All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
March 15, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, you know, there's all this news out there that we've mentioned on this program in previous years, like for five years in a row, and like yesterday and so forth.
Like, look at this.
Their Pew Research Center recently updated a question about happiness in the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been asking since 1972.
Republicans, conservatives, happier than everybody.
Doesn't matter how you quantify it, qualify it.
Well, hell's bells.
Everybody's known this for the longest time.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
Nice to have you.
We don't need a poll for this.
All we need is me.
I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
Welcome to those of you watching on the DittoCam today.
It's up and running.
We'll be for the whole show.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and off and running we are.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
In every asking of the question, roll call reports, Republicans have been happier than Democrats since 1972.
Republicans tend to be happier and better off than Democrats, and that is one explanation for the happiness gap.
But when the researchers controlled for household income, Republicans at all income levels were happier than Democrats at those same income levels.
As for ideology, conservative Republicans were happier than conservative Democrats.
Moderate to liberal Republicans were even happier than comparable Democrats.
I appreciate my instincts being backed up and confirmed and validated in this poll.
But I've been asking this question for a long time.
What must it be like to be a liberal and get up every day and be literally miserable and want to be that way the rest of the day and then have as many people as you can make miserable join you in the misery?
Something that continues to escape me.
And then we got the story today.
I had to had the details for you yesterday.
This really does.
I was joking around about this yesterday, but I really do have some serious questions about it.
President Vicente Fox climbed aboard a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday to formally announce a new deep water oil discovery that he said could eventually yield about 10 billion barrels of crude oil.
This is the mother load.
It's even bigger than the main field that they have now at offshore Canterero, Mexico.
Luis Ramirez, chief executive of Mexico's government-run monopoly on oil, said that this is the fourth deep water well explored by their government-run monopoly.
And this one, they're 3,000 feet down.
They've got to go 13,000 feet, and they're going to get there.
And I really am curious about this.
You know, we talk about security, we talk about independence, we talk about all kinds of things.
How is it that the Mexicans can be drilling all over the Gulf of Mexico for oil and we can't?
Well, I mean, I know how it is, but where is the outcry for that?
I mean, this is supposed to upset people.
It seems they're not dogged by the same environmentalist wackos that we are.
They're not dogged by a bunch of legislators that cower in fear every time some environmentalist wacko pops up to oppose something.
We can't even drill up an ANWAR and ANWAR doesn't have anywhere near this kind of quantity.
We can't even do that.
And we got people in Florida and all through the Gulf Coast.
You can't drill here.
You can't drill off the coast of California.
Yeah, we may as well just give up.
If we're going to have policies that make us dependent on foreign oil, if we're going to have people support policies that make us dependent on foreign oil, I don't want to hear anybody else ever again complain about high gasoline or petroleum prices.
I'm not going to have any patience for it.
You can't sit there and say we're going to be good stewards of the earth and we're not going to pollute and we're not going to run the risks of oil spills and kill the animals and then get mad when gasoline jumps a nickel or a dime or whatever.
They're saying you can't start complaining at the oil companies.
We tell them where they can and can't drill.
We force them to go around the world where they can find other oil that's not ours.
That increases their costs.
We drag them before Congress like happened yesterday and demand that they explain to us and justify why it is that they're making all these profits and their prices are so high and so forth.
And you've got these blowhards pontificating of the very people that are telling these oil company people where they can and where they can't drill, how they can do it, how they can't do it.
If I were the oil companies, I'd call my own hearing and I'd bring these congressmen and senators in and I'd bring every environmentalist wacko in and I'd televise it.
Put it on this show.
Why are you trying to harm our ability to do business in this country?
Now Russ Feingold.
Russ Feingold continues.
Well, it's sort of a mixed bag.
The Wall Street Journal today editorializes and is applauding Feingold for being honest, which was my take yesterday.
This is good.
It's a loser for them, but they're telling us exactly what their agenda is.
Their agenda is the impeachment of President Bush.
And the only way that's going to happen is if they win the House and the Senate, or House or the Senate.
And that's what their objective is.
And I predicted this.
I told you this, right?
Starting in 2000.
They hate this guy.
If they ever get the chance to impeach him, they will.
I said if they lose the 2004 presidential race, impeachment's going to be top of their agenda.
It looks like now that Feingold isn't going to let this go.
Now, this is somewhat comical to me, but it's also a great lesson for all of us.
Feingold accused his fellow Democrats yesterday of cowering rather than joining him on trying to censure President Bush over domestic spying.
Democrats run and hide when the administration invokes the war on terrorism, Feingold told reporters.
Well, this is just fine from the guy who fled the Senate floor after announcing his resolution for censure, wouldn't stay and debate it with Arlen Specter or anybody else.
His Democrat cohorts in the Senate turned white as Casper the Ghost and started quaking in fear.
Oh, they don't want to talk about it.
Here's the Washington Post story today.
Democratic senators filing in for their weekly caucus lunch yesterday looked as if they'd seen a ghost.
I haven't read it, said Barack Obama.
I just don't have enough information, protested Ben Nelson, Nebraska.
I really can't write now.
I served in Vietnam, as you know, but I can't comment right now, said John Kerry, as he hurried past a knot of reporters.
An excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aid at the magnetometer.
Hillary Rodham Clinton brushed past the press pack, shaking her head, waving her hand over her shoulder.
When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4'11 Barbara Mikulski.
It's not the height, the Mikulski, that offers the security of a hiding place, though.
So she had to kneel down.
Ask her after lunch, offered Clinton spokesman Felipe Reins.
But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the caucus lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.
And in a sense, they were.
So non-plussed were Democrats that even Senator Schumer, known for his near-daily news conferences, made history by declaring, I'm not going to comment.
Well, would he have a comment later?
I don't know, the suddenly shy senator said.
Most of us feel at best it's premature, said Senator Christopher Dodd.
I don't think anybody can say with any certainty at this juncture that what happened is illegal.
No, in fact, we can say for certainty that it is legal.
We can say with certainty that the program has been passed on by a number of different people, judges.
It was run by members of Congress and the Senate, eight members.
They know about it.
There was nothing illegal about the program.
It has been substantiated and affirmed a number of times.
This is nothing more than another media drive-by, along with the Democrats riding in the jump seat, lobbing these bullets that are trying to make something out of nothing.
There's nothing illegal about the NSA spy program.
All it is, is this country trying to listen in to Mohamed Atta or any other al-Qaeda guy when he's calling some country from some country into the United States or an outgoing call.
It's not domestic spying.
It never has been domestic spying.
The Democrats are making it all up.
And Feinstein or Feinstein knows that.
Feingold knows this, but he's playing this for political purposes with the base.
But what they're doing here, folks, is making it loud and clear what they're going to campaign on.
Just as somebody went at one of our soundbites yesterday, well, it was the punk.
McAuliffe, what are they going to run on 2008?
We're going to run against a failed presidency.
Well, that tells us 2006.
See, they think they look at these approval numbers, 34, 36, 38, 39, and they think the rest of the country hates Bush the way they do.
They are convinced the country hates Bush.
They are convinced the country wants out of Iraq.
They are convinced the country wants them in power.
And they don't think they have to have an agenda.
They don't think they have to have a plan.
They think the country is just like they are, so sick and tired, filled with rage and hatred of Bush that they can't wait to 06 and vote him out.
And so to play on that, they're going to actually run on the impeachment and censure of George W. Bush.
Now, the reason these Democrats are running away from it now is because some of them have to have some sense and know that this is too early to blow it out there and have fear that it's not the way to go and isn't going to work.
So Feingold is accusing all these Democrats who hid behind Mikulski, hid behind lunch carts, John Kerry, Vietnam veteran, running past a pack of wild media, unable to stop and tell them what he thought of this.
And Feingold's out there accusing them of being cowards and cowering in the corner while he himself wouldn't hang around the Senate floor to debate Arlen Speck or anybody else on his own censure motion.
And these people think they do.
Folks, I'm telling you, they think they're back on top now.
They think that they've gained control of the political momentum.
It's fascinating.
Quick timeout, back with more right after this.
Hi, welcome back.
You are tuned to the EIB Network.
El Rushbaugh, America's anchorman, America's play-by-playman of the news, America's doctor of democracy, all combined, one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
I need to correct myself.
I got an email from a subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com from Midland, Texas.
He's a petroleum geologist.
He's a rush and war has at least the 10 billion barrel potential of the Mexican discovery.
Many estimates at and war are 15 billion barrels.
Also, to put that in perspective, I think the Mexicans right now are pumping out of their other field 1.6 million barrels a day.
So it's a pretty big number here, 10 to 15 billion barrels.
Also, the DOE just made an estimate that the United States has a potential 50-year supply of oil at current production rates if we'll explore for and the development for our own resources.
Did you know that the U.S. is the third largest oil-producing nation in the world, right after Saudi Arabia and Russia?
Well, I didn't know that.
If you're counting Saudi Arabia and the whole Middle East, I mean, the Emirates put out 10% of the world's oil.
I read today in a scathing piece designed to discourage us from getting anywhere near them in any future ports deals.
But the point is, I still stand by this.
If this geologist, if this petroleum geologist is right, and I've heard, by the way, some oil, I forget the name of the company, which company, some oil company CEO in a magazine, trade magazine of their industry said that some of the largest reserves, untapped, be hard to get under current technology, and it's there, is right here in the Gulf of Mexico.
Shocking how much oil is down there and around the Gulf Coast.
But that's neither here nor there.
I get, once again, frustrated as all get out.
We contradict ourselves.
We have all this talk about we're too dependent on oil, especially from the Arabs, especially from the Saudis.
We're 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 came from.
We're too dependent.
We've got to do something about it.
And everybody says, yeah, well, let's all drive Priuses and hybrids.
That's not the answer right now.
Maybe down the road, but it's not the answer right now.
As long as there's a drop of oil on this planet, it's going to be the engine that fuels commerce on this planet until it's gone.
It just is.
The infrastructure is already built on it.
And look, I've been through this so many times, I don't want to get started.
I want to go back to Russ Feingold because some points here to make about this.
This thing that Feingold's done with this suggested censure, and boy, you ought to go to some of the Democrat blogs.
They are.
I mean, it's fun, folks.
Go to Democrat Underground and read these people.
They are just beside themselves that the Democrats in the Senate will not go along with Feingold.
That he's just a coward.
It is comical.
It is comical.
It's also, if you haven't done this before, it's eye-opening to find out who these people are.
And I mean, you think it's Democrat.
They're just, it's a new breed of cat in the American political system.
I am convinced it is, but it's unfolding.
Just as I have predicted time and time again, liberals cannot control their radical instincts.
They believe that their deep hatred of the president is shared by most Americans.
They look at these opinion polls and they say, country hates Bush.
Good.
We're right where we want to be because America agrees with us.
They believe that a president who wants to lawfully intercept calls from terrorists who killed thousands of us and who want to kill many more of us, they believe that a commander-in-chief who wants to intercept calls from terrorists is deserving of censure and perhaps deserving of impeachment and removal from office.
Well, you talk about living in a bubble.
Bring this debate on.
I want these Democrats in the Senate who are hiding behind Barbara Mikulski and food carts and sneaking outside and back entrances to come out and just tell us.
I've been asking them to do this for years.
Be who you are.
Tell us what you believe.
Feingold deserves applause.
Feingold's telling us who he is.
Feingold's telling us what he wants.
Feingold's telling us what he stands for.
He's out there trying to convince the American people.
Let's have the debate, ladies and gentlemen.
Because what this is, this is part of the great unmasking of contemporary liberalism, the modern Democratic Party.
I mentioned the Wall Street Journal's editorial today.
They said Feingold deserves credit for his candor because what he's doing is revealing what a lot of Democrats really want.
So come on, guys, join the censure.
Join this impeachment party.
Have the courage of your convictions.
Show in a way, Feingold's right.
You're a bunch of cowards.
He knows that you all agree with him, but you won't stand up with him, even though he runs away too.
What a picture.
What a scene this is.
But he knows that all these people agree with him.
So stand up with him.
Make your case publicly.
Make it proudly.
Make it boldly.
If President Bush, come on now.
If President Bush has done what you have accused him of doing, then follow the logic of your beliefs.
In that sense, Senator Feingold's onto something here.
Democrats are cowering from making the case of their deepest convictions.
Look, it's like my new golf pro told me.
You got to be reckless out there.
You got to take chances.
The more you dial back, the more restrained you get, the more problems you're going to have.
Don't be focused on outcomes.
Just stay focused on the process, and eventually the outcome will come.
Well, Democrats are not being reckless.
The Democrats are cowering.
Here's their deepest-held belief: Bush sucks.
Bush is a criminal.
Bush lied.
Bush took us into a rock for no reason.
Bush spying on American peoples.
My God, folks.
If they really believe that, they can't wait for the November elections.
They got to impeach him now.
They've got to start now.
This is too important if they really believe this.
So come on.
Join me, Libs.
Join me, all you Democrats.
I mean, I don't cower in the corner here.
I tell you what I think.
I don't care what the subject is.
And I'm proud to do so.
I love sharing my passions with people.
I love sharing my convictions.
I would hate to go through life having to be somebody I'm not, having to pretend I'm something I'm not.
I'd not do that.
That would make me a fraud like most of you Democrats and liberals are, and I'm not going to join you.
I want you to join me.
Make your case.
Throw your caution to the wind out there.
Let's have this debate publicly, openly, immediately over a prolonged period of time.
And let's do it before the election.
Run on what you believe.
Make the case that George W. Bush should be punished for not signing on to the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, for protecting Americans from death and carnage, that he should be impeached for waging and winning the war on terrorism, for taking the fight to the enemy, for taking the Constitution.
Seriously, you go, he should be impeached.
Come out and make the case.
I want to see the articles.
It's about time.
You got to do something because the ports issue has been forgotten.
It's long gone.
So join me, won't you?
Honesty, forthrightness, and recklessness in politics.
Pump up the volume at least 800 decibels, ladies and gentlemen.
Make sure you miss not even a single syllable.
In fact, Dawn is so much in love with this program, she actually listens to it on headphones on the other side of the glass so as to not miss a dulcet tone uttered and emoted by me.
All right.
I want to share with you something else that I saw in the note today.
The ABC's The Note, their little webpage talk about Howard Dean.
But to get to that, I have to go back to the Democrats here and once again appeal to your base instincts to come on out and join us.
Join us in the fight here in the arena of ideas.
Come on out.
Come on out.
We know what you stand for.
You think Bush ought to be impeached?
Run on it.
Join your guy.
Russ Feingold, your base is practically suicidal here over the fact that you are such cowdards.
And the port story, the port issue is about forgotten.
And what this tells us the port story, they were just, oh, folks, it was orgasmic.
Ha ha, we can finally show people that we are strong on national security.
Well, now that the port issue is forgotten, what does Feingold do?
Wants to impeach the president for trying to protect the country.
And not over the ports deal.
No, no, no, for going into Iraq and for domestic spying programs that are not domestic spying.
So what is obvious here?
What do we conclude?
We conclude in that being weak, being McGovernites, being weak on national defense is in the DNA of these Democrats and the American left.
It's their default position.
One way or the other, no matter what happens, one way or the other, they're going to return to the we hate America.
America is to blame.
America is the problem.
We're weak on national security Democrats.
It's like bees drawn to honey.
They just can't help it.
It's in the DNA.
No matter what happens, they're going to do it.
Even after 9-11, even in the midst of the war on terror, even in the midst of the war on Iraq, they are trying to undermine their own country and their own president.
And they're talking about impeaching him.
I said, run on it.
Campaign on it.
Be honest.
Don't just have one senator go out there and carry the ball on this.
The port story, the port deal, gave liberals and Democrats the confidence now that, see, they think they can run and win on national security issues.
They think they won the ports deal.
And they're going to find out soon enough that all this confidence that they have is misplaced.
And in the process, what's going to happen, we hear all this talk about the disunity on the Republican side and everybody running away from Bush.
And there may be some of that going on, but you don't know about the deep fissures.
A little oiling go there.
You don't know about the deep fissures that run through the Democratic Party, and you don't know how they are going to grow as the liberal base gets more and more stoked up, more and more angry, and more and more radical, more and more demanding, and then more and more PO'd because their party elected officials do not do what they want them to do.
We can actually now say it's official: nuttiness is the standard of seriousness for the Democratic Party and the American left.
Nuttiness is the standard of seriousness, just like the profundity that I offered yesterday.
Emotional satisfaction substitutes for victory for these people.
They don't even really care about winning.
They're basically just want to feel validated in their rage.
They just want to feel at home in their rage.
Now, this thing that I read in a note today, ABC's the note, there's a quote from Howard Dean on February 9th.
He was on Good Morning America.
What we don't approve of is breaking a law in order to spy on Americans.
The present law is very adequate.
All we ask is that this not turn, we not turn into a country like Iran where the president of Iran can do anything he wants at any time.
ABC, the good news, caught up with Howard Dean Tuesday and was asked about this.
Well, we're going to get into that.
And he was also asked about the Feingold effort.
We're not going to get into Feingold.
We're not going to get into that now.
Even Dean, even Dean, who is the grand poo-bah and the surrogate father of all these kooks out there in Cooksville, Democrat Underground and all these places, even Dean doesn't want to gun on board yet with Feingold on this.
Well, why not, Howard?
All you've said, like John Kerry and the rest of the crowd, is the president's breaking the law.
You just said it in the note.
You said it on February 9th, breaking the law.
He's almost like the president of Iran.
This is very serious.
He's turning us into theocratic dictatorship like Iran.
He's imperiling the Constitution.
It's very serious.
You don't have time to wait.
It is too desperate.
It is too serious.
You can't just punt it.
You can't just go out there and make these claims and then retreat behind Barbara Mikulski in a food cart.
You just can't do that.
Well, if you're just joining us, Hillary Clinton hid behind Barbara Mikulski and a food cart yesterday from the press who wanted to know what she thought of Feingold's censure measure.
And I just pointed out if you're going to hide behind Mikulski, Mikulski's like 411 or 410.
When you're going to hide behind Mikulski, it's not her height that you're hiding behind.
I'm going to tell you, you've got the Hildebeest hiding behind Mikulski.
Can you imagine the sight there?
I don't want to get into that.
I'm sidetracking myself.
But I mean, you're making some serious charges here.
The Democrats are.
Serious, serious charges.
And you're unwilling to take a stand on this with him.
You are unwilling to join him.
And I just think that it's about time that you do.
Folks, does it seem to you like the media is doing more Bush polls than they did tracking polls during an election?
I mean, these Bush approvals, it seems like every day we get a new one.
And whatever the number is, it's lower than it's ever been.
You know, I'm just, it's incredible.
And then, by the way, this little rant that I just did on Fine Gold and his censure movement, you know, I wasn't going to comment on this.
It happened again yesterday, and I let it slide by again, preferring to stay focused on the issues.
But I have left unanswered a thought that must be answered.
Once again, that's some caller on this program challenging me.
Why are you defending the president?
Why does anybody defend the president?
What does anybody do?
My question is: why do I, or why does anybody else have to apologize for defending the president?
Defending the president when we're at war?
What's next?
Why are you defending our side against al-Qaeda?
Has the Bush-hating left become that mainstream?
Has the Hollywood left become that?
Well, of course not.
But they have this presumption that they are mainstream.
They have this presumption they still dominate.
That's the illusion that they're still living under.
And so, why are you defending the president?
I took it the wrong way.
I assumed, why are you in the tank?
You'll defend Bush no matter what, just because of partisanship.
I was saying, who has to make excuses for defending the president?
The real question is: where are you people at your country's time of need?
What are you doing trying to undermine the president?
What are you doing trying to undermine the military?
What are you doing trying to undermine our war effort?
What are you doing trying to sabotage our ability to wage war against this enemy?
What do you mean, defend the president?
I'm proud to.
I'm proud to defend the country.
And I will continue to do so.
Here's Brett and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, Brett.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Quickly, I disagree with you about oil prices.
I am in favor of drilling off the coast of Gulf of Mexico, California, Armoire, wherever we need to drill to retrieve these resources.
However, by doing so, there will be absolutely no incentive for the oil companies to reduce the price structures.
Investors will want to return on their money.
It's going to take a capital investment to produce the drilling mechanisms.
They're going to want to return.
I have to make sure I heard you correctly.
You say that the oil companies, if we allow them to drill here, are going to have to recoup that investment and prices will go up.
I'm not saying they're going to go up, but I will argue they will not go down.
Uh, uh, so, you see, um, trying to maintain my composure here.
Uh, do you...
Do the oil companies not drill for oil anywhere else in the world and bill us back or build those costs into their pricing structure?
Exactly.
But we have to look at the best.
We have to acknowledge that we live in a capitalistic society, which I am in favor of it, by the way.
But with that being said, that anytime you invest, you're going to want investors to get a return on their investments.
Even though we have availability to drilling oil off the coast and things, we are still going to want to recruit as a company.
We want to recoup what we put into it, plus a profit.
So just because there's more supply doesn't mean that prices are going to fall.
The only thing I believe prices are going to fall is because it comes down to coincidence.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
I am not.
My support for domestic drilling has nothing to do with price falling.
I don't live in false illusions.
Prices generally go up over the years.
They don't generally come down.
They cycle.
Some things do, depending on how they go.
But overall, the cost of living always goes up.
I'm talking about dependence on foreign oil and making ourselves less dependent on people that we think are our enemies.
You know how much money we send to the Saudis a day?
It's like, I've got to get the number.
I read it this morning and I didn't print this out.
It's in a Ralph Ryland piece at American Spectator online.
Grab me that thing.
Well, I'm still talking here, so it's ready for me the next break.
Route to column, Americanspectator.com.
Something like $30 billion a day.
We're sending over there, you and I, taxpayer dollars being used.
Well, yes, and a number of other sources for those dollars as well to buy oil to import here.
Now, you don't think that's built into the price too?
Try this.
The more domestic drilling we have, the more domestic oil, the less cost in shipping it.
The less cost in shipping it around to be refined and the less cost to distribute it after it's been refined.
But I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
I was not talking about finding a way to ensure that prices fall because I don't know how to guarantee that.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back after this.
Yeah, hang on here just a second.
A printer's printing somehow.
I got to grab it.
All right.
Show prep never stops here at the EIB Network.
We're prepping the show while we're executing the show.
For those of you in Riolinda, that means doing the show, not killing somebody, 800-282-2882.
All right, here are the numbers.
And this is a piece.
Actually, this piece by Ralph Ryland and the American Spectator today, he's an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University, which is near Pittsburgh.
This is actually a piece warning us against the dangers of the UAE and allowing them to run our ports.
It's a piece that ran today.
But it's got some interesting data here at the beginning.
Former CIA director James Woolsey points to a clear danger.
Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf.
And as time goes on, the world is going to rely more on the Gulf rather than less.
And you can't bet on this part of the world, making a smooth, easy path that would allow all of us to happily continue to drive our SUVs and use that part of the world as our filling station.
Worse, you can't bet that the billions of dollars we're sending to that part of the world for oil imports won't be used to develop an arsenal that will threaten much more than SUVs.
All told, we are sending approximately $30 billion a year to Persian Gulf countries in oil purchases, including nearly $20 billion to Saudi Arabia, the home of the 15 of the 19 al-Qaeda train terrorists who hijacked the four American airliners on September 11th.
$30 billion a year.
And this is my whole point.
You go back to the ports deal.
Everybody is so concerned.
Everybody is so terribly concerned about allowing a UAE company to have access to the ports.
It would lead to terrorist attack.
And yet we're funding terrorist acts against us.
If you believe that all these terrorists are in league with governments in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and so forth, I don't care if you do believe that, that's fine.
Hypothetically, if you want to believe that, that's fine.
Where is the concern?
Where is the equivalent concern over who's running our ports and terminals?
So when I see this Mexico deal, and they've got this big find, and I'm assuming that there's not too many radical leftists out there trying to stop them.
We've got radical leftists trying to stop us from discovering oil in our own continental shelf and up in Alaska.
And it just, it burns me up.
I'm going to tell you, you can talk Prius and you can talk to hybrids all you want, but until we're down to the last drop of oil, it is going to be the fuel that powers this world.
It just is, folks.
We're not going to drop oil, even if we came up with a bunch of Priuses that could run, and it's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen until we start to run out of it.
And who knows when that will be, but it's long beyond the lifespan of us and your children, I don't have any, and your grandchildren, I won't have any.
I have nieces and nephews.
Back to this guy that called, he's very concerned, and I know he was trying to do the right thing.
The reason I was so incredulous and didn't quite know what to say was because I'm still floored when people don't understand that the more of something you add to the market, the cheaper it becomes.
It's the whole laws of supply and demand.
Well, I'll get to that in a second.
HR is whispering in my ear about government.
But you add more oil to the supply, and then you also create a competitive environment amongst the suppliers.
The Saudis and OPEC set the price these days, folks.
If we were able to drill all the oil that we have here and we wouldn't need them, what do you think would become of the price?
With that added competition and the added quantity, the added supply, what do you think would happen to the price?
Meanwhile, let me tell you what just happened.
The housing boom that just been going on here for the last four or five years, local governments made out like bandits in most places.
I can sure tell you mine did.
They increased property taxes 20, 30, sometimes 50% due to increased assessments based on the housing boom.
The oil companies make about 10 cents per dollar of gasoline sold at the pump.
Why all this focus on gasoline and not property taxes?
How come nobody's focused on government windfall tax profits?
Why aren't these towns and counties and states accused of windfall taxes?
The first chance they get to raise the price of owning a home in the form of property taxes, they do it.
And I don't hear any of you complaining.
Let the pump price of gasoline go up a dime, and I hear sheer outright panic and rage.
And frankly, it frosts me.
You have no clue how much they're already raking in at state, federal levels, and taxes on the gallon of gasoline every time you buy it.
But apparently, if the money goes to a privately held company or a publicly held company, if money, if the price, if the profit goes to a company, well, we can't have that.
No, no, no, these companies ought to be more concerned for America and they should forego their profit.
Just make their costs back, have their prices low for everybody, but forego profit.
That would be the American thing.
Well, if you're going to tell that to the American business community, tell that to the government.
Windfall tax profits out the wazoo for these people every year, and you don't complain about it.
When all the taxes on these things go up and government gets the money, I don't hear any complaints.
But when the oil companies or when Walmart does something, I hear people raising holy hell, and I'm fed up with it.
I'm not because it's sheer idiocy and ignorance.
And I'm going to teach you that before I leave this program today.
Back in a moment.
This just in, ladies and gentlemen, President Bush's approval numbers are now lower than they were 10 minutes ago.
This is the AP Ipsos poll.
We'll be back with more after this.
▲
Export Selection