And the Greatest of these is Love

There is always a crisis. Freedom is under assault. The GOP establishment is trying to ramrod a candidate through who I very seriously doubt is a true conservative. Our president holds our constitution in the same regard as our calves do the straw we bed down their pens with. The personal mandate tears at the very core of our liberty. Government agents patrol the schools to inspect bagged lunches. The unelected bureaucracy issues regulation that carries the full weight of law without any involvement of the legislature, and has reached levels of tyranny that would make King George of England’s ears burn.  Now we are meant to believe that the right to free contraceptives overrides everything else even religious freedom. For these and a thousand other reasons people like me take the time to write every week about different elements of freedom and first principles of the founding of our nation in the hopes of passing on the torch of freedom to one more generation. Often I do so with heavy heart, you see America is the greatest exercise in human liberty ever dared attempted. Of all history here resides the idea that the individual is sovereign and that the powers of the state restricted. We do not always appreciate how few members of Adam’s race have lived free, and we have the honor and responsibility of maintaining it one generation at a time. As much as I believe the hand of God was in the founding of America, I am under no delusion America is ephemeral. Some day people like me will sit and write words to desperately persuade others to save the American dream but will not be heeded In the Revelation 3:2 Christ warns the Church at Sardis words which apply to us today Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

. Their will come a day when all we have built must go the way of all the Earth.

I do not believe this is that day.

Still we should always be mindful of the eternal, of the unchanging and everlasting truths that shape the foundation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. With the passing of Valentine’s Day this last week I am reminded of the words of St Paul: So these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the best one of these is love.

God is Love. All we know of love is what we understand of God, all we know of God is what we understand of love. In the Greek language 4 different words are translated “love”. Storge, Philia, Eros, and agape each describe a different aspect of affection. Of all the eternal truths we have forsaken I suspect our understanding of love is near the top of the list. In John 14:9 Jesus said “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” If then Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, and in fact Jesus is God, then all aspects of human love must be perfectly represented in the life of Christ. It would behoove us to take a moment and remember these things.

Storge- this is the Greek for “natural affection” it is often used for family relations. The Greek word is not used in scripture however family is the first human institution initiated by God and is the only thing sinful man was allowed to keep that was of paradise after the fall (Gen 3) Christ though Lord and King, lived within the structure of the family. You see him at the age of 12, full self aware, debating and instructing the Pharisees and scribes, in Luke 2: 41-51. When his parents sought him out and his mother scolded him the Bible says: 51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.

Later at the end of his earthly life Jesus again demonstrates his love of family when from the agony of the cross he makes arrangements for his mother’s provision.<< John 19 >> New American Standard Bible

---

26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

  

Eros- from this word we get the English Erotic, and yes it is usually used to describe romantic love. While Jesus was never in a marital relationship yet he is the perfect example of this type of love. It is the relationship of husband and wife which the Lord uses to describe the love of the Lord to his Church. Ephesians 5:25-33

---

      25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband. 

In this we have both the perfect picture of God’s view of marriage and the perfect example of the desire of Christ in how a husband and wife should relate. I think it no coincidence that Christ chose the most passionate of loves to express his love of us. Throughout the Old Testament similar descriptions are used though they often revolve around the infidelity or “whoredoms” of God’s people, but in the Song on Songs or Song of Solomon the Lord reveals both his heart for us and the heart of the man to his lover. True love is jealous. Not the violent stalker jealousy that we picture the “green eyed monster” as but God demands the fidelity of his bride, Eros love is exclusive and unique. This is water drunk from one’s own well and not that of a stranger. The lover is never to be shared and this is the exclusiveness of Love.

There is a Brad Paisley song I probably shouldn’t like but that I really do “I’m still a guy” one line says “And I'll pour out my heart, hold your hand in the car,

 Write a love song that makes you cry.

Then turn right around knock
some jerk to the ground 'cause he [acted inappropriately] as you walk by.”

I see this as an example of Godly jealousy and Godly Eros.

Philia-(brotherly love) “There is a love that is stronger than death and a friend that sticks closer than a brother.” When Jesus asks Peter following the resurrection “Do you love me” he uses the word Agape the first two times, Peter responds “You know that I Love you” he uses the word Philia. The third time Peter is distressed because the Lord drops agape and uses Philia. In other words he meets Peter where he was. Philia demands loyalty, virtue and fidelity, while it is devoid of the passion of Eros it is the appropriate term to describe great loyalty. It would likely be the term for love of country as well. We see Jesus model this love in many ways. He called his disciples not servants but friends. He shared the words of His Father with them, even gave them nicknames. In John 14:28 Jesus notes that his disciples are saddened that he has said He will return to his Father and He says: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

So we learn from the Lord that true friendship always seeks the best of the friend, even if it is to our hurt this is true of Philia rather it is for family, friend, or flag. If you love someone you will seek the best for them.

Agape- this is the Love of God. It is all encompassing and unfailing. Often translated charity in the King James it is a love from which there is no return, no second thought, this is the love that held Christ on the cross. It is a purely voluntary love, our Lord was under no obligation to go to the cross for us, He did it by choice. “Greater love has no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friend”

I Corithians Chapter 13 defines Agape love thus:

⁴ Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; ⁵ does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; ⁶ does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;⁷ bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

⁸ Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whetherthere is knowledge, it will vanish away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part. ¹⁰ But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. ¹² For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

¹³ And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Notice that love does not condone all things, but there is a necessary morality, a necessary virtue, and yet it is this love that lead the virtuous One to die for the corrupted, the Holy One to die for the defiled. If we are to return this love to God it will be because He first loved us and gave His Life as a ransom for our souls.

May God bless you and cvcause His love to shine in your heart.

Until next time Keep on the firing line.

Putting the Electability question to bed!

Have you noticed how few of the Mitt Romney supporters back him because they believe he would be the best President?  The reason to support Romney has always been, “He can win.” Is that so? What is it about a guy whose record winning elections would earn him a trip back to the minors if he were a big league starter that should make us so convinced he is the only one who can go up against the “big bat” of the incumbency and get the put out? Why should we assume that though Santorum would be far and above the better President we should select Romney because he’s the best candidate?

Some will say Romney has money. This is true and he has proven that when he can outspend an opponent 5-1 he does fairly well. He won Florida and came in a close second in Iowa with his spending; he then rode the momentum from Florida to win Nevada. Is that impressive?  The only wins he has without a media blitz smear assault are New Hampshire and Maine, and if a New England Governor can’t win those that would be a story. Meanwhile Santorum has done more with less than nearly any campaign in recent history. He won Iowa than swept Colorado Minnesota and Missouri, and will undoubtedly gain a great deal of financial support now that the conservative base seems to be solidifying around him. This is important because the Republican nominee will not be able to outspend Obama 5-1, not to mention the millions of free advertising the traditional media will give him. The problem with Gov. Romney’s attempts to “buy” the nomination is that his ads are high in why-not-vote for the opponent (even if the facts he uses are at times suspect) and very thin in the why-vote for me factor. Further, though this is a subjective opinion, I do not see Gov Romney going after Obama nearly as viciously as he did Newt, even though you don’t have to take any of Obama’s quotes out of context or exaggerate his record to make a very persuasive argument.

The second reason we are told we need Romney is that he will attract moderates and independents. (I addressed this in my first ever post on 3/24/11) let us recall that 42% of this country considers itself conservative and only 21% liberal. To win a general election a Republican must first win the conservative base. A strong conservative will have no trouble winning over 10-12% of the moderate vote if he excites the conservative base. This is how Reagan won a 49 state landslide. I would say even if you concede that Romney is more attractive to moderates (which I do not) than if he cannot win over the conservatives which he has yet to do, he would need to dominate the moderate vote by unrealistic percentages. Santorum on the other hand would rev up the conservative base and moderates would respond to the excitement of those supporters.  

