All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:08
August 14, 2008, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Missing a day of this program is the same thing as missing history.
You know it, and I know it.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
We're here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the most listened to radio talk show in America, over 600 fabulously great radio stations, making it possible for me.
Exercise the great opportunity I have to protect and defend the principles that form the foundation of our country.
800-282-2882 is the number if you want to be on the program.
The email address is uh L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
I ladies and gentlemen, I I got a note.
My my computer IT guy, Scott Schaefer sent me an email note at about 759 last night.
He said, You got to turn on the History Channel, because they're doing one of their modern marvels series, and it was a show devoted to everything that we get from oil and how it is made.
I watched this thing last night, and I got busy after it was I was I I just watched, I was mesmerized.
I mean, I knew in a broad base, I knew it all, but to see it spelled out to see how the refining process takes place, to see all of the ancillary products.
For example, ladies, do you know how Maybelline, the uh the the the what uh the cosmetics company came to be in existence?
So it c some woman decided to uh to mix some product with Vaseline, which is a derivative of oil in a fascinating way.
And Maybelline, her name was Mabel.
Mabeline was born.
You put lipstick on, it wouldn't be possible without oil.
Eyebrow face, would a foundation, whatever the makeup stuff is, wouldn't be possible without oil.
Plastics.
I mean, it's just it just is incredible.
When you watch this show, and I'm gonna go back through it, and I would love to get permission to History Channel to play the audio of this or some audio from it.
Because it was just, it was it was profound.
And toward the end of the show, they had to do their political correct stuff and start showing us the windmills.
But even doing that, they made it plain one percent of our energy now comes from from wind, and they made it plain.
We're nowhere near replacing.
We all instinctively know this.
But when you see it spelled out this way and you see what we would lose if like Obama is saying we want to be off of oil in ten years, folks, it's not possible and remain the country we are.
I mean, not even close, we'll have to stop building roads.
At least with asphalt.
We would uh be the end of uh of most plastics.
Containers, you I mean, there's so much that is derived from a single barrel of oil that it would blow it blow your mind to see this presented to you with pictures, rat tat tet.
So I'm gonna watch it again when I have time.
I've got really busy last night after it was over.
I tended to do this last night, didn't get to it.
I'm gonna go down, I'm gonna take mental, I'm gonna have written notes of everything that they say, and I'm gonna come in here with a list.
And by the way, I think it's gonna be rebroadcast Saturday or Sunday night uh at eight or nine.
What are you what are you what are you chuckling at in there?
What do you sm I want to do?
You got it, you know, it'd be great for kids to see this.
It'd be great for stupid liberal democrats to see this, it'd be great for Obama to watch this.
You know, you you what I sit here and I wonder how in the world, you go back.
I was thinking about this the other day, JFK.
What's happened from the time John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
What's happened since then to cause us to get to the point where both political candidates are telling us what government must do for us.
Not it's not, it's not just a liberal problem.
And one of the things is that political leadership has just vanished.
And what we got instead is pandering.
If the American people don't want oil, fine, we'll get rid of oil.
The American people don't want uh go to war, fine, we won't go to war.
If uh if the American people want everybody to uh peck two homeless people off the street and put them in their house, fine, that's what we'll do.
But there's no leadership whatsoever.
There is absolutely nobody with any guts or courage uh to to uh counter any of this, and so it's a pander race, and that's I think it's one of the it's very frustrating.
And the problem is I don't think a majority of Americans are are the ones being pandered to.
It's a minority of Americans being.
If if a majority of Americans had checked in or checked out, uh our economy would have stopped growing.
If if everybody had just uh for a majority of Americans had decided that the best way to satisfy their wants and needs was for the government to provide it, then we would already be showing a dramatic economic slowdown.
I refuse to believe that a majority of people have become of the notion to accept the notion that uh the government's there to do things for us.
There's way too many people that have adopted that, but I refuse to believe it's a majority.
So the point is that we're pandering to a minority of people because they're the victims, of course.
And we feel sorry for them.
Uh, the political candidates want to make sure that they let everybody know that they can relate to the suffering, all of the hardship that's out there, and we're becoming a you know, a nation of whiners and babies.
And uh that's Phil Graham says that, and bam, McCain throws him off the list.
But you know it, and I know it's it's it's it's a big problem.
When you get you get to talking something like getting off of oil in ten years, it's just that all that's that alone should be a disqualifier for somebody to be qualified as competent to be president of the United States.
