How the Biden administration raised oil and gas prices, and caused inflation

Before we look at the Biden administration’s actions on oil and gas, let’s review how prices are set in a free market economy. When supply goes down and demand stays the same, then prices rise. That’s because more people want to buy a resource that has become more scare, so sellers can raise the price. Now, has the Biden administration taken action to reduce the supply of oil and gas?

Well, consider what he did right after taking office in January 2021.

CNBC explains:

President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed a series of executive orders that prioritize climate change across all levels of government and put the U.S. on track to curb planet-warming carbon emissions.

Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.

[…]On his first day in office last week, Biden had the United States re-enter the Paris accord. He also cancelled the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline would have allowed us to purchase oil and gas from Canada, which is much better than buying it from Russia, the Middle East, etc. Biden loves Russia. One might even say that he colludes with Russia to help them invade Ukraine – by helping them build their military. Biden gave approval for Russia to construct the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany, so that they could sell all their oil and gas to European countries.

Nord Stream 2
Nord Stream 2

That’s what Democrat voters voted for in 2020: a pipeline for Russia, so they could sell oil and gas and invade Ukraine.

European countries are desperate for oil and gas, after having exchanged their conventional energy sources for green energy sources. Green energy sources produce low amounts of energy, and are inconsistent, while costing more than conventional energy sources. Since the green plan didn’t work out, the Europeans have to enrich Russia now. They make a show of being made at Russia, but they (like Biden) aren’t willing to develop their own energy.

How did American energy producers respond to having their lease applications denied, and their existing leases and pipelines canceled?

Biden’s moratorium on oil and gas leases won’t end fossil fuel extraction since industry leaders currently hold undeveloped leases. Drilling on public lands generates billions of dollars in revenue but comprises roughly a quarter of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Oil and gas producers have strongly opposed Biden’s move and are expected to challenge the order in court.

“Penalizing the oil and gas industry kills good-paying American jobs, hurts our already struggling economy, makes our country more reliant on foreign energy sources, and impacts those who rely on affordable and reliable energy,” Anne Bradbury, president of the American Exploration and Production Council, said in a statement.

Environmental groups, who have long pushed for the changes sought by Biden, praised the orders.

Has Biden learned his lesson from the huge spike in gas prices? Is he concerned about the widespread inflation that is caused by the spike in energy prices?

Nope!

The Federalist notes:

CBS News revealed the Biden administration canceled more oil and gas leases across the country this week as soaring gas prices reached new heights Wednesday.

The Department of Interior canceled plans to drill in more than 1 million acres in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, arguing “lack of industry interest,” on top of canceling a pair of leases in the Gulf of Mexico over “conflicting court rulings.”

[…]The administration’s relentless animosity towards fossil fuels, showcased in its repeated cancelation of oil and gas projects, has chilled investment in the capital- and labor-intensive industry. This keeps production down despite rising demand at home and turmoil in markets abroad.

[…]In Alaska, upon inauguration Biden canceled leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is forecast to hold between 4 to 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil. He closed another 7 million acres from the state’s National Petroleum Reserve off from development last month.

What happens when investors see that the Biden administration is taxing, regulating and blocking oil and gas development? They say “we would do better investing our money elsewhere”. Oil and gas producers get the message very quickly, and they stop creating new energy sources. That’s how supply dries up. And when supply is reduced, prices go up.

Biden tried to fix the rising prices by getting Russia and the Middle East to drill more, and by stealing the strategic oil reserve, which is primarily designed for use during a crisis. But Biden considers his falling poll numbers a crisis. And begging our enemies to produce the oil that we should be producing seems right to him.

The president has turned to the nation’s emergency petroleum reserves for desperate political capital ahead of the November midterms… With no plans announced to restock the emergency supplies, Biden ordered the self-proclaimed “unprecedented” release of 1 million barrels of oil a day onto the market for the next six months beginning Sunday.

The new Democrat strategy is actually the old Democrat strategy used by Democrat President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s: to impose price controls on oil and gas:

Gas Lines
Gas Lines

That led to massive gas lines in the 1970s, because suppliers shut down when they realized they couldn’t make enough money to stay in business. There was no money to be made in producing energy, so energy companies just slowed down or stopped producing. Would you go to work if the government took 80% of what you earned?

People in America would line up around the block for gas, and they could only get a certain limited amount. Gas was only sold during certain hours of the day.

Gas Lines
Gas Lines

I’m sure that the young people won’t have heard about the results of setting price controls, but it’s in the first few chapters of Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics”. But if their teachers have no ability in economics, then how would the student learn it? They can’t.

Is the definition of atheism “a lack of belief in God”?

First, let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know what they are each claiming.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has some thoughts on atheism, atheists and lacking belief in God in this reply to a questioner.

Question:

In my discussions with atheists, they  are using the term that they “lack belief in God”. They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I’m not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,

Steven

And here is Dr. Craig’s full response:

Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God.  Compare my saying, “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.”   If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars.  There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).”   Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.

But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.

There’s a history behind this.  Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.  Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.

