Tag Archives: Hypocrisy

Gas Price Hypocrisy. You Can’t Make This Stuff Up!

1 Mar


I learned long ago that the media is not interested in credibility.  They criticized President Bush every single time the unemployment rate jumped and the gas price spiked.  They now give Obama a pass for exactly the same thing.    It does not matter to them that they look like complete fools in the process.  They ran story after story about the perils of unemployment and rising gas prices when Bush was President.  Now, with unemployment much higher and gas prices that have doubled since Obama took office, they do stories about the advantages of these once perilous things.  For example, back in 2009, the LA Times had probably the most embarrassing news story that I’ve ever read.  The focus of the story was the “funemployed.”  Funemployed!  Can you imagine any news outlet running a story about how much fun people were having while being unemployed while Bush was President?   Here are a few gems from the article:

  • Michael Van Gorkom was laid off by Yahoo in late April. He didn’t panic. He didn’t rush off to a therapist. Instead, the 33-year-old Santa Monica resident discovered that being jobless “kind of settled nicely”…
  • Every week since: “I’m going to go to the beach and enjoy some margaritas”…
  • What most people would call unemployment, Van Gorkom embraced as “funemployment”…
  • While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. These happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s…
  • They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they’re content living for today…
  • “I feel like I’ve been given a gift of time and clarity,” said Aubrey Howell, 29, of Franklin, Tenn., who was laid off from her job as a tea shop manager in April. After sleeping in late and visiting family in Florida, she recently mused on Twitter: “Unemployment or funemployment?”…
  • “Funemployment road trip to Portland.” “Funemployment is great for catching up on reading!” “Averaging 3 rounds of golf a week plus hockey and bball. who needs work?”…

Is that not the most ridiculous thing that you’ve ever read?  Particularly after what we saw from the media during the Bush Presidency?

Now back to gas prices.  This video is a good compilation of Democrats and the Democrat Media in their own words.  Don’t let the short beginning discourage you…it is only :30 long.  It is worth it.  The hypocrisy is staggering.




Obama ’08: $4 a Gallon Gas Prices Due to Failed Energy Policies

22 Feb


Obama 2012:  High gas prices are a sign of “progress.”  When you read this, think about the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars that have been wasted on now bankrupt solar companies by the Obama administration that were supposedly the “future” of energy in our country.

When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.”

Already, pump prices are higher than they’ve been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

“Progress” isn’t exactly how Obama described the country’s energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of “Washington’s failure to lead on energy,” which was “turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans.”

In August that year, he declared rising energy costs to be “one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced” and that gas prices “are wiping out paychecks and straining businesses.”

When President Bush announced plans in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, Obama dismissed it, saying “it would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years.”

“Offshore drilling,” he said, “would not lower gas prices today, it would not lower gas prices next year and it would not lower gas prices five years from now.”

In a big energy speech he gave in August 2008, Obama argued that “if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only 3% of the world’s oil reserves.”

And while in office, Obama’s done everything he can to limit production — slow-walking offshore permits, killing the Keystone XL pipeline, making it even harder to get oil out of federal lands.

Instead of aggressively expanding oil production, he offered a set of ridiculous alternatives — hugely wasteful “green” energy subsidies, a call for a million electric cars by 2014 and costly fuel economy mandates that won’t make a dent in consumption for decades.

With gas prices up 93% since Obama took office, we’re seeing just how well this approach works.

Remember When High Gas Prices Were a Bad Thing?

21 Feb


The Washington Post has a story today on the national average for a gallon of gasoline, which is currently $3.57.  That is basically double what it was when Obama took office, according to Politifact.  I wonder why the media and Democrats are not making a bigger deal out of this?  It used to be a terrible thing.  Right?  Remember when Nancy Pelosi attacked President Bush for high gas prices?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wrapped up her San Francisco holiday weekend Monday with a blast at President Bush. The topic — the price of oil. Gasoline has more than doubled since the Bush administration took office she says.

San Francisco’s Meals on Wheels turns out more than 1,300 meals a day to seniors. But now there has been a dramatic rise in expenses.

“Our costs have gone up 40 percent, but even more so, the indirect costs of driving food costs is really taking a big hit on us. Almost a nine percent increase in food costs in just one year,” says Ashley McCumber of Meals on Wheels.

Rising gas prices affect groups like the Boys and Girls Club that is cutting programs to save costs, a small businessman who finds himself being priced out of competition or a caregiver who can’t afford gas to get to clients.

And for other Meals on Wheels programs around the bay, hikes in fuel costs have meant fewer deliveries. They can’t find volunteers who can afford to fill their tanks.

