When your children are hungry do you ever contemplate trying to convince them that you've no food to give them although your pantry is full of peanut, jelly, cereals, and potato chips? If you were to try this, isn’t there a good chance that they’d look through the crack between the pantry doors and see the food inside and wonder why you were determined to keep it from them?
Think of the look of consternation on their faces as their hunger grew while you stood between them and the pantry, continuing your spiel about the pantry being empty. (Think of how angry you’d feel if you found out your child’s baby-sitter was doing them this way.) Reality itself would seem interrupted in the child’s mind as he looked at the food yet was simultaneously told it was not there. As bewildering as this scenario sounds, it is no more bizarre than the one which has unfolded as Democrats, who want quasi-paternal positions in our lives, have taken a position between us and the oil we know is there, and the oil we need for ourselves and our economy.
Speaking at the Democrat convention on August 26, 2008, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer told his listeners, all of whom had driven cars or trucks or flown in planes or ridden in trains to get to Denver, that “Barrack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use.” Sounding more like T. Boone Pickens than a rational human, Schweitzer advised us to “invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in clean, renewable energy technology,” promising us “up to 5 million new, green jobs [to] fuel long-term growth and prosperity.” I’m always amazed at how the Democrats can tell you down to the half-penny how many dollars we’ve spent fighting “another Vietnam” in Iraq, but they’ve no qualms about standing between us and the oil we need today while throwing $150 billion toward answers that may not work tomorrow.
Schweitzer rests in the hope that Obama “will also invest in a modern transmission grid to deliver this new, clean electricity from wind turbines and solar panels to homes, offices and the batteries in America's new plug-in hybrid cars.” This is the stuff of make believe and fairy tales; of magic beanstalk beans and houses made of gingerbread.
And just as a young child lacks the lucidity to ask himself how Santa Claus came down the chimney when their house doesn’t have a chimney, so too Schweitzer lacks the clarity of thought necessary to analyze why he is asking us to trade a certain and readily available fuel source (oil) for a new form of fuel (wind power) which is only new in the U.S. (and which has already proven unreliable in the U.K.., where it has been in use for some time).
Then again, maybe he knows exactly what he’s saying -- maybe he’s an ideologue like Obama and therefore does not believe in letting a few facts get it the way of an applause line or a socialist idea.
Keep in mind that Schweitzer gave this speech in Denver, which means that when he spoke he was literally standing but miles away from some of the largest petroleum finds in the world; including the the shale deposits in the Uinta Basin, the Piceance Creek Basin, and the Green River Basin. Much of this shale is still locked in the “prospective” stages because Democrats such as Obama and Pelosi will not allow oil companies to go after the petroleum there. (Do you ever get the feeling we’re the hungry little kids and the bully-like Democrats are the parental figures barring us from the pantry?)
And Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s DNC speech should have reminded us that Democrats -- a.k.a. the saboteurs of real energy independence -- have no intention of ever letting us into the pantry. Rendell was unapologetic when he called voters to support Obama so the U.S. can finally “end the age of oil.”
As Rendell blabbed, I saw a man who wouldn’t have a prayer of getting elected in the south, where we still understand the “complexities” of things like balancing a checkbook and taking into account the price of something before we buy it. Therefore, unlike the plethora of half-wits who spoke against oil at the DNC convention, we actually think about how expensive the Democrat’s energy policy will be for the “common man.” (You remember the “common man”? That’s the guy Democrats aboard private jets, who road in chauffeured limousines from the Denver airport to their hotel rooms for the convention, claim to be fighting for.)
Have Rendell & Company given the slightest thought to the unbearable pressure common men are likely to feel if they are forced to hurriedly sell their SUVs or pick-ups so they can immediately turn around and buy a hybrid? Has he thought of how nearly intolerable the common man’s struggle might become when he can’t even trade in his SUV or pick-up, because car dealerships will not want gasoline powered vehicles on their lots after Rendell & Company “end the age of oil.”
But there’s more -- even prospective hybrid owners are being sold a bill of goods by these well-practiced falsifiers. Snake oil salesmen like Schweitzer, who described “hybrid cars” as part of tomorrow’s hope, have apparently failed to grasp what “hybrid” means. In almost any application it refers to one thing that runs on (or results from) two; and in Schweitzer’s quote it refers to cars that run on electricity and gasoline. Let me ask the obvious question: What will hybrid vehicles run on when Rendell & Company “end the age of oil”? My guess is that neither Obama nor Rendell & Company can tell us.
And if the past actions of Democrats are indicative of future behavior, when they succeed in “[ending] the age of oil” and therefore the availability of gasoline, hybrid owners will become the new “great Satan” for the Democrat’s environmental movement.
The sheer idiocy of proposing an America without oil is only compounded by the incongruent evident in Democrat energy promises both at the convention and in the weeks leading up to it. Keep in mind that it was less than a month ago (the weekend of August 2-3 to be exact) when Obama’s campaign said he would support a “limited” and “reasonable” expansion of off-shore drilling. Who’s in charge here -- Obama, who supported a “limited” and “reasonable” expansion of drilling weeks ago or Rendell & Company, who believe that “the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use”?
The answer to this perplexing question is simple: No one is in charge. Currently, the Democrat Party is in flux, and slowly realizing that their nominee is in trouble. The situation they face now is similar to the one a puppeteer faces when a 6 year old child spies the strings on the puppet’s arms and realizes it’s all a charade.
Up till the convention, the Democrats have simply said what they thought the American people wanted to hear but now, intoxicated by the applause of the side-show-like attractions that constitute their convention, they have tried to grasp their moment on the cosmic stage by telling us that they are going to continue to deny us the fuel we need to power our cars and our economy.
They need to get out of the way. They are nothing less than enemies of self-reliance and a barrier to the goods in our national pantry.
Think of the look of consternation on their faces as their hunger grew while you stood between them and the pantry, continuing your spiel about the pantry being empty. (Think of how angry you’d feel if you found out your child’s baby-sitter was doing them this way.) Reality itself would seem interrupted in the child’s mind as he looked at the food yet was simultaneously told it was not there. As bewildering as this scenario sounds, it is no more bizarre than the one which has unfolded as Democrats, who want quasi-paternal positions in our lives, have taken a position between us and the oil we know is there, and the oil we need for ourselves and our economy.
Speaking at the Democrat convention on August 26, 2008, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer told his listeners, all of whom had driven cars or trucks or flown in planes or ridden in trains to get to Denver, that “Barrack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use.” Sounding more like T. Boone Pickens than a rational human, Schweitzer advised us to “invest $150 billion over the next 10 years in clean, renewable energy technology,” promising us “up to 5 million new, green jobs [to] fuel long-term growth and prosperity.” I’m always amazed at how the Democrats can tell you down to the half-penny how many dollars we’ve spent fighting “another Vietnam” in Iraq, but they’ve no qualms about standing between us and the oil we need today while throwing $150 billion toward answers that may not work tomorrow.
Schweitzer rests in the hope that Obama “will also invest in a modern transmission grid to deliver this new, clean electricity from wind turbines and solar panels to homes, offices and the batteries in America's new plug-in hybrid cars.” This is the stuff of make believe and fairy tales; of magic beanstalk beans and houses made of gingerbread.
And just as a young child lacks the lucidity to ask himself how Santa Claus came down the chimney when their house doesn’t have a chimney, so too Schweitzer lacks the clarity of thought necessary to analyze why he is asking us to trade a certain and readily available fuel source (oil) for a new form of fuel (wind power) which is only new in the U.S. (and which has already proven unreliable in the U.K.., where it has been in use for some time).
Then again, maybe he knows exactly what he’s saying -- maybe he’s an ideologue like Obama and therefore does not believe in letting a few facts get it the way of an applause line or a socialist idea.
Keep in mind that Schweitzer gave this speech in Denver, which means that when he spoke he was literally standing but miles away from some of the largest petroleum finds in the world; including the the shale deposits in the Uinta Basin, the Piceance Creek Basin, and the Green River Basin. Much of this shale is still locked in the “prospective” stages because Democrats such as Obama and Pelosi will not allow oil companies to go after the petroleum there. (Do you ever get the feeling we’re the hungry little kids and the bully-like Democrats are the parental figures barring us from the pantry?)
And Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s DNC speech should have reminded us that Democrats -- a.k.a. the saboteurs of real energy independence -- have no intention of ever letting us into the pantry. Rendell was unapologetic when he called voters to support Obama so the U.S. can finally “end the age of oil.”
As Rendell blabbed, I saw a man who wouldn’t have a prayer of getting elected in the south, where we still understand the “complexities” of things like balancing a checkbook and taking into account the price of something before we buy it. Therefore, unlike the plethora of half-wits who spoke against oil at the DNC convention, we actually think about how expensive the Democrat’s energy policy will be for the “common man.” (You remember the “common man”? That’s the guy Democrats aboard private jets, who road in chauffeured limousines from the Denver airport to their hotel rooms for the convention, claim to be fighting for.)
Have Rendell & Company given the slightest thought to the unbearable pressure common men are likely to feel if they are forced to hurriedly sell their SUVs or pick-ups so they can immediately turn around and buy a hybrid? Has he thought of how nearly intolerable the common man’s struggle might become when he can’t even trade in his SUV or pick-up, because car dealerships will not want gasoline powered vehicles on their lots after Rendell & Company “end the age of oil.”
But there’s more -- even prospective hybrid owners are being sold a bill of goods by these well-practiced falsifiers. Snake oil salesmen like Schweitzer, who described “hybrid cars” as part of tomorrow’s hope, have apparently failed to grasp what “hybrid” means. In almost any application it refers to one thing that runs on (or results from) two; and in Schweitzer’s quote it refers to cars that run on electricity and gasoline. Let me ask the obvious question: What will hybrid vehicles run on when Rendell & Company “end the age of oil”? My guess is that neither Obama nor Rendell & Company can tell us.
And if the past actions of Democrats are indicative of future behavior, when they succeed in “[ending] the age of oil” and therefore the availability of gasoline, hybrid owners will become the new “great Satan” for the Democrat’s environmental movement.
The sheer idiocy of proposing an America without oil is only compounded by the incongruent evident in Democrat energy promises both at the convention and in the weeks leading up to it. Keep in mind that it was less than a month ago (the weekend of August 2-3 to be exact) when Obama’s campaign said he would support a “limited” and “reasonable” expansion of off-shore drilling. Who’s in charge here -- Obama, who supported a “limited” and “reasonable” expansion of drilling weeks ago or Rendell & Company, who believe that “the most important barrel of oil is the one you don’t use”?
The answer to this perplexing question is simple: No one is in charge. Currently, the Democrat Party is in flux, and slowly realizing that their nominee is in trouble. The situation they face now is similar to the one a puppeteer faces when a 6 year old child spies the strings on the puppet’s arms and realizes it’s all a charade.
Up till the convention, the Democrats have simply said what they thought the American people wanted to hear but now, intoxicated by the applause of the side-show-like attractions that constitute their convention, they have tried to grasp their moment on the cosmic stage by telling us that they are going to continue to deny us the fuel we need to power our cars and our economy.
They need to get out of the way. They are nothing less than enemies of self-reliance and a barrier to the goods in our national pantry.
HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.
Reader Comments: ()
| Share Your Comment | ||
Please remember the opinions expressed by our readers are in no way those of Human Events, nor are they condoned by us, and we reserve the right to remove abusive posts.