All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:37
May 6, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I knew it without knowing it.
I knew this is what they were thinking without knowing that they were thinking it, because I know these people.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh from the left coast.
Remainder of the week.
EIB on the road.
Of course, as long as I'm here, it does really matter where here is the phone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882.
So this is yesterday, Beverly Hills, outside the Beverly Hills Hotel.
During a protest against the hotel, which is owned by essentially the Sultan of Brunei, who is ratcheting up the enforcement of Sharia law in Brunei.
And so the gay and lesbian population here is outraged.
Finally over this.
And Jay Leno joined them.
And uh we've already played one Leno sound bite.
This this one goes by pretty fast in just six seconds.
Another excerpt from what he said at the protest yesterday.
Let's put it in perspective.
The people in the Beverly Hotel now are the Clippers.
The Sultan of Brunei is Sterling.
He actually went there, folks.
He actually went.
This is what you have to do in LA to get people to pay attention now.
You have to say that the people at the Beverly Hills Hotel are the Clippers, and the Sultan of Brunei is Donald Sterling.
This doesn't involve anything at the hotel yet.
The investment group from Brunei that owns it, the Sultan essentially, are ratcheting up the enforcement of Sharia law, which is a Muslim country in Brunei.
They haven't yet enforced it on the guests, or the employees, I don't believe the employees at the Beverly Hills Hotel, or the Bel Air, the Sultan owns.
Both of them.
Here are, by the way, just to bring you up speed.
Here are the ten countries where homosexuality may be punished by death.
Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, or Qatar, which is where Al Jazeera is, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates.
So Jay Leno, how many how many people are Sterling killed?
Those are the ten countries, and so far the only country I know of being protested by anybody is Brunei.
And the Sultan of Brunei.
And I've been wondering how long this was going to take.
Frankly, given the uh, shall we say punitive nature of Sharia when it comes to homosexuality?
I mean, it's not hidden.
It's right out there.
It's you can go buy a book for 20 bucks on Amazon and read it.
From their leading, do you know the Muslim Brotherhood has an academic think tank?
I forget the name of it up top of my head.
I've got it here somewhere.
The Brotherhood has an academic think tank, and you can read where the scholars there have written about this.
The Muslim Brotherhood, which of course, and let's go back while we're on the subject here.
Let us in light of Leno protesting, Ellen de Generis was there too.
Let's go back and and and listen to President Obama's.
Not listen, but I've given some excerpts of the famous Cairo speech and other things the president has said.
Number one, the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Number two, the sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.
President Obama said these things.
Three, we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the country's centuries to shape the world, including in my own country.
So this is the big Cairo speech.
As a student of history, I know civilization's debt to Islam.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.
Okay, here are the ten countries where homosexuality may be punishable by death.
Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania.
Not all of these are Sunni Muslim countries.
90% of the world's Muslims are Sunnis, but you get the Shiites make up the other branch.
But Islam is a proud tradition of tolerance.
Islam has always been a part of America.
We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.
These rituals remind us of the principles we hold in common in Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, the dignity of all human beings.
Again, the ten countries where homosexuality may be punished by death are Yemen, Iran.
Do I need to go any further here?
And yet the Sultan of Brunei, all of a sudden, has become Donald Sterling.
Now here.
It's just curious.
I'm I've I've been wondering.
I don't want to make more of this.
But uh I I've I've been wondering why they know mention.
Why no anger?
Why no?
And now there is.
Let's move on to the White House now, and the re-establishment of climate change and global warming as one of the new primary impetus of the White House because it offers the president opportunities to be dictatorial.
Executive orders and executive actions.
Now, John Podesta was dragged out yesterday to all of a sudden make some comments about this.
John Podesta was Bill Clinton's chief of staff, and he's over at a think tank.
I think it's the Center for American Progress.
I get them confused.
Think Progress, Center for American Progress, Advanced Liberal, Center for American Progress, yeah.
But he's back in the uh in the Obama White House, and he has been back since December of last year.
And I want to take you back, December 11th, last year, and just replay for you what I said about why they were bringing Podesta back.
Why is Podesta really there?
Obama has now lost his trustworthiness.
He has lost any hope of majority support for the American people for his agenda.
Obamacare has wiped that out.
