The Catch-22 of Drilling

As many of you know, the media has created quite a circus over the issue of drilling for oil off the continental US and Alaska. Environmentalists and tree-huggers scream over the vast dangers of drilling for oil off of our coasts; as if it is any more safer overseas?

At the same time, liberals scream, and quite loudly, that we need to ween ourselves, if not completely sever, our dependency upon foreign oil. Their noise is so loud that I fear I'll have to apply to the VA for a hearing aid soon.

People want us to break from our oil addiction but are unwilling to let us use our own sources of oil until new energy sources and technologies can be developed. Because of this conflict, a Catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't, argument comes about.

I am completely for and support the need to find alternative and cleaner sources of energy but I am also a realist who knows that it will be necessary for us to temporarily, use our own resources as a stop-gap measure. Saying this, I support coastal drilling and the simultaneous pursuit of new, efficient energy sources and technologies. I support this platform for several reasons:

1. It is highly criminal how third rate nations can hold the political and economic might of the United States hostage because of our need for oil. I do not like any foreign nation having influence in our government and I feel the need for us to retake the initiative and regain our footing in the world.

2. What better way to win the war on terrorism than to cut it off at it's head? It is no secret that organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah are being secretly funded by Arab leaders. Where do you think they get the money to do this? Simple: from oil revenues; oil we purchase. In essence, we are feeding the very monster which we fear. By cutting off a vital supply of revenue, this will not only weaken terrorist groups but also the very nations who support them. This will place them in a position where they would have to be more favorable to diplomatic measures and help work for an effective, and long lasting, peace process in the Middle East. By drilling and using our own oil, we will strike a hard blow to our enemies. Hit them where it hurts the most.

3. New technologies and oil drilling will also stimulate our economy and help create more jobs. As I said, simultaneously with drilling for oil, we need to pursue alternative energy sources such as wind power, geothermal, and cars which run off of electric cells or hydrogen. These new technologies must go from drawing board to (American) factories and eventual production soon. With the development of these new technologies, America will be in a position to corner the market and reclaim her rightful position in the world.

It only makes sense to drill for our own oil off of our own coasts. A stop gap measure must be found to help us become independent of foreign oil. Oil can be drilled for safely and without harm to the environment. The choice is clear; we must break free of foreign oil and develop our own energy resources. Still, it is necessary to create a stop gap measure in the interim.

Liberals want their cake and to eat it too and that's just not possible.

Unless, of course, your name is Marie Antoinette?

It took me quite awhile to search but I believe I have finally found a Republican candidate worth backing. My apologies to Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney but their records don't back up their words. A nod of respect goes to John McCain. He is a man of dignity and deep character. He goes against the grain, which I admire, but I fear that he has made too many enemies in our own party to be elected. After some soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that I must vote according to my values and not base my vote upon who is popular. Having said so, I have thrown my own backing behind Mike Huckabee. Looking at the polls, others have come to the same conclusion as I have and have propelled the former Arkansas governor to the number one slot in the important Iowa caucus.

Being number one is great but it is also a double edged sword. Being on top garners you plenty of attention but also makes you the target of those who envy you.

Gov. Mike Huckabee has made it to the top of the polls in Iowa, a key state in the caucuses, but n o sooner has he gotten there when his detractors have appeared being both loud and bold in attempting to knock him off the top spot for the Republican nomination for President.

The media was the first to attempt to derail Gov. Huckabee when it ran an article concerning a paroled prisoner named Wayne Dumond. Dumond was a rapist up for parole. He was set free and then promptly raped and killed another woman. The truth is, however, that the press has it's facts crossed. One, governors cannot parole prisoners but they can commute sentences. Two, Dumond's sentence was commuted but not by Huckabee but by his predecessor, Jim Guy Tucker, who was being investigated as part of the Whitewater scandal involving then President Bill Clinton. The press, of course, despite these facts, has not retracted it's story.

Mitt Romney, a Mormon, feeling the pressure of Huckabee's campaign and fearing the loss of Christian conservatives, has made claims of religious bigotry towards Huckabee, a Baptist minister. These claims too are false. Huckabee, of course, has made no statement concerning Mitt Romney's religion. His official statement, when asked about Romney's religion, was "I am just not going to go into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president,"

The Club for Growth has also been very critical of Gov. Huckabee on taxes claiming that he is a tax raiser. Gov. Huckabee denies that attacks on his fiscal policies stating that "If my economic record was so bad, how come at the end of it we had a billion dollars in surplus, the lowest unemployment rates that had been sustained in history and also we were able to move half the people on welfare into jobs? It's a record historians are going to be very kind with, even if the Club for Growth isn't,"

Others have claimed that Huckabee ran an amnesty state which the  Arkansas governor disagrees with writing on his website that I oppose and will never allow amnesty .

Governor Huckabee, if he wins Iowa (as polls indicate) and shows strongly in New Hamphsire, is in a poised position to claim one of the top spots, if not the Republican nomination, from his opponents, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain; all of whom, save McCain, have come under fire from conservative groups for their flip-flopping on important issues such as gun ownership, abortion, education and same sex marriage.

Gov. Huckabee is no stranger to controversy and adversity in politics. In 1996, his predecessor, Jim Guy Tucker, refused to resign from office even though he had been indicted in the Whitewater scandal. Through shows of character, dignity and determination, Gov. Huckabee stood his ground and Tucker gave in.  

Mike Huckabee is showing himself to be a strong candidate for the Republican nomination. Welcome to the top Mike and here's for a long and permanent run there.

President Abraham Lincoln

Union soldiers, Siege of Petersburg, 1864

That history repeats itself cannot be denied and I was keenly reminded of this as I browsed through my collection of books on the US Civil War. The nation was torn by a Civil War which seemed without end and, often, without reason. It, like the Iraq War today, drained the coffers of the treasury.  The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, faced not only an open rebellion in the South but a growing one within the ranks of both Congress and his own political party spurred on by the unpopularity of the war.

By 1864, although Federal forces had whittled down Robert E. Lee's famous Army of Northern Virginia and effectively cut the Confederacy in two with victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga, the war went on and on. Unlike the Civil War, America's casualties in the Iraq War are surprisingly light but weigh heavily on the consciouness of the American people nonetheless. Like the Civil War, the Iraq War is unpopular but, in general, the people support the troops in the field.

In 1864, Lincoln faced re-election. Although President Bush cannot be re-elected, his form of the Republican party faces an uphill struggle to maintain control of the White House and regain momentum in Congress.

Lincoln's Democratic Party opponent in the 1864 election was none other than popular former general, George B. McClellan. Although, in the field, McClellan left much to be desired, it was, namely, his popularity with the soldiers that prompted the Peace Democrats to nominate him for President. Like Senator Clinton, McClellan was a sort of demagogue who loved to read his own press clippings. Like the Democrats of today, the Democrats then hoped to win the Presidency and broker a peace with the leaders of the Confederacy which would, in essence, split the United States into two nations -- one of which would be a slave holding one. Union soldiers would come home ...albeit in defeat, for failing to complete the mission given to them (save the Union). Today's Democrats want the same thing ... peace at the expense of honor .. return American soldiers home without completing their mission in Iraq. I believe that Republican supporters in 1864 would easily recognize the Democrat's "cut and run" strategy as being similar with the political opponents of their day.

Like today, Lincoln's Republican party was also factionalized between those who wanted peace and those who felt Lincoln had not pursued the war in the South aggressively enough.

On the eve of the 1864 election, it looked as if Lincoln would go down to defeat against McClellan.

Victory, however, came not to the Democrats but to the Republicans. In Atlanta, General William Tecumseh Sherman blazed a trail of destruction which culiminated in the capture of that jeweled city. At the same time, Ulysses S. Grant tightened the noose around Robert E. Lee's beleaguered army at Petersburg. These two events, split the Democratic vote and helped propel Lincoln's party to victory in the election.

Today, our nation faces a similar crisis with Iraq. The surge, which began last spring, has brought some stability to Iraq. Violence in Baghdad has been cut in half, refugees are returning. While critics initially claimed it to be a failure, just recently, Rep. Murtha (D) of Pennsylvania, a hostile opponent of the war, claimed openly, and against his party's platform, that the surge in Iraq was indeed working.

News such as this bodes ill for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are basing their campaign strategy on the supposed failures of the Bush Administration in Iraq.

It seems, however, as in 1864, it was the American soldier who surprised everyone. In 1864, they captured Atlanta; in 2007 they have begun the stabilization of Iraq. The Democrats, as always, have put their money on the wrong horse. They deliberately sought the 'cut and run' strategy, delibrately culling peace activists into their ranks and abandoning our soldiers in the field. In 1864, their actions resulted in their defeat at the polls.

In 2007, the Democrats continue to abandon the soldiers in the field by attempting to cut off war funds which supply them with ammunition to fight the insurgents in Iraq. Although they ardently believe that this political strategy will work for them I believe that they have made a fatal mistake.

You see, America, as a whole, loves it's soldiers and they place more faith in them than they do with the political blowhards in Washington DC. America loves the underdog. Images of men and women valiantly struggling while sleeping in cold desert foxholes and fighting in hot, blazing dust storms wins them over and gains their support. Politicians, the vast majority of which have never been in military service, driving around in fancy cars (gas guzzling SUVs at that) and giving themselves raises they don't deserve, garner the people's ill.

Can the Republicans pull a victory from defeat as they did in 1864?

Time, and history, will tell.