All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 5, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
November 5, 2015, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Yeah, this is this is really curious.
I came in here today, got in here, and and Snerdley's bringing the coffee in.
And he said, What do you think about this Bush book?
You know, and I hate it when somebody asks me something that I don't know about.
You know how rarely that happens?
And I say, What Bush book?
The Bush book.
Well, they're hitting Rumsfeld and Cheney.
I said, which Bush?
He said 43.
I said, 43?
He's got a book out hitting.
And he said, no, no, no, no, no, 41.
And I was still in.
You have 41 has a book out hitting.
And it turns out that 41 doesn't have a book out.
John Meekham has a book out in which he has talked to George Bush 41.
It's a biography.
The new John Meekham biography, Destiny in Power, The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush, i.e., George H.W. Bush, I.41.
And in this book, it is said that Bush 41 has some harsh words for the actions of his son's administration.
In particular, George Bush 41 is said to have objected strenuously to how Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld reacted to 9-11.
He feels that they were too hawkish.
That they took a harsh, inflexible stance that tarnished America's reputation around the world.
Now I, you know, forgive me, folks, but I don't.
I'm not aware of any Republican using that language.
I mean, clearly we have some Republican moderates using hindsight who didn't want to be associated with any of that, who've been critical of it, and Rumsfeld and Cheney, but this is tarnished America's reputation around the world.
That's the kind of language the left use, particularly when talking about that phantom torture they thought was going on down at Club Gitmo.
For crying out loud, George H. W. Bush, this is a guy.
This is really hard.
I mean, I it just ah my I know things.
This I'm incredulous here.
Hey, I'm I don't know how this even happened.
But this is the same George H. W. Bush that can't say one bad thing about Bill Clinton.
Or Barack Obama.
And we're launching on Cheney and Rumsfield here in a biography, Destiny in Power, The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush.
And Bush is quoted.
And it makes sense, it's his biography, as written by John Meekham.
Meekham used to be at what was it, Newsweek?
Yeah, John Meekham, along a Newsweek, Maggie.
He's part of a Howard Feynman cabal over there at Newsweek and Gloria Borger and that bunch.
I think it it might not wasn't U.S. news, it might have been, but I know it wasn't time.
Anyway, here's the quote.
I I I don't know.
He just became this is H.W. speaking, Bush 41.
To Meekham, the author.
I I don't know.
He just became very hardline and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with.
The reaction of 9-11, what to do about the Middle East, just iron ass.
His seeming knuckling under to the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything.
He was forced to get our way in the Middle East.
And that's what he said about Cheney's even harder on Rumsfield.
Rumsfeld, quote, I don't like what he did, and I think it hurt the president, his son.
I've never been that close to him anyway.
There's a lack of humility, a lack of seeing what the other guy thinks.
He's more kick-ass and take names, take numbers.
And I think he paid a price for that.
Rumsfeld was an arrogant fellow.
Now, meanwhile, Jeb Bush, devoted and trusted son of 41, Is running around, running for president, telling everybody his brother, and that would mean Rumsfeld and Cheney kept us safe.
I, folks, I there's so much of this.
This just a lot of this doesn't pass the smell test.
In ways that I cannot divulge, I have smelled things.
I've just can't.
But this doesn't seem.
Yeah, he's the former editor-in-chief of Newsweek.
This just I I it doesn't compute, folks.
I I'm sorry, I wish I could go further.
I can't.
Uh it's called discretion, uh secrecy, promises, and so forth, but uh doesn't it doesn't wash here for me.
But let's say it's true.
Let's say I I'm still amazed.
I mean, it it's it's undignified and uh beneath the dignity of the office to attack Democrats.
It's the it's uh undignified and beneath the dignity of the office to politicize the office of the presidency and anybody who's held it, and so we're not gonna get down to the gutter.
Remember that was the reason why we were told the Bush 43 administration did not respond to any of the defamatory hits that they were taking throughout their administration, particularly the second term.
But man, when it comes to launching on Republicans, it doesn't seem like there's any problem here.
Anyway, I just I had to mention this at the top because the drive bys are buzzing about this, you can just imagine they are having a field day with this.
And they will continue to have a field day with this.
And all of this is happening while Jeb is trying to restart his presidential campaign for the fifth time, and Byron York has a piece out there.
I've got it in the uh right here.
I've got it in the Republican primary campaign stag.
The people by Byron York and the Washington Examiner laying out how Bush can actually win this thing.
