Hillary Up Huge in West Virginia

It ain't over til it's over. Hillary isn't giving up yet, and I can't blame her considering there is no solution on Michigan and Florida delegates yet. She's also demolishing Barack Obama in West Virginia.

West Virginia may be scoffed at by "elites" and die-hard Obama fans, but WV is full of blue-collar, "bitter" workers that Obama needs to win if he has any hope of beating John McCain, and the same goes for Hillary. Polls show Clinton up 60-24 over Obama. Some commentators have suggested that Hillary may even be up by 80 points over Obama.

Clinton also has a substantial lead over Obama in Kentucky, although she trails Obama in Oregon, one of the most liberal states in the union.

Don't think this is wrapped up quite yet... It's awful close, but Hillary may have one last gasp.

US Government Expands to Biggest Size in History

President George Bush may be remembered more for the expansion of the US government than for the Iraq War. The surge has been extremely successful and will likely lead to a stable government in Iraq allied to the West, despite that violence continues in the country between militias and US and Iraqi Forces.

Economic success domestically speaking is quite another story:

The US government posted a $US159.3 billion ($A169.52 billion) surplus in April, helped by the mid-month deadline for individuals meeting 2007 tax obligations, but it was down from the prior year's surplus, the Treasury Department reported on Monday.

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, which ends on September 30, the government's budget deficit swelled by 88.4 per cent to $US152.2 billion ($A161.97 billion), from $US80.8 billion ($A85.98 billion) in the first seven months of fiscal 2007.

...And not one candidate running for President is talking about shrinking the size of government. Expected from the Dems, sad for the GOP.

Harper Lays Out Military Strategy

Prime Minister Harper has set out the first long term strategy for the Canadian military in decades. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or Green, every voter should concede that our men and women in uniform deserve nothing less from their civilian masters. Harper has established goals, targets, and strategies for missions, equipment, and personnel. It is long overdue.

Harper outlined a $30 billion dollar plan that will encompass the next 20 years and is called "Canada First". "Mr. Harper said the key element of the plan -- major elements of which had been previously announced -- was the long-term commitment to ensure predictable funding so the military can plan recruitment, equipment purchases and facility upgrades with certainty the money will be available."(National Post)

The goal is to expand the number of military personnel to 100,000, levels it was at for most of the Cold War. The idealist concept of "soft power" is finally over. Any country with real power understands that "soft power" is an excuse for weak nations. Harper rightfully stated that if Canada wants to be a player, it needs a military with teeth. "Otherwise, you forfeit your right to be a player," he said. "You are the one chattering on the sidelines that everyone smiles at but nobody listens to."

John Manley once observed that Canada liked to sit at the table for international affairs but always got up to go to the bathroom when the bill came. New equipment will be purchased, existing equipment will be upgraded, and out-dated equipment retired (finally - see Iltis).

The one flaw in the strategy is that no plans have been put forward for the purchase or construction of nuclear submarines. If Canada truly wants to protect and control the Arctic, it will be unable to do so without a fleet of nuclear subs. Mulroney was right back in the 1980's about Canada's need for them, unfortunately the Liberals were short sighted.

Nevertheless, Canada is moving in the right direction and will be more highly regarded on the international stage because it will have the capability to make a difference.

McCain on O'Reilly

Friday Joke (Warning Politically Incorrect)

Last chance, you may be offended. In Canada, the Charter of Rights does not contain a freedom from offense. The following joke may be dirty, sexist, bigoted, gender biased, homophobic, Islamophobic, Anglophobic, Amerophobic, Canaphobic, etc. If anything it's a little sexist, but it's JUST A JOKE! Enjoy.

BBQ RULES

We are about to enter the summer and BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity, as it's the only type of cooking a 'real' man will do, probably because there is an element of danger involved.

When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion:

Routine...(1) The woman buys the food.
(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert.
(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.Here comes the important part:
(4) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.

More routine....(5) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery.
(6) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is burning. Hethanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he deals with the situation.

Important again:(7) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.

More routine....(8) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins,sauces, and brings them to the table.
(9) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes.

And most important of all:(10) Everyone PRAISES and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.
(11) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off.'

And, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women....

OPEC's Greed and America's Generosity

Arab countries, South American tyrants, and leftists around the globe like to point to America as a greedy "empire" with imperial ambitions. Anyone with a solid knowledge of history knows that America is the most benevolent hegemon in the history of civilization. But that said, Fox News has an incredible story that displays how generous America really is and how disgustingly parsimonious OPEC nations are when it comes to feeding the world's poor:

Donor listings on WFP’s website show that this year, as in every year since 1999, the U.S. is far and away the biggest aid provider to WFP. Since 2001, U.S. donations to the food agency have averaged more than $1.16 billion annually — or more than five times as much as the next biggest donor, the European Commission.

This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008.

And while Canada, Australia, Western Europe and Japan have hastened to pony up an additional $260 million in aid since WFP’s latest appeal, the world organization told FOX News, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the international oil cartel, tossed in a grand total of $1.5 million in addition to the $50,000 it had previously donated.
The OPEC total amounts to roughly one minute and 10 seconds worth of the organization’s estimated $674 billion in annual oil revenues in 2007 — revenues that will be vastly exceeded in 2008 with the continuing spiral in world oil prices.[Emphasis added]

The only other major oil exporter who made the WFP list of 2008 donors was the United Arab Emirates, which kicked in $50,000. UAE oil revenues in 2007 were $63 billion.
By contrast, the poverty-stricken African republic of Burkina Faso is listed as donating more than $600,000, and Bangladesh, perennial home of many of the world’s hungriest people, is listed as donating nearly $5.8 million.(link)

Let me emphasize the facts here: the United States of America gives $362.7 million plus another $770 million in food aid requested by President Bush in emergency funds for a total of $1.133 BILLION. OPEC donated $1.5 million.