It's not possible.
And I tell you what, you watch this show, and I'm gonna find out when it actually re-airs.
I'm confused.
I've got it here on the computer somewhere Saturday or Sunday night.
History channel.
You watch this show and you will come to the inescapable conclusion that there is no way that we can get off of oil for 50 or 75 years, if then.
Because the the elements of our economy and culture, the things that you use, that we all use and do in our daily lives, that are now considered necessities that we take for granted.
They're not even luxuries, some of them are.
When you see this, you too will be beat upside the head.
And by the way, they have all of these experts, all these professionals at the refineries explaining what they do, explaining how the process works.
It's just fascinating.
It's it's it it let me know that the uh that big oil itself could be doing a much better PR job explaining its own business.
What now, Snurdy?
I'm getting some of the weirdest looks on the other side of the glass.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Right.
No, no, no.
Snerdley is saying that the solution to all this is very simple.
If we just ban makeup, Pelosi will come around.
Ban makeup, Nancy Pelosi would have to come along quickly.
Uh and and come around quickly.
Uh it's it's an interesting joke.
At any rate, uh, there's also an interview that uh Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil.
I think Exxon Mobil has the best names of their CEOs.
Rex Tillerson.
Does that not just sound like a perfect name for a guy running a big oil company, Rex Tillerson?
And I forget the name of the guy he replaced who retired and everybody got mad when he got the 400 million dollar golden parachute when he quit.
He had a great name too, and he had a great face.
He just he had a face right out of the eight uh early 1900s when all these big barons were sort of bulbous.
Uh and uh then that was a sign of success back then when you were obese or overweight.
That was a sign that you really were living the good life.
Today, of course, if you're rail thin and could be pushed over by the wind from a windmill, then you are considered to be the epitome of in good health.
But listen to this the interview with uh with uh Charles Gibson on uh on ABC, and they write this up at the ABC website.
ExxonMobil CEO and Chairman Rex Tillerson defended his company's staggering 11.7 billion dollars in profits for the second quarter, saying the company's earnings reflected the magnitude of its business operation.
He said, I saw somebody characterize our profits the other day In terms of $1,400 in profit per second.
Well, they also need to understand we paid $4,000 a second in taxes.
We paid $15,000 a second in cost.
We spend one billion dollars a day just running our business.
So this is a business where large numbers are just characteristic of it.
So they're starting to do a little bit better on their own PR.
Okay, so the profit was $1,400 a second, taxes $4,000 a second, uh $15,000 a second in cost a billion dollars a day just to run the business.
It's and he goes on, he says, I can understand why why people are very upset and why they're very worried and concerned about their ability to deal with these high prices.
It does bother me that much of that's directed at us.
Our job is to provide energy, to provide it in a means that's reliable.
And we hope we can provide it in a means that's convenient as well to the consumer.
When asked whether he agreed with Phil Graham, who labeled America as a nation of winers, Tillerson, he knew no it wasn't going to go there, but he emphasized with the American consumer.
He said, I don't think there's any question that if these prices, 350, 4 bucks a gallon, uh, and the follow-through effects on the cost of electricity are causing a lot of problems for a lot of Americans.
Their budgets just are very difficult for them to accommodate this.
Right.
Which, ladies and gentlemen, once again cements the notion that the economy could be the Republican issue, and particularly the price of gasoline.
Because the Democrats, and by the way, I have two pieces in my snack today, one from the new republic.
Uh, they're getting worried.
They're worried about their convention, and they're worried that Obama is blowing the economy issue.
Well, I forget who this author is.
When's the last time we heard Obama talk about social security?
When's the last time we heard Obama talk about national health care?
We've got to get, he's losing the economy issue.
We got to get back on the economy.
They're very concerned that they're uh uh losing uh, you know, a traditional issue for them.
And, you know, it's it's it's it's just it's out there.
It's been handed to us on a silver platter.
We got the gang of ten trying to mess it all up by the gang of ten, by the way, in uh open and utter defiance of me, your host, the audio soundbite's coming up right after this.
All right, that History Channel show on oil is Saturday night, seven o'clock Eastern.
It runs an hour.
It's called Modern Marvels or some such thing, but uh I'm sure your cable channel or your satellite provider carries the history channel.
Some interesting tidbits from from the from the website, the History Channel website on this uh program, a little overview here.
Uh if we stop driving our cars tomorrow, every American stopped driving car tomorrow for good.
We would still need five million barrels of oil a day to supply our other needs.
Rubber, plastic, nylon, aerosols, rosins, solvents, lubricants.
None can exist without oil.
Uh, in fact, even these windmills and all of these alternative energy things still need some form of oil for lubrication of the moving parts.
You will discover how a cutting-edge recycling technique breathes new life into used mortar oil.
They re-refine it.
They go, they do the refining process in opposite, in reverse.
And they take you back to the 1870s to see how an unemployed whale oil salesman turned a greasy oil drilling byproduct into a household staple Vaseline, which then led to Maybelline, the cosmetics.
It's a fascinating program, it really is, and it'll open everybody's eyes about the reality and the truth concerning oil and not our desire for it, but our literal need for the stuff.
But how much of our society, how much of our lifestyle has been positively impacted by this product, it's just it's just amazing.
So make sure you Ti-Vo it or watch it Saturday night, 7 o'clock on the History Channel.
Last night on the Fox News Channel special report.
Correspondent James Rosen interviewed South Carolina Senator Lindsey Gramnesty.
And Gramnesty said this about the gang of 10.
If your goal is to come back in and embarrass Democrats and not solve the energy crisis, you're missing the point.
America will not tolerate either party ignoring this issue.
It doesn't increase taxes by one die.
It's an incentive.
And what I think would be good public policy is to give incentives to create alternatives to oil.
Not give all companies an incentive to do what they're going to do anyway.
You know, this this is this is one of our guys.
Supposedly, this is a Republican talking about alternatives to oil.
They're already out there.
They're being worked on.
It's a snail's pace.
We can't get rid of it.
There are tax increases throughout this bill.
It's a Democrat bill that these Republicans went along with.
And they went along with it because they're under the mistaken notion that the American people want to see the two parties work together in Washington.
This is a falsehood, and it is a mistaken premise.
And it has always been a mistaken premise.
Yeah, they might want us to work together in time of war, but we don't even do that anymore.
The Democrats can't even bring themselves to join the country when we're at war.
I mean, for crying out loud, so why in the world do they think there's going to be something for them to gain by making a deal that's written by Democrats?
This silly notion that the American people want to see us work together and get things done.
Senator Graham, your voters want to see you wipe the floor with Democrats.
They want to see you come up with a plan that will increase the supply of oil that will lower the price of products, including gasoline.
Not something that but you know what these guys have done?
This the Gang of Ten bill, as we originally explained it to you uh uh week ago.
The bank uh gang of ten deal basically bans drilling, except in four states, and it limits drilling to 50 miles or more offshore.
Well, most of the rich deposits are closer to shore than that.
Now guess what?
Jim Dement, another senator in the gang of ten has come up with another resolution that Gramnesty and Saxby Chambless have signed, which basically opens up the outer continental shelf to drilling.
It's in direct conflict with the gang of ten bill that they signed.
So don't tell me they're not responding to the heat.
But I've got I want to see how this works out.
I don't know that either of these are going to become federal law, but the gang of ten bill specifically prohibits drilling for oil in areas where the uh resolution Dement came up with permits it.
So these guys are contradicting themselves.
I don't care what the Democrats are doing.
We know what the Democrats are gonna do.
Senator Graham, I wish you'd look at the Democrats the way you look at the oil companies.
This this line here, we don't give oil companies incentives to do what they're gonna do anyway.
We need this product.
The oil companies are not the bad guys here.
And frankly, I I this is I was talking about this in the beginning of the program.
This is more pandering to this high gasoline price.
Politicians in both parties believing that a majority of the American people are stupid enough to think that if you throw a bunch of nasty words at the oil companies and raise taxes on the oil companies, somehow gasoline prices are gonna come down.
They actually think, and they're gonna have to take nothing harder than simply target the oil companies.
That's pandering.
They think that enough Americans will vote for them simply because they also can act like they are mad at the oil companies as members of the Senate or members of the House.
They are badly mistaken, and they are really insulting the average intelligence of the people of this country if they believe that most people think that gasoline will be cheaper and more plentiful if senators pass resolutions ripping the oil companies to shreds or raising taxes on them.
This is this this this this absence of leadership is just it's depressing.
It is shocking.
We live in an opportunity here politically to wipe out the liberal Democrats on so many issues here, and we don't have anybody on our side that you cares to do it or seize the Opportunity doesn't seem like we do.
Another soundbite here.
Bob Corker, Tennessee Senator, uh said this about the Gang of Ten bill.
Having been heavily involved in the Republican only bill, and certainly being heavily involved in this one, this actually has far stronger production provisions, and one to me that is anything but a sellout.
Uh I I Senator Corker, of the rest of you do you've heard Nancy Pelosi, right?
We're not you've heard you've heard Obama.
We're gonna get rid of oil in ten years.
Pelosi, we're not gonna drill anywhere.
She's going through the machinations of making people think she's going to allow a debate on it.
She's not going to allow passage of any bill on drilling.
Senator Corker, do you not understand that the Democrats will come up with something because they know they're losing on the issue, so they'll come up with something and think you will sign that will never ever happen or become law so that they can then go and say we're trying to do something about this when they have no earthly reason to be able to claim credit on this issue at all because the Democrats are the ones standing in the way of progress.
Why you think that there is some sort of magic in joining forces with people who are trying to sandbag the whole process of creating more oil resources.
Especially you know these people, you know who Liberal Democrats are.
I just sit here in stunned amazement.
And here is James Rosen closing out the piece on Fox.
Still many conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, not only reject but seem to resent the Gang of Ten plan.
No regrets from those two gang of ten.
So far not.
We will be right back.
Stay with us.
I correct one thing on the air date of the History Channel's Modern Marvel's Secrets of Oil.
It's not this Saturday, it's the 23rd.
Saturday the 23rd at uh 7 p.m.
I think.
It's either this Saturday or next Saturday, and I'm going to nail this down.
When you start getting four or five different sources for under the same information and they differ, you need a fifth source, usually yourself.
So I will do that when I have chance.
Now, folks, let me let me address this gang of ten business in a different way.
Because I know it and I'm not I didn't urge you to call these people last time, and I'm not gonna I'm not doing that now.
You can do that if you want.
I that's not the point.
The point of this is we we are being told, uh, ladies and gentlemen, that we can't drill our way out of this problem.
But we can inflate our way out of it by maintaining our tire pressure.
Yes.
That's the brilliance from the Messiah.
Okay, we can't drill our way out of this problem.
Let me give you a profundity.
Write this down.
You cannot legislate new energy technologies into existence.
If the market cannot find a replacement for gasoline at $4 a gallon, the replacement doesn't exist.
And there's nothing anybody in Congress, Gang of Ten, Gang of 100, can do about it.
All they can do is stand in the way of the market taking its normal course and meeting the increased demand with more supply.
There's not one piece of legislation.
There's not one thing your president, your congressman, your senator, your mayor, your governor, your dog catcher.
There's not one thing that your individual representatives can do in the form of writing a new law that will create new energy technologies and put them into existence.
It isn't possible.
The market does that.
So this gang of ten deal, these people are trying to say that they are coming up with some solution to the $4 a gallon gasoline price point when they can't.
They cannot legislate a lower gasoline price.
Well, they could do that.
And it would it would shudder to think, but they can't create a new technology.
All they can do is stand in the way.
And they can't all they can't do anything but get out of the way and let existing technology be used more.
Right now, your elected officials and the entire Democrat Party, and sadly way too many Republicans as well, have his official position that we're not gonna do anything to help expand the amount of oil that we get domestically.
So the gang of ten comes up with this piece of legislation that just convolutes what's already going on in the market, doesn't create anything new.
It's a smokescreen designed to make you think they hear you, and they're pandering to your compartment your concerns and your complaints about the price of gasoline.
And it's written under the auspices and the authorship of Democrats, who are official and proud when they proclaim there will not be any new drilling.
So why these Republicans think that there's going to be some new drilling because they've agreed to a compromise written by Democrats whose official position is there won't be drilling.
You got me.
Now sticking on the subject of oil, can I now discuss the war between Russia and Georgia?
I can because it is my show.
And as I said earlier this week, this war between Russia and Georgia is about many things.
At the top of the list is oil.
This is a war for oil.
Have I got your attention?
Let me explain it to you.
Charles Krauthammer writes about it very well today in a column that I have from the National Review website.
He describes what Russia is trying to do as the Finlandization of Georgia, the isolation of Georgia.
If they succeed, and they want Shashvili, Shakashvili out, this is about regime change, despite what Vitaly Chirkin said yesterday.
This is totally about regime change.
It's about Putin being able to put a puppet, a Russian puppet in to run Georgia.
That would give Russia control of a huge oil pipeline.
The Baku Tbilisi Saihan pipeline.
That pipeline is the only significant European-bound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia.
They want it.
Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.
They live off of energy exports.
Moscow, if they succeed in isolating Georgia and basically installing a puppet Russian leader to run the country, Moscow would become the master of the Caspian basin.
So they would be in charge of every oil pipeline feeding Europe to the West.
Because they that folks, this is a different Russia than when the wall came down.
That Russia was broke.
This Russia is flush.
This Russia has lots of money via its own oil sales.
So this war, while it's all about Russia asserting itself and Russia trying to maybe rebuild its empire, not the Soviet Union, but its empire.
And while it's all about testing the West, it's all about seeing what we will do.
Will we do anything besides words?
That's what they want to find out.
And there's some things that we could do, but it doesn't look, it doesn't look like Europeans or even State Department Americans want to do anything to stop this.
It doesn't look like Obama has the slightest bit of understanding what this is about or how to deal with it, or that he even finds it wrong.
But this, ladies and gentlemen, is about that pipeline.
I don't even believe the Russians reportedly just barely missed when they bombed that pipeline.
I don't think it was a bare miss.
I think it was right on target.
I think it's a warning shot.
Now, so put this in your pipe and smoke it.
While the Russians are trying to co-opt and conquer a country for an oil pipeline that will give them total control of all the oil and gas pipelines that feed Western Europe.
While they are doing everything they can to strengthen their oil producers, while they are doing everything they can to strengthen their oil business, we are doing everything we can to weaken ours.
A quick timeout while you think about that, and I'll be right back.
Yes, we're back, Rush Limbo serving humanity here on the EIB network.
Now, Charles Crowdhammer says there are things we can do.
But we have cards to play with Russia here.
And one of the there's basically four of them here.
Suspend the NATO Russian Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West.
Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension.
This council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table, so the message should be invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.
That will take guts.
It's gonna be interesting to see.
Then the next step, bar the Russians from entering the World Trade Organization.
Don't know they would care about that.
I don't think they care much about anything right now.
But number three, dissolve the G eight, kick the Russians out of it, and simply reconstitute it as the G7.
They don't need to be part of it.
Make them pay for this.
And number four, announce a U.S. European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics Sochi.
To do otherwise would be obscene.
It's 15 miles from Abkhazia, which is the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia.
And that's well down the road.
But there are problems in doing this.
There are real problems in doing this.
And the reason for that is Iran.
Because listen to this.
It was just a little more than a week ago, a deadline set by the United States for an answer from Iran on freezing its uranium enrichment passed without a response from Iran.
So the Russians are basically telling us, screw you.
And the Iranians are saying to us, screw you.
The Russians are saying it to all of Europe and to us, the rest of the world, so is Iran.
So the next step, according to our government, is asking the U.N. Security Council to impose new sanctions on Iran.
For that to happen, the Russians must not veto it.
They have a veto at the Security Council.
So if we ask for further sanctions on Iran because they're saying screw you in demands from the world to fess up and stop their uranium enrichment, so if if we ask the Security Council for more sanctions, the Russians can veto it.
And would the Russians veto if we institute the steps that Charles Crowdhammer laid out?
This now wait, wait a wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Wait, I want before you ask me a question about this, I want to tell you what all this is.
The word begins with a D. It is called diplomacy.
And you can see where it has gotten us.
This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
You can see that on display.
And despite all the conflict resolution and all a mumbo jumbo that has been taught as part of multiculturalism for too many years in this country, sad reality is all the talking and all the begging and all arm twisting is not going to make diddly squat tyrants who have expansion and growth on their minds.
Ditto with the Chinese.
So we find ourselves here at a crossroads.
Just as important, by the way, the uh Russians have to be prepared to participate in those sanctions against Iran if we ask if they don't veto, they've got to be prepared to participate.
But they're a Russia now, they're an Iranian ally.
So what cards do we really have to play?
If we do all the things that Crowdhammer suggests, kick them out of the G eight, reconstituted as a G7, basically uh don't let them in the World Trade Organization.
You think Putin's gonna say, oh, wait, whoa, wait, okay, I will leave, we'll we'll leave Georgia and we'll let you do what you want.
I I want to see how this plays out.
This is why You need serious people in positions of responsibility dealing with these kinds of things.
And people who use aggressive shows of force as a means of acquiring their aims are not the kind of people that are going to be stopped with rhetoric unless the rhetoric is delivered with a credible threat behind it.
And is the rest of the free world prepared to make that kind of a threat?
Let's face it, America's tired of war.
The last thing the American people want is to go to another war someplace.
The last thing.
And it's going to be very difficult to convince a whole lot of Americans that what's going on between Russia and Georgia matters to them anyway.
It's even going to be a lot of Americans, I don't care what the Iranians do.
I want the gas price down.
I don't care about let them have their news.
A lot of the Americans' people, it's it's those places are so far away that it can't possibly affect me, they say.
And besides, it's the same people telling us about Iran that lied to us about Iraq.
And how do we know they're not lying to us about what Russia's doing?
There is so much distrust and hate that's been fomented uh by liberals for the leaders of this country.
When you put Michael Moore's stupid idiotic movie out there, I think to the extent, to the extent that this nation is hated around the world, and I don't know that it is hated nearly as much as the left makes it up to be, but to the extent that it is there's one group of people responsible for it, and that's the people in this country who have ripped this country to shreds for the last seven years.
You put Michael Moore's stupid Fahrenheit 911 movie out there, which is all a pack of propaganda lies and show it at the con film festival and all over the world.
Is it any wonder that average citizens of other countries would believe it?
Here's pictures.
It's right there on television.
It's on my movie screen.
Then you back that up with every Democrat under the sun from Chuck Schumer to John Kerry to Bill Clinton to Al Gore for the last seven years beating up on their countries while traveling overseas.
Is it any wonder that a lot of Americans might think that all these external threats that we face is being drummed up that are not really that bad?
I mean, look at Ahmadine shot.
He came here as a tiny little guy.
He went to Columbia.
About the only thing he said was that there were no gays in his country, but now so what?
But they don't look at Iran as a big threat because it's not portrayed as a big threat to drive-by media.
So this is going to be to me fascinating to watch how this is dealt with because the State Department's doing everything it can to cover its own rear end for failing to see this was coming, and now for I mean, you heard the response from from Obama's babe, uh, Susan Rice, which basically was this.
Well, we're gonna wait and let everything play out here, and we're gonna gather the facts, and then we're gonna do nothing.
That's essentially what she said.
While the tanks are rolling, while the people are dying, we're gonna wait for the facts here.
What facts do you not get?
So this is gonna be to me a fascinating thing to watch, and right at the at uh the common denominator folks in all of this Iran, Russia, Georgia, United States, oil.
And everybody trying to get more of it except us.
Here's uh Michelle in Yelm, Washington.
You're first on the phones today.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Conservative dittoes from out here in the liberal stronghold of the Northwest.
Thank you very much.
Hi.
Um, I have some friends who work for our local county's uh road maintenance division, and they got a big announcement about a month ago saying that um the oil refinery in Annaquartis, Washington that they get their asphalt products from, they are no longer going to make asphalt products.
So the road maintenance division of my county and numerous other counties in the state, they can't um do road improvement projects, construction projects because they have no asphalt.
You have no wait a second, wait a second.
Who was it that banned this refinery from making asphalt?
No, it wasn't I mean, it wasn't a ban.
The refinery has just called the county and said, Look, it's not cost effective for us to make asphalt for you.
It's we make more money now making gas.
So we are no longer going to make asphalt products.
Well, but okay, then I misunderstood you.
I thought is it this is strictly a refinery decision?
Yes.
I I believe it is.
From what I've read in the newspapers, I believe it's not it's not it's not some city or county government telling them they can't use asphalt in the roads anymore because of global warming.
The refinery just came up.
We're not gonna make asphalt anymore.
Correct, because it's they make more money making gas.
So now the county can't do road improvement projects.
Well, fine.
Yeah, they have to do that.
I support the refinery's decision.
Let some of these liberal county supervisor type people find out that they can't repair their silly roads, and then let them find out we're not going to be driving on roads anyway, because they're going to ban cars eventually down the road.
So now we're going to need any roads.
Fine.
If they can't have asphalt, let's make them beg for it.
Let's make them beg for an oil product.
Good move on the part of the refinery.
Get this.
Sacramento state transportation officials say a Sacramento Highway project is on hold so that the study can be done to measure its effects on global warming.
They want to widen Highway 50, the corridor west of downtown Sacramento.
A judge has stopped it because nobody has studied the effects of global warming on two more lanes full of cars.
▲
Export Selection