Connect with us

Politics

Turns Out Biden’s Empowering Of OPEC Was A Really Bad Idea

Published

on

If the average price of a gallon of gas falls by a penny, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain will take to Twitter and credit the Biden administration. In the last few months, due to lower demand and other factors, consumers have experienced a reprieve from historic highs. Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre points out this is “the fastest decline in gas prices in over a decade,” which is like bragging about losing a couple of pounds after packing on 20.

Officials haven’t had much to say lately. That trend is likely to continue. Today, the OPEC+ cartel announced it’s going to cut production by 2 million barrels a day. This, even after the Biden administration engaged in a “full-scale pressure campaign,” according to CNN, to dissuade our alleged allies in the Middle East to change their minds.

As a presidential candidate, Biden called Saudi Arabia a “pariah” state. Soon after the election, like all his predecessors, Biden traveled to the kingdom to kiss the ring. And still, he gets nothing. The oft-repeated claim that Biden is a savvy, highly respected foreign policy operator has been relentlessly debunked by reality.

Biden wagered that he could placate his left wing, curbing fossil fuel production while also holding prices in check by pressuring the Saudis and emptying the U.S. strategic reserve, now at a 40-year low. It was a bad bet.

Biden can’t control prices, but he could have mitigated the problem consumers now face had he not disincentivized domestic fossil fuel production and refinery capacity. Remember that on Biden’s first day at work, he revoked permits to build the Keystone XL, a 1,700-mile pipeline that was going to carry approximately 800,000 barrels of oil a day into the United States that is slated to be completed in a few months. Seems like the kind of infrastructure that might be quite helpful.

Days later, Biden signed a batch of executive orders halting any new oil and natural gas leases on all public lands. The administration has issued fewer oil leases than any president since the Second World War.

It’s unsurprising, considering the stated policy goal of his party has been to create fossil-fuel scarcity by “transitioning” — subsidizing, mandating, and diverting capital — to unreliable and expensive “clean energy” projects. Democrats’ promises and rhetoric are also baked into the price. Even if Biden loosened regulations today, why would nefarious profit-hungry shareholders of the oil industry plow billions into long-term projects when Democrats promise to destroy their business in the not very distant future?

You can have windmills, or you can have affordable and reliable energy. You can’t have both.

Since oil is a fungible commodity, no single group or nation, leader, or project is going to dictate prices. Among the entities that aren’t responsible for spiking prices is “Big Oil,” the bugaboo Biden and Democrats like to throw at the economic illiterates in times of crisis — but only when prices spike. Those poor bastards never get any credit for the years of stable, low prices.

Today, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had the gall to say OPEC’s cuts were “a reminder of why it is so critical that the United States reduce its reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels.” His point, of course, is that we must speed up the approximately $30-bazillion clean-energy agenda — which, even if we embraced completely this second, would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the pain felt by 98 percent of people with cars and homes.

It is also true that Russia is a member of OPEC+. If we’re going to fight a proxy war against Putin in Ukraine, American leadership should have expected and planned for retaliation. Unlike Europe, North America had not yet surrendered its strategic energy advantage.

Michael McFaul says, “At this pivotal moment in history, Saudis side with Putin and against us.” But if depressing production means we’re siding with Putin, what does that say about a political party that is leading the fight to shut down pipelines, ban fracking, undercut exploration, and artificially inflate the cost of reliable and affordable energy?


CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Leftist ‘Voter Guide’ Group Pushes Its Way Into Universities

Published

on

A left-wing “voter guide” group is contacting professors, attempting to place biased content in universities. The group claims its content is “nonpartisan.”

“We have made it simple to incorporate our guides and resources into your existing curriculum,” wrote Claire Adams, campus and youth programs director for Guides.Vote, in an email to a professor, obtained by The Federalist. “We hope you’ll check out our guides and use our resources to help your students vote.”

Adams apparently emailed college professors on Sept. 12, pitching content from Guides.Vote for use in the classroom. Youth Service America is the “fiscal host for the Guides.Vote initiative,” YSA Vice President of Partnerships Michael Minks told The Federalist. According to InfluenceWatch, YSA is a left-wing group that mobilizes youth to “influence elections.”

“With Higher Education in mind, our FREE resources have been created to be easily embedded in Canvas, or any other LMS [Learning Management System],” Adams wrote. “We would love to support you, your students, and your campus voter engagement efforts.”

She advertised “printable guides” and an “interactive quiz where students can guess where the presidential candidates really stand.” 

While the group claims its voter resources are “nonpartisan,” the guides indicate a clear bias in favor of left-wing candidates.

Promoting Democrat Candidates

Guides.Vote offers a guide contrasting former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris for November’s election.

One issue is “How to ensure effectiveness and fairness in law enforcement?”

The group said Trump thinks “police are ‘under siege.’ Cut back active federal oversight of

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Election Integrity Advocates Can Inspect South Carolina Voter Rolls, Federal Judge Rules

Published

on

A federal judge in South Carolina ruled Wednesday that an election integrity advocacy organization has the right to review the state’s voter rolls for ineligible voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph F. Anderson Jr., an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the South Carolina State Election Commission (SEC) could not block the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) from reviewing the Palmetto State’s voter rolls, despite it being an out-of-state organization.

Because voter rolls are a matter of public information under federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the SEC could not block PILF from reviewing its Statewide Voter Registration List (SVRL), the court’s opinion explained.

“South Carolina’s prohibition on the distribution of the SVRL to only eligible South Carolina voters conflicts with the NVRA’s mandate that all records concerning maintenance and accuracy activities be made available for ‘public inspection,’” Anderson wrote. “Because adherence to South Carolina law would frustrate application of the Federal mandate, the state law must yield.”

The SEC, South Carolina’s executive agency responsible for administering elections, argued that state law would prohibit PILF from obtaining the voter records because the group is not a “qualified elector” in South Carolina. It therefore blocked PILF’s initial request for the data in February.

PILF is not a South Carolina voter, but “describes itself as a ‘public interest law firm dedicated to election integrity’ which ‘protects the right to vote and preserves the Constitutional framework of American elections through litigation, investigation, research, and education,’” the opinion noted.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

RFK Jr. To Appeal Decision Letting Michigan’s Secretary Of State Keep Him On The Ballot

Published

on

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said today he will appeal a federal court’s decision allowing Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, to keep him on the ballot despite his withdrawal from the presidential race. 

Judge Denise Hood, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, denied Kennedy’s attempt Wednesday to keep Benson from adding him to the ballot. According to The Detroit News, Kennedy notified Hood today that he would be appealing the ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kennedy announced last month he would drop out of the race, withdrawing his name from the ballot in swing states like Michigan in hopes of helping former President Donald Trump defeat Vice President Kamala Harris. 

But Benson refused to take Kennedy off the ballot, citing concerns that the Natural Law Party — with which Kennedy was running — could not nominate another candidate before November, as The Federalist previously reported. Since then, Kennedy and Benson have been battling in court. Similar obstacles to Kennedy’s withdrawal have cropped up in other states. 

“The harm incurred by Defendant, the Natural Law Party, and Michigan voters outweighs that felt by Plaintiff if he is prohibited from withdrawing,” Hood wrote in the latest ruling. “Plaintiff’s motion is denied.”

Michigan is approaching election deadlines. According to the Detroit Free Press, county clerks must deliver absentee ballots to local clerks by Saturday, and “absentee ballots must be available to the general public by next Thursday.”

The Ruling

Kennedy asked the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending