Newsmax75%

Blame Anti-Fossil Fuel Crusade, Not War in Iran for Gas Prices 84%

By Larry Bell0%

4/22/2026, 1:12:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 382 hits. Analysis detected 1,559 faulty-reasoning hits from 895 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.1% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,667 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.20% of the article peer group.

Actions by the United States, directed at Iran, have resulted in the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Mideast. 
The Strait is a chokepoint controlling about 20% of global oil. 
The result appears to be, comparatively speaking, a very brief spike in gas prices in exchange for permanently curtailing a radical regime's ability to weaponize vital international shipping channels, or develop nuclear weapons to advance its "Death to America, the Great Satan!" 
commitment. 
Nevertheless, former Vice President Kamala Harris would like you to believe that a recent surge in gas prices to over $4.00 (a level not seen since the Biden administration while she was in office when they topped $5) are to be blamed on President Trump and his "war of choice" on Iran. 
Recall that Biden raided the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to reduce price pain ahead of 2022 midterm elections . . . oil subsequently replaced by the Trump administration last year. 
Appearing on a video while standing in front of a sign showing fuel rates at a Charlotte, North Carolina gas station, she states, "We've got a president who is paying more attention to what he thinks is in his best political interests and personal interests, as opposed to what is in the best interest of working people in America." 
The former U.S. vice president added, "It's 15 more dollars every time you fill up a tank of gas." 
Fellow Californian and potential competing 2028 presidential candidate, Gov. 
Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., is pursuing the same blame-Trump-for-the-war narrative for gasoline price hikes while at the same time opposing offshore drilling and pipelines that would reduce his state's reliance on foreign oil and lower those costs. 
Newsom and other Golden State officials have blocked reopening of a Sable Offshore Corp. oil and gas project in federal waters off its coast along with a restored pipeline that carries crude to offshore distribution networks, which hasn't operated since a 2015 spill. 
After Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked the Defense Production Act requiring Sable to reopen operations to address supply disruption risks to some 50 military installations in western states, Gov. 
Newsom branded the order a "political attempt to point the finger at California to divide and distract the American people from his wartime failures." 
Sable reports it has about 540,000 barrels of processed crude oil in storage and plans to begin selling 50,000 barrels a day of oil this month. 
California's anti-fossil policies, including its cap-and-tax program, low-carbon fuel standard drilling limitations, and a lack of interstate pipelines, are indeed putting both economic and national security at greater risks. 
While U.S. crude production has increased by about 50% over the last decade, California's output has fallen by half. 
Rather than produce or use abundant U.S. oil, the state imports about 60% of its crude from overseas, about a third of which comes from the Mideast, with Iran war-disrupted shipping costs contributing about 15 cents per gallon more cost in California than nationally. 
California's gasoline prices have spiked to $5.52 a gallon versus an average of $3.72 a gallon nationally. 
This scenario has been influenced by about 15% of the state's refined fuels also being imported, much of which again depends on rising costs of Mideast crude. 
National record California gas prices aren't a recent phenomenon. 
The state has lost roughly half its refining capacity since the 1980s and a quarter since 2019, with no thanks to costly regulations which have made operating and maintaining the facilities uneconomic, causing supply shortfalls and consumer price hikes. 
Valero plans to shut down its Bay Area refinery next month at a time when demand for gasoline in Northern California will exceed production by 135,000 barrels a day  equal to about 36% of regional demand. 
Editors at The Wall Street Journal have noted the Valero shutdown is a particular cause for national security alarm because a single refinery outage in northern California could create a "fuel emergency in which Coast Guard readiness and Air Force Pacific operations are called into question." 
Travis Air Force Base relies on jet fuel from Chevron's refinery, and the Coast Guard Island in San Francisco's Bay area houses Pacific Area Command, the headquarters directing all Coast Guard operations across the Pacific basin. 
No, the war in Iran will not have any lasting negative influence on U.S. gasoline consumers. 
Unlike our European allies, the U.S. doesn't depend on the Mideast for oil, whereas America's fossil dominance has substantially weakened abilities of governments in Iran and Russia to wage war against them. 
As for current gasoline prices, Americans paid more than $3.50 a gallon between 2011 and 2014 amid market disruptions caused by Arab Spring protests during the Obama administration, a period when U.S. oil production was less than half of today's. 
Regarding U.S. energy, a more economically impactful war is being waged by the left's climate agenda which for decades has enriched and emboldened a hostile regime threatening to weaponize their oil resources while attacking ours. 
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and the graduate space architecture program. 
His latest of 12 books is "Architectures Beyond Boxes and Boundaries: My Life By Design" (2022). 
Read more Larry Bell Insider articles  Click Here Now. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.7%Larry Bell: 16.7%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias42.7%This article: 4.0%Larry Bell: 1.3%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.0%This article: 4.1%Larry Bell: 3.3%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 2.2%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 2.6%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Larry Bell: 6.7%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias8.6%This article: 15.6%Larry Bell: 7.6%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.5%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 2.2%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 12.6%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Larry Bell: 7.1%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 5.8%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Larry Bell: 3.5%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.3%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.2%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Larry Bell: 3.8%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Larry Bell: 7.2%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem5.8%This article: 9.8%Larry Bell: 4.6%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man9.8%This article: 5.1%Larry Bell: 8.6%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority5.1%This article: 5.3%Larry Bell: 5.1%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 2.9%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.7%Larry Bell: 8.8%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization10.7%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.7%Larry Bell: 14.1%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion4.7%This article: 1.8%Larry Bell: 2.2%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 19.1%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 3.2%Larry Bell: 4.8%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.2%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.1%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 3.3%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 8.6%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.6%Larry Bell: 5.1%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 13.6%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.9%Larry Bell: 4.9%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.3%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Larry Bell: 26.1%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%Larry Bell: 1.3%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

895 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech747writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageKamala Harris • 59 words • 100.0% coverageKamala Harris • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageThe Wall Street Journal • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kamala Harris

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words53% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Quote-first Misdirection+75.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kamala Harris: 75.6%75.6%Politically Right Leaning -30.9 ptsWriter: 30.9%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Kamala Harris: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.