It's a long shot, and a lot of planets, even those we haven't discovered yet, have to line up.
But it can happen.
And it can happen if Bush has staying power, if the money hangs in there, and if he can just be patient and let all these other people just wipe themselves out.
Bush could end up being the last man standing.
Well, now this election cycle.
But now, now can you imagine the questions in the next debate?
Mr. Bush, John Meekham, writing a biography of your father, Cheney, Rumsfeld, big mistakes, iron ass, kick ass, no dignity, no humility.
What do you say about that?
They kept us safe.
Really?
Well, your dad's out there saying it.
This is problematic.
Um I know that the the there have there has been no reluctance on the part of some uh in the Bush family to criticize Reagan when they were both running for the presidency.
So it's but it's it does seem like that hitting Democrats is just something that's that's undignified.
We're not gonna go there, but we can criticize and hit people on our own side of the aisle.
Anyway, folks, it's great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone, the telephone number if you want to be on the program's 800-282-2882, and the email address Lrushmore at EIBNet.com.
So I'm at home yesterday afternoon, it's about 525, and I get an email from a friend saying, hey, the five is preparing to do a whole segment on your national review column today.
So I wrote back and I said, thanks for the heads up, that's interesting.
I was in the middle of a crisis with my Apple TV, so I didn't turn it on.
Well, no, it wasn't a crisis.
I was just learning things about it.
I was in the setup.
No, no, no, no, nothing's wrong.
I'm just in the process, I was right in the when my mind gets focused on learning something new and there's nothing that can permeate.
Uh it would take a an explosion, Large explosion to distract me.
And I'm certainly not going to take myself away from it.
And I knew that if anything big happened, I'd hear about it later.
And I didn't hear anything about it all night.
Not a word.
That was the only email I got about it.
So I said, well, if anything big happened, Cookie will have it on the soundbite roster.
So I waited for the soundbite roster to show up, and it came in about 1150, 10 minutes for the program, and lo and behold, it's a whole bunch of sound bites.
The Fox, the the five show, the Fox News channel talking about the National Review column I had just listed.
Get to it.
This is the clip.
They played a clip of the uh me from the program yesterday to set it up.
Of course, they had excerpts of the column that they referenced to, but this is how they got it all started.
The single greatest consequence of the rise of conservative media has been the destruction of the left-wing media's monopoly.
The dissolution of this monopoly is what's caused all the partisanship in this country.
Because the media used to be able to hide their bias.
They used to be able to hide the fact that they're just hacks for the Democrat Party.
But now they can't hide it.
They have been exposed, and they have been forced to enter the competitive fray for the hearts and minds of the American people, which remember they had a monopoly.
They owned it.
They didn't have to do anything but go on the air.
They didn't have to compete against anybody other than themselves.
And they didn't treat each other as competitives, competitors.
Everybody acknowledged.
And folks, this is a I wouldn't say it's crucial, but in terms of learning about these people, this is a very important thing to remember.
Nobody in in broadcast news even thought about ever beating Walter Cronkite.
Nobody viewed themselves in competition with Cronkite.
He was number one, and he was going to be number one, and everybody was going to be satisfied with whatever was left.
Huntley and Brinkley were number two, and ABC, which was the latest of the fray, I think it was Howard K. Smith.
And I may be forgetting their first anchor, but Howard K. Smith in this era, and those were the three.
And they were not competitors.
I mean, they were, they they they but they weren't.
I mean, Howard K. Smith was not trying to unseat Cronkite.
Huntley and Brinkley were not trying to unseat Cronkite.
That was unseemly.
Cronkite was acknowledged as the dean.
Cronkite was acknowledged as the incarnation of uh Edward R. Murrow, and he was untouchable, and it was just accepted.
That doesn't exist on our side of the media.
There is no such thing as that.
It is hotly competitive as it should be.
On the drive-by side, particularly when they had their monopoly, there was no intra competition.
Because they were all on the same team and they looked at themselves all as one entity and one industry working at three different places.
And it didn't matter.
If you missed Cronkite, it didn't matter, watch Huntley Brinkley.
You wouldn't see anything different.
If you missed Huntley and Brinkley, go ahead and tune over to Howard K. Smith.
And it didn't matter if you missed Brinkley and you missed Cronkite, it didn't matter because if you caught ABCB, the same stuff, usually in the same order.
They did not have to compete.
There was no alternative.
There was nowhere for anybody to go, nowhere else in broadcast on television to get news the 6.30 or 7 o'clock, depending if you lived in New York City.
But 6.37 p.m. evening news was church.
It was where everybody first learned what had happened during that day, nationally and internationally.
And there was nowhere else to go.
And so they were able to mask themselves and hide and cloak who they really were under various agents of camouflage like objectivity or fairness or what have you.
There were always allegations of bias, because there was bias, and sometimes they let it But they were able to deny it and did deny it.
But anyway, when that monopoly was blown to smithereens, that's when they had to begin competing.
For audience.
And that's when all the pretense Was abandoned.
And that's when all the camouflage was thrown away.
And they became the partisans they've always been.
And because of the competitive nature of the fact that they used to own it just by showing up, now they have to go out and earn it.
That ticked them off, and they're still mad about it.
And that's why I think why the partisan.
Anyway, that's the clip they set up.
Up first is Dana Perino on the five reacting.
It's interesting to hear him say it that way because having worked in it for so many years, you just sort of factor it in and you get used to it.
And I remember I think it was Bill Crystal one time when I was frustrated.
He said, Dana, you're just gonna have to get over it because this is the way of the world.
I think that he's right.
You know, I remember when reporters started writing front page analysis pieces and the New York Times and the Washington Post.
And as a press secretary, I would say, well, wait, so are you the reporter calling me today or the analyst calling me today?
And the truth is there really was no difference.
So I think that that has been exposed, and that's a good thing.
That's exactly right.
Editorially was on editorial was on the front page.
It always was the thing.
It just was never labeled as such.
But there was a that's all that's all the drive-by media ever has been is opinion and agenda uh oriented.
Here's Tom Shalou after Perino says it's a good thing.
Reporters have been exposed now as both analysts and opinion writers and reporters.
Tom Shaleau, who's a fill-in host, added Rush Limbaugh, God bless him.
He's so right, and this article in National Review this week is fantastic.
I think that you know, it was always a myth.
It was always the myth of the objective journalists.
All my liberal friends all say, you know, I liked the day when we would sit down to Walter Cronkite and have objective journalism.
And it's say, and I mean Walter Cronkite was always liberal.
All of them were always liberal.
Now it's out of the closet, it's out in the open, and so they've been exposed.
So that's why, you know, they wear their politics more on their sleeve because we all know it now.
And I think it's a good thing, because it was always a myth.
Oh, yeah, there's no question it's a good thing.
I just using it to explain why there is the literal hatred.
You you CBS News is livid at Forbes magazine.
Forbes magazine happened to put Vladimir Putin as the most powerful man in the world, and Obama's number three.
And CBS News is livid.
They can't under now back in the in the Monopoly days, they'd have been happy if a communist leader was the most powerful guy in the world.
But now the jig's up.
And they want to know why their communist guy is number three to some Russian.
It literally ticks them off.
An operating room there.
The club to be a member of the place.
You do.
You have to, it's so exclusive, you have to be born in this club to be a member of it.
That's where we had lunch.
I think they got an operating room in there.
Every member, every family that's a member of this club that are going to have a kid, they got to go to the club to have the baby, otherwise they don't get in.
I mean, it's that's greetings.
Uh welcome back, folks.
It can continue on.
Now, this next bite, this is Kirsten Powers, and I find this instructive, and I I think you will too.
What I thought was interesting in what Rush wrote.
There was a couple of things in it that I should have known about, but I didn't know.
He talks about how in 1993, while aboard Air Force One, President Clinton called my St. Louis affiliate to complain that I had three hours each day on the radio and that there was no truth detector responding to me.
At another point, Harry Reed called ClearChannel and basically complained about him and wanted them to do something about things that Rush Limbaugh was saying.
This is very heavy-handed behavior from the government.
I'm liberal, and I can see that they're liberal, but that's not just the only problem.
The problem is that they don't even want there to be one Rush Limbaugh.
It's not enough that they're already in control of everything.
It's like they literally can't tolerate this one person.
Now, she's exactly right about that.
But here's the thing, and it's a it's a dilemma for me.
I mean, 28 years or into our 28th year.
The two incidents that she spoke of were big things when they happened.
I mean, Bill Clinton, and it they both happened out of the blue.
Clinton is flying into St. Louis to dedicate some new federal program at the train station or something.
I don't know what it was.
And as a promotion, he calls the morning show at our St. Louis affiliate Camel X. And when he's talking to him, he starts complaining and whining about me.
And this is what that sounded like.
After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants.
Would you like to leave him in?
I won't have any opportunity to respond.
And there's no truth detector.
