When Actions And Words Do Not Match Up

Gasoline prices in America have risen significantly in the past eleven months. America is not longer energy independent. Partially because of the increased cost of gasoline, Americans are paying more for everything right now. President Biden has said that he is concerned. But what is he going to do about it?

The American Thinker posted an article today titled, “Joe Isuzu Biden: Concern-trolling high energy prices to voters — and working on the sly to raise them higher.”

The article reports:

Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed that high energy prices, including soaring prices at the pump, are some kind of priority for him. He’s made loud noises for the cameras about a couple of piddly measures of his to cut energy costs for consumers, which would at best be temporary and at worst, useless. But out on the sly, he’s stepping up his war on Big Oil, something he doesn’t want you to know about, which will raise energy prices. He’s still Creepy Joe.

The White House has stated in a press release that President Biden is doing everything he can to lower the cost of fuel for Americans. President Biden’s actions paint a different picture.

The article includes the following:

…from Axios:

Oil and gas companies should pay more to drill on federal lands and waters, the Department of the Interior argued in a report released Friday, saying that the current rates were “outdated.”

Driving the news: The Department of Interior report said that the federal government’s oil and gas leasing and permitting program “fails to provide a fair return to taxpayers, even before factoring in the resulting climate-related costs that must be borne by taxpayers.

Note “the resulting climate-related costs that must be borne by taxpayers.” Climate change is not proven science. Why should the taxpayers be forced to pick up the tab for a theory?

The article continues:

Axios yaks a lot about the federal rate being lower than some private rates, but forgets that much of federal land for lease is utterly undeveloped, with zero roads, zero electricity, zero satellite transmission, zero internet, zero water, the works. The other thing is that many of these unexplored federal lands are pretty speculative. A rate would be high and would find a buyer were an oil company to be fairly sure it would get a good return on its investment, meaning, it knew the oil was there and waiting. With many federal lands, that’s pretty speculative, which would explain low rates.

The report cited was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving, a classic ‘Friday night news dump’ as they say, done with hopes that voters would not notice. An analyst cited by Axios noticed, however:

    • “This approach could still significantly curtail future federal oil and gas production activity while remaining consistent with existing laws,” a note from research firm ClearView Energy Partners said.

The article concludes:

Biden is saying one thing, and doing another. Anyone with a brain can see that taxing energy companies at higher rates is going to have fewer companies taking chances. Anyone with a lick of common sense can surmise that shutting down pipelines is going to mean less energy and higher prices at the pump. Joe is hoping you don’t see that as he throws out his shiny strategic reserve bauble to distract you. Anyone with any degree of mental sharpness can see that Joe Isuzu is a three-card monte operator telling voters the sky is green and hoping they’ll be easy marks for it, believing him against the evidence of their own eyes. He seems to think we’re stupid.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. The difference between what the Biden administration is doing and what the Biden administration says it is doing is the reason people hate politicians.

Turning A Blind Eye When Convenient

Yesterday Townhall posted an article about the protest in Washington that few Americans have heard about. It seems odd that few Americans have heard about the protest since 78 people were arrested for obstructing traffic and three of them were charged with assault of a police officer.

The article reports:

Leftists will point to the support for Donald Trump as the right having violated the contract and that, having done so, gave them no choice but to respond with militant resistance. The right will say that five years of violence seems like a bit of an overreaction to a guy whose biggest crime was mean tweets.

And there’s no better example of this than the way the media covers right- vs. left-wing activism. A group of people waving American flags – or parents at a school board meeting! – are labeled domestic terrorists while rioters burning down buildings enjoy the Orwellian label “peaceful protesters.” 

The hypocrisy has been sickening to watch over the last five years. 

The most recent example is the far-left group’s unprecedented five-day protest in DC last week – directly attacking the Line 3 & DAPL through Minnesota. To give their violence the air of legitimacy, the group has fatuously titled their “direct action” the People vs. Fossil Fuels, even though state courts have rightfully ruled in favor of the energy- and job-producing pipeline. 

The violent rioters laid siege to the Department of the Interior’s headquarters, demanding that Biden declare a “climate change national emergency” and end all government projects that use fossil fuels. They attempted to “occupy” the building, clashed with law enforcement, and sent security personnel to the emergency room. (All while doubtless tweeting about how wonderfully tolerant they are.) 

All told, 78 people were arrested for obstructing traffic and three of them were charged with assault of a police officer. Many more were doubtless guilty of similar crimes and slipped through the cracks.

As far of the so-called progressive left’s cultural terrorism, they vandalized the Andrew Jackson statue outside of the White House. (One imagines the vandals don’t know about how the Cherokee Indians owned black slaves before the founder of the Democrat Party sent them on the Trail of Tears, but facts are immaterial at this point.) 

The article concludes:

Furthermore, the Cult of the Woke’s article of faith that pipelines are inherently evil is wrong in every way. Pipeline infrastructure is handled ethically and with as little environmental impact as possible. Transporting fuel via pipeline is greener than with trucks and safer than with ships. And if we’re going to provide for all the social programs that the violent left demands, how will we pay for them if we cripple our commercial base? 

This level of violence by radical leftists can’t be tolerated, and the hypocrisy from our failing fourth estate can’t be forgiven. Our social contract has been fundamentally violated, and if this level of urban warfare continues, then we won’t have a society at all. 

The Democrat party began its downhill slide when it chose to ignore the riots of 2020. Ordinary Americans did not want to see their towns burned down without any police intervention. If elections in the future are honest, they will reflect the fact that most Americans want to live in an orderly society with their property rights protected by the police.

Giving Land Management Authority Back To The States

On March 10, One America News Network reported that congress has used the Congressional Review Act to roll back aggressive land use regulations that undermined local land management in many western states implemented by the Obama Administration in the last days of that administration.

