All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:50
June 22, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back.
Great to have you, my friends.
Rush Limbaugh, the reason God invented radio in the first place.
Serving humanity right here on the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And again, we are in Los Angeles, the left coast, all week long.
And because of that, no ditto cam.
And for this, we apologize profusely.
Many people are addicted to the dittocam.
Many people are drawn to it for three hours each and every day, and it's a very difficult thing to not have available.
So if we continue to come out here with increasing frequency, we will, of course, install a Dittocam in our makeshift digs here.
But we'll be back to normal on Monday, back to the Ditto Cam then.
Be patient.
Everything else, up to snuff, if not more so.
I want to stay with the audio soundbite roster here for a moment.
Two of our most favorite wizards of smart are in the news.
Thomas L. Friedman, the columnist of the New York Times, and David Brooks, Wizard of Smart, conservative columnist at the New York Times as well.
They both appeared with PBS Wizard of Smart, Charlie Rose.
One of the smartest shows on TV.
It's where you can hear people actually say, we don't know who this guy is, meaning Obama.
Yeah, we don't know what books he's read.
We don't know what he's.
That's the place to go to find the really smart people.
And they're talking about how they're disappointed here in the Bampster.
They thought he was going to be more of a leader.
The sharp crease in his slacks told Brooks that the guy was eminently qualified to be president.
And he's tough-minded, no nonsense, had all the answers.
Hasn't worked out that well.
And that way, so here's Charlie Rose, and he says first to Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, the idea of Obama leadership.
Has he not acted boldly where he might have wanted or we might have wanted him to act?
So here's, picture this.
Charlie Rose, you got two wizards of SMART, Friedman and Brooks.
And they're wringing their hands now because Obama was the answer.
One of them.
Intellectual, well-spoken, articulate, nuanced, serious, all of these adjectives.
But where's the boldness?
Where's the leadership?
And Charlie Rose wants some guidance.
He wants some assurance here.
He wants to be told that everything's okay.
So he turns to a fellow wizard of SMART, Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, and says, Thomas, has the president not acted boldly where we might have wanted him to act?
I wrote for Obama for one reason, because I thought he could change the polls and not read the polls.
My biggest disappointment is I really see a guy reading the polls as closely as ever.
Those two words, climate change, became a four-letter word in American politics under Barack Obama's watch.
It's against the law in the Republican Party.
Romney is so courageous.
He actually said he believes in science.
Oh my God.
And Ruff Limbaugh said, you're out of the party, pal.
Okay.
That goes as courage.
See, and these are the smart people, and there isn't any science in the global warming these people believe in.
Folks, if there were science, I'd be a believer.
I do not have my head buried in the sand.
I'm not an ostrich.
I live in Rielville.
I'm the mayor.
I'm a town council president.
I'm the police chief.
There aren't a whole lot of people that live in Littoralville, but I do.
And man-made global warming is not science.
It's a consensus.
It's a guess.
It's a good guess.
It's a best guess.
It's a vote.
And a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up.
And that's why there's global warming, that enough people have been paid to say so.
You can't say that, Mr. Limboy.
You're attacking the integrity of details.
No, they've been paid.
Their entire lifestyles, their standard of living depends on their grants that they get to conduct the studies.
And they only get the money if they come up with the right result.
So enough people have banded together, come up with a consensus, man is causing the climate to warm.
Bingo, you got science.
Except there isn't science.
You have a political agenda being advanced by people calling themselves scientists, and in fact, may even work at places where science takes place or a scientific discovery takes place.
But you see, here's Thomas L. Friedman, smartest man in the world.
Why, if he thinks there's global warming, it must be, right?
It's like if television shows you, like in the movie Wag the Dog, if television shows you a war in Albania, but there isn't one, who's to say there really isn't a war?
I saw it on TV.
I saw people, I saw a woman running for shelter.
They told me that it was Albania.
She's running for her life.
The spy satellites don't show any war.
Well, okay.
How do you know?
My TV says there's a war there.
I got pictures that show polar bears barely surviving on little three square foot plots of ice.
There's got to be global warming.
So Thomas L. Friedman is the dupe.
I don't know if he's been duped or if he's part of the group that's duping everybody else.
I don't know if he's being paid for his opinion on global warming, but most of the scientists who advocate it are.
Believe me, folks, my integrity is intact.
If there were scientific proof, undeniable, thus making it science, that man was causing the climate to warm, I'd be the biggest proponent.
I would be the one ringing the bells.
Actually, I wouldn't, because I would also understand there's nothing we can do to fix it because we didn't cause it.
I mean, this is really just common sense.
Anyway, you see here Thomas Friedman.
His big disappointment is I thought Obama could change the polls, not read them.
My biggest disappointment is I see the guy reading the polls as closely as ever.
These two words, climate change, became a four-letter word in American politics under Obama.
Mr. Friedman work continues unabated on the whole concept of man-made global warming.
The EPA is going to implement cap and trade for all intents and purposes.
You're getting what you want.
American people don't believe it.
The American people aren't buying into it, so they're having to be defrauded, but what do you care?
And then Charlie Rose says, now Romney suggested he thought man contributed to global warming.
What is so disturbing is that we don't, we're not having an adult conversation about, you know, what are the real problems.
And so my frustration with Obama really flows from that.
I mean, Warshock test.
We all run around the table.
Barack Obama.
What comes to mind right now in the middle of this crisis?
I have to tell you, it's a blank sheet of paper for me.
I have no real strong sense of how he defines the problems, where he wants to go, what his bottom line is.
Now, all credit is due, Mr. Friedman, here for finally admitting this, but I would say, when did you know otherwise?
Hasn't Obama always been this blank piece of paper?
Obama was always a Rorsakt.
Obama was always an empty canvas.
It's just back in the campaign years of 2007, 2008, you guys got all caught up in your dreams and your fantasies and your utopias.
You figured this guy was one of you, a fellow intellectual, so he had to be brilliant.
He had to have all the answers, and he was going to fix everything.
And he's going to put you in charge of it when he was finished.
Would it have made much more sense, Mr. Friedman, if you had had the view of him then that you have of him now?
Because he really hasn't changed.
All that's changed is your perception.
All that's happened here is that Obama has not turned out to be the person you hoped he was, but you never knew.
Because on this very show, Charlie Rose, we've got the tape.
Go back and play it if you want.
Brokaw and Charlie Rose themselves say, I don't know anything about Obama.
I don't know what books he's read.
I don't know who his friends are.
I don't know what he would do.
But they were telling us we should all vote for the guy.
So that's Mr. Brooks' turn.
The conservative columnist of the New York Times decided that this was his chance to chime in.
This is what he said.
Sometimes I've been thinking recently that as president, he's shown he can be a really great senator, which is to say that his natural skills are for the deliberation, for the organizing of coalitions, but the getting out front part and the sort of active determining and shaping history part.
We've seen it sometimes, but not a lot.
I just wish I knew whether it comes from some sort of deep sense of caution that he doesn't want to put himself out there or for some other reason.
I simply don't know.
So Obama, he's been a really great senator.
Guess the crease in the pants isn't cutting it for Brooks anymore.
That's not enough.
It was enough to get Brooks' vote.
The crease in Obama's slacks, that was enough to tell Brooks he was going to be president and he was going to be a great president.
But it hasn't worked out.
Now he doesn't know.
None of these guys know.
None of these people have the slightest idea.
The thing is, they never have had the slightest idea.
What is that, Snerdley?
Snerdley wants to know what the L stands for, Thomas L. Friedman.
Loopy.
That's the middle name.
May as well grab it.
Grab audio soundbite number 29.
We may as well go back and relive this.
By the way, folks, I have heard there will not be a ditto cam Monday or Tuesday.
I will not be here on Monday or Tuesday.
They got guest hosting.
Yeah, I just.
Brain, you know what?
So ditto cam a week from today.
That's the more accurate thing to say.
We've got Mark Davis next Monday.
I forget who.
Well, Mark Davis both days.
Both days Monday and Tuesday next week.
Now, here, this is before, this is like the two or three days before the election.
This October the 30th in 2008.
This is Brokaw and Charlie Rose on Charlie Rose's show.
I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
No, I don't know how he really sees where China is.
We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
I don't really know.
And do we know anything about the people who are advising them?
You know, it's an interesting question.
He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational speeches.
I don't know what books he's read.
What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
There's a lot about him we don't know.
Yeah, that's October 30th.
That's less than a week before the election.
After they've spent months and months and months telling us, you've got to vote for the guy.
Vote for the guy.
They don't know who he is.
And they still don't.
Brooks and Friedman, no clue who he is.
June 21st of 2011.
Let's go to the phones.
We're going to start Missoula, Montana.
Kevin, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome, sir, to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Well, thank you for taking my call.
I had two things.
One thing I didn't talk to your call screener about, but I think the projections, the CBO projections, are rosy compared to what's really going to happen.
You're talking about government economic growth and debt and that kind of thing?
Yeah.
Well, they're basing it on a projected rate of growth, maybe 2.3 to 3%.
But what they forget when I'm just going through this thing, they aren't putting in here who's going to buy the debt that takes to service the debt.
There are so many things that could happen.
Yeah, I know.
And it just should scare the heck out of everybody.
You know, they have the debt auctions occasionally that they can't find buyers, and they have to up the interest rate they offer.
And so you up the interest rates, so then you start to take the money back out of the system that the private market could borrow to create jobs.
Exactly.
That brings me to the other thing, and I wanted to thank you for starting a business during the recession, because one thing that bothers me about some of the wealthy people, and I don't mean to put you in that category, but you could put your money in a foundation if you wanted to.
And like Buffett or Gates or Turner, they put their money in foundations, they spend the interest, they don't reinvest it back into business that creates wealth.
And I want to thank you for that.
Well, you're very kind.
You're very perceptive, by the way, too.
I have, as you know, well, no, I can't.
You don't know.
I have people who routinely tell me that I should do a foundation.
You need to do that, Rush.
I say, why?
Well, because you'll be able to take the entire annual charitable deduction off the top of that year, but you only have to spend 5% of it.
Really?
So I can donate.
I mean, I can start a foundation with, say, a million dollars, but I only have to give $50,000 of it away, and I still get the million dollars.
Yeah, you can do that.
Oh, that's cool.
But then I lose the money, right?
Well, yeah, of course you lose the money, but it's a good thing it's going to charity.
Okay.
It's never really appealed to me unless the foundation is going to be something that is its own functioning rather than some place to park money.
If it's a functioning enterprise that's going to seek its own growth for genuine philanthropy, but it's never really appealed to me as a place to park money.
I'd just write a check to a charity or whoever rather than set up the foundation.
That's just me.
We all have our individual quirks.
But I appreciate your observation.
I really do.
That's very kind of you to say.
Well, it makes a difference to more people to create job growth and create wealth than it will ever do to put money into a foundation to fund more nonprofits.
And I do want to thank you.
Well, you're more than welcome.
I appreciate that.
A profit-profit does the most social good.
There's no question about it.
And of course, every time I take a call, we lose the network.
Anyway, the Point that he was that he was making before that was that the projections that we shared with you from the growth, the Congressional Budget Office on how much of the U.S. economy will be debt, and we get to 2021, that the debt will be as large as our total economic output, and by 2037, it'll be twice as large as point was.
That's assuming an annual economic growth rate of 2.5% to 3%.
And that's assuming a lot.
We're not anywhere near that right now.
And I wanted to make sure that point that he made was emphasized.
Here's George Southwinter, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Thanks, Russia.
I have a boss in sales, and he tells me this all the time.
Hope is not a strategy.
And there's a lot of hope going around in this administration.
But, you know, the reason I called it, I just remember turn the tail end of the Bush administration, there was a big cry for the lack of utilization of food stamps.
And they were worried about the program going away, maybe because unemployment was low.
And then, funny, now it's kind of reverted the other way.
And it's kind of a quite interesting play how now in this health care bill, which Nancy Pelosi said, just pass it, and then we'll find out what's in it.
There's kind of this funny provision now that's almost like giveaway in another area.
It's like they have to give money away.
They're addicted to giving something away.
And when they're not, boy, they better figure out something to give away.
Well, it is an addiction, but it's also policy.
It's also a strategy.
It's vote buying 101.
You're bouncing off the news that just somehow, am I right?
It's been about an hour since I made the point and you've been on hold that long, which I appreciate.
But you're bouncing off the news that all of a sudden they found 3 million Americans in the middle class qualify for free health care.
That's what you're commenting on, right?
Right.
And it's funny how they get there is by saying, oh, by the way, Social Security is not considered income.
And so we'll take that away.
So, oh, now you qualify.
So I don't know.
There's something else going on cooking in the background there, too, as far as I'm concerned.
What do you think it is?
Well, that Social Security is not guaranteed.
It might be.
No, what do you think is going on?
You're saying what do you think is going on?
Well, I just, I think that, again, everything's going to be more reliant on the federal government.
You're going to have to wait for us to give you something.
That is not your...
Okay, by design.
Right, exactly.
Exactly by design and on purpose.
All right.
George, I appreciate the call.
Thanks very much.
There's not enough time to be fair with another caller right now, and there's nobody up there that I want to be unfair with.
So if you're on hold, be patient.
We'll get to you as quickly as we can.
Mort Vuckerman here, which a piece I mentioned moments ago, why the job situation worse than it looks?
The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression.
In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since 2000.
With all of these fixes, all of this spending, from the moment the Obama regime came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only part-time jobs.
That's what they accused Bush of, by the way.
This is contrary to all previous recessions.
Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.
It has not happened before.
It is unprecedented in this country.
This is the point I've been trying to make over and over.
It's not just the same cycle repeating itself.
There's something new happening this time, and it is on purpose.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program in Los Angeles all week long.
Mort Vuckerman.
In the face of the most stimulative fiscal monetary policies in our history.
In other words, we've never, ever done it this way.
We have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000.
From the moment Barack Obama came into orifice, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs.
This is contrary to all previous recessions.
Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.
The real job losses are greater than the estimate of $7.5 million.
They are closer to $10.5 million.
3 million people have stopped looking for work.
Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate.
Some 5 million.
Why am I focusing on this?
Because our party is trying to tell itself that it cannot run for office and cannot seek the presidency by being critical of this.
This is unprecedented damage and destruction to the engine of prosperity and freedom in this country.
It's under assault.
And if you don't like that, it is being directed by total incompetent boobs.
I don't care what you choose, frankly.
But it must stop.
It can't continue.
This regime must be brought to its political end.
It must be replaced.
And still, the guiding lights of the Republican Party and the wizards are smart.
I say, well, you've got to be very careful how you say all this.
The American people are livid.
People who've lost their jobs are frustrated to no end over this.
And to sit here and believe that we cannot seek office by being critical of what's happened here.
In fact, to even point it out is to be a little extreme and unfair, some people believe.
Frankly, folks, this is absurd.
It's time that people understand, or at least the Republican Party articulate what other people understand viscerally that is happening to them.
Real job losses closer to 10.5 million.
The unemployment rate ought to be much higher.
The reason it's not is that the Obama administration has just decided to reduce the total number of available jobs.
It's decided to take an eraser, change the number, thereby reducing the percentage of unemployment.
Equally troublesome, the lower labor participation rate.
Some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America's greatest strength.
Just think.
Total payrolls today amount to 131 million people, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though the population's grown by 30 million.
Now, stop and think of that.
Our population has grown 30 million.
Total payrolls, 131 million lower than what it was 11 years ago.
The most recent statistics are unsettling and dismaying despite the increase of 54,000 jobs in May.
Today, over 14 million people are unemployed.
We have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression in this country.
And we're told that we have to be very careful how we campaign, very careful about how we criticize this.
We have to stay focused only on the policies.
We don't want to, we respect the president.
We want our president to succeed.
All this, happy malarkey, happy talk.
I mean, this is more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.
And let me add something to this.
There's a political party out there rubbing its hands in glee over this, because guess what they become?
They become the new dependents.
They become the ones who will only be able to get through each day if the government comes through for them, i.e., the Democrat president and his party and his administration.
And so that number to the Democrat Party and Barack Obama, why, what wonderful news.
Imagine the power that attaches itself to that kind of need and dependence.
But what does it actually mean for the country to have that many people sitting around doing nothing?
In large part, sitting around doing nothing because there isn't anything for them to do.
Meaning, there aren't sufficient jobs.
Mr. Zuckerman says, don't pay too much attention here to the headline unemployment rate of 9.1%.
It's scary enough, but it's a gloss on the reality.
These numbers do not include the millions who have stopped looking for a job or who are working part-time but would work full-time if a position were available.
And they count only those people who have actively applied for a job within the last four weeks.
If you include those others, the real number, the government has a name for it, U6.
The real number is 16% unemployment.
16% unemployment includes 8.5 million part-timers who want to work full-time.
That's double, by the way, the historical norm.
It also includes those who have applied for a job within the last six months.
The inescapable bottom line is an unprecedented slack in the U.S. labor market.
Labor's share of national income has fallen to the lowest level in modern history, down to 57.5%.
Just to illustrate how insecure the labor movement is, there is nobody on strike in the U.S. today.
According to David Rosenberg, wealth management from Gluskin Chef, back in the 70s, it was common in any given month to see as many as 30,000 workers on the picket line.
And there were typically 300 work stoppages at any given time.
Last year, there were a grand total of 11.
There are other indirect consequences.
Number of people who have applied for permanent disability benefits has soared.
Ten years ago, 5 million people were collecting federal disability payments, now 8 million.
This is at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $120 billion a year.
This can't go on.
Nothing, nothing that is in place is sustainable.
And if people attempt to keep these policies in place, utter and sheer destruction and then total transformation of the United States will have taken place and will be taking place, which is a stated objective of the regime.
So, yeah, I spent time telling you about this.
Largely, you already know it because you are regular listeners anyway, and you're intelligent and you live your life and you know what's happening outside your home and maybe inside as well.
And it's doubly frustrating when you hear the political party that has candidates you want to vote for.
You got to be real careful here, Mr. Limboy, how are we going about saying this?
We respect the president, value his reputation.
We don't have time for any of that.
We're not in a contest here to prove that we're nice people.
That just accepts this whole bogus premise that we're not in the first place.
Keeps everybody on defense.
Time out.
Quick one.
We'll be back.
We'll continue.
El Rushbo in Hollywood.
Back after this.
Okay, back to the phones where we go.
I have sufficient time here so that I don't have to be unfair with anybody.
Fairness, of course, my middle name.
And this is Tanner in Cleveland.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I just wanted to comment on the iced tea from last week.
Yes, sir.
One week ago, we introduced two If-Buy Tea to the nation.
I bought four packs of the iced tea.
I bought two raspberry and I bought two sweet tea.
And I did not like iced tea.
I can't stand it.
It's disgusting.
I can't drink it.
Wait a second.
Wait, wait, wait.
Why did you buy it if you don't like tea?
Well, the reason why I bought it, because you kept saying it's the best stuff in the whole world.
It is.
And so, you know, I got it yesterday.
You know, I went home and I found the packages at the house.
I opened it up.
And so I tried the raspberry.
The most delicious thing I've ever tasted.
I'm telling you, you know what?
I've got, this is the, this isn't, all of this is exciting to me.
But I said, last Friday, when the first shipments began to arrive, I told everybody, I said, this is a big day because this is, we find out if people like in all the marketing in the world, it ain't going to work if people don't like it.
I love the raspberry.
Well, thank you.
Thanks very much.
Folks, we do too.
I mean, we, Catherine and I, are among the expert tasters that chose these formulas, these recipes.
We spent months going through just these two.
We've got some additional flavors coming online eventually.
Nothing imminent, but they're in the pipeline.
But they are, I mean, we love them.
And we were very egocentric.
We did not, I'll tell you how we did this.
We did not sample these various formulas and say, well, I think people will like it that we did it on the basis of we liked it.
This raspberry, I liked it.
The diet raspberry, I liked it.
It's the best I tasted.
That's why I decided to go, I liked it.
And there's ego there because I'm saying if I liked it, everybody else will.
But it's a roll of the dice, a crapshoot.
