All Episodes
Previous Next
June 2, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:12
June 2, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So President Obama's legacy is more important than the U.S. economy.
It's more important than your ability to keep your business afloat, to keep your bills paid for you and your family.
President Obama's legacy apparently outstrips all of those things, more important than all of those things.
I told you about this, New York Times, and yes, I know, the New York Times, talking about Obama trying to reclaim leadership on climate change.
But it's also about promises that he made.
And I think that the climate or the climate change lunacy, if you will, the hyperbole that surrounds this debate is a function of the fact that on many issues, the Democrats are willing to, at least when it comes time for voting, they'll sell out their core.
They don't really have any core principles, but they'll sell out some things that they generally pretend to stand for.
But the environment has such a deep psychological hold on the statist left in this country that they will sell out unions.
They will sell out anybody for this.
Remember, Keystone XL, they'll sell out every member of the House and Senate that's in a difficult reelection right now.
That's a Democrat.
They'll make it harder for everyone.
Why?
When you look at it, it's because there's a deep-seated psychological impulse here.
They really believe, some of them, some of the more powerful elements of the institutional left in this country, they really believe that this is a question of saving the planet.
And therefore, those who stand up in the vanguard of these efforts, they are to be lionized.
They are the brave ones.
They are the best and the brightest that America has to offer because they change from certain light bulbs and they drive certain kinds of cars.
And they want their carbon footprint to be neutral, as they say.
Well, what's interesting about all this is that even without all of the hysteria around this, and it is a hysterical issue for the left.
It's actually hysterical in both senses.
There's hysteria and it's hysterical asn't funny.
Carbon emissions are already going down.
If you look at a trend historically, we are switching from what would be considered very dirty fuels.
And I mean even pre-industrial era.
We went from burning wood to burning whale oil to burning coal and then we had mostly oil and now we're going to natural gas.
And this process based upon market responses to what's efficient and what does a good job and what the market will bear, that's already meaning that we are naturally decarbonizing in terms of the fossil fuels that we use.
We are heading towards.
But look, solar power has been, as the joke goes, the next big thing for 40 years.
Wind farms have been the next big thing stretching back how long?
And as people point out, wind farms come with their own costs.
To bird life, for example, among others.
And so here we are looking at, once again, the Obama administration pushing all this stuff.
And you'd think, well, at least politics will be a check on this whole thing, right?
Ah, no.
That's where they put Operation Smokescreen into effect.
We're actually going to talk about, hopefully later, Operation Chokepoint, which is a real operation that the Department of Justice is running against gun manufacturers and ammunition manufacturers.
But that's just a little teaser for what's to come.
What I'm calling Operation Smokescreen is that now, this is from Reuters, the White House is turning a blind eye to Democrats who oppose climate rules.
Quote, Democrats in Republican-leading states have a simple strategy for dealing with President Barack Obama's upcoming power plant restrictions before the midterm elections.
Fight them with the White House's blessing.
The new rules, popular with the Democratic Party's base, are one of Obama's highest domestic priorities for his second term.
But they are complicating the lives of Democrats in coal and oil-rich states such as Virginia, Louisiana, and West Virginia, rather, Louisiana, and Alaska, where candidates are piling on the president and the Environmental Protection Agency for proposing restrictions that could cost jobs locally.
So now, what do you see?
Oh, this is essential to the Democratic Party and President Obama.
It's so obvious that this needs to be done that the president will ignore those in his own party who say this shouldn't be done.
That's the kind of nonsense that the president tries to peddle to the American people.
When it comes to winning elections, they know they can't cost people jobs.
But at the federal level, at the national level, they are so invested in this that they will even take risks to their hold on power, which very rarely will they do.
I believe very strongly, and I think the evidence could not be more clear, that for Democrats, step one is always power.
Step two is what we do after that.
Their hold on power, their maintenance, their consolidation, their exercising of that power is the first and most important step.
They believe in the collective.
They believe in the collectivization of all of us.
And in order to move us at their whim, they, of course, have to centralize power.
The environment and the environmentalist movement is the biggest, most open door for them on that issue because everything can tie into the environment.
So there's endless possibilities for statist meddling into your life.
They have opposed, without getting too open about it, hydraulic fracturing, despite the fact that that's been a huge boon to the U.S. economy and will put us in the place of being the largest fossil fuel exporter in the world if we do it right.
I think we should take that title away from Russia, take that title away from Saudi Arabia.
I think we should be ahead of those guys.
And we could be if they would only put this aside.
But you see, this is the most frustrating aspect of this administration.
Well, maybe not the most frustrating.
There's a lot.
But this is one of the most frustrating things.
This is why there's a repetition.
It's cyclical.
I sit here, I talk to you, and I have been for a long time on other shows, about the cycles of statist overreach.
What happens?
Oh, they centralize power.
They do something.
It doesn't work.
And then we all say, well, why?
They don't learn from their mistakes because they never go back to the fundamental ideology that led them to make those mistakes in the first place.
You see, these are all, whether we're talking about the VA, which now everybody is very aware of just the extent of those failures.
And there's more coming, by the way.
And if it weren't for the private sector, the deaths, the pain, the weights that our veterans have had to deal with would be much higher.
The private sector has been a backstop to it the entire time.
The government failed.
We know that.
But the failures of central planning that we see play out again and again with Obamacare, and now they'll be playing out with climate change.
And there's also a sense of historical illiteracy, I think.
When you're talking about the progressive left, they don't understand that their intentions are irrelevant.
The outcome is what we care about.
So that they want to save the planet does not make me feel better because, one, they're not saving the planet, and two, they're going to drive up prices.
That they think that the VA, which is not a single-payer system, but in fact, a single-payer system, but in fact, a socialized medical system, its control of the hospitals, the doctors, everything, the care, the money.
They control everything top to bottom.
Why did they fail so miserably with that?
It is a failure of central planning.
This has happened before in history.
happened with Mao's great leap forward.
Did Mao intend to kill 40 million people?
No.
He figured, hey, let's just do this big plan.
We'll melt the plows.
We'll industrialize very quickly.
And then millions, tens of millions of people died.
I don't think tens of millions of people are going to die because of the climate change legislation, but the same ideological impulse is there.
Put us in charge.
Let us dictate what happens and things will be better for you.
This time will be different.
This time it will work.
The historical illiteracy never seems to fail in that regard.
You also have, of course, Stalin's five-year plans, which after every five years, they're like, whoops.
Well, let's just try another five-year plan.
You disagree?
Well, Siberia for you if you're lucky.
And in fact, they often just executed people.
But until they understand that the VA and the EPA's regulations and these are all instances of central planning and therefore subject to the same failures that always come when a government ceases to respect the individual choices and rights of its citizens.
That's why we can never get away from this.
That's why it's going to be the same over and over again.
And until the administration decides to really, with sober eyes, look at that problem in that way, they'll never change.
They'll pretend to change.
You'll have Democrats saying, oh, no, climate change.
I'm running in, I'm Blander.
I'm running in Louisiana.
I think that this, we should have Keystone.
Oh, yeah.
West Virginia.
Well, West Virginia, they've, I think, written off, but Alaska, Democrats there, oh, Obama's crazy with all this climate change stuff.
Oh, yeah.
And everybody knows that that guy who's saying Obama's crazy on climate change or that gal in Louisiana who's saying Obama's crazy on climate change, the second that they get reelected, boom, they're back in the caucus, baby, ready to sign whatever they have to, ready to vote for whatever they have to to get on the progressive left's good side.
The head fake.
Democrats love the head fake, especially on the environment and on guns, by the way.
Oh yeah, no, we love guns, sure.
Once they get voted in, oh, guns are scary.
Central planning, failures of central planning.
Now, actually, I want to take you through a little, I'm not sure if I'd call this an allegory or a parable or what.
I'll think of that in the break, but why central planning fails.
And then we'll get into the VA, why the efforts to reform the VA, Shinseki's resignation was just a necessary precondition for looking at the problem.
It's not going to change anything of importance, really.
Why these things fail.
There is a correlation.
There is a thread that you can draw through all of them.
And until the American people rise up and tell our progressive overlords, you know what?
I really don't want you making all these decisions.
I don't think the EPA should be able to bankrupt the coal industry.
I don't think that a bunch of bureaucrats inside the Beltway should be deciding who gets health care, how expensive their health care is.
We're just going to keep suffering through the same cycle over and over again.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh, back in a minute.
Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh taking calls.
800-282-2882.
Let's take Leonard in Michigan.
Leonard, this is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're talking to Buck Sexton.
Yeah.
Hi, Buck.
Just wanted to let people know that this energy tax isn't just a tax on your electric bill.
When it comes down to it, it's going to be a tax on anybody and everybody that uses electricity.
And in turn, everything that you buy is going to be affected because everybody uses electricity.
All of these businesses along the pipeline of a piece of fruit, a piece of mail, a piece of anything, the price is going to go up because they have an electric bill to pay too, and they're not benevolent enough just to eat the extra cost.
You're absolutely, you're absolutely right, Leonard.
And this also is seen when we talk about the price of oil and imports and exports.
Oil is, for example, only about half of it is used in actual transportation.
The other half is used for things like creating products.
There's oil in different forms in many things that we buy in the store and such.
So only half of it is stuff that goes into your car.
The other half goes into industry, the creation of goods.
And so everything becomes more.
When energy is more expensive, everything becomes more expensive.
You're absolutely right.
This is a value-added tax.
Nobody wants to say that, but it's a value-added tax.
Everybody's going to pay it every step of the way.
Yeah, and what value are we paying for here?
What are we trying to reduce by 2030 30% of our emissions?
The whole thing is just nonsense.
And by the way, if a Republican president comes in, he can just repeal, he can just tell the EPA, you know, bang this.
So why is Obama even doing this?
Really, a lot of it's moral grandstanding, and it's also an effort to sort of, I think, enliven the base in time for the midterms.
That's the only political calculation I think that they could be seeing here.
Is yeah, this makes it harder in some of the purplish states, but it also means that the left, the moneyed left, can send big checks and some of the big donors, I've forgetting that one guy's name, some of the big donors out there, Steyer, that's right, Tom Steyer, will be giving money out.
You know what I mean, Leonard?
Oh, I know exactly what you mean.
But I'm saying most people don't even haven't thought of this thing happening yet.
They're looking at it as, well, my electric bill is going to go up.
Oh, everything will be.
It goes up five or ten percent.
You can eat that, but everything.
They haven't even figured out the price of everything else is going up along with it.
The milk that you buy in the store has to be taken from one place to another.
The milk has to be refrigerated.
These things all require energy, and therefore there are costs associated with them.
But again, central planners never factor these things in because they have a utopian future for all of us in mind.
And we just need to sit down, shut up, and let them make all the decisions for us.
Oh, okay.
You've done such a great job with Obamacare and the VA and all the rest.
I guess we should all just sit down and be quiet.
But on these failures of central planning, there's a book that I, if you feel like picking it up, I would recommend it.
It's by James Scott.
It's called Seeing Like a State.
And he breaks down in a very straightforward way the disasters that always come from central planning.
And this is what happens with central planning left to its own devices over time.
And he says that there are four conditions common to all of them.
The state's attempt to impose administrative order on nature and society.
A high modernist ideology like progressivism that believes scientific intervention can improve every aspect of human life.
A willingness to use authoritarian state power to affect large-scale innovations and a prostrate civil society that cannot effectively resist such plans.
What does that sound like to you?
Prostrate civil society can't stop the machine.
Large-scale innovation from an authoritarian state, promising to improve every aspect of our lives and impose administrative order, maybe through regulation, through endless bureaucracy.
What does that sound like to you?
Sounds like America now, doesn't it?
But he actually goes back and looks at a number of cases.
James Scott in this book, he looks at cases historically.
And one of the ones that I think is the easiest to illuminate this issue is he talks about in the early, in early modern European states, they wanted more revenue.
What was the main source of revenue?
Well, stuff that you grow.
Timber, for example.
And so they instituted this process of fiscal forestry.
The idea here being that if we just do a better job of maintaining and managing our forests, our trees, we'll get more timber, more money, everybody's better off.
But this was all done through a centralized planned bureaucracy.
And so they didn't think about much else.
They didn't think about the rest of the plants or the ecosystem or anything else.
And this is roughly in the period he's talking about, 1765 to 1800.
This process of fiscal forestry was instituted mostly in Prussia and Saxony.
And it became the basis of forest techniques, management techniques used all across Europe and around the world.
But see, the problem was that they instituted standard measurements.
They wanted everything to be standardized, regimented, regulated.
In effect, they tried to mechanize the natural world.
So they cleared out all the underbrush and they created what for and by the way, I don't even know how to grow, you know, a weed, but whatever.
They created a monoculture and they did all the plantings at the same time.
They had them perfectly spaced.
It was very regimented, very Prussian.
You have to plant all the trees one after another like this in a direct role.
Yeah.
So they did this.
This is how they built, this is how they made the forest then.
And it was a huge success at first.
You could call them the progressive planters.
Democrats would have loved this stuff.
Man, you're going to just, it's directed from the central states.
They're going to put all the plants one after another, plant after plant, and then you come in and you're mechanized and you'll get so much more wood, so much more timber.
That's my Prussian accent.
So they had this utopian dream that they could have scientific forestry and that they could apply this to all aspects of the state.
Don't you see?
This was just one scientific experiment that then they wanted to replicate elsewhere.
And as we know, the whole this matters because our whole notion of a society, of a welfare state, some people would say our education, based upon the Bismarckian model.
So what happened over there was, of course, exported over here and around the world.
But what they don't talk about is that in the first instance, yeah, sure, they had a little more timber.
It seemed to work pretty well.
But left over time, they didn't realize that they couldn't account for things at the localized level.
They couldn't account for the individual variations of different forests, different areas.
They had one system, almost like Obamacare, for everybody.
One gold plan, bronze plan, silver plan, whatever.
One choice for you to make.
But they couldn't handle what would come next with the changes in environment and fire and storms and insect populations, like the market.
It was very complicated.
And so after the first generation of trees, yeah, they harvested them great.
They were very regimented.
Lots of timber, very Prussian.
Guess what they had to come up with in the second iteration of these forests across all of Germany?
A term called Waldsterben, which means forest death.
Yeah, the forests all died out.
Why?
Because they didn't have the diversity necessary to continue on.
They didn't have local farmers.
They didn't have people that knew what they were doing in charge.
They had a central government bureaucracy deciding everything.
And so the society had to be remade.
And that's what they did.
Forest death.
Think about that when you think about Obamacare.
Think about that when you think about the VA.
Think about that with this administration.
For more on me, go to theblaze.com/slash BuckSexton.
Everything available there.
Also on Twitter at BuckSexton.
If you're part of the Tweeterati, although you probably don't call yourself that because you'd want to smack yourself in the face.
But whatever.
If you are on Twitter, you can follow me at Buck Sexton.
Please do by all means.
We are taking calls now, 800-282-2882.
Let's take Jim from Saratoga Springs, New York.
Jim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
This is Buck.
Hi, Buck.
I like hearing your show.
I like when you show him to Rush.
And thanks for your service, by the way, to America.
Thank you for all the above, sir.
I very much appreciate that.
I just wanted to comment.
I was listening to Sean's call, and I think it was the second hour, and I was just enjoying his call tremendously.
He was talking about administration's failures and frauds and cover-ups.
I thought that was a clever way to describe everything and his, you know, getting Johnny Boehner off of bar school.
I thought that was hysterical.
But again, a lot of the things he was talking about ties into what you're talking about with the VA administration, his speech to the cadets at West Point, the utopian dream for liberals.
It's all a smokescreen.
This administration does have contempt for some of the American people, whether it's the veterans' memorials during the shutdown or the government shutdown, that he could have easily given that memorial open for the vets that he knew were coming from long distances, maybe for their last trip in their life.
But yet he gives Nancy Pelosi and all those liberals the permission to use the federal park system during the government shutdown for immigration rallies.
