"Kamala Harris’s Fracking Lie EXPOSED: The Shocking Truth Behind Her Words!"

Voters deserve a candidate who stands by their beliefs, not one who changes positions to please the crowd.

With the debate moderators failing to fulfill their responsibilities, it falls upon us, the conservative commentators and analysts, to clarify the facts.

In the recent debate, Vice President Kamala Harris made several misleading statements that deserve scrutiny. Among these, her comments about fracking are particularly concerning, especially for voters in the pivotal swing state of Pennsylvania. Harris's assertions were not only misleading but also critical to understanding her stance on an issue that significantly impacts the local economy and energy policy.

Fracking is an important topic to address, especially here in Pennsylvania. I made my stance clear in 2020: I will not impose a ban on fracking, and during my tenure as vice president, I did not do so either. In fact, I played a crucial role as the tiebreaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which facilitated new fracking leases. My belief is that we must invest in a variety of energy sources to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. This strategy has led to the largest increase in domestic oil production in history, highlighting the need to avoid excessive reliance on foreign oil.

It is essential to dissect the inaccuracies into manageable parts. Harris claims that she clearly stated in 2020 her intention not to ban fracking, yet this statement contradicts her position from a town hall meeting the year before, where she firmly declared her commitment to banning it. In 2019, she was unequivocal about her stance against fracking, but in 2020, when Joe Biden faced pressure to select her as his only viable woman of color running mate, she shifted her position and indicated that fracking would not be banned. Here is the pertinent clip.

The subsequent aspect of her assertion is somewhat misleading. While it is true that she cast the pivotal vote for the Inflation Reduction Act, a decision that has drawn criticism and contributed to economic hardship, she cannot justifiably claim credit for the inclusion of new fracking leases. The incorporation of fracking into the legislation was primarily a concession made by Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who insisted on this provision as a condition for his support of the Democrats in what many consider a misnamed and ill-conceived initiative. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Biden/Harris administration has been attempting to withdraw from the commitments made in relation to Manchin's stipulation, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Manchin's legislative measure prevents the government from proceeding with offshore wind auctions unless a specified amount of offshore territory is made available for oil and gas exploration. This move comes in the wake of the Administration's decision to cancel the offshore oil and gas lease sales that were initially planned under Mr. Trump's administration. Mr. Manchin's intention was to compel the Administration to increase the availability of public lands for drilling activities, but his efforts have not yielded the desired results.

The Administration's recently unveiled five-year offshore oil and gas strategy for the period from 2024 to 2029 features only three lease sales, marking the lowest number in history and the minimum required for Biden's team to meet their offshore wind energy objectives. In contrast, previous five-year plans typically encompassed between 15 to 20 lease sales, while the plan proposed by Trump, which was subsequently rescinded by Biden officials, included a staggering 47 sales.

The announcement of three new leases hardly warrants celebration, particularly when it is evident that if given the choice, Harris would prefer that number to be nonexistent.

Furthermore, her assertion regarding the largest increase in domestic oil production in history is misleading. This surge in production is not attributable to the actions or policies of Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or their stance on fracking; rather, it is a natural recovery following the downturn caused by the pandemic. Additionally, her repeated claims about reducing reliance on foreign oil seem contradictory, as the Biden/Harris administration has increasingly depended on foreign sources, particularly after depleting our own oil reserves.

Ultimately, the commitment of Harris and Biden to focus exclusively on alternative energy sources like solar and wind appears impractical and financially burdensome. In contrast, fossil fuels and nuclear energy remain the most viable and sustainable energy options, with nuclear being the cleanest. Given the advancements in fracking technology, the United States could easily position itself as the leading global oil supplier. Instead, our allies are left to depend on Russian and OPEC oil due to our reluctance to exploit domestic resources in the name of combating climate change.

Harris's inconsistent positions do not align with the realities of the administration she represents, and under her leadership, significant changes seem unlikely.

As Senator Bernie Sanders aptly stated, “No, I don’t think [Harris is] abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.”

Thank you for your donation!