All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
June 2, 2014, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you for staying with me, Buck Sexton here filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm going to get to a few more calls in just a second.
But it's interesting to me the juxtaposition, if you look at the uh the attention and the effort put forth by this administration to secure Sergeant Bergdahl's release.
Now I know it took five years, but it obviously was a negotiation with the Taliban, not say an ally, not say the government of Mexico.
As I speak to you now, Sergeant Andrew Tamaressi still sits in a Mexican penitentiary, still sits in jail on weapons charges that seem completely bogus based upon everything we can see so far, an accidental turn on the highway.
And Secretary of State John Kerry's well aware of this situation, and yet we can't seem to get the Obama administration to exert the necessary leverage to get this combat decorated Marine home.
And as I sit here and I look at the media coverage for Bergdahl, I think there are some outlets out there, some of these cable channels don't even have any inclination to cover Sandra uh Sergeant Andrew Tamaressi and the fact that he still sits in jail.
And as you know, here in when it comes to Mexicans who are here illegally, we now essentially do don't do anything.
Uh it's understood that unless you're caught actually in the act of crossing the border, there will be no deportations.
We also know that there are billions of dollars of untaxed remittance remittances being sent back by Mexicans across the border into Mexico, which do not get taxed.
IRS doesn't know about them, doesn't touch them.
You would think that there would be a lot of leverage here from the Obama administration if they chose to use it to get this combat decorated Marine who suffers from PTSD, diagnosed with PTSD, get him released.
Unless the administration thinks, hey, don't do any gun running, that's ATF's job under the watch of attorney General Eric Holder.
Don't be taking our mission.
Clearly, Sergeant Tamares wasn't trying to do that, and yet he's still over two months now sitting in jail under threat of assassination by Mexican cartel hitman.
I've spoken to his family, I've spoken to intermediaries with the family.
Not a lot, not a lot of uh attention, it would seem from a from much of the MSM on this issue.
They just don't seem to care.
So we can negotiate with the Taliban with President Obama in charge, but we have a tougher time negotiating with Mexico.
I wonder why that is.
Meanwhile, I also have to say that the notion of whether this is going to threaten American safety going forward, I think is pretty clear.
This now does establish a very damaging precedent.
And also, it seems to me the timing of this is suspect.
I can't prove it.
I don't know for sure.
But the fact that they're willing to release five hardened Taliban fighters to the government of Qatar.
Uh Qatar uh cutries are gonna be in charge for but they're gonna ban them from traveling for a year.
No serious person could think that's going to keep them from getting back into the fight.
So now Gitmo is a catch and release program.
Thanks, President Obama.
Let's talk again to one sec here for uh let's talk again to Jordan in San Antonio.
Jordan, I just wanted to ask you, what is your take on whether this will um whether this will embolden the enemy to take more uh hostages to try to barter uh for American hostages, and also what you think the Taliban morale is right now as a result of this?
Well, I mean, obviously, just I look at the videos and seeing what you're I mean, what you're seeing being reported right now.
Uh it shows that they're ecstatic about this.
And I don't know if I I mean I can't really say if they're gonna go after more people, because I mean, getting hand on a U.S. service member is not very easy.
I mean, for them to actually get hands on somebody and capture them by themselves.
But yes, but Jordan, would we would we perhaps negotiate with an NGO person or you know, be because of an NGO kidnapping or because of uh a State Department uh officer's kidnapping or or some such thing?
It seems like any American now is a bigger target, not just mil yeah, military's gonna be tough.
They got their uh their unit with them and they fire back, but what about the unarmed civilians who are in Afghanistan who are part of the American effort?
I feel like they could be uh big targets now, bigger targets.
Yes, and I mean that is true, and uh I mean, obviously Congress doesn't have a say in it now.
Uh you know, our holy leader is gonna be in charge of making those decisions, so it's I mean, it's out of our hands when it comes to that.
It's up to him, and obviously he's making great decisions as everybody can see.
And what do you think of the let me just ask you this before we uh we let you go, Jordan.
What do you think of the uh administration's timeline here saying that we're gonna pull down to ninety-eight hundred, just below the ten thousand.
Oh, look at that.
Isn't that a surprise?
10,000 that Obama said it would be below 10,000, it is below 10,000, 9800 troops.
