All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
April 21, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know these really, really rich hedge fund guys, all the ones that are north of a billion dollars.
You know, they're almost all Democrats.
Take a look at who they donate money to.
The vast majority of them are liberal.
Well, they're the one percent, or at least they're the image of the one percent that we have.
Why aren't they more upset about Obama's targeting of the one percent?
Is it because they know that it's all talk, that it's just political rhetoric, that it's a sham?
Or is it because they're all kind of like Vladimir Putin?
Yeah, let 'em rip us.
Let him do this.
It isn't gonna work.
Let's talk about redistributing income at the very same time.
We water down the value of the dollar by having the Fed flood the capital markets, go out and buy up all of our bonds, improving the economic environment for those of us who thrive on low credit, low interest rates, rather.
They've all done really, really well under President Obama.
Yet he's bringing back the canard again.
Oh, I'm gonna go after the one percent ed.
A lot of the people like, oh, Obama cares about us.
Well, whether he does or he doesn't, and it's very debatable as to how much Barack Obama does care, but whether he does or he does not, let's take a look at the results.
The ninety-nine percent have not done very well with Barack Obama.
Ronald Reagan's famous question that he asked when he ran for president in nineteen eighty, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Well, Obama's five and a half years in.
For most of America, are you better off now than you were five and a half years ago?
I doubt it.
What would the one percent say, though?
And I mean not the Bush era, not the Reagan.
I'm talking about the Barack Obama era.
If you went to the one percent and said, Are you better off now than you were five and a half years ago?
I suspect most of them would say yes.
If they're invested in any asset class, they're probably much better off.
Yet he's the people that he says that he's gonna go after.
Who's benefited from his policy?
In the first hour of the program today, we talked about a story dealing with how the debate community is being upended.
Major controversy, you know, debate high school debate teams, college debate teams, they have these rigid rules and you give them a topic and you get so many minutes to lay out a case, and the other side has it's time debate championships are now being won by a lot of African American kids.
Black kids who are changing the rules, saying they're not gonna even stick to the topic, they're not gonna stick to the time, they bring up personal experience rather than be on topic, and many people in the debate community say that this is a good thing, while others say that it isn't at all.
The people who ins are in support of this say that this is all just white privilege.
You've created these rules.
Well, that's not how we debate.
While I think the white privilege argument is a joke, I'm not all that upset that these people are violating the rules.
I'm told there's a young man who wants to disagree with me on this.
Alex in Bloomington, Indiana, you're on the Russian Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Now, being polite like that, Alex, that that earns you points just right out of the box.
So you don't think I'm right about this, huh?
No, unfortunately I do disagree with you, Mr. Belling.
Tell me why.
The reason being is because I believe that debate is the rules of debate are designed for the purposes of being the reason we have the rules of debate is because we need a way to be able to argue in a gentlemanly way.
And when we start denigrating the rules of debate, we it goes from a debate, it quickly goes from a debate to a quarrel, and it violates the whole reason that we have debate in the first place.
I agree with you on all of that, that it does become a quarrel, and without any rules that allows people to change the subject and bring up any points that they want to bring up.
It's a tactic that's been used forever by the left.
The problem that I have with your adherence, strict adherence to the rules, is it does raise the question that these African American students are raising, whose rules are we talking about?
Now you suggest that those are the rules, but are the rules valid, or did we create the rules for the purpose of satisfying the people who made the rules?
You follow me on this?
Yeah, I'm following you.
Well, for instance, the rules of debate that we have in America right now are rules that say that my side, conservatives, what about you, Alex?
You're right wing or are you a lefty?
Um Democrat, Republican, you know I would say I'm a right wing.
You're right, you're on the right wing.
Okay.
Well, you're gonna find that a lot of the positions that you want to debate over the years, once you're outside a debate course, you're gonna be told that you don't have a right to say that, that that's racist, that that's sexist, that if we dare to, if for instance, if somebody dares to stand up and oppose gay marriage, they're called a bigot.
If you make a campaign contribution to try to keep marriage between a man and a woman, that you're gonna lose your job is what happened to an individual with a tech company in California.
That the rules of debate as set up right now shut our side up.
I'm merely suggesting that people that are willing to debate things on their own terms and not follow slavishly behind somebody else's rules, that it's the only way my side's going to get their point across.
But I do agree with you that if we don't have any rules of discourse, that you end up with what we have right now in our society, where liberals shout down conservatives, where our side isn't allowed to talk, and the only discourse is theirs.
So are you a debater?
