All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
September 23, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is really unreal.
They just don't stop.
They just keep coming at us full speed ahead.
Obama, as we speak, is addressing the United Nations on something that is not happening.
Climate change.
And he is announcing all of his support for new regulations on limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.
And just it is an upside down world.
Hi, folks, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh as always in fine form here at the EIB network behind the Golden EIB microphone, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and a phone number 800 282882.
Let me go through a little exercise in logic, okay, which we are in sad short supply.
A person predicts global warming every year for 20 years, man-made global warming due to one.
The predicted increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I should I should precede this by pointing out that I know for you true believers, you're not going to believe this.
But there is no hard evidence of global warming, period, man-made or otherwise.
The only basis for even talking about this is the predictions spewed out by computer models.
The only quote unquote evidence of global warming is what models are predicting the climate and the weather will be in the next 50 to 100 years.
Now what those models spit out is only as good as the data that's put in.
And it's an absolute, in terms of science, it's a total joke.
There is no warming, global or otherwise.
And there never has been.
They're not predicting global warming based on what's happened in the past.
They're basing it on what their computer predictions say, and nothing more.
And the agent that is causing this that isn't happening is CO2.
Carbon dioxide created by man in his smokestacks and his SUVs and his factories and his cars, and his exhalations in breathing, because what we exhale is CO2, so just our existence is destroying the climate.
Okay, so that's the umbrella under which the following logic is made.
CO2 is it.
CO2 and the computer models.
So a person predicts global warming every year for 20 years due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And get this.
For each of those 20 years, there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
For twenty consecutive years, CO2 levels jump dramatically every year.
However, during those same twenty years, there is no actual warming.
There is no increase in global temperature.
For twenty years, even though all that CO2 has been spewed and belched into the atmosphere, there isn't any warming.
Therefore, the person, people, whatever, predicting global warming for any reason has been wrong for twenty consecutive years.
Every year for 2 years.
The supporters of this theory have been wrong.
As wrong as it's possible to be.
That means that the person predicting global warming is not credible and does not deserve to be listened to.
Because that person hasn't been right.
That person has been...
as wrong as that person could be for 20 years.
Therefore, the debate about global warming due to increased levels of CO2 is, in real terms, over.
Except that it's not.
Because as we speak, the President and the Secretary of State are at the United Nations telling everybody of the threat of global warming because of CO2 emissions, and how we, as a leading economic industrial nation, have got to cut back, or else it's end times for our planet.
Yet it isn't.
There isn't any warming.
Virtually everything, I don't care how scientific they sound, I don't care how scientifically care, I don't care.
They're wrong.
They've been as wrong as it's possible to be.
But that doesn't matter.
You know why?
Because the global warming advocates care.
And those of us pointing out how they're wrong obviously don't care in their view.
We don't care.
So it's not about fact.
It's a political issue, and they're going to sell this lie like they've sold every other lie.
You know, David Brooks has a column in the New York Times.
It's an a lot of people have responded tweeting about this.
Because it's just over the top, it's asinine.
One of the things Brooks is lamenting that we as a society have lost our self-regard.
We have lost our self-confidence.
We've lost respect for ourselves.
We refuse to accept the uh the realities of the joys of being governed by big government, caring government, and so forth.
And then he said, this is one of the things people are tweeting.
There hasn't been.
He said a major piece of legislation in God knows how long, and there doesn't look like there is any to come.
Has he never heard of Obamacare?
What the hell is Obamacare if it's not a major piece of legislation?
But beyond that, the supposed conservative columns at the New York Times worried that there isn't any major legislation coming, and because of that, we don't have any hope.
The conservative columnist of the New York Times.
hasn't been a major piece of legislation in God knows how long, and there isn't any in sight.
What was Obamacare?
Major legislation?
These are the kind of people, this is the kind of thinking that is leading this country right now.
And it's why we are so challenged.
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, I made this point yesterday, and it's in the news again today.
John Kerry had a bunch of foreign leaders at the State Department to talk about ISIS and what our upcoming action is going to be, and he actually told them that global warming is a bigger threat to the people of this country than even is ISIS.
And he's back the news media covering it today.
This is the Hill.com, Secretary of State John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said the threats posed by climate change should be addressed with as much emediacy as confronting ISIS and the Ebola outbreak.
During a meeting with foreign ministers on Sunday, Kerry said global warming is creating climate refugees.
Kind of like Christians running for their lives from ISIS.
There are no climate refugees, folks.
And the LA Times, I don't know what happened out there, but the LA Times has a story today that just totally destroys the global warming advocacy.
And it's been repeated.
Actually, it comes from the journal precedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
And this report from the journal, proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Says that the warming trend on the left coast over the last 100 years was not caused by human activity, but rather by a change in wind.
Now, the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is an approved peer group leftist bunch.
The LA Times repeated this.
I don't know how this got past their editors, because this totally debunks a major spoke of the wheel of global warming.
This cuts out a major one of the legs of a three-legged stool.
To say that man-made global warming is not at all responsible for the warming trend the last century in the West.
It's wind.
Using independent data from 1900 to 2012, researchers showed the temperature change is primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation.
That would be wind for those of you in Rio Linda.
And this, they wrote, presents a significant reinterpretation of the West's recent climate change origins.
Surface winds and wind-driven ocean currents have large effects on temperatures in and around the Pacific Northwest and the Northeast Pacific Ocean.
They dominate the overall temperature variability and also account for a large fraction of the warming trend.
So it's not your SUV.
It isn't your smokestack.
It isn't your light bulbs.
It's not your stupid hairspray.
It's not the fact that you don't recycle.
It's none of that.
It's the wind.
And I'm telling you, folks, I don't know anybody who claims to control it.
They say that George Bush steered Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, but I have never heard anybody claim that they have control over the wind, where it blows, and how strong.
And where it comes from.
Have you?
Okay, so we could conclude that they even the radicals have not laid claim for man being responsible for the wind.
Here comes the proceedings of the National Academy of the evidence every day.
Folks, this is I'm telling you, it is one of the most amazing sights to behold.
There isn't any.
There hasn't been any global warming, not man-made, there isn't any of any kind.
The number one agent causing it has increased in volume exponentially, CO2, and there hasn't been any warming.
And yet they're still pushing it if there's no other way to convey you've got to believe that this is all politics.
It can only be politics keeping this alive.
And it is a politics that intentionally insults the intelligence of people and preys on the stupid and the dumb and the weak.
Intentionally, in order to gain popular support.
And by that I mean they focus on people who have, in their own estimation, meaningless lives.
They're wondering what their purpose is.
Why am I here?
Why am I driving this clunker car?
Why can't I go to good job?
Why am I here?
And then all of a sudden, those people here, they can save the planet.
Now that big.
You go from mattering not at all to being a key ingredient to saving the planet, you sign up right then, and you do whatever, and then you let everybody know you're doing it.
So you go buy a Prius and you go support all this mad cap crazy stuff, and you become an evangelist and you are saving the planet, and your new life has meaning, and that's what I mean by praying on the weak, the dumb, the stupid.
How many times have you heard anybody on TV who's being interviewed for some achievement, some accomplishment for some reason?
And the person, usually a Hollywood actress, but uh it can be anybody.
I want to make a difference.
How many times have you heard that?
Well, that's what they pray on.
I want to make it.
You want to make a difference?
Fine.
You can save the planet.
Now you've helped destroy it.
We know you didn't mean to.
But you unwittingly, by driving the car you drove or eating McDonald's, you know, eating you, whatever you, you were destroying a planet.
But now you can atone.
You must vote Democrat, Support big government, the welfare state, and cut back on progress.
And if you do all that, we'll love you, we'll take care of you, just vote for us, and you can save the planet.
And that's how they prey on them.
And they can make a difference.
Hitler made a difference.
Stop and think about that the next.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man behind the golden EIB microphones serving humanity.
And animal kind as well.
Simply by being here and being a nice guy and polite.
Respectful.
Muncie, Indiana next, this is Dan.
Great to have you, sir, on the uh program.
Hi.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
How are you doing?
I've been a long time listening and a big fan.
One question I had was that if uh the president's been announcing that we're not gonna have any boots on the ground, uh, what happens if one of our pilots gets shot down behind any enemy lines?
Um, who do we put these pilots' lives in the hands of?
Uh well, first reaction.
We say we're not going to put boots on the ground, but we also didn't announce beforehand that we were going to hit this Kardashian group.
Um, that this new terror group out there.
And that they that came out of the blue.
A lot of generals have been upset that Obama has been announced, retired generals.
Well, what are we doing announcing that the first day is going to be the most intense day?
Why do we what are we telling them this stuff?
So a lot of people think we're we're eventually going to have boots on the ground is where I'm leading with this.
A lot of people think that it's a head fake that we're eventually going to do it because you can't win without it, and that the generals eventually will prevail once Obama finds out that you can't accomplish what he's promised to accomplish with air power alone.
Now, as to the specifics of your question, I would just take you back to Benghazi.
Uh what efforts were made there.
I agree.
Yeah.
I mean, what I mean, what really bothers me is we've kind of, it seems to me like with this announcement of no boots on the ground, and that we're going to do it strictly by the air, we've lulled everybody into a false sense of security that nobody's in harm's way.
But these uh that's what that's what Clinton tried to do in Bosnia.
Hey, you know, Clinton to this day, I guarantee if Bill Clinton were listening last hour, when I said that there has never been in world history a full-fledged war won with air power.
I'm sure Clinton was out there yelling at the radio, hey, hey, hey, wait a minute, I did it.
I did it, don't forget about me.
Is that Bosnian war out there, and I fought that Kosovo, whatever, Kosovo, Bosnia, whatever it does.
I fought that war at 35,000 feet, and I I was victorious, and we didn't lose a single soul out there.
And and it can be done because I have shown, don't give me this business Obama's gonna be the first one to do it.
Obama's a hick.
Obama, he's a pretend.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
I did it.
I can imagine Clinton be saying that.
Well, Clinton did.
They remember they made a big deal of conducting the war from 35,000 feet.
Wesley Clark, I mean Wesley Clark.
And they had the do you remember that war, the Kosovo war.
Had the greatest spokesman, you know, wars have spokesmen, the White House has a spokesman.
They got a guy that goes and briefs the media.
And this guy was from Belgium or some such, I think, and his name was Jamie, something or other.
And I just love listening to this guy.
He'd go to the microphone, and his favorite phrase was to announce the name of some generals.
He said, our forces there, under the command of General Archibald Duke, our forces.
And I just, I was, and the the press is teeth, you know, accepting it's all in to soaking it all in.
And what forces?
We're fighting this thing from 35,000 feet.
Our own president, by the way, it wasn't ours.
It was a NATO operation.
Don't forget that.
We didn't lay any claim to it.
It was a NATO operation.
Clinton's base wouldn't allow him to go to war, so we did it under the auspices of NATO.
And that's what this guy, he was the NATO spokesman, Jamie something.
Ah forcies there, under the command of Major General III, Archibald, Reginald Gleeson.
And I'm thinking all along, no, Bell, we don't have any forces there.
You know, we're we're doing this in 35,000 feet.
But I'm sure I'm sure that uh Obama is attempting to accomplish much the same kind of thing, no casualties.
I mean that's the objective.
The object the objective is to get a media report that says there are no casualties.
Now, seriously, uh Dan, your question about uh about a pilot shotdown.
Look, these guys they they know what they're getting into.
And there are survival techniques taught and this kind of thing.
But Jamie Shea was NATO's Jamie Shea was a spokesman for NATO.
I just uh uh I'm I I'm sure that that the military has plans steps, procedures to try to rescue pilots should they should they be shot down.
I don't I don't think that's gonna depend on on boots on the ground.
And we'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh.
Doing what I was born to do, and that's why this is more fun than a human being should be allowed to have audio sound bites.
I'm gonna I'm trying to do better at mixing in all the elements that uh that I have here.
I'll tell you what, Grab since I've talked about it, grab soundbite number one.
Remember, we talked about this, babe.
Either late last week or or yes, Naomi Klein.
She's got a new book out that admits it literally admits that the global warming movement is totally devoted to anti-capitalism.
Finally admits it.
And of course, the left is hailing the book.
She has written a couple books prior to this that are that are also extreme left wing.
But this one they're celebrating because apparently they like the fact that they can be honest that what they're doing here is trying to destroy an economic system.
And that capitalism is responsible for all of the war, capitalism responsible for all the inequality, the inequity, the unfairness, the discrimination, the divide between haves and have nots, the divide between rich and poor, capitalism's a reason there are Republicans.
That alone is reason enough to do away with capitalism.
Capitalism's the reason there's a Tea Party.
That's reason alone to get rid of it.
There's a capitalism's a reason why they're concerned.
We got to get rid of capitalism.
She pretty much admits it in the book.
So she was on the radio yesterday, uh NPR, and the host was a guy named Tom Ashbrook.
Now, Naomi Klein is a contributing editor at Harper's.
And the the host said to her, if you listen to right wing talk radio, conservative talk radio, this is exactly what they always have warned about.
They said the environmentalists want to take away your pickup truck.
They want to take away your free market.
And I, by the way, since they're talking about me here, have said that militant environmentalism.
And I'm not talking about you people driving in an electric car because you want to save the planet.
I'm talking about the militants for militant wacko environmentalists.
Environmentalism is the new home for displaced communists once the Berlin Wall fell.
As if look at where Gorbachev went.
Gorbachev actually formed something called the Green Cross.
What do you think it is?
And they actually gave him some real estate at the Presidio in San Francisco to house his headquarters or or base of operations or whatever.
I don't know if it's still there.
Green Cross.
So anyway, he says to, okay, look, you've written a book here, and you're admitting it's exactly what the right wing has always said about you, you environmentalists.
So how do the politics of this work out, Naomi?
Planning is a dirty word in post-Reagan America.
I spent time with the climate change deniers on the right.
They have understood for a very long time that if the climate science is true, and we need to cut our emissions as much as scientists are telling us we need to, and if indeed industrial capitalism is destabilizing the life support systems that we all depend on, then their ideological project of pushing forever so-called freer markets and a vilifying collective action as quasi-socialists, which I think the basic talking points of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, that they're in big trouble.
And so they face a choice.
Either they accept the science and then have to challenge their worldview, or they deny the science and their worldview is intact.
And they are choosing to do that for obvious reasons.
I I am not denying the science.
You are.
There isn't any science that says there's man-made global warming.
Notice this passage here.
If indeed industrial capitalism is destabilizing the life support systems we all depend on.
Naomi, it is the capitalist system which has allowed this country to feed and clothe the world and to rush to any far corner of the globe to assist in disaster relief.
It is capitalism that has created a country.
This is what bugs them.
This this statistic that I have for you here, this is what gnaws at them.
The United States.
Stop and think of this for a second.
I always ask a question when I when I do do a speech, I haven't done any in years, but but when I do them, I always ask the audience to stop and actually consider something.
How is it possible?
How did it happen that a nation of 250, now 300 million people, in less than 250 years came to create half of the world's wealth.
We have been around hundreds of years less than other countries or civilizations that were around thousands of years.
Now we aren't any better DNA wise.
There's nothing superhuman about us.
So what is it that has allowed, what is it that that resulted in the United States creating, not stealing, creating half of the world's wealth, 50%.
And that's what gnaws them.
They hate that that's true.
They think that's inherently unfair.
It's not right.
It isn't fair that one country should hate so much.
And so they chalk it up to the inherent unfairness and inequality of capitalism.
