All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
More fun than a human being should be allowed to have here behind a golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A thrill, a delight to be with you as we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Bloomberg News has an interesting story today.
This is in relationship to the cap and trade bill that the House of Representatives passed with the eight Republican votes.
Late Friday afternoon.
America's biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending, and increasing imports.
Under the Waxman Markey Climate Bill that may be voted under the well, this is from last Friday.
Um refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants.
This is the trade aspect.
This is brings Wall Street into this, which I think explains these Republican votes.
I I I said in the last hour, I really find myself in a unique, weird position here.
You know, I'm I am a profound believer, supporter, defender of the free market system of capitalism.
But it is apparent to me, you look at what this bill's talk called, how it's titled, cap and trade.
Trade means Wall Street, selling and buying, conducting the whole aspect of the trades, and when you start trading pollution credits, carbon credits, it's a massive business.
Wall Street is going to make out like bandits on this.
This is a SOP to the very people the Obama administration, the Democrats want you to believe that they hate and despise.
And I think when you look at these Republicans, and here again are the names of the eight Republicans that voted for this travesty, Mary Bono in California, Mike Castle in Delaware, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Leonard Lance, Frank Lobiando, Christopher Smith in New Jersey, John McHugh in New York, and David Rikert in Washington.
As has been well established, this is undeniable.
It's not arguable.
A politician's first objective is to get re-elected.
And that takes money.
And the people that give you money.
Look at the unions in Obama.
Look at everybody who gave Obama money.
He's paying them back with uh with policy, legislation.
They happen to be the same bedfellow, so it's not that Obama's doing something against his wishes.
But I guarantee you, these some of these eight Republicans, and I I I can't specifically name one or more specifically, but I'm just telling you my suspicion.
My suspicion is that being in the Northeast, some of them they've got ties to Wall Street with donations, contributions, and so forth, and that talks.
It talks.
So here I am ripping Wall Street.
One of the reasons, one of the reasons why is they got they got the bailout money.
They got the TARP money, and they got a story coming up here in the stack about General Motors or General Electric got TARP money.
I mean, it was some of some of the entities that end up getting it.
It's the same thing as the stimulus bill.
They told us we had to do this to save the country, to save the world financial system.
And it was like every other piece of legislation, a bunch of crap thrown in there that had nothing to do with the intended purpose.
And so the intended purpose was a disguise.
The intended purpose was a feint.
The intended purpose saved the financial system.
It wasn't in that great a danger, as we know, because when it was voted down the first time by the Republicans, it didn't pass another two weeks, and we were still around.
And the world financial system was still functioning.
We were told we had to pass this thing now or else face the most dire financial consequences ever.
So I think the intended purpose of TARP was a faint, a smokescreen for another.
Just think of it as one massive earmark bill, and the stimulus was the same thing.
So the standard operating procedure in the U.S. House, the Congress at large, the Senate and House does not change, did not change, regardless of the crisis, regardless how bad they told us the crisis was.
So this story from Bloomberg is interesting because big oil is going to well look, we're going to be taxed out of existence if this thing ever becomes law.
How do we avoid this?
It's very easy.
We close fuel plants, we cut capital spending, we don't create any carbon.
We try to reduce our carbon footprint as greatly as we can.
We just import things.
So we further weaken ourselves, make ourselves more dependent on foreign oil when the stated purpose of this debacle.
Cap and trade is to, in 10 or 20 years, end our dependence on foreign oil.
We're supposed to in 20 years become entirely energy dependent, independent.
And it's going to be just the exact opposite.
As is the case with so much liberal legislation, extreme radical liberal legislation, whether the consequences are intended or not.
The exact opposite of what is intended happens, be it the Great Society, the War on Poverty, you name it.
ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said this whole thing is going to create a competitive imbalance.
It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact on our industry.
Our potential shutdown of refineries and investment and ultimately employment.
Mulvis said, this is a June 16th interview in Detroit.
ConocoPhillips has the second largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would cost $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have $0.10 less added if it were imported.
So Well, what do you think they're going to do?
And they're they're being upfront and honest about right now what they're going to do, and that is just start importing more, which of course does what?
Increases our dependence.
Forty-four Democrats.
Forty-four Democrats voted against more Democrat uh government.
