Gas Prices To Rise Throughout Rest Of 2012 (And What Was It Obama Said About High Gas Prices When Bush Was President???)

Obama on gas prices back when Bush was president:

I bought my gas in California Sunday afternoon and paid $4.26 a gallon for the privilege.  And guess what: it isn’t going to be getting better, we’re being told:

Gas Prices Set to Rise for Rest of 2012?
By Sharon Epperson | CNBC – Tue, Aug 7, 2012 5:21 PM EDT.

Gasoline and oil futures surged Tuesday to the highest prices since May, as traders predicted the damage from a fire at California’s third largest refinery could take months to repair.

The lowest retail gasoline prices of the year may already be behind us, some traders say, especially in light of this incident as well as refinery issues around the U.S. and across the Atlantic in the North Sea.

September RBOB gasoline futures briefly topped $3 a gallon Tuesday, and settled just shy of that mark, near a 3-month high. The more than 2 percent gain in gasoline futures sparked big gains in the oil market, where London-based Brent crude prices jumped over $2 to more than $112 a barrel and WTI oil futures topped $94 a barrel in New York, then settled up more than $1 at $93.67 a barrel.

The fire at the 240,000 barrel per day Chevron refinery in the San Francisco Bay area started around 6:15 pm local time Monday and blazed through the night before being extinguished early Tuesday. Chevron’s Richmond refinery produces about 15 percent of the gasoline used by California drivers, says energy analyst Andy Lipow.

Operations at the refinery are expected to be hampered for some time. Analysts say it could take months before the crude distillation unit where the fire broke out is back to normal operations.

The local gasoline market in California saw a swift, steep price surge-far greater than at the New York Mercantile Exchange. Spot gasoline prices soared in San Francisco, spiking over 35 cents to $3.32 a gallon, skyrocketing 12 percent. Prices could climb at least 40 cents in the wake of this incident, says OPIS analyst Tom Kloza.

California spot prices help determine retail prices, which were at $3.86 a gallon for the state-wide average on Tuesday and already higher than this time last year, according to AAA. Due in part to the specific blend, California gasoline prices are always among the most expensive in the country, currently 23 cents above the national average of $3.63 a gallon. (Track commodities here)

Rising Brent crude oil prices, due to tight production in light of maintenance of North Sea refineries, as well as other refinery issues in the Midwest and East Coast, are also helping to support gasoline prices, traders say. On average, retail gasoline prices are up 13 cents, since hitting $3.50 a gallon for the national average a week ago, according to AAA.

“People probably paid the lowest price for gasoline for the year a few weeks ago,” says trader Anthony Grisanti of GRZ Energy. “When you add up all of the impact (from refinery issues), prices will keep going up.”

Strengthening global oil prices have also aided the rally in the gasoline market. Tropical Storm Ernesto could disrupt oil production and distribution in Mexico this week and a pipeline explosion in Iraq disrupted oil and gasoline supplies to Turkey early Monday. Supply concerns due to tensions with Iran and violence in Syria have also contributed to steady gains in the oil markets for the past month.

In Obama’s God Damn America, oil companies are being fined for not using a biofuel that literally does not exist:

WASHINGTON — When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

Don’t feel too bad for the oil companies, though.  Because they are passing those idiotic penalties on to YOU in the form of higher prices.  It’s just part of what you get for voting for the most depraved president in American history.  Think of it as paying a fine for presidential leadership and common sense that doesn’t exist.

In Obama’s God Damn America, oil companies are required to add ethanol to gasoline no matter how idiotic it is to literally burn food while starving people die or how expensive it makes our fuel:

U.S. drivers saw prices at the pump rise 5.1% in July, the largest increase for the month in more than a dozen years. On top of oil speculators and geopolitical tensions, ethanol also played a role this time.

According to AAA, national average gasoline prices rose 17 cents a gallon over the course of July, to $3.50. About four to five cents of the increase were due to higher ethanol prices, making it “a serious contributing factor,” says Avery Ash, AAA’s spokesperson.

Almost all the gasoline that’s used in the U.S. has a 10% blend of ethanol in it, and most ethanol is produced from corn. As corn raced to a record high amid hot, dry weather, ethanol prices soared, up 17% in July.

Just like the change in crude oil prices, when the underlying price of ethanol changes, it goes all the way through to the price at the pump. For every 10 cents the price of ethanol changes, the price of gasoline is going to change by one cent.

In Obama’s God Damn America, we get the worst drought in fifty freaking years and the highest food prices in history:

The US corn crop is in a state of disaster, with more than half of all US acreage listed in poor or very poor condition due to a record-breaking drought.

And:

The drought that’s drying up the Heartland isn’t just an American problem. It’s causing food prices to surge worldwide.

And it could get worse.

“This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call, it’s the same global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008,” said Colin Roche of Oxfam, noting that the drought could lead to food shortages for millions of people worldwide.

Food is a major U.S. export, so the drought affects prices around the globe.

“World leaders must snap out of their lazy complacency and realize the time of cheap food has long gone,” Roche said.

It’s kind of interesting how things began to literally go to hell the year that America elected Obama, isn’t it?

You read your Bible and see what happens when a people embrace wickedness the way we did in embracing the most wicked president in our history.

However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.  Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.  The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks. — Deuteronomy 28:15-18

Or as I put it back on November 4, 2008:

Obama Wins!  God Damn America!

As gas prices and food prices and all kinds of other prices keep climbing out of control under this failed fool’s leadership, you just remember Obama pointing his hypocrite demagogue finger at Bush when gas prices went up.

But Bush is gone and according to Obama himself we all should be pointing our fingers at Obama now.

Liberalism At Work: Get Ready For $50 Light Bulbs (And No, I’m NOT Kidding)

Remember those nifty little  incandescent light bulbs?  They actually worked.  Democrats HATE things that actually work.  So they banned them.

Their claim was that within a few years “green technology” would work its magic and we’d have better energy-saving alternatives in no time.

Well, the ban Democrats imposed will soon go into effect.  And now you can choose between a CFL light bulb laden with incredibly poisonous mercury, or an LED bulb that a) doesn’t actually produce light (which really should kind of be the whole purpose of a light bulb, shouldn’t it?) and b) are shockingly expensive.

I think about the idiocy of making an “environmentally-friendly” “green light bulb” out of mercury – one of the most deadly environmental poisons in the world – and I have to laugh.  But as amazingly stupid as that is, it is EXACTLY what liberals do as a matter of routine.  Think of the additive MTBE  goverment forced oil companies to add to gasoline to clean the air; it had one tiny unforeseen effect of poisoning the ground water.  Who but a liberal could possibly be that stupid?  Then there’s the whole ethanol thing, where we are literally burning food as fuel even as we face food shortages and people are starving.  Again, liberals love to depict themselves as the ones who “care.”  But they don’t actually give one freaking damn about the people they falsely claim to care about.  There was the government-imposed ban on DDT due to what we now know to have been totally bogus pseudo-leftwing-“science,” which has caused more than 30 million people to die who didn’t have to.  Then of course there is the whole global warming hoax where leftwing ideologues were paid huge grant money awards to hype a nonexistent disaster.  And the leftist bureaucrats who paid them that grant money are hoping to get trillions and trillions of dollars in forced economic redistribution as their reward.  And it really doesn’t matter that Mother Earth keeps giving global warming alarmists the very, very, VERY cold shoulder.

Putting liberals in charge of the environment is as stupid as, well, putting liberals in charge of anything.

Here’s what you win for having voted for Democrats in 2006 and allowing them to take control of both the House and the Senate (in addition to the financial implosion that resulted from their policies):

100-Watt LED Bulbs Set To Enter Market
Posted on: Tuesday, 17 May 2011, 09:53 CDT

With 100 watt light bulbs soon to be extinct, manufacturers are set to release an equivalent wattage of LED bulb to replace them, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals starting in 2012. The basic design of the incandescent bulb has not changed much in the last century and wastes most of its energy as heat, especially the higher-wattage variety.

The LED bulbs will cost about $50 each and will likely go on sale next year, after the government ban takes effect.

Creating good alternatives to 100-watt bulbs has proven challenging to the lighting industry. The new bulbs have to fit into fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are an obvious replacement, but have flaws. Containing a small amount of toxic mercury vapor which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away, they are technically a health hazard and very few people dispose of them properly. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Hmmm.  Pay $50 for a light bulb or sit in the dark while you freeze thanks to Democrat’s equally stupid energy policies???

Or there’s a third option: another Republican tidal wave that will allow conservatives to overturn this brain-dead ban.

I’ve been forced to buy some of these “green” bulbs.  They were advertised to last so many tens of times longer.  That turned out to be just as big of a load of crap as just about every other Democrat promise I’ve heard.

Liberal Bill Maher First Points Out Obama A Hypocrite; Then Reveals That He Himself Is An Idiot

I don’t know.  The fact that (former Clinton spindoctor) George Stephanopoulos left ABC’s “This Week,” and now they are bringing vile turds like Bill Maher, can’t bode well for ABC’s flagship political program.

Still, it WAS nice watching Maher get owned by George Will:

Even Politifact, which is reliably to the left, had to point out that someone had scooped out whatever brains Bill Maher had begun his sorry life with and filled his hollow skull with doggy doo-doo:

In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day. In first place was the United States at 19.5 million barrels per day, followed by China, Japan, India, Russia, and Germany, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Brazil also produces a lot of oil through drilling near its coasts. In recent years, Brazil’s state-controlled energy company Petrobras announced a major new find of oil in some of the deepest waters where exploration is conducted, some 7,000 feet below in the Atlantic Ocean. The find is expected to make Brazil even more important in the oil export business. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that Brazil will become a net exporter of oil this year, even before the new fields are tapped.

Getting back to our factcheck, Maher was likely remembering Brazil’s aggressive efforts to promote ethanol, and certainly Brazil has outpaced the United States in getting flexible fuel vehicles on the road. But Maher said, “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” Actually, Brazil still consumes a great deal of oil. It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly “off oil.” So we rate Maher’s statement False.

Of course, I would submit that Politifact was in the difficult position of having to denounce Maher’s lies to protect Obama’s lies.

Now, what Maher said about Obama being a hypocrite, and making a bunch of bogus promises he didn’t even try to live up to, that part was true.

That BP platform that blew up and created the biggest ecological disaster in US history?  Obama signed off on that; it was his baby.

And why would Obama have signed off on that project?  And why would he have taken BP’s word that everything was okay until it was beyond obvious it wasn’t?  That one’s easy, too.  Because Barry Hussein was the BIGGEST recipient of campaign donations from British Petroleum, aka BP, that’s why.

That’s right.  Barry Hussein, the man who arrogantly promised to lower the oceans and heal the planet, is the guy who got bought off by BP, is the guy who signed off on the disastrous BP project, is the guy who waited WAY too long to deal with the building disaster, and is the man responsible for the biggest ecological disaster in American history.

Biofuel Liberals Are Killing People

The news in Ethiopia isn’t good:

UNITED NATIONS – The U.N. humanitarian office said Monday that food shortages in Ethiopia have reached alarming levels following widespread drought in the country.

Relief organizations are grappling with a “considerable shortage of supplies,” with the U.N. World Food Program in need of $136 million for its operation in the Horn of Africa nation, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said.

Why are relief organizations grappling with such a “considerable shortage of supplies”?  Because, as an Economist article titled, “Cheap no more” puts it:

Rising incomes in Asia and ethanol subsidies in America have put an end to a long era of falling food prices

Messiah Obama Really IS The Second Coming… Of Jimmy Carter

There are a lot of striking parallels between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama that people more astute than I have already contemplated:

– both were Democrats.