That's what Obama believes.
We didn't create that wealth, we stole it.
We went around the world and we took it from people under the guise of going to war and liberating them, but we took what they had.
Yeah, that's how we did it.
If the United States had never been a capitalist country, and if Naomi Klein's preferred view of the world had happened, we wouldn't be a superpower.
There wouldn't be any life support system that we all depend on.
Everybody socialism, a bunch of dictators would be in charge of it, and they'd be feeding themselves and they're cronies, and everybody else will be fighting for crumbs, which is the way it is in every communist or socialist country.
And I'm not making it up.
I mean, look at you go live at Cuba if you want, go to Chicom's if you want, go get pick pick any socialist country you want and live there if you I mean it this none of this is being made up.
And the scientists are just dead wrong here.
They're all been politicized.
Just we just discussed this.
There hasn't been any warming for 20 years, yet the CO2 emissions, the number one agent of it, they have increased by dramatic numbers.
It's a total it i in in in scientific terms it's a hoax.
For the left, it isn't a hoax.
It's just a cause.
It's a religion to them.
You're never going to be able to talk them out of it.
I know some people in New York who went to the global warming march on Sunday, and they told me some of the signs they were carrying, try to talk to it.
They're not, you can't talk to them.
It it would be like trying to convince a Christian that Jesus never lived.
No matter what evidence you think you've got, you just can't talk to them.
You can't reason With them.
It's not about fact.
It isn't about science, really.
It isn't about truth.
It's about belief and wanting a better world and mattering and a life with meaning and all of that extraneous stuff.
And they they take whatever their science frauds give them as ammunition, but it's not happening.
Furthermore, I got a polling result here somewhere in the stack.
Worldwide polling.
Global warming, it's the last item on everybody's list of things of importance.
I mean at number 20 and number 21.
So this is just an unbridled attack on capitalism, because they think it's inherently unfair.
They see capitalism destabilizing the life support systems we all depend on.
The exact opposite is true.
Capitalism is the life support system we all depend on.
The problem in the world can be boiled down to one stated fact, an inefficient, unequal distribution of capitalism around the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you are a longtime member of this audience, I wouldn't blame you.
If during some portion of today's program, you say, Rush, come on, could you get on to something besides global warming?
We've heard it for 26 years, and I hear you.
I would love nothing more than to move on from it.
But they keep dragging me back in.
Because they don't go away.
They keep coming with the lies and the distortions and the misrepresentations and the propaganda.
If I hadn't, folks, I'm gonna I'm gonna go out on a limb.
If I hadn't stayed devoted to the truth of this issue, we might have had a carbon tax years ago, and the wealth, the individual wealth in this country would be even less than what it is.
If Clinton had succeeded in getting his carbon tax the first thing he wanted in 1993, I'm with you.
I'm tired of talking about this, but I've got a responsibility here.
I get up every day and I look at what I believe in under assault, being attacked, including me, and I come here and defend it.
I mean, just today, this journalism, science, whatever it is, a peer-reviewed journal that has a lot of claims that the warming that's happened in the western part of the country for the past hundred years, all of a sudden it's not man-made, it's because of the wind.
There is no man-made global warming.
They're not going to give it up because it's not really about global warming.
But it's global, it's an anti-capitalist movement that uses global warming and how people can save the planet as its uh theory and it's a mechanism for advancement.
And so I'm sure you know people that believe every word of it.
And nothing you do can, and they're not particularly political.
Their kids have seen a little polar bear stranded on a three square foot cube of ice and think we're killing them.
Or maybe your kids have come home from school and accused you of killing the polar bears because the kind of car the family has.
It's a daily effort to beat these people back.
It's a daily political effort.
Here's more reason why.
Here's Obama at the United Nations.
He addressed the General Assembly.
Here's a portion of his remarks.
Worldwide, this summer was the hottest ever recorded.
With global carbon emissions still on the rise.
So the climate is changing faster than our efforts to address it.
The alarm bells keep ringing.
Our citizens keep marching.
We cannot pretend we do not hear them.
We have to answer the call.
We know what we have to do to avoid irreparable harm.
There's nothing you can do.
You can't stop.
Anyway, it isn't happening.
Worldwide this summer was the hottest ever recorded.
Tell that to the people freezing their butts off in the Hamptons.
They haven't been able to go to the beach without building a fire out there.
I mean, it hadn't been the hottest summer on.
This is how it's it's just they just keep lying.
This is what, folks, I hate to tell you, I mean, comparison here.
People like Obama, these huge statists, some people might say dictators.
The way these people operate, they rail against straw men, non-existent enemies.
And how about our citizens keep marching?
He says he's talking a bunch of lug heads.
You know, this is the Star Wars catena scene, Cantina scene there at the United Nations.
It's a bunch of thugs and dictators anyway.
And they're in there, and Obama's telling them the American people, our citizens keep marching.
Right.
What, how many?
500?
Yeah.
Even if it's a thousand, big whoop.
And then after establishing these straw men, these non-existent enemies, now it's time to attack them.
Let me be honest.
None of this is without controversy.
In each of our countries, there are interests that will be resistant to action.
And in each country, there is a suspicion that if we act and other countries don't, that we will be at an economic disadvantage.
But we have to lead.
That is what the United Nations and this General Assembly is about.
Now the truth is that no matter what we do, some populations will still be at risk.
The nations that contribute the least to climate change often stand to lose the most.
Why is that?
That's an excellent point that he swerved into, and I don't know that he knows he's making it.
Do you know who these climate change regulations, this dream of limiting carbon emissions, you don't?
You know how it's really going to affect?
Third world countries are going to be kept poor.
They are not going to be allowed economic growth.
The ChICOMs are never going to sign on to this, and the Indians are never going to sign on to it.
I mean the nation of India.
They're never going to sign on to this.
No growing economy is going to sign on to this.
It is a deaf knell for economic growth.
But the real point here is who are these people?
By the way, we just attack ISIS yesterday.
What's this guy doing?
Preaching about global warming at the U.N. Couldn't get a coalition out of these people, but now he wants it to raise carbon taxes on everybody all over the world.
And these are the same people claim there for the little guy.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and their cohorts all over the world.
They care about the downtrodden because, of course, capitalism is unfair and rewards the rich like the Koch brothers.
And the Koch brothers and the rich, they steal all the money and they take it from the poor and they never give it back, right?
So they have policies, the welfare state and whatever.
They've got because they're the ones that care.
They care about the little guy.
They care about the downtrodden, right?
If they succeed in implementing this, the little guy gets slammed, the third world, African nations already being decimated by Ebola, are going to be consigned to third world status forever because economic growth will not be permitted.
You cannot have economic growth without carbon emissions.
You just can't.
You can't have economic growth without industrial production.
You just can't have it.
And they won't.
And this is being done purposefully.
So Obama actually comes out and says, the nations that contributed the least stand to lose the most.
Actually, it's kind of a misnomer because the nations that contribute the least actually contribute the most.
Where there is poverty and where there is stagnation, there is often filth and pollution and just general yuck.
Because they don't have the means to clean up their messes.
We do.
So all of these things Obama and his buddies are dreaming about would keep poor people poor and never allow them a way up.
It would make wealthy nations poor.
And I know you said, well, why would anybody want to do this?
I know it's the eternal question of those of us with common sense and patriotism can't comprehend uh this kind of desire for power these people have.
But they did they they demand it.
They want they salivate over this kind of power to control as many people as they can.
And this dream to make everybody dependent on them as the source of their power.
It's hideous.
It's just hideous, but that's what this is ultimately.
Obama then went on to apologize for the U.S. He said there should be no question the U.S. is stepping up to the plate.
We recognize our role in creating this problem, and we embrace our responsibility to combat it.
We'll do our part and help developing nations do theirs.
We recognize our role in creating this problem.
▲
Export Selection