What no one claims would propel Romney to victory is his record. I am certain the next round of trash the conservative from the Romney camp will focus on two votes on Santorum’s record. Certain earmarks that brought federal funds to Pa and the prescription drug plan for Medicare. Legitimate points, though I do not doubt Santorum has answered them to the satisfaction of most conservatives. In spite of this Santorum offers a clear sharp contrast between his own ideology and that of the President. With Mitt we are weakened on three of our greatest points of debate. First is TARP Romney and Obama support and defend it. The second is the global warming hoax. Romney and Obama believe in it, though Romney’s position may still be evolving. The third and most damning for Romney is health care. Romney vows to overturn Obama-care because the federal government lacks the authority to impose it but he does not oppose any aspect of it on moral grounds. In fact Romney care which is virtually identical to Obama-care still has the support of the Mass governor who implemented it  some where in the core of his being Mitt Romney, like Obama, believes that government is better suited to make health care choices than is the individual. It is difficult to get exited about Romney as a capitalist when he rejects the free market in healthcare in his own state, in fact he sabotages it. I find it hard to see Mitt Romney as a champion of limited government when he believes that government, albeit state not federal, has the right to force individuals to purchase products they may not want.

I find it very difficult to see Romney as a champion of liberty when he as governor refused to exempt religious hospitals from giving emergency contraceptives and abortives to certain patients. Obama is disregarding religious liberty in the same way.

Neither Romney nor Santorum have any major ethics gaps or great personal moral failings for the left to exploit, as was the case with Newt. Whoever the nominee is however they can expect to be beat up by the Obama attack machine which will make the Romney attack squad seem amateur.

Maybe Romney is better looking than Santorum? Beats me, I’ll let any ladies out there tell me about that. I am certain however that conservative women would not fall into that trap.

Personally I think the idea of voting for “the best candidate” as opposed to “the best president” is flawed from the get go. I will go for the candidate who I believe in every time. I think more people will than we realize and that makes Santorum not Romney the most electable candidate standing.

Until next time keep on the firing line!

Why the Mandate must die!

Once there was an idea, a bold and transformative idea that caught the interest of some, and sparked debate in others. The idea was that perhaps the government should make a law that said everyone has to buy health insurance. This idea was cunning, for a little while it even pretended to be a conservative idea, and some of the best conservative thinkers thought, “My what a clever little idea you are!” You see there were some who were not paying for the health services they received. Hospitals had to treat them by law and they never paid for what they took. Many of these people weren’t even legal residents of our country, and they liked to “stick” the rest of us with their bills. The hospital still had to pay the doctors who treated them, the nurses who cared for them, the custodians who cleaned up after them, the technicians who ran their tests, buy the machines to process their tests, the syringes and IV bags and on and on, so they had no choice but to charge the people who did pay more, to cover the costs of those who never paid. One of the conservatives to briefly buy into the mandate’s chicanery was Newt, little surprise, Newt is a bombastic speaker and a lover of big solutions and revolutionary thinking, even the Heritage Foundation, advisers to the great conservative Prince Valiant Reagan the Great, listened to the lie of the Mandate Idea that it cared for personal responsibility and jumped on board for a while. A certain Massachusetts governor even decided to enact a mandate on the good citizens of his state.

Alas the truth was bitter! For you see the Mandate cared nothing for health care, and it despised the very notion of personal responsibility it claimed to support. Mandate was really and assassin sent to kill the one thing Americans love more than life, liberty. You see, personal responsibility demands that each person be responsible for his or her own health care. You either buy insurance or you take the calculated risk of not doing so and choose to spend that money else where knowing that any medical needs will need to be paid out of pocket.  This is choice. This is liberty. Mandate says government must make that decision for you.

Ah but herein lies the rub!  For the mandate to do what it does a darker more insidious power must lie behind it.  The dark force which gives Mandate its life is the most sinister of all: unlimited governmental power. If the government can compel a citizen to buy insurance, it can decide what type of policy it must be, it can determine what insurance companies must offer, how much they can charge, what procedures are covered and for whom. Then they can decide how much of   a person’s own money they may spend. It can order religious organizations to participate in plans that cover contraception and abortion even though the specific doctrine of their church believes these things sinful. If it can do this then freedom of religion is at the whim of government. Rights are given by government not endowed by the Creator. No right is inalienable. The individual does not have sovereignty over himself; he exists merely by the good grace of the state; that which is his property is given only by the generosity of the state.

In the end, this country isn’t big enough for the both of them, Mandate and Liberty cannot coexist. The line is drawn and the duel has begun. One of them will not be here for our children.

If Liberty is to survive the Mandate must die.

Keep on the Firing line.

Is Newt the enemy of my enemy?

I would prefer Rick Santorum of all the remaining candidates. However the organized establishment attack on Newt Gingrich says a lot to me about who the establishment fears. I will grant you that Newt has negatives, he is not all that solid on illegal immigration, his campaign is at times a little erratic i.e. the right wing social engineering comments or the Bain Capitol ads, and there are a lot of people who just don’t like him. Perhaps he has the most negatives of any one running not named Ron Paul, but don’t be deceived, he has a long list of positive accomplishments as well, more than anyone else running.  Newt was speaker of the House during those difficult and contentious years when President Clinton fought tooth and nail against several fundamental reforms, and it was Newt who as speaker took up the fight to reform welfare and balance the budget, if you recall the House Republicans shut down the government rather than go along with business as usual and we had the first and so far last balanced budgets in many a year.

Also recall President Clinton vetoed welfare reform numerous times before the republicans forced it through with enough bipartisan support that Clinton conceded. Now of course Clinton claims credit for them, but these victories, not political victories mind you, but actual American legislative victories would not have been attained if John Boehner were speaker back then. In fact imagine how much better off we would be if Mr. Boehner had half the spine Speaker Gingrich had.  

Like I said I am not yet willing to give a whole hearted endorsement to Mr. Gingrich, among other reasons is his history of personal misconduct. I will not say, “Character counted for Clinton, not Newt” (the fact that the Main stream media is perfectly willing to do the same in reverse is of note). I cannot say rather Newt’s finding of Christ is legitimate, that is not my place, but I absolutely must judge rather I believe he is a man of sufficient integrity to sit in the seat of power in the nation that has leadership in the very cause of freedom. There is any number of legitimate concerns about Newt but the blatantly false ads and charges spewed by the establishment are reprehensible at best.

The first ridiculous charge is that Newt was hostile to Reagan. The quote pulled from a special orders speech in which Newt seems to argue against Reagan’s anti-communist policy. What is quoted is Newt echoing some concerns of other conservatives about the implementation of Reagan’s “rhetoric”. The purpose of the speech, and the whole series of special order speeches from which it was drawn was to support Reagan and advance the cause of conservatism. This is diabolical. The second is a quote about Vice President Bush not running as a continuation of Reagan. In the same interview he explains that Reaganism is a set of principles and that they are inclusive and must be advanced. Mark Levin’s site compiles the documentation at http://www.marklevinshow.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2012/01/video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-is-bogus.html

I have said before and will repeat with my dying breath that in order to save this Republic we must defeat the republican establishment as surely as we must defeat Obama. These half truth attacks on Gingrich embolden me in the possibility that I would support him whole heartedly, and my lukewarm feelings toward the Romney campaign are trending downward. As I have pointed out there are any number of legitimate concerns about Newt but the Romney camp has no desire to compare records. You see Newt Gingrich has fought to advance conservativism and when has Mitt Romney done the same? Was it when he pushed through Romney-care? Distanced himself from Reagan? Supported Joe Saunders? Referred to himself as a “progressive”?  

I do not believe the Republican establishment was nearly as happy with the 2010 election as one would think. They look at Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle as examples of why tea party values don’t win, but they ignore the fact that without those tea party values they maybe win 30 house seats instead of 60! The intensity with those that I would call the establishment makes me believe that they see conservatives as more of a threat than they do the liberal destruction of the Obama philosophy.

Is a man known by the friends he keeps or by the enemies he makes? Mitt has a lot of the wrong friends and Newt has a lot of the right enemies.

Again my fondest wish is that the Newt-Mitt pile of malarkey will become a hill Rick Santorum can climb to the top. If not, if it comes down to Newt or Mitt, than the enemy of my enemy is my candidate for president.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.