Do you think the Taliban is going to be resurgent the moment that it's clear that we're not we're not running that fight anymore, we're leaving it to the Afghans?
Yeah, I mean, you look, we just released five of the uh five top HVPs.
I mean, uh and now we're gonna pull out at the same time.
So not only are we going to put high ranking officials back in place, but we're gonna pull troops out, you know, giving them more room to operate.
It's just uh I mean it's a nightmare.
And if America wants to really put that hero label onto somebody and they're really looking for a hero right now in the world, look at the Marines about to be a worth Medal of Honor this month, and also take it from Starlington National Cemetery, because I mean there's a bunch of them buried there, and uh, this guy coming home, he ain't no hero.
Not a hero at all.
All right, well, Jordan, thank you very much for your service and for your insight today, and uh Amen to all that, man.
It was good to hear from you.
Thank you for giving us your time.
Um look, the the administration, you could make the case that from the beginning, they could have said, Look, we're just we're we realize that we can't do in Afghanistan what the mission set has been.
We can't construct a sustaining democracy that can defend itself.
Therefore, we just have to, as rapidly as possible, leave.
If they had made that decision in 2009, that would be at least intellectually defensible.
But the decision that they made was Iraq the bad war, Afghanistan the good war, because of what we said before we were running for office, and now to look tough so we can get re-elected, we have to put more troops in harm's way.
We have to pretend that there's an effort to actually stabilize, that we think we can stabilize this country, and as soon as I'm out of office, I'm gonna pull down, I'm gone.
That's the sort of craven calculation that we expect from this administration.
The decision to do things on national security that will cost lives, but will have benefit at the polls.
It's astonishing, really.
Let's bring in Sean from uh Illinois.
Sean, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're talking to Buck Sexton.
Thank you, Buck, for taking my car.
I'd like to thank you so much for your service.
I uh me and my family, we appreciate it greatly and for the freedoms you fought and to come back home and watch them be decimated.
But I wanted to um say, isn't this the conversation my congressman was entitled to have on my behalf?
Isn't he there to represent me to make sure that those five people that were in captivity at a cost of we don't know what I wonder how many soldiers risk their lives to capture those five terrorists?
And now I didn't know you could redshirt them, so they're just gonna sit out for a year.
That's something new also.
Well, look, the go ahead, go ahead, Sean.
I just think this is another piece of evidence that shows that this particular administration holds our constitution, holds the limitation on their office, the enumerated powers.
They hold all of that in contempt, and they're gonna do what they want to do regardless of the rules and the and the mores of our country.
They're just they know best for us, Buck, and we're just gonna have to sit here and hope everything goes well.
When you could sum up this administration in three words failures, frauds, and cover-ups.
And this latest move hits all three.
No, I think that that's that's uh first of all, I like your failures, frauds, and cover-ups.
I mean, we may have to start a hashtag there.
And and who knows, maybe if the Obama administration had gotten gotten its hashtag on, uh, we could have solved the Bergdahl situation even sooner because you know, all it takes is a couple hashtags and all of a sudden your problems go away.
But Sean, the contempt they have for the Constitution, specifically as a check on government power and on and on executive power, is evidenced by every major policy initiative of the Obama administration, all the time.
Whenever they can't get exactly what they want, and by the way, they don't get it because Democrats are wary and they know that they may lose their jobs, they may lose at re-election, so they won't even go along with, you know, like Obama's budget, not a single Democrat vote for it a couple years ago.
Um and when you look at that and you put it in that context, the president always says, Well, if Congress won't act, I will.
That is a negation of the separation of powers.
It is not up to him to always go ahead.
On that statement alone, there should be there should be an investigation.
You don't get to tell me that.
That's the point of my country.
The The Constitution is a covenant between government and the citizen.
And it guarantees that I will not have to be subject to despotism.
And when you tell me you can do what you want, regardless of my representative, that's despotism.
That's tyranny.
That's a rogue administration.
That statement alone, in my opinion, should be investigated.
And I if we could get Johnny Boehner off a barstool, maybe he could investigate it a little bit.
Because the real issue is Congress would have done what he wanted anyway.
Where have they fought him?
17 and a half trillion in debt.
My kids are buried, my grandkids' generations yet to be born.
And the Republicans rubber stamp it anyway.
This is just a thumb in the nose of the American people.
And what are you going to do about it?
Well, if we could get uh cantor or or Jiminy Cricket, Mitch McConnell, who's guaranteed to win his election, what's he gonna do?
They're not doing enough.
Look, Sean, well well said, and I and I agree with you on on those points.
The administration's gotten away with it so far, though, so it's actually quite rational for them from their perspective, from the position of no integrity to protect and therefore what's stopping us, which I think is really a summary of the Obama administration's position on many things.
I mean, once you've already been exposed as a a rampant and and very fluid but rampant liar, as President Obama has, he lies about things, and I don't think there can be any debate on at least the question of whether he lied about Obamacare.
We know that's the case.
But when you have somebody who unfortunately fits into the very tragic moniker of uh liar in chief, uh, and when you have somebody that doesn't have any respect for the separation of powers in the Constitution, and just the concept that perhaps the other side, just for one moment, maybe the other side of the political aisle, something motivates them other than viciousness, hatred of the poor, racism, or stupidity.
Maybe it's just conceivable, President Obama, and your statist progressive Democrat allies, maybe it's possible that the other side, conservatives, republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, people who read the newspaper and understand what's going on.
Maybe they actually have some ideas that are worth listening to.
Maybe they have some principles that they believe in, not because of Chicago style power politics.
Just maybe, just a thought.
And on that issue now, I want to tell you coming up here about Obama's latest climate regulations.
Today they have been announced, and yes, it is now for the coal industry.
This is DEF CON one.
The war on coal, the all-out war on coal has started, which means the war on energy has started, which means the war on the U.S. economy essentially, being operated from the central planners in the White House.
That's starting now today in a way we haven't yet seen before.
Yes, there's been little efforts here and there, but now by going after energy, they can strangle the lifeblood of the U.S. economy and increase the ability through regulation and ex executive fiat and the stifling bureaucrats to make sure the federal government runs everything.
They're in charge.
You're just allowed to do what they decide to let you do.
Buck sexon in for rush limbaugh.
The war on coal in just a minute.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
Go to the Blaze.com/slash Buck Sexton for any info on me you may be curious about.
You can see more stuff there.
I want to take you on a little trip.
A little trip down progressive memory lane here.
We can just hang together for one moment.
Back in January of 2008, our current president, who was at that point in campaigning mode, and this is I think before the uh this is the day that the seas will stop rising and all that stuff.
Remember that speech, the most ridiculous and uh fatuous speech ever given by an American politician?
Before that speech, uh he sat down, President Obama sat down with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board.
And now this is really on us, by the way, because he made very clear what he planned to do, and by the way, we see it happening today.
But he told us the American electorate, you know, you had plenty Of advance warning.
This is what he said about his plan for electricity generation and what would happen to the coal industry.
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.
Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to uh retrofit their operations.
That will cost money.
They will pass that money on to consumers.
There you go.
Well, what could be more clear than that?
He's essentially saying, you know, all you people that are trying to pay bills, run a business, uh support your family.
I think the world is melting because someone who says they heard it from a few scientists who are paid by left-wing government or uh environmentalist interests.
They say the world is going to explode or melt, or it's too hot or it's too cold, or it's too much mixing between hot and cold.
No one's really clear.
All we know is that we've got a put massive caps on our energy production.
Now, that was a promise made then by President Obama, or perhaps more fittingly, that was a window into his psyche.
It was a moment of truth that came out from the president.
This was before we all had to sort of sit and bend the knee and bow and say, Oh, it's so amazing.
What an inspiring life story.
Let's make this guy president.
Okay, well, what's he going to do as president?
What do you what's wrong with you?
You don't see the inspirational story.
Oh, well, I don't know.
Okay, maybe I oh, pardon me.
Well, the president said that it would skyrocket the prices of electricity for you.
And he knew enough about the economy, not somebody who I think would be ever confused for being an economist.
And then again, he's supposed to be a constitutional law professor, actually a non-tenure-tracked adjunct lecturer of constitutional studies at the University of Chicago, but people call him professor.
It's tough on the Constitution, too.
Doesn't seem to have a whole lot of expertise there.
But on the economy, I think nobody would even disagree.
