Gas prices: Democrats think we’re idiots

April 24, 2011

You may have noticed that gas prices have gone in recent months — 30 cents per gallon on average in the last month alone. Since rising gas prices tend to hurt the party in power, the Democrats have decided the answer is not to do what it takes to bring prices down, but launch a witch hunt. Connecticut’s Senator Richard Blumenthal (D)(1) has gone so far as to suggest a grand jury:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on Sunday called for an aggressive federal probe – including a possible grand jury – into whether rising gasoline prices stem from illegal manipulation of energy markets.

President Obama and the Justice Department last week announced a multi-agency task force to explore whether there is price manipulation or fraud afoot, and the role of speculative trading in energy futures.

Blumenthal, Connecticut’s former attorney general, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that federal officials need to play hardball.

“I commend and applaud the president for focusing on this issue but I think there really needs to be an investigation involving, for example, subpoenas and compulsory process which I used as attorney general in similar investigations. There needs to be very possibly a grand jury to uncover the potential wrongdoing,” said Blumenthal, who was elected to the Senate last year.

“The Justice Department should take the lead, seize this moment and send a message, a very strong deterrent message that this country will not tolerate the kind of illegal speculation and trading and hedge fund activity that may be driving prices up,” he added.

I’ve often said that to be a liberal Democrat or progressive requires one to surrender any knowledge of basic economics and embrace ignorance, but I don’t think Blumenthal is ignorant, here. Rather, as gas prices approach $5 per gallon in some parts of the country, Democrats, and Blumenthal is just the latest example of Democratic demagoguery on this, have resorted to blaming witchcraft greedy oil companies and wealthy people(2), because they dare not admit as we head into election season that, in accordance with immutable economic laws(3), their own policies have largely contributed to the rise, thus making the voting public miserable and likely to take it out on Democrats.

Let’s review:

First, several of the major world suppliers of oil (aka The Middle East and North Africa) are undergoing a period of turmoil and revolt that makes oil supplies uncertain. This potential for disrupted supply means that buyers (us included) have to pay more to compete for oil from other areas, because of the greater demand.

On top of that, thanks to the Luddites of the environmental movement, the United States has failed to extract enough of its own oil and refine its own gas to keep up with its needs, thus meaning we need to buy more on the open market, further driving up prices.

This is something called “supply and demand,” a law the Democrats just hate, because it makes them face the consequences of their actions, such as:

  • A deliberate policy of seeking gas prices that match the obscene amounts charged in Europe.
  • A “permitorium” meant to block almost any new exploration and drilling off our coasts or on land, even in defiance of a federal judge’s order, while at the same time driving up the cost of doing what business is allowed — or even when doing nothing.

These and other administration actions —deliberate choices done in full knowledge of what will happen– drive up the price of fuel for all of us. The Democrats know this and they know the public will get angry and thus hammer them on Election Day because of it.

Hence the appearance of tools and flunkies like Blumenthal on the talk-show circuit, trying to distract us by blaming corporations, “speculators,” and price gougers for a problem they themselves set in motion. They’ve taken their lead from Obama and, dagnabbit, they’re going to follow it right off that electoral cliff.

Go ahead, guys, treat us as if we’re ignorant rubes, and then the adults can clean up your mess when they take charge in 2013.

TANGENTS:

(1) As if we’re supposed to trust a guy who lied about his service in Vietnam.

(2)I wonder if this includes the wealthy who paid $38,000 per seat at Obama’s recent fundraiser?

(3)Liberals and other Leftists just hate these things, because they’re mean and make them face reality.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Congress, Obama renew Patriot Act

February 28, 2010

Funny, I thought this was another of the evil BushChimpHitler’s attempts to destroy our civil liberties by playing on our racist fears. Yet the enlightened progressives who now govern the nation renewed it without any changes:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

Back then, the Left was screaming as if the Patriot Act had authorized an American Gestapo; I can recall the American Library Association practically wetting itself in hysteria over a provision that allowed the government to subpoena records, something that civil lawyers have been able to do for ages. That and other provisions of the Patriot Act that constituted reasonable measures in a time of war and terrorism became the focus of endless political demagoguery and histrionics.

So, its reauthorization has lead to similar protests, right? No. As Susan Anne Hiller points out at the article linked at the top, the mainstream media and the Left (but I repeat myself) are dead silent:

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

(…)

The Democrats had the numbers to make changes, but another civil war would have ensued.  In addition, it appears that when these controversial legislative pieces are passed by the Democrats, it makes it all better.  No more outrage from the MSM and the far-left, because the rules of war and engagement are clearly different because, you know, the Democrats are in charge.

In other words, “that was then, this is now.”

Waiting


A diminished, petty President

January 28, 2010

I was out last night and so missed President Obama’s State of the Union address. Thus, it wasn’t until late last night that I learned to my shock that he had directly criticized the Supreme Court over its decision in Citizens United (PDF) in front of a joint session of Congress (and the entire nation), with the Justices present. This is what Obama said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

The Justices sat stony-faced while the Democrats stood to cheer, other than for Justice Alito, who shook his head and said “not true:”

It was an unprecedented humiliation for the Court to be called out like that in such a venue, a fit of pique beneath the dignity of a Chief of State. It was also, in my opinion, an indirect but substantial attack on the First Amendment, the provisions of which the Court had reaffirmed and defended in Citizens United. But, anyone who’s been paying attention knows Obama has a problem with free speech.

And the hypocrisy was breathtaking. The Obama campaign had accepted tens of thousands of dollars  in foreign and otherwise illegal campaign donations during the last presidential election cycle. To complain that the Supreme Court had now opened the doors to “foreign entities” should have provoked derisive laughter, not applause.

I was going to write a long rant about how dumb the President’s statement was, but William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection covers the ground much better than I:

The attack on the Supreme Court during the State of the Union was a window into Obama’s divisive soul. I have posted numerous times before about Obama’s need to identify and campaign against enemies. He did it during the campaign and he does it every day in office.

Last night it was (mostly) the bankers and Wall Street (which donated more money to his campaign than to Republicans) and the Senate Republicans who were his target. But it those were the only attacks, it would have been merely another typical political speech.

The attack on the Supreme Court exposes the intolerance of this President. The politician who campaigned and allegedly champions the rule of law actually has very little use for the rule of law when it does not advance his political agenda.

Read the whole thing and follow the links. It will be well-worth your time.

Is it 2012, yet?  Sigh

RELATED: Alito’s “Not True” Moment at Reason; Fausta, who provides quotes about why Obama was wrong and demagogic; neo-neocon; and Hot Air. Obi’s Sister calls the whole speech a FAIL.

UPDATE: The quote that summarizes it all:

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

How about both?