RUSH: The Senate, the Democrats in the Senate, did an all-night talkathon on global warming. I have to tell you something, folks, and this kind of gives away why they're doing it. Does anybody think that an all-night talkathon -- don't call it a filibuster, they said -- on climate change or global warming is gonna get them a single vote? With everything else going on, I mean, you've got Democrats running away from Barack Obama as fast as they ever have run away from a Democrat president because of Obamacare. You've got Obama going on an Internet TV show making a pretty big fool of himself in trying to pitch Obamacare. The audio sound bites of this are coming up.
Is this not rich. Dianne Feinstein found out that congressional computers have been spied on, and she is livid. Yeah, it's perfectly fine for the NSA to spy on everybody else but when the CIA or anybody else starts looking into her computers, then there's gonna be hell to pay. But these people are doing this all-night talkathon in the Senate; they've got a bunch of fundraisers out there threatening to withhold money. There's one guy, I forget his name, we talked about him a week or two ago. He's a multi-billionaire financier of some kind, he was saying, "If you guys don't get serious about this, I'm pulling my money." That's why they did it. It's strictly for money.
Now, money being as important as it is, they may not get any additional votes per se from this, but the money that will not be taken away because they did this will of course come in useful for them in their campaigns. Tom Steyer, that's right, that's who the guy is. Tom Steyer, and he's a wacko. He's a legitimate ultra left-wing but filthy rich, if you can believe it, hedge fund wacko. Filthy rich. Hundred million dollars at a time, he gives to the Democrat Party. He threatened to withhold it if Obama and the Democrats didn't start getting serious about climate change.
Let me ask you a question. It's the same thing about people and who they have sex with. What is political about this? Why in the world is climate change political? You got Richard Branson, who is single-handedly responsible for more CO2 emissions than maybe any living human being because of Virgin Atlantic Airlines. The amount of CO2 that his jets have put in the atmosphere would dwarf anything you've ever even dreamed of in your SUV, and he's out there praising the Apple CEO for telling investors who don't want money wasted on this kind of stuff at the corporate level to go take a hike. That a way, Tim, you tell 'em. That's exactly right. We need more CEOs to tell investors to take a hike. We tell we need more CEOs to tell investors to avoid the stock, and we need more CEOs that are gonna sit there and do the right socially conscious thing with corporate money.
What is this? The guy puts out more pollution, if you want to call it that, and yet he's out there making it sound like he's one of the biggest anti-global warming, anti-CO2 warriors. It's no different than Gates and Buffett standing for tax increases. It inoculates them from any criticism as rich guys. And when the people with pitchforks gather at the gates to try to take away everybody's money they'll leave Gates and Buffett alone, and the Kennedys, they'll leave them alone. So here's a guy that single-handedly is responsible for more pollution than entire cities combined, beating the drum for corporate responsibility when it comes to pollution.
He's not gonna shut his airplanes down. He did fly one with vegetable oil in one of the engine once. No passengers on it. The thing smelled like French fries the whole route. He did. He put vegetable oil in one of the engines as a test, and it was just a PR thing. They're never gonna fly a jet with people on it powered by Wesson oil. They're just not gonna do it. Why is this political, is my point? To those of you in the audience who are low-information voters -- of course, most low-information voters don't think they are. That's the dilemma, the irony. They don't think they are. Most stupid people don't realize it. They're not smart enough to know they're stupid. And it's the same thing with low-information voters. They don't know enough to know how little they know.
So when I say "to you low-information voters" there's nobody out there, "Oh, he's talking to me." But I'm just gonna ask the question anyway. What in the world is Republican versus Democrat about global warming? Let me put another way. Why is climate change such a big deal to the Democrat Party? What is it that's political about it? I'm serious. I'm asking you to provide an answer yourself. What is political? What is political about two men having sex with each other or two women having sex, what is political about that? But it is, as far as Democrat Party's concerned, it is. Everything they do is political.
What is political about climate change and global warming? Why is that a political issue, not a science issue? Why is it that where you go to learn about that is politics and not science? And in answering the question, you might find out where the fraud exists. Why does one particular party seem hell-bent on the belief that there is manmade global warming? Why? And the answer is very simple. Higher taxes, bigger government, and less freedom.
That's what you'll surrender in order for these people to, quote/unquote "fix it." But they can't. They can't. They can't even prove that we are causing it. There's no way they can fix it. There's no way they can reduce CO2 emissions without turning everybody into poverty stricken waifs. It just can't by done. It's not about fixing it when you get down to it. See, that's the dirty little secret.
Like Obamacare is not about health care, global warming is not about keeping it from getting hot. Global warming, climate change is not about making it cooler. It's not about anything like that, just like "health care" is not about health care. They are simply disguised issues to advance a particular party -- in this case, the Democrat Party's -- agenda.