RUSH: Obama did say in one of these sound bites earlier (impression), "We're not drilling in the National Mall. We're not drilling in your house." Let me tell you something: I would love to have an oil rig in my house! I wanna be very honest with you. I would love to be sitting in my skybox overlooking the ocean and right out there in my backyard, right there on the dune, see an oil derrick. I would love it! (interruption)
To heck with the turtles. I wouldn't turn any lights on it. The only thing about the turtles is the lights. We've gotta keep the lights off so the turtle hatchlings go to the ocean. I wouldn't turn the thing on. I wouldn't light it up. Turtles would never know it's there. Yeah, wouldn't you like to have an oil derrick in your backyard? Wouldn't you like to have a chance to be the Beverly Hillbillies? I'd sit out there at my skybox and I'd watch with great pleasure and great pride. Oil is prosperity. I'd love to discover gold and diamonds on my property, too. Here, let's get to these other sound bites. This is number 27. We've only got two to go here and we'll move on.
OBAMA: There's a problem with a strategy that only relies on drilling, and that is America uses more than 20% of the world's oil. If we drilled every square inch of this country -- so we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put up those rigs everywhere -- we'd still have only 2% of the world's known oil reserves. Let's say we missed somethin'. Maybe it's 3% instead of two! We're using 20; we have two. Now, you don't need t'be getting an excellent education at Prince George's Community College to know that we've gotta math problem here. Right?
RUSH: Well, it's like any math problem: If any part of the equation has got false data in it, then the result's gonna be flawed and incorrect, and this 2% number is wrong. We have far more than 2% of the world's reserves. We just haven't gone and gotten it, but there's much more. The government gets to define what the 2% is, and there's rampant confusion even over that. But this is a statistic that the left has been using to really guilt you. The purpose of this statistic is to guilt you. I've heard it for 30 years. The way it has actually always been stated is, "We are 2% of the world's population, and we use 25% of the world's resources."
That's what they've always said. And that, coming from the Alinsky-Marxist left, is designed to make us all feel guilty that we're thieves and that we've run around the world using our superpower status and we've stolen the resources from other poor little countries and we've left them destitute and poor and in poverty all for our own lifestyle enhancement. We're really a bunch of bad people. That's what that statistic is designed to impart. And it's been a staple of the Democrat Party, as I say, for 30 years. Here's the final sound bite...
OBAMA: They've been talking down new sources of energy. They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. Let me tell you something: If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they musta been founding members of -- of -- of the Flat Earth Society. They -- they -- they would not have believed that the world was round.
RUSH: Hardy-har-har. I am laughing so hard I'm splitting my side. This guy's such a comedian. He's so funny. Let me make one point about this. "They make jokes about biofuels." No, we make jokes about him. Last week or the week before, Obama was in Florida where he suggested that a replacement fuel for oil would be algae. And he looked at the audience in Florida and he said (impression), "I've looked down there at the Everglades aaaand you've got looooots of algae. What if someone find a way to turn algae into oil?" Now, the proper reaction here is: "What is the difference between algae and oil?" This is the question you have to ask yourself: "Why is oil filthy, rotten, dirty, stinky, and algae is clean and pure and filled with potential, when we already know what we can do with oil?"
We know the magic that there is in the refining of oil.
Oil is as much a part of nature as is algae.
The difference is, there is no magic in algae.
If there were it would have been discovered. The latest biofuel that was touted was ethanol, and that was to take corn away from Mexicans and their tacos and to put it into gasoline for us in our cars. And we have found out that it's not efficient, it's not cheaper, and it's actually harder on engines than regular old gasoline. But this assumption that everything the free markets come up with is somehow corrupt -- it's dirty, it's evil, it's polluted, it destroys the planet -- but algae is great? What's the difference? Algae and oil are no different than a blade of grass, no different than a mud puddle. It's all nature. Oil, nobody created it. Big Oil doesn't manufacture it.
There is no evil CEO in charge of the recipe for oil who is secretly making it somewhere knowing full well that it pollutes and destroys and kills, 'cause it doesn't do that. Do you ever stop to ask yourself, "Wait a minute, now! Algae or corn, what's the difference between all that and oil?" We can't use algae for anything like we can use oil for. Now, I bring this stuff up because these are techniques and tactics used by the Democrats and the Democrat Party to advance their political agenda, which is the expansion of government and more and more control over individual lives. Loss of freedom. That's what this is all about. There's no difference in oil and algae in terms of being organic, being natural, being part of the earth. The oil was here before we were.
And again, there's no recipe for it. No evil scientist manufactured it. It's not the tool of somebody to wipe people out and to pollute countries in the oceans and kill fish. That's not what it's for and that's not why it was created or designed. But it's treated that way. Oil is treated by the American left -- by the Democrat Party, by Democrat politicians -- as some almost evil invention, when it's not. In fact, if you ask me, it's incredible ingenuity to figure out what all we can do with oil and what it has meant to economic growth and prosperity, wealth creation, liberty, freedom. It's amazing what has come from oil in that regard. Not from algae. And if you're gonna question anybody, you've got to question the sense of somebody who looks at pond scum and sees a replacement for oil.
That's the oddity.
That's what's weird.
That's what's strange.
Here's another thing about oil versus algae in terms of a benefit. We don't have to look at pools of oil. We gotta look at pools of algae all day long. You ever go play golf? You see pond scum on every lake practically!
You never see oil. It's like Benjamin Franklin said about beer: Oil is proof that God loves us. That's what Benjamin Franklin said about beer: It's "proof that God loves us." Well, I would say the same thing about oil. The second thing before I get to the phones. This is John Merline today of the Investor's Business Daily. Headline: "US Has 60 Times More Oil Than Obama Claims." And let me give you a couple of pull-quotes from the story. I just want to tell you something else, too. With this massive supply of oil, there is no reason for gasoline prices to be going up by the day. They are only going up because of the speculator market and the laws of supply and demand. We have so much oil that this man is standing in the way of getting.
It's all here. We have enough for total independence from imported oil. Now, that would shake up world economies. If we stopped buying oil from the Saudis (we're their big customer) they'd probably find replacements. Canada is our number one source for oil, by the way. If we stop buying oil from them, they'll just sell to the ChiComs or India. But here are a couple of pull-quotes: "A separate Rand Corp. study found that about 800 billion barrels of oil shale in Wyoming and neighboring states is 'technically recoverable,' which means it could be extracted using existing technology. That's more than triple the known reserves in Saudi Arabia," in just Wyoming and neighboring states! And we have the ability to go get it.
The second pull-quote: "All told, the US has access to 400 billion barrels of crude that could be recovered using existing drilling technologies, according to a 2006 Energy Department report." A government report! Not some private corporation, not some think tank, but our very own beloved government said it. The Energy Department said in 2006 that America "has access to 400 billion barrels of crude that could be recovered using existing drilling technologies." That would be one-and-a-half times the known reserves in Saudi Arabia. We use 19 million barrels a day. We have access to 400 billion right now: 800 billion in shale, 400 billion barrels of crude.
"When you include oil shale, the US has," dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut, "1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, enough to meet all US oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports. And even this number could be low, since such estimates tend to go up over time. ... 'This is not a geological problem -- it's a political problem,' said Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research. 'We've embargoed our own supplies.'"
Now, the source for this, again, is Investor's Business Daily and the author of the story is John Merline. But he's quoting Rand Corporation study, the US government, and the Institute for Energy Research. So these are shocking numbers: 800 billion barrels of shale, 400 billion barrels of crude, a grand total of between 1.2 and 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil to meet America's needs for the next 200 years without importing a single barrel. It's there and "technically recoverable," meaning we've got the means to go get it. What we don't have is the political will to go get it, because this kind of action in the private sector -- energy independence having nothing to do with government -- Obama will not permit. He will not allow it.
RUSH: In Lewes, Delaware, this is Marianne. Thanks for waiting, and welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just listening to you about the reserves being released. Now if he releases that, we have to purchase that back for the reserves. Don't we have to purchase that at the market price, and won't that be higher?
RUSH: Yeah, exactly right. Whatever we release from the Strategic Reserve -- and again, you may not have heard this, Marianne, but the White House is now denying this. Reuters has a big, long "exclusive;" the National Journal had a big, long story; TheHill.com had a big story. White House press secretary says (paraphrased), "No, no, no, these stories are false. There's no agreement here reached on the release of oil from the Strategic Reserves." But you're right. If there is, down the road, a release of oil from the Strategic Reserves, it'll have to be replaced. The Strategic Reserves will have to be refilled at whatever the current price is.