It really has.
So you bring in Podesta to deal with that.
And how do you deal with that?
You attack Republicans, but you basically say to hell with the will of the American people.
And you just do what you're going to do, despite the Constitution, despite the law, you just do it.
To hell with popular support for it.
Be nice if you had it, but now that you don't, still not going to derail the agenda.
So you bring in the consiglieri.
You bring in the muscle.
That's what Podesta is.
So let's go to the sound bites.
Here's Podesta at the White House daily press briefing.
He spoke, and during the QA, reporters said you mentioned the energy efficiency bill moving through the Senate.
I was wondering what level of concern you have that Republicans are going to try to push back on some of the carbon emissions regulations of that bill.
And what work, if any, you guys are doing to shore up Democrats in the Senate on this issue.
They'll find various ways, particularly in the House, to try to stop us from using the authority we have under the Clean Air Act.
All I would say is that those have 0% chance of working.
We're committed to maintaining the authority and the President's authority to ensure that the Clean Air Act is fully implemented.
They may try, but I think that there are no takers at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Translation, the Clean Air Act permits us to do whatever we want to do.
And we're just going to do it and to heck with anybody who wants to get us to stop.
They bring in Podesta to do this because Podesta hasn't lost any credibility.
With the left, with the Democrats, Podesta is loved and adored.
And all the respect to the work is this guy, even though he looks like he weighs 25 pounds.
He's the muscle.
I don't know.
He strikes fear in the hearts of anybody who might stand in his way, including in the Democrat parties.
Up next was uh John King.
This is on CNN's New Day Today, speaking with the AP White House stenographer, whose name is Julie Pace, and Ron Fournier of the National Journal.
And John King says, why did they wait so long to get into global warming?
Why didn't they do this in the first term?
That's a question we've been asking about.
Actually, a lot of issues when the White House talks about this year of action that they're having.
You know, if these things are so important, why didn't you do them earlier?
The President has missed an opportunity to really seize one of the most important issues facing our globe.
He had eight years.
Why don't you start sooner well?
As you know, it is a critical issue for the globe.
I mean, it's just amazing.
It's nothing we can do anything about.
They don't even know if there's anything critical happening.
I'm struck.
I really am.
I I read so much, and I read a lot of things written by young people, and they've just absorbed it, just they've they just have believed everything about this, and they've got themselves convinced that it's all science and it's all scientific and that it is just incontrovertible.
That the world is in the process of being destroyed by advanced populations.
And it's therefore the responsibility of advanced that would be capitalist Western civilizations.
It's up to us because we've been doing the greatest damage.
These people have just accepted it.
And if you're a leftist and you hear an issue that's going to advance your agenda, you'll glom onto it, and that's what's happened here.
Now, the real reason while Obama's going to it now is because they've got to do something to get vote turnout up for the for the midterms in November.
They are in bad shape.
And they are really bugged by that USA Today story yesterday that had to pew center and USA Today poll.
There's a number, and I want to reinforce this.
By a margin of 65% to 30%, voters want the next president to pursue different policies than those of President Obama.
Do you know what that means?
That is as chilling for the Republican establishment as it is for Obama.
What that is saying, we don't want any amnesty, we don't want any of these Democrat issues or Republicans to take it.
We don't want any.
We want pushback against what's happening now.
We want pushback against Obamacare, we want pushback against amnesty, illegal immigration reform.
We want pushback on what's happening with the economy, 65 to 30 percent in essentially a drive-by media institution poll.
Of all the things in that poll, this one's scary to the 65 to 30 percent voters want the next president to pursue different policies than those of Obama.
And then there's another question in the same poll, or a previous poll last week, which by similar number wants the next Congress to be comprised of people who will oppose what's going on the last eight years.
So the reason they're circling back to climate change, a, there's a lot of money in it.
A lot of donors from out here on the left coast will give big to advance this, and it scares people, it gets them to the polls, they think.
Uh it it it allows the Democrats to blame corporations and people that support corporations, people that run corporations, and the mythical Republicans that are in bed with corporations when actually it's Obama who is.
And the the whole the whole point of this is to gin up the same kind of fear they hope to gin up in the uh single woman mother category and and uh minorities, because they can't and it also gives Obama an issue.