– both were young men.

– both had relatively little political experience prior to running for President.

– both had little in the sense of any meaningful accomplishment to point to.

– both began as outside of their Party’s inner circles.

– both built early excitement by winning early caucus primaries.

– both have run on a campaign featuring vague promises of change

– both had the eager embrace of the mainstream media.

– both were featured as having great intellects.

– both were/are foreign policy disasters just waiting to happen.

Israel Matzav noted:

The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

“What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.”

Prior to his run, Jimmy Carter was such an unlikely presidential candidate that when he told his mother he was running for president, she asked, “Of what?”

Gerald Ford, rendered unpopular by being the president who dealt with the stench of Watergate, who pardoned Nixon, and who presided over an unfortunate period marked by our withdraw from Vietnam and the resulting damage to our prestige, found himself 30 points behind the new media darling – until his campaign hit on a strategy that nearly brought him all the way back: they focused on his His lack of experience, his lack of accomplishments and his lack of specificity on the issues. “The Ford forces pounded away at the experience question and painted Carter as a political illusion, an affable-seeming politician who was terrified of expressing his opinion on any controversial topic.” Had the campaign lasted just a week longer, many believe Ford could actually have pulled off the victory.

But that stuff – although interesting – is not what I wanted to focus on. Rather, I wanted to focus on their similarity on energy.

Namely:

1) both advocated a strategy of conservation.

2) both promised alternative energy over oil.

3) both called for a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.

Let us be frank: there is very little, if anything, that is signicantly different between Carter’s colossol failure of an energy policy and what Obama is pandering, I mean proposing.

Let me begin with 1) the strategy of conservation at the expense of increased production.

Jimmy Carter famously put on a cardigan and gave us high-minded exhortations to save on our heating bills by wearing sweaters. On a superficial level it was very true: by wearing sweators during the winter we could save oil.  It was good as public service announcement.

But as an energy policy it was laughable. And it was part of the reason he got clobbered when he ran for re-election.

When Barack Obama calls for every American to inflate their tires, it is absolutely 100% identical to Carter calling for every American to wear their sweaters.

We need more energy, not less. Our population is continuing to grow. Do you want to grow the economy as well? Do you want to create more jobs? Do you want more homes and businesses? Do you want more development, and a more modern, more mobile, and more powerful economy? Then you want more energy. And you need to vote for a president who will produce that energy.

Consider 2) the promise to develop alternative energy over oil. Barack Obama is promising to increase our “alternative energy” dependence from a little under 5% of our total energy consumption to 10% of our total energy consumption.

But he is literally concentrating on that 5% of energy by ignoring the nearly 90% that is based on oil, natural gas, and coal (by the way, natural gas is found in/near oil deposits; and harvesting the one naturally results in harvesting the other).

When we subsidize, we punish things that are doing well in order to reward something that is performing poorly. When government (during the Carter years, by the way) began to subsidize corn-based ethanol, it picked the wrong horse (as so often happens). We are now creating food shortages in order to force something that Agriculture Department studies show cost several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. And about 70% more energy is required to produce ethanol than the fuel itself actually produces, which means every time you produce a gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU.

The decision to subsidize ethanol was based on naked political prostitution to special interest money. Do you really want these clowns – who couldn’t even run their own cafeteria without running massive deficits – making these decisions?

Meanwhile , the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And yet the same liberals that forced ethanol upon us are refusing to allow us to use it again and again. There is a deliberate rejection of American energy in pursuit of biofuels that do nothing but disrupt our food markets and drive up the real costs of energy. Children are literally starving because of these policies.

I mean, fine. Let’s do better to develop alternative energy sources. But to literally do so at the expense of our actual primary sources of energy – which will remain our actual primary sources of energy for decades by ANY standard – is foolishness beyond belief.

When Jimmy Carter was president, foreign oil represented a little less than 1/3 of our consumption; today it is over 70%. You tell me, which way is the trend going? We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for both our international competitiveness and for our security. And the ONLY way to do that right now is to drill for our own domestic oil. We are consuming more energy, not less. And at the same time we need that 70% figure to go DOWN, not UP. And we can only bring it down with a comprehensive energy policy that features drilling for our own oil in addition to conservation and alternative energy production.

Now let us look at the crowning policy of both the Carter and the Obama energy policy: 3) windfall profits taxes on big oil.

The current call for a windfall profits tax has been going on since before the 2006 elections, in which Democrats promised that they had the better solutions for energy (and the price of gas has essentially doubled since Nancy Pelosi promised her “commonsense plan.”) Democrats have ever since been lining up to support a new federal windfall profits tax, with the aim of redistributing profits from “greedy” oil companies.

But, as Jonathon Williams, writing in The Los Angeles Times, pointed out:

lawmakers could benefit from a history lesson. The last time this country experimented with such a tax was the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980. According to a 1990 Congressional Research Service study, the tax depressed the domestic oil industry, increased foreign imports and raised only a tiny fraction of the revenue forecasted. It stunted domestic production of oil by 3% to 6% and created a surge in foreign imports, from 8% to 16%.

As for that “tiny fraction of the revenue forecasted” figure, the windfall profit tax returned only $40 billion of the $175 billion that had been projected.

Surprise, surprise. When you tax something, you get less of it, and you drive up the cost. It boggles the mind that Democrats are pathologically incapable of understanding what is the most blatently obvious principle of economics. But they can’t.

Many have defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results. By that bar, Democrats should be sitting straightjacketed in rubber rooms.

Jimmy’s Carter’s failed energy policy was part of the reason for the 20% prime interest rate that consumed our economy like a cancer.

By taxing American oil companies, they produced less oil, reducing the supply and driving up the cost. At the same time, the reduction in domestic production created a corresponding increased dependence on foreign oil.

