All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:41
March 26, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Everybody's still obsessed with the motive of the co-pilot on that German Wings plane crash.
Can anybody ever really know for sure what his motive was besides he wanted to die?
And it's probably pretty clear he wanted to kill everybody on the plane with him.
Isn't that pretty clear?
So we're going to search for motive.
That means, was he a religious extremist of some kind?
And if they can't find any guy, anything he's written or things like that, it's one of these things they're never going to know, but people are still obsessed by it.
Anyway, great to have you back here, folks.
Rushland bought 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
I checked the email during the break, and there were some people.
Surprised I didn't mention the Bo Bergdahl thing.
What we did yesterday, and frankly, probably shouldn't say this, the whole thing bores me.
Because it's all predictable.
Every bit of it was predictable, and we did predict it back during the first early stages of this.
And I will never forget, you know where I first heard of Marie Harf on this Bergdahl thing.
Way back when, everybody knew when Obama swapped the five Taliban members at Club Gitmo for Bergdahl.
We all knew he was a deserter back then.
Everybody knew it.
The regime's out denying it.
And that's where I first heard of Marie Harf, and I'd never seen her.
And this is State Department spokeswoman, and I'll never forget my reaction.
I thought a young 20-year-old college sophomore had been hired as a State Department spokesman.
She's out there.
She's impugning service members who served with Bergdahl in his unit who were telling everybody the truth about the guy.
And she was criticizing them in that Valley girl voice of hers.
Well, I think we are much more aware of what Tergen Bergdale than the people who served with him.
We are much more quiet.
You're what?
You're more qualified to know about Bergdahl and the people that served with him?
And I knew right then that the fix was in, and it didn't matter to Obama that Bergdahl had deserted.
That wasn't what this was about.
It never is.
It's like the latest from the Iran deal.
AP has an exclusive here.
The United States is considering letting Tehran go ahead and run hundreds of centrifuges at a once secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.
The trade-off would allow the Iranians to run several hundred centrifuges at its Fordo facility, although the Iranians would not be allowed to do work that could lead to an atomic bomber.
Oh, right.
That's what they tell us.
Meaning, our administration tells us, but don't worry, the Iranians are not going to be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
The hell they're not.
That's what this is all about.
You know it and I know it.
Just like we knew that Bergdahl was a deserter whenever this whole thing first came up.
We knew he was a deserter then while the White House denied it.
Now it's been confirmed he was a deserter and the White House is saying, well, there's no difference in what we said back then to what we're saying today.
We're played for fools and suckers every day by this administration.
So now we're being told that the Iranians are going to run refuges, or centrifuges rather, at a fortified site.
But don't worry, don't worry.
They're not going to be enriching uranium for nuclear war.
Why the hell run the centrifuges then?
And why are we going to let them have so many?
And while the U.S. is doing this In a development that has largely been missed by the drive-by media, the Obama Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a 336-page Defense Department document, top secret document, that details Israel's nuclear program.
This is a highly covert topic.
Israel has never formally announced, they have never formally, on purpose now, confirmed that they have the nuclear bomb.
There are many reasons for this.
At the top of the list is to avoid a regional nuclear arms race.
Without the official confirmation or admission from Israel that they've got the bomb, the other nations in the region that do not can't then say, well, hey, they've got it.
They've got it.
We should have one too.
It's always been in our arsenal to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon, never having confirmed the Israelis do.
Well, Obama's taken care of that.
We've just revealed it.
This is unprecedented.
And this is Obama.
I'm certain it's because his nose is out of joint because he thinks Obama, or he thinks Netanyahu disrespected him by showing up over here and giving that speech to a joint session of Congress.
By publishing the, and this document's all the way back 1987, folks, by publishing the declassified document, the United States has breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear capability for the first time ever.
This document details Israel's nuclear program in great depth.
Well, here we go.
We're in the midst of talking nuke with Iran.