Yes, I am a debater.
I uh I'm a part of team policy debate.
Uh are you good at it?
Pardon me?
Are you good at it?
Well, I don't know.
I'm not very good at it, I wouldn't say.
Okay.
Because uh you might become a talk show host a little bit later on in life.
Thanks for the call, Alex.
I wanted to hear his point of view, and I wanted to make a point about the whole thing.
The rules that we've established in America.
Oh, the scores are up.
Mamon says Alex seven mark four, Snerdley says Alex 10 mark two.
Yeah, well, guess what?
Who's the guy that has the microphone?
In the end, doesn't matter what the score is, it matters who has the ability to talk, which was the point I was about to make.
So I'm glad that your little show out there came forward.
We have a world right now where my side's not allowed to talk.
If you're somebody who, for whatever reason, is opposed to gay marriage, you're told you can't have a position on that.
If you are someone who is pro-life, you're part of the war on women.
If you're someone who has point of view that anti-poverty programs are bad, why you're somebody that doesn't care about people.
Look at the Hollywood community and the reforced restrictions on speech.
An American university campus right now, you can't talk at all.
I on here CLE, brilliant young woman, crusader against violence against women in Muslim countries.
She's objected to the forced genital mutilation of young girls and the denial of basic human rights to adult women who live in Muslim nations.
She was to deliver the commencement address at Brandeis University near Boston.
They canceled her appearance because her speech was considered Islamophobic.
Campus protesters said we can't let her talk.
This is a feminist, mind you, but a feminist whose gripe is against the treatment of women in Islamic countries.
Because she dared to criticize the way in which speech codes are enforced and behavior codes are enforced in Muslim nations.
They said she can't come.
She's a bigot.
Those are the rules of debate right now in our society.
My side's not allowed to talk.
There are constant attacks on the fact that programs like Rush's are out there.
Rush himself has been discredited so many times.
Well, that's just Rush Limbaugh talking.
That's the talk radio crowd, that's Fox News, as if those opinions somehow lack the same right to be heard as anybody else's.
No, I'm not against changing the rules in debate co debate competitions in high school and college.
I think that the rules are good.
I was trying to make the larger point that when the rules of debate are established As they are right now, by a media elite and a cultural elite to rule out of order conservative thought to suggest that people who believe things and can argue their case are racist or haters, which is the common tactic now, is wrong.
I don't believe the African American students who are objecting to the rules of debate have a valid point when they say those rules are the result of white privilege.
But I will give you this.
The rules of discourse in society in America right now are the result of liberal privilege, of a media elitist privilege.
Who have said that, okay, you conservatives, you can have talk radio, but even with talk radio, we're going to put you in that category of right-wing yahoos.
We're going to marginalize your beliefs.
The upside of this is that it makes people all the more loyal to those who express their point of view.
But we're all categorized, we're all put in there in the same category as the guy from Duck Dynasty.
Somebody who doesn't have a right to have right to their viewpoints that these are invalid points of view.
Those are the rules that exist right now in terms of dialogue in America.
So the rules might be wrong with regard to debate.
I'm not suggesting they are wrong in high school or college.
I was merely using this latest attempt to play the race card and okay, we're gonna break all the rules and we're just gonna talk and yell and scream and shout down everybody else, and because we're black, we're going to claim that if you object, you're racist.
That of course is stupid.
But it doesn't mean that the rules we've established right now for being able to talk about contemporary affairs in our country aren't somebody else's version of privilege.
By the way, you hear about wheel well kid?
Kid got enough inside the wheel well of a jet in San Jose, California.
The wheel well is, you know, the got the wheels on the plane and the landing gear.
That goes, they pull that thing up when the plane is up in the air.
He goes and he hides in that well and flew from San Jose to Honolulu, Hawaii.
38,000 feet, and the temperature is about 80 degrees below zero.
Now, when the wheels are up, they close the contraption, but when they come back down for landing, that means it's open again.
He has open air.
Got in there and hid and flew from San Jose to Hawaii.
First of all, I don't never mind getting into the wheel well.
How does he get into the tarmac of a major American airport?
I can't get past TSA if I've got eye drops that aren't in the little baggie.
Plus, I'll tell you, he flies.
I mean, that's not a short flight.
San Jose to Hawaii sitting in the wheel well that's in the belly of the plane.
I'm miserable and achy.
I flew two hours to get from Milwaukee to New York yesterday.
By the time I landed, I was crabby as could be.
I flew in first class.
Don't tell that to uh the bosses.
You couldn't even make it here.