I guess that high gas prices no longer adversely affect:

*the San Franscisco Meals on Wheels program

*the price of food

*groups like the Boys and Girls Club that is cutting programs to save costs

*a small businessman who finds himself being priced out of competition

*or a caregiver who can’t afford gas to get to clients

Nope.  Magically, none of those are affected by the high price of gas now!  Isn’t it great?!

In the past, we were told that the “two oil men in the Whit House” were the reason for high gas prices.  What is their excuse now?



“The Higher a Monkey Climbs on a Pole, the More You Can See His Butt”

15 Dec


A few days ago, senior Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod was speaking to reporters about Newt Gingrich and said this:

“just remember the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt.’ So, you know, the Speaker is very high on the pole right now and we’ll see how people like the view”

Axelrod then turned his criticism to Mitt Romney:

“What was startling to me [about the $10,000 bet in Saturday’s debate] was that generally his practice has been to bet other people’s money, not his own”

Is this guy serious?  “Other people’s money, not his own”?  This coming from a guy, who belongs to a party, whose sole goal in life is to get as much of other people’s money as possible so that they can give it away to their friends and campaign donors.  Every single thing that Democrats do is with other people’s money.  You know, things like the failed solar company Solyndra. That sort of thing.  With Solyndra, all of Obama’s friends made out like bandits.  His friends that ran Solyndra got $535 million in taxpayer dollars and the law firm that represented them was paid $2.4 million (also taxpayer dollars) by Solyndra.  That law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati are major donors to the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.

I wonder if that is what David Axelrod means by betting with “other people’s money”?

Also, I wonder what the reaction would be from David Axelrod, Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Sharpton, and the entire Democrat media if Mitt Romney’s or Newt Gingrich’s senior campaign strategist said this about Obama:

“Just remember, the higher a monkey climbs on a pole, the more you can see his butt.  So, the speaker is very high on the pole right now and we’ll see how people like the view.”

I’m sure that there would be no problem and that they all would understand what was meant by the comment.



Unions require photo ID for elections; Democrats want no photo ID for state and national elections

13 Dec

Isn’t this picture great?  Union members are required to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote in elections like in the recent shakedown of Boeing.

We always hear how unfair and racist it is to ask that Americans show a photo ID before being allowed to vote in state and national elections.  Democrats have been outraged at any attempt to implement voter-ID laws across the country for years.  Attorney General Eric Holder is even giving a speech today in Texas supporting the rejection of voter-ID laws.  The NAACP is showing their strong opposition to voter-ID laws by taking the matter to the U.N. (for some reason) calling it “a tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote.”

From Newsbusters:

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has given 99% of its campaign money to Democrats (according to ElectionLawCenter.com, citing OpenSecrets.org).

Yet the IAM in the instance photographed required a photo ID of all who wished to vote in a contract ratification election. From the looks of the professionally made sign, the photo-ID requirement in the union’s elections would appear to be far from an isolated instance. Gosh, I wonder why?

Doug Ross nails it:

In America, one needs an ID to vote in a union election, buy liquor, drive a car, board an airplane, use a credit card and a slew of other things in our society. Yet, the Democratic party refuses to back the idea of requiring an ID to vote in state and federal elections under any circumstances. A sensible voter ID law that respects the rights of the poor, elderly, and minorities is a great idea. What are Democrats afraid of? You connect the dots.

Is it possible for Democrats to be bigger hypocrites?

“Fannie & Freddie Bonuses: Stunning Silence from President Obama”

16 Nov




Perfect example of why you should not take Obama, Democrats or OWS seriously

14 Nov


Hey, remember when it was an outrage to Obama that AIG paid out $121 million in bonuses to its executives in 2009 after receiving a taxpayer-funded bailout?  Ah, the good ‘ole days!  Back then Obama stated “this is not just a matter of dollars and cents, it’s about our fundamental values.”  Democrat Barney Frank wasn’t too excited about it either.  Obama even made sure to remind the bankers at one meeting at the White House that “my administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Yep, Obama and Democrats won’t stand for paying out millions in bonuses to executives of companies that received taxpayer-funded bailouts…their “fundamental values” won’t allow it.  Or will they:  Ten executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are scheduled to get $12.9 million in bonus pay after meeting modest performance targets.  (Did you get that…$12.9 million to TEN people!)  These were approved by The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie.  All of this, of course, after the federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts just two years ago.

If we don’t hear from Obama soon on this, he should no longer be taken seriously.  It will be another glaring example of his blatant hypocrisy. Additionally, if this does not become a major issue to the OWS protesters, don’t take them seriously either.  If they are unwilling to criticize the “1%” in government, then no one should care what they think about the “1%” in the private sector.