We're being told that the Iranians are going to be able to get a nuke in 10 years, but we're going to try to talk them out of ever using it.
Now we've got an AP exclusive report that we are letting them ramp up their use of centrifuges.
And on top of that, we release a document that makes it official.
And in diplomatic circles, this is big.
I mean, common sense doesn't count in diplomacy.
What everybody knows to be true doesn't matter unless somebody actually admits it.
And nobody's ever admitted that Israel has nukes.
It's always been an assumption, and everybody's been pretty sure they do, but it has never been officially stated.
And now it has been.
The Obama regime has released it.
Well, do you know what the Iranians are going to do with that?
Exactly what you do when you find out your neighbor's got something that you covet.
Well, why can't I?
They've got it.
We are now threatened.
You have admitted that the Israelis have nukes.
We are entitled to our own as a defensive nature.
And Obama is going to say, how can we say no to that?
So I don't know.
I'm just, I'm kind of worn out analyzing this administration like any other administration has been analyzed day to day within the context of normal political discourse.
That's not how you have to look at this bunch.
And the same thing with this Bergdahl story.
Everybody from the get-go knew that Bergdahl was a deserter, that Obama didn't care.
But what he really wanted to do was close Gitmo.
And in order to do that, he had to get rid of the population there.
So he arranges this trade, Bergdahl, for five high-ranking Taliban members, and to hell with whoever or whatever Bergdahl was.
And then when it's discovered that Bergdahl was a deserter, they go up and lie about it.
And the press accepts the lie and promotes the regime's version of things so that everybody cools down on it and forgets about it.
And then sometime later, some months later, the truth pops up after all the emotion on the issue has been spent.
This is tried over and over.
It's the same way that they've gotten successfully implemented in various phases of Obamacare.
It's the same procedure.
Deny the truth, deny the truth.
The media supports you in your denial or your lie.
Something happens that you know is true, they're denying it.
Then months go by, you find out you were right months ago, but that was months ago.
You're on to other things now.
The emotion has been spent.
And so they get away with it.
They're getting away here with nuking up Iran.
But releasing this classified top-secret document, 1987, 300-some-odd page.
And by the way, they didn't release, they didn't declassify the whole document.
They only declassified the parts about the Israeli nuclear program.
You know, as Shakespeare might say, hell hath no fury like a narcissist scorned.
But I mean, this is over the top here, especially from a regime that pretends it wants to prevent a Middle East arms race.
They've now pretty much guaranteed one.
But the worst thing is, by officially confirming, and I know what some of you, come on, Russia, everybody knew the Israelis had nukes.
Everybody thought Israel had nukes.
In the world of international intrigue and diplomacy and all this, whatever you think you know doesn't matter.
Like, Iran has been denying for how many years they're working on nukes.
We all know they are.
But the official Iranian position is that they're not.
And until they say they are, they aren't, no matter what else we learn.
That's up to us to act responsibly in our own interests, which in the past has been to prevent them from getting a nuke.
That seems to be out the window now.
Seems to me our policy is, hey, if they want a nuke, they might be entitled to since the Israelis have admitted they have one.
When a nation admits something and everybody just assumes, that changes everything, because that then provides legitimacy to other nations, in this case who do not have a nuke, who think, okay, there's no doubt they've got one.
They can wipe anybody out they want.
It's unfair.
That's unstable.
It's a destabilized region.
And the only way we can stabilize the region is if other Middle Eastern nations have the bomb led by Iran.
And Obama will come along and, you know what?
That makes perfect sense.
And Madeline Albright would come along.
That makes perfect sense.
Israel alone in the Middle East with a nuclear weapon is indeed destabilizing.
How do I know this?
Because it was Madeline Albright who was upset.
The Berlin Wall came down.
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State for Clinton, Madeline Albright very upset when the Soviet Union went away as a superpower because she thought that represented or gave us a very dangerous world.