You won't get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn't.
Now for Kern Allen, it's a president of the United States.
He's got he's the most powerful man in the free world.
He's got the most powerful man in the world.
He's got the bully pulpit.
He can go to the White House Rose Garden or the summon a network any time he wants, say whatever he wants.
He's on the radio here complaining that I have three hours on the radio and to say whatever I want.
Imagine that.
And that he won't have any chance to respond.
And that there's no truth detector.
And he's chiding them for not getting on Cable X after my show and pointing out what I said was true and what wasn't.
I have to take a break here, but I there's more to this here, folks.
Hang in there, be tough.
Be right back.
Okay, just a just a couple of more brief minutes on this.
Again, teachable moment.
This Bill Clinton called a Camox in St. Louis.
That was June 24th.
That was actually 1994.
And it was his second year in uh in office.
And it came out of the blue.
And, you know, we've I've referenced it a number of times in this program, but the here's Kirsten Powers, who is on Fox.
Now there was no Fox in 1994.
Fox went around in the 97s.
I don't know what she was doing in 1994, but she admitted she never heard of this.
And there's a reason she never heard about this, because the drive-by media didn't report it.
And I'm kind of caught in the middle here because I, you know, this it's the kind of thing I think people who listen to this program do remember and will remember, but maybe not everybody was listening that day.
So it's for me, it's a is a challenge to remind people, but then not overdo it.
And you know, the one people listening.
Come on, rush, move on.
We know, we know.
Well, but not everybody does.
She's learning this for the first time, and she also didn't know about the Harry Reed phony shoulder, uh, phony soldier letter.
And that was huge.
She only found out about it reading my columns.
So I'm sitting here saying to myself, uh, how many other people in the drive-bys, and that happened long after Fox News had debuted.
She was on Fox News, and they didn't make a big deal of it either.
Um drive-bys don't spend a whole lot of time talking about the news that's made on this program.
They spend a lot of time trying to defame me, but not the news that's made here.
And I find it uh fast.
Here's here's here's a woman whose job is to be informed, stay informed, and she didn't know about particularly the Harry Reed incident, which ended up raising 4.2 million dollars, and it's a U.S. Senator trying to silence a private citizen.
And it went on for a month.
That story went on for a month, and she didn't know about ripping her, don't misunderstand.
I'm saying it's fascinating how and I'm sure that you who listen the program think, wow, that's big enough.
Everybody's gonna know about this, and they don't, because the drive-by's don't want people to know the kind of success stories that happen here on the on the program.
But she was fascinated.
And she's right.
Uh the left doesn't want there to be even one rush limit.
She's more right than she knows.
They don't want debate, they don't want compromise, they don't want to work with the other side.
They want to rid the playing field of all opposition.
Here it is again.
This is Clinton.
It's just 14 seconds, June 24th, 1994.
After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants.
Would you like to leave a message?
I won't have any opportunity to respond, and there's no truth detector.
You won't get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn't.
You imagine the president of the United States complaining about a guy on a radio from noon to three every day.
And the drive-by's didn't see fit to make that any kind of a uh story.
Then they played another clip that I mentioned from the program.
And I think this, folks, is a crucial, crucial point.
And I made it yesterday in my analysis of the election results, Tuesday night, which was another Republican sweep just like 2010, just like 2014.
The Republican Party is still more inclined to work with Barack Obama and move his agenda forward.
Be it amnesty, be it the export import bank, be it climate change, whatever it happens to be, despite this resounding defeat for Obama and the Democrats and liberalism last night.
The Republicans are still inclined to work with Obama and to move his agenda.
Eric Bolling and the five at Fox had his reaction.
He's taking a shot, obviously, at some of the policy that the Republicans who control the House and the Senate are letting get through and hit the president's desk and not get overruled a second time around.
I see what he's doing.
He's Rush Limbaugh is staking out the conservative red meat bread, and he's doing a great job of it.
Conservative representative.
I'm just pointing out that the Republicans have got a winning majority waiting to be joined, and they seem reluctant to do it.
They seem more inclined to want to be seen as working with Obama.
Now, Dana Perino, now Dana Perino is from uh from more, I guess on balance, she'd be have to be categorized as an establishment Republican.
Which she's okay.
Don't misunderstand.
But she next is a kind of a tortured establishment Republican view of her reaction to what I said about the Republicans in Washington still being more inclined to work with Obama.
There are going to be people that will say climate change.
They look at the signs and think, okay, look, we want to clean our environment too, so we should do things that are smart.
We should not kill our coal industry over it today, for example, and this goes to his point, which is you constantly find out other things.
For example, China, turns out, for the last several years has been lying about its output of carbon emissions.
They're actually way up over and above what they had actually reported.
So next week, President Obama goes to Paris to have this consultation about a big climate change summit, and it's based on lies.
And I think that's what Russia is saying is why does it through the Republicans keep falling into this trap?
Yeah, I see, and she's exactly right.
Well, I don't know that they're falling for a trap.
That would be the worst case.
If they're falling for a trap, the evidence is clear.
They don't need to fall for it now.
The trap has been exposed.
That's what worries all of us, that they're not falling for a trap.
That they're willingly decided, have willingly decided to help move Obama's agenda because they don't want to be called racist, you know, the average stuff.
Now, global warming, there's news on that today.
From the UK Express meltdown myth, Antarctic ice growing, expanding is just the first evidence global warming is not real.
Now, this story, we've talked about the Antarctic ice, talked about it yesterday and the day before.
And the point about it is where are all the computer models, the global warming people believe, to predict it.
The only reason we are even talking about global warming, or the real only reason is it's because of it's part of the left's agenda of expanding government worldwide, raising taxes worldwide, and a key ingredient of this is blaming average citizens for the problem.
And make no mistake, that is actually important point number one about the entire global warming movement is Is that all of us are are to blame.
All of us are responsible.
All of us are using more than our share of coal, all of us are using more than our share of gasoline, all of us are driving bigger cars than we should be.
We're living in bigger homes than we should be.
It's all our fault.
This is the key.
And the reason it's our fault is that that allows the statists to say, see, you people cannot be trusted to live your lives responsibly.
You need us regulating the way you live in order to save our planet, and that's how they've set it up.
And since there are a lot of people out there, low information voter types, who really don't think their lives have much meaning, and they're seeking for meaningful lives, and they think, wow, how much more meaning can you have than to actually save the planet?
So they eagerly sign on to this.
They eagerly accept the blame because they're offered pennants.
Yep, you just support the Democrats, support bigger government, support higher taxes, agree to drive a bunch of little no-name cars that nobody really wants to drive.
Just do all these things the government says, And you can be forgiven for the damage you have wrought on this planet.
The fundamental element of liberalism is that every problem has been caused by us.
Not them.
Not the central planners, not the legislators, not the leaders.
No, no, they're the saviors.
You and I are the problems because we do not know how to live our lives responsibly.
They say the evidence is abundant.
We drive cars that are too big.
We air condition our homes too chilly.
We turn the heat up too much in the winter time.
We waste here and we waste there.
We drink all these sugared soft drinks.
We smoke all these cigarettes and all this horrible stuff.
We don't know what we're doing.
They've got to come in and regulate it all.
That's the key element of every agenda item of liberalism.
It's our fault.
We can't be trusted.
Number two is the only reason there's global warming is because there's models that say there's going to be climate warming change, whatever, 10 years, 30, 1500 years from now.
Not next year, not next month.
Now all there is is models.
There is no evidence.
Why didn't the models predict this expanding ice in Antarctica?
But more than that, can I ask you the real Zinger question?
Let me ask you the real Zinger question.
I want you to really think about this.
I first heard of global warming, 1979.
It was actually called the New Ice Age.
It was a cover story Newsweek magazine.
It was my first year working for the Kansas City Royals.
But I was still a news guy paying attention.
I never forget that cover.
And then the next thing I knew, I'm in Sacramento, it's 1984, and I'm watching this week with David Brinkman, there's some guy, some scientist named Oppenheimer on.
And he's talking about global warming, and we've only got 20 years.
And he admits he can't prove it, but we don't have time to wait to see if he's right or wrong.
We've got to move now.
We have to start taking drastic action now to stop global warming in case we're right about it.
And we've only got 20 years.
That was 1984.
2004, we hadn't done anything to stop it, fix it.
We should all have been suffering immensely because we didn't do anything.
But then when the 20 years approached, no, no, it became 50 years and so forth.
There's no real timeline for this where we can see evidence in our lives.
But what has happened?
Let's take the they first start with with freezing and the ice age.
And that changes in five years to global warming.
And since 1982, 84, they have been on this global warming kick.
And they have been warning us of the dire consequences of the climate getting warmer.
Greenhouse gases, CO2, the uh exponential increases in heat, all the disasters that are gonna happen, all the hurricanes that are gonna happen and all the sea level rise and lack of ice for the zebras and for the polar bears and whoever else, the seals, you've heard it all.
