Luxury and corporate jets to receive special exemptions from European Union aviation fuel tax



The European Union (EU) is currently working on a plan to impose an EU-wide minimum tax rate on fuels necessary for aviation in the pursuit of combating climate change. However, the proposed tax policy has special carve-outs for luxury private jets.

The Irish Times reported that executive jets would escape plans to tax polluting aviation fuels according to the draft proposal that was presented by the European Commission.

Reportedly, the European Commission plans to strictly enforce a new minimum tax rate on “aviation fuels, as it seeks to meet more ambitious targets to fight climate change.” Historically, aviation fuels have largely avoided EU fuel taxes.

The proposed tax policy states that the practice of not taxing aviation fuels equivalently to fuels needed for ground and sea transportation “is not coherent with the present climate challenges and policies.” The proposal added that the EU tax rules currently promote the use and consumption of fossil fuels over green energy sources and that they ought to be rewritten to support the EU’s aggressive approach to transitioning Western nations to carbon neutrality.

From 2023 onward, the minimum tax rate for aviation fuel in the EU would start at zero and gradually increase over a 10-year period until the total rate is imposed. The draft tax proposal did not specify what the final rate would be.

Interestingly, however, the minimum EU tax rate would not apply to cargo-only, which are often required for the import and export of goods, or to “pleasure flights” and “business aviation,” which are terms largely used when referring to executive and private jets.

Business aviation in Europe had already climbed above the levels reached in 2019, just before intense travel restrictions were implemented across Europe in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the first six months of 2021, global business aviation activity fell only 4% short of the first half of 2019 and registered a 42% increase from the first half of 2020.

Travel by executive jet accounts for just under 19% of all aviation, while air traffic from cargo planes accounts for less than 5%.

Implementing additional taxes on fossil fuels poses significant political problems as EU member states are experiencing difficulty attempting to implement a trade embargo on Russian-produced oil products.

RedState, a conservative political blog, noted that the EU’s mad-dash to implement a green energy agenda likely wouldn’t have a considerable impact on reducing the global carbon output so long as countries like China and India continue to implement aggressive industrialization policies.

Russian oil revenues up 50% as Western sanctions on oil exports prove ineffective



Russian oil revenues have risen by 50% since the beginning of the year despite Western nations attempting to isolate and weaken the Russian economy.

The Epoch Times reported that a new report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that the Russian Federation had earned about $20 billion each month in 2022. Russian oil producers sold roughly eight million barrels of oil per day.

Russian oil companies were able to achieve this feat largely because Western nations were unable to come to a consensus on isolating Russia’s oil industry in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

While the U.S. sanctioned Russian oil in early March, the European Union (EU) and its member states were unable to reach a unanimous agreement to ban the import of Russian oil by member nations. About two-thirds of the oil imported by EU member states comes from Russia, so the continued import of this oil, despite thorough sanctions on other sectors of the Russian economy, continues to provide Russia with a vital lifeline.

The European bloc continues to be the largest consumer of Russian oil. Despite the EU member nations presenting themselves as united in diplomatic and economic opposition to the Russian regime, they account for roughly 43% of all Russian oil exported in April.

Last March, economist Elana Ribakova suggested there might be a latent paradox that could arise should Western nations move to sanction Russian oil. Ribakova indicated that, in theory, imposing sanctions on Russia, which is one of the world’s leading exporters of natural gas and petroleum, would cause a scarcity of oil-based resources, causing prices to rise. These rising prices would in turn present Russia with an opportunity to collect higher revenues through exporting the products to countries not sanctioning the industry, thus rendering any sanctioning regime’s attempts counterproductive.

In early March Ribakova said, “10$ on oil price gives Russia [about] $20 [billion] of current account inflows per year. With imports collapsing[,] Russia’s 2022 current account could exceed $200 billion. Despite ~40% of $640 [billion] [Bank of Russia] reserves arrested, Russia could rebuild buffers from the current account surplus.”

