RUSH: This is Saturday morning, PBS Ground Zero. I’m sorry, GZERO World. (Why’d I say, “Ground Zero”?) It’s GZERO World with Ian Bremer, PBS. He’s talking to the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the famous SDNY, Preet Bharara, who’s a Schumer guy. Question: “There’s so much noise around all these investigations, of which Mueller is only one. If the average person were gonna spend only a half hour or an hour trying to get up to speed on what matters, what’s gonna have impact long-term? What would you tell the average person to focus on,” former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara?
BHARARA: People don’t have the time to read every indictment, to read every document that’s filed in court. People don’t have time to read the entire Mueller report. I think one important thing is to rely on multiple sources. The problem in the country and the reason why people don’t persuade other people to their point of view, is that nobody wants to be persuaded. And they only listen to people who agree with them. They only watch the one channel; they either rely on Rush Limbow (sic) or no one else. It is important, I think, to mix it up a little bit.
RUSH: How does my name end up in this? “Rush Limbow.” Now, he knows it’s pronounced “Limbaugh,” number one, because everybody does. Number two, what he’s saying is insane. Nobody can avoid the liberal media. Nobody can avoid it! “They only listen to people who agree with them. They only watch one channel.” No! And Mr. Bharara, once again, people who listen here know more about what’s going on truthfully and honestly with the American left and the Democrat Party than people that watch CNN or read the New York Times.
People who listen to this program are more informed about what people like you did when you were the SDNY top dog. People who listen to this program are more informed than anybody who just has a diet of Drive-By Media. There’s no way you can avoid the Drive-By Media, Mr. Bharara. We’re barely 10% of media here in the so-called alternative universe.
RUSH: A couple more sound bites and then we move on. And these follow the same thinking as the first. Preet Bharara, former district attorney for the Southern District of New York (imitating Bharara), “You know, people listen to Rush ‘Limbow’ and no one else and they don’t learn anything.” It’s the same old saw. Since they don’t control 100 percent of the media, they’re miserable, they’re unhappy, and they’ve gotta drive out everybody who isn’t like them.
Here is another bite. NPR On the Media on Friday. The host is talking to Washington Post columnist Paul Waldman. Question: “The GOP has been working for a long time to cultivate a certain narrative about a rigged system and political bias deep state and impeachment by Democrats will be just the smoking gun they’re looking for to prove yet again he’s just being set up for purely partisan reasons.” Meaning Trump.
WALDMAN: A lot of people spent a lot of time worrying about what will make Trump voters angry. Looking at what they see on Fox News or hear on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio makes them very, very gun-shy because they say if we awaken this beast we’ll get another version of 2016.
RUSH ARCHIVE: The Democrats are being driven mad. They’re operating from a contrived conspiracy born and supported by fake news, and they can’t give it up for whatever reasons.
WALDMAN: The problem is that they have a remarkable ability within that conservative media system to create controversy out of anything. The biggest issue in the 2016 election was whether Hillary Clinton used the wrong email. The idea that you could avoid the wrath of the Trump supporters by not going down the road of impeachment but, say, investigating him in other ways, I just don’t think that bears out.
RUSH: What the hell are these two guys talking about? They don’t even know. That’s not really the point of this bite. These two people, the NPR host and a Washington Post writer, “Democrats are worried that Rush Limbaugh and conservative media will make impeachment backfire on them.”
Are you telling me that Pencil Neck and the rest of these goons, like Elijah Cummings of the Congressional Black Caucasians, are you telling me that they’re gonna decide whether or not to impeach Trump based on me? That I could be the reason it backfires on them? What must they think of these guys if they think they’re afraid of me, these two guys at the Washington Post and NPR.
But did you notice the real point of this, you listen to this guy, listen to what he thinks is the reason Hillary lost. “The biggest issue in the 2016 election was whether Hillary Clinton used the wrong email.” Do you realize how out of touch these people are? And I want to stress, again, that I think in this case these people are really out of touch.
They don’t think Hillary Clinton trafficking in classified data on an unsecured personal email account is a problem at all. They think we’re just making it up, we’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Okay, so she used a what? Wrong email. She didn’t use a wrong email address. She used the exact email address that she intended!
She was conducting nefarious business that she didn’t want recorded on government networks! She was selling access to her future presidency via donations to the Clinton Foundation! And she didn’t want that on the statedepartment.gov email domain. She didn’t want any records of that. That’s why there was a private server in her basement.
These clowns do not even know what the 2016 election was about? They think it was about Hillary Clinton’s emails and they think that we tried to make a mountain out of a molehill because she was using the wrong email address, nothing about the fact she was unqualified, had no business being president, dishonest, selling access. And now we know that it was Hillary Clinton who bought and paid for the Steele dossier, and that’s responsible for a two-year period of hell for this country on a series of lies.
And they think that we’re bent out of shape because Hillary Clinton was using the wrong email address, that that’s why Donald Trump got elected? Proof positive again, they haven’t even taken the time to understand who Trump’s voters are, where they are, and why they voted for Trump. You know, you go back and forth.
I mean, you think these people, because they’re journalists, they’ve been educated, you think they’re intelligent and smart and informed. But evidence keeps piling up that they’re really not informed! I don’t know about their brains, but they’re just not informed.
Talk about people that live in a bubble and do not subject themselves to anything outside what they think, they accuse us of that? I know more about what they think than they do. I know more about why they think what they do. I know more that they know than they don’t know.
They’re the ones with closed minds. They’re the ones that are not curious. And they are journalists. I mean, we create controversy out of anything? Like Hillary using a private illegal server, like the Drive-Bys’ Russia collusion conspiracy theory, we just make this stuff up? If it’s just a matter of Hillary using the wrong email, why did Hillary obstruct justice by destroying her emails in the face of a subpoena? If it was just the wrong e-mail address, why did she destroy 30,000 emails?
And this takes me to the next bite and the final sound bite in this series. And boy, is this an eye-opener. This guy gives up the ghost. This is last night on C-SPAN. They aired an American University Center for Environmental Policy roundtable discussion that was recorded last week.
And during the Q&A there’s some guy in the audience asking Atlantic magazine staff writer Vann Newkirk about how to reach people who do not believe in climate change and then of course we have Newkirk’s response.
MAN: What are you doing to stop preaching to the choir and reach regularly the sort of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, who only get their news from Fox?
NEWKIRK: The people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and the people who watch Fox? (laughing) Those folks are affected by this too. Perhaps silver lining — I don’t know if silver lining is the right term — but an opportunity you can use those disasters for is telling people, “You know, this is a problem, not just the larger looming climate change, but the baseline issue of environmental justice, it affects all of us.”
RUSH: Do you realize what this guy just said? Let me, as a well-known radio raconteur, translate this for you. This guy from The Atlantic, Vann Newkirk, just said that they will use natural disasters to reach Rush Limbaugh listeners on climate change. So a hurricane happens or a thunderstorm or a snowstorm, and they will use that to try to convince you that climate change is real.
Now, again, this isn’t news. We have known this for the longest time. But they are admitting it. This guy gives up the ghost. The silver lining of bad weather? The silver lining of bad weather is it’s a tool to convince Rush Limbaugh listeners that climate change is real. So we’re right. Bad weather happens, a disaster happens, they celebrate. They see a political opportunity or a political opening.
RUSH: So that guy from The Atlantic magazine saying that (summarized), “Yeah, they’ll use natural disasters whenever they happen, to try to convince Rush Limbaugh listeners that climate change is real.” And then he equates that with economic justice, social economic justice, which is a tantamount admission that all of this is political; it isn’t scientific. Does anybody remember the name Neil Frank? Neil Frank used to run the National Hurricane Center. Neil Frank just published a very lengthy article that dispels all the “science” of climate change.
It points out such logical things as: How in the world could we have ever had an ice age end and how could we have ever had warming in the past if human beings weren’t around and the Industrial Revolution never happened? In other words, all of the fossil fuels today that propel us and create our energy didn’t exist at a time when the world was warming. How is this possible? And then how did things ever cool off?
He points out we’re coming out of, actually, the Little Ice Age, but that the warming has stopped, and he uses a great analogy. He says the football stadium, AT&T Stadium in Texas, has 100,000 seats. He says, in order to help people understand… I don’t have it right in front of me, but he takes these 100,000 seats and says, “How many of these seats are oxygen, how many of these seats are other elements, how many of these seats…?” Then he gets down to, “How many of these seats are CO2?” and the answer is 40.
The equivalent, if you have 100,000 seats in AT&T Stadium where the Cowboys play football, is 40 of those seats. If you apportion each seat to atmospheric composition, only 40 out of 100,000 are CO2s. Meaning we’re nowhere near saturation. He indicates scientifically how CO2 cannot possibly be a primary factor in climate or atmospheric warming. It’s a long piece, and it’s got a lot of science in it, a lot of charts and graphs. He gets ticked off.
He’s called a “denier,” and he’s got more scientific, atmospheric, meteorological experience and education than most of the so-called scientists that are said to be part of the consensus have. It’s really well done. I will… Koko, I’ll get the link to this, since I’ve mentioned this, and I’ll send it up to you. But it just… It’s proof here for this guy from the Atlantic in the sound bite in the last hour telling people that (summarized), “Yeah, we use natural disasters as a way to convince the Rush Limbaugh listeners that climate change is real.
“We combine that with economic justice.” Economic justice? Climate justice? Environmental justice? You know, I’ll tell you something. I would argue that you, listeners of the EIB Network, know far more than people who just listen to the Drive-By Media. You know so much more than just people who listen to NPR and their podcasts. Because we talk about both sides of every issue. I always cover the left side in depth, and the reason I do this is because it buttresses my point.
I don’t sit here and extol the virtues of, say, conservatism or common sense. I always compare it to what the left, what the other side is saying or what they believe, in order to demonstrate the supremacy of my/our beliefs. I cover them. I cover the left in much greater depth than they do even themselves. They’re not honest about themselves and who they are and what their motives are, and I present the alternative facts that they never touch.
So it is you people in this audience that are the ones who are always free to decide who is right on whatever issue because you do get both sides presented to you here. Think of all the things people who only get their news from the Drive-By Media don’t know. It’s striking what they don’t know. What was it the other day? I ran into somebody and was explaining something that is fundamental. You and I have understood this for two years, and I think it has something to do with the Mueller report.
I wish I could remember it. It was just flat-out obvious. They had never heard it. They had never even heard the fact or the theory or the idea, because all they ever do is pay attention to the Drive-By Media. The Democrats’ biggest problem is what they always claim is ours. That is, their primaries force their candidates to run very far to the ultraleft, and the country is not socialist. That’s their big problem. Anyway, it just kind of irritates me because this image is that the Drive-By Media’s educated and informed and comprehensive, and it’s nothing of the sort in any way, shape, manner, or form.