Democrats are talking about ‘Energy independence’ as if it is attainable. When were the words “Democrat” and “independence” ever linked successfully in any stated policy of the left? Aren’t liberals obsessed with taking money from people who are financially independent and giving it to people who are not? Does this create fiscal independence? It does the exact opposite. And their energy policies are no different.
Democrat policies are all designed to take the independent action of free choice, remove the words free , and call it progress. Even their favorite “choice,” abortion, is a federally mandated one, such that the people of the several States can make no independent moral decision about whether or not it should even be a choice for their citizens. The science is settled!
So while the energy situation should be improved, to accomplish this we must use what is available to us now, so we can afford the luxury of other choices in the future. Unfortunately Democrats have decided that “independence” can only come if we limit our choices to theirs.
The New Media Militia 
there is so much wrong with this post, i wouldn’t even know where to start.
apparently you have never heard of subsidies. translation, taxpayer dollars going to corporations, translation, money going for everyone to a few, translation, corporate welfare.
what “luxury of other choices” will we have if we use up all of one option. “luxury” comes from having multiple choices. to take away a choice by using it all up, reduces options & choices, which reduces the amount of luxury.
apparently you prefer “dependence” 100% on Oil, Coal & Nuclear and yet you get what exactly from any of those three? If I understand your point correctly, you must be the only one in America that has a “magic card” that allows you to get 50cent/gallon gas. Congratulations to you, your the only one!
and last I checked, there is no state or entity that forces ANYONE TO HAVE AN ABORTION! so please do tell me what police state you live in?
I think what is “so wrong” is that you are inventing things I have not said and ignoring things I have.
I do not approve of social welfare so why would I support corporate welfare? I don’t by the way. There is not one post on my entire blog where I do.
But this actually fits in with my argument about democrats quite well. For the past 30 years, Wind, Solar and Bio-fuels, have only remained viable industries at all because of government corporate welfare. So If you mean to say that corporate welfare is bad, then you have just hamstrung your own argument.
While oil and gas have received federal aid, (which I also do not approve of) Solar, wind, and Bio fuels can’t survive in the free market without that aid, even today. They would have died on the vine 25 years ago without it, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
Anyway.
As to energy, what I actually wrote was..
” So while the energy situation should be improved, to accomplish this we must use what is available to us now, so we can afford the luxury of other choices in the future.”
“Available to us now”….”so we can afford the luxery of OTHER CHOICES in the future.”
That’s what I wrote. So no, you do not understand at all. I am interested in using what we have today to get us where we want to be (that means other kinds of energy)–not where the Democrats are pretending we can be today, because there is no “magic card” for replacing Oil, gas, or nuclear. And we will never, ever be energy independent, in our lifetimes, and to assume we will is a canard used to make people think the government can and will solve the problem. They wont. But they’ll wast billons trying. I object to that on every level.
So just in case I have missed something, is there a new viable energy source that can produce a few billion Megawatts of energy annually, say in the next 5 to 10 years? One that will not require us to re-tool the entire industrial and transportation infrastructure–a multi-trilion dollar undertaking that consumers and tax payers will also have to fund in that short time span?
Chime in anytime.
As to the matter of abortion, you are inventing things. I did not say that anyone was made to have an abortion. But the police state I live in says that 5 unelected lawyers on the suprme court are free to violate “seperation of powers” and do the job that the US constitution assigned specifically to the elected bodies of the House and Senate at both the state and federal levles. Roe created a law in 50 states that did not exist and overturned over 30 laws that did.
I don’t care if all 50 state legislatures–elected by the people– want to create abortion laws that allow people the choice to terminate a pregnancy, but when an unelected body creates laws in a republican democracy, it advances tyrannny–not choice, and certainly not independence.