It's just becoming more apparent to the American people that we're going to hold this administration in contempt on the first Tuesday of November because we're waking up.
We're waking up because of calls like Sean and Leonard, who was talking about the value-added tax that's going to be occurring to all people that pay electric bills for the utilities that are going to go up.
It's going to be, we're going to hail this administration in contempt because we are sick of what's going on.
And we're educated by people like Ewan Rush and Mark Levin and several other people in the conservative movement that are opening our eyes to the American people, even though a lot of people are just ignorant and they're, as Rush called them, low-information voters.
And we have to continue this movement and people have to go out and talk to their neighbors.
We don't hold liberals in contempt in terms of personal values.
We know that they love America, but as far as the policies and what they do in terms of progressing America, they're really misguided politically.
They may be great people.
They may be loving, you know, patriotic people.
I have several of my family that are like that.
But again, we have.
Yeah, the ideology is wrong, and we do them no favors by allowing them to think that the status progressives who currently are, they are the ones that are running the show for the Democratic Party.
The far left has, yes, they mask their attentions somewhat.
Although I played that clip for you, Obama said he was going to raise electricity prices.
I mean, we've known a lot of this for a long time.
He was the most left-wing senator in the United States Senate before he became a president.
But of course, the narrative, the personal narrative, as I say, overcame all that.
Jim, thank you for your call.
Look, these problems that we see are going to continue on until we start to understand, as the left likes to say, root causes.
But there are actual root causes.
Unlike when they talk about crime and it's always about, oh, you know, somebody wasn't hugged enough or what have you, and that explains monstrous behavior.
The left likes to do that, like to hold people up and say, oh, well, it can't be this person's fault because they didn't get a trophy or whatever.
But when you talk about holding the administration in contempt, you can say that on literal and figurative grounds, you have Attorney General Eric Holder, the first Attorney General ever held in contempt by the House for not answering questions.
You have now, I think, just open, open partisan warfare between the two sides because there's no pretense.
There's never been any pretense from the Obama administration of trying to work with the Republican opposition.
That's been he says they're obstinate.
They're in transition.
They have to do what he wants.
Well, that's not.
He apparently, you know, gives very favorable negotiating ratio of five to one when it's coming to Bergdahl being released for five Taliban commanders.
But when it comes to negotiating with the Republicans, then he's got an iron fist, man.
He's not going to meet them in the middle.
Certainly not giving them a five-for-one deal.
No, surrey.
Not going to happen.
I just saw this here, by the way.
Did you know that it's been 3,100 days, according to the Washington Post, since hurricanes, major hurricanes hit America?
This is what they're saying here.
This is really astonishing stuff.
I thought that we were going to essentially be in a position where Everything would just fall apart unless we made dramatic changes to our everyday lives based upon what the central planners tell us.
Change your light bulbs, change your car, change your clothes, change your food, don't eat meat.
Cow farts are destroying the atmosphere.
That's actually true.
They believe that.
Methane from cow flatulence was destroying, more damaging the atmosphere than any other.
They just, the craziness can't be understood until you put it in the context of they really just want to be in control.
They'll say whatever they have to say.
The polar bears are drowning.
You hate poor people.
You don't want health care for those with pre-existing conditions.
They'll say whatever they have to say.
Because for them to actually be willing to look at the end result of their policies and also the ideas that were infused in those policies, that the government is your friend.
It's a pal.
It wants to hug you.
It wants to help you.
It's not true.
It's not true in the VA.
It's not true in Obamacare.
It's not true with the EPA.
It's not true with any of this.
Government is a necessary beast to be restrained not to run wild on us.
Let's take a call from Ryan in Washington, D.C. Ryan, this is Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're talking to Buck Sexton.
Actually, it's Jared.
But how are you doing today?
Oh, well, that's Red Sai.
You're also in Washington, D.C., Jared, and we're happy to speak to you.
What's going on?
Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. does not manufacture the world's weather.
That's all.
That's a fair statement.
That is true.
Okay.
So the thing that I always wondered about with this whole global climate change thing and everything else is how arrogant do you have to be to think that anything that we do, be it perceived as positive or negative, can impact the entire globe's weather?
You have to be Obama-level arrogant, which is really arrogant, if I may say so.
You have to be narcissistic to levels that seem unimaginable to a rational person.
And you have to also believe, by the way, that doing things that you yourself know will have no discernible impact on the environment will somehow, in the aggregate, save the planet.
No policy that Obama's talking about here will do anything to stop the earth from melting or blowing up or whatever it is they say is going to happen.
But it will mean that there's money taken out of the economy.
It will slow economic growth.
It will hurt the American people.
We're supposed to be represented by people like Barack Obama.
We know that for sure, and they're willing to make that trade-off.
It's irrational.
But again, this is based upon an emotional response to an issue, not one based upon the science, as they so smarmily say all the time.
My question, though, is: how is it that so many people can look at something so basic to try to comprehend and behave like they've drank the Kool-Aid?
Because if you say to somebody, here's this, here's that, this is what it equals, how can they argue it?
Jared, this is very important.
And thank you for calling in.
I'm going to try to address this before we go into a break.
That one of the most, from a sort of perspective of just gaining converts or creating automatons who all sort of spout the same nonsense, one of the most brilliant things the left in this country has been able to do, and I see it particularly among my own generation.
I am 32.
So one of the most remarkable things they've done is that they've turned liberalism, which I don't call it liberal because it's not liberal, but you will know it as liberalism.
That's how it's usually referred to.
Leftism, statism, the Democrat Party, that has become a signaling mechanism for how refined, intellectual, superior, and wonderful you are.
And therefore, if you sign on to these things, the dominant culture in this country suggests right now the media culture reinforced constantly through our hashtags and Facebook and all the rest of this, it's about how great the individual is that espouses this, not actually the issue that they're talking about.
I talked to you about statism a la cardean checking off the menu.
You know what you're supposed to check off if you want the so-called cool people to be on your side, to think that you're cool too.
That's essentially what the left has been able to create.
And so, even as you say, as has been brought up, the low-information voter, as Rush says, and I would say in many cases, that's actually too kind, that Rush is being perhaps a bit too generous, because in many instances, it's the no-information voter.
They're essentially completely ignorant of the issue.
But Rush is being generous.
I want to just go right after it.
That the no- or low-information voter wants to signal to his friends, to society, how exceptional they are, how great they are, how knowledgeable they are about being a fantastic person, however you want to phrase it.
And that replicates itself every day, all the time.
And so, these memes that come out and this ideology of the left is self-reinforcing.
Because even if you don't really care about climate change one way or the other, even if you don't really know a darn thing about industry, coal mining, the economy, energy power plants, any of that, you know what side you have to be on if you want to think that you're really cool.
And that has resonance, unfortunately, far too much.
But we're putting a stop to that.
800-282-2882-Buck in for Rush.
Back in a minute.
Buck Sexton in for Rush.
You can always catch up if you happen to miss Rush.
Go to rushlimbo.com.
You can also, while you're there, why not?
Join Rush 24-7.
You can watch Mr. Rush himself on the Ditto Cam or get podcasts of this radio show.
I love listening to the playback sometimes if I can't listen during the day.
I love the digital radio side of things.
And on my end of things, you can go to theblaze.com/slash Buck Sexton to learn more about me and what I do.
Also, I just got invited, I believe, to go on the Kelly file tonight to talk about the Bergdahl situation.
So Fox News at the 9 p.m. hour at some point.
Ms. Kelly very kindly is going to have me on, it seems.
So you can check me out there.
Also on Twitter at Buck Sexton.
In the meantime, let's bring in Tim from Colorado.
He's going to talk to us about, oh, wind turbines and what it takes to make them.
What's going on, Tim?
Hey, Buck, how are you?
Good, sir.
How are you?
I'm doing fine.
Doing fine.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
So what do you got to tell us about, Tim?
You know something.
We've got a manufacturer here in our county that makes the blades for wind turbines.
And the fact I'm sitting right now on a ridge that has about 300 wind turbines on it.
What people don't understand or what the environmentalists or people who are for wind power, you know, they never look deep into the issue.
Wind turbine blades are made with a product called carbon fiber.
