphony Orchestra, the Detroit Symphony, is on strike and has been for the entire season.
That's right, is it?
Yes, sir.
That is amazing.
Was there an intervening stage where there was like a kind of work to rule where they weren't going to play Beethoven's ninth symphony, but they'd give you a quick minute and a half flight of the bumblebee and then they were out of there?
Or did they just go straight from full performance to the strike?
Well, the musicians themselves have formed their own organization and their own just concerts and at different venues, but it's a very situation, and it's sad because it's been one of the greatest orchestras in the world.
Yeah, no, no, no.
I know.
I wasn't aware they were on, but that is the way.
And I guess it's a municipally funded symphony orchestra, isn't it?
Well, the vast majority of funding for symphony orchestras comes from private donors, people who will leave endowments.
And it's just funny how it mirrors the federal government that the management, who are overpaid by so much anyways, would actually run the symphony into the ground like that.
And it's funny how that mirrors Washington.
Well, thanks for your call, Matthew.
That right there is an amazing insight, by the way.
The Symphony Orchestra is on strike.
I don't know what theater that Eminem went into when he was doing his Super Bowl commercial, paid for by taxpayers.
But if he'd gone in there and he was expecting a full supporting orchestra, they all downed their instruments.
They all downed bows and said, we're out of here.
We're out of here.
They're not fiddling along with Eminem.
But that's the way it is in Detroit.
The Symphony Orchestra has been on strike for the entire season.
Land without music.
Mark Stein in for Rush, talking about what's happening domestically and foreignly.
And we'll talk some more about Egypt when we come back.
Don't forget, Rush returns live tomorrow for another week in broadcasting.
And he will be talking to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld about his new book.
That's Rush Live Tomorrow.
Yes, Rush returns tomorrow, but you can keep up with Rush at RushLimbaugh.com, which is always there.
If you've got a computer, you just switch it on and go to RushLimbaugh.com, and it's like Rush.
Rush is still here.
It's like he's never gone away.
But he will return live to the airwaves tomorrow to take you through the end of the week for another week of excellence in broadcasting.
Substitute host-level excellence in broadcasting today.
Let us go to Kumar in Houston, Texas.
Kumar, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Kumar, are you there?
Wow, I thought he was gonna I thought he was gonna talk about Egypt, but he's uh but he's g he's gone.
Okay, we'll try and uh get back.
Not sure where he's uh he's gone to.
Um uh we were talking about uh talking about Egypt and talking about the way things are likely to go there.
There's a there's a kind of uh tragedy about uh dictators.
Dictators are always impregnable until until the moment uh until the moment that they fall.
Like the Tunisian guy, one minute he was uh secure, Ben Alley, one minute he was secure, next thing he's gone in nothing flat.
And what was fascinating about that is that he had a it was like basically one twenty-six-year-old guy committing suicide that brought down his regime after all that time.
And he was the the twenty-six-year-old guy had been expensively educated.
There was no job for him when he came out.
He tried to run a fruit and vegetable stand in the market.
They kept hassling him for permits and regulations and all the rest of it because apparently Tunisia is as bad as California or New York in terms of the burdens of the regulatory state.
And eventually the the guard had enough of it and set himself alight.
And he wound up bringing down this decades-old dictatorship in Tunisia.
And that's really what's going on.
That's really what's going on here.
That there's nothing for a lot of these young people to do in these societies.
And as a result, if you've got a lot of young guys sitting around with time on their hands, that's not a good recipe for social tranquility.
There's a lesson there, by the way, for the United States too, because if you look at some of the unemployment rates in the US and other Western countries, we're not going to be immune from some of these Tunisian type scenes in the years ahead.
But oh, I gather we've got Kumar back now.
Let's go to Kumar in Houston, Texas.
Houston, we had a problem, but Kumar, we have solved the problem, and you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Well, thank you.
My points are up just here, is that if we're talking about calling an elected official in a country dictator, well, here at home in the US, we have a president elected, duly elected, and doesn't the Egyptians have the right to call our president a dictator?
Well, you're referring to me calling him a dictator.
Vice President Biden says that he isn't a dictator.
And you're right to the extent that an election was held a few years ago and he won.
Now, basically, the way it works in Egypt is that parties and candidates are deeply restricted.
For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from standing as the Muslim Brotherhood, standing for Parliament as the Muslim Brotherhood.
They can some of them a couple of elections ago managed to get elected to Parliament by finding flags of convenience to fly under.
But they can't basically run as Muslim Brotherhood.
It would be as if Sarah Palin wouldn't be allowed to run on the Republican ticket, but maybe she could sneak through if she called herself the liberal progressive fluffy bunny party.
They might let her run then.
So technically you're right that an election was held.