44 Democrats in this bill.
In other words, you could say that 44 Democrats disagreed with Colin Powell.
I know we didn't hear or see Colin Powell weigh in on cap and trade.
We don't see him weigh in on any issue.
But we have to presume, as a supporter of Obama and as a supporter of more government, that General Powell stood shoulder to shoulder with the eight Republicans in the House who voted for Nancy Pelosi's cramdown bill that nobody read because it wasn't even written.
This is a disgrace.
This country might want to think long and hard about.
This is a national scandal.
This is irresponsibility to the core.
The bill was not even written, much less read, and yet it was voted on.
So what we have here, central planning mechanisms are being put in place for a command and control economy, and the whole process was totally lacking in transparency.
A perfect representation of the Obama presidency.
You couldn't find by the way, legislation like this is supposed to be on a website for five days, so all of us can read it, right?
It wasn't written.
No wonder the drive-by's of state-run media are so enamored of Colin Powell.
He would remake the Republican Party just as Obama would remake America.
That is to say, would destroy it.
We have to assume he agreed with all this.
He voted for the guy, didn't come out against it.
We have to assume these these eight Republicans are Colin Powell's kind of Republicans, don't we?
To the audio sound bites, here's Henry Waxman last Friday night on the House floor.
He had this exchange with uh Ellen Tosher about John Boehner.
The uh Republican leader was yielded the balance of the time, which I think amounted to around four or five minutes.
He's talked for around twenty.
It's the custom of the House to hear the leader's remarks.
Uh Radal Radio, rather.
The rules of the House are that uh uh the Republican leader gets the minority leader to speak as long as he wants on something like this, and Boehner did good.
He gave a 60 minute speech, went through the climate bill page by page.
Waxman tried to interrupt, which is what you just heard.
So Boehner shut up Waxman really well.
Listen to this.
Further parliamentary inquiry.
Is there any outside limit to the amount of time a leader might take?
Do we have historical records that might be broken tonight?
Or is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?
The custom of the House is to listen to the leaders' comments.
Reclaiming my time.
The gentleman's had uh his 30 years to put this bill together, and the House is going to spend a whopping five hours debating the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in a hundred years.
And the chairman has the audacity to drop a 300 plus page amendment in the hopper at 309 a.m. this morning.
Don't you think the American people expect us to understand what's in this bill before we vote on it?
You wonder.
They really wonder.
How could they know what's in it?
It wasn't written.
And it wasn't written.
It couldn't be two separate things because this 300 page, this what is it, 300 page amendment actually referred to the original bill in spots.
Uh section one, paragraph four, redelete this and replace, but nobody had seen what was being deleted and what it was being replaced with.
It's just abomination.
Quick timeout, we'll be back.
Much more straight ahead.
Well, isn't this good?
Get ready to get gang raped again, folks.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health care reform bill before it's voted on later this year.
And Harry Reid has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health care bill, despite Obama promising that all legislation will be up for five days on one of his stupid websites where everybody could read it.
Let me tell you something.
Hugo Chavez ain't got anything on us.
The way this is the most leftward, radical leftist House of Representatives this nation is ever elected, and they are behaving as total statist autocrats.
They don't care what Obama's promised, they don't care.
They don't want you to read the legislation is the bottom line.
They don't want you to find out what's in it.
And they are so brazen, they do not believe that you'll care.
As somebody, I f I forget some blog someplace, tried to describe this.
Well, you know, uh uh uh this the House of Representatives has rarely be under the Democrats, it's rarely been so shameless as so shameless.
This is unlike anything this country has ever seen.
We've always had communists and radicals and leftists and socialists running around the Democrat Party.
We've never had a majority.
I'm running a damn country.
And we do.
And you see how they operate.
I don't care about anything.
What they gonna this is gonna happen, however, they have to cram it down.
And we'll whatever you think be damned.
Back to the phones.
This is Jan in Spokane, Washington.
Hi, Jan, I'm glad you called.
Nice to have you with us.
Uh real big pleasure to talk with you.
Thank you.
Um, I just uh flipped on the radio this morning on my way to work and was listening to you talking about Sudamaiar and uh some things that she said, and what uh what I was wondering is when will Caucasians become the minority, considering that uh we're thinking about amnesty and and also considering the birth rates of non-Caucasian uh people groups.
Who's who's keeping track of when we become the minority?
I don't know what the I don't know what the projected target is nationally in California it's pretty quick.
It's pretty soon.
You've got a number of things happening in California, people leaving, uh illegal immigration, of course.
I don't know what the year is, uh, but there have been some demographers that have run projections on this based on current trends.
And it but but I was gonna say, does it really matter?
Uh the middle of the century is probably the best guess as to uh when this will happen.
But the the problem is that you've got people running the show now, from Obama all the way down through his administration through the House of Representatives, who, regardless of their race, are racists.
They are uh far-left extreme radicals who believe this country has been unjust since its founding.
And their objective, and this describes Sotomayor.
Minorities will always be found in favor of regard wherever it is, a court, a place of work, uh wherever, simply because they've been discriminated.
Maybe they haven't been discriminated against personally, but members of their race have been.
This is about get even with them time.
This is this is returning the nation's wealth to its uh to its rightful owners.
This is radical leftism on parade.
So when I say does it really matter when Caucasians become a minority, what I mean by this is we already have a governing majority.
He's going to treat them that way.
It's reverse racism.
We have people who are angry and fit to be tied, and they think it's time some people have uh have a lesson taught them.
And those people happen to be those who have succeeded, those who have achieved, regardless of their race, uh and and those who have been perceived to have all of the power for all of these years.
It's time to get even with them.
And the parade is on, and you see it happening right before your very eyes every day, with every piece of legislation that comes forth.
Well, um Yeah, I was just wondering when they're gonna start making to make some laws to uh make things go the other way so that now them then the minorities can be.
No, no, no, you misunderstand.
The purpose of the laws now is to achieve the exact opposite.
Affirmative action quotas, whatever you want to call it, was never designed.
The intent was never to find equality or to properly compensate.
And I first learned this all the way back in the 70s.
I was I was dabbling at a talk show on a local Kansas City radio station.
This is before I went to work for the Kansas City Royals.
I forget the issue.
It might have been the Bakke case.
University of California, Davis, a guy, Stephen Bakke, had scored far greater on medical school entrance exams and was not permitted to get in.
Almost a replay of this firefighter case in New Haven.
And I had a bunch of uh civil rights supporters on, and they were singing the praises of affirmative action and uh uh quotas and ending discrimination.
And I said, Well, okay, at what point down the line, how far how far out in the future is it going to be where you think that the playing field has been leveled and that we're no longer gonna need what you're supposed to never.
Whoa, well that that'll never happen.
We're we're their purpose has not been to level any playing field, it's to reverse it.
You gotta folks, I the best way to understand this, I think is that you, and it's hard for those of us who are patriots who love this country the way we do, it's hard to understand there are people who detest it, who hate it, who think it is immoral and unjust, and always has been.
And this really took root in the 60s, and all these kids in the 60s, a lot of them in government now, a lot of them in uh universities teaching your kids various classes, a lot of them are on the bench, the federal bench.
Uh they they arrive at these positions with anger in their hearts.
I firmly believe this describes Obama.
I think Obama's angry.
He's not not this cool calm collected guy, is very cold.
He's very angry.
He's angry at the British over the colonialization of Africa, he's angry at uh Churchill, he's angry, he's plain and he's angry at this country for its discrimination and slavery passed and so forth, and he doesn't think that the proper price has been paid for it.
Some people are thinking, uh some people speculating that all of this um cap and trade legislation, uh health care reform is nothing more than reparations in disguise.
That it is uh a way of transferring the nation's wealth to its quote unquote rightful owners.
That they're smart enough to know that if they call a piece of legislation reparations, it'll never prayer.
But if they couch the legislation in fairness and compassion, the usual liberal terms, that people will go for it because they think that they have created enough white guilt at all of the unjust immorality of the history of this country that people sit by and let it happen uh so that their own personal guilt can be assuaged, regardless of the impact on the uh on the country.
And they're playing this song, they're playing this tune very consistently and they're playing it very well.
Political correctness has gone a long way to shutting people up and making a lot of people afraid to stand up and oppose all this rot gut, which is which is exactly what it is, and we'll just see how far they're gonna be able to take it and get away with it.
We hope that the Senate does end up being this saucer where the heated coffee spills and cools a while before they actually vote on it.