A very, very unstable world with the United States the only superpower?
That's very bad.
How can that be unless you don't have any concept of us as the good guys?
If the United States, as the lone superpower in the world, destabilizes the world, then you can't possibly believe that the United States is the solution to the world's problems.
In fact, it's the opposite.
You have to believe the United States is part of the problem.
Hello, and meet Barack Obama, who believes exactly that.
That's why he wants to transform America.
He thinks America is causing problems in the world and has caused way too many problems.
We've been responsible for way too much, many problems, discrimination, whatever it is, and it's time we've got cut down to size.
It's time that this got fixed.
We've had no right to tell nations what they can and can't have.
We have no right to act as the world's policeman.
We've had no right to do this or do that.
So if the Iranians want a nuke, who the hell are we to tell them they can't?
We'll do our best to try to persuade them not to use the nuke that they're going to get.
But with this declassification of this document on Israel's nuclear power, you can forget.
You can cast aside any notion you have of the United States trying to prevent the Iranians from getting their own.
You can wipe that out.
By the way, one more thing.
I'm going to get to the phones here in just a second.
Rather than go further on Bergdahl and the Iranian nuclear story, I've got to start getting some phones in.
Some people want to talk about things I've already talked about.
So to stay on point, we'll do that and delve further into this.
And we've got more Ted Cruz news today, and about Obamacare.
But I want to get to the phones so that people calling, they're talking about things I mentioned an hour ago, and I want to get to them before it becomes two hours ago.
But first, that site that the AP has exclusively revealed here, Iran may run centrifuges at fortified site.
U.S. considering letting Iran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This site, this underground bunker that Obama has agreed to allow the Iranians to continue to use, this site was only revealed a couple of weeks ago by an Iranian watchdog group.
We didn't know about this site three, four, five weeks ago.
The Obama team did not even know Iran had this covert underground site three weeks ago.
We only learned of it two weeks ago.
And yet we're trusting the Iranians to tell us.
Oh, no, we're not developing nuclear weapons.
We're only developing a nuclear power.
No, no, no, not us.
You have us confused with someone else.
Oh, sorry.
No, we are not going to develop nuclear weapons.
We're only going to develop for a nuclear power.
We have no desire to wipe out anyone.
I'm sorry, we've misunderstood you.
You mean the Israelis now admit to have a nuclear weapon?
Well, that changes everything.
Okay, then we are developing a nuclear power and weapons at this centrifuge site.
And you can't tell us we can't.
And that's how it works.
You have admitted to us that the Israelis have a nuclear weapon.
That changes everything.
Thank you, President Obama.
And it does.
Here is Carl in Wyoming as we get started on the phones today.
Great to have you, Carl.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call, man.
You bet.
Back to your spiel on airplanes.
I think with all of the carnage and catastrophe of each one of these passenger airplanes that goes down, each one of us has a survival instinct in us.
Somehow we think, gosh, we could have made it through that.
Where would I have been sitting?
What would I have done?
How could I have maybe helped prevent it or stop it?
You know, back to Let's Roll America.
But then, you know, you get what's called, I call the blender effect.
Like you turn on the blender and everything, and man, it's like you're not going to make it to this.
But I think every person has a basic survival instinct that's going to be.
You've been in a blender?
Well, no.
But looking at, you know, some of these airplane crashes, you know, man, it would have had to have been like a blender.
The towers coming down on 9-11 would have been a blender.
Man, no.
I see.
I see.
So your theory is, okay, we have news of a plane crashing into the side of the mountain, and we immediately imagine ourselves to be on it.
And what would we have felt?
What would we have done?
What would we have done to survive it?
How could we have helped?
Because our survivalist instinct, and that's why we're fascinated.
It could be.
It could be.
I don't.
I frankly don't know how many people imagine being on an airplane that crashes.
But it could well be.
I think people give thanks they're not, and I think people do wonder what it must have been like.
But I don't think they want to actually be part of it.
I just, I think he's calling, by the way, in response to, I asked an open-ended question last hour.
Why is it that a plane crash dominates news cycles for days when the number of people who die in a plane crash pales in comparison to the number of people who die in automobile wrecks every year?
And it's not just that a large number of people die at one time versus smaller numbers dying in auto accidents.
It's not just that.
There's something else.
And this is his attempt to answer the question, his philosophical answer.
Here is Gino and the Bronx.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
In one minute or less, here is an additional list of words, phrases, proper names, and topics that are banned for the bimbo from the New York Times.
Namely, Cattle Futures, Bonnie and Clyde, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Impeachment, Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick, the letters B and J in the alphabet,
Bent Penis, Slick Willie, Rose Law Firm, Travelgate, Whitewater, the vast right-wing conspiracy, Farlanderer-in-Chief, Slimeball-in-Chief, Lincoln Bedroom, Corporate Bagger Senator, Benghazi, emails, deleted emails, servers for emails, some little Tammy Wynnette baking cookies, the song Stand By Your Man, Fake Feminist, Barack Hussein Obama, Elizabeth Warren,
aka 132nd Cherokee, half-breed, right-wing talk radio, fat, ugly, stupid, bathing suit on a beach, and the biggest obscenity of them all, and the most number one of list of banned phrases, words, and proper names, Rush Limbaugh.
That's great.
Those are the words that should have been done.
None of those words are banned.
The New York Times bimbo, as you say, was not prohibited from using any of those words, but they should be added.
You're exactly right.
Well, I'll tell you, Rush.
You left out Epstein.
You left out Pedophile.
You left out Jeffrey Epstein, by the way.
Yeah, well, I tell you, we are in trouble if we allow this slob, this Clinton, this obscenity to become a potential president of the United States.
We cannot have another Bush.
We cannot have another Quinton.
We must have a conservative.
That means also we eliminate Governor Fatboy from Jersey, Uncle Jed Clampett Bush, and all those other minions that are going to get the nomination because that's what the Republican Party has become.
They have become collaborators.
They are traitors along with the Democrats.
So I hope I put a smile on your face.
And like I said the last time, you've got to come and collect your Parmesan dinner in the Bronx.
I know Mr. Snurley will, but you probably won't.
I remember.
No, no, no.
I totally.
And your timing here is impeccable.
There's nothing I need to add to that.
Back at it.
We are.
This is Mark in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Welcome, sir.
I'm glad you called.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you so much, Maharashi, 23-year listener.
First time got through.
I'm glad you made it, sir.
Thank you very much.
The comment, I loved yesterday's show.
That's one of the days I wish you had six hours rather than three.
Well, I appreciate that.
Now, that's interesting that you say that.
Because I went home yesterday thinking that it wasn't nearly as good as it should have been or could have been.
And I kind of beat myself up for a couple hours after the program yesterday and said I need to kick it up a notch or two.
So I'm flattered to hear you say that.
Not a problem.
It's the truth.
That's where the truth lives is on the Rush Lindbaugh Show.
That happens to be the case every day.
I appreciate that.
Yeah, my comment was on Ted Cruz and the purchase of Obamacare.
Now, there's three things that, you know, just as Joe Average Middle or the flyover country person, I know he's intelligent, obviously, by listening to your program, hearing about his professors exclaim how intelligent he is.
The second thing is we know he's a world-class type debater.
And the third thing is, is he's running for president.
Now, in my humble estimation, I've got an intelligent man.
He knows how to debate, and he's running for president.
Now, those three things added together, you look at him purchasing Obamacare.
And in the old adage, a man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.
Of all of the Republican challenges.
That's kind of like a variation on the old adage, never get into an argument with a few, a fool, because people will not be able to tell a difference.
Exactly.
That's perfectly put.
And, you know, how many of his Republican challengers own Obamacare?
I mean, how many senators?
How many congressmen?
Well, by law, they all should.
Exactly.
But I scarcely think any of them do.
But when it comes down to debating, and when Ted promised to repeal Obamacare, he, as this world champion debater, he's going to know the other side better than he knows his own side.
And that's the key to winning.
Okay, I get it.
Now, so your theory is that it's a good thing that Cruz signed up for Obamacare.
He's also building off of yesterday's show, which he thought was great.
I appreciate that.
But I know what he's saying now.
His theory is that it's a good thing because Cruz, as a candidate and as one who is enrolled in Obamacare, will be an expert critic.
He will be a customer.
He will be one who signed up.
He will be an Obamacare user and will be able with credibility to criticize it even with more credibility than if he had not had it.
In other words, Cruz will not have to be theoretical in his criticism of Obamacare.
He will not have to say, and it's going to do this.
He'll be able to explain its flaws because he will be living with it.
I get your point.
Let's use this as a transition.
Last night, I guess it was actually yesterday afternoon on the Daily Signal website.
David Brody interviewed Cruz, and they were talking about Cruz signing up for Obamacare.
Question was, the media is really blowing this up, you know, and you know the deal.
Oh, now he's going to take Obamacare.
Now he's going to take a government subsidy.
Do you want to clear this up for us?
Because there are a lot of people saying that you're against it, but you're signing up for it, and they're thinking that you've kind of blown it here.
The mainstream media loves to play gotcha games.
When I announced the campaign, my wife also decided to take an unpaid leave of absence from her job.
We have been, for the past couple of years, covered on my wife's health insurance.
When she took an unpaid leave of absence, it means that she's also losing her benefits.
And so we're going to do what anyone else would do, which is take their health insurance from their employer.
So in all likelihood, we'll go on the exchange.
And so suddenly, all the media says, ah, ha ha, gotcha, because Cruz is now signing up for Obamacare.
Listen, I have zero intention of taking any government subsidy or Obama subsidy.
Rather, what I'm going to do is pay in the marketplace for health insurance for my family, just like millions of Americans.
Okay, does that answer satisfy you?
I mean, not the caller.
Caller is politely moved on.
Does that answer satisfy those of you who are troubled by it?
And I know some of you remain troubled by this.
And it's at a basic level.
On the one hand, here's Ted Cruz railing against it.
It's worthless.
In fact, it's worse than worthless.
It's harmful.
Obamacare is going to destroy America.
Obamacare is going to just rip the guts out of our economy.
Obamacare is going to result in higher costs.
Obamacare is going to result in less actual treatment for people.
If I'm elected president, I'm going to repeal it word for word, sentence by sentence.
It's a goner.
And then one day, well, my wife quit her job, so I had to sign up for Obamacare.
I'm following the law.
And people, wait a minute.
There seems to be a bit of an imbalance or disconnect here.
People are saying, where is the guy saying, I really wish I didn't have to do this?
I don't think this is something I ought to have to do, but it's the law of the land, but I'm not happy doing this.
Cruz isn't saying that.
He's not saying he's unhappy about signing up for Obamacare.
He's not saying he's bothered by it.
He's not criticizing.
He's just saying, I'm just doing what everybody else does.
I'm getting my health care through my employer.
That's what everybody in America traditionally has done.
I'm not going to take a subsidy.
I'm not going to take it.
He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something he doesn't like.
He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something he wishes weren't there.
He doesn't sound like somebody signing up for something that he can't wait to get rid of.
Instead, what he's saying is, it's the law of the land.
I've got to get health care for my family.
My wife had it.
She's quitting to follow my campaign.
She lost her health care.
I have a responsibility.
I'm doing what millions of Americans are doing.
I'm going to go on the exchange.
I'm going to buy a policy and I'm going to be covered.
And I think people, some people, I don't know how many, but some people are expecting to also hear, but I hate it.
I resent having to do this.
I resent my options are limited.
