By executive order, President Biden stopped new leases to drill for oil and gas on federal lands. But why does a U.S. president control so much land anyway?
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle host Right Angle 20 times each month thanks to our Members.
https://youtu.be/sg3E02wPL0I
Listen to the Audio Version
25 replies on “This Land is Whose Land? Biden Blocks New Oil & Gas Drilling on Federal Lands”
Speaking of Federally owned land… Might want to check out the history of the Shenandoah National Park.
Ah- ah hawww, I’m bound eh’way, cross the wide missouri~
The real crisis we are seeing today is the Democrat incursion into our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
A Navy buddy had a poster with the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) with the following caption: Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of all A**holes that threaten it.
No asterisk on his poster.
Something doesn’t jive here. IF usurper joebama is entitled to his EO’s and WeThe People are adversly affected by them, aren’t we just as entitled to express our disgust? Paying higher food, electricity, and gas prices will certainly be a huge loss to a lot of us who live on fixed incomes or no incomes at all. Are we living in David Copperfield America now? Please sir, may I have another?
I understand making a focus on something as opposed to everything. These EO’s are coming from a usurper whose Sell-lection was through massive vote fraud. To pretend he or Commie-la have the legal right to even be president and sign EO’s is insult to injury and doesn’t go over well at all. joebama wil never be my president and neither will Harris be.. NEVER.
Again I find myself in qualified disagreement with Scott Ott.
Going home to campaign that you fought Joe Biden’s ruinous policies seems like a good thing to me. It’s how the demarcation lines are drawn in stark relief.
Joe the Groping Smeller’s policies will drive oil prices up. Just saying what he said will have an impact on oil prices.
Russia needs to see per-barrel prices north of $75 in order to make any money on oil — Which is their sole significant export for gaining hard currency. Lord knows they don’t export food …
The more money Russia makes, the more problem Russia becomes. It’s best to keep Russia barefoot and not pregnant.
Higher oil prices not only impact us here in America at the gas pump. The higher the price the stronger Russia gets. Driving up oil prices is helping Vladimir Putin way more than anything Trump was ever accused of, even falsly. The price of oil is a National Security interest as well as its impact on the American populace.
So for a Congressman to campaign against Joe’s necrotic energy policies is a worthy goal.
Other than that, I agree with Scott that we should pick our battles and spend most of our efforts on things we can win. Scott is the voice of reason on this team but sometimes I think he’s a bit too reasonable … Or just does not understand the issues as well as he might ought to.
All of that said, if the oil isn’t pumped out of the ground it will still be there for a future administration to exploit. It’s not disastrous to not dill and pump it, it’s a missed opportunity to gain political capital if we don’t point all of this out.
It is difficult to walk the line… The more I pay attention, the more I think that the politicians campaigning on fighting the other party, literally is for campaign purposes. I see it a lot in the gun world at the state level, and we saw it with Obamacare. Fundraise with the fighting spirit, win… Then do nothing with the newly won power. At the same time, we do need the fight because you’re right, it’s important. I just wonder how much of it is only for show.
At the end of the day, I don’t really care if something a politician does is “for show” or not. Meaning he either does or doesn’t truly believe in the thing he’s campaigning about. I care that he represents interests I see as vital and fights for those interests as though he were the truest of believers. That’s his job, not to think like I do or believe as I do but to represent me and the rest of those who voted for him as though he did. He’s not in office to advance his own belief system, he’s there to represent us and our interests.
In the case I cited above concerning oil prices and Russia, I don’t think Scott is aware of that situation. Obviously I think keeping the Russian Bear on his own reservation is of vital interest to both America and the World. That Bear gets up to an awful lot of mischief when he’s able so keeping him unable is a good idea.
Still … There are lots of things that people aren’t aware of and I’m not immune from that kind of ignorance any more than is anyone else. I just happen to look at things through the lens of careful consideration and experience. Which is all I think we can ask of anyone.
So I’m aware of the effect oil prices have on Russia and the effect the pronouncements and actions of the POTUS have on oil prices.
The point I’m making here is that there are often other considerations in a given situation of which a person may not be aware. Also that I don’t really care if the performance of a politician is for real, for show or just for shits and giggles as long as the purpose that represents interests I consider important is served. Served morally and legally that is.
I like Scott and I listen to what he has to say very closely and carefully. I don’t always agree with him but he’s one of those information sources that can bring an undiscovered perspective to things. That’s important because echo chambers are dangerous places.
When I disagree with Scott Ott publicly here on the site (or YouTube, if I watch the video there) i try to be careful about being respectful and considerate in my dissent. I don’t want him to feel like lots of people think everything he says is wrong and be discouraged, or lose interest in presenting his viewpoints. But …
Bill is a hawk, Scott is a dove and Steve can go either way depending on how he feels about an issue. I think sometimes Scott gives up too easily and considers that a virtue when it’s not really. I see things more like Bill does and think we’re in a desperate fight for our way of life. Scott doesn’t convey that kind of urgency. Sometimes Scott is right in that approach so it’s important to listen to him and not miss those gems.
Sometimes it’s important to point out another perspective than Scott’s so people can judge for themselves.
There are plenty of examples over the years of Scott understanding the economics of oil. And Russia needing north of $75 is true. The oil sands project for which Keystone XL was the latest pipeline extension needed north of $45 in 2007 to be economical.
The rail here is against those House members who rail against Joe’s EO knowing that their statements are hollow and are just doing it to have the sound-bites needed for re-election. And likely don’t care if the drilling stops or continues but just want to get re-elected.
Re-election should not be their goal It is, as you state, representing the interests of the people they were voted in to represent. Simply giving a speech is not fighting for your constituency. It is theatre.
Unfortunately it is largely effective theatre as most people don’t look deeper than this guy did this thing and I fought him. Yes, but you lost. Maybe we should vote for someone who is better at the fight.
Good points all. I’ve been following Bill for quite a few years but not so much Scott Ott. Thanks for the information. I’ll add that to my mental “database”.
https://www.americanlandscouncil.org/
I grew up next to part of Siuslaw National Forest. The US Forest Service isn’t a very good neighbor.
I shared 5 miles of fence line with the Red Lake Indian Reservation. For some unfathomable reason the Red Lake Tribe thought the land on both sides of the fence belonged to them. Indian reservations don’t make good neighbors either.
I love the idea of fleecing the Chinese over our public land. Didn’t we do this to teh Japanese back in the 80s with Rockefeller Plaza?
I’m sorry, but the Chinese own too much of this country already for me to be comfortable giving them more. At one point they wanted to buy the Port of Baltimore. Didn’t they want to finance the reconstruction of the Panama Canal? Not on my watch if you please.
I keep hearing my economics teacher in my head. “When you owe your bank a hundred grand you can’t pay back, you have a problem, when you owe your bank a hundred million you can’t pay back, your bank has a problem.”
There are many reasons to be concerned about the Chinese, but this actually isn’t one of them. Depending on where you look, the amount of our debt held by China is only @ 6-8% of the total.
It’s not our debt that concerns me more than the infrastructure they are buying. At one point they offered to buy the Port of Baltimore and when that was refused, they wanted to operate it instead. This is a major port of entry into the US and WE should have control over what comes in or goes out.
To quote that early 90s Pro Wrestling legend The Repo Man, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours… IT’S MINE TOO!!!”
I agree, I don’t think those in Congress really care about the results of their actions beyond their political goals.
I dunno Scott, you mention a president can reverse a prior President’s executive orders… But didn’t we learn that Trump couldn’t reverse Obama’s? Seems to be a one way street
A better question is where are the army of judges ready to put injunctions on every EO that Biden* signs as Trump had to endure?
Someone on our side has to jump up and file a case in their courts. In general, people on the Right have a default position to not go that route. They prefer to speechify and hope the voters throw their opponents out down the road. We need our side to start writing legal briefs.
I agree, though there is something to be said for consistent principles.
That said, were I a member of the House, heaven forfend, I’d be writing up articles of impeachment for Obama (the Unconstitutional, treaty-by-any-other-name that didn’t-get-Senatorial-consent Iran Deal, for starters) Hillarious Clinton (take your pick), John Kerry (see above), Nancy Pelosi (too numerous to count), Chucklet Schumer (see above), Maxine Waters (incitement to riot, intentional deprivation of liberty), John Brennan, Jim Clapper, Jim Comey, (the last three would be for treason) and Patrick Leahy (for presiding over the soon-to-be-current sham). For starters,
But, we don’t play that game… we allegedly have principles….
Principles have limits. There are times when you just want to go for the throat!
My husband said the same thing! Have them in the hip pocket and ready to go.