10$ on oil price gives Russia ~ $20 bn of current account inflows per year. With imports collapsing Russia's 2022 current account could exceed $200 bn.\n\nDespite ~ 40% of $640 bn @bank_of_russia reserves arrested, Russia could rebuild buffers from the current account surplus.pic.twitter.com/z1gXkRGCby
— Elina Ribakova \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@Elina Ribakova \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1646609528

Countries like China and India have not shied away from purchasing Russian fuel since the Ukraine invasion commenced, and with some EU member states continuing to import Russian oil, Russia will likely survive any current and future sanction packages that don’t affect its ability to export oil.

The European Union plans to phase out Russian oil entirely by the end of 2022



The European Union (EU) is moving forward to propose a ban on Russian oil by the end of 2022.

Until this ban is put into effect, the EU will continue to implement restrictions on imports of Russian oil.

The EU also plans to push for more thoroughgoing sanctions on Russia and its allies by advocating for more Russian and Belarusian banks to be cut off from the SWIFT telecommunications network. Bloomberg reported that this list of banks includes Sberbank PJSC, Russia’s largest financial institution, which has been providing a vital economic lifeline in recent months. Sberbank was previously sanctioned by the U.S. and U.K.

A decision on the new sanctions may come as soon as next week at a meeting of EU ambassadors. If the sanctions are to go into effect, this would be the sixth package of sanctions placed on Russia since it invaded Ukraine this past February.

In order for the EU to implement sanctions, all of its 27 member states must agree to enforce them in their nations. Reportedly, countries like Hungary and Germany are historically hesitant to issue restrictions on imports of Russian oil due to their nations’ dependence on it. Currently, the EU is the single largest consumer of crude oil and fuel from Russia. In 2019, almost two-thirds of crude oil imported by EU nations came from Russia.

Reportedly, an embargo on Russian oil would dramatically increase tensions between the EU and Russia as the EU tries to pressure Putin into ending his invasion of Ukraine. These sanctions are aimed at hitting Russia’s revenue from oil exports as much as possible without causing turmoil in the global marketplace. One concern is that increasing the costs of Russian oil by sanctioning it could lead to a boost in Russia’s income instead of punishing it.

An ongoing issue that the EU and Russia are experiencing is how to pay for gas that is being imported into EU member nations. With the majority of Russia’s banks being removed from the SWIFT telecommunications network, conducting business with Russian companies is harder than it once was. Making the process increasingly difficult is that Russian entities are demanding EU member states pay for their oil imports in Russian rubles, but doing so would breach sanctions currently in place.

If EU member states don’t comply and start paying for their oil imports in rubles, Russia will cease doing business with them. Poland and Bulgaria have already been cut off by Russia for failing to meet the country’s standards.

Democrats block bill that would restart Keystone pipeline, boost US energy production



House Democrats this week blocked a motion to consider a Republican bill that would reauthorize construction of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline and restart the federal oil leasing program, among other things, in an effort to boost domestic energy production amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Daily Caller reported.

The legislation — called the American Energy Independence from Russia Act — was introduced in the House by Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) on Feb. 28. The bicameral bill was also introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) on March 3.

It comes at a time when gas prices are skyrocketing in the U.S. due to private-sector boycotts and a public-sector embargo on imports of Russian oil in response to the country's invasion of Ukraine. The global energy supply disruption has exposed the West's reliance on Russian energy sources and thus renewed calls to bolster American energy independence.

Republicans have argued for years that the U.S. should seek energy independence as a matter of national security, and the current conflict with Russia has undoubtedly served to strengthen the argument.

Yet, according to the Daily Caller, on Wednesday evening, 219 Democrats in the House voted down a motion to consider the legislation. The Epoch Times reported that a motion to consider the bill was also shot down by Democrats on March 1.

The legislation would immediately reauthorize the construction of the Keystone pipeline from Canada to Montana and restart oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters, both of which were suspended by the Biden administration last year.

It would also require the Biden administration to submit an energy security plan to Congress within 30 days that would grow America’s oil and natural gas production to offset Russian imports.