A very pleased uh Associated Press reported in two thousand seven, white Americans no longer a majority by twenty forty-two, according to new government projections.
That's eight years sooner than previous estimates made in two thousand four.
AP was excited as they can be over this.
So 2042, according to current projections, government projections, uh whites will be the minority by 2042.
Not that that matters.
I just answering a question I was asked by a caller.
What mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
No, no, no, no.
Well, now now Mr. Snurdley has asked a actually a very good question for a change, and that is if these laws on the books benefiting minorities, if they're all that good, will they then apply to the white minority in 2042?
Sturdley, would you answer your own question on this?
I mean, if you want to project out to 2042, what do you think will happen by then?
What what what's going to happen is that that the white majority is also always going to be considered to be a majority, no matter what the numbers are.
The the the second circuit, the second circuit, Sotomayor case, the Ricci case, the firefighters case, illustrates the point.
This is why Justice Scalia said today that there's a the pedal's gonna hit the metal.
Rubber's gonna hit the road pretty soon because the whole constitutionality of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not decided.
And Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, according to a lot of lawyers, is in direct contravention of the 14th Amendment.
This case did not require that whole Title VII to be reviewed, because this case was so obvious it could be decided just on the merits of it.
And Scalia said there's a reckoning coming, and we didn't deal with it here in this case.
So this was I I guess, not being a lawyer, this was so blatant that there's nothing I mean.
There was nobody no way anybody could find appropriate cover here to uphold Sotomayor and her gang on the uh on the second circuit.
Don't forget it was Jose Cabranas, a Clinton appointee on the Second Circuit, which abrated Sotomayor, for deciding this case along with her colleagues and summary judgment at totally ignoring the constitutional issues here, which happened to be Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 64, and is it in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
We've got an equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.
We've got a Civil Rights Act which just blows it to Smithereen's.
And it hasn't been tested constitutionally yet.
And this case didn't didn't get that done, so it's that's that's a day of reckoning still ahead, Scalia's right.
Here's Tim, Toledo, Ohio.
You're next.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush.
I wanted to make a comment on this sort of mayor um non promotion that she voted in favor of being overturned.
We're like one vote away from total one party control top to bottom from Congress, the President, and now the Supreme Court.
I know she's not replacing a Conservative.
But what's to stop us from having like a total dictatorship?
You know, one party rule.
What I say, you know, from the president.
Well, you want you want to know the answer?
Yeah.
The only thing stopping us is the next election, or any next election.
But then you got to throw into that mix our old buddies at Acorn who are out there trying to ginny or jimmy all these elections by fraudulently registering people.
Uh the it's the Chicago way.
It's the consequences are dire.
There's there's no question.
I talked about it last week and people smirked at me.
But but trust me, there are people who are looking at what's happening, and they're not seeing much of a viable opposition rise up, and they're saying, you know what?
I better get what I can now, enjoy what I can now because it's going to hell in a handbasket.
A lot of people are very fatalistic.
And your question sort of summarizes or epitomizes the view that uh more than a few people I know have about this.
So the next election.
It's always the next election.
And always gonna boil down just how much faith you're gonna have in the American people.
At some point, say this is not what we want.
This is not what we voted for.
The problem with that is how many of them benefit from all this dictatorship, you call it.
How many benefit?
How many are benefiting from government getting bigger?
How many benefit from the government run uh by a bunch of statists?
How many well the statists want as many to benefit as possible?
It's hard to vote against the entity that provides you your living, regardless of what that living is.
This is something the Libs have known for a while.
So it's the next election.
And the next election, and the next election.
You know, liberalism is something that's gonna have to constantly be uh fought.
Evidence, 1980, 1984, Ronaldo's Magnus, two landslides.
You would figure, as well as the country did then, tax cuts, the economy coming back, beat the Soviet Union, wiped out Soviet communism, you would think that those eight years of actual experience would have instructed people.
But the drive-by media back then and through today, and the Democrat Party has done its best to revise history and lie about what actually happened during the 80s.
Yeah, we did pretty well, but we did it on the backs of the poor, which of course makes no mathematical sense whatsoever.
But they still said that.
Of course, the poor believe it.
Some of the middle class believe it.
Lifelong Democrats born that way, who don't question anything, believe it.