You missed your flight.
Next time flying the wheel well, and you'll probably get there just fine.
Kid flew in the wheel in a wheel well from San Jose, California to Honolulu.
Well, the authorities are investigating how something like this happened.
Okay, have another meeting on that.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
That kid from Indiana, the debater, he was good.
You know what I liked about him?
He actually, I don't know why I like this, but he was humble.
I asked him how good he is, and he didn't trash talk and say he's great at it.
He said he's not all that good yet.
All right.
They're having the Easter egg roll at the White House today.
No, Easter isn't over, actually.
It's Easter Monday as today.
Easter, the Easter season begins on Easter.
Lent is over.
I know about this.
I went to Catholic grade school.
We're in the Easter season.
I don't know, maybe does it last the 40 days until the ascension?
I don't know the answer to that.
I think I I think I am right about this.
But I might not be.
But I do know that Obama had the Easter egg roll today.
I know this because I saw him on MSNBC.
He and Michelle got up there, and not surprisingly, Michelle.
Every time you tell a story about Michelle Obama, people think you're making things up.
Have you noticed that?
She's got a slogan for today's Easter egg roll.
Hop into healthy, swing into shape.
Hop into healthy, swing into shape.
So that's the theme for the Easter egg roll.
Now, speaking of the Easter egg role, Vladimir Putin has been on a five-year role of Obama.
I want to talk about this story for a moment, and I don't want to belabor the program by discussing the situation in Ukraine today.
But I do think some points need to be made about this.
2012 election campaign.
Mitt Romney staked out a position on foreign policy.
He tried to, for all of the shortcomings in Romney's campaign, and maybe the shortcomings of Romney himself as a candidate, he tried to run a serious campaign for the presidency of the United States.
And he did try to inject foreign policy and his vision of the world that we live in into a campaign that Obama was trying to win by carrying on about 1% and compassion and who cares and this guy is rich and I'm not, and all of that other stuff that doesn't matter at all.
Obama talked about Russia.
So did Romney.
Romney suggested that Vladimir Putin and Russia were geopolitical enemies.
And when he did that, Obama ridiculed him.
Obama said to Romney, Governor Romney, the 1980s called they want the foreign policy back.
Remember that argument?
That oh poor old Mitt Romney was still stuck in the Cold War, still stuck in the past.
He Obama was the visionary, he was going to work with Russia.
We've got the reset in place, he's engaging Russia, we are going to move forward with the cooperation of Russia and solving the larger problems of the world.
And here's Mitt Romney trying to saber rattle.
That was only a year and a half ago.
Look at us now.
Where maybe even Obama has finally figured out that Vladimir Putin is someone that you cannot work with.
I think Putin has had Obama figured from day one.
You know, Putin had that little gap where he technically wasn't running Russia because they had the their version of term limits there.
He was able to come back in 2012.
He sized up the way Obama drew his line in the sand in Syria.
You use chemical weapons, that's the line too far.
And he saw that the line in the sand was meaningless.
I think Putin right then and right there knew that Barack Obama was someone that could be played.
The one thing that Putin had to do is he had to get through the Olympics.
Once the Olympics were over, Ukraine was going to go down.
And I know Ukraine isn't down yet, but it will be down.
Even the New York Times today is reporting that the green mask crowd, that's these people that are running around in these devastations, these pro-Russian demonstrations in Ukraine, they've been unmasked as Russian soldiers.
The United States is now suggesting that didn't really matter.
Crimea is now back part of Russia, and now there is insurrection in Ukraine itself.
Jewish people are being told that they're supposed to register.
Who's living in the past?
This is the past.
It doesn't seem like the 80s, it seems like the 40s.
Jewish people are supposed to register.
And the Russians are moving through Eastern Europe.
Whatever the motivation of Putin is, he wants Ukraine.
And he's probably going to get it.
Why wouldn't he get it?
Who's going to stop him?
If the Ukrainians can't stop him on their own, and how do they stand up to the Russian army if indeed that is what is there?
Who's going to stop him?
Oh, we have a treaty with the Ukrainians.
That's right.
We may have a treaty with the Ukrainians.
The Ukrainians are an ally of the United States.
They have been invaded.
We're not going to do anything about it, and he knows it.
Now you see the new spin coming from The Obama people.
Well, he's just going to isolate Putin.
He realizes that he can't engage with him.
Now he realizes he can't engage with him.
The people who were telling him 18 months ago that he couldn't engage with Putin, that Putin was a force for evil, that you couldn't work with Putin.
We were mocked.
We were ridiculed.
Mitt Romney was at was told, go back to the other century that you were in.
It's another misread by Obama.
Do you know what we're doing today?
You know what our response to this latest information that we're getting from Ukraine is?
Joe Biden's on his way over there.
Joe Biden is heading to Kiev.
Is this like a farce?
Vladimir Putin has Russian soldiers masquerading as protesters on the ground in Ukraine.
Jewish people are being told to register, and we send in Joe Biden.
It's comical.
And it's another indication that the worldly Obama read the world wrong.
Speaking of rush, he's going to be back on the program on Wednesday.
He had a little bit of medical work done over the last few days, and we're told he's feeling really well.
And he's going to be back with you on Wednesday's program.
I think Eric Ericsson's going to be here tomorrow.
And Buck Sexton was on on Friday.
Well, all these names all of a sudden.
We had Buck Sexton on and now Eric Ericsson, who's the you know, he's the say his first name is the same as his last name.
I've just got the normal boring name from Wisconsin.
Yes, there have been a lot of marks.
So you've got an Eric Eric and uh Buck Buck or whomever it is.
No, those guys are all really good.
Well, they are.
They are.
Eric does a great job.
Red states his blog.
It's I read it every day.
1800-282882 is the phone number on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Let's go to Chicago and Rob.
Rob, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh Show with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark.
Greetings from your over tax neighbor to the South.
Yeah, I've got I I want to get a segment in before we close up shop today on Illinois and your governor's race, so I'm gonna work really hard to get that in.
What's on your mind, Rob?
Well, uh, can I ask you a favor?
Can you turn the volume up on your end?
I can barely hear you.
No, I can't because I have no idea how to do that.
Maybe one of our many experts could do that.
Turn the volume up on my let's go to uh hundred thousand watts at every affiliate on the EIV network.
Is that any better, Rob?
No, no, I'm talking on the telephone.
I I know, I know.
I know.
Uh let's let's make the best of it that we can, Rob.
What's on your mind today?
Okay.
Uh well, you know, I uh want to spin back a little bit to our uh friends on uh uh who are uh suffering so badly on the uh on the east coast.
Um, what is rich?
Can somebody please tell me what is rich now?
Because the Democrats keep redefining what rich is.
So those of us who are in the middle class are no longer in the middle class.
And those of us who uh uh uh uh you know we're basically rich now by all intent and purpose.
The reason that they use the term rich and one percent is nobody ever thinks that that applies to them.
People who are rich don't think that they're rich.
Rich is somebody who makes more money than I make.
The reason that they use terms like this is is that they're playing into the whole class envy notion that anybody who has something more than you somehow got it illegitimately, and therefore I, the Democrats, I, the welfare state, I, those who are going to level the playing field off, are going to come out and try to fix all of that for you.
The problem with all of that is is that if you try to redistribute income from the so-called rich, there isn't enough income there to actually do anything to affect the overall economy.
Secondly, the super rich who have assets generally don't have a lot of income in terms the income that really, really rich people have is dwarfed by their assets.
We don't know how to tax assets, so we tax his income, and the income is generally taxing people who are in the upper middle class and trying to get rich.
That's one of the many reasons that it never works, but you're right, they always redefine things.
He talks about his millionaire tax, but it kicks in at 400,000.
He talks about going after the super wealthy, and he ends up going after entrepreneurs who are trying to build wealth?
He says that individuals should be able to afford to do all of these things that he mentions, but then the people that are targeted by this often are people who aren't rich at all.
Look who the big victims of Obamacare are.
They're generally small to medium sized businesses who are now holding off on expansion plans because they figure at some point he's going to let the individual mandate kick in.
Did I answer your question, Rob?
I tried really hard.
Oh well, you you did really well.
Um, I'm I would beg to differ that uh the uh income level being four hundred thousand, I think it's a lot lower than that.
I'm just saying they change the definition all the time to serve whatever whatever purpose that they need at the time.
Thank you for the call.
Time to go to San Diego, California.
Bill, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
You're on, Bill.
Okay, let's try Pamela.
Pamela's in Union West Virginia.
Pamela, it's your turn on the Rush Show with Mark Belling.
Uh yes.
Uh my name is Pamela McPeak, and I grew up in McDowell County.
And uh I want to say that the the programs, the trio programs that were created from the war on poverty are very successful.
In fact, I was a product of the student support services program at Bluetooth State College.
I was able to get a college degree.
I went on and got my masters, went through and got my military um uh major in the military.