I resent that it's going to cost me so much.
People want to hear that from Cruz, and they're not hearing it.
I mean, it's a natural human nature thing, isn't it?
Here's a guy who has made no bones about his disgust for it, about his opposition to it, and for all the reasons.
And they're all legitimate.
And when he signs up for it, he doesn't talk about any of that.
There doesn't seem to be any anger, any resentment, any Pressure at being forced to do this because there aren't any other options.
And some people think that if you, on one hand, have such disgust or if you disapprove or disagree with it, if you think it's so harmful, then at least when you sign up, you ought to be saying how uncomfortable you are doing it.
But he's not doing that.
So we will see.
I don't, this could be a huge non-story to most people.
And it probably, as the days go by, will end up being.
But I still notice that we have a number of people calling here yesterday and today telling us their theories.
And the latest we got was: hey, Rush, don't sweat it.
Ted's doing this because now, as an Obamacare customer, he's an expert debater.
He's going to be able to blow this thing to smithereens once a campaign gets rolling because he's going to actually have experience with it.
Okay.
We'll see if that happens to be the case.
Now, this Bergdahl business, I want to get this Bergdahl business and get that wrapped up and out of the way before we move on to other things.
Because we have to do it's one of these things that we've got to touch on it for obvious reasons.
I'm going to take a brief time out.
We'll come back and do that and then move on with the stuff I really can't wait to get to after this.
Actually, I think I want to do 10 and 11 before we do 12 and 13.
And I got to work real hard to keep my place here.
Okay, I'm just going to stick with a couple more Ted Cruz things and then move on because since we've already opened the door, this is Texas Tribune website, Texastribune.org.
Again, Ted Cruz being interviewed by a reporter there named Jay Root.
And during a conversation about climate change, a question came up: You don't believe in global warming, Senator Cruz.
Are you out of step with most young voters on this?
If you look at global warming alarmists, they don't like to look at the actual facts and the data.
The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years.
Now, that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists because all of the computer models on which this whole issue was based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening.
Now, that's right on the money.
That is so right on the money that I bet you the young people being talked about here won't believe it.
Do you realize, you know, we've, this has been a cause of mine for 25 years.
Actually, longer than this.
This has been a cause of mine since all the way back when I was in Sacramento and I was watching the Sunday show with Brinkley on it.
And I first heard about this with some scientist named Oppenheimer telling us we only had 20 years.
We couldn't prove that global warming was happening yet.
And back then, you know, what they were saying was the best way they illustrated, try to scare people.
They used Southern California and they said, imagine everybody on a typical summer evening firing up their barbecue pits at the same time to grill hot dogs, hamburgers, and steaks and vegetables for the vegans.
Can you imagine all of that charcoal exhaust, all of that carbon, you telling me that doesn't affect the atmosphere?
And people said, whoa, my God, I never thought about it that way.
And George Will even fell for it.
He was using that as an exhaust.
I first heard that, this Oppenheimer guy, Alan Oppenheimer, that probably wasn't his first name, but he's some Ivy League guy, and he's wringing his hands about global warming.
And he was saying, well, we can't firmly prove it yet.
But we only have 20 years if we're right.
We only have 20 is in 1984, folks.
We've blown past these 20 years like they didn't even happen.
We've got 20 years to get this right.
If we do not immediately embark on policies, which to him were raising taxes on carbon to eliminate carbon emissions, if we don't do this, we are going to see sea levels rise.
All that crap that they've been predicting by now was going to have happened in such a bad way that we would all be sunk.
And that's the first time I heard of it, and I didn't buy it then because the guy didn't have any evidence.
And he admitted it back then.
He said, all we have are the computer models that are telling.
And that's all it's ever been.
There has never been any evidence.
All there has been is theory.
Every shred of global warming climate change hysteria is rooted in computer model predictions of 50.
Well, it was 20.
Now it's 50 years and 100 years out.
