Why the U.S. Presidential Candidates' Positions on Energy Independence Don't Make Sense

Many of you have asked about for whom I'm planning vote in the U.S. Presidential election. The truth is that I don't like my choices and there's a great likelihood that I, for first time since I was old enough to vote, may not vote in the U. S. Presidential election. (I'm still going to the poll; there're other races and local initiatives for which I will vote.) My problem with both candidates is that neither understands the issues at all.

For example, both are pushing for energy independence. They only differ in how to achieve it. They assume that energy independence is a good thing.

While energy independence may sound good (a result of American cultural attitude towards independence from anything), is it, really?

The reason, that we go to the global market for obtaining resources, is that it allows us to choose from a large number of producers to find the lowest price. Energy independence means that we restrict our choice to only domestic producers who may or may not have low prices. With a smaller pool of producers, there is less market competition and will result in higher energy prices. That's a pretty stupid result.

The second problem with trying to achieve energy independence is that it's impossible. We have a market economy. In a market economy, resources, products, and services move freely; we can't keep energy from flowing in or out of the country. The electrical grid, in the U.S., is connected to the Canadian electrical grid and to the Mexican electrical grid. American utilities, at the same time, import and export electricity from/to Canada and Mexico. Exxon Mobile, at the same time, imports and exports diesel fuel from/to other countries. Resources, products, and services are constantly flowing to wherever the price is higher. Most importantly, the U.S. economy benefits heavily on this free exchange. If the U.S. government shuts it down, our economy will die.

The two presidential candidates' reason for pursuing energy independence is just as stupid. They insisted that we need energy independence because we don't want our money going to people who may fund terrorists. They failed to mention that we import half of the crude oil that we consume and most of which comes from Canada and Mexico. We certainly don't expect Canadian and Mexican oil profits going to terrorists.

Only sixteen percent of it actually comes from the middle east. But even if all the crude oil, that we import, comes from the middle east, would we really be depriving the middle eastern countries of profit if we don't import from them? Would they not readily find other buyers? Would they not continue to profit from their oil export even if they don't export to us? Need I mention that the People's Republic of China is constantly moving into markets in which the United States deemed to be unsavory?

Both candidate propose shifting from imported oil to "renewable" "green" energy. All "renewable" "green" energy, with the exception of geothermal, is solar energy. e.g., Wind energy comes from the sun heating air in one location causing it to move to a cooler location. Hydro-electric energy comes from the sun evaporating water from an location of lower elevation and raining/snowing on an area of higher elevation. Bio-fuel comes from the sun light being turned into organically stored energy through photosynthesis. Even petro-energy is the solar energy since it comes from organically stored energy. So what's the problem?

"Renewable" "green" energy is insufficient to supply all our energy needs. Only a tiny portion of the light emitted by our sun is radiated in the direction of the earth. Of the portion that is radiated towards earth, only one billionth of that energy actually reaches earth. Of the solar energy that actually reaches the earth, only a portion is not filtered by the earth atmosphere. (It's a good thing; otherwise we would be exposed to a lot of harmful radiation. Think about what would happen to our skin cancer rate if the earth's atmosphere doesn't filter out the harmful radiation.)

Consider this. The earth has been storing up solar energy, in the form of petro-energy, for millions of years. Within a century, we've almost sucked it dry.

One of the most ridiculous "renewable" "green" energy policies is the U.S. government's backing of ethanol. More energy is used to produce (plant, grow, harvest, and distill the corn) and transport ethanol than the amount of energy that's actually in the ethanol. How does a net loss in energy going to help move the U.S. towards "energy independence"? Yet, not only does the U. S. Government subsidizes the production of ethanol but also forces us to buy it (as a mandated gasoline additive).

The truth is that "renewable" "green" would not be viable without government subsidies. And even with the subsidies, it's still more expensive.

Recently, my utility company offered its customers the opportunity to buy electricity produced using wind and solar energy. Unfortunately, the price of the alternative energy source is about ten percent greater than my regular electricity source.

As for geo-thermal energy, does anyone actually think it would be a good idea to put big honking pipes into the ground next to Old Faithful in the Yellowstone National Park? I'll be willing to agree to pipes next to Old Faithful on the day Ted Kennedy agrees to allowing windmills to be built on the waters off Nantucket.

Sadly, the so-called "green" energy solutions, backed by both U. S. Presidential candidates are not so "green".

For example, photo-voltaic cells (solar panels) are perceived to be environmentally friendly. However, the byproduct of manufacturing photo-voltaic cells (and all other semi-conductors) are drums and drums of very toxic chemicals (solvent with cyanide) that we have to store. The waste to energy ratio for photo-voltaic cells is far worst than that of today's nuclear reactors.

There are so-called "green" companies building massive solar collectors in the desert which would heat liquid filled pipes for driving electricity generating turbines. Don't tell me that these monstrosities will not disrupt the desert's eco-system.

In California, they call windmills "condor Cuisinarts". You can imagine what they do to endangered soaring birds like condors, falcons, eagles, and owls.

Hydro-electric dams kill migrating salmons. There is only one solution for our future energy need: Nuclear fusion. Unlike the process used in current nuclear reactors (nuclear fission), which produces radioactive waste, nuclear fusion combines two hydrogen atoms together to produce a helium atom (the gas used in party balloons).

We need to stop wasting our research money (our tax dollars) on energy solutions that will never fulfill our needs and concentrate on a solution that will. We need to put research money into nuclear fusion.

But even if we successfully switch our energy source away from petroleum based products, we will not be free of oil dependency until we change our agricultural policies. Currently, twenty percent of the oil that we use (domestic and imported) is for products used in farming. e.g. fertilizer, pesticide, etc.

These products are only necessary because our agricultural system is based on the industrial model of production: single-product farms. If the system moves to multiple-product farms with composting and field rotation, we would not need petroleum based chemicals like fertilizers.

For example, in Argentina, field usage rotates between free range cattle grazing and planting. When the cattle is done with the field, the field is fertile from the manure. When the planting and composting is done, the field is ready for grazing.

As you can see, neither candidate for U.S. President understands this issues. Unfortunately, as I examine their position on other issues, I found them to be just as clueless. I would call them "Dumb and Dumber" except I wouldn't know which one is Dumb and which one is Dumber.

The Sub-Prime Debacle

I've been asked, several times within the past couple of days, what the current financial woe, facing our nation, is all about. Each time, I had been able to give a sufficient answer (as off the cuff answers go). But, with so much interest, I'd thought that it would beneficial if I were to put it down "on paper" in an organized coherent format.

So, here it is:

Long ago (when interest rates were high), a bank receives deposits from a large number of customers and makes pretty good profit by lending a portion of the deposited money. The bank can also borrow money from the Federal Reserve or from other banks and lend the borrowed money. However, they are required to keep a portion of their money available for withdrawal.

Once they reached the lending limit, they can't lend any more money. They have to wait for more deposits or for the loans to be repaid.

To overcome that hurdle, they, sometimes, sell some of their loans to other lending institutions. (Many of us have experienced it when we borrowed our mortgage from one bank and ended up paying it back to another firm.)

Then, came the sub-prime debacle.

It started with the banks trying to lend mortgages to low income customers. They made two major assumptions about the low-income borrowers and one major assumption about housing market.

1) The customer's income will rise with time. i.e., The interest rate on their mortgage can rise with time; the interest can start below the prime interest rate (the interest rate that the Federal Reserve charges the bank) and climb with time so that the money lost at the beginning of the loan can be recouped later on when the interest rates are higher.

2) When the loans are structured properly, only a small number of the low-income borrowers will default on their loan.

3) The values of the properties will continue to rise so that even if a borrower defaults, the bank can still make a profit from the sale of that property.

So, they issued loans to low-income customers that start at sub-prime interest rates and climb up with time (at reasonable rates). They, then, packaged these loans together and sold them as securities (like bonds) to investment firms. These packages were rated relatively low risk because only a few loans within a package were expected to be defaulted.

Once a package of loans is sold, the bank can use the proceeds to issue more loans.

The banks, failed to do one major thing. They did not disperse loans from the same region of the country into different loan packages so that an entire package of loan does not become worthless when a region of the country becomes economically depressed.

Well, guess what happened. As regions of the country became depressed and many people lost their jobs, whole packages of loans were being defaulted. When whole neighborhoods were being defaulted, the values of these properties took a dive.

Thus, all three assumptions became false because the banks failed to evenly distribute the risk.

At this point, everyone is still trying to determine which packages of loans are complete duds and which packages are healthy securities.

In the mean time, nobody is willing to buy or sell any of these packages. This stalemate resulted in the banks being redundant to issue more loans since they are near their lending limit.

