All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
September 21, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Right here is an example.
Right here is an example of exactly what I have been talking today.
Democratic cowardice.
The refusal to stand up for your beliefs and how the activists on the left are not going to tolerate it.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's a Rush Limbaugh program and this is the EIB Network.
A program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Ralph Nees of People for the American Way has lashed out at Senator Patrick DePenz, Leakey Leahy, for announcing he intends to vote for the confirmation of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States of America.
People for the American Way and Ralph Nees put out the following statement.
Following the announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Patrick Leahy that he will support Chief Justice nominee John Roberts, People for the American Way says this.
Senator Leahy eloquently made all the arguments against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and then made a decision that contradicted his own compelling reasoning.
His decision was inexplicable and deeply disappointing.
When John Roberts becomes the Chief Justice and votes to erode or overturn long-standing Supreme Court precedents protecting fundamental civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, reproductive rights, and environmental safeguards, Senator Leahy's support for Roberts will make him complicit in those rulings and in the retreat from our constitutional rights and liberties.
End of statement.
I guarantee you that elsewhere out in activist America where the Democrats inhabit, there is boiling rage at Senator Leahy because Senator Leahy doesn't support Judge Roberts.
He has, but he has to, for some reason, he decided to vote for him.
Now, the Democratic activists are forgetting that the Democrats in Washington have a strategy here.
The strategy is, yeah, we're not going to go strict party line vote in the Judiciary Committee, and we're going to have some Democrats vote for the guy.
But we're setting up our opposition to the next justice.
The activists aren't, they don't care about strategy.
They want blood.
They want death.
They want this guy not confirmed simply because Bush nominated him.
They don't want any Democrats voting for the guy.
They'd be happy if every Democrat voted against him and he still passed.
That would be okay.
Wouldn't be happy that Robert's on the court, but they would be stinking happy that their Democrats did what they want.
Leahy is a lone defector so far.
Well, there'd be some other Democrats that'll vote for Roberts.
Here's a classic example.
Ralph Nees has sent out the long knives and the warning to Senator Leahy.
The activists don't care about strategy.
They don't care about the next nominee.
They care only in the moment and they want political blood.
And I'm with them, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm fed up with the dishonesty of the Democrats.
I'm fed up with their cowardice.
I'm fed up with them not standing for that which I know they stand for.
I am fed up with them not being forced to defend their agenda.
I'm fed up with being forced to have to defend mine all the time when I don't have to defend it.
I know it works.
In fact, I don't defend it.
I proclaim it.
They are never made to defend their agenda, and it's time, and this is what the activists are demanding, and I am with them.
I today have announced my unison and my support of moveon.org and the Democrat Underground and the Daily Cause and whoever else out there on the activist left.
I'm with Ralph Nees today.
Ralph Nees is exactly right.
Leahy is wrong.
Leahy is a coward, as are many other Democrats, who will not say what they believe, who will not vote what they believe for whatever reasons.
And it's time they were forced into honesty.
And that is where I join the activists on the left.
A story from the UK Telegraph today, the truth about global warming.
Global warming has finally been explained.
The earth is getting hotter because the sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggest that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr. Sammy Solanke, director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who led the research, said the sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
It has to be the case because there's global warming on Mars.
The global ice caps on Mars are melting, ladies and gentlemen.
Can't blame it on Bush's Mars rovers.
They're running on solar power up there.
Can't blame it on them.
Can't blame it on us.
Can't blame it on fossil fuels, gasoline, ozone holes, or what have you.
Will the Democrats listen?
No, the Democrats will not listen.
This goes against everything they believe.
Well, I know we've got to do something about the sun.
And I'm sure the Democrats have a plan if they just be honest and tell us what it is.
It's not so much that we have to do anything about the sun.
It's what are we doing to cause the sun to warm up.
Maybe we've been mistaken about fossil fuels.
Maybe the fossil fuels are not warming our atmosphere.
Maybe somehow it's our burning of fossil fuels causing the sun to heat up.
Who knows?
But in the Democrat world, we are causing it.
By the way, here are the death tolls, as reported by the Associated Press from Hurricane Katrina.
Alabama, 2.
Florida, 14.
Georgia, 2.
Mississippi, 219.
Louisiana, 736, a total 973.
And that's all.
Now, if this were a story about Iraq deaths, it would be two and a half pages long.
There would be breathless counting.
There'd be excitement.
There would be all points of fingers of blame pointed at George W. Bush for this.
There would be embellishment.
There would be prose.
There would be editorial comments about how we shouldn't be there.
lives have been lost for nothing if this were an Iraq war dead count.
But since this count of hurricane deaths does not approximate the hysterical claims of thousands, maybe 10,000, it's just, look at it.
For those of you on the DittoCam, I'll zoom in here and you'll see, look at the left side of your monitor, just a little list of states and numbers.
Nothing other than that.
No reporting, just the states and the tally.
Nothing whatsoever here about anybody.
Now, if these numbers were approaching what they hysterically originally forecast, why we'd get big stories about it.
But since not, we don't hear stories.
Even in this death tally, there's no reference to how good the news is compared to what we originally thought.
There's no story here about, wow, is not this good news?
Why, we thought it was going to be much higher than this.
This is really, really great.
None of that, just the strict tally.
Will we see stories, the death toll lower than huge disasters, but the quality of life for the survivors worse than ever?
We probably will.
Yes, the death toll is lower, but the quality of life for survivors is so bad, they may as well have been killed.
Because Bush doesn't care.
Bush was trying to kill him in the first place.
This is what the activists want to hear from the elected Democrats.
The activists are saying this.
The activists believe it.
In fact, I was on a Kook Lib website just this morning, and they're playing games with the track of Hurricane Rita.
And they've got two model tracks going right to Crawford, Texas, and destroying Bush's ranch.
This is what they want.
They want the hurricane to destroy Bush's ranch.
And they want Democrats in Washington to say that that would be fair, that that would be appropriate.
It would be a great response.
It would be about time that Bush suffered because of all the misery he has caused.
This is what the activists want to hear from elected Democrats.
And until they hear it, they will not be happy and they will not be satisfied.
And I join them.
I join David Mammet.
I join the Hollywood left in claiming elected Democrats are simply cowards and haven't the guts to tell us what they really believe.
Time now, ladies and gentlemen, to sell a book.
I have a story from the PR web here today.
And it's a press release, a slash news story about a new book that's out there.
The headline of this story, Liberals Furious Over New Children's Book.
Liberals all over the country are up in arms over a new children's book that portrays cartoon versions of left-wing icons Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy taxing and regulating a lemonade stand.
Help, Mom, There Are Liberals Under My Bed hits bookstore shelves today.
But author Catherine De Brecht has already found herself under fire from liberals.
MSNBC quasi host Ron Reagan was incensed over the book and scolded De Brecht on his cable TV show.
Alan Colms of Hannity and Colms claimed the book exists for the purpose of brainwashing.
Democrat Underground, a popular liberal website, named Debrecht to its top 10 conservative idiots list.
And the Daily Cause, the most trafficked left-wing blog, likened the book to Nazi propaganda.
In spite of the unflattering comparisons to Hitler, Liberals Under My Bed, author De Brecht is nonplussed by the allegations.
What else would you expect from liberals, shrugs the author, Catherine De Brecht, who is a mother of three and a former co-captain of security moms for Bush?
Liberals have been foisting their ideological agenda on our kids for years, and now they're beside themselves that someone would stand up to them.
Evidently, books about socialist fish and gay kings are okay, but a story about hard work and self-reliance, why, that's too extreme.
De Brecht asserts that no liberals have protested the presence of books such as Rainbow Fish, where a fish is hectored into giving away his beautiful scales so that all the fish look the same, and King and King, where two princes marry each other and adopt a little girl.
Those books are in classrooms, and the liberals have no problem with that.
She also points to the prohibition on prayer in school, attacks on the Boy Scouts, opposition to school choice, and the recent court ruling banning the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase under God as evidence of a liberal agenda targeting kids.
She says, evidently, liberals oppose parents who believe in traditional values, having a book that will help them teach those values to their kids.
But then again, liberals oppose anything that supports religion, traditional families, and the free market.
Those institutions are obstacles to their goals of eliminating personal responsibility and establishing a welfare state.
Help, Mom, There Are Liberals Under My Bed is the title of the book.
It features full-color illustrations by award-winning artist Jim Hummel.
It tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand.
Their plans to save up their hard-earned profits to buy a swing set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their profits and a pants suit clan Hillary Clinton lookalike outlaws sugary drinks.
So once again, we find conservatives able to be totally honest about who liberals are.
And the thing is, the liberals cringe and they go crazy.
They go ape.
When you dare be honest about them, they call it an attack.
And I'm telling you, you people on the left, you activists, dailycause moveon.org, the Democrat Underground, you're on to something here.
Your leaders don't have the guts to join you in this crusade that you are giving so much to, that you are sacrificing so much for.
You're putting yourselves on the line and your elected officials are not joining you.
They don't have the guts.
You got some help in the media, but your elected officials don't have the courage and the backbone to join you in this quest that you believe in so much.
But our hat is off here to Catherine DeBrecht, author of Help Mom.
There are liberals under my bed.
Liberals upset that the truth is available in the form of a children's book.
Have we all forgotten Captain Planet?
Captain Planet, a cartoon show on Saturday morning, Ted Turner's little creation.
It's tempted to establish a notion that all corporations are evil and pollute.
And Captain Planet was a Superman-like figure that came along and wreaked havoc on America's corporations.
That was fine.
Heather has two mommies.
That was fine.
Socialist fish, fine.
All these in public schools, no less.
Fine.
But a book in the private sector that people have to buy, liberals are outraged.
Why?
Because it's honest.
It tells the truth, not just about conservatism, but about them.
And until they can join their activists on the left and become as honest as the activists on the left are and admit publicly who they are and what they believe, it's one thing to put books in classrooms that teach it.
It's another thing to stand up and say, I'm for it.
Vote for me because of it.
And until they do that, they will not truly understand what it is that they face in terms of overcoming the obstacles that have been placed in front of them.
Most notably, the obstacles placed in front of them by themselves.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
It just keeps rolling in.
The news just keeps establishing my point.
I have a story here, ladies and gentlemen, from Madison, Wisconsin.
Governor Jim Doyle, a Democrat, demanded yesterday that oil companies refund Wisconsin drivers $88 million, saying the firms gouged consumers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Doyle and seven other Democrat governors sent President Bush and Congress a letter asking them to order the oil companies to return excessive ill-gotten profits to consumers and to conduct a nationwide investigation of gas prices.
To price gouge consumers under normal circumstances, that's dishonest enough, Doyle said.
But to make money off the misery of others is downright immoral.
Come on, governor.
You believe in high prices.
You and your six other, seven other Democrat governors believe and have stood by while other Democrats have talked about we need high gas prices.
We need to reduce consumption.
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Classic example of what I'm talking about.
Here is a Democrat, like all other Democrats, who believes that we need high gas prices for the reasons I just stated.
And then we get them.
And rather than applauding and clapping hands and saying to the American people, this is a good opportunity for us, they want to go sue big oil for gouging.
And then they assume, ladies and gentlemen, that they gouge every day anyway, and that's bad enough.
But to do it in the face of a disaster, why, it's even worse.
This kind of duplicitous behavior and phoniness is not going to stand you in good stead with your activist base.
If you believe in high gas prices, have the guts to say so.
Throw away that old page in a playbook where you go blame some corporate entity for what you're for.
You want to be praising these corporations for bringing about the policy you have advocated, Governor.
You need to be praising these corporations for finally having the guts to do what the government hasn't had the guts itself to do, and that is force conservation on people with high prices.
Bill Clinton did.
On Saturday, Bill Clinton at a global forum, he let it slip that he's for rising oil prices, rising gas prices as a means of weaning everybody in the world off of these evil fossil fuels.
What a red letter day this has been.
Pete St. St. St. St. Ignis, Michigan.
Welcome to the program.
Pete, I'm glad you called.
Meganos Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you.
You were talking earlier about the $49 that the New York Times is charging now to read their op-ed page.
Just looking at the surface of that as far as paying people to read their opinion, what's the difference between that and your service?
Well, where would I start?
My service has more than just five or six op-ed writers on it.
If you've been to the Rush 24-7 site, you're looking at a veritable encyclopedia of information, historical data, and intelligence.
It's all wrapped up.
It's got far more value to it than five or six editorial writers in the New York Times, three or four of them who all say the same thing anyway.
The second thing is it's stupid marketing.
You can buy the newspaper for 50 cents and not have to pay the website price of $49.95 if you want to read that drivel in the newspaper.
The third mistake is, for how many years did they give it away?
They established the notion that it was free.
This is a problem I think that a lot of websites are going to face because they gave it away.
I've been wondering when they're going to start charging for some of these services in the first place for a number of years.
It's just insupportable.
They cannot.
It's no wonder these outfits are losing money.
Their circulation is down, probably some of that being made up by people reading online.
There's not nearly the banner advertising revenue on websites that there is.
That's why they're charging subscriptions to try to make some money back on this.
The third thing is they're charging for the wrong thing.
If you're going to charge $49.95, charge for some content.
Charge for the rest of the newspaper.
Throw in the op-eds for nothing.
As an incentive for people to actually pay for the service.
They've got it backwards.
The marketing here is so it's, well, it's understandable.
They're a bunch of libs.
And it's interesting.
They think that people that can't afford things ought to have them given to them.
And the Times tried it and they find out you can't sustain giving your stuff away.
Now, when they can't sustain it, they're going to start charging people for it.
But they bitch and moan about everybody else who does the same thing.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Yes, they do.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, other reasons why it makes sense for us to charge?
The New York Times doesn't have a ditto cam.
Who in the world would pay to watch Maureen Dowd do anything, much less write a column?
The New York Times doesn't have anything like podcasting as we have here.
The New York Times has nothing fun.
There's not one thing fun about the New York Times.
Nothing.
Reading the New York Times is sheer drudgery, misery, and depression.
That's all it is.
Who wants to pay for that?
We have to pay for enough misery as it is with our cable TV bills.
The phone bills and everything else.
But on the Rush Limbaugh show, you get Club Gitmo.
You get the Club Gitmo photo gallery.
All kinds of fun.
Plus access to this program on a daily basis.
This program doesn't cost you anything to listen to on the radio.
Doesn't cost you a thing.
But the website offers more than just what's on this radio.
The New York Times website does not offer one thing more than isn't in the newspaper on a daily basis, other than its archives.
By the way, one thing about these death toll figures, ladies and gentlemen, that I just shared with you.
Let me get them here.
Did I put them at the bottom of the stack?
Find them quickly.
Anyway, the death toll fate.
Here they are.
Here they are.
AP, no mounting anticipation, as in reporting death tolls from Iraq.
Just numbers buried in a small little story.
No embellishment, no prose, no excitement, no breathlessness as they announce Iraq war dead.
Here are the totals.
Alabama 2, Florida 14, Georgia 2, Louisiana 736, Mississippi 219, total 973.
That's the story.
Do you people realize that there have been more deaths in Hurricane Katrina in a matter of weeks than in Iraq in a year?
That's how to make the news even worse for the left is put it in perspective for them.
If you're going to be worried about the loss of American life, be worried about the loss of American life.
But there's a glaring lack of proportion.
Say, I have a great story here that cleared the wires last night.
It was on WNBC-TV Channel 4 in New York during their 6 o'clock local news last night.
I want to read this story to you.
I want to ask you if it reminds you of anybody.
A man accused of leaving his girlfriend to die after his car ended up in a Stamford, Connecticut pond has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison.
Francisco Loiza, 30 of Stratford, had previously pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle.
Before his sentencing Monday, he apologized for causing the accident.
Your Honor, I just want to say I'm sorry.
I hurt the person I loved and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.
In the early morning hours of January 15th, Loiza was driving a Nissan Altima on Wednesday, and that's environmentally responsible.
I'm sure he gets credit for that.
They don't float.
Been driving a Volkswagen bug.
It might have been a little different, but nevertheless, he's driving his Nissan Altima on Weed Avenue in Stamford, speeding at more than 85 miles an hour.
He lost control of the Nissan Altima, struck a guardrail, and drove into Holly Pond.
He fled on foot.
It was later determined he had a blood alcohol level of 0.241, three times the legal limit of 0.08.
Loiza's passenger, Christina Kalganova, 21-year-old Russian immigrant, died when the car flipped over.
An autopsy determined that she died of blunt head and neck trauma.
Police stopped Loiza as he was running from the scene.
According to police reports, he was uncooperative and gave conflicting reports about whether any passengers were inside the car.
Does this remind you of anybody, Mr. Snerdley?
Snerdley's thinking hard in there.
Can't seem to come up with this.
You just seem to have a blank face in there.
You don't seem to know who this reminds.
Yeah, Senator Kennedy, I can tell you the mistake Francisco Loiza made.
He didn't find a neck brace before the cops found him.
If he had found a neck brace and put it on, and then, of course, he didn't know the local constabulary, and he didn't know the local coroner.
He didn't have some things going for him.
And of course, the cops are on the scene a little quicker here than they were up at Chappaquittick.
But that neck brace, that neck brace is a very powerful visual aid for liberals who get in these kinds of accidents.
And had Francisco Lawiza had a neck brace, you never know.
It could have all been different.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a sad day.
I have just received news of a death of a former prominent American liberal.
The great Molly Yard, the longtime liberal activist, president of the National Association of Gals, i.e. the NAGS, who led the NAGs during the fight over the nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court, has died at age 93.
Over the years, we have chronicled the political goings and comings of Molly Yard in several ways.
And as an early tribute, before they all gather in Carnegie Hall to offer their remembrances of Molly Yard, we would like to get a head start here and play for you some of her famous words over the years as leader of the NAGS that we have amplified on this program.
How many of these do we have in there, Mike?
We have three.
Here's the first of three.
And I tell you, we are not going to obey the law in this country.
Women will not.
There will be lawlessness everywhere.
The jails won't be big enough to hold those who break the law.
Famous words made famous during the activist days of the presidency of Molly Yard of the NAGS.
Here's another example.
I'm mad.
I hope you're mad.
Fighting mad.
And this.
I am outraged by it.
Absolutely outraged.
And see, this is a return to the Halcyon days where leaders were actively angry.
They shared their passions with the voters.
They identified themselves as who they really are.
Molly Yard once showed them the way on the American left.
Today, only other activists have followed her great example.
Elected Democrats have lost the fire that was in the belly of Molly Yard.
One more time.
Let's go through these one more time as we remember Molly Yard, who died today at age 93.
And I tell you, we are not going to obey the law in this country.
Women will not.
There will be lawlessness everywhere.
The jails won't be big enough to hold those who break the law.
I'm mad.
I hope you're mad.
Fighting mad.
I am outraged by it.
Absolutely outraged.
Molly Yard passed away today at age 93.
From the Associated Press, Mary Dalrymple, doing the honors of writing this story.
House and Senate tax writers agreed yesterday to package a tax breaks designed to help Hurricane Katrina victims recoup their losses and access needed cash.
The Congressional Research Service, an office that provides lawmakers with nonpartisan legislative analysis, said some of those tax breaks could do more for higher income survivors than for the neediest.
Yes, people, they're going to get tax breaks for Katrina.
It may help the rich more.
The rich may benefit more from taxes and tax cuts that result from Hurricane Katrina.
We should rethink this, ladies.
Even though the rich were wiped out, too, they still may benefit more.
I will guarantee you this, ladies and gentlemen.
Many of those getting tax cuts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will not have paid any taxes at all.
The people who pay taxes today are primarily the upper middle class, the rich, whatever you're going to call them, and the filthy wealthy.
We'll take a break after this.
Stay with us.
By the way, folks, talking here about the Limbaugh plan that I articulated last week, I am happy to tell you that a number of conservatives have taken up the challenge.
Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend today more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the cost of Hurricane Katrina as the lawmakers continue to struggle to develop a consensus on the fiscal approach to the disaster.
Now, one thing you have to understand here, this $200 billion that has been allocated or mentioned, or $300 billion, that's not going to be spent in one year.
That's not going to be spent in two or three years.
It's going to be parceled out over a number of years.
So you have to amortize this, if you will, on an annual basis.
And that's why the House Republicans here, conservative House Republicans, claim they have found $500 billion in cuts over 10 years.
They have found $31 billion delaying the welfare drug bill.
This is the prescription drug bill that the scheduled recipients in poll after poll don't even want.
There's $25 billion in highway pork.
It all adds up.
And by the way, that $31 billion from the Medicare prescription drug plan, that comes from just delaying the start for one year.
That's not canceling the program.
Just delay the start for a year.
You get $31 billion.
That's fine.
They're thinking about this, folks.
I'm telling you, from the get-go, this has been a tremendous opportunity.
We conservatives stand up for what we believe in.
We proclaim what we believe in.
We are honest about it.
And when we implement it, it works.
That scares the left as well.
Here's a story from the Associated Press.
Now, I haven't seen this report in too many places.
And in fact, you have to dig real deep to find the nut paragraph in this story.
But the headline ought to be shoddy levee construction in New Orleans with a question mark after it.
In addition, the Corps of Engineers, this is way down in the middle of the story, almost toward the end of the story.
The Corps of Engineers had 800 giant sandbags weighing 6,000 to 15,000 pounds on hand, just in case the levees break and ordered 2,500 more to shore up low spots and plug any new breaches.
And a lot of this is because they're worried about what Hurricane Rita is going to do in the New Orleans area.
The scramble comes amid new questions about the city's flood protection system.
While the Army Corps of Engineers has said flooding resulted from Katrina's storm surge exceeded what the barriers were designed to protect, investigations by the Washington Post and New York Times on Wednesday quoted experts saying faulty design and inadequate construction played more of a factor than did the weather.
Meteorologists also have questioned whether New Orleans got the full brunt of Katrina's Category 4 power, as the Corps has maintained.
Both newspapers cited researchers arguing that storm surges didn't cascade over the flood walls.
So as time goes on, more investigations into what went wrong down there point more and more away from the federal government and more and more to local and state officials who took the federal money, but then did not invest it and spend it on projects for which it was intended.
Justin in Egan, Minnesota.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
You're next.
How are you doing, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
I disagree with you on some earlier comments you're making regarding allowing gas prices to go up as being a liberal ideal.
I actually think it's quite conservative, and I think it's all it can do is drive innovation, and allow us to decrease our defense on fossil fuels earlier than if we continue to suppress the price of gas.
Well, look, I understand your argument, and let's take it from the conservative side.
What you're basically saying is the market rules.
And in a circumstance like this, the free market rules.
And if the price goes up on a supply problem or a demand problem or distribution problem, then the price goes up.
The liberals don't look at it that way.
Whenever the price goes up, and keep in mind, they've always been for this.
For the last 30 years, the environmentalists have led the Democratic Party in supporting rising energy prices.
Clinton raised gas taxes in 1993, wanted to raise the carbon tax.
He wanted to raise taxes on energy all over the board, all across the board.
They will not say so.
So what happens is that when the free market works and the prices go up and the liberals see the panic and the reaction with a Republican in office, they cast aside what they really believe and see an opportunity to blame Bush for it, which in fact is utter denial.
They are for this themselves.
They ought to be shouting from the rooftops, good, this is exactly what we say should happen.
But because the free market is making it happen and not taxes or not policy, then they're not happy about it.
They don't want the right thing happening when they have nothing to do with it.
So the market raising prices, and what you're saying is, hey, if we've got to get to alternative fuels, I know what you're saying, we're only going to get there when the market demands it, when the market requires it, when prices get so high to drill for oil, distribute oil, process it, that it is cheaper to finally do all the R ⁇ D and research to come up with an alternative fuel.
That's when it's going to happen.
I've said that myself.
I agree with you 100%.
We're not there yet.
This earth, I saw, and I don't have the story in front, I do have it in the stack here, but I don't have it right in front of me.
This earth, this is a quote from the story, is swimming in oil.
We are swimming in oil.
We are not anywhere near running out of oil.
The story's point is that for 150 years, we have been in an era of cheap oil.
And that, he says, is what is about to run out.
10 to 20 more years and the era of cheap oil will run out.
And at that point, it's going to become more economically feasible to start working developing on these alternative fuels.
A government mandate, a government requirement isn't going to get it done.
The question is, is there really a free market with oil?
You've got 40 different formulations of gasoline.
We don't have any excess or what would you call it?
We don't have a cushion on refineries because we won't allow them to be built.
We won't allow oil companies to drill anywhere in the United States.
What kind of free market exists in oil already?
I would say not much of one.
We have a government-run oil business in this country.
And if you want to talk about the oil companies gouging people, you better go talk to the people who write the laws about drilling for oil, transporting oil, and refining it in this country, which is the United States Congress, because there you will find out why prices go up during times of disaster like this.
If we had plenty of refineries built in the last 30 years, we haven't had one.
If we were allowed to drill for oil in other places beside the Gulf, we can handle these kinds of shortages.
But oh no, haven't been allowed to do that.
So what kind of free market in oil, when you get right down to it, is there?
There really isn't, not with 40 formulations required for gasoline for environmental regulations.
One thing we could do is scrap those forever.
As we saw, scrapping them temporarily alleviated a distribution crisis and quickly brought down, say, $6 a gallon gasoline in Atlanta inside of days.
And there's all kinds of additional things we could do as well.
You get government out of it.
Let the free market actually take care of it.
And the era of cheap oil can continue.
Got to go.
Out of time.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha Rushi, your host for life, here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Well, this has been fun today, folks.
And we will continue it tomorrow.
A lot of people are saying, could you invoke the fourth hour?
And I can't today, folks.
Just some things that are going to be occupying my time after the program.
But I promise we'll do a fourth hour soon for web subscribers and ditto cameras.
Have a great afternoon.
And remember, it's already Thursday tomorrow.
Fastest week in media rolls on.
▲
Export Selection