And that's why it is so troubling to me to see conservatism fractured the way it is, with so many of our otherwise bright people saying Colin Powell's the way of the future to Republican Party.
I sorry, still don't get it.
We have a we have a faction of the conservative movement who actually believes, you know what, people do want big government now, so we gotta come up with a better way of saying we can do it better.
Well, that's that's forfeiture of the game.
That's giving up.
That is abandoning conservatism for the sake of doing whatever you have to do to win.
My point is if you are a conservative, but you throw it away in order to win, what if you won?
If you have to govern as a liberal in order to stay in power.
So it's a lot of work ahead, folks.
I I'm not sugarcoating it.
Uh this is Mary and Alexandria, Virginia.
Hi, Mary, you're next.
Uh it's great to have you here.
Well, thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's a delight to speak with you.
Thank you.
My question is who is paying the salaries of these newly appointed Obama czars, and how many can he continue to appoint?
You appoint as many as he wants because nobody's stopping him.
U.S. taxpayers pay their salaries, Obama alone decides what they'll be paid.
And who decides the job requirements?
Obama.
Oh, that's lovely.
Well, that's what a czar is.
The reason, you know, the whole czar, this whole czar concept, you could say is unconstitutional.
We got cabinet secretaries, and they all have to go up to the Senate and be confirmed.
These do not, they're just hired.
So now we got a czar.
We got a domestic violent czar.
I had this for you, and that's what she's calling about.
The opening hour of the program.
They just hired a domestic violence czar.
An advisor.
They're calling not calling it a czar, but it's a czar.
They're calling it a domestic violence advisor.
What the hell kind of advice are you gonna get?
From a dem about the only kind of advice.
I mean, we're we're talking about Democrats here, right?
We're talking about the party of Bill Clinton.
So I assume if you're gonna have a domestic policy advisor, the advice you're gonna get, put some ice on it.
Your lips a little swollen and bleedingly, put some ice on it as you leave the swanky motel room.
Domestic policy advice, domestic violence advisor.
Why do you need any advice on that?
Are there some instances where it's justified and you need an advisor to tell you when?
In case you know the woman is a Republican and the husband's a Democrat, then it's perfectly understandable why there'd be domestic violence.
We've got to allow for this.
The hell are we doing here?
Couple of uh audio sound bites here.
Der Commissar is here as a title of bump to and it fits.
Barack Obama this afternoon in the White House extolled the virtues of cap and trade.
Just last Friday, the House of Representatives came together to pass an extraordinary piece of legislation that will finally open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, preventing the worst consequences of climate change, and making clean energy the profitable kind of energy.
Thanks to members of Congress who are willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics.
This bill will create new businesses, new industries.
I can't handle it.
I literally, all of this is lies.
And there's no other way to put this.
All of this, everything you heard him say is lies.
Let's start from the top.
Well, they did pass an extraordinary piece of legislation.
That's true.
But we'll finally open the door to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.
It's just the opposite.
We're going to be importing more because we're going to be producing less domestically to avoid the new carbon taxes.
Preventing the worst consequences of climate change.
We're not causing climate change.
It is vanity unparalleled to say so.
Making clean energy the profitable kind of energy.
This bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs.
It will also kill many more millions of new jobs.
These millions of new jobs created are going to have to be subsidized by the government because there's no market for any of this stuff.
Talked about this Thursday and Friday.
There's no market for wind.
If there were, it'd be in existence.
You cannot mandate the existence of new technology from Washington.
You just can't do it.
I was watching the Fox All-Stars on Friday afternoon, and I it it I saw well good illustration of what we're up against.
Charles Krauthammer was making 150% sense in all this, saying the exact same thing.
You can't mandate the creation of new technologies from Washington.
There's nobody there that knows how to do it.
It happens in the private sector when there's a market need for it.
When there's a profit to be made is when people will get into it, not before.
And Juan Williams said, You don't understand, you don't understand, you don't understand, you don't understand.
This is about taking a much needed step to getting rid of the kind of polluting forms of energy that we have.
This has to be taken.
This is the same Juan Williams, who I like, by the way.
The same Juan Williams who, when he heard Vaslav Havel, Baslav Klaus, one of the two Vaslovs, who is uh, I think at the moment the president of European Union came to Washington National Press Club, devastating speech on on global warming and how it's all a fiction.
