Why You Should Ask A Democrat To Fill Your Tank At Your Next Fill Up

As we speak, in terms of the national average price for gasoline, it will cost you about seventy bucks to fill a 20 gallon tank.

And in the People’s Republic of California – which taxes the hell out of gasoline just like they’re taxing the hell out of everything else – it’s actually a fair amount worse.  Just in case you needed more proof that Democrats and sky-high gasoline prices lovingly walk hand-in-hand.

When George Bush was president – even though Democrats were in control of both the House and the Senate – high gas prices were “Bush’s fault.”  It happened during his watch, and that was all the Democrats and their mainstream media intellectual soulmates needed.  And of course it doesn’t matter how lousy things are under Obama’s watch, because the Bush presidency is like the original sin to liberals; it extends backward and forward into eternity, so that all things evil can be attributed to it.  Basically that is because government is Democrat’s god, and Bush was a heretic who defiled the only god with whom they have to do.

It didn’t matter that polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly were on the Republicans’ side when they said, “Drill baby, drill.”

It didn’t matter that after George Bush ended a ban on drilling, gasoline prices in the US began to dip IMMEDIATELY.

You see, in the words of Nancy Pelosi, who ruled as Speaker of the House:

 “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”

Harry Reid was uninterested in your being able to afford to drive to work; he was out to save you from yourselves:

“The one thing we fail to talk about is those costs that you don’t see on the bottom line. That is coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick; it’s global warming. It’s ruining our country, it’s ruining our world. We’ve got to stop using fossil fuel.”

Now contrast this with other Obama quotes, which puts his goals into much better perspective:

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And the result of shutting down plants that produce half our electricity in Obama’s own words:

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 power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

 John Harwood asked then-Senator Obama, “Could the high prices help us?”  And Obama responded:

OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that, ehh, this is such a shock t’American pocketbooks is not a good thing. Uh, but if we take some steps right now t’, uh, help people make the adjustment — first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.

What Obama would have said if he wasn’t a total idiot and a disgrace to the presidency is, “Of COURSE high gas prices won’t hurt us!  That would kill our economy!  Just what kind of idiot are you for even asking?!?!?”

Obama didn’t say that because he thinks high gas prices actually will help America.  That’s just the kind of incompetent disgrace to the American presidency that he is.

Fossil fuels are bad.  Using fossil fuels are bad.  Inexpensive energy is bad (at least as long as the price doesn’t rise too soon at any one time and make Americans react like frogs placed in boiling water) because it encourages Americans to keep using cheap energy when they should be using the expensive and inefficient energy sources that Democrats want to force them to use.  Which means being able to afford driving to work or heating your home is bad.

Nancy Pelosi’s failed policy, Harry Reid’s failed policy and Barack Obama’s failed policy are off-limits in the media, however.  You really don’t hear any stories on that stuff.  Our media “gatekeepers” have slammed the gates shut on that angle.

Last year – and that was before the crisis in Libya and before the “evil” Republicans took over the House of Representatives after two years of abject Obama failure to govern, I pointed out that gasoline prices had actually skyrocketed on Obama’s watch.  And dang oh boy hooeeeh they’ve skyrocketed since.  Which is to say that the fact of the matter is that the crisis in Libya or in the Middle East really doesn’t have anything to do with this.  It’s the fool we had in office a year ago when prices were skyrocketing who is the same fool we’ve got now that is the “crisis.”

A couple weeks ago I wrote this:

The headlines now –

Crisis in Libya Raises Fears of Skyrocketing Oil Prices Causing Pain at the Pump

– match what Obama was saying his policy was all along.

Obama has said that higher prices for oil are good.  He just wanted to spread out the pain over a longer period of time.

Obama’s appointments reflect his determination to drive up oil prices and therefore force the American people against their will to embrace his radical leftist energy agenda.  Take Obama’s Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who has stated on the record that he wanted to“figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”  And at the time he said those words, gasoline prices were close to $8 a gallon.

[And the only reason our gasoline prices aren’t $8 a gallon is because there are still more socialists in Europe than there are here.]

Electicity?  Obama was perfectly fine if the cost of electricity skyrocketed.  In fact he said under his policies prices would “necessarily skyrocket.”

These people are getting exactly what they want.  And by “exactly what they want,” I mean the destruction of the American economy so a purely socialist system can be erected in the ashes.

Obama and his handpicked energy secretary are getting exactly what they want, and exactly what Obama said he would do if elected.  The same Democrats who demonically demonized Bush for high oil prices have all along wanted the price of oil to “necessarily skyrocket” so that automakers will be forced to manufacture little clown cars and the American people will be forced to buy those clown cars.

As Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel infamously put it:

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

And Democrats want to grab hold of the very crisis they created and seize control of our energy in a way that will make us “green.”  Dirt poor, of course, but “green.”

It’s part of the Democrats’ overall strategy, which so far is working brilliantly.

They want to say, “Oil is too expensive and too unstable.”  We’ve got to spend hunderds and hundreds of billions on an utterly stupid agenda such as high speed rail, solar panels, wind, etcetera.  And we’ve ultimately got to take cars and the freedom that comes with mobility away from the people so that we can better control and shape them into what we want them to be.

What Democrat John Dingell said of ObamaCare equally applies to energy policy:

“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

We’ve got them in their own words.  We’ve got them telling us that they WANT high gas prices and expensive energy.  We’ve got them doing everything they can to prevent any and all American drilling. 

And yet Democrats agreed with this agenda and voted for these people and put them into power.

Democrats want seven dollar a gallon and higher gasoline prices?  Why not let them have it right now.  Isn’t that only appropriate?

And with national gasoline prices at the halfway point, it seems like the perfect solution:


It’s a win-win.  Republicans get the inexpensive oil they want to fuel their cars and businesses, and Democrats get to go the way of the Dodo bird all the faster – which is exactly what they want for the rest of America.  And by extension, every single Democrat should pay the highest tax rates on every single Obama tax hikes.  They want it for others; let them pay it themselves.

So tell you what, Democrats.  And I mean every single one of you.  Fill our tanks, which will bring your costs to the minimum price of what Obama’s handpicked energy secretary said was “the goal.”

Or just shut the hell up and get the hell out of our lives, you hypocrites.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Why You Should Ask A Democrat To Fill Your Tank At Your Next Fill Up”

  1. greenheretic Says:

    Well, 7 dollar gas princes might be a bit much – of course that would hurt our economy to the point of being unproductive.

    A better idea is to put a floor on energy and gas prices (something reasonable, maybe $4 per gallon) to create the economic climate to encourage investment in green energy. It is nice to drive at cheap prices, but at some point we have to make sacrifices for our nation, because if we don’t turn to clean energy we compromise our energy security and let other countries out-innovate us.

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    Well, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t want $4 gallon gas either.

    I want cheap energy. And I don’t understand how subsidizing expensive energy sources that will never improve much more than they are now (wind energy is the oldest energy source of all, for the record, and it’s not like it’s going to dramatically improve; solar has the problem that it isn’t sunny all the time in most places, etc.) will make them better.

    We’ve been subsidizing ethanol for years, and it has been a crappy, wasteful boondoggle for all those years. Plus it is contributing significantly to world hunger, which is morally depraved.

    And we’ve got all sorts of fossil fuels right here in America. Don’t expect conservatives to ever work with liberals on “green” energy until you allow full access to our natural resources.

    Liberals love to talk about “proven reserves,” and how we only have like 2% of the world’s proven reserves. The thing is, “proven reserves” means a well that is actively under production. Which means we CAN’T have “proven reserves” unless we’re able to put our supplies into active operation. So the “proven reserve” thing is a circular argument: we shouldn’t drill because we’re not drilling.

    I submit that its rather like the nuclear bomb. If a country actually develops a truly useful energy solution, it would take no time before we had that same solution ourselves. A lot of the “green” energy stuff like solar panels isn’t about being “out-innovated” – WE started that technology – rather it is about it being far cheaper to build that stuff in countries that don’t have our ridiculous unions.

    If our labor costs and punitive government policies continue, we can have the greatest “innovation” in the world and we’ll still get beat.

  3. greenheretic Says:

    Hi Michael,

    I am not really interested in arguing with you about these things, I am much more interested in what we agree on.

    Subsidizing ethanol is completely stupid, at least we agree there.

    Sure, I would gladly support offshore drilling if conservatives would support more green R&D – it is better than getting oil from dictators in the middle east. Either way gas prices are going up, and the oil offshore is just a drop in the bucket for our energy needs.

    I also agree that it is like the nuclear bomb. Eventually someone will copy it, but it makes a huge difference who gets there first! Either way it will probably be made in China (you are dreaming if you think getting rid of unions will change that) but it is up for grabs who will supply the engineering and technical expertise (which will actually be high-paying jobs).

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    I’m sure there’s plenty of other things we would agree on, too.

    For instance, I’m sure we both agree that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and particularly on Middle East oil.

    And I would agree that alternative energy should be a vital component of how we would do that. We need to encourage and reward legitimate research toward energy independence.

    But we also need to take advantage of our own massive fossil fuel resources. The U.S. has 17% of the world’s recoverable oil. And oil is currently so much cheaper and more abundant than any other energy source it simply MUST be utilized.

  5. greenheretic Says:

    You might be right there. Clean energy can only do so much so fast, and it cannot handle both providing electricity and fuel for cars. Coal is worse the oil, so the first priority is to get rid of as much coal as possible, which means cars will still need to run on oil or CNG. Actually, if I am not wrong I believe CNG is cheaper and more abundant than oil.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    You seem to be reaching to achieve “green energy” on a practical basis. I applaud you for that, because I don’t see that coming from many who share your goals.

    As an example, a lot of the left have abandoned nuclear energy following the Japanese disasters. But if you actually WANT green energy, you’ve GOT to embrace nuclear. Any other policy leads to energy starvation and disaster.

    And then there’s just the fact that coal, oil (and yes, natural gas) are the most abundant and cheapest energy sources. And we’ve already got the infrastructure and delivery mechanisms in place.

    We DO need to free ourselves from foreign oil (although oil from countries like Canada is okay; I’m talking about the Middle East and hostile countries such as Venezuela). Which means we DO need to embrace new alternatives. But when government (particuarly Democrat-controlled government) picks winners and losers, it never turns out right.

    We need free-market solutions. And the government would be wisest if it gave tax breaks to energy research (which would include both making oil/coal/gas cleaner and more efficient as well as research into alternative sources), and then got out of the way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: