https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=NxGTqgQwtgU
What do you think the true rate of inflation is at the moment in the U.S. and what do you think that inflation is doing to ordinary people? Well, we know by any objective measure that inflation in the U.S. is at least a 40-year high. When it actually boils down to real people, real families, they’re feeling real pain. You know, the cost of groceries, the cost of gasoline. And again, all of this is the result of these policy decisions. You know, take energy policy, for example. In the U.S., at least 30% of our nation’s economy is tied in some way to our energy policy. And you and I have talked about this all offline with amongst our friends and groups that we’re involved in. It is just really an insane series of decisions that Biden and the far left in this country have made. We were energy, not just energy independent, but energy dominant when President Trump left the White House, because we pushed those policies. And instinctively, almost reflexively, Joe Biden took office. And within the first few days, quite literally, through executive orders, he reversed the policies that had given us those great gains and achievements. And so because of that, we’ve seen, we’ve reaped what that has sown. And so now not only did they, you know, as you know, of course, infamously cancel the Keystone pipeline, greenlighted Nord Stream 2 for Russia and Putin, which, of course, fueled his his war machine to go after Ukraine. He put a moratorium on federal production and exploration and federal lands here in the U.S., offshore as well, which has been a disaster for my state of Louisiana, a big energy state, effectively turned off the spigots. But in order to meet our demand, we then had to go hat and hand to OPEC. We had to go beg, you know, Saudi Arabia. We had to go and beg these other nations to help us supply our need. It’s just unconscionable. And of course, the energy that’s produced in those other countries is not anywhere near as clean and efficient as that which is produced here because of the way they do it. So ironically, they did more damage to the planet. What do you think the justification is for that? I mean, to cut off production, but not cut off demand seems like a pretty counterproductive way both to deal with the economy and with the environment, assuming that you buy the story that fossil fuel use per se is driving the crisis that we should all be attending to, which isn’t something that I’m really on board with in any way at all. It seems pretty obvious, especially given what’s been happening in Europe lately with regard to their energy crunch, that the policies that were pursued by the United States, especially with regards to fracking, turned out to be, well, fortuitously far-sighted. It made the United States energy independent, as you said, but while actually able to export, while simultaneously cutting carbon output, which is important to those people to whom it’s important, but it’s at least notable on every front. America was looking pretty good on the energy front, especially in contrast to Europe. And so what do you think the rationale is for simultaneously cutting production and making it extraordinarily difficult to provide abundant energy, while also pursuing a policy of going around the globe and asking for excess energy resources from, obviously, from producers who are not necessarily reliable, let’s say like Venezuela or desirable, and also who don’t abide by the same standards of environmental purity that govern the situation in the United States? I don’t understand how that policy can be constructed and pursued What’s the rationale for it? Is it that, I mean, we had a deputy prime minister in Canada who said famously something like, well, it’s good that energy prices are much higher because when Canadians pay more at the pump, they’re all reminded constantly of just how severe the environmental crisis is, which I think is an utterly appalling way to behave. And I also think it’s counterproductive on the environmental front, because making people poor does not make the planet healthier. There’s no evidence for that. So what do you think, why do you think the Democrats pursued this policy? This is an excellent question, Jordan, and I agree with you 100% on your position on this, and as we’ve discussed in the past, it’s difficult to provide a rational explanation for it because there really is none. I don’t think they apply rational thought to these decisions at all. To me, the best way I can explain it, and I get asked the same question all the time, certainly, when I’m around in my district, the 4th Congressional District in Louisiana, go to town halls, we have lots of big open public events where everyone is welcomed and take questions from the audience. And this is always one of the most common questions. In my explanation, the answer that I’ve come up with is the best way I know to explain it, and that is that this is not a rational decision on the part of these folks. They regard the climate agenda as part of their religion. I don’t know any other way to explain it. They pursue it with religious zeal, and they care not, apparently, what type of pain these policies inflict upon the people that they are supposed to be serving, because they’re not serving the people, they’re serving the planet. And they use this terminology now openly, as you know, to our great amazement and frustration. And it’s as if, I put it in very parochial terms, when I’m in Louisiana, I try to explain to our folks that, listen, they have effectively replaced Father God with Mother Earth.