The article reports:

“In the West particularly where the abundance of of our natural public lands are at, we want to make sure we have access to those lands and make sure that our local communities are engaged in the planning process, as well. Local governors, as well. The 2.0 rule was implementing a process where communities weren’t having that actual input and supplanting the actions our governors could take, as well,” Tipton (Colorado Congressman Scott Tipton) explains.

It was that 2.0 rule, implemented by the Bureau of Land Management or BLM that caused Westerners to object. The rule would have taken many land and resource management decisions away from states and localities. Tipton says his legislation will reverse that.

“You know, our lands are incredibly important in the State of Colorado in my district and access to those public lands. Keep them in the public domain, but let’s make sure we are having the opportunity to grow businesses, let’s make sure that we’re using resources going to be responsible. And protecting the land as well. And we want to make sure that we are having a place at the table. With our state government when there is a planning process on those lands,” Tipton said.

More local control of local public lands that happen to be owned by the federal government. That’s what western states want, but that was not what the Obama administration was doing, says Frontiers for Freedom President George Landrith who got his start as staff member for a Wyoming senator.

At the time the article was written, the legislation was approved by the House and the Senate and was waiting the President’s signature. This is another move back to the government our Founding Fathers created. The Tenth Amendment specifically states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We need to get back to our Constitution.

The Obama Administration’s War On American Energy

Any economic growth during the Obama Administration has come from American energy production. Now the Administration is trying to curtail that production.

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that the Obama Administration has released the first federal rules governing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on Friday, setting new standards across the 750 million acres containing federal minerals for the drilling method that has unlocked a domestic oil and gas boom. Note that the Obama Administration has released these rules–they did not come out of Congress. That is the first problem. Who is writing laws in America? What does the U.S. Constitution have to say about this?

The article reports:

For oil and gas companies, the Interior Department rule is another kick while industry is down.

Low oil and natural gas prices — caused partly by the success of fracking, which has turned the United States into the world’s top oil and gas producer — have crimped budgets, prompting companies to lay off hundreds of workers. On top of that, the rule comes as the Interior Department is looking at regulations to reduce “venting” and “flaring” of excess natural gas produced at wells on federal lands.

“It’s more of the same. When you make things more expensive you get less of it. It’s just like taxation. It’s going to further push development off federal lands,” Kathleen Sgamma, vice president of government and public affairs with industry group Western Energy Alliance, told the Washington Examiner. “Whether it’s a low price environment or a high price environment, it’s still less attractive to operate on federal lands.”

We need to understand that it is necessary for America to be energy independent. We also need to understand that there are a lot of very wealthy people who do not want America to be energy independent. Many of those wealthy people make large donations to Congressmen and Senators. We need to remove the Congressmen and Senators who are blocking American energy independence from office the first time they are up for re-election. Energy independence might introduce some sanity into American foreign policy (note that I did say might).

The article concludes:

Lawmakers on either side of the issue are wasting little time to fight the proposal.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced legislation Friday with 26 other Republican senators as co-sponsors that would give states, rather than the federal government, primacy over regulating fracking on federal lands within their borders.

“We have long supported a states-first approach to hydraulic fracturing, recognizing that states have a successful record of effectively regulating hydraulic fracturing with good environmental stewardship. Now, however, the Interior Department is imposing a federal regulation that duplicates what the states have been doing successfully for decades,” said bill co-sponsor Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.

In the House, Democrats introduced five bills Thursday designed to restrain fracking. Environmental groups cheered the effort, dubbed the ‘Frack Pack,’ which they said would increase transparency and close loopholes such as the exemption for most fracking activity under federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Out Of Control???

Yesterday the Western Center For Journalism posted an article about a recent decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The article reports:

In an outrageous decision recently announced by the Environmental Protection Agency, the West River Indian Reservation now has ownership of an entire Wyoming town. Along with the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, the EPA decided to give the town of Riverton to the tribe, obviously upsetting those who call the community home.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead responded to the brewing controversy with a resolute stance against the government intrusion.

…The 10,000 residents of Riverton are now technically under the control of the tribe, not the U.S. government. This not only makes residents responsible for any taxes or regulations tribal leaders decide to impose, it disqualifies them from state resources.

When did we become a banana republic? I hope that the State of Wyoming is successful in fighting this ruling. If it is not, there is no limit to what the government can arbitrarily do to its citizens.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Government Gives, The Government Takes Away

A website called fight the bias attributes the following quote to Thomas Jefferson:

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.”

There are similar quotes attributed to Gerald Ford and others, but Thomas Jefferson seems to have understood the concept originally. We are seeing this statement in action in a current court battle between EXXON and the American government. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that EXXON filed a suit against the Department of the Interior last week in Lake Charles, Louisiana. EXXON is fighting to maintain control of what is called the Julia field after a routine extension of leases was not approved.

The article reports:

The possibility that Exxon could lose this oil will likely send shock waves through the industry. “This is unprecedented,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Energy Program at Rice University in Houston. “The question is: Do our offshore rules allow for flexibility? You don’t want to let companies sit on a discovery…We definitely don’t want to send the industry a message that you need to be in a rush or we’ll take the oil away from you.”

Exxon’s lawsuit said the government has granted “thousands” of extensions over time. It said the government’s denial of its extension relied on legal interpretations that it “had never before applied and had never before articulated.” Statoil asserted in its lawsuit that no request for an extension for a deep-water development “had ever previously been denied.” The Interior Department couldn’t comment on this.

This is another example of how government policy impacts unemployment. The Department of Interior has changed their policies abruptly. How do businesses deal with future planning when the rules change in the middle of the game?


Enhanced by Zemanta