But you're not surely disputing that Pres you're not surely arguing that President Mubarak's last election victory reflected the will of the Egyptian people, are you?
No, no, I am not.
But for example, we had recently a head of state from China, also a very well defined dictator, but we gave him twenty-one guns a little bit, you know.
Right.
So well If we are to lead the world in morality or political morality or democratic morality, then don't we have to have the same title for each one of them?
Well, I certainly agree with you that we shouldn't be giving 21 gun salutes to the dictator of China.
And as Rush himself said on the show here, what could be more pitiful than the previous Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama, throwing a big banquet for the guy who's jailed the current Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Obama, Obama, I hate to keep harping on his narcissism, but apparently the Nobel Peace Prize is only important when it's given to Barack Obama.
And if the next guy who gets it happens to be tossed into a Chinese jail, it's not going to stop Barack.
Look at me, Obama, from throwing a big gala banquet for the Nobel Peace Prize winner's jailer.
And I agree with you, that I agree with you, that the political realities mean we have to deal with dictators in the modern world.
You can't just say, well, I refuse to recognize the government of China, in part because they owe us.
They own us.
They're keeping us afloat.
If it weren't for the government of China, we'd be sinking in the debt of our government proliferacy.
I forget what word that started out as.
So you have to deal with reality.
But you shouldn't throw.
There will be moments when you have to sit across the table from the dictator, but you don't throw in big gala banquets.
Big gala banquets should be reserved for the freely chosen leaders of America's allies.
I think there's a big difference between throwing a gala banquet for the Prime Minister of New Zealand and throwing a gala banquet for the dictator of China.
And you're absolutely right on that.
And the other point is this, that when someone like President Obama pushed to the Congress Obamacare without the opportunity for the elected members to even read it, well, didn't it go over and beyond the reach of the Constitution of the United States?
So who is right to call for ouster of an officially elected president of a country, no matter what kind of constitution they have?
Well, you know, you're right.
You're right there to this extent, that there is a, I would say, in this particular administration, a contempt for constitutionality.
I mean, they don't care about the constitutionality of Obamacare.
Pete Stark, for example, he was asked a question about the constitutionality of Obamacare, and he said there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from doing anything that it wanted to to affect your private life.
And the lady who asked him the question in California was stunned by this and said, so you're saying that the federal government can do anything.
And he said, yes, the federal government can do anything it wants.
And that's why it doesn't care, really.
It figures that the judges it points to the Supreme Court will rule that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution can mean anything they want it to mean and that Obamacare is entirely constitutional.
And the fact that, as you say, they hammered it down the throats of America in the teeth of public opinion is irrelevant.
As Obama said in his cocky period two years ago, I won.
That's his view of constitutional government and the balance of powers.
I won.
That was the way Mubarak thought of it, too, by the way, that he won.
He was the guy in the presidential palace and he could do what he wanted.
And there was an element of that with Obama, too.
I'm not quite ready.
I know I compared Cairo to Detroit the other day.
I'm not quite ready to compare the perilous state of liberty in Egypt with the way it is in the United States of America.
But I take your point, Kubar.
Thank you very much for your call.
That's Kubar in Houston, Texas.
Mark Stein, infra rush on the EIB network, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein, infra rush from the Daily Mail in London.
Here's the headline: one-legged Afghan Red Cross worker set to be hanged after converting to Christianity.
This is Saeed Musa, who is being held in a prison in Kabul, who was arrested last May as he attempted to seek asylum at the German embassy in Kabul following a crackdown on Christians within Afghanistan.
Right?
Now, we're often told about Afghanistan that it's a very decentralized country.
So, Hamid Karzai, the guy we put in power there, is really little more than the mayor of Kabul.
So, he can't be held accountable for stuff that's happening in Kandahar and other outlying parts of the country.
But this is right, actually, in downtown Kabul.
A guy is trying to seek asylum at the German embassy, and he's captured because Afghanistan is cracking down on Christians.
Now, wait a minute.
Hamid Karzai would be dead.
He's protected by United States and other Western soldiers.
Otherwise, he would be dead.
He would be hanging from a lamppost like predecessors of his as president of Afghanistan.
Because Afghanistan is the Afghan presidency, it is not an office that one generally leaves in a breathing state.
So, Hamid Karzai is kept alive only by American troops, British troops, Canadian troops, other Western troops.
That's all that's keeping him alive.
And yet, he's apparently cracking down on Christians within Afghanistan.
And in three days' time, February the 10th, Thursday, February the 10th, Saeed Musa, 45, an Afghan physiotherapist, is going to be executed for converting to Christianity.
Now, this is a very interesting example of the pointlessness of nation building.
What is the point of building a nation in Afghanistan if all you're doing is building a nation that hangs 45-year-old guys who want to convert to Christianity?
Why are we expending blood and treasure, blood and treasure, in facilitating Hamid Karzai's erection of a regime that hangs you for converting to Christianity?
It's one thing to be in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 to kill bad guys, to topple al-Qaeda, to topple the Taliban, to teach the guys in those camps a lesson that if you mess with America, you get a big bomb dropped on you and you're dead.
And it ain't the 72-virgin kind of death where you get to trim all your private parts, and so you're all nice and fresh and moist and sweet-smelling as you self-detonate and you hit the express line for the 72 virgins.
You're just all a mess and blown to pieces, and you're in lousy shape when you get to paradise.
So none of the 72 virgins are going to look at you.
It's one thing to kill a bunch of bad guys in the fall of 2001 when you do that.
But 10 years later, why are we protecting a regime that executes people who convert to Christianity?
Why, in other words, are Americans dying in Afghanistan to protect, to protect a regime that would kill those Americans if they attempted to practice their religion in the streets of Kabul or Kandahar.
And that is why, that is why a lazy, careless, sappy, multi-culti nation building never gets you anywhere, never gets you anywhere because it's not thought out enough.
And that's why the Afghanistan mission has got bogged down.
And I'll be interested to see if this comes up when Rush talks to Secretary Rumsfeld tomorrow.
That's why the Afghan mission has got bogged down because we no longer know what our war aims are and we no longer recognize them as war aims.
We think somehow we're there to rebuild health clinics or not.
There's no point building health clinics if they're just going to fill them up with Afghanistan's leading clitoridectomy practitioners.
Let's go to Rooney in Rockville, Connecticut.
Rooney, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Good to have you with us.
Another high watermark in talk radio.
Your wit and wisdom is exceeded only by your preparedness for the airwaves.
But I wanted to talk about another pathetic speech that you mentioned as a pathetic speech in 09 by Obama to the Muslim world.
Right.
Last week, there was a pathetic speech to a group of young people at Penn State University by the Commander-in-Chief, which was highly ironic and somewhat amusing under the circumstances that there was a professor at Penn State by the name of Michael Mann who was implicated in the East Anglia University fraud over climate change and global warming.
That's right.
Basically, Penn State and East Anglia peer-reviewed each other back and forth, supporting the whole global warming thesis.
Well, it's a great university, in my opinion, but it is so large that it does have some gaping shortcomings, and one of them was him.
But there's another thing in that speech that left the locals very disappointed.
During his campaign for president, and just before the election, which occurred when, in 08, Obama went to Pennsylvania and referred to his support and the fondness for the Pennsylvania Nittele Lions, N-I-T-T-A-L-L-Y, Nitte Lions.
And those around the country who have grown to respect Coach Paterno and the young men he puts on the field know that they're the Nittany Lions.
And everyone expected an apology from Obama at that speech on last Thursday, which was to the purpose of which was to promote energy conservation in commercial buildings, a very riveting speech, you can imagine.
But not only was there no apology for referring to the great Nittany Lions as the Nittele Lions, with both Paterno and the president of the university in attendance, of course.
The only thing he apologized for, again, was America and the Americans who need to conserve more and are wasteful people.
And just we're such a despicable group.
He must be ashamed to be our president, Mark.
that he can do.
Apologize for the, what was he talking about?
He was talking about global warming, is it down there?
That's the irony that he goes to the belly of the beast where his whole scheme got implicated.
And I think that's part of, I mean, you know the genius that this man has.
Oh, no, and he, but he's not going to take on a guy.
He's not going to actually take on a guy like me.
I mean, this is a classic example, by the way, of the pansy left.
They are wedded to this.
This latest thing is that Paul Krugman in the New York Times is blaming the situation in Egypt on climate change.
What's tragic is when he speaks at Penn State, not only that he doesn't apologise for the mispronunciation, I'm sympathetic to that as a sinister foreigner myself, you know, it's very easy for a guy like me to say it's, hey, it's great to be with you in Denwan,
and then discover that apparently the town isn't pronounced like that at all, but it's that the wedding, the way they're not prepared to give up, even with young people, there's no, none of the people in this audience, global warming went away.
Global warming ceased in 1998.
I said that a couple of years ago.
And then everyone, I got attacked by all the climate change loons.
And then in these East Anglian emails that were leaked, it turns out that those guys all admit that there hasn't been any global warming since 1998, but they don't want to announce it on TV.
And in fact, the head guy actually went ahead and announced it, conceded the point on Australian TV and admitted that they didn't fully understand the models.
And that's why they didn't want to bring it up in public.
Got to run, got to take time out for an EIB profit center.
More to come on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Dr. Phil Jones in East Anglia said the scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998.
One of the leaked emails that the climate change crowd didn't want to tell you the truth on.
▲
Export Selection