And, as Jonathon Williams also points out, the policy of windfall profits forced a major U.S. industry, and a major U.S. employer, into a depressed condition that it took years to overcome. You might hate big oil, but damaging the industry is tantamount to cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

The Jimmy Carter presidency was a catastrophic disaster in foreign policy, domestic policy, and energy policy. The last thing this country needs is the Second Coming of a failed presidency.

Obama’s “New Stand” On Energy Just Dumb In A Different Way

Yesterday’s New York Times ran an article on Obama’s new energy plan, titled “Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve” by Larry Rohter.

As the New York Times puts it, Barack Obama now has a “new stand” on energy. Maybe it’s a new stand, but it’s the same old flip flopping from a serial panderer who has long-since proven he will say anything to get elected.

And his energy plan is still dumb, just dumb in a slightly different way.

According to the article, Obama “outlined an energy plan that contrasts with Senator John McCain’s greater emphasis on expanded offshore drilling and coal and nuclear technology.” That’s his first mistake. It’s bad enough to take oil – by far and away our dominant energy source – off the table. But to then take coal and nuclear energy off the table as well is to remove the only alternatives to oil that could even theoretically take up the slack. It amounts to sacrificing common sense to political gamesmanship.

Most of the reasons liberals and environmentalists have given over the years in decrying nuclear energy have turned out to be patently false. The French have been safely, effectively, and efficiently using nuclear power for decades. Rather than the half life of their fuel being millions of years, we are learning that it is actually only about sixty years. Big diff.

What Obama is doing is frankly abandoning what would best work in favor of what is most politically expedient.

John McCain is promising to increase our energy supply. Obama is promising to conserve. The problem is, you don’t grow an economy by conserving energy. We need more energy in order to continue growing our economy, and Obama refuses to allow its production.

The second thing Obama says – in contradiction from his earlier positions – was to open up the reserves and swap heavy crude for light crude. The problem with that is that heavy crude is difficult to refine, and requires special refineries. Elgie Holstein, an Obama energy advisor, said that while fewer refineries now are capable of refining the heavier stuff into gasoline, that won’t be the case in the future.

But it certainly WILL be the case in the future, unless Barack Obama and the Democrats are swept from power in an overwhelming Republican victory. It has been Democrats who are overwhelmingly to blame for the fact that we haven’t built any refineries for over thirty years. And it has been Democrats’ liberal supporters among the ranks of environmentalists and lawyers who continue to thwart effort after effort to build this vital energy infrastructure.

There’s something even larger at issue regarding Obama’s reversal to open up the strategic reserves, however. Opening up the reserves would lower the price of fuel by temporarily injecting more oil into the market. The very fact that Obama is calling for this step is an implicit acknowledgment that we need more oil. His policy thus comes into direct contradiction with his rhetoric. If we do what he says and open the reserves, what will we do when the price goes back up? Where will we get the oil we need then? Thus we find that Obama – in calling for the reserves to be opened – is really only calling for a temporary solution that he hope will take oil prices off the table long enough to get himself elected. This “solution” is therefore really just incredibly cyncial politics of the very worst kind.

Tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserves won’t increase the total supply of oil. Only drilling will.

This leads to another example of Obama’s hypocrisy and stupidity on energy.

“Obama said his goal was to have 10 percent of the country’s energy needs met by renewable resources by the end of his first term, more than double the current figure.” But again, can’t you see that he is implicitly affirming that the energy sources he is actively opposing would still amount to supplying 90% of our energy needs even given his own best case scenario?

An intelligent man would worry more about securing the more than 95% of our energy we currently use and less about the 5% he intends to double to 10%. His previous policy against ANY increased drilling amounted to a suicide pact with environmentalist groups. And regardless of what he says now – in direct contradiction to his past position – is simply not to be trusted. Barack Obama has already assured us that he is a candidate who doesn’t want more oil, coal, and nuclear power. He wants less of them. But those are the very things that give us 95% of our energy!!!

We have had solar and wind tecnhology since the early 1980s. It’s not that we don’t have the technology; it’s that these technologies – and others as well – are nowhere near cost effective, efficient, or versatile enough to meet our needs. And other alternative sources are still more theoretical than practical. Are you willing to gamble your future and your children’s future on unproven theories?

T. Boone Pickens has been calling for increased wind power in his massive advertising campaign. He is also calling to drill up the whazoo and to produce more oil, more coal, and more natural gas energy even as we develop the alternative source of wind technology.

The remaining thing that Obama wants is a bunch of handouts. He wants $150 billion to go to his voters as a big government transfer payment, and he wants to have the government subsidize hybrid automobiles to the tune of $7,000 each. He also wants to add on a massive “windfall profits” tax against oil companies.

What we want is better sources of energy; what we don’t want is worse sources of energy. When government takes the decision out of the hands of the market and subsidizes something, the political intrusion very often encourages bad ideas and discourages good ones. Politicians understand special interests, political action committees, and cleverly disguised quid pro quo donations well enough; but they don’t understand the fundamentals of science, engineering, or economics. A classic example of this is corn-based ethanol. Politicians were essentially induced by campaign donations from special interests to subsidize ethanol in order to bring the price down to a level where it could compete, thereby preventing other technologies from entering the market. And now we know that using our food source as an energy source was a very bad idea.

Children are literally starving to death in some parts of the world, thanks to the Democrat-inspired effort to turn our food into fuel to avoid using oil. And it is also causing food shortages, higher costs, and hunger in the U.S. It was a terrible and immoral idea; and it was your Democrats at work.

Barack Obama wants the government to make the same fundamental mistake again and again. He is a socialist at heart, and he simply can’t trust the wisdom of the free market.

But that isn’t the end of Obama’s error of subsidizing one thing and taxing another.

When you tax something, you make it more expensive and you make it more scarce. Taxing oil companies – which already are the most heavily taxed corporate entities – amounts to penalizing them for producing the very thing we need more of. We tried windfall profits taxes during the Carter years and it was a fiasco for the same reasons it would be a fiasco today. What we need is cheaper and more abundant energy; what Obama wants to bring us is scarcer and more expensive energy.

To then offset a terribly flawed policy by underwriting it with government funding is a fool’s solution.

Obama recently said, “Breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face,” the Illinois Democrat told a supportive audience as he began a week’s focus on energy issues. “It will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy.”

Obama is just as wrong to call Americans’ need for oil an “addiction” as he would be to call our need for water, food, or clothing an addiction. The American way of life has been based on readily available oil. Obama’s slogan betrays an anti-American agenda that would dramatically alter and impoverish our way of life if implemented. He is also wrong in his lack of understanding as to what such a “complete transformation of our economy” would cost, and he is wrong for not informing the American people of the REAL costs of his policies.

On a whole host of issues that will face the next president and chief executive, we need a grown-up who can provide mature solutions. Barack obama – a pandering flip flopper who offers one bad idea after another – simply isn’t that guy.

Obama’s Absolutely Inexcusable (NON)-Energy Plan

Barack Obama had this to say the other day on July 11:

I’ve often said that the decisions we make in this election and in the next few years will set the course for the next generation. That is true of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true of our economy. And it is especially true of our energy policy.

The urgency of this challenge is clear to anyone who’s tried to fill up their tank with gas that’s now over $4 a gallon. It’s clear to the legions of scientists who believe that we are nearing a point of no return when it comes to our global climate crisis. And with each passing day, it is clear that our addiction to fossil fuels is one of the most serious threats to our national security in the 21st century.

…An even more immediate and direct security threat comes from our dependence on foreign oil. The price of a barrel of oil is now one of the most dangerous weapons in the world. Tyrants from Caracas to Tehran use it to prop up their regimes, intimidate the international community, and hold us hostage to a market that is subject to their whims. If Iran decided to shut down the petroleum-rich Strait of Hormuz tomorrow, they believe oil would skyrocket to $300-a-barrel in minutes, a price that one speculator predicted would result in $12-a-gallon gas. $12 a gallon.

The nearly $700 million a day we send to unstable or hostile nations also funds both sides of the war on terror, paying for everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the bombs that go off in Baghdad and Kabul. Our oil addiction even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda, “focus your operations on oil, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own.”

If we stay on our current course, the rapid growth of nations like China and India will rise about one-third by 2030. In that same year, Middle Eastern regimes will be sitting on 83% of our global oil reserves. Imagine that – the very source of energy that fuels nearly all of our transportation, controlled almost entirely by some of the world’s most unstable and undemocratic governments.

This is not the future I want for America. We are not a country that places our fate in the hands of dictators and tyrants – we are a nation that controls our own destiny. That’s who we are. That’s who we’ve always been. It’s what led us to wage a revolution that brought down an Empire. It’s why we built an Arsenal of Democracy to defeat Fascism, and stopped the spread of Communism with the power of our ideals. And it’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time.

Notice the last sentence. “It’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time.”

Obama doesn’t say, “the tyranny of Middle Eastern oil,” or “the tyranny of oil controlled by terrorist and totalitarian regimes.” He says, “the tyranny of oil.” Period. “Oil” is a tyrant. Hope you knew that.

Please understand the history that Barack Obama foolishly ignores even as he attempts to cite it. One of the key stratagies we used to defeat Nazi fascism was to systematically deny them the fuel they needed to keep their war machine running. Had the Nazis had adequate oil supplies, it is almost certain that they would have broken through the American lines during the Battle of the Bulge. Conversely, had the United States not had adequate oil, we would not have won the war.  Citing the defeat of fascism with cutting ourselves off from oil is historical revisionism that borders on criminal irresponsibility. Oil made us strong. Oil helped us defeat fascism.

It is with this fact in mind that I consider Obama’s last sentence, “And it’s why we must end the tyranny of oil in our time” in light of Neville Chamberlain’s now infamous “peace in our time” statement. Chamberlain has gone down in history as being the ignominous fool who actively prevented England from arming itself and standing up to the real tyranny of Adolf Hitler even as the threat of Hitler loomed ever larger and ever darker. Barack Obama is a fool in the same mold as Neville Chamberlain, because he urges the same pathetic mindset that characterized Chamberlain. Obama refuses to allow drilling to develop a stable domestic supply of what the United States absolutely needs to remain strong.

Barack obama ignores the lessons of history. And he views oil as a moral evil rather than as a vitally needed source of energy. That’s why he can run an ad like this:

SCRIPT: Announcer: “On gas prices, John McCain’s part of the problem. McCain and Bush support a drilling plan that won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years. McCain will give more tax breaks to big oil. He’s voted with Bush 95 percent of the time. Barack Obama will make energy independence an urgent priority. Raise mileage standards. Fast track technology for alternative fuels. A thousand-dollar tax cut to help families as we break the grip of foreign oil. A real plan and new energy.”

Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

You see, oil is “a tyrant” for Barack Obama. And John McCain – like that evil George Bush – support drilling. Drilling to provide the world with still more oil, and therefore still more tyranny. Barack Obama is a clever speaker, but the simple fact of the matter is that he is taking the far left position that fossil fuels – which contribute to global warming – are therefore evil and their use contributes to “tyranny.” Let me tell you what: an attitude like that may be as politically correct as the sky is blue, but it most definitely won’t fill your gas tank.

Obama acknowledges the dilemma we now find ourselves in: that of facing the prospect of $12 a gallon gasoline because of our dependence on foreign oil, the volatility of a Middle East that could erupt at any moment, and the increased global competition for dwindling supplies. [Note: I’ve already written about why we face $12 a gallon gas].

The answer to this dilemma, according to Barack Obama, is to absolutely refuse to increase our domestic oil production, and to instead wave a magic wand that will give us a powerful new alternative source of energy that will somehow meet all our needs and solve all our problems.

John McCain is “part of the problem” because he – like that George Bush – “supports a drilling plan that won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years.”

Well, a few things. First, I can not even begin to comprehend the irrationality of claiming that any attempt to increase our own oil supply – and we have massive oil potential – must not be considered as a solution to obtaining energy independence from foreign oil. Apparently as part of his plan to end “the tyranny of oil,” Barack Obama is literally in favor of preventing private corporations – using private money – from increasing our domestic oil supply while at the same time decrying our dependence on foreign oil. This is absurd. It is insane.

Second, Obama – joining a chorus of other Democrats in claiming that drilling “won’t produce a drop of oil for seven years” is equally irrational. Had people like Barack Obama gotten the heck out of the way seven years ago – instead of using the power of government to prevent drilling – we would not be where we are now. To use a criminally stupid policy that prevented us from drilling seven years ago in support of an even more criminally stupid policy to therefore not drill now is simply incredible. How on earth can everyone not see this? Had we drilled seven years ago we would have increased supplies now. If we don’t drill now, we will for a certain fact place ourselves in an even more dire situation in seven years. Period. End of story.

As a further note, oil experts say they could have some production on line in as little as one year. And many financial experts say that – to whatever extent “speculation” is driving up the price of oil – a firm commitment to increase our supplies would dramatically reduce the problem.

Third, Barack Obama is literally blaming George Bush and John McCain for attempting to do what would have worked had we only done it earlier, and would still work now but for obstructionist Democrats who have no energy plan at all.

House Democrats have literally been blocking any vote on energy at all for fear that Republicans would introduce a vote requiring domestic drilling. This is the epitome of not having a plan. (Maybe blocking any bill on energy is part of Nancy Pelosi’s brilliant “commonsense plan” that has seen the price of gas double since she began to implement it?)

Now, at this point, a liberal (I don’t use the word “progressive” because that would imply they want “progress,” when these people stand in the way of genuine progress) will probably stand up and say, “Obama DOES have an energy plan.”

Well, keep in mind that Barack Obama himself has said that he was all in favor of gas becoming more expensive; he only regretted that the price rose so steeply and thereby ignited the ire of Americans.

But let’s look at Barack Obama’s plan to solve our energy dilemma. Let’s see who is really “part of the problem.”

What is Obama proposing?

Well, he absolutely stands against increasing the amount of the stuff that fills our tanks and keeps our economy flowing.

In place of “the tyranny of oil” (and especially “the tyranny” of domestic oil), Obama proposes:

* A second, $50 billion stimulus package that would send energy rebate checks to every American.* A $1,000 middle-class tax cut that will go to 95% of all workers and their families.

* A crack down on oil speculators who may be artificially driving up the price of oil.

* A fast-track $150 billion of investment in a clean energy fund to help create the fuel-efficient cars and alternative sources of energy that will secure this nation and jumpstart a green economy.

* Doubling fuel mileage standards over the next two decades utilizing much of the technology we have on the shelf today – a step that will save this country half a trillion gallons of gasoline, the equivalent of cutting the price of a gallon of gas in half. And I will provide tax credits and loan guarantees for our automakers to help them make this transition.

* A Venture Capital Fund that will provide $50 billion over five years to get the most promising clean energy technologies out of the lab and into the marketplace.

* Requiring that 25% of U.S. electricity comes renewable sources by 2025, and that the U.S. produce two billion gallons of advanced cellulosic biofuels by 2013. (Pointedly, he says that the U.S. will “also invest in finding cleaner ways to use coal, our nation’s most abundant energy source, and safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.”

* Using the U.S. clean energy fund to invest over $1 billion a year to re-tool and modernize our factories and build the advanced technology cars, trucks and SUVs of the future.

* Calling on businesses, government, and the American people to make America 50% more energy efficient by 2030.

The first two proposals have nothing to do with energy whatsoever, apart from essentially subsidizing the frightenly high cost of gas. I enjoyed my last $300 handout from the government, and would enjoy the next one just as much. But that money in my pocket is going to have to be paid by the next generation. We do have a nearly $10 trillion national debt, and eventually this kind of debt level is going to implode this country.

As for Obama’s $150 billion investment in clean energy – which by the way would come on the backs of those evil oil companies who produce that “tyrant” substance oil (and which would drive up their costs and thereby drive up the price they charge for gasoline) – how long will it take before we’re driving happily along with cheap fuel? He ridicules drilling because it will take “seven years,” after all. Well, by his own incredibly stupid logic, let’s ridicule investment in alternative energy! It will take YEARS before we have any significant energy from such alternatives.

Keep in mind, alternatives such as ethanol (which is E-85, aka “flex fuel”) has been fool’s gold. It is incredibly expensive to produce, relies on huge government subsidies to bring the cost down to level’s that Americans are willing to pay, and has caused enormous increases in the price of our food. If that isn’t bad enough, desperately poor people around the world are literally starving for this insane government-propped “alternative fuel.”

Ethanol truly IS an “alternative”; it is an alternative to what actually works. It is an alternative to sanity.

Every other part of Obama’s plan is tantamount to an act of bowing down before the pagan idol of big government. Private enterprise is irrelevant for Barack Obama, other than the fact that they are obstacles in the way, who must be forced by the government in order to do what is right and good as decreed by the standards of political correctness.

The idea of getting out of the way and allowing the private sector to produce the innovations we need is shockingly absent from Obama’s plan. Instead, the private sector is “required” to do one thing, and “called on” to do another.

Keep in mind, Democrats in the Senate couldn’t even run a freakin’ cafeteria without running it into the ground.

And how much energy will Obama’s plan actually produce? What kind of energy? How much will it cost?

This isn’t an energy plan. It is a typical liberal NON-energy plan from a typical liberal politician.

It’s not lack of government money that has prevented nuclear power and clean coal-burning technology, it’s been Democrats and their innumerable laws, restrictions, and regulations. Private money would flood in if Democrat’s would quit imposing one burden after another upon energy providers and let them produce energy.

We don’t have nuclear power because liberals and environmentalist foolishly despised it and demonized it twenty years ago. We don’t have it because Democrats have imposed so many hurdles, so many regulations, so many restrictions, so many environmental studies, so much bureaucracy and so much red tape, that it has been unprofitable – and even impossible – to build a nuclear power plant (or, for that matter, an oil refinery).

Barack Obama went to Las Vegas and had this to say:

Under the bleach-bright Las Vegas summer sun, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday checked out the solar panels that shade cars in the parking lot of the Springs Preserve while powering the facility.

“What we are seeing here … is that the green, renewable energy economy is not some far-off, pie-in-the-sky future,” Obama said in a speech at the local nature attraction. “It is now. It’s creating jobs now. It is providing cheap alternatives to $140-a-barrel oil now. And it can create millions of additional jobs, entire industries, if we act now.”

Really? How much? What’s it going to cost? Will it keep my car running?

Keep in mind, liberals recently blocked a massive solar panal plan on federal land. They have blocked wind mills. Ted Kennedy has personally done everything he could to block a wind farm in Massachusetts. They have blocked nuclear power for decades.

But the problem with alternative energy isn’t just obstructionist Democrats. It goes far, far deeper.

Obama went to Las Vegas to sing Kumbaya to solar energy. So let’s look at solar energy:

Can renewable energy make a dent in fossil fuels?

4.2 billion. [Emphasis mine]

That’s how many rooftops you’d have to cover with solar panels to displace a cubic mile of oil (CMO), a measure of energy consumption, according to Ripudaman Malhotra, who oversees research on fossil fuels at SRI International. The electricity captured in those hypothetical solar panels in a year (2.1 kilowatts each) would roughly equal the energy in a CMO. The world consumes a little over 1 CMO of oil a year right now and about 3 CMOs of energy from all sources.

Put another way, we’d need to equip 250,000 roofs a day with solar panels for the next 50 years to have enough photovoltaic infrastructure to provide the world with a CMO’s worth of solar-generated electricity for a year. We’re nowhere close to that pace.

Great googley moogley! That’s a whole bunch of solar panels. Particularly with liberals blocking the ones we’re trying to build now. Clearly, solar energy won’t even scratch the surface of providing a real solution to oil.

Well, beyond solar energy, there’s also wind power. And Obama talked about nuclear power, too. Could they provide us with a real alternative to oil? Not even close:

But don’t blame the solar industry. You’d also have to erect a 900-megawatt nuclear power plant every week for 50 years to get enough plants (2,500) to produce the same energy in a year to equal a CMO. Wind power? You need 3 million for a CMO, or 1,200 a week planted in the ground over the next 50 years. Demand for power also continues to escalate with economic development in the emerging world.

“In 30 years we will need six CMOs, so where are we going to get that?” Malhotra said. “I’m trying to communicate the scale of the problem.”

The article above, by Michael Kanellos, has a neat little pie chart for you “a picture’s worth a thousand words” types:

The problem is that abandoning the use of oil and then relying on the “alternative” solutions that we currently have is analogous to draining all the oceans dry and then trying to refill them by spitting. And there just aint enough spit to make a hill-of-beans’ worth of difference. And there aint enough “alternative energy.”

Michael J. Economides, writing for China Daily, says in an article titled, “Fossil fuels still the best,” writes:

Of the world energy demand 87 percent comes from fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal. This fraction has not changed much since the 1970s and the first “energy crisis”, while energy demand has more than doubled.

By almost everybody’s estimates by the year 2030, the total world demand will increase by 50 percent and oil, gas and coal will still provide 87 percent of the world energy. The reason we use them is not because of some evil conspiracy headed by a dark knight. We use them because they are the easiest, most flexible, most reliable and most efficient forms of energy.

Biofuels as done today, cause a negative energy balance not even considering their impact on food prices. I have no aversion to wind or solar. I love the sun, I am Greek. But they are eminently unreliable and, even in their best case, without government subsidies, they make $200 to $2000 oil still attractive. It is that simple.

But here is how we are ridiculous in the developed world and it would have been funny had we not run the danger of committing societal hara-kiri. We have let dazed environmentalism of the most outrageous variety put on a tie and become mainstream, dominate the covers of national newsmagazines and, predictably as of late, earn Oscars, Emmys and Nobels.

There are no alternatives to fossil fuels for decades and the transition will be long and painful. Nothing will happen overnight. We will continue to be a fossil fuel-dependent economy for the foreseeable future.

We desperately need oil. But Barack Obama stands in the way of obtaining the oil we need. We can not possibly maintain any semblance of the lifestyle that we have come to enjoy without oil. Ergo sum, Barack Obama is a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

And Barack Obama, due to the brand of pure foolishness he shares with his fellow Democrats, requires the United states remain completely dependent on foreign oil – and Middle Eastern oil – for decades to come. Ergo sum, Obama is a clear and present danger to our security.

In concluding, let me state that I am a religious person, and I believe that God gave us oil for a reason. I also believe that He gave us more than enough to meet our needs.

I am in favor of genuine, practical, clean alternatives to oil. I am in favor of providing tax breaks to ALL current and potential producers and suppliers of energy – including oil companies (in order to develop shale oil technology, clean coal technology, etc.). I believe that we will find the solutions that we need in a timely manner if we act wisely.

But demonizing the oil that sustains us, and pursuing a liberal-socialist radical environmentalist agenda that literally keeps us in the dark is not wisdom. It is in fact the very worst kind of foolishness.

See my other articles on Democrats and their obstruction to our energy supply:

Democrat’s ‘Commonsense Plan’ Revealed: Let’s Nationalize the Oil Industry

Blame Democrats for Sky-High Gas Prices

Democrats Block US Energy Independence, Send Gas Prices Soaring

Democrat’s Ideological Stand Against Domestic Oil Terrible for US Economy & Security

If You Want $12 A Gallon Gas, Vote for Obama and Democrats

My articles on the pseudo-menace of global warming:

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

Blame Democrats for Sky-high Gas Prices

Let us not forget that we are two years into the “commonsense plan” announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority’s failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

She placed the blame for previous “high” prices (dang, they sure don’t seem so high now, do they?) on “President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric.” And she promised that we Democrats have the solution.” She blamed Republicans for the past, and put the responsibility squarely on her party for the future.

And just what has happened since the Democrat’s “commonsense plan” went into effect?

On January 21, 2007, just after the Democrats took over the Congress, the national average price per gallon of regular self serve gas was $2.18 per gallon. As of June 20, 2008 it was $4.075 a gallon.

That’s one great plan you’ve got there, Nancy.

You put that pretty dress of demagoguery on, Democrats. Now you wear the damn thing.

“Commonsense” and “Democrat” are antonyms. And Nancy Pelosi’s phrase, “Democrats have a commonsense plan” is an oxymoron. Maybe by the time gas tops $5 a gallon, enough Americans will recognize this.

Of course, Democrats – who are only good at blaming others for their messes – are still blaming everyone but themselves.

One of the dogs they are riding now are “oil futures” and “speculation.”

A brief explanation of futures contracts and oil prices has this:

A futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell a quantity of a product at a set price and date in the future. The New York Mercantile Exchange began trading oil futures in nineteen eighty-three.

Futures markets now largely set the price of oil. Yet these contracts rarely involve an exchange of real barrels of oil. Most oil is traded on what is called the spot market or through other contracts between producers and users. The prices, however, are usually based on futures prices.

Doug MacIntyre is senior oil analyst with the United States Energy Information Administration. He notes that the position of the government is that market forces of supply and demand are driving today’s high oil prices. But he also notes that more money has been going into futures.

This money can be from oil producers and users. But it also comes from banks, big investors called hedge funds and speculators with no need for oil. Speculators try to guess the direction a market will go; in some cases they profit when prices drop.

Realize for a second that it’s not “big oil” driving up the prices: it’s employee unions, banks, investment portfolios, retirement funds, and the like.

For the sake of (absurd) argument, let’s say that Democrats are completely right, and that supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of gasoline. The question becomes, why has the price of gas risen $1.90 a gallon? Why has it increased a whopping 86.93% since the Democrats took over the Congress?

Let’s see, if I were going to gamble on whether the cost of something would go up, would it occur to me that a party coming into power that promised that they would tax the hell out of an industry, hit them with “excess profit” fines, regulate the hell out of them, push all kinds of environmental restrictions on them, and keep them from increasing their domestic supply of product, tell me that the cost would A) go up or B) go down?

If you picked B, you are intelligent enough to invest in the market and earn a profit; if you selected A, you are stupid enough to vote Democrat, and to believe their stupid oxymoronic slogans.

Now, if Democrats like Maxine Waters (who said during one of those Democrat communist show trials of oil company executives), “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um … “Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …” get their way and we go the way of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, what do you think the speculators will “speculate” about the price of gasoline?

The show trials – and the shrill cries to socialize (or nationalize) the oil industry – are all part of another component of the Democrat’s “commonsense plan” to demagogue and demonize the oil industry instead of actually providing more energy.

Nancy Pelosi’s “increasing production of alternative fuels” has sent the corn commodities market sky high (hey, you can blame speculators for that market, too!). We are taking food off our tables and – by an expensive process that ends up producing less energy than it takes to produce it – providing ethanol. There’s some oxymoronic “commonsense” for you!

John F. Wasik puts it this way:

The U.S., in its quest to reduce its reliance on expensive imported oil, may soon consume as much as half its domestic corn crop for fuel production, though the economic benefits have yet to materialize. Ethanol produces one-third less energy than a gallon of gasoline at an average wholesale cost of 33 percent more, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office study….

The other byproduct of the ethanol obsession is more-expensive food. Higher corn prices have boosted the cost of producing beef, poultry and thousands of processed products.

Food prices have climbed an average of $47 per person due to the ethanol surge since last July, according to an Iowa State University study published in May; corn futures reached a 10-year high of $4.28 a bushel in February. All told, ethanol has cost Americans an additional $14 billion in higher food prices.

These increases have also pushed up sugar prices, which rose to a three-month high in New York on July 18 on speculation that demand for the commodity will strengthen to help produce ethanol, an alternative to oil. Brazil is the largest sugar grower.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has yet to discover whether its 51-cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy is efficiently stimulating production of the fuel. One thing the bureaucrats know for sure: It cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 billion last year with possibly more subsidies on the way.

That article is nearly a year old, now. The corn-ethanol lunacy has gotten much worse since then, and will get worse yet. You can wear the stupidity over your “alternative fuels” too, Speaker Nancy.

Nancy Pelosi is the new postmodern version of Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat ethanol.”

Or, hey! More windmills! That’ll keep your car running! Anything, anything but increased production of the one thing that actually fills your tank. That’s “the commonsense plan.”

I like the way Steve Gill put it:

The Democrats have pursued a clear energy policy since capturing control of
the Congress. First, increase taxes on the oil companies, which increases
the price at the pump. Second, prevent access to new oil sources by
continuing to ban exploration and drilling, which restricts supply and
increases the price at the pump. And finally, increase regulation and
bureaucratic red-tape imposed on the oil industry in order to satisfy the
demands of environmentalists, which increases the price at the pump.
Contrary to their campaign promises, Democrats have done virtually
everything they can do to raise the price of gasoline for U.S. drivers.and
their plan has worked to perfection. The only question is why they aren’t
doing more to take credit for the success of their plan?

Frankly, it’s up to us to make sure the Democrats take their fair share of “credit.”