↓ Freedom Centers

Fuel/Energy Freedom

Biden Must Stop Choking US Economy

By George LandrithNewsMax.com

Then presidential candidate Joe Biden pledged repeatedly to “end fossil fuel.” And he ran as the most anti-energy candidate in our history.

Then once he was in office, he canceled the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. He also canceled oil leases on millions of acres of land designated for energy exploration.

Biden even threatened energy companies with a windfall profits tax and compared them to war profiteers. As a result, U.S. consumers have suffered record high energy prices, and the high energy costs have also created an effective tax on business that slows growth.

The U.S. went from being the world’s No. 1 producer of energy to having to plead with foreign nations to increase its petroleum output. Likewise, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has profited handsomely from America’s energy retreat which has given him the resources to wage war in Ukraine and defy economic sanctions.

All of these policy missteps have combined to make Joe Biden look like a foolish ideologue.

The good news for Joe Biden is that he has a chance to begin to show that he’s not the foolish ideologue that he’s shown during the campaign and his first two years in office.

There is a possible major oil and gas project in the northeastern section of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. It would produce 180,000 barrels of oil each day.

It is overwhelmingly supported by the Alaska Natives in the region who are highly dependent upon the surrounding wilderness for their hunting and cultural heritage. And the project, known as the Willow Project, has been considered by five different administrations, beginning with the Clinton administration in 1999.

President Clinton signed the lease on Alaska’s North Slope. Oil was discovered in 2017, and the Trump Administration approved the project. Environmental activists have slowed down the progress, and now Joe Biden has the opportunity to tell Americans that he’s not an extremist ideologue on something so fundamental to our nation’s economic recovery as energy.

A Biden administration Department of Interior study of the project released this past summer appeared to outline how to move forward with the project even though the study wasn’t a final approval. But it shows that even in the Biden administration, there are people who can see that moving forward with this project is good for America and for Alaska.

Interestingly, the opposition to the project comes mostly from environmental extremists located in the lower 48 states. Locals in Alaska strongly support the project and Alaska Natives are particularly supportive and believe that the project will help their communities with jobs and revenue while not endangering their environment and hunting grounds or the wildlife upon which so many of them depend and upon which their heritage is so deeply tied.

The problem is that delay can do real damage. As local Alaska Natives have pointed out, this construction will need to occur during the winter because the ground is frozen and thus can support the weight of machinery. Thus, waiting a month longer can effectively push the project back another year — even if it were to be approved later this Winter or early this Spring. So time is of the essence.

The Willow Project is based on following the best management and strictest environmental standards. It is entirely designed to minimize impact on the surrounding tundra and the local wildlife.

Other nations like Venezuela are far less environmentally responsible and their oil has a higher sulfur and other contaminant content. So the Willow Project will produce needed American energy but will also protect the environment.

If we are buying Willow oil, that means we won’t be buying oil from irresponsible and harmful sources. Likewise, it will help keep energy prices in a reasonable zone which will have the added benefit of giving Putin less extra cash to fund his adventurism and violence in Ukraine.

It is also worth noting that the Willow Project has broad support from Alaska North Slope communities — including the regional tribe and the regional Alaska Native interests who comprise more than 50% of the local residents. When the locals support the project and the opposition comes from well-healed professional activists who live thousands of miles away, that tells you something.

It would be a real shame to ignore the Alaska Natives in this case who overwhelmingly favor the Willow Project. The oil royalties will provide local communities with the funding needed to improve their schools, fund their hospitals and promote economic opportunity for a depressed area.

The Biden administration needs to approve this project and it needs to do it now. Waiting even a few weeks, effectively puts the project off for another full year.

President Biden pledged that he would consider Native American’s requests and perspectives and keep them on an equal footing with others. Here is Biden’s chance to make good on that promise.

But he cannot drag his feet or delay. Time truly is of the essence.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

George Landrith is the President and CEO of Frontiers of Freedom, a public policy think tank devoted to promoting a strong national defense, free markets, individual liberty and constitutionally limited government. To learn more about Frontiers of Freedom, visit www.ff.org. Read George Landrith’s Reports — More Here.

Eight Reasons Climate Lawsuits Should Be Rejected by Local Officials and Dismissed by the Courts

Evidence is plentiful that public officials should reject pleas to pursue these frivolous lawsuits. America’s climate agenda should not be driven by outside special interests.


By Bill Schuette and Rusty Hills


There’s an old joke about economists having predicted nine of the last five recessions that underscores how difficult it is to predict the future. It’s even harder to forecast the weather. The great Stephen Hawking once said, “One can’t predict the weather more than a few days in advance.”

Nevertheless, since 2017, states and municipalities have filed a rash of lawsuits alleging energy producers should pay billions in local weather-related damages. These lawsuits are more accurately “a money grab,” to quote a local critic, than about the weather.

In October, New Jersey filed suit claiming energy companies were responsible for Superstorm Hurricane Sandy. The stakes are high. The Supreme Court separately asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on whether Boulder’s lawsuit should be heard in state or federal court.

We are from Michigan, where our Great Lakes are part of our environmental heritage. They must be protected. As the former Michigan Attorney General and Michigan Court of Appeals Judge, Congressman and State Senator, and the former Senior Counsel to the Michigan Attorney General, we watch these cases closely. We can state from experience these lawsuits stand on questionable legal foundations, don’t reduce climate impacts, and fail to protect the environment. “Fact-checking” these lawsuits reveal that good faith apparently has been banished in their pleadings.

Here are eight reasons why state attorneys general and local officials should reject these lawsuits, and why courts should dismiss them:

First, these lawsuits falsely allege energy producers have engaged in deceptive marketing practices regarding climate conditions. Government officials have acknowledged the impacts of temperature warming, and American scientists have studied climate change, dating to the 1950s. Still, federal and state officials continued promoting the production and use of oil and gas while accepting the potential climate-related implications. Furthermore, various lawsuits amusingly show identical language used in most cases, where “copy and paste” is a convenient tool used by these law firms.

The hypocrisy is abundant. New York City filed a new lawsuit in 2021, all while remaining one of the largest consumers of petroleum and the sixth-largest natural gas consumer. Honolulu and Maui have advanced lawsuits. That decision doesn’t square with the fact that Hawaii’s legislature has had a policy in place since 1984 noting that oil and gas are “essential to the health, welfare, and safety of the people of Hawaii.” It further states “that any severe disruption in petroleum product supplies for use within the State would cause grave hardship.” Hawaii also holds the top spot as America’s most petroleum-dependent state, further discrediting the claim that communities there were somehow “deceived” about consuming oil.

Second, climate change occurs globally, and we all contribute through our daily activities. So why have the plaintiffs pinned the blame on a handful of companies who are selling a legal product? More than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions comes from transportation, including the cars, ships, and planes we all use every day. Steel and iron are the largest energy-related emitter at 7.2% of global emissions. Why then single out one industry alleging liability when literally everybody shares responsibility? To say nothing about the responsibility that countries such as India and China have to be better environmental stewards.

Third, recently some local officials have adopted a bipartisan approach and rejected overtures from suit-happy law firms. Baltimore County’s Council said no to the offer. Democratic Councilman Tom Quirk expressed concerns noting, “I’m also not very inclined to jump on some of these ambulance-chasing types of legal strategies out there nationwide that I think often are more about feeding law firms as opposed to really doing good work.” Republican Councilman Todd Crandell said the case “seems to me like a money grab.” Democratic Council Chair Julian Jones questioned why “wouldn’t everyone in the world have standing” to sue for climate change damages? There’s more. Bar Harbor, Maine officials had similar reactions. Bar Harbor Town Council Chair Valerie Peacock reminded citizens that since everyone uses oil, “it’s almost like we’re suing ourselves.”

Fourth, federal judges have established that regulators and Congress, not the courts, should address climate change. That’s why not a single climate lawsuit to date has succeeded. Federal judges have reasoned the court system is not the proper venue to resolve the complex relationship between energy and the environment, or the dependency on foreign oil and rising gas prices. In 2011, the Supreme Court under Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg unanimously ruled in American Electric Power v. Connecticut that the EPA, not judges who lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources, should address climate change remedies. In 2021, the Second Circuit dismissed New York City’s previous lawsuit noting “the Clean Air Act grants the Environmental Protection Agency — not federal courts — the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions.” Both Obama and Trump Justice Departments opined that Congress should resolve climate-related issues, not the courts. The Obama administration successfully urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the claims in the AEP case.

Fifth, state and municipal bond disclosures show officials’ inconsistency with reference to the material risk of climate change. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by investment analyst R.A. Moss exposed that while some governments are saying in bond disclosures that they cannot accurately predict or quantify the effects of climate change, they’re simultaneously filing legal complaints alleging specific climate-related damages. New Jersey said in bond disclosures that it cannot “predict the impact that these climate events may have on its financial condition.” Honolulu and Baltimore’s bond offerings make similar admissions, while they seek paydays from defendants over specific damages.

Sixth, these lawsuits are not really driven by altruistic elected officials, but rather by privately funded special interests. Some charitable foundations have explicitly embedded and funded private lawyers in at least five state attorneys general offices to support the lawsuits. An American Tort Reform Foundation report shows that in some states that have housed privately funded attorneys, these attorneys have signed the plaintiffs’ legal complaints. Our judicial system should be free from special interest agendas and private funders.

Seventh, there is already federal money on the table earmarked for weather-related infrastructure damages. Instead of seeking money from energy producers, cities and states could access federal resources and funds that are still available. As of 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency still had $6.7 billion available for states to address damages. Rhode Island only used $6.1 million of its $17 million allocation, yet filed a lawsuit that same year attempting to collect local infrastructure compensation. Why wasn’t the state using the money available to them?

Eighth, innovation will protect our environment. Policymakers and the private sector can help advance the innovations we need to make real progress on climate challenges. That’s already happening as the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity led to a 32% drop in carbon emissions since 2005. Lawsuits are counterproductive since they could reduce capital for energy companies from innovating the next generation of clean energy solutions.

Evidence is plentiful that public officials should reject pleas to pursue these frivolous lawsuits. America’s climate agenda should not be driven by outside special interests. Our goals should be cleaner skies and environmental safety. The better path is partnership and innovation to advance climate solutions.

.     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .     .

Bill Schuette is the former Michigan Attorney General, Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Member of Congress, and Michigan State Senator.

Rusty Hills is the former Senior Counsel to Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, and Communications Director for Governor John Engler.

Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – November 25, 2022


George Landrith, Dr. Joe Mangiacotti, and Tom Donelson discuss the leading issues of the week: (1) World Economic Forum Foundation Chair Klaus Schwab says China is a role model; (2) Dr. Fauci admits he’s a bureaucrat, not a scientist or even a physician; (3) Alaska’s Ranked Choice Voting helps losers win and turns representative democracy on its head; (4) the lame stream media lies once again about acts of violence and tries to pin hate crimes on conservatives — it turns out that the Colorado club shooter was not a Conservaitve and instead is a non-binary guy who uses they/them pronouns; (5) inflation is surging despite Biden’s claim that it is under control and he’s fixed the problem the vast majority of Americas have had to cut back for Thanksgiving and Christmas. And we will each have a “one more thing” story to discuss!

PAC Expands “Liberal Extremist” Attack to New Hampshire’s Extremist Maggie Hassan 


After Shaking up Arizona Senate Race (GOP Senate candidate has picked up “extremist” theme in PAC’s TV spots), Frontiers of Freedom Action expands its effort to hold New Hampshire’s extremist Senator Maggie Hassan to account for her betrayal of New Hampshire voters.


Two Minute Version



Hassan was so afraid of a left-wing primary challenge she even went along with empowering Department of Justice bureaucrats to end New Hampshire’s greatest tradition.” — George Landrith President, Frontiers of Freedom








“The 50th Senator” who in a closely divided Senate who could easily have “stopped Biden debacles like the border crisis” the spot show vivid footage of illegal border crossings.  Hits Hassan for supporting Biden’s “Student loan giveaway.”




It is incredible she isn’t even being asked about her far-left voting record and especially her votes to endanger the presidential primary or about who is really running her campaign?” — Landrith

“Everything she says and every TV spot she runs is out of the DC consultants’ playbook — Who ‘s running her campaign?” — Landrith

“The extreme left has created all the problems that our nation is now facing — the border crisis, the murder and violent crime crisis, economic stagnation, runaway inflation, the fentanyl crisis, failure in Afghanistan, and an emboldened Russia, Iran, and China. All of this can be laid at Maggie Hassan’s feet. In a 50-50 Senate, Hassan could have stopped the insanity at any point, but she didn’t even try. Not once. As a result, New Hampshire and Americans are suffering from runaway inflation making the average family about $7,000 poorer than just 18 months ago. We also face a stagnant economy in recession — something Hassan and her allies have lied about constantly. New Hampshire deserves a Senator who will represent the people, not the extremist special interests. Maggie Hassan has consistently proven that she is not up to the job! It is time for a new direction and a new senator.” — Landrith




“General Bolduc is credible and likable. He’s one of those soldiers who has become a great candidate. He has proven that he will take on the extremist elements and the special interests in Washington. General Bolduc will help make Washington focus on what matters to New Hampshire’s citizens — a strong economy, a government that promotes and protects freedom and opportunity for all, and a nation that is strong in the face of increasing threats from abroad.” — Landrith

But he must use “the ‘e’ word” because the “extremist” charge really cracks the code against Democrats like Hassan for the simple reason it’s the truth and the truth actually works in politics.  Her voting record shows she cared more about the approval of the media and the left wingers who threatened her with a primary than that of her New Hampshire constituents. She can’t claim to be a moderate.” — Landrith


Spot also shows “news stories” repeating Hassan and Democratic party talking points.



One Minute Version


We think the New Hampshire media wants to be fair, but they can’t just repeat Democrat talking points. They need to give General Bolduc a hearing and ask Hassan some tough questions like those in our TV spot.” — Landrith

SPOT SAYS FOR YEARS HASSAN “NEVER HAD TO DENOUNCE” EXTREMISTS WHO WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE (until campaign trail) OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S “dark money alliance with notorious anti-American billionaire George Soros funding lawless prosecutors: to opposition to school reform and parental rights, as well as the destruction of women’s sports and childhood education with “gender lunacy.”

“Maggie Hassan made a corrupt bargain with left-wing extremists to not run a primary against her if she pushed far-left positions that have done so much harm to New Hampshire.

 “Why did she let her fear of a primary make her cave into the left-wing extremist “squad’?

How can she say he isn’t a left-wing extremist if every time he votes like one?


“Why did Maggie Hassan go to the big city and forget the people who sent her there.”


These are not 30-second attack ads that try to manipulate people, but heavily informative narrative ads that work particularly well with Independents, women, and young people who appreciate being given context and a story that put a larger perspective around the issues.” Landrith


 Landrith explained the 2-minute nightly news spot <Link> is followed by a 1-minute “chaser” <Link> that summarizes what the viewer has just seen.



One conservative website called an earlier version of the spot (directed against Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer) “The greatest ad in the history of campaign ads” and said “Every MAGA candidate should imitate its format.”

Three weeks of the ad in the Arizona TV market recently led to the adoption of its theme by GOP Senate candidate Blake Masters.


The reason Joe Biden and Democrats are trying to use the ‘extremist’ charge against Republicans is they realize it is their own biggest vulnerability. But the truth is clear – Democrats are the real extremists today.” — Landrith






     DESTROY WOMEN’S SPORTS AND CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WITH GENDER LUNACY (Pix of Lia the swimmer and drag queens at kindergarten)




     THE SACRED SECRET BALLOT (No voter ID, unlimited vote harvesting and mail-ins & DC bureaucrats’ takeover of elections)

      CITIZENSHIP (Open borders)

      US SENATE (Add new states, no filibuster)

      ELECTORAL COLLEGE (Elections decided by a few counties in a few states)


About Hassan’s support for Schumer assault on democratic institutions:

The GOP has never gotten across to the people how those bills would have destroyed the secret ballot, put Department of Justice bureaucrats in charge of our elections, abolished citizenship rights, packed the Supreme Court into irrelevance, radically changed the U.S. Senate, and made a few states the only thing that mattered in presidential elections by abolishing the Electoral College,” said Landrith.


She voted for a federal takeover of elections that would corrupt the secret ballot and completely reduce New Hampshire’s historic role in presidential elections.” — Landrith


The Mainstream Media has COVERED UP: 1)  China virus leak, 2) Hunter Biden laptop scandal, 3) illegal wrongdoing by Clinton and Biden, 4) FBI harassment of political dissenters,  5) never apologized for years of its Russian collusion hoax,  6) promoted  smears and civil rights violations against conservatives, 7) phony impeachments and show trials, 8) covered up Biden’s ill health and incompetence by letting him run from basement.



“Cracking the code against Senate Democrats like Arizona’s Mark Kelly” PAC hopes “all Republicans will steal this ad.”

— “Doubling down in Phoenix” with a long format 2-minute ad that now has a 1-minute “chaser” on “Biden’s key enabler.”  VIEW SPOT

— One “screen” in spot accusing Kelly of “corrupt bargain” drawing heavy attention and donations.

WASHINGTON D.C. — Announcing a new wave of TV ads against endangered Democrat Senator Mark Kelly, SUPER PAC President George Landrith says his group, Frontiers of Freedom Action, is doubling its broadcast buy (nightly and morning news) for a 2-minute spot asking Arizona media to stand up to a “corrupt national media” by making Kelly answer charges he is “liberal extremist and has the voting record to prove it.”

(For more information, contact PAC President George Landrith at 703-901-5464)

One ‘screen’ in particular in the TV spot is drawing heavy attention and donor response Landrith says

  —  a photo of radical-left New York Representative Ocasio-Cortez and 3 other Representatives who make a far-left congressional group the media dubbed “The Squad” with the headline emblazoned across it — ‘CORRUPT BARGAIN” as the ad’s voice-over charges:

    “Mark Kelly made a corrupt bargain with left-wing extremists to not run a primary against him if he pushed far-left positions”

    Accusing Kelly of “going to the big city and forgetting the people who sent him there” the ad asks Arizona press and network affiliates to end Kelly’s “free ride” and make him respond to questions like

   “Why did he let his fear of a primary make him cave into the left-wing extremist “squad’?”

  “How can he say he isn’t a left-wing extremist if every time he votes like one?


“Kelly and all other Senate Democrats were so terrified that Ocasio Cortez and her left-wing billionaire allies would run primary campaigns against them they voted right down the extremist line.

“The reason this cracks the code is that many people find it hard to believe that their home state senator or local representative could really be so left wing but once they get an explanation for why it happened they are willing to vote against the Dems. Polling shows that even if they like their Senators they will vote against them if they voted for Biden’s and the Democrats’ agenda.”



One conservative website called an earlier version of the spot (directed against Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer) “The greatest ad in the history of campaign ads” and said “Every MAGA candidate should imitate its format.”

Landrith explained, however, a 1-minute “chaser” (VIEW SPOT) now follows the 2-minute spot that summarizes what the viewer has just seen. (A 3-minute web version is also available:  VIEW SPOT). The ads began on Sunday morning and will run on the nightly and morning news through the week.

“These are not 30-second attack ads that try to manipulate people, but heavily informative narrative ads that ask Mark Kelly when he will reject extremist liberal views and plans,” Landrith said.


 In addition to saying Kelly’s “free ride” from the national media means he never has to disown left-wing extremist groups that support him, the spot also spends much of its time charging that Kelly was a key “Biden enabler.” Accusing him of being “the 50th Senator” in a closely divided Senate who could easily have stopped Biden debacles like the border crisis, the spot show vivid footage of illegal border crossings.


“The reason Joe Biden and Democrats are trying to use the ‘extremist’ charge against Republicans is they realize it is their own biggest vulnerability.”

“Mark Kelly is perfect example of why a Red Wave is coming in states like Arizona” the SUPERPAC PRESIDENT SAYS. “He wants to run as a moderate but like every Senate Democrat he is imperiled by his corrupt bargain with the left which said in effect: ‘Don’t primary me and I will vote your way.’”

SPOT CHARGES KELLY’S “FREE RIDE” FROM NATIONAL MEDIA MEANS HE HAS “NEVER HAD TO DENOUNCE” EXTREMISTS WHO WANT TO DEFUND THE POLICE OR DEMOCRATS “dark money alliance with notorious anti-American billionaire George Soros, to opposition to school reform and parental rights, as well as the destruction of women’s sports and childhood education with “gender lunacy.”

SPOT WANTS TO “Make The Media The 2022 Issue”

In calling national media “the most powerful and corrupt institutions in America” seeking to “smear” GOP candidates and protect their own “chosen candidates,” the SPOT asks voters to “send a message to the media bosses” who are “corrupting American journalism” and give them a “miserable election night” by asking Kelly for answers

“Get back at those who have corrupted journalism and seek to crush dissent and smear Kelly’s opponent.”

Spot cites MEDIA AS AMERICA’S MOST CORRUPT INSTITUTIONS COVERED UP 1) China virus leak, 2) Hunter Biden laptop scandal, 3) illegal wrongdoing by Clinton and Biden, 4) FBI harassment of political dissenters, 5) never apologized for two years of its Russian collusion hoax, 6) promoted smears and civil rights violations against conservatives, 7)phony impeachments and show trials.8)covered up Biden’s ill health and incompetence by letting him run from basement.







(Pelosi, DeBlasio, Cuomo, Newsom)

DESTROY WOMEN’S SPORTS AND CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WITH GENDER LUNACY (Pix of Lia the swimmer and drag queens at kindergarten)


“He even voted for a federal takeover of Arizona’s election that would corrupt the secret ballot and completely reduce Arizona’s historic role in presidential elections”



THE SUPREME COURT (Packing the Court)

THE SACRED SECRET BALLOT (No voter ID, unlimited vote harvesting and mail-ins and DC bureaucrats’ takeover of elections)

 CITIZENSHIP (Open borders)

US SENATE (Add new states, no filibuster)

 ELECTORAL COLLEGE. (Elections decided by a few counties in a few states)


“The GOP has never gotten across to the people how those bills would have destroyed the secret ballot, put Department of Justice bureaucrats in charge of our elections, abolished citizenship rights, packed the Supreme Court into irrelevance, radically changed the U.S. Senate, and made a few states the only thing that mattered in presidential elections by abolishing the Electoral College,” said Landrith.

# # #

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Amac: PAC Urges Arizona Press to “Stand Up to Corrupt National Media” Over “Extremist” Mark Kelly

By Seamus Brennan

In a two-minute broadcast TV advertisement, a conservative Super PAC is asking the Arizona press to “stand up” to the national media and make “liberal extremist” Senator Mark Kelly answer for his “corrupt bargain” with left-wing radicals in the Democratic Party. The ad also asks Arizona voters to “send a message to the media bosses” who represent “the most corrupt institutions in America.”

In the TV spot and an extended three-minute online version of the ad, the group asks Kelly “how he can say he isn’t a left-wing extremist if every time he votes like one,” and likewise calls on Arizona journalists to question Kelly on his extremist positions on the campaign trail. The ad, which launched Thursday night, is set to run on the Phoenix TV nightly news and Sunday political talk shows through next week.

The Arizona Senate race between Kelly and Republican Blake Masters—widely expected to be one of the most competitive in the nation—could determine which party controls the Senate come January 2023. “Mark Kelly is a perfect example of why a red wave is coming in states like Arizona,” said George Landrith, president of Frontiers of Freedom Action, the group that aired the ad. “He wants to run as a moderate, but like every Senate Democrat, he is imperiled by his corrupt bargain with the left which said in effect: ‘Don’t primary me and I will vote your way.’”

The ad’s release comes just days after the group aired a similar TV spot in New York markets, criticizing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as “the media’s chosen candidate,” which was hailed by one conservative news outlet as the “greatest campaign ad of all time.” Like the New York TV blitz, the first minute of the Arizona spot focuses chiefly on the media for trying to “crush dissent” and hide corruption, displaying headlines about media scandals and smears—including its suppression of the COVID-19 lab leak theory, censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell, promotion of the Russian collusion hoax, a coverup of Hillary Clinton’s email scandals, and refusal to report on Biden’s blackmailing of the Ukrainian government. The ad also catalogs other political smears, like those against General Michael Flynn, students at Covington Catholic High School, and parents protesting anti-Americanism in their local schools.

The ad goes on to blame the media for elevating Joe Biden to the presidency by letting him run “from his basement” and “covering up his incompetence and ill health.” It then goes on to smear Biden as “the worst president in modern history,” and features videos of him falling up the stairs on Air Force One and taking directions from the Easter Bunny at a White House event with the headline “EASTER BUNNY RUNS WHITE HOUSE EVENT.”

Around the halfway mark of the two-minute TV spot, the ad labels Kelly as Biden’s “key enabler,” noting that he votes with Biden 92 percent of the time and “cast the deciding vote on huge spending bills that cause shattering inflation and recession”—referring to the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” which economists predict will even further aggravate inflation and raise costs for Arizona families.

Additionally, the ad notes how attempts by the likes of Biden and Kelly to push a radical takeover of elections—as well as efforts by other Democrats to alter the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Senate, American citizenship, and the Electoral College—represent a “scorched-earth, rule-or-ruin” attack on longstanding American democratic institutions. “The GOP has never gotten across to the people how those bills would have destroyed the secret ballot, but Department of Justice bureaucrats in charge of our elections, abolished citizenship rights, packed the Supreme Court into irrelevance, radically changed the U.S. Senate, and made a few states the only thing that mattered in presidential elections by abolishing the Electoral College,” said Landrith.

The ad concludes with a call for the people of Arizona to “make the media bosses the 2022 issue” before stating that Kelly “was the 50th senator and could have forced Biden and Schumer to stop the deliberate border crisis.” Mark Kelly, the ad goes on to say, “is a symptom of all that is wrong about Washington. Why did Mark Kelly go to the big city and forget the people who sent him there?”

“This Senate race is not a personality contest,” Landrith said. “Kelly’s opponent is a great candidate, but even if he weren’t, this issue is Kelly’s left-wing extremist voting in the Senate.”

Although Kelly has thus far maintained a marginal lead over Masters in statewide polling, the release of the ad could go a long way in further tightening the race and compelling moderates, independents, and disaffected Democrats to reconsider their support for Kelly as their representative in the Senate.


.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .


BREITBART: Super PAC Attacking Media, Schumer Expands Ad Buy to Target Mark Kelly

By Joel Pollak

A conservative super PAC that is urging Republicans to target the mainstream media in campaign messages is expanding its ad buy, entering the Arizona race for Senate with TC spots targeting Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ).

As Breitbart News reported last month, the Frontiers of Freedom Action (FFA) super PAC placed ads in regional markets in upstate New York, urging voters to consider the “bargain” that Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) allegedly made to avoid a difficult primary challenge from the likes of democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): if he would vote and govern from the left, he would be left virtually unopposed in his primary race.

Now, the PAC is making the same case in Arizona, arguing that Kelly — who campaigned as a moderate but has voted with the party’s left since taking office in 2021 — made a similar “corrupt bargain” in his own race.

The PAC has bought airtime for a two-minute ad to air during 10 p.m. television news shows in Phoenix, to run on Thursday night and on Sunday through next week. (See TV Spot above)

It has also released a similar ad on the web: <HERE>

The ads allege that Kelly was the chief “Biden enabler,” and that as the “50th Senator” he could have stopped some of the most radical legislation to pass through the chamber, but refused to do so.

The implied contrast is with Sen. Kirsten Sinema (D-AZ), who has joined Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) in opposing some left-wing initiatives and defending the filibuster that enshrines the rights of the minority.

The ad encourages viewers and voters to pressure their local media outlets to ask questions of Kelly, and urges them to see the 2022 midterms as a way to “sed a message” to a corrupt media establishment.

Kelly faces a challenge from Republican Blake Masters in the upcoming November election.

.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


.   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .



Mark Kelly made a corrupt bargain with left-wing extremists to not run a primary against him if he pushed far-left positions” — TV spot. 

Ask “local press” and Arizona news “affiliates” to hold Kelly “accountable on the campaign trail” by asking —

           “Why did he let his fear of a primary make him cave in to the left-wing extremist “squad”? 

           “How can he say he isn’t a left-wing extremist if every time he votes like one?” 



“He was the deciding vote in the Senate and could have forced Biden and Schumer to stop their deliberate border crisis.”

“Instead he became a Biden-Schumer enabler and gave them everything they wanted.”


“Mark Kelly is a perfect example of why a Red Wave is coming in states like Arizona,” said Frontiers of Freedom Action President, George Landrith. “He wants to run as a moderate, but like every Senate Democrat he is imperiled by his corrupt bargain with the Left which said in effect: ‘Don’t primary me and I will vote your way.’”


We ask in the TV spot:

           “Why he went to Washington and sided with the left-wing extremists against the people of Arizona?”

           “Why Mark Kelly went to the Big City and forgot the people who sent him there?”

Spot also says:

            “Ask the local news not to give Kelly the free ride that he gets from corrupt national media.”

             “Ask the Arizona media and affiliates to question Mark Kelly on the campaign trail.”

KELLYS  “FREE RIDE” FROM NATIONAL MEDIA MEANS HE HAS NEVER HAD TO DENOUNCE”  EXTREMISTS  WHO WANT TO  DEFUND THE POLICE OR DEMOCRATS “dark money alliance with notorious anti-American billionaire George Soros, to opposition to school reform and parental rights, as well as the destruction of women’s sports and childhood education with “gender lunacy.”

SPOT SAYS “Make The Media The 2022 Issue”

Calling national media  “the most powerful and corrupt institutions in America” seeking to “smear” GOP candidates and protect their own “chosen candidates,”  TV SPOT asks voters to “send a message to the media bosses” who are “corrupting American journalism” and give them a “miserable election night” by asking Kelly for answers 

“Get back at those who have corrupted journalism and seek to crush dissent and who smear Kelly’s opponent.”

TV Spot says — the MEDIA, AS ONE OF AMERICAS MOST CORRUPT INSTITUTIONS, COVERED UP — 1) China virus leak, 2) Hunter Biden laptop scandal, 3) illegal wrongdoing by Clinton and Biden, 4) FBI harassment of political dissenters,  5) never apologized for two years of its Russian collusion hoax, 6) promoted smears and civil rights violations against conservatives, 7) conducted phony impeachments and totalitarian style show trials, and 8) covered up Bidens ill health and incompetence by letting him run from his basement.







           DESTROYING WOMEN’S SPORTS AND CHILDHOOD EDUCATION WITH GENDER LUNACY (Pix of Lia the swimmer and drag queens at kindergarten) 

           DESTROYING ELECTION INTEGRITY BECAUSE HE BACKED BIDEN-SCHUMER  — “Kelly even voted for a federal takeover of Arizona’s election that would corrupt the secret ballot and completely reduce Arizona’s historic role in presidential elections”


The Ad points out that the Left’s Agenda — one that Kelly fully supports — WILL DESTROY – 


           THE SACRED SECRET BALLOT (No voter ID, unlimited vote harvesting and mail-ins and DC bureaucratstakeover of elections)

           CITIZENSHIP  (Open borders)

           US SENATE  (Add new states, no filibuster

           ELECTORAL COLLEGE  (Elections decided by a few counties in a few states)


“The GOP has never gotten across to the people how those bills would have destroyed the secret ballot, put Department of Justice bureaucrats in charge of our elections, abolished citizenship rights, packed the Supreme Court into irrelevance, radically changed the U.S. Senate, and made a few states the only thing that mattered in presidential elections by abolishing the Electoral College,” said Landrith. 



The Frontiers of Freedom Weekly Report – 9/30/22

. . .

With George Landrith, Tom Donelson, Larry Fedewa & Joe Mangiacotti

. . .

. . .

LINK — https://rumble.com/v1m67qm-frontiers-of-freedom-weekly-report-sept.-30-2022.html

. . .

Comparison of Republican States and Democratic States from August 2020 to August 2022

By Tom Donelson, Senior Fellow

Since August 2020 and during the pandemics, there has been one constant: unemployment in Republican states have been significantly lower than in Democratic states. The chart below shows this 

In August of 2020 unemployment for states with Democratic governors was 8.4 compared to 6.4 unemployment for Republican governors and in August 2022, unemployment under Democratic governors was 3.7 percent and under Republican governors was only 3 percent.

We also compared states with exclusively one-party control of the both the legislature and the executive  with branch mixed control with one party who split control of the lever of power and found differences. Republicans who control both the legislature and governor seats, had an unemployment rate of 2.8 percent compared to Democrat states who control both the governor seat. and the legislature had an unemployment rate of 4 percent. Those who had mixed government had an unemployment rate of 3.4.   

Completely run blue states had 30 percent more unemployment than completely run red states and these Democrats run states were even behind those states with split control. We did not find a difference between states with Republican governors and split government and Democratic governors with split government as GOP governors was 3.4 percent and Democratic governors was 3.3 percent. When we combined GOP governors and split governance, we see the unemployment is 3 percent. 

We also compared the top four most populous states with Republican governors: Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Georgia to top four populous states with Democratic governors: New York, California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. States with Republican governors had unemployment of 3.4 percent and two, Florida and Georgia, were below the national average and below 3 percent. The Democratic states averaged 4.4 percent and not one of these states were below the national average. Not one Democratic state had unemployment less than 4.1 percent. 

The main reason for this difference is that Republican states open their economy earlier during the Pandemics compared to Democratic states. While some GOP states were aggressive with lockdowns initially, GOP states reduce restrictions, and this showed up in the lower unemployment.

Dr. Wilfred Reilly conducted three studies on the impact on the lockdown and found that there were no real differences in deaths per capita and both non-lockdown states and Republican states had lower unemployment compared to lockdown states and Democratic states. 1 Unemployment for non-lockdown states was 5.5 percent and for Republican states 6.4 percent whereas lockdown states and Democrat states unemployment was 8.2 percent in August of 2020. 

In winter of 2020, many states reinstate lockdowns and in reviewing those states in August 2022, the unemployment was 3.5 percent for lockdown states compared to 2.8 percent for non-lockdown states. In both studies, all the non-lockdown states had Republican governors and in those states in which Democrats ran all phrase of government, the unemployment rate was 4 percent. 

What we find for the past two years is that Republican states have lower unemployment compared to their Democratic counterpart and we found this difference most significant. Other studies support this including a report card by Casey Mulligan, Phil Kerpen and Steve Moore. They observed, “Economy and schooling are positively correlated (correlation coefficient = 0.43), which suggests a relationship between the willingness of the population (or its politicians) to resume normal activity in business and school. MT, SD, NE, and UT are the states’ highest on the economy score and among only seven states to exceed 85 percent open schools. The correlation between health and economy scores is essentially zero, which suggests that states that withdrew the most from economic activity did not significantly improve health by doing so.”2  

  1. Ignored cost: Effect Yes-No lockdown states along with Red-Blue states political partisanship and other variables on April-August unemployment across the United States. Sept 2020
  2. A FINAL REPORT CARD ON THE STATES’ RESPONSE TO COVID-19 by Casey Mulligan, Phil Kerpen and Steve Moore April 2022

Even This Left-Wing Report Sounds The Alarm: U.S. Is Way Too Dependent On Communist China For Minerals

‘The U.S., in particular, will likely have to update and amend its mining regulatory regime,’ authors at the liberal Brookings Institute wrote.

By Tristan JusticeThe Federalist


A new report from the liberal Brookings Institute out Monday warned that the United States and European supply chains are too dependent on China for modern technologies such as electric vehicles, transmission, and energy storage.

The report, titled “China’s Role in Supplying Critical Minerals for the Global Energy Transition,” is urging Western policymakers to expedite an overhaul of their mining regulatory regime to meet 21st-century demand for clean technology.

“China is the dominant global player in refining strategic minerals,” the authors wrote, with Chinese operations refining 68 percent of the world’s nickel, 40 percent of the world’s copper, 59 percent of lithium, and 73 percent of cobalt. “Most notably, China holds 78 percent of the world’s cell manufacturing capacity for [electric vehicle] batteries, which are then assembled into modules that are used to form a battery pack.”

Beyond Chinese monopolization of electric battery production, demand for which is set to spike as the Biden administration reaches to achieve its goal of half U.S. auto sales being electric by 2030 with generous subsidies, Beijing also maintains a grip on rare earth mining.

The 17 rare earth elements (REE) are not just critical for electric cars and wind turbines, but also for aerospace and defense technologies. President Joe Biden’s aggressive expansion of wind power at the expense of a reliable power grid run by conventional sources, has only deepened American reliance on Chinese exports.

According to the Department of Energy, “demand for rare earth elements for wind power alone could exceed the supply for all uses by 1.6 to 3.5 times over.”

Although China dominates in the refinement of critical minerals and rare earth production, the authors emphasize Beijing lacks the upper hand in mining critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt. Together, Australia and Chile are home to more than 70 percent of the global lithium supply, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone extracts nearly 70 percent of the world’s cobalt.

“While China has a clear downstream competitive advantage, it does not dominate the upstream for critical minerals,” the authors wrote. However, the Chinese are working to change that. “With demand for critical minerals rapidly increasing, Chinese companies are striking new deals for minerals globally to secure raw mineral inputs for refining and battery manufacturing.”

American lawmakers have certainly taken notice of vulnerabilities in supply chains as global turmoil, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to rising tensions with China, has ramped up the pressure to produce more critical minerals within the United States.

In June, the U.S. along with nine allied nations and the European Commission formed the Minerals Security Partnership, which is seen as a form of “metallic NATO,” to insulate stability and security in supply chains among members. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources also held a series of hearings on the nation’s supply of critical minerals this spring, where members of both sides of the aisle expressed a need to develop new American mines.

“From the technologies needed to support military readiness and combat climate change to the cell phones in our pockets or the cars in our driveways, critical minerals are essential to life we lead and the technologies we have come to depend on,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who chairs the committee. “Accelerating their production and establishing secure and dependable supply chains is vital to our energy and national security.”

Lawmakers have proposed reforms to the Mining Act of 1872, though uncertainty over the final outcome has continued to chill investment in the capital-intensive industry. A proposed lithium mine in Nevada, described by Reuters as “the first new U.S. source of the battery metal in decades,” is the sole exception after Panasonic and Toyota came to a deal to purchase from the project.

“The U.S., in particular, will likely have to update and amend its mining regulatory regime,” the authors of the Brookings report wrote, describing it as “outdated.”

Debra Struhsacker, a hardrock mining and environmental policy expert who has testified before Congress five times, agrees. The nation’s current regulatory mining regime, Struhsacker told The Federalist, “is fraught with delays and uncertainly,” with permitting processes, not environmental rules, in desperate need of reform.

“The U.S. has tremendous potential,” Struhsacker said, with rich deposits of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, and antimony, to name a few, waiting for harvest across the American continent. The nation’s complex permitting system, which has created a lucrative litigation industry to shut down major projects, however, has stifled the ability to develop new mines. “Part of the reason we have so much reliance on foreign minerals is because we’ve made our own lands off-limits to mining,” she said.

While Congress has struggled to put together a bipartisan package to stimulate American mining operations, Struhsacker said, she gives Biden a “D” on his performance addressing the issue.

In April, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to support mining operations behind lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese, but the administration has continued to shut down major projects from Alaska to Minnesota.

Biden’s Department of the Interior welcomed the new year with the cancellation of mineral leases for a copper and nickel mine in Minnesota. The proposed “Twin Metals” mine in the Superior National Forest, which Struhsacker described as a “world class resource,” would be one of the largest in the nation. In May, Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency moved to shut down plans for a trillion-dollar copper project known as “Pebble Mine” in southwest Alaska.

“The Biden administration is currently taking some steps to address these challenges related to political and stakeholder factors, but its efforts are not commensurate with the scale of the challenge,” reads the Brookings report. “Moreover, the administration has been unwilling to advance controversial projects like Pebble and Twin Metals, which are likely needed to significantly increase domestic supply in the short term.”

Struhsacker summed up her assessment of Biden’s approach as “schizophrenic.”

“On the one hand he’s giving policy lip service to the need for these minerals but he hasn’t really given his land management agencies the imperative to get critical mineral projects permitted,” Struhsacker said.

The mixed signals to the industry from the White House’s inconsistency, combined with a slow-moving Congress, is maintaining the status quo of reliance on foreign sources. In the end, that means an era of supply-chain vulnerability and higher emissions from overseas transportation as opposed to domestic mining operations here at home.

What Caused Gas Prices To Jump?

A range of world actors and events share the blame for the run-up in prices.

By David R. Hendersondefining ideas

If you, unlike Michigan Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow, have bought gasoline lately, there’s a good chance that you’ve seen a sticker on the gas pump with a picture of President Biden saying, “I did that.” Typically, those stickers are placed by customers, not gas station owners, and for that reason, I’m against them: they violate the owners’ property rights.

But I’m more interested here in the substantive question: did Joe Biden “do that”? My answer is “somewhat.” It wasn’t Biden alone. The Federal Reserve had some role, and the recovery from the pandemic had a large role. But the many actions Biden took before Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and some of his actions afterwards have certainly caused the price of oil and gasoline to rise. Biden didn’t do all of  “that.” Other governments have contributed to the problem, and various US government restrictions in the oil and gasoline markets have also contributed.

More important, many of Biden’s actions, unless reversed, will contribute to high oil and gasoline prices in the future. We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, he and his employees John Kerry, special presidential envoy for climate, and Jennifer Granholm, secretary of energy, explicitly want a diminished role for fossil fuels in the near future. If future oil production falls, then, for a given demand for oil, oil prices will rise.

We need to separate two categories of gasoline price increases: increases due to inflation and increases due to actions specific to the oil and gasoline markets.


Between January 2021, when Biden took office, and May 2022, the consumer price index (CPI), which is the usual measure of the inflation rate, rose by 11.7 percent. So, if gasoline prices had simply kept pace with the CPI, they would now be 11.7 percent higher than in January 2021. In January 2021, the average retail price of gasoline in the United States was $2.42. By the week of June 13, 2022, it had reached a whopping $5.11 per gallon. That’s up by $2.69. The 111 percent increase is, of course, much bigger than the increase in the CPI. Clearly, other factors besides inflation have caused gasoline prices to rise.

The major entity responsible for inflation is the Federal Reserve. In the 1960s, Milton Friedman famously stated that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” What he meant is that any persistent inflation that we have observed has been preceded by an increase in the money supply. That’s why a standard line that people have used is that inflation is due to too much money chasing too few goods.

There are several measures of the money supply. The one that monetary economists use most is M2, which includes M1 plus time deposits under $100,000 and shares in retail money market funds. M1, in turn, consists of currency and coins held by the non-bank public, checkable deposits, and savings deposits. In February 2020, just before the pandemic-induced lockdowns, M2 was $15.46 trillion. By April 2022, it had reached $21.73 trillion, an increase of 40.6 percent. Of course, we didn’t get close to a 40 percent inflation rate. The main reason is that Americans’ demand to hold money increased dramatically early in the pandemic. With fewer goods and services for people to buy, they (we) hoarded money. Now, with the pandemic largely behind us, our demand for money is slowly falling.

But why did the money supply increase so much? A major factor was the huge increases in pandemic-related federal government spending, during both the Trump and the Biden administrations. The CARES Act, which President Trump signed in March 2020, increased government spending by $2.2 trillion. To put that in perspective, total federal spending in FY 2019 was $4.45 trillion. And FY 2019 was not exactly a low-spending year, except in retrospect. Nor was Trump done. In late December 2020, he signed another spending bill that included $900 billion in further pandemic-related spending. Those spending increases weren’t enough for President Biden. In early March 2021, Biden signed a further $1.9 trillion pandemic-related spending bill.

All three of these spending measures massively increased the federal budget deficits for FY 2020, FY 2021, and FY 2022. That meant that the federal government had to borrow additional trillions of dollars. The Federal Reserve “monetized” a large part of that additional debt by buying federal government bonds that had first been sold to the public. According to Veronique de Rugy, of the $6 trillion in new federal debt issued during the pandemic, the Federal Reserve monetized $2.7 trillion, or 45 percent. That’s how the money supply increased.

So, if we’re going to blame the entities that caused inflation, they are, in order, the Federal Reserve, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. On the plus side, we should give huge credit to Joe Manchin, the Democratic senator from West Virginia, for standing strong against Biden’s further huge spending increase, misleadingly labeled “Build Back Better.”

The Oil Market

But the major cause of gasoline price increases, as the earlier data show, has not been inflation. The other causes are specific to the oil and gasoline markets.

Start with oil. The biggest factor in the increase in gasoline prices since January 2021 is the increase in the price of oil. Between January 2021 and May 2022, the price of West Texas Intermediate oil (a standard measure of prices) increased from $52.00 per barrel to $109.55, an increase of 111 percent. There are 42 gallons per barrel of oil. The $57.55 increase in the price of oil, the major input in gasoline, accounts for $1.37, or over half, of the $2.69 increase in the price of gasoline.

Before we turn to other factors that account for the gasoline price increase, let’s first consider who or what is responsible for the increase in the world price of oil. The major factor is the increase in worldwide demand as we make our way out of the economic collapse of 2020. We can’t have data on demand because demand is always a schedule: it gives the amount demanded at each price and all we observe at a point in time is the price and the quantity consumed. But here’s how we know that demand increased. Between the first quarter of 2021 and the fourth quarter of 2021, worldwide consumption rose from 93.9 million barrels per day (mbd) to 99.2 mbd. When both the consumption of oil and the price of oil rise, that necessarily means that demand increased.

Besides increases in demand, what factors have led to higher oil prices, especially in the past few months?

One factor is Biden’s and many European governments’ response in the oil market to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. They have colluded to keep Russian oil off the market. The Russian government has responded by selling oil to China and India that it would have sold mainly to European consumers. This could be just a game of musical chairs, with the qualification that the number of chairs equals the number of players. In such a case, the overall effect on the world oil market would be small. But the collusive agreement seems to be holding up. Why do I say that? Because the prices that Russia is charging China and India are deeply discounted from world prices. If the collusion had broken down, the prices would be close to equal. The EU and Biden have effectively segmented the world oil market. Chinese and Indian consumers move down their demand curve at the lower prices they pay, buying more than they would have, and we other consumers are bidding over a diminished supply. So, the EU and Biden have definitely contributed to the higher price of oil since the Russian invasion. 

Interestingly, Biden admits that his and the EU’s actions have increased oil prices. In a June 22, 2022, speech, Biden stated:

We cut off Russian oil into the United States, and our partners in Europe did the same, knowing that we would see higher gas prices.

Longer term, Biden will contribute to higher oil prices regardless of what happens with Russia and Ukraine. The reason is that he has signaled in many ways his hostility to US production of oil and natural gas. The American Energy Alliance has listed “100 Ways Biden and the Democrats Have Made It Harder to Produce Oil and Gas.” As with most such lists, some of the items seem minor. But the shocking thing is how many appear to be substantial. They include an executive order imposing a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on government lands and a proposed rule by the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require public companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. No oil company decision maker could miss the overall negative tenor of the list. I recommend a quick perusal of the list of 100.

Interestingly, one of Biden’s cabinet members recently admitted her hostility to long-term production of oil and natural gas. In a June 15 interview with CNN’s John Berman, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm admitted that she and Biden want oil companies to produce more oil this year but not produce more in five to ten years. The video is priceless. You can tell by the look on Berman’s face and by his tone that he is skeptical that oil companies can be motivated to bear a lot of startup costs just to produce more oil for only a year or two. 

But you don’t have to go with tone or facial expression. Berman laid out the problem beautifully:

But that’s the problem for these companies. These companies are saying, you know, “you’re asking me to do more now, invest more now, when in fact five or ten years from now we don’t think that demand will be there, and the administration doesn’t even necessarily want it to be there.”

You might think that because oil prices are determined in a world market, US government actions that discourage domestic US production don’t matter much. But that’s not true. Because oil demand worldwide is fairly inelastic, small changes in supply can cause large changes in price.

Refining Capacity

As noted above, the increased price of oil between January 2021 and May 2022 accounts for $1.37 of the $2.69 increase in the price of gasoline. What about the remaining $1.32 of the increase? The problem is that the increased demand for gasoline is pushing against a very inelastic refining supply. Here’s how Debnil Chowdhury and Susan D. Bell put it in “Restart or remain shuttered—why rationalized US refineries will not come to the rescue” (IHS Markit, June 24), after noting the amount of refinery capacity that has been sidelined by storms or other incidents:

General market sentiment, our medium-term outlook included, is that the current high-margin environment [for refineries] will be fleeting. Recouping recommissioning costs will be difficult unless these strong margins are sustained beyond 2023. Refiners are unlikely to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in recommissioning costs for only one or two years of strong returns.

Getting permission to build a refinery in the United States is not easy. While the US Energy Information Administration lists thirteen US refineries that have been built since 1978, none of these has the capacity to refine more than 84,000 barrels per day. Compare that to the Marathon Oil refinery in Garyville, Louisiana, built in 1976, which has the capacity to refine 578,000 barrels per day. Oil company executives would have to think long and hard before applying for permission to build a new refinery or putting serious resources into expanding a refinery. You can bet that all of them heard, loud and clear, Granholm’s statement about not wanting so much oil in five or ten years. 


As I noted earlier, I’m not a fan of violating the property rights of gasoline station owners and so I would never put an uninvited sticker on a gasoline pump. But if I were to do so, the sticker would have a picture of Joe Biden saying, “I did some of that, and I’ll do more.”

Biden’s Green Energy Future Relies Too Much on China’s Solar Boondoggle

By Peter RoffIssues & Insights

Solar power

President Joe Biden thinks it’s important to decouple America from its reliance on fossil fuels. Most of America disagrees, yet he keeps pushing for the adoption of renewables to replace the energy that comes from traditional sources like petroleum and natural gas. That’s why we’ve seen the price we pay at the pump spike so high. Not that the green energy crowd is much bothered by that. To them, the decline in the consumption of fossil fuels reduces the production of greenhouse gasses, which is music to their ears. Yet while they call the tune, we pay the piper. 

Most Americans are all for doing “something” about climate change but aren’t willing to pay very much to do it. If it’s a problem, it’s a global one. The U.S. cannot fix it alone. Every nation must participate. Some, like China, simply refuse and its use of coal is rising so fast that it wipes out any benefit the reduction of U.S. carbon emissions has had. 

Most Americans don’t realize how reliant on China the Biden plan is. The hoped-for transition to producing electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar can’t happen without cheap Asian-made solar panels being allowed into the United States. Without them, the nation can look forward to rolling brownouts – which the White House would like to avoid in the coming summer months, causing it to move quickly to suspend the tariffs on them for two years, despite credible evidence of dumping.

Allowing Chinese-made solar panels and solar panels that use materials made and mined in China, probably by slave labor, into the U.S. marketplace because our government’s policies created a need for them is bad policy. The president’s use of the Defense Production Act to increase American-based solar panel production is a diversion, as Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the pro-manufacturing group Coalition for a Prosperous America inferred when he said, “You can’t say that you want to spur domestic production, and then allow the Chinese to continue to dump product, which is a direct threat and something that is working against increasing domestic production.” 

What Biden wants and is doing takes U.S. energy resources off the board and stifles the innovations of producers working to supply Americans with cleaner, more affordable energy. Former Congressman Harold Ford, D-Tenn., got it right when he urged President Biden to “stop vilifying U.S. energy producers, many of which are leading the development of technologies to mitigate carbon emissions and make the transition to cleaner energy.”

If that were not bad enough, the president is also signaling his administration will overlook human rights abuses in the effort to make America green. Nearly 40 percent of global polysilicon production, which is important to the manufacture of solar panels, comes from China’s Xinjiang region. That’s where, according to the U.S. Department of State, genocide and slave labor are prevalent. 

In its rush to make America go green, the Biden administration is ignoring the reasons to be wary of the role China must play. Congressional China Task Force Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said the tariff suspension amount to “amnesty to products that the administration admitted are linked to genocide and slave labor.” 

These two concerns intersect in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where what a taxpayer watchdog calls a “Solar Boondoggle” is about to begin. In March 2022, VI Gov. Albert Bryan announced his intention to transition St. Croix – one of the three islands that comprise the USVI — to 100 percent solar power. A tall order under any circumstances, the fact the islands are still rebuilding after the 2017 hurricanes that devastated them and that solar power currently accounts for just 2 percent of its energy mix, makes it near impossible. 

Andrew Smith, who heads the power company there, recently called the switch a boon to St. Croix “because solar is effectively free.” If the Biden administration ends up sending the bill for the transition to the U.S. taxpayers, he’d be right – and that’s the path Gov. Bryan says he’ll pursue. 

In a recent interview, Bryan said he expected more federal assistance, specifically from the U.S. DOE, to build a new solar grid above and beyond the more than $1.4 billion in Federal Emergency Management Agency loans already sent to the USVI. Meanwhile, St. Croix’s energy infrastructure remains unreliable. 

The economics of the transition dictate the USVI must use cheaper Chinese components, regardless of their impact on American industry or the harsh realities of their manufacturing processes, if the plan to build out a new green infrastructure is to succeed. If what happens there is allowed to replicate itself across America, we’ll be in a heck of a mess. 

Biden Gas Prices Tweet Reveals Alarming Economic Illiteracy

By Norman LeahyAmerican Action News

fuel level indicator in reserve, without fuel. Fuel empty.

It’s no secret that high gas prices have President Joe Biden and other Democratic pols in a tizzy.

Enough of one that they have decided it’s good policy, and better political optics, to bully gas station owners over how much they charge at the pump. The president’s Twitter team published this gem over the long holiday weekend:

My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump is simple: this is a time of war and global peril. 

Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product. And do it now.

Setting aside the notion that an American president feels the need to harangue the franchise owner on the corner…the economic illiteracy on display in Mr. Biden’s tweet is inexcusable. 

It would be generous and kind to blame the communications staff for this. But the buck stops with Joe, so the blame is all his. As such Mr. Biden deserves the strong corrective he gets from, among others, The Wall Street Journal:

More than a quarter of gas stations have closed since the 1990s because they couldn’t make the economics work. If retailers were to sell fuel at cost, most would go out of business. Perhaps those owned by large refiners would survive, but they’d be accused of predatory pricing by Mr. Biden’s antitrust cops.

The President’s economic ignorance isn’t a one-off. In recent months he has accused oil and gas companies of price gouging and demanded that they increase production even while his Administration threatens to put them out of business. Mr. Biden doesn’t understand that businesses make long-term decisions based on demand expectations and policy signals. Jeff Bezos called the President’s weekend tweet “either straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics.” They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Indeed, the Biden team’s misdirection is just a manifestation of its misunderstanding…of market function, prices, incentives, regulation and so on. 

And if you think the gas station episode was bad, buckle-up, because Team Biden is about to face a cascade of troubles thanks to one of his oldest political backers…Big Labor:

…the labor contract for 29 West Coast ports, which covers 22,000 dockworkers, lapsed over the weekend.

For now, talks continue; the two sides are reportedly fighting over port managers’ desire to automate more operations, as major ports in Europe and Asia have already done. But if a work stoppage or slowdown results, it could wreak havoc on the country’s already-fragile supply chains, with potentially catastrophic consequences for inflation and the economy.

Also, of course, for Democrats’ chances in the midterms.

This isn’t some remote risk. The last time this contract was being renegotiated, starting in 2014, talks broke down and work slowdowns led to expensive shipping delays. The Obama administration had to intervene. Labor disruptions (strikes, lockouts, slowdowns) also occurred during West Coast port contract negotiations in 2002, 2008 and 2012.

Does Biden side with his old allies in the labor movement? Or does his professed determination to fight inflation convince him to convince them to get back to work?

Given Biden’s grasp of economics, we should prepare for the worst.

Biden Sold a Million Barrels From US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China-Owned Gas Giant

Biden's Energy Department said move would 'support American consumers' and combat 'Putin's price hike'

By Collin AndersonThe Washington Free Beacon

The Biden administration sold roughly one million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a Chinese state-controlled gas giant that continues to purchase Russian oil, a move the Energy Department said would “support American consumers” and combat “Putin’s price hike.”

Biden’s Energy Department in April announced the sale of 950,000 Strategic Petroleum Reserve barrels to Unipec, the trading arm of the China Petrochemical Corporation. That company, which is commonly known as Sinopec, is wholly owned by the Chinese government. The Biden administration claimed the move would “address the pain Americans are feeling at the pump” and “help lower energy costs.” More than five million barrels of oil released from the U.S. emergency reserves, however, were sent overseas last month, according to a Wednesday Reuters report. At least one shipment of American crude went to China, the report said.

The Biden administration also claimed the Unipec sale would “support American consumers and the global economy in response to Vladimir Putin’s war of choice against Ukraine” and combat “Putin’s price hike.” But as the war rages on, Unipec has continued to purchase Russian oil. In May, for example, the company “significantly increased the number of hired tankers to ship a key crude from eastern Russia,” Bloomberg reported. That decision came roughly one month after Unipec said it would purchase “no more Russian oil going forward” once “shipments that have arrived in March and due to arrive in April” were fulfilled.

The White House did not return a request for comment. Its decision to sell barrels from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a Chinese conglomerate comes as the American public increasingly sours on Biden’s energy policies. According to a January Gallup poll, roughly three in four Americans are not satisfied with the federal government’s national energy policy, the highest level in roughly two decades. 

Power the Future founder Daniel Turner admonished Biden for selling “raw materials to the Communist Chinese for them to use as they want.”

“We were assured Biden was releasing this oil to America so it could be refined for gasoline to drive down prices at the pump. So right off the bat, they’re just lying to the American people,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “What they’re saying they did and what they did are not remotely related.”

Turner also said the decision highlights the Biden family’s “relationship with China.” Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is tied to Sinopec. In 2015, a private equity firm he cofounded bought a $1.7 billion stake in Sinopec Marketing. Sinopec went on to enter negotiations to purchase Gazprom in March, one month after the Biden administration sanctioned the Russian gas giant.

Biden campaigned heavily against the oil and gas industry in 2020, promising to “end fossil fuel.” He went on to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and implement a moratorium on new gas leases on federal land during his first month in office. Biden’s energy secretary, meanwhile, is working with left-wing activists who want to eliminate fossil fuels, and in late October, House Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats pushed top oil executives to produce less gas due to climate change.

Gas prices have since soared to record highs. In mid June, the national average for a gallon of gas surpassed $5 for the first time ever. Still, the White House has assured Americans that they need to pay high gas prices to support the “liberal world order.”

“What do you say to those families that say, ‘Listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?'” CNN anchor Victor Blackwell asked Biden economic adviser Brian Deese in late June. “This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm,” Deese responded.

Biden Calls Gas Tax Holiday a ‘Big Help.’ Obama Called It a ‘Gimmick.’

Democrats denounce fuel tax suspension

By Ginger MorrowThe Washington Free Beacon

On the campaign trail in 2008, Obama said of the tax suspension, “We’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say they did something. Well, let me tell you, this isn’t an idea designed to get you through the summer, it’s designed to get them through an election.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) in April said gas tax holidays are “good PR,” but shared the concern that there is “no guarantee that the reduction in the federal tax would be passed on to the consumer.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio, (D., Ore.), the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, agreed.

“Suspending the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax is not going to give consumers significant relief—if any at all,” DeFazio said in February, adding that the move may have negative effects. “Suspending the tax will blow a $26 billion hole in the highway trust fund this year and cause further delay in rebuilding our decrepit infrastructure and the tens of thousands of jobs that investment would have provided.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) also foresees road blocks for infrastructure projects. He said the suspension “just doesn’t make sense,” adding, “People want their bridges and their roads, and we have an infrastructure bill we just passed this summer, and they want to take that all away.”

The Free Beacon reported Monday that Biden is the least popular president in more than a century. Democrats are on the fence about his viability for a second term and bracing for a tumultuous midterm season.

The View Through Debbie Stabenow’s Windshield

By Peter RoffAmerican Liberty

The View Through Debbie Stabenow’s Windshield

Whether or not Marie Antoinette said rioting French peasants upset about the shortage of bread to feed their families should “eat cake” instead is not important. The idea that she did has been passed down, generation to generation, as the perfect illustration of how the isolated elites in a society can become hopelessly out of touch.

This is not just a problem for the rich but also for the powerful, who use their positions to grant themselves perks that alleviate the need for them to worry about the kinds of things that keep the rest of us at night.

Like whether we’re going to have enough gas in the car to get to work in the morning.

Since coming into office, the Biden Administration has been at war with the American energy sector. Following the President’s lead, they believe climate change is an existential threat to the continued well-being of mankind that can only be thwarted if Americans are forced to go green.

That’s what’s really behind the sudden, continuing rise in the price of gasoline. It’s not, as President Joe Biden continues to assert, a transitory thing caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It is the result of calculated policy decisions intended to roll back the energy independence that became a reality by the end of the Trump Administration.

There’s nothing wrong with green energy per se. Indeed, the United States would realize considerable benefit from the ability to rely on fuel coming from renewable sources like wind and solar and to be more efficient in the generation and use of power from fossil fuels so that less of it is wasted

All that can be achieved by market forces a lot faster and cheaper than by government mandates. The Biden Administration has chosen – regardless of the consequences – to force this upon us all, meaning that some people are now, in a period of inflation unseen for at least 40 years, to face the very real choice between putting gas in the car and food on the table.

Too many Democrats regard that as a good thing. They don’t blame the government for the problem. They blame the energy sector, which it criticizes for earning record profits because the price at the pump is up thanks to the shrinkage Biden and his cohorts have forced on the industry. The cancelation of new pipelines and oil and gas leases on federal lands are two among a handful of reasons domestic energy producers cannot respond to the increase in demand by increasing the supply to keep prices stable.

The energy markets are behaving as the President wants, given his belief, he can prioritize his strategy to increase the use of energy made from renewables and the need to bring down the price of gasoline.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre seemed badly ignorant of economic reality when she insisted during a recent press briefing that there was nothing inherently problematic with pursuing both objectives at the same time.

“What we’re trying to deal with right now is how do we lower costs for American families,” she said. “One of the things that we are seeing currently right now with oil refiners is they are using this moment,” she continued, “to actually make a profit.”

She can get away with shifting blame for a while but what does she suggest as an alternative? Does she think the energy sector should sell gasoline and other fuels at a loss? That’s a recipe for economic catastrophe, as would be the kind of nationalization of the sector that exists in so many other countries.

The problem is that Biden and Jean-Pierre and so many others are out of touch with what’s going on. The people aren’t rioting for gas yet, but it may just be a matter of time.

Consider the comments of Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who recently described a drive she made from her home state to Washington in an electric vehicle.

“After waiting for a long time to have enough chips in this country to finally get my electric vehicle,” the state’s senior elected Democrat said during a June 7 meeting of the Senate Finance Committee. “I got it and drove it from Michigan to here last weekend and went by every gas station and it didn’t matter how high it was.”

Stabenow doesn’t have to choose between putting food on her table and putting gas in her car. Rather than being grateful and understanding she’s insulated from reality because she enjoys elected privilege, she claims she’s mystified by the expressions of concern coming from the American people because they are routinely paying more than $100 for a full tank of gas. Wonderful.

An elected official, whose annual salary is just shy of $200,000, is driving a car that cost more than most Americans make in a year that the taxpayers probably pay for her to use, thinks high gas prices aren’t a problem because she doesn’t have to pay them anymore. That’s the kind of leadership that causes politicians to lose their heads.

The Biden Administration’s Misguided Railroad Mandate

The Surface Transportation Board needs to avoid adding new inefficiencies to supply chains by rejecting a cumbersome proposed regulation on freight railroads.

By Dominic PinoNational Review

(JerryB7/iStock/Getty Images)

Reciprocal switching already occurs based on private agreements between railroads. But Democrats, first under Obama and now under Biden, have wanted to give the government more power to determine switching agreements in the name of promoting competition. (For a more in-depth discussion of the regulatory history and effects of mandated reciprocal switching, see my piece from January here.)

February 14 was the deadline for organizations to provide written comments before the STB hearing. The last time organizations were asked to comment, in 2016, a wide array of interests that don’t usually agree came together to oppose the STB regulation. This time, it’s the same story. The STB should listen to the disparate voices speaking out against this regulation and abandon it.

The Association of American Railroads (AAR), in a massive 611-page filing, provides evidence that freight-rail rates have not seen significant increases in the past few decades, which undermines shippers’ claims that the industry has been behaving monopolistically. To understand why reciprocal switching is such a big deal for railroads, it’s helpful to watch this video from AAR that shows how a switch actually works. It sounds relatively simple in the abstract — just switch cars from one railroad to another — but the video demonstrates that a typical switch of one car between two railroads can take six days and involve eight trains, three rail yards, and 68 separate rail operations. That process should only be undertaken when it makes economic sense, AAR argues, not when government bureaucrats decide it would promote some other goal.

Economic analysis from a wide variety of groups concludes that mandated reciprocal switching would not be helpful. The International Center for Law and Economics writes in its filing that “the regulatory solutions the STB offers are in search of competition problems, evidence of which remains conspicuously absent.” The center’s filing argues that market interventions, while sometimes necessary, need to be backed up with evidence, and the STB has not done the necessary work to demonstrate a particularized economic problem in need of solving.

Mark Jamison, a professor at the University of Florida and a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, draws parallels between the STB’s proposed rule and regulations in the telecommunications industry that were adopted under similar pretexts. His filing provides evidence that purportedly pro-competition regulations in telecommunications “generally slowed innovation and led network providers to compete less and invest less.” Those are questions of actual history, not economic theory, and he argues we have no reason to believe the same principles applied to railroads will turn out any better.

Reason Foundation’s filing points out that the STB’s economic analysis is largely based on a study that was released in 2010 based on data from 2008. “The U.S. railroad industry of 2022 looks quite different than the industry of 2008,” Reason’s Marc Scribner writes. “Most strikingly, the sharp decline of coal-fired electricity generation has led coal-by-rail tonnage to decline by nearly half since 2008.” Basing a regulation on data that old is not sound policy-making, regardless of the contents of the rule. Scribner isn’t impressed by the contents either, writing that the STB fails to adequately consider how the rule will affect railroads’ ability to compete with trucking.

The Progressive Policy Institute argues in its filing that “a 2016-vintage regulatory approach is totally wrong for the 2022 economy.” The institute’s chief economist, Michael Mandel, writes that the consequences of supply-chain disruptions we see today demonstrate the importance of prioritizing efficiency in the future. He argues that under the proposed rule, “railroads would have to give a high priority to moving goods in a way that met the reciprocal switching requirements, rather than lowering costs and speeding goods to their ultimate consumers.” The higher costs that would result would then be passed on to consumers, needlessly reducing purchasing power and possibly contributing to inflation.All Our Opinion in Your Inbox

That’s why the American Consumer Institute (ACI) opposes the regulation as well. ACI’s filing argues in strong terms that the proposed rule “would destroy the billions of dollars of annual consumer benefits” that have come since deregulation. ACI’s research found “no empirical evidence of a market failure to justify the calls [for mandated reciprocal switching] by shipping industry lobbyists, whose companies are collectively more profitable than the rail carriers they seek to subjugate.” Small businesses have also been beneficiaries of self-sustaining, deregulated railroads, and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council registered its opposition to the proposed rule on similar grounds.

The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) believes that the proposed regulation in its current form would worsen supply-chain difficulties. Its filing says that the STB’s proposed rule would result in “a decline in rail infrastructure; decreased network velocity; a deterioration in domestic intermodal service; and an adverse impact on intermodal’s ability to compete with over-the-road trucking.” The IANA’s membership includes railroads, but also motor carriers, water carriers, port authorities, and logistics companies — all of whom believe that supply chains as a whole will be made worse because of the regulatory burden imposed on freight rail.

It’s not only the major Class I freight railroads that oppose mandated reciprocal switching. The American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association opposes it, too, saying in its filing that “while short lines often consider themselves ‘shipper representatives’ and we certainly have our share of frustrations with our Class I railroad partners, we see this rule as counterproductive and likely to cause more harm than good.”

Echoing Amtrak’s concerns from 2016, Chicago’s commuter-rail system, Metra, warned the STB that mandated reciprocal switching could cause more traffic delays in the Windy City’s dense railway network.

Aside from economic and operational concerns, there are also safety concerns. Patrick McLaughlin of the Mercatus Center is a former economist with the Federal Railroad Administration, the industry’s safety regulator. In his filing, he points out that switching is an inherently dangerous operation, and mandating more switching for no economic reason needlessly puts workers at risk of injury.

Rail workers aren’t too excited about reciprocal switching, either. SMART-TD, the largest railroad union in North America, opposes the rule for its effects on railroad safety and finances. It doesn’t help workers for railroads to make less money, and the union is concerned that its members could be laid off or face pay cuts if the regulation goes into effect. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen is concerned about the effect the regulation would have on collective-bargaining agreements. Unions aren’t concerned about efficiency like other groups are. They’re just looking out for their members, and they still oppose the regulation.

What about environmentalists? The National Wildlife Federation, along with ConservAmerica, C3, and Third Way, wrote a letter to the STB arguing that the railroad industry “currently offers the most environmentally friendly way to move goods over land.” Freight that gets disrupted by new inefficiencies in railroads doesn’t just disappear. It “could shift to more carbon-intensive modes of transportation,” e.g., trucking. Making railroads less efficient is bad for the environment, too.

At this point, you’re probably wondering who on earth supports this thing. The answer: shippers. The dynamic is similar to that of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, where shippers are trying to capitalize on dissatisfaction with supply chains to get regulatory changes they have wanted for decades. The Rail Customer Coalition’s letter to the STB argues that the regulatory hurdles that shippers currently face to get mandate reciprocal switching are too high and that “reciprocal switching would empower rail customers, including farmers, manufacturers, and energy providers, to choose a carrier that provides the best combination of rates and service.”

There will always be a strained relationship between shippers and carriers. Shippers are always going to want lower rates, and carriers are always going to complain that shippers are making unfair demands. But in this case, the evidence presented to the STB clearly leans in the railroads’ favor. It’s not often in Washington that economic analysis, consumer interests, small-business interests, safety analysis, organized labor, and environmentalism all point in the same direction.

The 3–2 Democratic majority on the STB has a choice. It can side with the evidence from all those groups that normally disagree. Or it can side with shippers and President Biden, as requested in his executive order on competition. If it does the latter, in the face of all the prevailing evidence, it will be adding new inefficiencies to supply chains at the worst possible moment.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com