So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken.  For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.”  Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does.  It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence.  He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.

But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist.”  So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).  As Antony Flew confesses,

the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way.  Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford:  Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)

Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view.  It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all.  On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists!  In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.

One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.

So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position?  Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists.  If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view.  But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.  So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions.  They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.

This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”

So there you have it. We are interested in what both sides know and what reasons and evidence they have to justify their claim to know. We are interested in talking to people who make claims about objective reality, not about themselves, and who then go on to give reasons and evidence to support their claims about objective reality. There are atheists out there that do make an objective claim that God does not exist, and then support that claim with arguments and evidence. Those are good atheists, and we should engage in rational conversations with them. But clearly there are some atheists who are not like that. How should we deal with these “subjective atheists”?

Dealing with subjective atheists

How should theists respond to people who just want to talk about their psychological state? Well, my advice is to avoid them. They are approaching religion irrationally and non-cognitively – like the person who enters a physics class and says “I lack a belief in the gravitational force!”.  When you engage in serious discussions with people about God’s existence, you only care about what people know and what they can show to be true. We don’t care about a person’s psychology.

DeSantis: Florida schools will teach students about the historical record of communism

I have some exciting news! Everyone knows that conservatives are monitoring people who could run for President on the Republican ticket in 2024. Some people want Trump again, but he’s looking pretty old right now… Other people are looking for a governor who has a good record of advocating for conservatives. Ron DeSantis is at the top of that pile. And there is news about him!

Daily Wire reports:

Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill Monday morning at Miami’s Freedom Tower that will require “Victims of Communism Day” to be observed in the state’s public high schools.

The bill, HB 395, mandates that public schools instruct students on the horrors of communism each year on November 7 or a preceding school day. The “Victims of Communism Day” legislation passed the Florida House and Senate unanimously earlier this year.

“We want to make sure that every year folks in Florida, but particularly our students, will learn about the evils of communism, the dictators that have led communist regimes, and the hundreds of millions of individuals who suffered and continue to suffer under the weight of this discredited ideology,” DeSantis said at a press conference.

And don’t forget, DeSantis has already signed bills to:

Many cynical people like to say that there isn’t much difference between Republicans and Democrats on social issues. But those people aren’t following the legislation. If you watch the legislation, Republicans do a lot for social conservatives.

Communism in the Soviet Union

Let’s take a look at what Josef Stalin did during his rule of the Soviet Union during the 1920s and 1930s.

The Library of Congress offers this in their “Soviet Archives exhibit”:

The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. By 1939 only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open.

Let’s see more from a peer-reviewed journal article authored by Crispin Paine of the University College, London:

Atheist propaganda and the struggle against religion began immediately after the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917. While social change would, under Marxist theory, bring religion to disappear, Leninists argued that the Party should actively help to eradicate religion as a vital step in creating ‘New Soviet Man’. The energy with which the Party struggled against religion, though, varied considerably from time to time and from place to place, as did its hostility to particular faith groups. The 1920s saw the closure of innumerable churches and synagogues (and to a lesser extent mosques) and the active persecution of clergy and harassment of believers.

I used to meet Christian women as an undergraduate who had learned how wonderful communism was in their non-STEM classes. Clearly, the professors were not teaching the truth about communism’s record to these Christian women. Communism is atheistic at its core, and that communism is totally hostile to Christians. To the point of mass murder.

The Ukraine Famine

Take a look at this UK Daily Mail article about a great achievement of the atheist Josef Stalin, which occurred in 1932-1933.

Excerpt:

Now, 75 years after one of the great forgotten crimes of modern times, Stalin’s man-made famine of 1932/3, the former Soviet republic of Ukraine is asking the world to classify it as a genocide.

The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor – the Hunger.

Millions starved as Soviet troops and secret policemen raided their villages, stole the harvest and all the food in villagers’ homes.

They dropped dead in the streets, lay dying and rotting in their houses, and some women became so desperate for food that they ate their own children.

If they managed to fend off starvation, they were deported and shot in their hundreds of thousands.

So terrible was the famine that Igor Yukhnovsky, director of the Institute of National Memory, the Ukrainian institution researching the Holodomor, believes as many as nine million may have died.

[…]Between four and five million died in Ukraine, a million died in Kazakhstan and another million in the north Caucasus and the Volga.

By 1933, 5.7 million households – somewhere between ten million and 15 million people – had vanished. They had been deported, shot or died of starvation.

And over in communist China, the death toll was 45 million in 4 years.

Communism in China

Story here in the left-wing UK Independent.

Excerpt:

Speaking at The Independent Woodstock Literary Festival, Frank Dikötter, a Hong Kong-based historian, said he found that during the time that Mao was enforcing the Great Leap Forward in 1958, in an effort to catch up with the economy of the Western world, he was responsible for overseeing “one of the worst catastrophes the world has ever known”.

Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants to the Second World War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over these four years; the worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55 million.

If you are ever debating with a communist, you should know about the book “The Black Book of Communism“, which puts the total death toll of communist regimes at over 100 million. And it’s published by Harvard University Press.

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: