Image 01 Image 03

A Look at Biden’s Preposterous Oil Drilling Plan

A Look at Biden’s Preposterous Oil Drilling Plan

A plan so convoluted that it may have been cooked up by Hunter Biden.

Perhaps the most consistent aspect of the Biden administration is its desire to gut everything President Donald Trump accomplished in office.

Biden is no fan of “drill, baby, drill”. However, in the wake of plummeting poll numbers fueled by exploding gas prices, the White House is offering an idiotic drilling plan to nix drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific while simultaneously allowing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska.

The proposal released by the Interior Department on Friday evening would allow as many as 11 oil lease sales for offshore drilling over the course of five years.

But the plan is still being developed, and gives the administration several options—including one that would forgo new lease sales entirely, according to the Interior Department. Ultimately a final decision is months away.

By months away, perhaps closer to the election…when a calculation can be made which set of voters to upset less.

The environmentalists are unhappy with the move. Three environmental law firms are suing the administration to stop 3,500 permit applications from energy companies to drill for oil and gas on public lands.

The environmental groups filed the lawsuit in the District Court of Washington, DC, against the Bureau of Land Management, saying the permit approvals in Wyoming and New Mexico violated several federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

Climate advocates have been keen to hold …Biden to his campaign promise to ban all new oil and gas drilling on public land — a promise he has been unable to deliver on. But that promise has also recently become a political punching bag for Republicans as the price of gas has soared to over $5 per gallon amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Citing the severity of the climate crisis, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Western Environmental Law Center and the WildEarth Guardians are trying to stop oil and gas companies drilling new wells on federal lands.

“The federal government’s oil and gas program accounts for almost one-tenth of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the nation,” said Kyle Tisdel, climate and energy program director with Western Environmental Law Center, in a statement. “The Bureau of Land Management has admitted that continued oil and gas exploitation is a significant cause of the climate crisis, yet the agency continues to recklessly issue thousands of new oil and gas drilling permits.”

Oil industry officials are unhappy with the drilling limitations.

“At a time when Americans are facing record high energy costs and the world is seeking American energy leadership, tonight’s announcement leaves open the possibility of no new offshore lease sales,” said Frank Macchiarola, senior vice president of policy, economics and regulatory affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, in a statement.

People are not being persuaded that the high cost of gasoline is tied to anything other than Biden’s poor choices.

Former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt criticized the Biden administration’s proposal unveiled late last week that gutted a 2018 plan to hold dozens of offshore oil and gas lease sales.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) published a proposed five-year offshore leasing program Friday that opened the door to a complete ban on offshore leasing through 2028. The plan — which would allow a maximum of 11 total offshore lease sales in that time span — also laid waste to a Trump-era version of the same program that proposed 47 lease sales over five years.

“Since day one, this administration has put climate activism over energy independence and energy security,” Bernhardt, who was the DOI’s deputy secretary between 2017-2018 and led the agency between 2019-2021 during the Trump administration, told FOX Business in an interview Tuesday.

“What it does do is make very clear that there is a very real possibility they choose to either have no leasing or many fewer sales,” her continued. “They have been relentless in their desire to pursue climate activism over energy security for the American people, even though it’s wildly unpopular.”

In conclusion, the oil leasing plan is so convoluted that it may have been cooked up by Biden’s favorite advisor…his son, Hunter.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Hunter wrote it and Kamala checked for sensible content.

He and the radicals behind him running the show told you what they were going to do to you.

One priority of the next r WH with Congressional majorities must be to transfer the Bureau of Land Management holdings back to the States so that the federal govt isn’t a direct hindrance. Start there then move to do the same with federal forest land then wilderness lands. Then extend State territorial waters to 7 Nautical miles. In some cases lands adjacent to BIA and Tribal lands should be used to extend Tribal boundaries.

The end state goal should be that the Feds retain only Nat monuments (reduced in size to the spirit of the antiquities act), Nat Parks (Yellowstone), Nat Military Parks (Gettysburg).

The States and Tribal govts are more than capable of exercising environmental stewardship over these areas the paternalistic opinions of a largely eastern beltway bureaucracy notwithstanding.

    Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 11, 2022 at 7:34 pm

    You can’t transfer “back” to the states land that the states never owned in the first place. Almost all federal land has never belonged to the states.

    Still, given the record of federal management, it seems like a good idea to give most of that land to the states it happens to be in, in the hope that they will do a better job. They can hardly do a worse one.

    The Antiquities Act should be repealed altogether; if it’s so important to preserve some area, let Congress make it a national park. Giving the president the power to put it off limits to development just by his dictate seems unnecessary. At the very least, the act should be amended so that presidents can also undo national monuments; the way it’s worded now, it’s a one-way ratchet: they can declare them but not undeclare them.

      JackinSilverSpring in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2022 at 8:38 pm

      Millhouse: I’m curious why Federal Land in the several states were never owned by the states. Could you elaborare? Thanks.

        Because, in the West, at least, the “states” were territories–which were federal land. Or, Indian land–a spotty record, to be sure.

        The federal land issue is mainly in the West, where the federal government acquired the land long before there were any states there. Pretty much all of the West used to belong to the USA; when Congress formed territories and then states there, it didn’t choose to give away all of its land holdings, because, well, why should it? It sold some land to private people, and I guess some to the states, but no free gifts. In the East there’s very little federal land, and what there is was bought from private people or from the states, for fair market value.

        There is a peculiar theory out there in the fever swamps, among people who’ve never read the constitution themselves, but have heard from someone who heard from someone who claimed to have read it, that the federal government is prohibited from owning any land outside DC, except for military bases. According to this theory, all the land out west was therefore only being held in trust for the future states that would be formed there, so when those states were formed they were automatically entitled to all the federal land within their borders, and Congress should have just given it to them free and clear. Or something like that.

        It’s utter nonsense; there is no such provision in the constitution. But as I wrote above, federal management of that land has a poor record, so it would probably be a good idea to try letting the states run it instead.

        An even better idea, though, would be to sell it all to the public at auction and let people who’ve paid for it decide what use it could best be put to. Use the proceeds to buy annuities for all social security recipients, and partial ones for those due to retire in the next 25 years, in proportion to how many years off they are, and abolish the whole social security system. I’d say use it to pay off the federal debt, but that would just encourage the government to borrow more in the future.

          henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2022 at 2:33 am

          “There is a peculiar theory out there in the fever swamps, among people who’ve never read the constitution themselves, but have heard from someone who heard from someone who claimed to have read it, that the federal government is prohibited from owning any land outside DC, except for military bases. According to this theory, all the land out west was therefore only being held in trust for the future states that would be formed there, so when those states were formed they were automatically entitled to all the federal land within their borders, and Congress should have just given it to them free and clear. Or something like that.
          It’s utter nonsense; there is no such provision in the constitution.”

          And that’s because, from first causes, there is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to buy land from other countries in the first place. This was a question Jefferson wrestled with, as he realized he had no explicit authority for the Louisiana Purchase. On the other hand, it was insane to leave the money on the table. He freely recognized that he violated the constitution to make the purchase, but since nobody was inclined to challenge the purchase, he did it.

          So when you say the constitution has no prohibition against the feds owning arbitrary land, realize that the only way the feds could acquire that land in the first place was unconstitutional to begin with.

          JackinSilverSpring in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2022 at 8:03 am

          Millhouse, thanks for taking the time to elaborate on this matter.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 12, 2022 at 9:39 am

          It is not true that ” the only way the feds could acquire that land in the first place was unconstitutional to begin with.” The USA acquired most of the West as a result of the war against Mexico. Acquiring territory by war was of course completely normal and accepted in the 18th and 19th centuries; and naturally the “crown lands” or “state lands” in those acquired territories would become the property of the USA. Whom else could it go to?

          As for purchases from foreign governments, the treaties power is sufficient to authorize the president to purchase land with the senate’s consent; the Necessary and Proper clause would then be sufficient to authorize Congress to appropriate the necessary funds. Jefferson had initial qualms about the Louisiana purchase, but Madison and Gallatin both pointed out that the treaties power has to include the power to acquire territory; if it didn’t, the constitution would have to explicitly say so.

          Purchases from private owners would also almost always be authorized by the Necessary and Proper clause, presuming that the government has some reason why it wants to purchase the land in the first place.

        henrybowman in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | July 12, 2022 at 2:29 am

        I don’t know about other states, but Arizona’s constitution begins with a metes-and-bounds description of the state boundaries. Those boundaries encompass that “federal land.” Those constitutions had to be ratified by the feds before they were in force. I think this makes at least a viable argument that all the “federal lands” inside those boundaries are legally “part of” that state.

          Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | July 12, 2022 at 9:51 am

          Of course those lands are part of the state. Nobody disputes that. State law applies there. People who live there are citizens of the state. But they are the property of the USA, not of the state. They were the USA’s property before there even was a state, and the USA never gave it away or sold it.

          The constitutional clause that is completely misunderstood by those claiming the US can’t own land is about exclusive jurisdiction, not ownership. The US has exclusive jurisdiction over DC, and over any land acquired, with a state’s consent, for the purpose of military bases, etc., and “other needful buildings”. If the USA buys an office building in some city, and the state legislature votes to consent to the purchase, then state law no longer applies in that building. If the state legislature does not consent, probably because the USA never bothered asking, the purchase is still valid, the building is USA property, but state law still applies.

      lichau in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2022 at 9:30 pm

      My fundamental question–WTF is the Federal Government doing owning all this land? Most of which it does precious little with. Maybe leases it for grazing. Why not sell it off to someone that might have some use for it.

      Lived most of my life in AZ. Between Federal land, State land and Indian land, there is precious little held by the citizenry.

        Milhouse in reply to lichau. | July 11, 2022 at 11:41 pm

        The government acquired it from Mexico. That’s why it owns it. But no, it isn’t putting it to its best use, because it has no incentive to do so. So selling it off would be a good idea.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2022 at 10:30 pm


      In the far west you are correct. Though the claims of the colonies/States to the Northwest Territory were ceded by those States to the USA and the Northwest Ordinance(s) set the basic model of territorial expansion till the Civil War Homestead Act.

      IMO the lack of geographic proximity, less suitable agricultural land in the far west and the shift away from a policy of settlement and divestment of these lands to the current model was a historical anomaly that deserves to be corrected by granting the land to the States if not strictly speaking back to them.

      Absolutely agree on the antiquities act. It’s one of those points of our system that Adams argued required ‘moral’ men. It’s been abused by immoral men acting in bad faith.

JackinSilverSpring | July 11, 2022 at 5:37 pm

Brandon is the Manchurian Candidate. His war on fossil fuels will make us a ward of the CCP. We will be totally dependent on China for Lithium and heavily dependent on it for other metals that go into making EVs, wind mills and solar panels. Moreover these watermelons called environmentalists refuse to recognize that so-called green energy is neither green nor clean, and is not sustainable or reliable. Many people will die if Brandon and the environmentalists get their way.

    This is not accidental or the result of an inept dementia patient.

    This is intentional

    The Biden crime family and many of the democrats are treasonous, intentionally positioning China to rule the earth, Biden for profit, the green people because they’re Marxists

henrybowman | July 11, 2022 at 6:27 pm

Typical Democrat playbook. Kill energy now, promise great advances in five years.

Same as: spend shitloads now, savings accrue in years 5-10.

In both cases, Democratic Congress upsets the entire applecart in year 3 to change all the rules with another plan of the same flavor The spending is achieved, the savings from the last plan go MIA, and the wheel turns once more.

It’s an idiotic ‘plan’ that the insane leftists know that the oil companies are not going to invest ten or hundreds of billions of dollars only to have their drilling permit not go through or revoked.

This is to INTENTIONALLY create so much confusion that oil companies won’t take the risk so they can bitch and lie about how they were ready to issue so many permits but those evil companies just don’t want to bring the price down.

It’s just as stupid as a 6 year old ‘cleaning’ his room by throwing everything under the bed and closet.

Fine… leases… but blocked drilling permits and no hope for financing. The limited “facts” but not the truth.

Turn on Tucker or watch it on youtube later-you’ll understand

We are trapped in a tragicomic farce of the vile Dumb-o-crats’ construction. We are being governed by biological adults possessing the emotional maturity and intellectual depth of toddlers. The Dumb-o-crats’ incompetence and destructive governance are as immutable and as predictable as any law of physics.

And, to think that these idiotic, dumb-as-rocks Dumb-o-crat apparatchik-narcissists perennially present themselves as allegedly representing the smartest people in any given room. Such a joke.

    Dimsdale in reply to guyjones. | July 12, 2022 at 10:18 am

    100 thumbs up!! It’s the “Dr.” Jill syndrome; they wear their lame titles on their lapels. Remember Barbara Boxer’s “Call me senator. I worked hard for this title?” (as I recall it)?

Three environmental law firms are suing the administration to stop 3,500 permit applications
Suck it greenies. Not wishing any of them well.

“We can’t succeed if every wind project, every solar energy project, every hydro project… is going to become challenged,” said Orlando Delogu, a professor emeritus at the University of Maine School of Law who supports the corridor and has worked as an advisor in the fight over the project.

The Gentle Grizzly | July 11, 2022 at 11:51 pm

A more descriptive title:

A Look at Biden: Preposterous

This reminds me of Obama and his status of forces agreement negotiations with Iraq. Iraq rejected this agreement so Obama was able to blame them for abandoning Iraq. However, the truth is that he told Iraq that he was only going to keep a token force in Iraq if the signed the SOF agreement. Then Iraq decided there was no point in a SOF. agreement.

So Obama the Liar got to pull out of Iraq and was able to blame Iraq. It was only after someone talked to the Iraqis that the truth came out and this was never reported in the progressive fascist news.

All those environmental lawsuits are presumably friendly, and Biden’s handlers have ordered they be be settled by giving away everything asked for.

I have noticed a large number of comments stating that the lands should be put up for sale and anyone wanting them could purchase them. Let me point you to what is currently happening in Montana, North Dakota and a number of other states out west. People of extreme financial acumen (billionaire’s) are snatching up huge tracts of land and basically closing it off to the public, and we’ve also got the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) closing off public roads up in the mountains. Over in North Dakota, our purveyor of world-wide vaccines (Bill Gates) is buying up huge chunks of land, ostensibly to farm, but I’ve got my doubts. You want to put of the federal lands for auction? Kiss it good-bye and forget ever getting back into it. I would respectfully suggest you get your cranium out of your rectal orifice and rethink that recommendation.

Make that line near the end read: “You want to put up the federal lands for auction? Stupid auto-correct.