In a joint statement to introduce the legislation, Reps. McMorris Rodgers and Westerman said, "Putin and Russia’s economy are dependent upon dominating energy production and exporting to other nations. He gains power by doing so, and it’s what funds his military and aggressive behavior. To counter Putin, our bill flips the switch to promote American energy jobs, production, and exports."

The president was torched on social media this week after he begged foreign despots and dictators to increase their oil production in response to the global energy crisis rather than unleashing America's energy resources.

In a floor speech in support of the bill Wednesday, Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw (Texas) slammed President Joe Biden for his energy policies.

"This week our president — our American president — asked Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, asked them to boost their output so that American consumers wouldn’t see a spike in gas prices," Crenshaw said.

He added, "Surely, [Biden] knows we can also boost domestic production right here at home. Surely he knows that domestic production supports American jobs, and surely he knows that domestic production is cleaner, by far, than foreign production."

Dan Crenshaw Speaks on the American Energy Independence From Russia Act www.youtube.com

Roth: Blame the government for our woes



Every major problem we are facing today is not because of war, but because of the arrogance, ignorance, and incompetence of government central planners and their cronies.

The elites pushing their agendas and their cronies’ pet projects, whether through short-sightedness or nefarious intentions, have delivered an obvious negative outcome for America.

Our economic woes started long before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. And while Putin deserves the blame for war, our government central planners get the full credit for our economic and national security vulnerabilities.

The highest inflation in the last 40 years was recorded before eastern Europe even entered the conversation. This came on the back of central planning decisions, while those central planners feigned ignorance as to the outcome. The Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars and the trillions more of government “relief spending,” increased further with Biden’s “American Rescue Plan,” were enough to drive substantial inflation. Add to that the decisions that turned off large swaths of the economy over the past couple of years and structurally kept workers out of the labor force, which also disrupted the supply chains and labor markets to increase the inflationary pressures.

Then, include the Biden administration’s suspending oil and gas leases, withdrawing the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and the crony corporate kowtowing to the elite push for ESG reducing oil- and gas-related investment; these actions all impacted rising gas prices before Putin’s madness came into play.

Once Russia invaded Ukraine, these existing vulnerabilities became bigger weaknesses, something that should have been obvious to the average American, let alone those in government “leadership” positions.

Not expanding the United States' capacity as a producer of oil and gas resources was both a farce and an obvious national security issue. It didn’t decrease the demand for those resources (although the pandemic reactions did temporarily); what it did was shift some percent of the production from the U.S., which has the technology, capabilities, and incentives to produce more cleanly, to nations run by terrorists, tyrants, human rights abusers, and other generally bad people. These regimes and countries share the same planet, yet do not produce as cleanly as the U.S. could.

That’s quite a “green” strategy — both from an economic “green” and an environmental “green” standpoint.

These decisions have reverberations globally, creating vulnerabilities for our allies in Europe, who also reduced their own nuclear and oil and gas energy production, exposing them to geopolitical strife.

So, while we could have been fortifying U.S. production so that one or more foreign bad actors wouldn’t be able to leverage that against us, our government and corporate cronies couldn’t see (or didn’t care) what was flashing in front of them like a giant neon sign and ultimately did nothing on that front.

These actions will only worsen the already fragile U.S. economic situation caused by their other policy decisions.

The average American ends up paying the price, both figuratively and quite literally.

It’s not just oil and gas. The past two years exposed the weakness of depending on China for key inputs and products. The Russian invasion is highlighting other dependencies, ranging from nickel (which is a key component in the batteries used to make electric vehicles, among many other things), aluminum, wheat, fertilizers, and many other products that are key to a smooth functioning economy and everyday living, and some that could even lead to bigger crises, like food shortages in parts of the world.

Instead of strengthening America, both for economic security and national security, the central planning government leaders have been actively making us more vulnerable, taking policy direction from people who range from activist-sponsored teenagers to global entities that would be thrilled with the destruction of the American economy and way of life.

There will always be some bad actor around the corner, and we must be prepared. It’s far past the time to reverse these bad government policy actions and focus on a stronger America and better strategic decision-making.

If we don’t hold government accountable and enact change, then we will only have ourselves to blame.

Buckle up: 'Get ready for $6 a gallon' gas, says former US diplomat to the Middle East



Moms filling up their minivans today are experiencing some serious sticker shock.

Contractors working on a job site with any distance at all from the home office are going to eat some serious travel expenses if they didn't build updated gas and travel costs into their bids.

Drivers and truckers delivering goods to grocery stores, grains to ports, or timber to plants are paying through the nose for diesel to ship what Americans need and want (and they aren't just going to eat the massive spike in fuel prices).

But the news gets worse: If you thought gas was expensive already, just wait. One expert with experience in the Middle East is warning Americans to get ready for $6 per gallon.

David Rundell, a onetime U.S. diplomat in oil-producing nations, told Fortune that the Russian-Ukraine conflict, coupled with our deteriorating relations with Saudi Arabia, spells doom for U.S. consumers' pocketbooks at the pump.

Rundell, who spent three decades as a U.S. diplomat in such oil-producing countries as Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Tunisia, told the magazine that the U.S. put itself behind the eight ball when it comes to negotiating to get the House of Saud to get more oil flowing.

"Russia and Saudi Arabia are the world’s two largest oil exporters. If we had good relations with Saudi Arabia, they would have stepped in to help as they have done many times in the past,” Rundell told Fortune.

The former diplomat, who is now a partner at Arabia Analytica, a consulting firm focused on the Middle East, added that "our relationship with Saudi leaders continues to worsen. So, get ready for $6 a gallon."

Rundell issued his warning as Americans saw gas prices hit an all-time high of $4.17 on Tuesday, the outlet said. The price is 11 cents per gallon more than it was the day before and 55 cents higher than just a week ago.

His warning also came before President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that the U.S. would bar imports of Russian oil and gas.

During his announcement, Biden told the nation that gas prices are "going to go up further."

Biden administration set to ban imports of Russian oil and gas



The Biden administration plans to ban imports of oil and natural gas from Russia as soon as Tuesday.

Two people reportedly with knowledge of the matter told the Washington Post that President Joe Biden intends to punish Russia for invading Ukraine by implementing an import ban.

Biden is scheduled to speak Tuesday morning and announce “actions to continue to hold Russia accountable for its unprovoked and unjustified war on Ukraine.”

These new sanctions will ban imports of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal, Markets Insider reported.

The administration’s decision to ban these products came after lengthy discussions with European allies. However, at this time, those European nations are not joining the United States in banning Russian energy imports with the exception of the United Kingdom, per Politico.

Western nations have been particularly hesitant to stop importing oil from Russia since Russia provides them with a substantial amount of their energy. The European Union, for instance, gets around 40% of its natural gas from Russia. Russia accounts for roughly 12% of global oil production.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak warned that a Western ban on Russian oil would yield “catastrophic consequences” for the global market and cause oil prices to surge beyond $300 a barrel.

Oil prices were already reaching historic highs before the White House considered barring the import of Russian energy.

Last week, crude oil futures listed prices at more than $113 per barrel. This is the highest that oil has traded since 2011.

And for the first time since 2008, the average price of gas in the U.S. is over $4 a gallon. In some states, like California, gas is well over $5 a gallon.

Despite the skyrocketing costs of energy consumption, the Biden administration is adamantly opposed to increasing domestic oil production.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki argued that instead of increasing domestic production, the U.S. should pivot away from fossil fuels altogether.

“It’s a reminder that real energy security comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels," Psaki said. "Domestic production has not insulated us from the price volatility of fossil fuels or the whims of those who control them such as President Putin. Americans know that."

The Biden administration has even floated the possibility of buying oil from countries that are openly hostile to the United States, like Iran and Venezuela, instead of increasing domestic oil production.

Senior American officials are even meeting with representatives of the Maduro regime in Venezuela to discuss the possibility of purchasing oil from the Venezuelan reserves.

Ukrainian president Zelenskyy takes apparent shot at Biden over inaction in face of Russian aggression



Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took an apparent shot at President Joe Biden on Saturday, telling members of Congress that inaction from the Biden administration in the face of Russian aggression enabled Russian President Vladimir Putin.

What are the details?

During a video conference attended by more than 280 members of the U.S. House and Senate, Zelenskyy claimed that Russia would not have invaded his country had the U.S. demonstrated its strength on the world stage.

"If you had started sanctions months ago, there would not have been war," Zelenskyy said.

Just days before Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the Biden administration defended its decision not to enact sanctions on Moscow despite clear warning signs of an impending invasion. Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed at the time that enacting sanctions would essentially mean the U.S. government was surrendering its leverage over Russia because sanctions are meant "to try to deter Russia from going to war." Obviously, withholding sanctions failed.

Still, in his call with American lawmakers, Zelenskyy urged the U.S. government to issue increasingly harsh sanctions against Moscow, including a ban on Russian oil, and pleaded the U.S. to help Ukraine secure more fighter jets for its air force.

"He said repeatedly that an embargo on Russia and particularly their oil and natural gas, was absolutely critical," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) later told Fox News.

According to the Washington Post, Zelenskyy stopped short of calling for an outright no-fly zone, but repeatedly said that victory for Ukraine would mean winning the air war.

"Ukraine needs airpower urgently and America should send it. Zelensky’s message is simple: ‘close the skies or give us planes,'" Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said in a statement after the call.

How is the US responding?

The Biden administration has thus far refused to ban imports of Russian oil, citing domestic energy needs and skyrocketing gas prices.

However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle support cutting off Russian oil. "Ban it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last week, while Sen. Dick Durban, the No. 2 Senate Democrat said, "It just infuriates me to think that we are dependent on Russian gas and oil."

Blinken finally said on Sunday the Biden administration is considering banning Russian oil, just one day after Axios reported that Biden officials had pressured Senate Democrats not to support bipartisan legislation that would ban imports of Russian oil.

Meanwhile, Blinken revealed Sunday NATO has received the "green light" to send more fighter jets to Ukraine, but a no-fly zone remains out of the question over fears it would further escalate the war.

Putin has said that imposing a no-fly zone would be viewed by Moscow as participation in the war.

Reporter grills Psaki over admin refusing to stop buying Russian oil: 'Aren’t we financing the war?'



White House press secretary Jen Psaki was confronted Thursday over continued American dependence on Russian oil, which seemingly contradicts sanctions meant to deter Russia from continuing its war in Ukraine.

The Biden administration has repeatedly said that cutting off Russian oil imports will not be part of American sanctions against Moscow.

What happened?

During the daily press briefing, Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich asked Psaki plainly whether Americans are helping Russia finance its war against Ukraine by continuing to buy Russian oil.

"As long as we’re buying Russian oil, though, aren’t we financing the war?" Heinrich asked.

In response, Psaki downplayed the seriousness of the issue and said what matters is minimizing the impact of sanctions on Americans.

"Well, Jacqui, again, it’s only about 10% of what we’re importing," she said. "I’ve not made any announcement about any decision on that front, but our objective here and our focus is making sure that any step we take maximizes the impact on President Putin and minimizes it on the American people. And anyone who’s calling for an end to the carve-out should be clear that that would raise prices."

According to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the U.S. imported about 700,000 barrels of crude oil and other petroleum products from Russia per day on average in 2021.

That means the U.S. sends tens of millions of dollars to Russia each day, and by continuing to buy Russian oil, American tax dollars will undoubtedly help Putin wage his war to take over Ukraine.

'We Can Talk About It More Tomorrow When You Learn More': Psaki Has Tense Exchange With Fox Reporter www.youtube.com

Earlier in the press briefing, Heinrich grilled Psaki over America's energy problems, invoking several ways to increase American energy production and reduce reliance on Russia. But she was dismissed by Psaki.

First, Heinrich noted how President Joe Biden wants to increase domestic production of goods to reduce inflation. "Why not apply the same logic to energy and increase domestic production here?" Heinrich asked.

Psaki deflected and regurgitated an administration talking point that oil companies are not using 9,000 already-approved oil leases, thus dismissing the Biden administration's hostile posture toward fossil fuels.

"I would point that question to them," Psaki said of oil companies. "And we can talk about it more tomorrow when you learn more."

When Heinrich asked about the Keystone XL pipeline, which Biden canceled, Psaki correctly noted how the pipeline was never operational and would require years of work before it could benefit Americans.

When Psaki tried to positively spin the Biden administration's decision to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Heinrich quickly fact-checked her, noting how previous releases have not really lowered gas prices.

Then Psaki pushed "clean energy," something that would not solve the current growing energy problem and skyrocketing gas prices.

"What we can do over time and what this is a reminder of, in the president’s view, is our need to reduce our reliance on oil," Psaki said. "The Europeans need to do that; we need to do that. If we do more to invest in clean energy, more to invest in other sources of energy, that’s exactly what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future."

Horowitz: It’s time Republicans call Biden’s bluff on American energy before it’s too late



The obsession and virtue-signaling over Ukraine has become such an orgy of emotional indulgence that it now rivals COVID, BLM, and Jan. 6 – the three most recent catalyzing moments in geo-politics – in its bipartisan intensity. The same players behind the over-indulgence of the aforementioned three events seem to have been too prepared to cherish this moment well beyond what any spontaneous human reaction to the invasion should have induced. Given that we now understand the motivations behind those three events, we should be very wary as to where the Ukrainian obsession is coming from and where it is headed – before it’s too late.

Let’s face it: Corrupt Western governments, the media, Big Tech, and all the other masters of Western civilization don’t suddenly have an affinity for an all-white, retro culture, and anti-vax country like Ukraine. The nation is not exactly the paradigm of social media wokeness. On the other hand, there has never been a greater obsession with glorifying a civilization with heroism, bravery, and altruism as there has been with promoting Ukrainian gallantry memes – to the point that most of the stories are fake. At the same time, even as Western leaders dote upon Ukraine as the most virtuous cause of mankind – to the point that they think this is the WWII Hitler/Poland moment – none of the Western countries have banded together to meaningfully fight on the ground with Ukraine.

After all, if we are to believe that Putin is the greatest threat to mankind and Ukrainians are already on their way to crushing Russia (but just need a little help), why do the actions of the European leaders not match their rhetoric? Never has there been such unanimity of opinion behind supporting one nation; never have they so praised that nation’s ability to fight off the enemy; yet never have they done so little to join the fight in a way that actually matters. This observation should concern us all, given that we now know COVID, January 6. and George Floyd/BLM were all given the same orgy-like media indulgence and led to a much broader harmful agenda. What is that agenda behind the Ukrainian fetish?

Perhaps the answer to these questions is that despite the virtue-signaling, the fight is not really on the ground in Ukraine. After all, if that were true, and the Ukrainians were as effective as they are made out to be, England, France, Germany, and a coalition of central European countries could easily unite and isolate Russia militarily. Clearly, they are trying to use Ukraine to manipulate their own citizens in Western countries to make “sacrifices” – similar to what they did with COVID. In order to prepare us for such sacrifices and make it the “moral thing to do,” they must first play up the Putin situation as they did COVID.

So, what is that sacrifice?

On Wednesday, the House passed H. Res. 956 – “Supporting the People of Ukraine,” which resolves, among other things, to “pledge to support working with Europe and international partners to bolster Europe’s energy security and reduce its dependence on Russian energy imports.” Notice it doesn’t pledge to ramp up energy production, just to reduce dependence on Russian imports. There are two ways of doing that. You can either increase your own supply – but Biden already inhibited energy growth – or you could decrease your consumption.

Remember, for years the globalists have been trying to institute a “green new deal” and destroy our freedom and productivity by replacing energy that works with “green” energy. They used global warming, and then climate change, to scare people into supporting the agenda, but as much as polls show people respond to it, in the deep recesses of their hearts they do not fear the climate.

What COVID taught these same Western oligarchs is that if you make people truly fear something, they will give up all their liberties, including even bodily autonomy. If you make something so virtuous with emotional indulgence on social media and bully and shame people into “protecting the other person,” they will be willing to unquestionably and immediately follow your every whim. What if they are making Putin the new WWII to immediately cut off Russian oil and gas without concurrently ramping up our own production, thereby forcing Western citizens to “make sacrifices” for the greater good? If they locked us down for a few months and successfully got us to cover our breathing holes and take all these shots, who’s to say they couldn’t get us to limit our driving and consumption of other products? And what if they used the carrot and stick – made energy so prohibitively expensive but had all the cronies lined up to incentivize a transition to “green” energy?

It’s not lost on the oligarchs that CO2 levels dropped 26% during the lockdowns. In 2020, fossil fuel consumption was the lowest in 30 years. Don’t you think the Bill Gateses of the world wish to repeat that pleasurable experience? Plus, through the advent of COVID fascism, they remade life with Zoom and acclimated us to living such a new normal without travel, connectivity, and human gatherings. If you don’t think they can’t make Putin such an emergency that would engender another version of this dystopia, you must have slept under a rock since 2020. I’m seeing so many conservatives get swept into the lynch-mob media feeding frenzy over Ukraine – even those who didn’t buy into the COVID lockdown narrative.

I’m not saying this is necessarily the play, but we better make sure it is not. And we certainly can’t assume people will not fall into the trap again. We already have a society now groomed to do what they are told for the “greater good” in a time of “emergency.”

When pondering the mistakes of the past two years, consider the following:

Putin is the new COVID.

Zelenskyy is the new Fauci.

Ukrainian soldiers are the new heroic health care workers.

Cutting off oil from Russia is the new social distancing.

Not using products that consume more energy is the new mask and public shaming.

Green energy is the new vaccine, and their companies are the new Pfizer.

But you know what the new hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/early treatment is? Ramping up our own energy productivity so we can live in liberty without Russian and Iranian oil, not locking us down in order to fight Russia.

It’s time for Republicans to rectify this mistake they made with COVID. They should have called the bluff of the Western oligarchs from day one. “Well, if defeating COVID is the highest order of man,” Republicans should have asked, “then why not promote, rather than deter, early treatment options?”

With the White House pushing for $10 billion in funding for a tenuous and corrupt Ukrainian regime with no long-term strategic plan or objective, why not ask the following simple question: If we are going to place this funding in the budget, why not also insert provisions in the budget approving pipelines, permitting drilling, and ending the onerous freeze Biden has placed on coal-fired plants, fracking, oil refineries, and nuclear power plants? Why not work with friendly Alberta to get clean oil down the Keystone pipeline?

Republicans have already made it clear they don’t give a hoot about fighting our own border invasion in the budget or rectifying the mistakes they made with COVID fascism. Americans don’t matter. Ukraine is where it’s at. But if Putin is really the number one threat such that they are willing to give it their all, why not demand the GOP energy policy be placed in that same budget or supplemental emergency spending bill on Ukraine?

Why not make American energy production to be the “vaccine” for the “Putin virus” and regulate it with the light touch that we used to regulate Pfizer, not the intensity with which we stifle hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin? What about emergency regulations to approve permitting, drilling, and pipelines without the red tape? At least the oil, unlike the Pfizer shots, doesn’t go into our bodies.

The minute Republicans agree to pass the budget bill next week with the Ukraine funding – without any effort to secure true energy independence and end Biden’s war on American oil and gas – is the day they consign us to whatever plot the oligarchs have hatched. Recent history is not on our side.