Unfortunately, our economy runs on credit. The farmers borrow money to buy the seeds, fertilizer, etc. to grow their produce and repays the loans when they sell their produce. Manufacturing firms borrows money to produce new products and repays the loans when the products are sold. Oil companies borrow money to explore and drill for oil and gas and repays the loans when the oil and gas are sold.

So when the banks are not able to lend, the wheels of commerce stop turning. When the wheels of commerce stop turning, people loose their jobs.

What is Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke's plan?

1) Use 700 billion dollars to buy up the loan packages.

2) Weed out the bad loans and dispose of them (foreclosure)

3) When market calms, sell back healthy loan packages.

Are We Casting Stones?

Someone posted a complaint about how Christians are always casting stones at others on the Christian discussion forums. While it may sound like a legitimate complaint, there were several problems with his assertion. Here is his original post:

Let him without sin cast the first stone

Why is that a lot of so called Christians only post topics that only reveals someone elses short comings? Havent we all sinned and come short of his glory or have God himself sent another Son besides Jesus into the world thats perfect and is without fault. Instead of us using the scriptures to help one another out of love we beat the hell out of others and tell them everything wrong they"re doing, like anyone that walks this earth have room to talk or judge. Its like they just study a bunch of scriptures, pushed Jesus out of his judgement seat, became jusdge themselves, and start condemning others to hell because they're sinners.

Its hard to find any true Christian in these groups because everyone is walking around with some Bible verses ready to judge and a pocket full of stones to throw. I guess there church dont care to hear them preach so they just come on myspace and feel free to reveal everyone elses sin.

Jesus is a friend to sinners and to the ones that the world and these so called churches rejected. I'm a sinner but yet Im saved by grace. As it stated in Philippians 3:9 " And being found in him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness of God by faith."

I would love to hear your veiws on the topic.


The post assumes that because we are forgiven of all our sins, we no longer have to deal with sin.

Here is my reply:

Posting topics, to identify specific sins, does not necessarily constitute the casting of stones.

The casting of stone (literally) is capital punishment. It assumes that the sinner can not be redeemed and that society would be better off without this person.
Reiterating, what is right and what is wrong to an unsaved sinner, assumes that there is still a chance that the person can be redeemed.

The postings can also be for the edification of the Body of Christ. We may be saved, by grace, from having to pay the debt for our sin (death), it does not mean that we are to continue to sin.

Romans 6:1-4
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If the saved sinner is not aware that he or she is sinning, the postings would alert the sinner of the problem. (DO NOT assume that every saved sinner knows about every sin.)

Even if the saved sinner is aware of that sin but is defiant and continues to sin, the Bible instructs us to try to turn him or her from the error of his/her way.

James 5:19-20
My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

Yes, Jesus IS a friend of the sinner. But that does not mean the Jesus wants to see sinners (saved or not) continuing to waddle in their sin.

Is our ministry a ministry of hate or a ministry of reconciliation?

Someone wrote the following several weeks ago.

We have all heard sermons on soul winning during which we are berated for not crying daily over the lost and then told we are to be broken hearted over the loss of the lowest, scummiest, God hating creatures on the planet. May I say word? BUNK!

We claim to be in an army. Where did you ever see a soldier cry over the death of an enemy soldier whose sworn duty was to kill him? There are people in this world who have given their lives to forward the devil's case and in the process damn millions of innocent souls to Hell. I have no compassion for them and no regret at their passing. I see it as one less soldier in the devil's army.

Do you think that U.S. soldiers wept and moaned at news of the deaths of Gen. Erwin Rommel or Ho Chi Minn? Rommel was a truly great soldier but he was on the wrong side! His death was a blessing to the allied cause.

But these fraudulent, over zealous, intimidating promoters of misguided compassion would have you crying over the death of people that hated God and His Book with everything they had. The Lord's cause benefits from these people going to their just desserts.

Am I off base? Check it out! Did the Lord Jesus Christ waste any of His time trying to win Herod to Himself in their only face-to-face meeting in Luke 23:6-9? No! Where was His "burden for souls"? Did God have compassion on the innocent prison guards of Acts 12:19? Nope! He stood by and let them be killed and go to Hell. Why? They were on the wrong side! Do you find the Apostle Peter or Paul weeping over the fate of Herod in Acts12:20-23? Never! But look at verse 24!

Here's the major problem with this misguided, possibly well meant, teaching. There is a great ruth to human love. You can love good people or you can love bad people but you cannot train your heart to love both.

What I mean is simply this: These same people who demand that you have to have compassion on sodomites and God-haters have no compassion on their fellow Christians who disagree with them in some way. They will gossip, lie and use all their influence to hurt a fellow Christian who they are mad at or view as a threat while at the same time they are demanding "compassion" for the God-haters. This is not right!

Some of you, in order to prove you are a compassionate person will bemoan the death of God-haters like Jean Dixon, Carl Sagan or Jacque Cousteau yet you will not hesitate to rip the throat out of your pastor or a fellow Christian who has angered you in some way. Why? Because you can't love them both. If you have chosen to exhibit false compassion for the God-haters you will not be able to find true compassion for those who are on God's side but disagree with you about something. You can love one or the other but you can't love them both.

I have placed myself unashamedly on God's side. If every God-hating atheist died tomorrow I would do back flips and praise God that the job of reaching the lost would now be easier. One of these days I'm going to hear that wicked Drs. Spock and Kevorkian have died to which I will respond with a hardy, "Praise God!" I didn't say that I have no compassion for the everyday lost common citizen who gets called every name in the Book by some overzealous street preachers. Them I care about. Them I'm trying to win. But I rejoice at the departure of those who deceive them (and you). They made their choice. Oh well!

Yet in all of this "lack of compassion" on my part I will have mercy on YOU if you disagree with me in some area. Their are preachers that I really don't care for. But they are saved! They are on God's side! I will not try to hurt or destroy them. (We call this "Grace". It takes legitimate compassion.) But if I am going to allow myself to love them I cannot find room to also love the devil's soldiers. Someone has to lose! I vote: the devil's soldiers.

Check yourself out. How many times have you hesitated to show any animosity for someone who openly works against God & the Bible yet you have not felt the least restriction about saying something that would damage a fellow Christian? You're the one whose messed up! Not me.

The vile college professors can go to their spiritual home!. Their misguided students I'll try to win. Every corrupting newspaper reporter can burn! But the guy that his lies deceive is going to get my heart felt efforts to win. Hollywood could sink into Hell today and I would praise God. But you who follow their indoctrination I will try to steer in the right direction. You can't love both!

Why don't you unload your pent up animosity on the queers, environmentalists, animal righters, Liberal judges and corp of devil's helpers, and show some compassion on your pastor, a preacher, a church member or a fellow Christian or just a lost common citizen who needs the truth and not say anything that will hurt them?

Mind you! We don't hurt people! We don't go shooting people or blowing them up. But we give them no quarter or mercy in our efforts to win the innocent lost. Let's lay off our brethren and vocally blast their brethren.

Some of you ought to get down on your knees and ask God to forgive you for the trouble you've caused in some church, while all that time you refused to say anything ugly about some movie star or sports figure. Change your ways! Exercise some mercy and compassion where it belongs! On God's people. The devil's crowd takes good care of their own. Let's not help them.

Did I make you mad? Have some compassion on me...or go hug a queer!


It really saddened me that there are Christians who actually feel this way. I originally started to write a response to counter each point that he made. But after praying about my response, it became appartent that the Lord just wanted me to post several scripture verses for him to read and over which to meditate.

Matthew 5:43-48
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Romans 12:17-21
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay, " says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 5:10-11
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 5:16-18
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation

Should Christians vote Republican or Democrat?

I've been seeing many posts, in Christian discussion forums, advocating Christian voters to cast their votes based on the candidates' stance on abortion and homosexuality. Many of these posts are quite offensive. Even those posts, that are not offensive, I found to be not quite right.

Here is an example of one that is not offensive:

To start out, let me say that I in no way endorse a particular candidate or party or tell you how and who to vote for or support. What I can do is tell you what the Bible says about political issues and allow you to make a decision from there. In all actuality, few political issues are truly spiritual issues. As an example, personally, I prefer lower taxes. The Bible does not endorse low taxes, all it says is that we are to pay our taxes honestly (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:15-21). Taxes, and many other issues (social security, universal healthcare, education funding, prescription drugs, etc.) are not spiritual issues the Bible specifically addresses. As a result, Christians can in good conscience have disagreements on these issues.

An issue the Bible most definitely "takes sides" on is abortion. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He knits us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God's active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty of someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as the penalty for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb as just as much of a human being as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman's right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). Therefore, I believe Christians should strongly support candidates who are pro-life.

Another issue which is most definitely Biblical is the issue of gay marriage. The Bible condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms possible (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Gay marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage that God created to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:22-24). Endorsing gay marriage or even civil unions is basically giving "approval" of a lifestyle choice the Bible condemns as immoral and unnatural. Gay marriage, then, is an issue Christians must consider when they evaluate a candidate.

The Bible teaches that a leader in the church should be a godly, moral, ethical person (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). I believe this should apply to political leaders as well. If a politician is going to make wise, God-honoring decisions, he or she must have a basic morality on which to base the decisions they are going to have to make. So, if there is a clear moral distinction between candidates, I believe we should choose the more moral, honest, and ethical of the candidates.

No matter who is in office, whether we voted for them or not, whether they are of the political party we prefer or not – the Bible commands us to respect and honor them (1 Peter 2:13-17; Romans 13:1-7). We should also be praying for those placed in authority over us (Colossians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). We do not have to agree with them, or even like them – we do have to honor and respect them. Politics is always going to be a difficult issue for Christians. We are in this world, but are not to be of this world (1 John 2:15). We can be involved in politics, but we should not be obsessed with politics. Ultimately, we are to be heavenly minded, more concerned with the things of God than the things of this world (Colossians 3:1-2). As believers in Jesus Christ, we are all members of the same political party – monarchists who are waiting for their King to return (Revelation 19:11-16).

Here's my reply:

Are you sure you are really concern with the morality of candidates/parties and not just with hot button topics like abortion and homosexuality?

I noticed that you mentioned abortion is wrong because it is murder however you did not mention capital punishment. Considering the number of convictions of capital punishment cases that had been found to be wrongful convictions, wouldn't the execution of the innocent be considered murder? Yet, you don't advocate legislation to ban capital punishment without DNA proof.

Is homosexuality more condemned by the Bible than adultery? Let's count the number of verses about adultery compared to that of homosexuality. Yet, you don't advocate the legislation to ban adultery.

Is homosexuality a greater threat to the family than divorce? I've been in youth ministry for over a decade and I have seen how it tears apart families and destroys teenagers' moral center. I don't think I've ever encountered a case of homosexuality tearing apart a family.

What about Jesus' teaching on divorce?

Mark 10:5-12

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Yet, you are not advocating the abolition of divorces.

While I agree with your position on abortion and homosexuality, I must say that your post looks like the talking points of certain special interest group within the Republican Party.

While I generally vote Republican, I, as a Christian, must say "Let's play fair."

A Personal Note

Those of you, who are my friends in real life (i.e., not just through the virtual reality of the internet), know that my dad had a heart attack and passed away several years ago and that my mom had a stroke from the stress of my dad's passing. You also know that my mom's stoke caused her entire right side of her body to be paralyzed, because of which I've reduce my working hours to three days a week in order to take care of her.

On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, I work eight hours (during which a nursing tech takes care of my mom), and I watch my mom during the remaining sixteen hours. My mom's doctor appointments and therapy sessions are on Thursdays and Fridays. Saturdays, I do the shopping and other chores. Sundays, I watch my mom the whole day.

I had hoped that the Lord would have healed my mom by now but, for whatever reason, He has chosen to not do so despite my daily prayers for my mom's healing.

These past several years of twenty-four hour days are starting to take their toll and, these days, I'm starting to ask the Lord for reasons. It's especially tough since, before my mom's stroke, I had the opportunity to travel all over the world and now I'm confined within walls of my own home.

So each day, I cling to the opening verses from the Epistle of James.

James 1:2-4

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

It got tougher, a couple of weeks ago when I contracted a very bad case of the flu. It sapped most of the energy from my mind as well as my body. Though exhausted from the flu, I still have the responsibility of taking care of my mom.

I just put my mom to bed and have a little bit of time to pray and contemplate. And in this moment of stillness, I once again receive a greater appreciation for the love of the Lord.

I love my mom and, for her, I chose to put my life on hold and care for her. However, I love my mom because she, first, loved me.

Yes, these are tough times, but what is my trial compared with the suffering of Christ? How much greater is His love for us that He was willing to endure the agony of dying on the cross for a world that didn't love Him?

Tonight, I received a small portion of His answer, but just a small portion.

Philippians 3:10-11 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

I've yet to fully understand the "power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering".