Drill Baby Drill

Source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/75_say_u_s_not_doing_enough_to_develop_its_gas_and_oil_resources

As you can see in the above article, Rasmussen is reporting that people still want us to develop domestic fossil fuel sources.  This is obvious when you see how the economy booms around the industry. 

Let's look at what I like to call  "The Shale Rush."  Living in an area which is sitting on a large amount of natural gas from one of the shale sites in the US, and seeing first-hand the economic benefit it is bringing to the area, I can attest to the obvious demand for these resources.  In just the past few years since it has started, there has been an increase in jobs, an increase to local businesses, an increase in just about everything in the area.  It's rather simple to watch the vehicles which are related to this effort move around the area, and see where they are spending money.  What's not so obvious is the increased spending of the people positively impacted.  More money in the market means more money for everyone.  Some would suggest we should tax this industry heavily, because of the obvious desire for it. I challenge that strongly, as taxing things never increases production, and never accomplishes anything positive in regards to economic growth, but rather stifles it, and causes it to suffer. 

The same logic can be applied to drilling for crude oil.  Be it in the tundra of Alaska, off the Gulf Coast, or in Colorado, the immediate and long term benefit to any region which drills is significant.  Beyond that, we can reasonably predict that oil prices will drop as production increases, which will stimulate better growth elsewhere in the economy.  When shipping prices drop, and movement of product costs are lowered, the economy will blossom beautifully. 

We, as a nation, are sitting on tremendous resources which rival what is available elsewhere in the world.  I would argue that there is not a reasonable, logical reason why we should not be tapping into the resources which have been provided to us.  Yet still the left insists that drilling is a "Bad Idea" for some unknown reason. They are unable to back their reasons with any sound evidence, they are unable to  respond to legitimate, intellectual questions with anything other than emotionally charged, angry language.  The president has claimed to lift the ban on drilling, yet his administration has yet to authorize or approve any movement in that direction.  Clearly he is posturing to get the benefit on both sides of the issue, and in the process is doing nothing to help the American people or economy.  It's time we returned to being a nation of freedom, rather than a nation under a dictatorial heel.

Too Many Issues!

This week I have been struggling with what to write.  Not because there is a lack of material on which to comment, or because there is nothing going on in the world around us.  Quite the contrary, it is because I only have so much time to write, and can't decide which topics to cover.  Instead, I am going to do a quick mash of several topics, and lump them together.

First one:  Delta hates Jews.

The original article which I saw last night on USA Today's website has been changed.  Wyatt mentions this is his blog.  But the basic idea of what happened is simple. Delta entered into an agreement with another airline.  This airline happens to be based in Saudi Arabia.  Well, they happen to hate the Jews, and have a law about them not being in their kingdom.  Delta complies with the regulation of Air Discrimi-Saudi.  I understand when you are operating between various sovereign nations you need to be aware of their laws.  But this is a case of making a bad decision by Delta.  They could have picked better.  There is already a fairly intense backlash, we'll see what comes of it.

Item number two: Wisconsin Passes Carry Bill

I love what Tam has to say about it.  For the last score of years and change the states have been passing legislation making clear the legality of carrying weapons, especially carrying them concealed.  The last decade has seen quite the increase.  When I started carrying 10 years ago, the map of the US of which states had laws, and more importantly to me specifically, which states reciprocate with mine, was sparse.  Over the years I have watched these maps become more filled with freedom and liberty.  It has been an absolute joy to watch.  Illinois is the last hold-out.  Granted some states have tighter restrictions, make it more difficult for their citizenry to employ their rights, but only one remains where they have laws counter to the Constitution, and deny freedom.  Illinois, you're next.  :)

Thirdly:  Rick Perry for President?

This is a conversation by Trifecta on PJTV.  I strongly encourage you to check them out. 

To my knowledge, Governor Perry has not yet announced an intention to run for president of the United States.  Here is a quote from his speech:

And our loudest opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let's stop trying to curry favor with them.  Let's stop this American downward spiral!  We're doing this, and it's happening because of twoo much spending, too much interfering, and too much apologizing."

 When any politician makes comments like that, I have to admit that it gives me some hope.  However, when I see their actions, I'm let down more often than not.  And sadly it's not infrequent that I am not only let down, but that I am crushed, beaten into the ground, and demoralized.  Governor Perry seems to be true to his word, however, based on what I've seen in Texas.  Is he perfect? No, no human is.  It would be wrong for us to pin all of our hopes on one man, if that man is not Christ. 

Also, Bill Whittle's comment about Perry is spot on, when he says that he can fill a room, and has a presence which befits a president.  He makes a comparison of personality and charisma to Regan, and I tend to agree with that assessment.

That's all I have time for now.  Stay tuned for more posts in the future!

Also, if there is a topic you'd like to see me address, please let me know in the comments.  Also, share your thoughts on any topics you'd like here, not just these. Consider this an open thread.

The US Military is a Military - not a Test Market

Source:
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/16/u-s-army-has-net-zero-vision-for-national-security/


This thought should be self-explanatory.  The DoD is not an organization which is designed to drive commercial products, or to encourage the use of particular technology.  It is an organization who's mission, who's purpose, is to protect the citizenry of this nation.  To attempt to use our defensive forces to push an unneeded, wasteful program is taking major risks with the security of our citizens, our interests, and our national security.

In previous years, the military was able to create products which saw varied success in the free market.  Take for instance the GPS.  The technology the military developed to better their strength was given to people who saw the potential of the technology on the free market, were willing to put the work into commercializing it, and followed through on the investments.  The driving force behind the success of this product is that someone saw the commercial use, and took a risk. 

The reason no one has taken a risk with green energy is because the people who understand the market know there isn't a demand.  It's inefficient, far more expensive to generate, and the end result is just as much waste as with traditional solutions.  If money could be made on it, it would be.  As science advances, and research is completed, steps are taken to make these types of energy sources more viable, however as it stands now, being 'green' is expensive, with no visible return on the investment.

The government has been attempting to force these not-yet-mature technologies on the citizenry for entirely too long.  Now, rather than realizing the reason they are losing the fight, they turn to the military.  Only, rather than turning to them to fulfill their mission, they turn to them to assist in forcing unwanted tech down our throats.  Only now they are risking the very lives of the men and women who volunteer to protect us.  The idea of being in an under-powered, poorly-equipped base when it's attacked, or when need arises to respond to an attack on Americans elsewhere, does not sit well with me.  Our men and women will be putting themselves at a greater disadvantage with these changes.

The military needs to focus on what allows the troops to do their jobs effectively, completely, and efficiently.  To put an emphasis on anything else will weaken our strength, and open the door to various attacks.  That is a risk we'd be foolish to take.

The Heritage Foundation has done the research, and written an article on this, with some excellent information.  I strongly recommend reading over it.  It is located here.

What are your thoughts?  Should we be using our military to help develop technology which doesn't directly apply to their jobs, or allow them to focus on the mission at hand: Protecting these United States?

Science and the Bible: Mutually Exclusive, or Complimentary?

Source:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/can-science-creationism-coexist-one-christian-author-says-yes-51315/
Update:
Just read this article as well:
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2009/01/14/big_bang_evidence_for_god/page/full/


If we consider the Bible, the very Word of God Himself, to be something which contradicts science, we are treading on gravely dangerous ground.  God's Word is Truth.  To attempt to say that it is limited, or misleading, or inaccurate in any sense is to undermine the entirety of Scripture.  If we do that, then we are basically saying we can't know that we can have salvation, and that we can't know about a personal relationship with a loving God.

In his new book, Seven Days that Divide the World, John Lennox presents a simple yet profound idea.  This is an idea which has been floated in various forms, and various phrasings over the centuries.  However, it is an idea we must at least consider, if not embrace.  The idea is that the Bible and science compliment one another, and do not contradict one another. 

For most of history, atheists have liked the idea of a universe which always existed.  This was because they understood that a universe which was created must have a creator.  Any being capable of creating the universe would fit nearly any human definition of deity.  To this end, atheists long held that the universe was eternal, and limitless in size.  In the last several decades things have changed.  The big bang theory came about as a result of scientific study.  This theory indicates that the universe has a beginning point.  Fundamentally, we know that everything which exists has a cause.  If nothing existed prior to the universe, what caused it to exist?  The only answer for that is one which atheists prefer to avoid.

This is one example of an instance where the Bible appeared to contradict science.  Man's limited understanding of this universe pointed toward a limitless universe, without cause.  Rather, science today has shown that there is a beginning to the universe, and as such a cause.  In actuality, despite the seeming contradiction, the Bible pointed toward the truth long before man was able to discover it for himself.

It is with that understanding, and that precedent, that we are able to confront the lies of those who would say that science is truth, and the Bible is fanciful.  Clearly, this Scripture is not a textbook or other resource for seeing scientific theory played out, or how to measure events to learn more about science.  Rather it is a book of truth, some of which is provable with science.

Science is unable, by it's very nature, to show us how the world was created.  It is a limited tool, in that regard, that it can only be used to verify testable data.  Some historical events can be examined using advanced mathematical concepts, and observable events in the universe today.  Other historical information, such as which plants grew first, or which animals first inhabited the skies, can not be determined with science.  This is something only history can teach us.  However, it is history which is unrecorded.  Therefore, today we have no way to know some of these answers.

Scripture gives us all the answers we need, and provides us with sufficient information and knowledge to live our lives.  It shows us that the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, this planet, and the life on it, including us humans, were all created by a loving God, in a fashion which was pleasing to Him,  When it was completed, He said it was good.  One day I hope to learn the methods God used during creation.  Man has a myriad of theories about it, ranging from individual, complete attention to detail, loving acts for each creation, to His creating a process which allowed life to give way to more advanced life.  While I know which I believe to be true, I am eager for the day when my Father and Creator can show me precisely how He did it.

Until then, I will study His Word, and know that it does not stand in contradiction with science, but rather compliments it, and often will give me clues which science is unable to answer today.

Child Spanking a Felony?

Source:

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/14926804/texas-mom-who-spanked-toddler-pleads-guilty-to-felony-injury-to-a-child-charge

When I saw this, I realized we truly are living in a time in which there is a distinct lack of understanding about what is right and wrong; and that applies both religiously and politically.

First, the relationship of parent and child is a critical relationship to both, but especially the child.  They will learn about life, and how to live it, from their parents.  As part of the great responsibility of teaching a child how to live in the real world, there are various means available, one of which is spanking.  It is not the place of any governmental body to interfere in that relationship.  

Yes, I will acknowledge that there are evil people in the world who would and do beat children needlessly.  Yes, I call this evil.  Yes, 'something' should be done about that.  However, it is absolutely wrong to prevent proper healthy parenting for the sake of stopping those who abuse children.  It's the same logic that liberals use for so many other things.  "Criminals would use guns to rob places, we should outlaw guns."  The criminals will use whatever they can, including illegal guns, to do so.  The gun isn't the issue.  In this case, spanking isn't the issue.  Bad parenting is.  That is what should be address, and even that should at least initially be addressed from the perspective of family, church, extended family, local community, etc.  When it's determined that they are going to do what they will regardless of offered help, etc, then yes, a punishment needs to be levied against the abusers, and their role in the life of the child needs to be reduced significantly.

However, the use of corporal punishment as an effective means of teaching proper and improper behavior patterns to children is a good thing.  It is proven (I'm a good example of that, to some degree) as an effective tool.  If done in a loving manner, and not out of anger or frustration on the part of the parent, it is one of the best tools available for a child to learn and grow.

Let's take a quick look at what Scripture has to say on the subject:

From Proverbs:

^3:11 My son, do not reject the ^[a]discipline of the LORD
Or loathe His reproof,
¹² For whom the LORD loves He reproves,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights. 

^13:24 He who withholds his ^[a]rod hates his son,
But he who loves him ^[b]disciplines him diligently. 

^19:18 Discipline your son while there is hope,
And do not desire ^[a]his death. 

^22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of discipline will remove it far from him. 

^23:13 Do not hold back discipline from the child,
Although you ^[a]strike him with the rod, he will not die.
¹⁴ You shall ^[b]strike him with the rod
And rescue his soul from Sheol. 

^29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom,
But a child ^[a]who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. 

From Hebrews:
^12:6 FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES.”

 ⁷ It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 

[All Scripture is from the NASB translation.]

As we look through these passages, we clearly see that God has ordained use of 'the rod' in the raising of children in wisdom.  It plays a vital role, when used appropriately.  With the understanding that the rod is not to be used for every situation and circumstance, and not when the child is too young to understand the meaning of the discipline, and the various other concepts which are natural to parents, it becomes even more obvious to us that it is irresponsible to allow a child to live in the way they choose, without having any discipline.  Hebrews speaks to our relationship with our Heavenly Father in chapter 12.  Part of this comparison is the use of discipline to bring us into line.  God uses it in love, the same as we as parents are to use it with our children.

I am so blessed to have a daughter who behaves, and needs only be told things once.  I have yet to need to use spanking or any other corporal punishment with her.  She has had privileges suspended, and other minor punishments.  With her that is sufficient, and I am ever grateful for that.  I do not ever want to have to cause my child physical pain for their betterment.  However, I am willing to do so, for the sake of their own future, and to protect them from mistakes, and to understand that actions do indeed have consequences.  That's a lesson I'd rather my child learn from me in love, than from the world in any other fashion.

Hypocrisy on the Left

Sources:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/tim-pawlenty-attacked-with-confetti-in-san-francisco.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/union-leader-calls-nj-gov-chris-adolph-christie/ 

The left has long accused the right of being hypocrites, being filled with hate, tending toward violence, and the like.  However, during the Tea Parties last year, which are arguably the most right-wing gatherings we've seen in this nation's history, the violence tended to come from liberals showing up with violence in mind.  

The left is filled with hateful language, violent behavior, and repeated attempts to distort truth with lies.  Name-calling, insulting, demeaning, and other forms of verbal assault are commonplace on their side, yet when even one person from the right slips in a moment of frustration and says one demeaning thing, there is a media blitz to condemn the behavior as deplorable.  While frustration does not excuse that behavior, the double standard of the left is laughable.  

The latest example is a union thug comparing Chris Christie to Adolph Hitler.  Anyone who has studied history, much less lived under the rule of Hitler, understands that he was a man of pure evil, who did not treat humans equally or respectfully, had a disdain for liberty, and disregard for human life.  His actions are beyond the realm of most men to grasp happening, let alone the behavior and mind of the person who would do such things.  Yet, the left has compared so many people on the right to Hitler.  The most ironic part of it is that Hitler's behavior was closer in motivation to the left than the right!  His removing rights from citizen, killing innocent people, and the like are socialistic in nature.  Today, the left seeks to revoke freedoms, encourages and funds murder of innocents, and the list goes on.  

Yet we do not see signs or read stories comparing anyone on the left to the person who is arguably the most evil in recent history.  Because as much as we disagree with our opposition, we do not stoop to that level, nor do we resort to name calling.  That is the behavior of the insecure, and the man who understands that his arguments are indefensible.  

And please, throwing glitter on a man?  That's no only disrespectful, that comes dangerously close to assault.  

Be careful the ground you tread, as your actions speak far more loudly than your words. 

Republican Debate - Thoughts

The debate is being covered by a large number of bloggers, many of whom are far better at analyzing it than I am.  So rather than making an attempt to do something of lesser quality than you'll find elsewhere, I will give my thoughts on it.

Biggest takeaway:
I like Michelle Bachman.  I had not paid close attention to her as a candidate previously, as I didn't think it likely that she would run.  To my knowledge, no one holding the elected office of Representative has ever won a general election.  The higher house of Congress, yes, but not the lower.  That said, she came out strong, didn't hesitate in her answers, spoke directly and succinctly, and didn't have an apologetic attitude about her stances.  I think she handled herself better than the men on the platform last night.

Biggest letdown:
I know many people are going to say Pawlenty not taking on Romney and his health care plan.  That isn't my biggest letdown of the evening.  I think Herman Cain was my biggest letdown.  I had extremely high hopes for him based on what I understand of his politics.  While I didn't see a weakness there, I did see a weakness in how he handles himself in public forums, and in this kind of pressure.  While I personally don't mind someone who forgoes political correctness, and speaks his mind and heart freely, that rarely gets one very far in politics.  I am certain that is one reason why I will not ever win an election at -any- level, should I ever decide to try. 

I will say that I was not surprised in the least that Pawlenty did not go after Romney more aggressively.  I say this because he is no true conservative.  He sounded far more conservative last evening than I have heard him previously, and I believe that is because of the competition on the stage.  Looking at the state of Minnesota, sure he's conservative - because compared to the rest of the state he is.  He's not quite as liberal as Romney, but he is a progressive. 

Romney surprised me with a couple of his answers.  He did make one point that managed to get me to agree with him and disagree with him in the same thought process.  That's a neat trick.  When he was confronted on Romneycare in Mass, his response was that it is appropriate for the states to institute that sort of thing, but not the federal government.  While I am a strong supporter of states' rights, the idea of forced medical care is still socialism verging on communism. 

Ron Paul is still Ron Paul.  He has some good things to say, sounds like a conservative, but it doesn't take long to realize that he doesn't hold the same values that most of us do.  While there are areas where I consider myself a libertarian, he takes that concept in a direction that would not be healthy for this country.

Being from Pennsylvania, I was hoping for a stronger showing from Rick.  He's a solid, upstanding man, and I have a lot of respect for him.  I don't know that his place is in the White House though.  I don't think he has the presence, or the executive style that it takes to lead from that seat.  I don't think he's going to make it.  I have mixed emotions about that, as it will be sad to see him lose, but I don't think he's the strongest candidate we have available.

Should I ever bother mentioning Newt?  He's done nothing to impress me since he was Speaker many moons ago.  There is too much of a cloud surrounding him today for him to be effective should he win the vote.  Additionally, I doubt his true conservative motives, as he's been part of the establishment within the GOP for entirely too long.  I think we'd be better off with him out of the race.

That about sums up my thoughts after last night's debate.  Let me know what you all think.