You know the drill.
Global warming is going to be a disaster.
Okay.
Well, here we are in 2015, and we've had 18 consecutive years of no warming.
We now have expanding ice in Antarctica.
Why aren't these people happy?
It isn't warming.
Why aren't they out there trying to take credit for it?
Why aren't they?
I mean, they're they're basically dishonest people to begin with.
Why don't they out there trying to take credit for the policies they have demanded that governments implement for working?
Why can't we haven't had any increase in temperature in 18 years?
The ice flow in the Antarctic is expanding.
Isn't that good?
The opposite, the ice melting, that's bad.
And yet, all this good news, the warming seemingly has been arrested.
The ice in Antarctic is expanding, the sea levels are not rising.
Why aren't they happy?
Why aren't they beating their chests and saying, see?
Our policies have succeeded.
Instead, they're mad.
They're mad and they're doubling down on the fact that it's really going to get warm, and the climate's really gonna change, and it's gonna become intolerable.
It's gonna become insufferable.
Except that it hasn't and that it isn't.
Why are they not happy when the warming has been arrested?
The entire premise of the global warming movement is that we must stop it.
Well, there hasn't been any for 18 years.
You would think at least one of these scientists, at least one of these politicians, at least one of them around the world, one of them, the UN would be happy that the destruction and the damage and the pain and the suffering from global warming isn't going to happen as soon as they thought.
But they're not happy.
They're mad.
Why are they mad?
They're mad because they're being proven to be frauds, or at the very least, they're being proven as having made big mistakes.
But whatever.
We're not dealing with scientific opinion here.
That's one thing that's for sure now.
We're not dealing with neutral scientific opinion because if we were, they would be happy that the warming isn't happening.
And they would be trying to claim credit for it.
Twick quick timeout here, my friends, much more straight in, just getting warmed up here.
Oh yeah, we got it all covered.
Yet to come.
Ben Carson, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential primary, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton.
Uh some of the things she's saying.
Uh we're we're loaded here, folks.
The Houston uh bathroom ordinance, the uh lesbian gay, bisexual, transgender community is livid about oh.
And there are, there is a father and son, gay couple who want to get married.
And they're being told they can't, and they're livid about it.
The son is adopted.
Details coming up.
First, Richard in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
It's a real pleasure, Rush.
I just wanted to thank you because I'm a molecular biologist, and I was thoroughly convinced global warming was real.
I thought, well, we got to do something and so on and so forth.
About three years ago, family members suggested I start listening to you, and I didn't.
I thought, well, you know, I agree with just about everything Russia, except he's got it wrong with global warming.
But being a scientist, I decided, let me look at the papers.
I took some meteorology courses just as a side interest, and I realized after reading the real science, I'd been lied to.
They had completely deceived me.
I was stunned at first, and then I got mad, and now it's one of my pet peeves on social media as I'm waging as one-man campaign to convince everybody I know that it's a host.
It's the greens little red trying to control everything.
I just I couldn't believe it.
I was so stunned at the enormity of the line that is.
You are and you were able to determine this reading their own published studies, right?
Right.
I uh I I I went to the literature.
I did I did my online searches like I'd research any of my molecular biology topics.
I started pulling up the papers.
I had to do some generalized papers to learn the language, but then I started reading what the real scientists were publishing, and then I started seeing the stuff, and I also realized the people in the global warming group, they're not even real scientists.
They've got like bachelor's degrees, they're barely qualified.
Even the people advising the UN peep the UN people, I will look at their CDs up.
These people aren't real.
I mean, they're jokes.
And most of them were like political hacks, and then I played the grant game.
I've helped play the grant game, and you you chased the money.
You be as honest as you can, but you know, it's follow the money is what it was.
You know, you said you said something very key here, and uh, you know, I should have included this in that piece I wrote for National Review.
I think one of the you you you're using social media here.
Social media is turning out to be, when used properly, a great weapon against the drive-by media.
There is as much opportunity for truth and alternative.
It's I think it's one of the reasons Carson and Trump are doing so well, actually.
It can overcome lying, distorted, or non coverage of somebody in the in the drive by me.
Carson is using it really effectively, in fact.
But Richard, I'm glad you called.
And I'm I'm glad you did what you did.
You found out for yourself using their own data that it's a hoax.
Appreciate it.
The drive-by media is turning its crosshairs on Dr. Ben Carson.
▲
Export Selection