And the winner is (or at least should be)

Way back in August I began to look at the Presidential candidate’s stance on pertinent issues. Throughout this lengthy procedure I have attempted to stick solely to the issues and avoid the social-political aspect of the contest. I haven’t analyzed debate performances, haircuts or wardrobes, I haven’t looked at gaffes or accusers of misdeeds from the 1990’s, all we’ve tried to do is select the most important issues and review the candidates positions on those issues. Even at that, there are still more issues that warrant attention but with the caucuses/ primary season well under way I think it is appropriate to tell you what my conclusions are. Hence let’s take a moment to review the candidates as I rate them, worst to first. 

Ron Paul: I could simply cut and paste the quotes here about defense and Israel and move on but I have more to say than that. I heard Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son on Hannity’s radio show saying Ron Paul is the only Reagan conservative in the race. This is patently false, Ron Paul is not a conservative at all, he is a Libertarian. That’s all right of course; there is a Libertarian element in the Tea Party that should be represented, I just don’t happen to fall into it. On matters of spending, regulation, private property and free market Libertarianism and conservatism overlap considerably, but on most social issues the Libertarian philosophy is far more akin to the far left (i.e. drug legalization). Ron Paul purports to be the champion of the constitution, but some of his interpretations are questionable, i.e. his views on the war powers act or the view that the legislative branch has the authority to dictate to the judicial what cases it may review. Finally there is no way to be a “Reagan Conservative” without believing in a strong national defense. Rep Paul said in the Fox SC debate, “We bomb and bomb other countries and then wonder why they are upset with us.” I challenge Rep Paul and his supporters to find the poor innocent little country we just decided to go bomb the snot out of. In fact Reagan was ultra-aggressive in military action usually with great success (Grenada, Libya) but sometimes not (Lebanon) but he certainly did not have a live and let live philosophy with nations who threatened us or our allies. In the end Ron Paul is not a viable presidential option, though he would appeal to pot smoking draft dodging democrats in the same way Reagan appealed to working class patriotic Democrats. If that’s the new base we want, go for it, I’ll pass on the whole Ron revolution thing.

Mitt Romney- first off I do not have a problem with Bain Capitol, they invested in underperforming companies, often restructured them, which usually means layoffs and more often then not put those companies on a path of profitability which means job growth. Second I do not have a problem with his investments being taxed at 15% (which is less then Warren Buffet’s poor secretary)  of course investment income is taxed twice, first when it is earned and then after that already taxed money earns a profit that profit is taxed again. As long as he pays his taxes he is doing what is his duty though he is ineligible to be treasury secretary under the Obama administration, I could care less where his money is invested. In fact I have no problem with any of Candidate Romney’s positions. I find his stances on foreign policy, defense and immigration top notch, I think his economic plan is very good though I would like to see a more aggressive tax policy that will do away with the progressive tax code altogether. What I do have a problem with is that the positions of Candidate Romney are far from those of Gov. Romney. Further, Gov.  Romney was unrecognizable next to Senatorial candidate Romney. I think the weakest candidate compared to Obama is Gov. Romney because with him the sharpest Republican weapon blunted. His only objection to Obama-care is that the Federal government does not have the authority to impose government run health care, but he believes such a system when run by a state is wonderful. Somewhere at the core of Mitt Romney’s being there is someone who does not trust free market and free enterprise, therefore I would support Mitt over Obama unwaveringly, but while the race is open, I’d as soon have a better reliable conservative

Newt Gingrich- I’ll confess that early on I considered not even including Newt in this analysis just as I ignored John Huntsman or Gary Johnson, but that would have been a mistake. Newt can articulate conservatism at times in as clear and inspiring a manner as anyone, though at times his campaign has been erratic. All in all his positions are solid though he lags a bit on immigration compared to some in the field. I can not say that Newt’s past sins are not an issue to me but I will say that airing one side of a bad divorce as though it was news is unethical. The biggest thing that has made me take a second look at Newt is the fierce way the establishment has fought against him. It gives me hope, but the personal sins give me pause. I do fancy the thought of Gingrich in a debate with Obama, however.