There isn't a single issue that the Democrats can run for re-election on in the upcoming midterms.
Not a single one.
Everything they've done has blown up on them.
The only way what's happening now is not a failure is if Obama intended this.
And since most people don't even want to contemplate that, just look at it the other way.
Everything they've done has been an absolute failure.
There's not one issue that they can point to and say, reelect us for more of this.
And the polling data, we don't want any more of this.
We want people going to stop this.
Ergo, let's get an issue.
Climate change, global warming, algorithm, movies.
Uh the media will be all in.
So this is they're simply circling back to something that they think is one of their core issues that will drive turnout.
And also, same token, permit Obama to exercise dictatorial powers with his executive orders, as you will hear in further sound bites when we come back.
Now, if you look at the polling data on uh on global warming, which I just circled back, looked at latest Gallup numbers, only thirty-four percent of the American people care about it.
It's not a big issue to a lot of people, which is another reason they're circling back to it to try to make it fun.
It's it's it's a golden oldie for them.
Do you remember?
If you are a baby boomer, you remember growing up with the fear of a nuclear bomb hitting your school.
You remember when they taught you how to sit under the desk to protect yourself if the Russians launched a nuclear missile at your school.
Duck and cover, remember all of the bomb shelters people were building in their backyards and so remember how they scared the hell uh uh kid now that was real.
The Russians did indeed have nuclear bombs aimed at us.
I'll never forget what was her name, Laura Durham was on Donahue when after literally in hysterics, talking about people just didn't know what it was like to be a young person growing up with the fear of nuclear holocaust.
Yeah, we do, because now they've transferred that to global warming, except it isn't real.
But if you remember how frightened you were about being nuked, well, just transfer that to the youths of today in global warming, and that's exactly how they're pulling this off.
Except there's really nothing to be scared of.
The earth is the earth, the climate's the climate, the universe is the universe, and we are just passing through.
And they're not an earthly thing we can do about it.
Idea we're causing it's absurd.
So is the idea of fixing it that's not broken anyway, and nobody can prove it is.
I've got to get to the phones.
I just realized we're halfway in and I haven't gone there.
So let's start in McLean, Virginia.
Mike, welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you.
All right, Mr. Limbaugh.
Last time I called you mock me as part of the liberal castrati.
And I guess I still haven't learned my lesson because I'm still struck by the implausibility and self-contradictory nature of your arguments.
I've got two examples from what you've talked about today.
On climate change, I don't know how all these scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, people that bother cell phones and the internet and space, can be engaged in a 25-year plot to take away our freedom.
I mean, if they're that smart, you would have thought they would have changed the topic by now.
But I think I'll be glad to explain it to you if you if you like.
I'd love for you to address it later on, but I really wanted to talk about uh your first story today about the.
Hey, it's about scoring money from government, number one.
It's about getting money from government, and it's it's about growing government, making it bigger so you can bleed off of it and get it.
That's what everybody wants.
You know, all all liberals want to be controlled by our government.
Well, the people you're talking about, the scientists and all these so-called people, this consensus that exists out there, and that's how they get their living.
By inventing cell phones and sending us into space and bringing us the internet and stuff like that.
They've increased more freedom.
They've given us more freedom.
They've given us more independence from the government.
Inventing self-doesn't mean that they're not.
Doesn't mean that they are not little skulls full of mush when it comes to political matters and are and are are malleable and bendable and shapeable and formable and flakable.
You're exactly right on that.
They are not political.
They just do the science and tell us what the science says.
You are the one that's political.
Al Gore says it's messed.
You got all these economics.
Isn't any science in it?
That's the whole point.
Nothing but computer models.
There's no science in it.
You know what why do you not reject it?
Why do you automatically accept it?
Just because you're told a bunch of scientists, you're exceeded people who invented cell phones.
I know what peer review is.
They can't prove it.
There's no proof to it, Mike.
It's all computer models.
There's no empirical evidence of anything they're saying.
That's why it's always 10 years from now, 25, 100 years from now.
Because it isn't happening now, Mike.
That's what the talk radio show hosts tell us.
That's what you tell us.
No, it's what is support to proof.
It's what is fire and they are not political.
You are, Russ.
Did climate scientists invent the cell phone?
I'm still confused about that.
What I'm saying is these are people, members of the National Academy of Sciences.
They are a corruptible political bunch.
Just like the IPCC is a political.
Everything you're citing has a political agenda to it.
And you're part of it.
Why don't you just admit it?
You're having great success with it.
If you are an avowed member of the new Castrati, that means you're a liberal and you are part of the agenda and you're advancing it by hook and by crook.
Why don't you admit what it is?
Russ, I went to engineering school and I went to law school.
So I do both.
I'm not sure.
Okay, well, why is it political?
Tell me something.
Why is global warming political?
Why is it a political issue at all?
Because Republicans are intent on protecting the fossil industry because ExxonMobil.
$900 billion.
ExxonMobil has a deal worth $900 billion with Russia to drill for oil in the Arctic.
$900 billion.
So the sequester was $900 billion.
So what?
We're gonna need oil, Mike.
That's the only there is no replacement for it.
There's not one drop of anything we can replace it with.
So did you hear that they're drilling for oil?
The Russians are partnering with Exxon, they're drilling for oil in the Arctic.
So what?
That's where it happens to be.
I just...
I'm just...
There isn't anything.
We're not close to replacing oil.
Not even close.
It's going to be, I don't know how long it's going to be.
But to these people, oil is the modern evil.
It just is then there's no thinking.
All of this is political.
They never address the fact that there's no evidence.
They've never addressed that the only concern for any of this is predictions in computer model.
Let me ask you if you're watching TV tonight and your local weatherman told you what the weather was going to be 25 years from today, would you believe it?
No.
So why do people believe what a computer model says is going to be the climate all over the world 25 years from now?
And the only way some people can be forced to believe it is if they politicize it and tailor the message to already existing political sensibilities and opinions, and then get people in groups that liberals happen to approve of, like world bodies like the UN or the IPCC or the National Academy of Sciences, every corrupt liberal interest group you can get them endorsing the idea and memo.
You turn it into a political issue, and it is unequivocally true.
You leave it as a science issue, and it doesn't exist.
It falls apart.
There are any evidence whatsoever.
And of course, my big question that nobody, no liberal has ever called here to try to explain to me, and I've the invitation's there every day.
Would somebody please explain to me how you know that the climate at this moment is what is natural, normal, was intended by God or Gaia or whoever.
And if you can if you can explain that to me, then maybe we can talk about why any change from what it is now is a crisis.
But why who says, how do you know that whatever the climate's doing now is what is normal?
Why is this the baseline?
And then after you explain that, you can tell me what caused any of the ice ages.
And then after you explain that to me, you can then tell me why those ice ages ended permitting us to live.
And then after you explain that, I'll give you something else I'm confused about that you can explain.
The point is, you can't, none of you advocates of global warming can explain any of this.
You cannot answer any of these questions.
So it has to be framed as a political issue.
And you have to use the usual liberal ingredients of fear-mongering and scare tactics and fascism and totalitarianism and force people, you get all your buddies to accept the premise of something that isn't happening.
You start young, you infect and infiltrate the minds of young, impressionable kids.
You get them scared to death that their world isn't going to exist by the time they become adults, and you got your own little army out there advancing your political agenda, and we're not even talking about science.
And that's all this is.
Next you can tell me why in 1979, Newsweek's cover was the coming ice age.
And then five years later, all of a sudden I'm watching this week with David Brinkley and the hell with the ice age, and now we're talking global warming in 1985.
And we only had 20 years back then, in 1985.
We only had 20 years.
If we didn't deal with it in the next 20 years, which have come and gone, we weren't going to be here.
And you can explain to me how in 1988 I was told we only had 10 years to save the oceans.
Last I looked, they're still there.
And there's an airplane in them that CNN can't find.
So everything that you people on the left have been saying politically or quasi-scientifically about this is absolutely just a bunch of BS.
Unprovable and only survivable if you turn it into a political issue as you have and tailor it to fit your already prejudiced, bigoted notions of your enemies, corporations, conservatives, religions.
Anything it has to do with God cancels out everything you believe, right?
So you've got to get rid of that too.
And so it just burns me up that they've got so many young people scared to death that the world's not going to be here when they grow up.
Traumatized over this?
And they're using fraudulent pictures of polar bears on little pieces of ice that were just made up, which has been proven, by the way, and uncovered.
Look, I'm going to stick with the phones here, because if I don't get back to the phones, I could do the rest of this program and tomorrow's with what I just have here.
I told you it might be a while before we get to your favorite news story.
So stick with the phones to be polite to people who've uh called at my invitation.
They're holding on.
Go to South River, New Jersey.
This is Walt.
Thank you for waiting and welcome to the program.
Hi.
How are you doing, Rush?
A uh Fallout shelter baby boomer here.
Anyway, uh my take on this uh Hillary situation.
Well uh well, well, what what Hillary situation?
Uh well, uh the Linsky uh's kind of coming out.
Right.
The Monica situation.
Knowing what we know now about her, I really don't think she gave a rat's tail about Bill.
She's just looking out for her own political future.
Uh you mean Hillary or Monica?
Uh Hillary.
Oh.
Hey, Walt, I don't mean I don't mean to sound like a smartass here.
But when did you when did when did you think she did care about Bill?
Oh, I don't know.
They they never spent too much time together.
I think it was only I think a lot of that was only a show.
That's a political arrangement.
It has been ever since she agreed to give up everything and move to Arkansas.
Absolutely.
I uh, you know, occasionally, you know, you saw them going to church and holding hands, but I mean, you know, when the heck were they ever together?
Look, I I think that the look at I who knows, you know, how how people uh define love and a relationship, this kind of thing.
But it's mutually beneficial to these people in in their professional lives to hang in there and be tough and and defend each other, because if one drops, the other one goes.
They they have to prop each other up for both of them to have a political life.
Now, after all this time together, they either hate each other's guts or there is just there's there's something else.
There's uh uh the whole attitude of we can't live without each other, we can't be in the day we may see other people do whatever we do, but the end of the day we're always gonna be a couple at some point in Chappaqua.
Uh who know I you know, trying to analyze those kinds of things is that's that's a fool's game, but the the the business aspect of this.
Um if Hillary back in the Jennifer Flowers uh Arkansas days, if Hillary wanted, look what she did.
Remember now.
At the time, the left was saying that this woman could write her ticket coming out of Wellesley, writing term papers on Saul Alinsky proving that she got it.
He was uh knockout lawyers, I mean this brilliant woman, smartest woman in the world, and then she married this guy and they go to Arkansas and she gave all that up.
Now I guarantee you that the only way she was going to have any political future was making sure he did.
And that's why the bimbo eruptions, all that had to happen.
Whatever happened, nothing not no political harm could come to Bill or else it would descend on Hillary too.
Now, is that love?
I don't know.
Who could who know?
I mean it's it's uh Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Life makes strange bedfellows.
Here is Jeanette in Effort, Pennsylvania.
Hi.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I'm a loyal listener since September twelfth, twenty twelve.
I used to be a hybrid liberal, but you've turned me around.
Thank you.
That is such great news.
I uh wanted to comment on the Condoleezza Rice uh situation with regard to Rutgers.
My son is a graduate of Rutgers, and I attended his graduation in 2010.
At that time, Governor Christie was a keynote speaker.
And you know, his uh his policies on education, he was trying to balance the budget and cut back here and there, and he was unpopular for his cuts regarding education.
So at that time, in the middle of the graduation, he was giving a wonderful speech, you know, with the that the students should have listened to because he talked about, you know, perseverance, hard work and the usual important things that the kids should hear.
And he and people actually booed him.
And I just stood up and applauded him.
I don't agree with everything that Governor Christie says or does, but he has actually accomplished something.
So my comment on Condoleezza Rice is she should consider herself blessed that she's not going to speak there because she would be booed, and it would be very unfortunate.
The losers in all of this are the students.
They need to hear from her because she's an accomplished woman.
And particularly the females, uh, the female graduates really need to hear from someone who has actually accomplished something.
That's why the professors can't allow it.
Well, my son, who then graduated in 2010, is now uh PhD candidate up in a very liberal Ivy League school, which I will not mention.
And i he's submerged in a very liberal environment, and he and I argue a lot on a lot of issues, but he's coming around.
And my Mother's Day present this year is going to be that both of my sons who are both millennials have to listen to you for one whole week.
That's not enough.
You need six weeks.
I'll take it.
I'll take it.
Well, I don't know that I'll get six weeks, but I'm going to ask for the one week.
I have a twenty-year-old and a twenty-six-year-old.
And recently my twenty-six-year-old is in the liberal environment up at the Ivy League school.
He's a very bright kid academically, but you know, we disagree on a lot of issues, and it a lot of it is age related.
I mean, I'm a baby boomer, and you know, my parents are from, you know, the the greatest generation.
My dad served in uh World War II.
And my son recently had made a comment about how his generation doesn't have the same opportunities as my father did.
Right.
And I said to him, Do you know that your grandfather at age fifteen had no running water while living in New York City?
He worked three jobs for most of his life.
He was a New York City bus driver.
Has that had any impact on him?
He thought about it, yes.
He did think about it.
Um, you know, my husband and I work very hard to provide an education for both of the boys.
So there is hope rush because they will appreciate it.
There's no they they they're gonna appreciate it at some point in our lives.
They uh they will.
Um I want Mr. Snerdley to get your number.
We need to coordinate the weeks here.
Not that we're gonna do anything special, I just want to know.
Um yeah, we'll and very yeah, Jeanette, very quickly.
Are you a a subscriber to my website, Rush 247?
I'm not a subscriber.
I do.
Well, you are now.
We're gonna make you a subscriber, and they can go there after they listen, before they listen, as any time and find out what really happens here.
There are transcripts every day of what is really said here.
And in addition to the week, We'll coordinate where they win it just just because I just want to know, I'm gonna tailor anything to them, I just want to know.
Um, and then we're gonna make you a subscriber to Rush 24-7 newsletter, so they will have that as a resource to back up, and you will too.
You know, you tell them about what happens here, well, you can prove it.
You can go there and show them everything that exists.
So, Jeanette, I appreciate it.
Uh it's it's you're a great call.
I wish I had more time.
I'm really over it here.
I gotta get out of here.
But I I thank you again so much.
We will be right back.
Don't go away.
Fred in Memphis.
It's great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush, long time listener.
Really is a pleasure to speak with you.
How are you?
Thank you, sir.
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
Good, good.
Calling in response to the uh fellow who called about 20 minutes ago who claimed to be an engineer uh and his familiarity with the uh scientific method.
Uh well the scary thing is he may well be.
That's the scary thing.
He might be an engineer.
I'm not disputing it.
Uh, but uh if he truly is, my background is uh electrical engineering.
Uh and if he's familiar with the scientific method, there's there's two issues that I think need to be brought up.
First of all is the uh accuracy of the data set uh that they're working from.
And I'm not talking about in recent years and the environmental uh uh changes or the site changes associated with individual peppermeasuring, but I'm talking about the measuring devices themselves and their ability to be read accurately.
And that may seem a little esoteric because I'm not technical, so I'm not gonna get into all that gibberish, but I mean imagine reading uh going back to the days before digital readouts when you've actually got to uh measure temperature off of an analog gauge.
You've got inaccuracy in the gauze itself, and on top of that, you have an accuracy in in taking the actual reading by eye.
And if you don't have a uh uh a consistent and reliable data set, then you you have a handicap to begin with.
So that's the first issue.
But again, I g that may seem a little bit.
Yeah, but you see that's not typical.
They don't even deal with it.
See, this is where we're getting caught.
You're you're trying to refute something that's not even scientific.
I get into arguments with scientists all the time.
You're dealing with a political issue, and you're trying to refute these people on the basis of their science, they're not using science.
They would say what you just said, they would say doesn't matter.
Our models are telling us in the next 15 or 20 years are gonna be excellent.
We can't afford not to trust it.
It's a a total, total political issue.
And until our side starts dealing with them politically, we're gonna be playing on their turf if we try to refute them scientifically.
That is my humble opinion.
Be right back.
It is the fastest three hours in media for a reason.
And they go by just like that.
Like I say, I've gotten I haven't even gotten to half of this stuff yet.
I'm gonna try.
We've got a lot still to do.
Squeeze your phone calls in.
The point is we're nowhere through, nowhere near going through all the excitement and the fun.
▲
Export Selection