I'm getting emails like yours, Tanner, from people who are going on and on about how it's the best tasting they've ever tasted.
And they really do mean it.
It's very gratifying.
It really is.
I appreciate your call.
You're welcome.
I took it to work one day.
I took it to work last night.
And, you know, I gave a couple bottles out.
And everyone loved it.
Everyone loved it.
And one person especially, he actually bought some took today, actually.
Well, God bless him.
Yes, I said, you're going to love it.
And they're like, no, the one reason they didn't want to try it is because the Maha Rushi was on it.
I'm sure.
I'm sure.
They don't want to try it because, you know, I don't blame them, but they love it.
I just want to let you know.
Tanner, I appreciate it.
And you like it, and you're not even a big fan of tea.
Nope, but I love the raspberry.
I think I'm going to order some more next week when I run out.
Well, I appreciate that.
Can't thank you enough.
We get emails, folks, about this.
And this really was a big test because all of the salesmanship and all the marketing and all that goes down the drain if people don't like the product.
And it turns out that that is not the case.
Dear Rush, I received my first shipment yesterday.
I purchased raspberry.
My wife is taking most of one case with her to work today to share at the office the one bottle that I opened and tasted and tasted and tasted.
You have been very dishonest about the taste.
You are not honestly telling us how good it is.
It is much better than you have described.
It is better than any other beverage, including adult beverages, that a person can find.
My only regret is that I've already lived 60 years without having had this tea.
Thank you very much.
It's from Lincoln, Nebraska.
It is good.
It is over the top good.
Two if by tea.
We have a website.
$23.
What?
You can use it as a mixer if you want.
I mean, it's suitable for any beverage consumption.
You are HR investigating the various formulations with adult beverages as mixed.
Well, go for it.
2.
T-W-O-2IFBT.com.
$23.76 per 12-pack.
That's how it's sold.
Free shipping.
You know what?
I heard somebody say nothing is free.
So what means people think we are factoring in the shipping cost, still making a profit and just saying free shipping.
Let me ask you a question.
Are you paying for the shipping?
You are not paying for the shipping.
The shipping is free.
I'm not going to give away trade secrets here, folks.
But at $23.76, it is a deal.
You are getting a deal given what's in this bottle, given the bottle, given the label.
It's a deal.
And it's well worth it.
If you go to the website right now, we're going to stock an entire town's 4th of July party with tea.
Well, not entire town, but look, you go there and you'll find out what we're doing.
We're going to have a truck roll in filled with two-it-by-tea to a qualified town's 4th of July party.
It's your job to tell us why your town deserves it.
And there's a form to fill out right there on the homepage at 2IFBT.com.
There's also a phone number if you're not computer literate or don't like ordering things on the computer online.
Number is 866-662-1776.
We have an official partner, the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
A sponsor partner here, and we're going to end up donating $100,000 a month to the MCLF people, which is a charity that provides college scholarships for the children of Marines killed in action.
So it's all explained and pictures and graphics.
And I really can't wait for you to taste it.
This guy says I didn't emphasize it enough.
It's tough to sit here and say, hey, my stuff's the best.
But it is, folks.
There's nothing like it out there.
ToifBuyTea.com.
And we'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen, now that the hoax, the climate change hoax, now that that has been exposed, what is Al Gore going to do?
He has made the leap.
He has made the leap to discredited crackpot overpopulation theories.
It's amazing.
The former Vice President of the United States, in an appearance on Monday in New York City, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.
And he offered some ideas about what might be done for women in the name of stabilizing population growth.
One of the things we could do about it is to change technologies, to put out less of this pollution, stabilize the population.
One of the principal ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women, Gore said.
You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children they have and the spacing of the children.
He is acknowledging he's got no interest, no intention of controlling any sexual urges, so women better be prepared to deal with guys like him.
And they better be able to have access to abortion or what have you.
There's much more to this.
I get to it.
We come back from our break here at the top of the hour.
But anyway, this is a descent, folks, into inanity.
Al Gore doing Paul Ehrlich now.
Overpopulation.
The key is women.
Women must be made to do the right thing in order to save the planet.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection