I'm thinking about this union-flavored ice cream that I want to make with Mem and Jerry's.
Does intimidation have a flavor?
What flavor would you associate with intimidation?
Crushed nut-flavored ice cream or crushed nuts-flavored ice cream.
Cement swimsuit-flavored ice cream.
Any number of potentials here.
That's what it says they're going to do.
The California state teacher is going to have a big party, try to convince the state governor out there to spend more rather and erase taxes and spend more so that we don't reduce our investment in education.
There's actual global warming news.
We can't get away from it.
By the way, welcome back.
El Rushball and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Brand new week, Broadcast Excellence.
Happy to have you here.
There actually is global warming news, not climate change news, but global warming news.
Up first is a story from the Asian correspondent.
What happened to the climate refugees?
Now, this story is from last week.
I kept it.
It's too good to pass up.
Five years ago, the United Nations predicted there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
That's kind of like the Ted Danson prediction in 1988 that if we didn't clean up the oceans in 10 years, that there'd be death and pestilence everywhere.
The United Nations, five years ago, predicted that these climate refugees would be fleeing from areas that are in fact now showing some of the largest population increases in the world.
It's just like Paul Ehrlich, who I understand is very irritated every time I talk about him and his book, The Population Bomb, and the bet that he made with Julian Simon.
And frankly, I didn't know that Paul Ehrlich was still around.
So I'm happy to know that he is.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Program predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters, including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption of food production.
The UNEP, which is the United Nations Environment Program, provided a map, and we've got a copy of the map here.
Now, it's too small to show you.
Well, I guess I can't hear.
Let me, I'm going to turn the camera off and zoom in on this.
I don't want to do the Zoom live.
Let's see if I can, how tight we can get.
Well, it might be okay.
Might be okay.
There it is.
Okay, there is, oh, before let's see how it's a map.
Now, the legend's too small.
I can't read the legend, so I can't tell you what the colors mean.
Here we go.
There's the map.
And you see, I think the purple and the yellow is where there are going to be massive refugees because of climate change.
You can see even in the U.S., there's some purple and yellow.
And I'm sure it's purple.
It's got to be one of these because of sea level rise.
See, Florida would have climate refugees.
You'll see there.
So at any rate, ladies and gentlemen, let me getting nothing but my mouth here, which I know is attractive to some.
Let me zoom back out.
There we go.
I wish I could read the legend here.
But it was basically places at most risk, the very sensitive low-lying islands of the Pacific and the Caribbean.
So happens just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses and their populations are in fact growing.
So the title of the story here is what happened to the climate refugees.
There are 50 million people missing.
Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fast-growing cities in China, Shenzhen, Dongwan, Fozhan, Zhuhai, Puning, and Jingjang, are obviously smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees, but their populations are skyrocketing.
So it's another example, a huge story of environmentalist wackos being entirely wrong.
Imagine 50 million climate refugees.
And there are none.
And there are no sea level increases.
From Reuters, scientists want climate change early warning system.
A better monitoring network for greenhouses, greenhouse gases is needed to warn of significant changes and to keep countries that have agreed to cut their emissions honest, scientists said in papers published today.
What we're hoping to do is see if the warming is feeding the warming, particularly in the Arctic, said Ewan Nisbet, a specialist in methane emissions.
What does that mean?
He's got his nose in cow rear ends.
Our monitoring network, very, very limited.
We need more observation.
Such measurement could warn of possible climate tipping points, scientists said in papers published by Britain's Science Academy.
Scientists are not sure why that happened and have warned of possible climate tipping points from man-made emissions.
They're concerned, for example, that as Arctic permafrost melts, it would allow plant matter to rot and vent methane, a greenhouse gas.
Okay, so early warning system for global warming.
Even though the worst effects are not for 50 years, so they say.
An early warning system.
And then John Hamm at the John Locke Foundation, the ozone hole hoax was a global warming warm-up act.
You may not be old enough to remember this.
Many of you are.
Back in the 70s, 80s, we had to get rid of Freon.
We had to stop using aerosol spray cans because that was creating the hole in the ozone.
You remember that, Dawn?
You don't.
You weren't old enough at the time to remember it.
But it was all, I mean, folks, it was the panic over the ozone hole was as big a panic as any of you who remember any panic associated with global warming.
I mean, it was big.
They had maps.
They had charts.
They showed us how big the hole was.
And it was going to lead to skin cancers.
And it was going to lead to global warming.
It was going to lead, oh, it was going to be an absolute disaster.
And the hole was getting bigger.
And they finally found out it was aerosol.
So people started making jokes about spraying Reitgard was causing an ozone hole.
Now, of course, back then, I, your host, as big a skeptic then as now, and I laughed at it.
What are you, are you really trying to tell us?
Do you really want us to believe that aerosol spray cans are causing a hole in atmospheric ozone?
And they were dead serious.
The Montreal Protocol to ban Freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC.
Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the U.S. Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol.
They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like ozone holes over Kennebunkport.
The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like DuPont to market proprietary ozone-friendly refrigerants at much higher prices than the conventional and more easily used Freons.
Folks, we got rid of Freon for no reason.
Because the bottom line of this story is the ozone hole is still there, and it's still as big as ever despite all these reforms.
We got rid of all those propellants and refrigerants and all the causes.
New research shows that it's not changed the hole significantly at all.
This must have far-reaching consequences.
If the measurements are correct, we can basically no longer say that we understand how ozone holes come into being.
This is from one of the big scientists who was responsible for this, a guy named Rex.
So, again, they recently measured the ozone hole is the same size, and it fluctuates, it changes in size year to year.
If the measurements are correct, we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.
It was the same hoax, the same tactic, the same technique.
It was the same.
In fact, the New York Times in January of 2010 had a story on the ozone hole is mending.
That hole, the Earth's ozone layer, slowly mending.
Considered a big victory for environmental policymakers.
But in a new report, scientists say there's a downside.
The repair may contribute to global warming.
So a year ago, the hole was reducing, but that was causing global warming.
Now, since there's no warming and the hole is opened up again, despite getting rid of all the causes, this klutz, previously accepted as a scientific authority, well, we no longer understand how ozone holes come into being.
And look at what economic tumult we caused to try to fix it.
Typical.
This is more evidence, folks.
As I tell you, the simplest thing to do when you hear an apocalyptic, cataclysmic prediction involving the climate or the environment or hell even economics, if it's being made by a liberal, just don't believe it.
It isn't true.
It is being made up.
Before the ozone hole, it was acid rain.
And then it was nuclear winter.
And it went from global warming to compact fluorescent light bulbs.
I'm telling you, every aspect of it is a lie.
Every environmental claim, every one that's apocalyptic, it's a lie.
Full-fledged, 100% through and through.
Back to the phones, Laura in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Oh, mega pro-life dittos rush.
Thank you.
You cheer us every day.
Thank you.
Just your premise when you open the show about the only entity not being taxed is the government.
I read in your July of 2010 an excellent article that you did in the Limbaugh Letter, the Obama debt overload.
Yes.
And you made the excellent point that the 2011 budget at the time, when it was submitted, we would be paying $900 billion in interest alone.
Now, that would not be money that they take from us and redistribute.
That would be paying it back to whoever holds our debt, right?
Exactly.
And if you use the analogy like we do to our sons about credit cards, isn't it the same thing basically that this huge debt is like a credit card and we are buying things and redistributing things, but we are not paying the interest, which I tell our sons that it's like a tax.
It's a tax on the people, us who are the government, sending money and not getting anything in return because we can't even pay the principal.
Right.
We're not even paying down the principal.
That's the key to it.
And for me, you know, all of these ignorant people that are interviewing these Republicans who have everything right that want a balanced budget, that's the first point that people should make.
If it's $900 billion, there are 300 million Americans, how much is that per man, woman, and child that we are giving China before we even make the redistribution?
That's the point that angers me the most.
Well, that's because people don't know the basics.
And maybe because they don't pay their credit cards, you know, maybe Mr. Obama.
No, that's not why.
They don't.
I'll tell you that the primary reason people don't look at it that way is because they don't think that the government can ever default.
Who's going to come take the government's credit card away from them?
For example, you might have a credit card company take yours away and penalize it.
Nobody thinks the government's going to stop making payments.
Nobody thinks the government's going to default.
Nobody believes that anything other than spending is going to continue to happen.
But isn't the fact that we are very nearing that bankruptcy stage where we have not enough coming in to pay the basic tax.
Oh, we're long past that.
I know.
So why aren't people, and I wish you could challenge every Republican that you talked about.
Well, look at how many of them are benefiting from it.
You're talking about average people.
Right.
But there's a lot of Democrat business owners that need to understand, too.
They are taking your money and they're just throwing away so much of it for every taxpayer that nobody gets to spend.
I'm like you.
I wonder where.
I don't even wonder where anymore.
I wonder if there are any, not to be provocative here, I don't mean to say this provocatively.
If there are any sane Democrats, are they all a bunch of pure radical ideologues who are totally animated by their hatred for conservative Republicans?
Like you.
Where are the Democrat small business guys who are going to get creamed like everybody else does?
Where are they?
Where are the Democrat voters who are getting creamed taxable?
Where are they?
I mean, over half of Wall Street, over half of wealthy, filthy, rich Wall Street is liberal Democrats.
They happen to be doing well because of their ability to have crony capitalist ties with Obama, but I know what you mean.
I know the kind of people.
Who are these people?
Where are the traditional Democrats?
A lot of them are in a Tea Party.
And don't doubt me on that.
A lot of the so-called Reagan Democrats are in the Tea Party.
But where are the Democrats, small business people who are going to get shellacked with Obama's tax increase on income of $250,000 or more?
Maybe it is that they don't know.
I think a lot of it is blind party loyalty.
That's one explanation.
Now, this story that's out there on the Standard and Poor's moving the USA outlook to the negative, the White House is scared to death about this.
This is because now we're getting into territory that starts to answer your question.
You ask me why.
Why don't people understand about the credit card?
When you have a story that says that the credit of the United States is subject to question, then you have people all of a sudden paying attention.
This is Standard and Poor's telling Obama he is a disaster.
This is Standard and Poor's telling the world Obama is a disaster.
This is Standard and Poor's telling the American people Obama is a disaster.
And this is not about raising the debt ceiling.
They want it to be thought of as happening commensurate with that as a way to get people to go along without fighting an increase in the debt ceiling.
This is about the debt that Obama created.
That's what that rating is all about.
If Obama was a CEO with a private company, he would be facing an SEC investigation because of his lies about the nation's financial situation.
Folks, what he has done here, got to be very careful in my choice of words, what he has done here borders on the legal.
Now, Obama gets his power from government.
That's from government unions, spending tax dollars, from voters who benefit from redistribution.
There's no way Obama is ever going to do what's best for society generally.
He'd have to abandon who he is to do what's best for society.
He has been trained to be what he has been indoctrinated to be, is an agent of an ever-expanding government that limits the power and freedom of the individual.
Your guiding light.
Rushland bought talent on loan from God.
Great to have you here.
The Obama regime moves swiftly today to downplay ratings agency's Standard and Poor's downgrade of its U.S. credit outlook, calling the decision a political judgment that should not be taken too seriously.
I told you they're scared to death by this.
They're scared to death, but they think this is Standard and Poor's telling the world that Obama is a disaster.
That's what this is.
This is purely a rating based on the Obama debt.
Who was this?
Let's see.
I don't think this is Goolsby.
I don't think we should make too much out of that.
What the S ⁇ P is doing is making a political judgment, and it's one that we don't agree.
Of course, you don't agree that you're destroying the country.
Why would you?
You're telling everybody you're rebuilding.
You're telling everybody we got an economic recovery.
We don't expect you to be honest about what you're doing, Goolsby.
But I'm going to tell you something, folks.
I'm going to go through this again because one of the reasons Obama was elected was that he was considered to be a reformer.
He was a man of reform.
We had an evil Bush.
We had a horrible economy, the Iraq war.
It was horrible.
People bickering.
Partisanship worse than it ever been since the Civil War.
And we, and the sea levels threatened to go up to boot.
Hell was breaking loose.
And Obama was going to come in and be like something we've never seen before.
We've never had somebody this qualified, this perfect.
Let me tell you something, folks.
Again, I just want to go through this because this is crucial.
If you're expecting Obama to reform something or even change horses here in the middle of the stream, change directions because of the way he's going, he's not going to.
He gets his power totally from the government.
Totally.
For example, from government unions and their donations, spending tax dollars from voters who benefit from redistribution.
He's never going to do what's best for the society generally.
His reelection doesn't depend on American economic recovery, contrary to what everybody believes.
Oh, yeah, they'd like to have the unemployment rate at 8%.
It doesn't depend on that.
His re-election depends on making sure the people he's giving money to stay loyal and vote for him.
Purely the unions, the people to whom he is redistributing things, that's the minorities.
Why do you think he's spending all this time with that kind of group?
He's not going to reform this country.
It's going exactly the way he wants.
And he's trying to create more and more people who depend on it as it is for his reelection.
He's not going to abandon who he is any more than I would abandon who I am.
He's not going to give up his own power.
And he's not going to depower or disempower people who benefit from government expansion.
He's not going to do any of that.
He's going to stay on the same course.
The debt situation will worsen.
Prospects for economic prosperity will decline.
You know, it says tax day.
I wonder how many of you know that unions are tax exempt.
As long as we're talking about taxes and fairness, why not tax labor unions, tax labor unions?
The labor unions are exempt under 501c5 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Look it up.
Unions are 501c5s, and they are exempt.
Now, take a look at all of the Democrat constituency that is subsidized or protected or untaxed.
Hey, look at it all.
No doubt, more of the people who do not pay taxes vote Democrat.
That's why the Democrat Party protects them and seeks to expand their numbers.
It's what illegal immigration is all about to them.
Amnesty, what have you.
Our laws even go so far as to protect trial lawyers.
Now, the trial lawyers are among the richest in our society.
They can get anywhere between, what is it, 35 and 44% of an award, a jury or judge award.
If the trial lawyers were not considered supporters of the Democrats, you think any of this would continue?
If trial lawyers were Republicans, you think any of what they're doing would be allowed to continue?
Hey, the Democrats have moved in there.
Obama, they would shut them down or reform them or do whatever is necessary.
Anybody sending money to Republicans is going to be a target.
I saw the other day Obama challenged Paul Ryan.
Hey, you want to defund health care?
Go for it.
Give it a shot.
Let's have the debate up front.
Why is he so hell-bent on government-run healthcare?
Beyond the ideological reasons, he's a big liberal Marxist socialist, and that's a big liberal Marxist socialist program.
It's because it's good for the people, is it not?
That's what he says.
It's good for the people.
What does it do?
Obamacare redistributes wealth to those who don't pay taxes, just like the earned income tax credit does.
Obamacare is strongly supported by unions because they want the government to hire more and more of their members.
And Obama doesn't mind that either because those more and more members are going to pay more and more dues, and all that's going to end back up in Obama's pocket as a Democrat, or some Democrat's pocket, or a Democrat organization's pocket.
It's supported by crony capitalists and states that have over-promised and over-committed in their labor contracts.
They want to offload it all on the rest of us.
None of this is about the best interests of the country, is the point.
Not one element of the Obama agenda is for or in the best interests of the country.
None of this is sustainable.
None of this is worthy of support.
None of it is worthy of praise.
Cronyism, political-oriented toward power and maintaining it.
Obama's not going to reform anything, folks.
What's occurring is exactly the plan.
He doesn't like this rating today from Moody or from Standard ⁇ Poor.
He does not like that.
Because that says he's a disaster.
Obama is using your income to reward his friends, his supporters, his party, and ultimately his own ambitions.
Obama, I think, is fundamentally incapable of dealing with the problems this country faces.
Because the problems, look at it this way.
This is the way maybe everybody will understand this.
The problems this country faces are the children of his ideology.
Meaning, how many parents do you know would get their kids out of a murder rap if they could?
You know that parents will do anything to protect their kids.
Just, it's a bond.
It's genetics.
It's rare that a parent will turn a kid in.
I mean, think what you want, and you might be shouting at me, no, no, Rush.
I'm telling you, I know some upstanding people.
I know that if your kids behave in a rotten way, no, you may think that.
The problems this country faces are the children of Barack Obama's ideology, his beliefs.
They are problem children.
But nevertheless, children.
One of the reasons I've often stated the reason so many liberals are angry, miserable, unhappy is that A, it's a general state of mind, but B, at this point in time, they are facing the obvious fact that what they believe doesn't work.
The country's not improving.
Jobs are not being created.
The poor are not getting rich.
The middle class is not moving.
None of this utopian idealism is even close to happen.
In fact, it's going the other way.
Problem children.
Everybody knows about problem children.
Get off the main track, get off the, they're headed down the wrong track or whatever.
What do you do?
He is fundamentally incapable of dealing with any of this because it almost has a genetic tie to him.
The problems of this country are the result of his beliefs.
And he's never going to admit that.
He's never going to admit that what he believes is causing all this problem.
At least, not to people who he's telling that his solutions are for the better.
Just isn't going to.
So my point here is that don't expect any reform from Obama no matter what he says.
Expect more of the same, which means it's going to get worse as long as this regime is running the show.
Jonathan in Reston, Virginia.
Hello, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, good afternoon.
First time caller here.
Thank you, sir.
Got a little small difference of opinion with you on Democrats and redistribution of wealth.
Yeah.
Notice how Democrats always use a conduit.
They don't give money directly to the people.
They give it through a union.
They give it through, as in the GM bondholders.
They give it to the green crap industry instead of the oil industry.
They give it to AARP.
See, if Democrat politicians were sincere, they would be in favor of eliminating all corporate subsidies, right?
Instead, they give it to their, quote-unquote, rich special interests.
There is, well, wait a second, though.
There is direct transfer payment.
Women, you know, WIC, student loans are a direct transfer payment, a lot of them forgiven.
Food stamps.
There's all kinds of direct, common, ordinary, everyday welfare payments.
There's all kinds of direct from the Democrat Party to you payments.
Now, you are correct.
Earned income tax credit.
You might argue that goes to the IRS, but who likes them anyway, no matter what they do?
Correct.
I have another comment, quick comment I'd like to make on Trump.
I don't trust him.
I think the only reason why he's decided to throw his name in the ring is he's concerned about the Democrats coming after the real estate sector of the economy.
You know how the Democrats have went after the oil industry, the healthcare industry, the financial industry.
So now Trump is concerned.
He's seeing all this transpire, and he's like, whoa, they could come after my industry next.
But if I get to be...
Well, in what way?
In what way could he?
Yeah, like in what way could he see them coming after his industry down the road?
Mike, I could make the case they already have come for real estate people.
They're coming for everybody for crying out loud.
I know what you're saying.
You're looking for the thing that is the catalyst.
Okay, there's one thing that made Trump do this.
And what you're essentially saying is he's trying to protect his own.
Happy to everybody else.
I don't care.
But now they're going to start messing in my backyard.
Okay, I'm going to do something to stop it.
That's basically what you're saying, right?
Correct.
Yeah.
So what could they do to real estate that would finally get him off his dumpster?
Okay, I got to stop this.
Well, eliminate some of the subsidies, which they're already talking about doing.
The mortgage interest deduction.
Yeah.
How about in eliminate some investment interest as well?
Possible.
It's possible.
His candidacy is not even official yet.
The whole thing is in its infancy.
For example, he said on this program Friday that he would tax the THICOMS 25% because they're screwing us.
Well, he says he's a conservative.
That's not a conservative thing.
That's a foreign tariff.
That's just going to raise the price of imports to this country, raise the cost of living.
That's not, quote-unquote, a conservative solution to a problem.
All that stuff, he's got to get fleshed out.
And at this point, with Trump, you don't know what's talk and what isn't yet.
Even the whole deal that he's running, it's one of these things, sit back and wait for what ultimately happens.
And there's still people trying to figure out why is he really doing this?
Oh, what a way to kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
We've done it and we've done it wonderfully, and we can't wait for tomorrow.