And um I also work with a program called Upward Bound.
And we work with students in McDowell County and we have a success rate rate of around 90 percent of sending students that are a part of our upward bound program to college.
We're only successful if we get them to two years of college or a bachelor's degree, which we encourage them to go farther.
Who funds this program, Pamela?
It's funded through the Department of Education, and it was funded fifty years ago as part of the war on poverty.
The reason I asked the question is why is the area that you're from still so it's still in such bad shape.
Well, I believe the state of West Virginia in general, uh they have lots of problems.
I don't hear you talking about the governor of West Virginia who was whose brother was arrested for um selling drugs in West Virginia.
I believe that part of our problems in West Virginia uh it is the political corruption.
Well, that's a problem everywhere.
The reason I asked the question is whether or not you take the areas that are depressed in Appalachia or some of the big cities in the United States, the inner cities of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, a lot of other cities where poverty is just terrible.
These are areas where all sorts of programs have been created, yet poverty hasn't gone away.
Now I applaud the fact that you were able to be the beneficiary of a program like this and move forward with your life.
Unfortunately, a lot of these programs aren't based on that.
The one that you described, you said that there's a goal that is measurable.
So many of the goals that we have so many of the other programs that are out there don't have a measurable goal.
Has fo you know, uh, we're reading stories right now that hunger in America is as bad as it's ever been, yet more people are on food stamps than ever.
There's something there that doesn't equate.
If all of these anti-poverty programs are so successful, why do we have as much never mind your own area then?
Why do we have as much poverty in America as we do?
Well, I think that they're not run correctly.
I agree with you on that.
I think that part of it is uh a lot of people that are in poverty, they receive um they may receive like Medicaid or food stamp uh food stamps.
They may receive uh Section 8 housing.
But uh but once they uh like get a job, um if it's not a uh Pamela, what are you doing here?
Pamela, what are you doing to your dog right now?
I'm sorry He saw he sounds in great distress.
Either that or he's upset that I'm arguing with you about this.
I got the gist of your comment.
Thank you for the thank you for the call.
I don't quarrel with Pamela, and she sounds like somebody who was able to take a government assistance program that she was the recipient of and use it to move forward with her life.
Most of these and she she herself acknowledged that most of the programs are not run correctly.
The knock I have on them is that they never seem to be aimed at getting someone from point A to point B. In the end, personal initiative is always the thing that determines whether or not you're going to get ahead in life.
I suspect if that program that Pamela took advantage of did not exist, Pamela still would have moved forward because she was somebody who is motivated to do so.
The programs that we create are never have a measuring stick.
I'm glad hers does.
Most of them are it.
If we judge government social welfare programs on their effectiveness and said if a program isn't working, we're going to get rid of it.
Almost all of them would be gone.
Lord knows that food stamps would be gone.
Right before the Easter weekend.
Good Friday afternoon, early afternoon, comes this little release out of the State Department, trickling out of the Obama administration that the Keystone XL pipeline is going to be reviewed indefinitely, and that there may not be a decision until after the November elections.
As amazing as this sounds, as someone who has from the beginning argued that Barack Obama and his central team lack competence.
And as I argued on my first program hosting rush after Obama was elected in 09, that he was going to be far more liberal than the consensus believed.
I find that I am still overestimating him.
He's farther to the left than even I dreamed, and the decision making is consistently worse than you can imagine it being.
And I'm going to prove that point.
Several months ago, the State Department released its preliminary review of Keystone XL, which is the pipeline that runs from Northern Canada or would run from northern Canada through the central part of the United States down to Louisiana.
It would trans it would uh take oil that is uh drilled for and obtained out of the tar sands in Northern Canada and brought into the United States and taken to refineries in the United States so that it can be converted into gasoline and the other uses for oil that we have.
After the State Department completed its initial review and said that there appeared to be no adverse environmental impact from the construction of Keystone XL, my take was Obama finally found his cover.
That he needed to approve Keystone XL because there are several Democrats from swing states running for reelection to the United States Senate and the United States House here in 2014, and the Keystone XL issue is killing them.
Building this pipeline would be a godsend for the economies of states all the way from the Canadian border down to Louisiana.
In particular, Mary Landrow, the senator from Louisiana Democrat is running for re-election this year.
She needs to have this thing approved.
Obama's got his environmental radicals that he needed to placate.
My take was, okay, they use the State Department review as giving them cover in which Obama would say, well, look, I still have my concerns about this, but we have to follow the process, and the process says there's no adverse environmental impact, so I'm gonna allow this thing to be built, and Keystone XL would finally be built.
That was my take.
I once again find that he's even more radical than I feared.
They're never going to approve this.
This shoving this past the election means it's not going to be done at all.
If he isn't willing to approve the construction of this pipeline, knowing how many jobs are created, he, if he isn't going to do it in the middle of these off-year elections, why in the world would he ever do it?
After the 2014 election, he's got nothing to fear from voters at all.
He's done in 2016.
He isn't willing to do this to placate Democrat politicians throughout the midsection of the United States now, it's never going to be approved.
When you consider how non-controversial this ought to be, and the fact that he will not do it, it explains almost everything about our lack of an economic recovery, the fact that we don't have any jobs in the United States, even in this mild recovery, and it explains his radical and energy policy.
America is a washing pipelines.
Whole countries' pipelines.
The natural gas that we have here right now, it's all piped.
It's one more pipeline.
Our sewers are glorified pipelines.
If the concern is sending oil, crude oil through a pipeline because it's toxic.
Well, what about all of the sewage that we're sending through pipelines now?
How about all the natural gas they're sending?
Not to mention the fact that we already have a lot of oil pipelines.
There's nothing controversial about this, other than that it allows the United States and North America to become less reliant on foreign oil.
They just don't like oil.
If we are able to successfully extract lots of oil from Canada and refine it in the United States, that means we have more oil here.
They just don't like oil.
What they object to is the pipeline because they object to oil.
The construction of this pipeline would be an absolute windfall for all of the states that it runs through.
There are a couple of proposed routes that have, but it basically would run from Northern Canada and end up in Louisiana.
Building pipelines is very labor intensive.
You not only have all of the construction workers who are involved in the pipeline construction itself, you have all the industries that benefit because they service the pipeline.
The towns where the pipeline is near see major booms when this stuff is when the when these things are being built.
You not only would create a lot of jobs, you would add to the refinery capacity in the refineries in the southern part of the United States.
It's gold mine.
Furthermore, all that oil that they're extracting in northern Canada is going to go somewhere.
If it doesn't come south of the United States, it's going to be shipped to China.
This is a no-brainer.
But even though it's a no-brainer, and even though it's an election year, he still won't do it.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Yeah, he uh Obama announced the delay of the Keystone XL pipeline decision, essentially indefinitely to shove it past the November election.
They snuck that thing through on Good Friday afternoon.
The Saturday Daily Newspapers are the lowest circulated of the week because it's Easter weekend.
People had pretty much checked out for work for the day.
There wasn't going to be a lot of coverage of it.
They did everything they could to bury that announcement, and they kind of succeeded.
It didn't get a lot of attention and there hasn't been a lot of reaction.
When you consider the damage that this does to Democrats in his own party, he has Mary Landrow.
She used the word idiotic.
It's a Democratic senator from Louisiana.
You've got politicians in the Dakotas and Missouri criticizing the decision.
Democrats, he throws his own party under the buzz rather than approve a pipeline that clearly isn't, it's a pipe that clearly isn't going to have any adverse environmental damage just because he doesn't like the idea that it's going to make it easier for us to access oil.
By the way, in the meantime, a new study out from it's reported in Nature Climate Change.
That's a peer-reviewed journal.
Biofuels made from leftovers of harvested corn, the cellulosic ethanol, actually have a greater carbon footprint than the burning of gasoline itself.
This report out over the weekend, it was the result of a $500,000 study paid for the federal government.
Mark Bellings sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Captain America tops box office for third week.
Now Berth Bolsonerdally asked me how how can this be?
Captain Captain America comes from like the World War II era.
I have a theory, I have a theory on everything.
Well, here's my theory.
I think the people in charge of the popular culture, the Hollywood elite, are so disconnected with America that they can't come up with any stories anymore.
If it's not superheroes, it's they've suddenly found God, all the heaven movies.
There's nothing original that they have.
It started with Batman.
The Batman movies were where I think Superman came first.
First they had the Superman movies, then they had the Batman movies.
The next thing you know, they're doing the Green Horn, and even Johnny Depp did the Lone Ranger, I think.
They're gonna go through every superhero that's out there.
Uh Spider Man, what are we on?
Spider-Man 14 now?
They're doing all these superhero stories because they don't have any stories of their own.
They're going back and they're taking the work, they're taking the inspiration of inspired comic book authors from the last century because they have no idea what they can come up with now to entertain the American public.
It may not be right, but that's my theory.
▲
Export Selection