RUSH: "An environmental writer mainstreams an idea floating around the green fringe -- save the earth by population control and give carbon credits to one-child families. Are we threatened by the patter of little carbon footprints? It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere and endangering its species. Now we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction. Even the result of our breathing -- carbon dioxide -- has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant. Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.
"Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it. New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled 'Covering Climate: What's Population Got To Do With It?' People who need people they are not. Participating via webcam, Revkin volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, 'if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?' He went on to say that 'probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the light or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children.'
"'More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,' [the New York Times environmental writer] blogged, wondering 'whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.'" There is a country that has such a policy, the one child policy and vigorously endorses it. That's the ChiComs. And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Tse-tung her favorite philosopher? "This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science adviser John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level. He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource," on the planet, "as we do," the rest of us do.
This is an editorial here from the Investor's Business Daily: "Cap and Trade for Babies." It's coming, folks. They're going to offer young couples carbon credits for only having one child. The theory is that human beings are polluting and destroying the planet. Now, Paul Ehrlich wrote about this back in the seventies in The Population Bomb. It's been totally disapproved, discredited. This has been part of the militant environmental extreme for years, and here now the people who can make it a reality are running the country. They are in the White House. They want a one-child-per-family policy. Now, this is still a fringe movement. But so at one time was the movement to get rid of SUVs.
But like everything else in the militant environmentalist wacko community, I believe this is going to happen someday. Once they get these ideas, they don't give them up. They've been working on this since 1976, and now we got Anita Dunn, who sings the praises of the great "philosopher" Mao Tse-tung in the White House. Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed it, but I didn't think the government would tell me what kind of food I could and couldn't eat or what kind of car I could drive, either. Nor did I believe that we would ever someday have a "pay czar" taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of. But all these things have happen. So now they're floating the idea, "Cap and Trade for Babies," a New York Times environmental writer in a panel about this.
RUSH: I want to go back to this editorial in the Investors Business Daily in which the New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in a panel six days ago, panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits, and it was called "Covering Climate: What's Population Got to Do With It?" The lefties have been positing the notion -- I first heard it in the seventies when Paul Ehrlich came out with The Population Bomb that too many people, not enough resources, not enough food, we're all going to die, we gotta limit population. It's now gotten to the point that what we exhale, carbon dioxide, is the biggest pollutant on the planet and is destroying the planet and we're going to be in trouble, and they believe that humanity is the greatest scourge on the earth anyway, it's destroying other species, it's destroying resources, and now it's destroying the planet.
So the purpose of this panel discussion was to eventually come up with a plan to limit the number of children American couples can have by offering them carbon credits for children not had. Revkin said, in allocating carbon credits for not having kids as part of any cap-and-trade scheme, he said, "if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?" He went on to say that "probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children." More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions. Now, I've been thinking about this during the commercial break because I take these people seriously. They are lunatics but they are dangerous. I take these people seriously.
If we're going to do this, and this is going to happen, just like you thought I was off my rocker back in 1997 when I told you they were going to come after your SUV, I've warned you every aspect of this leftist agenda is coming. "Rush, that will never happen." I never thought there would be a pay czar, but it's happened. I never thought that we'd have governments telling us what we can and can't eat. I never thought any of this stuff would happen, but it's happening. This is going to happen. It's still a fringe movement, but it's going to happen. But two things about this: What defines a couple? Is it marriage? I mean a lot of people have kids today that are not married. Do you realize the scheme that is waiting here? Do you realize all women, regardless of age from about 13 on could argue that they should be paid every nine months for not having a baby because they're saving the planet. Well, whatever puberty is, 13 on, once puberty hits and you can have a baby every nine months, and you don't do it, can you get a carbon credit, can you get an allowance, can you get whatever they're going to pay you for not doing this?
We don't even have to talk about getting married. We don't even have to talk about being a couple. I mean men have no say now, really, in whether a child is born or not, legally I mean. So would a man have any way of benefiting from the carbon credit? A man cannot give birth, women can give birth without a man around, many of them prefer to do so, they work in the Obama administration, too, but that's another thing. The second aspect -- seriously, you gotta think this way because this is where these people are coming from. And as I said, what about homosexuals? They never have babies. No wonder the New York Times is all for this. Think of the financial windfall the homosexuals, who never have babies, they can say we are single-handedly doing more than anybody to save the planet. We should be paid whatever mass sum. The militant gay community, "Tax the breeders. We are saving the planet." Where does this stop?
But here's another observation. I think these militant environmentalists, these wackos, have so much in common with the jihad guys. Let me explain this. What do the jihad guys do? The jihad guys go to families under their control and they convince these families to strap explosives on who? Not them. On their kids. Grab their three-year-old, grab your four-year-old, grab your six-year-old, and we're going to strap explosives on, and then we're going to send you on a bus or we're going to send you into a shopping center and we're going to tell you when to pull the trigger and you're going to blow up and you're going to blow up everybody around you and you're going to head up to wherever you're going, the 73 virgins are going to be there, the little three or four-year-old doesn't have the presence of mind to say, "Well what about you? If it's so great up there why don't you go? Why don't you strap explosives on?" And their parents don't have the guts to tell the jihad guys, "You do it. Why do you want my kid to go blow himself up?" The jihad guys will just shoot 'em because the jihad guys have to maintain control.
The environmentalist wackos are the same way. This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying? Why do you want every one of us except you and your buddies on the left? See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they're always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that. But I, Barack Obama, I'm going to throw big parties every night in the White House, I'm going to bring in Earth, Wind & Fire, I'm going to bring in Charlie Pride. This is happening. They're having gigs at the White House. Drudge has a story, Earth, Wind & Fire, a bunch of people coming in they're having big parties, Obama's playing basketball. I saw a picture today Obama's basketballs are logoed with his logo on them. I kid you not. Yes, they are. Yes, they are. I got a picture of that circle with the three red lines, the rip-off of the Pepsi logo, his basketballs are logoed.
Somebody who's made basketballs has made up a bunch with Obama's logo on them. It's no big deal. I have the EIB logo on my golf balls. No big deal, but anyway, he's out there playing basketball while everything is going to hell in a handbasket because of his policies and he's still living high on the hog with $100-a-pound Kobe beef, throwing all these parties, flying off to Paris, New York, London, for dates with Michelle (My Belle) and, meanwhile, you can't find a job and you're told your unemployment is now going to be normal, this level of unemployment is now normal, AP put the news out today. So they come up with all these policies, but they're for everybody else but them. Same as the jihad guys, the jihad guys never strap explosives on themselves, the jihad leaders never get on a bus, blow themselves up along with everybody else on it and then seek the 73 virgins or whatever the come-on is. But they have three and four, five, six-year-olds do it.
It's not just the environmentalists that have a lot in common with the jihad guys. And just as the families in these Palestinian and Hezbollah camps and so forth never say to the jihad guys, "Why don't you do it? If it's so damn good, if this is how we advance our movement, if this is how we get rid of the Jews, if this is how we get freedom, if this is how we get our state, why don't you blow yourself up?" By the same token, nobody in this country says, "Obama, why don't you park Air Force One and drive where you're going? Why don't you start serving ground chuck instead of serving Kobe beef at your parties? Why don't you hire a karaoke machine instead of Earth, Wind & Fire?" Nobody ever says that. Nobody says to any of these liberals conjuring up all these policies, "Show us leadership, you do it first. You put some thermostat in your house where the power company gets to control it, you do it." Just like the jihad guys. Because what do they have in common? They're all tyrannical, power hungry mobsters in one way or another.
RUSH: If I may get serious with you for a moment, the left, if you believe them, believes that there's one species on the planet destroying it. Now, all mammals exhale carbon dioxide. But somehow only man, only human beings' carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. It's only man in all of his endeavors, particularly Capitalist Man, Western Culture man. Those are the culprits! We are the real culprits. We are destroying the planet. We are the one species on the planet that's destroying it. Why does the left think this? I'll tell you what I think. We, human beings, are the only species who have the capacity to know and understand the concept of God. No other species has the slightest clue. A fish doesn't even know it's in water. A dog doesn't know it's a dog.
And who the hell knows what cockroaches think. I don't even want to contemplate it. To know God is something unique for all species on the planet. It's us. We're the only ones who know God, who can conceive God and all that that means. Therefore, to the left, to know God is the single most destructive part of the human mind. That's what has to be destroyed. Faith in God, belief in God, that's the real enemy -- and there are many enemies of the left, but that's the first. You go to any communist country and the first thing they do is wipe God and religion out of everybody's mind. The State becomes God and whoever is running it at the time becomes The Messiah. There is no God other than The State. See, God put us here to procreate, to experience his gifts. The left, in order to ultimately succeed, has to end our understanding of God's existence and purpose.
Therefore, we're not going to fix this economic mess until we fix our moral mess. Our country is in a moral shambles, and until we fix the moral destruction that has crept over our culture we're not going to be able to really fix anything else -- and when you start talking about fixing the moral mess, then you really cause the left to rise up and come after you. So they strip all this stuff away and what's at the root of it is: A belief in too many people in something other than The State, something other than the government. If you strip away God... 'Cause a human being has to believe in something, a higher power. Even atheists, they've got something that is a higher power. It's a tree or whatever. It could be another human being. It could be institution that human beings put together but there's gotta be something. If you strip God out it has to be The State. So that's what's happening. That's really at the root of this.