Computer model predictions.
Do you realize we can't even now, with computer models, predict the exact track of a hurricane that we know exists.
And yet we're relying on computer models, climate models, and are the result of what?
Man-made input, data that is input by man.
You know, garbage in, garbage out, what you get, what sees what you get.
Who knows what kind of data has been put in here, but it can't be real.
But forget that.
Forget that.
Just let's not complicate it.
There is no evidence of global warming.
Man-made.
There is no evidence of it.
All it is is theory.
The greenhouse gas or the greenhouse effect.
That's why they used the barbecue pit example.
People were able to envision all of that exhaust, that those fumes, that emissions from all those barbecue pits.
You can't really see it, but it comes smog.
It's coming up out of everybody's barbecue pit, millions of them at the same time.
Oh my God, yeah, that could really affect us.
And it was easy to persuade people.
But it was all bogus.
Boil it down to the basic, there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming.
And all these predictions from 25, 30 years ago predicted that by now we'd be so far into this that would be irreversible.
And the evidence would be conclusive.
And there isn't any evidence yet.
And it's been 30 plus years because there isn't any science.
Nothing more than computer models.
They are the sole source of every prediction about global warming.
So Cruz is pointing this out.
And he gets a question.
You know, you are not on the same page as young people about this.
Well, and you heard his answer.
And he was factually totally 100% right about it.
The great fear I have is that doesn't count for much.
With a large group, the facts don't really matter to a lot of people.
Well, in a global warming, yeah, in the latest Gallup poll, and by the way, that's not new.
Gallup has been doing this poll since 1989.
And it basically hasn't shown.
Global warming has never been near the top of people's great concerns.
In the Gallup poll, it's always been near the bottom.
In this latest one, it is at the bottom of things people are worried about.
It is at the bottom of the list that people think is a real thing to be worried about.
So facts, yeah, I think we've been successful, but it's taken 25 years to beat this stuff, 25 every day practically, because that's how frequently the proponents are out pushing it.
It's a great illustration.
To stop this stuff, you have to fight it every day, and you never totally beat it because they never go away.
Now, here's the next one.
After that answer, the same guy, the J Root guy at the Texas Tribune website.
But what if there is something to it, Mr. Cruz?
What if there is?
I mean, what if there is global warming?
Why not do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint?
Why not have some humility about it?
I read this morning a Newsweek article from the 1970s talking about global cooling.
And it said the science is clear.
It is overwhelming.
We are in a major cooling period and it's going to cause enormous problems worldwide.
And the solution for all the advocates in the 70s of global cooling was massive government control of the energy sector, of our economy, and aspects of our lives.
Now, the data proved to be not backing up that theory.
So then all the advocates of global cooling suddenly shifted to global warming.
And he wasn't through.
He continued.
On the global warming alarmists, anyone who actually points to the evidence that disproves their apocalyptical claims, they don't engage in reasoned debate.
What do they do?
They scream, you're a denier.
They brand you a heretic.
Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat earthers.
You know, it used to be it is accepted scientific wisdom.
The earth is flat.
And this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.
The most interesting part of this to me is this question.
But what if there is something to it, even though there's no evidence?
What if there is something to it?
Why not do everything we can anyway and have some humility about it?
Why be so damn sure of yourself?
That's what it really comes down to.
How can you possibly be so sure of yourself?
Why can't you allow, why can't you be humble about this?
And maybe you're wrong.
Maybe you're wrong.
Maybe some other people have a point.
Why can't you?
Because they're wrong.
They're full of it.
Just like you are, buddy.
And here are the reasons why.
Now, I love hearing this kind of stuff.
I really do.
I hope it's effective.
Really do.
Rush Limbaugh making more sense than anybody else out there in five seconds as opposed to five weeks, depending on the others.
I got to take a brief time out here at the top and reorganize and get set for the final busy broadcast hour coming your way right after this.
▲
Export Selection