Rick Santorum- often I have went through issues before Sen. Santorum had released his plans, I.E his economic plan, or his tax plan, and at times I find his specific positions hard to find on his website, still Santorum is a true conservative and a man of character and long term integrity. He did support no child left behind which was intended to redirect education policy toward education rather than social engineering, however to get it passed the liberals were given way too much and the size of government grew.  Also supporting the prescription drug plan was a big mistake. These aside I do not doubt even for a moment that Santorum is a real conservative in all three areas, defense, social and fiscal and he hasn’t the baggage of a Gingrich.

The conventional wisdom has been that Romney had it all wrapped up after all he won Iowa and New Hampshire, just like Jerry Ford! Oh wait a minute when they actually counted the votes Santorum won. So if in spite of outspending everyone by a ton and turning the race negative to a new level, he has only won in a neighboring blue state, this race is still got a long way to go.  

I just hope our candidates remember that liberalism is the enemy and not each other.

Until next time, keep on the firing line.  

Powering the Economic Engine of Freedom

Why didn’t the American Revolution happen in Ireland? The question warrants some thought.  The Irish were oppressed by the British in fact far more severely than were the colonies, they have a proud warrior tradition, a Judeo Christian heritage, access to the works of such men as Thomas Locke who was founder of many of the ideas of the American form of government. Yet it was half a world away that the Golden Age of American Freedom began. The answer is two fold: first is the proximity, it is reasonable to think that the Irish would have struggled to mount a successful campaign for freedom on the British home Isle at the heart of British power, but I think the second reason more compelling. You see the Irish population was decimated and in squalor. Little known to many modern historians a greater percent of the Irish population was sold into slavery than was the African, and those that remained were impoverished and dependent on the crown for what sustenance they could eek out. They simply lacked the strength and resource to mount a revolution of ideas.

In what would become the United States full political freedom was preceded by a measure of religious and economic freedom. Much of the tension that lead to the hostilities in the colonies sprung from British attempts to use the power of the tax to stifle and control the freedoms of the colonists. The American Revolution was in large part due to men who had been successful (i.e. the rich) risking ever thing to preserve economic opportunity for those still to come.

Two notes to public school teachers: slavery is a color blind evil and has oppressed people of all religious, ethnic and geographical boundaries, and the sustainability of religious and political freedom in the USA depends on the free enterprise system remaining strong, and the strength of the American economy rests on the ability to produce adequate energy. Energy equals oil.

Yes it would be good to replace fossil fuels with green energy and I believe that day will come but we are about as close to that as the farm tractor was to replacing the horse in1898.  

You will know when renewable energy has succeeded, the Liberals in congress will cease to want to subsidies it and complain that those accursed rich “big solar” execs don’t pay their fair share of taxes. When the free enterprise system creates and wants effective and affordable resources it will not need to be subsidized.

The Obama administration will point to our becoming an exporter of gasoline as proof of its leadership but remember the savings Obama plan for energy is similar to its plan for immigration, crate less demand through diminished economic activity. Not the plan I wish to support.

Here are some of the Republicans alternate plans.

Mitt Romney-   from Romney’s site As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.

Significant Regulatory Reform

The first step will be a rational and streamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.

·                                 Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

·                                 Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

·                                 Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

·                                 Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process

·                                 Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview

·                                 Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs

·                                 Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years

Increasing Production

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers similar promise for the future.

·                                 Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves

·                                 Open America’s energy reserves for development

·                                 Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries

·                                 Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

·                                 Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction

Research and Development

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.

·                                 Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research

·                                 Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research

What I like best about the Romney plan is in italics. As a West Virginian I am further encouraged by these quotes from a key Romney adviser which I pulled from a pro cap and trade site “America has hundreds of years of coal reserves," writes Talent, a Republican and key Romney economic advisor, blaming government regulation for hampering domestic coal mining and other energy production.