It could be more expensive than what it was when we bought the oil that ends up being released. So, yeah, it's a good likelihood. There's no way to cheat the system on this. It's gonna come back and bite us one way or the other. This is (if it happens) a purely political move. And the reason, by the way, to get Cameron to go along with it (and maybe other countries) is to mask the political purpose for this. If you get an ally or two to go along with you, then you can easily make the case, "This is a coordinated strategic effort based on the national security concerns of us and our allied partners," and blah, blah, blah, pure and simple.
Ron in Cincinnati. Hello, sir, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Dittos, Rush, from Cincinnati. Hey, thank you for bringing this up. So far you're talking about it from a political standpoint, and you're correct. It absolutely is a political move. But I think that we as conservatives concerned with national security ought to be scrutinizing this from a national security standpoint, and I would argue that it's beyond irresponsible and even incompetent -- and rises to the level of sinister and even treasonous -- if you look at it from a standpoint of where we are currently with our standoff with Iran. When since the seventies, since that oil reserve was initiated, have we ever been closer to actually needing it for national security purposes? And here we are, you know, potentially needing that to be all there, and he's ready to use it for his political gain. I think it's just treasonous.
RUSH: He's not the first. He did this in June of last year at the same time. And Bill Clinton did this for Algore in 2000. Clinton released oil from the Strategic Reserves. It's not uncommon for this to be used (this kind of maneuver) for political purposes, particularly among Democrats. I'm struck now by this. Look, you're absolutely right in terms of national security aspect of this. That oil is there for interruptions, and the Iranians are a wild card. If they close the Strait of Hormuz, that shuts down a lot of worldwide oil distribution. There's no question about it, and it could lead to an interruption. But I gotta tell you something, folks. The Strategic Oil Reserves, when full, run the country for 36 days. That's not a long time.
It's about 700 million barrels of oil, but it's not a long time, not at current usage. If that interruption ever happened -- a significant, real interruption requiring the genuine use of the Strategic Reserves -- I shudder to think what other controls would be slapped on us. You know, odd-day gasoline purchases, limits on the amount of gasoline, where you can and cannot put your thermostat. It would be drastic. It would have a profound impact if a genuine interruption in world supplies in distribution took place. You don't even want to ponder it, which focuses (in my mind, again) the question back on Obama.
Why not the Keystone pipeline?
Why not drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in already established, proven places?
Why not ANWR?
Why continue to subject ourselves to this interruption threat when we now know just how much oil we have here? We've got enough for 200 years running the country at current levels each day without importing a barrel. This administration has gone to the bank I don't know how many times on this notion that we have to have alternative fuels for energy independence. "We've gotta stop importing oil from those sheiks and from the Saudis. We gotta stop doing all this." Yet from this administration, not one move, not one step is taken to actually effect that, to make it happen. So it's all talk. And this alternative energy?
Again: As the mayor of Literalville, when discussing (sigh) this so-called green energy, I see Solyndra bankrupt; wind energy, solar, going nowhere. The real flat earther here is Obama. The real antiquated, anti-progress guy is Obama. There is no business in alternative fuels! Until we have an alternative fuel that can get a jet airliner off the ground and in the air for 10 or 12 hours, we don't have anywhere near a replacement for oil. There just isn't. We don't have an alternative energy that will power a fleet of semitrailers delivering cargo on the roads and highways. We don't have an alternative fuel that will power massive cargo ships on the seas. This is all preposterous.
We have exactly what we need to grow our economy, to increase the opportunity for prosperity.
We have all the oil that we need.
There's no need for anything new! Ask yourself that question: Why do we need something new? What's better? Why do we need a replacement just to have a replacement? (New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh, you obviously haven't been listening. The reason that we need a substitute for oil is that it is dirty and it is filthy and it is destroying the climate and thus it's destroying the planet! It's wiping out plant life and animal life throughout the world." It is not. None of that, as articulated by the New Castrati on the left, has any basis in fact whatsoever. The closest thing we have is national gas, and that is still a fossil fuel. You still gotta "drill, baby, drill" to get it! You have to "drill, baby, drill" to get natural gas.
Pure and simple.