Doesn't have a lot of economic knowledge, it would seem.
Or at least refuses to believe in the basic operations of supply and demand, the market, etc.
He did know our buttons exactly.
He knew our prices would go up, though.
He was aware of that.
So he knew he would jack up your prices.
And what did he do?
He waited until year six, not facing re-election again, to jack up those prices on you.
Which is what this will do.
Let me just give you some of the details of this, and then we can all sit and marinate in the exquisite exquisite agony uh enforced upon our economy by the climate change, climate disruption, climate whatever they're calling themselves now.
It's one thing when they want to have their weird, their weird uh, you know, tree worshipping parties and drive around in a Prius and the soil lattes and all that.
That's cool, whatever, fine, you know, free country.
But now they're making it our problem.
Now they're making it your problem.
Literally something you will see every month in your mailbox or on your computer screen when you're trying to pay your bill, your prices are going up.
As if you're not already paying enough for government's stupidity with all of the taxes and the redistribution and the warmed over Marxism that has been constantly uh uh in enforced upon us by this administration in different ways.
But here we are.
They say it's gonna go up.
Well, just how badly will it go up and what states will this affect?
Let me just give you some details.
This is from the Wall Street Journal.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a draft rule on Monday, today, seeking a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005.
The rule, which won't be complete until a year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement the rules and submit compliance plans to EPA by June 2016.
By the way, don't forget that the EPA is the federal agency that uh goes in to oh decide whether or not your business should be shut down because of regulations that even they can't understand.
It's the agency that paid a guy almost a million dollars for being a fake CIA officer.
Hey, hey, Bob, what are you doing today?
I'm on a secret mission, man.
I'm on a secret mission.
Quiet, don't tell anybody.
It's cool, it's cool.
Wait a second.
You're a CIA agent?
Shh.
That's classified.
Apparently it wasn't classified.
Apparently he built the federal government out of almost a million dollars, and it took them, I think it was 10, maybe 15 years.
I think it was ten years to figure that out.
The old CIA routine.
I was in the CIA and I couldn't even pull that off.
Let me tell you, I that this guy, at least you got to give him credit for creativity.
That's the EPA.
That same organization now gets to go to the states that don't really have very much authority left.
Oh I'm gonna tell you more about this in a minute.
Don't go anywhere.
You can go to the Blaze.com slash Buck Sexton for more on me.
We are talking about the latest.
I love the intro music there.
That brings me back.
I know my head is bouncing to the side a little bit.
I've got funky moves.
So it brings me back to uh uh wait, I lost my oh yes, the EPA.
And today the regulations come down, and we know what they actually mean.
They're telling the states now, because the federal government essentially doesn't view the states as in any way political entities with rights or prerogatives, they're just now little automatons to be controlled from D.C. DC is the Leviathan, the head of the or rather the center, the core of the hydra, and the states are all just the various heads of the hydrant now.
They don't actually have any of their own ability to stand up and say, well, we disagree with this.
Now part of this whole problem, of course, comes from recent decisions in the courts that said that, yeah, yeah, the EPA, when they're able to keep uh particulate matter out of the air under the Clean Air Act, that apparently now includes CO2.
CO2, which anybody who has taken a uh intro science class knows is what, plants breathe in, I think, to create oxygen.
I was pretty sure about that one.
But I digress, because apparently CO2 is going to kill us all because the planet is going to I don't know, you've seen those movies, everything gets very cold, and then there are f feral dogs everywhere, and we're all living in igloos or something.
Whatever.
It's all the same.
But they promise you, don't worry, that they're going to do this in such a way that it will be, oh, give the state some flexibility.
You see, each state will have different reduction standards.
But the national average will be twenty-five percent down by twenty twenty and thirty percent down by twenty thirty.
That's the that's the goal here.
So states, some states are gonna get hit obviously much harder with this than others.
Rhode Island's gonna be like, oh, well, they can just drive around on our Prius all day.
This is great.
And West Virginia is going to have to steal with the fact that people will lose jobs.
That there will be shutdowns of some of these coal plants.
There are about six hundred coal plants which are going to be hit the hardest by this because they create the most uh carbon emissions under this EPA standard.
But they say that the rule will allow the states to decide how they can meet the reductions.
They can, oh, this is great.
This is just like a menu of fantastic.
They can join or create new cap and trade programs.
They can deploy more renewable energy, or they can ramp up energy efficient technology.
So basically it's like, hey, coal plant, uh got an idea.
Set up some wind farms and see how that goes for you.
Oh.
Oh, that's great.
Of course, this is this ruling, which people are calling, by the way.
This is not, I'm not exaggerating this.
This is called by the environmentalist wacko left.
By the preening Prius drivers.
This is and I know some of you drive Prius just because you like the gas mileage.
That's fine.
But this is the centerpiece of Obama's executive action on the environment.
This is it.
It's come down today.
Now, of course, this begs some immediate questions like why did he wait so long to do this?
What why year six?
This could have been done earlier.
And doing this before, by the way, the midterms.
I'm gonna get into their strategy for that, of course, in a second.
That's why it's in executive order, don't you see?
If they could have gotten this through, they had to ram Obamacare through first, because, you know, you gotta create a uh uh a highway, an inevitable highway towards single payer and then eventually socialized medicine down the road.
That's that was the idea, right?
Once you cross that Rubicon of statism, there is no coming back.
So that was when they had the House and the Senate, you gotta go with Obamacare.
Gotta give people health care, you gotta have them dependent on the state.
Give the government enormous control over the economy, and more poignantly, enormous control over people's health.
Very personal, their family's health.
Ooh, now the government has a lot of power.
But they, of course, wanted to do a whole lot more on the environment.
The problem for them is that the environmentalist wacko regulations that are now being pushed through by this the stroke of a pen.
I'm gonna do it because Congress won't act, the stroke of a pen.
Uh President Obama's gone forward and said he's just gonna say this is the way it is.
They won, of course, their court case.
This is why it's so important, by the way, to be able to get through whatever nominees they want onto the federal bench.
Ah, don't you see?
They do have strategy, not abroad, not that makes America stronger, not that grows the economy, but they have strategy for increasing the share of the United States that is controlled, owned by, dictated to by the federal government.
They're good at that.
And so when they change the rules of the Senate such that all now all nominees for the federal bench have to get an up or down vote, and they invoke the nuclear option, all that, that was so they could put any left-wing judge they want essentially in place.
Make it easier to do so.
Why is that so important to this administration?
Oh, that's right.
Because the only check on the executive that you could have for the agency overreach that we see with organizations like the EPA comes in the federal courts.
So you gotta put Obama cronies in all the federal courts as much as you can, especially in the DC in the district court in D.C., and then you're good to go.
Then you are GTG, as the kids say.
And so that's why they've been doing this.
That's why they've been pushing this forward.
Very that was sort of a behind the scenes.
Wait, why does it matter that and why can we the recess appointments and they seem to have this desire to have unfiltered, unadulterated control over the innards of the bureaucracy.
Why is that so important?
Oh, because they're going to weaponize the bureaucracy against the American people.
They can't let they cannot allow Democrats in Congress to have to stand up and say, under my plan, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.
Because the voters in those states would say, hmm, that's a problem.
It's tough enough for me to make it through this Obama economy.
Yes, it's his economy now.
Oh, I know the Bush years, it was so bad.
It was the worst economy ever.
Well, where it's Obama's economy, it's not a good economy.
In fact, it would be much worse if President Obama had his way and hydraulic fracturing, uh fracking.
If that had been suppressed the way the federal government would like it to have been, oh, we'd see just how anemic this recovery, as they call it, actually would be.
But so here they are, they've been given the green light by the by the federal courts to regulate the CO2 in the air.
The federal government get to regulate the CO2 in the air of the states.
But they're giving the states a choice.
This is the cho this is a choice, by the way, sort of like the way Obamacare is a choice.
Yeah, we'll give you flexibility on among a menu of things you don't want to do that we're forcing you to do.
You have to implement these rules, but we'll give you a few different ways of complying with them.
None of which you want to do, you're forced to do it.
This is statism a la carte.
Me oui, bien sûr, fantastique.
They allow you to pick, like it's some kind of menu.
But you have to order something.
You can't say I don't like your food.
No, no, no.
EPA is making you eat its gruel, its nasty, nasty stuff.
And so here we are, they're gonna bring this down.
Now you might immediately think to yourself, hold on a minute, Buck, just one second there, young man.
Uh what is this uh well, I don't know why all of a sudden I made you almost British there, but hold on.
The notion that this is going to stop climate change, even the environmentalist wacko left rejects that out of hand.
They say this won't be enough, this won't do it, and of course China and India have to be looking at us like, you gotta be kidding me, right?
You're not serious.
Oh my gosh, they're serious, they're actually gonna do this.
But we can't ever think about that.
China is going with coal, with the cheapest solar panels they can produce, they're just going with the we talk about the everything, the all of the above approach in this country, or rather Democrats talk about that in order to get elected to offices where they can then go back on their word.
But developing countries, growing economies, our future rivals, all of the above, they're doing whatever they can.
They're doing whatever they can here.
And we also see I thought we received a lesson recently in the geopolitics of energy when we said, well, we strand uh when I shouldn't say we said when President Obama said, you know, we stand with the people of Ukraine.
We're gonna work with them.
We're gonna do what needs to be done.
And our European allies are standing strong.
You know, the French, Germans are gonna be with us.
Wait a second.
No, they're not.
Why are they not?
Because Germany gets a third of its natural gas from Russia.
And these other European countries on the periphery, of course, it's not a singular market, meaning that the price in Germany affects the price elsewhere, affects the price on the global market.
Oh, energy plays a role in security and in our politics.
And what is the greatest instance of foot dragging you could point to from this administration?
Keystone XL.
Why don't they like Keystone XL?
No impact on the environment.
That's what came out of the State Department review.
Yes, your State Department, the uh now under the loving care of John Kerry, a Secretary of State, as a st as amazing as that is.
The State Department came out and said there will be no change in the uh in the particulate matter in the air because the gas is either going to go over the U.S. and we're gonna benefit from the pipeline, or it's gonna go to China and go across Canadian soil.
But one way or the other, that stuff's getting out of the ground.
Obama won't approve it.
Jobs that will never be had money into the economy, security for our energy reserve.
None of that moves him.
Why?
He needs to be able to go hang out in Beverly Hills and have people that are driving around hundred thousand dollar electric cars that no one else is ever going to really drive or own at least not for the next five or ten years.
And he needs to ask them for money.
And they want to feel like they're protecting the wetlands, which we used to call swamps by the way, but now we call them wetlands because that sounds fancy.
And they want to put up oh wind farms even though wind farms are essentially if you want to be fair and honest about it, uh cuisinarts for migratory fowl.
Not good.
Not good, killing a lot of birds.
But that's okay because at least we're trying to save the planet.
So to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs to make a wind farm you have to slice and dice a few endangered species apparently because they kill eagles too.
But none of this can be talked about because here we have the EPA telling us exactly how this is going to play out what we're going to do.
There's so much more here so much more damage that will be done to the economy and so much more of a window into President Obama's psychology.
More importantly the psychology of the progressive left of the statists of the Democrats but I have to take a break here.
We'll talk about it in a minute.
800 28282 at Buck Sexton on Twitter.
I'll be back in just a minute the call in is 800 two eight two two eight eight two and we have Stuart from Delaware.
Stuart you're on the Rush Limbaugh show this is Buck Sexton.
First of all, let me say Semper Fi, my brother.
Thank you, sir.
Semper Fi.
Old Naval Corman here.
Talking about...
Old CIA guy.
We need a cool saying, by the way, other than shaken, not stirred, because that's a British guy.
So I'm just saying we need to come up with some kind of a slogan for ourselves in the agency.
Go ahead, sir.
Yeah, to talk about, we're talking about coal specifically.
And, you know, my father was very, very big in the coal world in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
I wrote Vice President of the Coal of America, basically.
And I was also around when the governor of West Virginia brought in the black lung legislation, which very helped the coal.
My problem is, is that when.
Obama's gonna do he is gonna kill Western Maryland West Virginia Kentucky parts of Pennsylvania I mean you might as well just you know put them in some concentration camp somewhere because they're gonna have nothing.
I mean they already have nothing but they're gonna have less than nothing.
Well you'll notice that the states that are most directly uh affected by this are ones that are that tend to lean you know I think that they've Written them off electorally anyway.
The one the states that are going to get hit hard are states that, you know, West Virginia, for example, I think the Democrats know that's not in play.
So as long as they can contain the damage to that state or to some states, I should say they can't contain it to one state.
That's, I think, their thought process.
But of course that's wrong because energy prices across the country are going to be affected by what this legislation will do.
And they have Go ahead.
And also, I mean, yeah, the EPA is talking about this, that, and the other.
Doesn't everybody realize that the wind blows from the West.
Yes, well, that's that's actually the way that they were able to um they the the courts in the in the ruling on this issue said that because it's blowing from one state into another, uh, the federal government's going to play uh essentially particulate matter referee here, deciding where the CO2 is being blown from.
And guess what?
It's coming from uh rust belt uh states and coming from places along Appalachia and and in the sort of the central midwest getting blown east into uh the the blue state elitist areas and that's why I think my bigger point is that forget what we produce here in this country.
Considering the amount of coal that India, Australia, China, not to mention dung and everything else they burn to create heat.
The massive amount of particulars that goes up there, it doesn't matter if we stopped everything here.
It wouldn't change our at all.
Well, what's amazing?
We are like one percent.
Yeah, what's amazing, Stuart, is that everyone, even the people that are the most ardent def defenders of this, uh yeah, the the the people who are the are the ardent defenders of this, they know that it won't actually uh make these other countries do anything.
And they know that it won't actually change.
Well, I'll tell you this is what's being said.
The New York Times is saying that Obama is, quote, trying to reclaim leadership on climate change.
Essentially, that we'll be the industry leaders here, that we're gonna start uh putting artificial constraints on our economic and industrial growth here at home, and they're gonna they're going to mirror us.
Because as you know, China isn't estimated to maybe have the biggest economy in the world by the end of this year.
No, no, that's not.
They're not thinking about that.
They don't have a growth at all cost policy.
Oh, wait, they do.
And I don't think they care very much about what the U.S. does with its energy.
As long as we're hindering ourselves, they're probably very happy.
Because they view us as competition.
And there is competition at work here.
But as long as the environmentalist left has the hold that it does on the progressives, on the Democrats, you're going to see these nonsensical decisions made.
Keystone is just indefensible.
And I think any honest person, even on the left, would say that it's not defensible from a practical perspective.
But, you know, if you want to sort of uh, you know, w worship Mother Earth and you believe in all this fear mongering, then yeah, sure, I guess don't do it because it sort of establishes your bona fides with regard to the climate.
I don't even know.
Because it doesn't stop this stuff from actually getting taken out of the ground and put into the air anyway.
So but Obama wouldn't remember he delayed, delayed, delayed, and now he's delayed once again.
You know, he's been voting present on Keystone for years now.
But this legislation today, or not legisl, I'm sorry, not legislation, this executive order today, this regulation, this legislation by fiat is gonna hurt.
It's gonna actually have real impact on the economy.
What's fascinating here is that this also doesn't take into account very much about the natural decarbonizing that's going on and also what this means for our economy.
But you see, even if this hurts the economy, it helps the Obama agenda.
I'm gonna explain that when we come back in a minute.
800 282-2882 Buck Sexton infrarus Limbaugh, the Blaze.com slash Buck Sexton, back in a minute.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
You will recall a movie made by Algor about uh climate change and all the rest and inconvenient truth.
And there's one part where you show these polar bears and polar bears, which if you're too close to them in some cases will actually eat you.
Um but they were drowning because of climate change.
The latest on that, by the way, as we're talking about the environment, this is from the Power Line blog, and John Hinderracker uh has a piece on up uh about this, is that uh now all the polar bear scientists who were initially initially out there telling us that uh polar bears were all drowning because of climate change, that they made it up.
Now, they didn't just make it up, they made it up because of the public outcry.
They basically told people what they wanted to hear, and now they're saying, well, that's what you guys wanted.
You wanted to know the polar bears were drowning, so we were like, yo, dude, the polar bears are drowning.
And you know, we don't know how many polar bears there are.
The Arctic is really cold.
Have you been up there recently?
It is not a fun place to hang out.
And you want to know how many polar bears?
We've got no idea.
But climate change is bad, so it's killing the polar bears.
Not true.
▲
Export Selection