“The problem is not that America does not have energy. The problem is that our government – alone among the governments of the world – will not allow its own people to recover the energy that they possess. http://www.grist.org/list/2011-09-14-mitt-romneys-energy-policy-crafted-by-coal-funded-shill

Rick Santorum- I just finished reviewing Sen. Santorum’s key votes on energy and environment and find his record flawless, he is pro-coal, pro-drilling, pro-nuke, and understands how many jobs these activities create. He is staunchly opposed to cap and trade and has favored repeal of CAFÉ standards that help create price and safety issues with vehicles.

Newt Gingrich- from http://www.newt.org/solutions/american-energy-plan

1.                             
Remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles to responsible oil and natural gas development in the United States, offshore and on land.

2.                              End the ban on oil shale development in the American West, where we have three times the amount of oil as Saudi Arabia.

3.                              Give coastal states federal royalty revenue sharing to give them an incentive to allow offshore development.

4.                              Reduce frivolous lawsuits that hold up energy production by enacting loser pays laws to force the losers in an environmental lawsuit to pay all legal costs for the other side.

5.                              Finance cleaner energy research and projects with new oil and gas royalties.

6.                              Replace the Environmental Protection Agency, which has become a job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices, with an Environmental Solutions Agency that would use incentives and work cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes while considering the impact of federal environmental policies on job creation and the cost of energy.

My favorite idea from Newt’s summary is replacing the EPA that is almost as good as eliminating it altogether. Point #4 is also extremely well taken.

Rick Perry- “We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”

-Barack Obama in Brazil, on America importing more offshore oil from Brazil, March 19, 2011, Business Week

Today, unstable countries in the Middle East have the potential to cut off the spigot and do great damage to our economy. Our continued reliance on unstable and hostile countries for energy is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.

My “Energizing American Jobs and Security” plan will commence or expand energy exploration from the Atlantic coast to the western seas off Alaska. We will end the bureaucratic foot-dragging that has reduced offshore drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico by eighty percent. We will tap the full potential of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. We will unleash exploration in our Western states, which have the potential to produce more energy than what we import from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Columbia, Algeria, Nigeria and Russia combined.

If we do not act, and the Obama Administration’s job-killing bureaucratic rules take effect, America will lose 2.4 million jobs by 2020. With a renewed commitment to developing American energy resources and technology, we will create American jobs – 1.2 million based on various studies. The stark difference between the Perry vision and the Obama vision amounts to 3.6 million jobs in just one sector of our economy. But the ripple effect will impact all sectors of our economy. Manufacturers will benefit from more affordable electricity, in addition to new opportunities to provide goods to energy producers. All sectors of the economy will reap the benefits of a more stable and affordable supply of electricity.

I believe in an “all of the above” energy plan that encourages the development of all our conventional and renewable sources. I will not tolerate the federal bureaucracy’s war on natural gas and coal generation – which are responsible for two-thirds of American electricity generation – because America needs all forms of energy to keep prices stable and meet the demand of our growing population.

As we look to the future, we know developing American energy is vital to creating American jobs. It is vital to keeping the lights on and making electricity affordable for our families, manufacturers and employers.

I believe one of the quickest ways to create jobs and restore investor confidence in America is to expand energy production in America. It is time to end the overregulation, excess litigation and bureaucratic intimidation that has stalled our recovery. Let’s have a “Made in America” energy policy, and make America strong and prosperous again.

Perry’s website included the Obama quote which I found appropriate. His plan also is solid as shale coal.

Ron Paul- FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

The free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.

Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet.

Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers.

In fact, much of the “pain at the pump” Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production – like oil, coal, and natural gas – in hopes of making energy sources they favor more “economical.”

Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon taxes, or a “Cap and Tax” system.

As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs.

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.

* Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.

It’s time for a President that recognizes the free market’s power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.

Finally after being very critical of many of Ron Paul’s positions, I am very impressed, (no surprise) with his position on energy, and quite honestly among very good plans his is likely the best. Perry and Santorum are also strong in that neither of them sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi or told a New Hampshire audience they believed in global warming as being man-made. Still this is a winning issue for all our candidates if they should choose to do away with the Bain Capital tit for tat they seem engrossed in.

Until next time, (when we will put a bow on these long months of analyzing the candidates) keep on the firing line.