It's a man-made product.
It's incredibly strong.
It's, you know, 10 times stronger than steel, half the weight.
Perfect material for making these wind turbine blades.
But as with any manufactured product, it has to start with a raw product.
And in 85% of the carbon fiber that's manufactured around the world, rayon is the base fiber that's used to make carbon fiber.
Rayon is made 100% with oil.
So essentially, you can't have a wind turbine without oil.
Right.
And now we want to ask the question: how much wind does a wind turbine wind to how much wind has to go through a turbine for it to make up for the fossil fuel output needed to create the turbine?
I mean, you start to be forced to ask, try to make these calculations.
Exactly.
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, I'm out here.
The area that I work in, like I say, has got a bunch of wind turbines, and probably a full 25% of the time that I'm out here, they're not even spinning.
You know, there's either too much wind or not any wind at all.
Now, is it really true?
Is it really true that those turbines do chop up birds on a regular basis?
Because I read about that.
Well, see, and there again, nobody's willing to look, you know, to drill down and look at the effects of these things.
The tip speed on these wind turbines in an average wind is 180 miles an hour.
So, you know, if you've got a bird flying around and this happens to be crossing the path, he'll be hard-pressed to get out of the way.
Oh, man.
All right.
Drumsticks are on the menu, I guess.
That's bad.
Exactly.
All right, Tim, thank you very much for calling in.
Good to hear from you.
Do we have time for one more before we go here?
What do you think?
Yeah, we got time for one.
Let's take Ryan from Washington, D.C. Ryan, Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're talking to Buck Sexton.
Hello, Buck.
Nice talking to you.
Thank you.
I work downtown, D.C., one of the few conservatives actually at the Department of Energy.
And a couple years ago, I'd done some research on some greenhouse gases.
And it's basically broken up into two categories, water vapor and CO2 and other gases.
And think of just guess how much CO2 and water vapor compare to each other.
You want me to guess?
Just take a guess.
I have no idea.
Just enlighten us, sir.
We got little time here.
Well, greenhouse gases, basically, the major portion is 98% of greenhouse gases is water vapor.
And CO2 makes up slightly less than 2%, that last 2%.
Everything else, you got the man-made gases and whatnot in there.
And man-made CO2 makes up a small percentage of the CO2.
Almost all of the CO2 generated is generated naturally in the atmosphere.
Mm-hmm.
So this is all garbage is what you're telling me with this EPA regulations.
You are confirming.
I think it's 100% garbage.
It is 100% garbage.
All right.
Confirming what I thought.
I like it.
High five.
There we go.
Ryan, thank you very much for that.
Yeah, look, this is where the really the sort of authoritarian impulse of the left gets exposed on environmentalism in very profound ways.
They just want to, they just can't help themselves, always want to meddle and dictate.
We're going to have to close it out here in a minute.
800-282-2882, Buck Sexton for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in just a sec.
Buck Sexton in for Mr. Rush Limbaugh.
I have to thank Rush himself and, of course, his team for being so kind, giving me a chance to sit here at the Golden Mic.
There is no more fun to be had anywhere.
This is awesome.
A couple of quick notes.
I didn't get to get into Operation Choke Point with all of you, but that's the DOJ essentially treating gun manufacturers like pornographers.
You may wish to on your own time.
Check that one out.
And also, I did not get to talk about the Clintons today.
I wanted to talk about Hillary's new memoir.
She's talking about how she's great with Benghazi.
And I'll be right there with her, Bill.
I'm just, I want to hug the voluptuous American people tight and tell them why Hillary's just the greatest, the best.
I really wanted to go after the Clintons today, but I did not have the time.
I did not have the time.
Another time, I promise you, I will do my ridiculous Clinton impersonation for you, and we will spend some time working through why Hillary should not, under any circumstances, be the next president of this country.
And we'll get into Benghazi.
We'll do all of that in a future setting.
In the meantime, I am BuckSexton.
Theblaze.com slash BuckSexton is where you can find my work.
Follow me on Twitter at BuckSexton.
Thanks to Rush.
Thanks to his team.
▲
Export Selection