And Juan Williams, I'd never heard this before.
He'd never heard a contravening view.
Do you realize conservatives are more informed on what the left thinks?
Conservatives are far more widely informed than liberals are liberals are of a narrow little focus and they don't allow anything that contradicts their little cocoon to enter it.
So he was so he's I mean, he may as well be taking dictation, Juan Williams from Rahm Emanuel.
No, Charles, you don't understand.
This is about finally getting rid of all these old polluting forms of energy.
This is about taking steps for the next hundred years and blah, blah, blah.
The impact, the market aspects of this be damned because he doesn't even know them.
And Crowdhammer made the point.
One, Washington doesn't dictate new technologies.
If it were that easy, any elected official, president, to say, today I dictate that we can all fly like Superman.
Somebody get working on this and make it happen.
That's not how it happens.
The market drives invention.
When there is a profit in any kind of economic activity, that's when it will begin.
Or if there is at least a profit in vision down the road.
Sometimes you'll have to go in the uh in the red and you take a risk, you take an investment on something, and nobody's willing to go full out on solar or wind.
The only people doing it are being subsidized in one way or another by government.
Here's the next Obama bite.
Now, if this doesn't make you puke, I don't know what will.
The first step we're taking sets new efficiency standards on fluorescent and incandescent lighting.
I know light bulbs may not seem sexy.
But this simple action holds enormous promise because 7% of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses.
Between 2012 and 2042, these new standards will save consumers up to four billion dollars a year.
We're gonna start here at the White House.
Secretary Chu's already started to take a look at our light bulbs, and we're gonna see what we need to uh replace them with energy efficient light bulbs.
Jimmy Carter.
This is Jimmy Carter all over again.
The cardigan sweater, the thermostat down to 68 in the wintertime.
We're gonna start here in the White House.
We're gonna get rid of all these bulbs, we're gonna put these uh compact fluorescents in there.
And this is absurd.
And I know a lot of you are in the compact fluorescent business.
And if people want them, that's fine.
I don't really don't care.
But don't tell me I have to buy one of the damn things because I'm destroying the planet otherwise.
I refuse to have my intelligence insulted that way.
And that's the way all this crap is being sold to people, all this stuff that is irrelevant and makes no smidgen's difference whatsoever, is being pitched as you have to do this to save the planet.
And if you don't do it, we're gonna make you do it.
Like the kind of car we're gonna make you drive and all this other rot gut.
Dictatorial statist crap coming out of this administration.
So we've got we got hell breaking loose in Honduras.
Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras.
We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup.
Now, what was the the coup was what many of you wish would happen here.
Without the military, what happened in Honduras was that the president down there was constitutionally prevented from seeking another term of office.
Say to hell with it.
I'm gonna run for I'm gonna sit, I'm staying here.
Right out of the page book of Hugo Chavez.
And opposition got the military.
You are not going to destroy the Honduras Constitution this way.
And so they kicked him out of office, and now you've got the Obama administration upset about that.
And they tried to stop this from happening.
So they'll meddle in all of these anti all these countries are going to promote dictators.
Obama will be happy to help dictators survive, including in Iran.
He didn't meddle there.
He meddled in Honduras.
But time to throw Israel overboard.
An ally.
So with all this garbage going on, the president of the United States makes a little press conference speech about light bulbs and a mythical financial statistic that between 2012 and 2042, Americans will save $4 billion in energy costs.
And I share with you a dirty little secret.
Good.
We don't have an energy shortage.
There is not an energy crisis.
All of this has been trumped up.
We have all the energy we want.
There might be brownouts in California now and then the summertime, but those are explained not by a shortage of resources, but rather a screwed-up grid or a number of different stupid things that administrators are doing.
We don't have a shortage of this stuff.
And we're really not all that wasteful.
We've been we've been tightening up and becoming more efficient.
This man talks to us like we're still a bunch of children.
Wasting energy all over the place when people aren't.
So the people of this country are under indictment?
When they're not they're not criminals and so forth, all of this, and you are you don't know what you're doing, you're destroying the planet, you have to be saved from yourselves.
That's a tenant of liberalism.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
It's the fastest.
Three hours in media.
Two of them are already gone.
Do you believe that, Rachel?
Only one more to go.
▲
Export Selection