So Iran can continue to call America the Great Satan, hippies and socialists can call the US imperialists, anti-Americans around the globe can continue to hate Bush and American capitalism, but the world's poor and starving will continue living and eating thanks to America.

God bless the USA.

To see the donor list, go HERE.

I'm proud to say that Canada is #3 on the list despite only having a population of 32 million.

Another Reason to Never Meet With Iranians, OBAMA!

Barack Obama's ignorant position that he would meet with tyrants and dictators in Iran, Cuba, and North Korea has further exposed what an unqualified amateur he is at best, and a down-right appeaser in the spirit of Neville Chamberlain he is at worst. Iranian President Ahmadinejad today called Israel a "stinking corpse".(J-Post)

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken," the official IRNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as having said.

"Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation." (Id)

Did you get that Barry? He's calling for their annihilation just like Hitler did. So here's diplomacy 101: you don't meet with tyrants who want to commit a Holocaust against a race of people and legitimize their regime.

It is one thing to negotiate with your enemies towards peace if it is the end goal of both nations. But Iran's goal is not peace, it is war and the establishment of a Caliphate. They seek global dominance of Sharia, which is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy and freedom.

Reagan and other presidents were right to negotiate with the USSR to lessen the chance of nuclear war. Meeting with Iran will accomplish nothing because Ahmadinejad is willing to "martyr" his nation in order to accomplish his goal of destroying Israel. That makes negotiation pointless, there is nothing to talk about. The only objective should be to bring an end to the regime by subversion, sabotage, funding pro-democracy resistance groups, and putting enormous economic strain on Iran. At a last resort, we should use military force to protect Israel and destroy the evil Islamic government in Iran that subjugates women as property, executes homosexuals, stones victims of rape, and oppresses freedom with absolute brutality.

Violence Erupts in Lebanon

Government troops clashed with Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon today. Gun battles were fierce and shut down areas of Beirut. The head of the Islamic terrorist group Hassan Nasrallah said recent government actions amount to "a declaration of open war."(CNN)

The violence appears to be confined to Shiite and Sunni areas for now, Christian neighbourhoods had not experienced fighting (yet). Nasrallah called on the government to "withdraw their decisions, and there would be no war." Wow, that's quite a deal. Pretty typical for one who sends suicide bombers against women and children and fires rockets into civilian areas with no regard for where they might land.

Sure makes you think that Jimma Carter's most recent trip to Syria (who funds Hezbollah along with Iran) was effective. They're now destabilizing a democratically elected government in support of Islamic fascism.

The Democrats' Quandary

Republicans may be bad politicians, but it seems that the Democrats are even worse. I was livid at the GOP House leadership during the first six years of the Bush administration for the way in which it handled the nation's finances. It spent money like it was growing on trees, which is not abnormal for government bureaucrats, but the GOP was initially swept to power in 1994 because of it's promise to cut spending and shrink the size of the federal government. And for 6 years during the Clinton Administration, Newt Gingrich did a masterful job of keeping spending under control and reforming bloated social programs like welfare. It took an impasse that forced the shut down of the government at one point, but things changed and American voters rewarded the GOP for it with Bush being elected in 2000 along with Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Only when the GOP lost its way on spending did voters turn back to the Democrats. Ann Coulter recently commented that every few years Americans go crazy and elect Democrats again; judging by the fact that Bill Clinton is the only two term Democrat President since Harry Truman, she has a point.

Now, back to my original point. It seemed almost inevitable that the Democrats would snatch the White House from the GOP come November, but that scenario is becoming far less of an inevitability with each passing day. It's not that John McCain, George W. Bush, or any other Republican has been masterful, it's been that the Democrats have sought to destroy each other that has changed the political landscape. I'm fine with the Democrats engaging in civil war, but it is almost laughable that they could manage to doom themselves yet again by electing another elitist, northeastern educated, far left wing senator for their nominee.

The way events have turned, you cannot blame Hillary Clinton for staying in the race. Obama has not won a primary since February and has received a bombardment of bad press after months of nauseous swooning from the mainstream media (which still continues at MSNBC, the NY Times, and elsewhere). Obama is in a tailspin, even if he wins North Carolina, it seems almost unthinkable that he could win in November with Rev. Jeremiah Wright strapped to his side.

Obama cannot divorce himself from Wright; after all, it was Obama who said that he could no more disown Wright than he could his own "white grandmother" or the black community. Okay Barry, if you say so, 'cause you're stuck with him now.

Obama didn't just become aware of Wright's views, he's known about them for years. Obama wants the distance from Wright now because it's hurting his chances of winning, not because Obama's views have changed or that Rev. Wright's have. Wright merely defended and reinforced what he said before, and at least Wright has the courage and consistency to stand by his words. Obama, clearly does not. The candidate that was supposed "transcend" race, party lines, and the typical political tag lines. In two weeks Obama went from defending his relationship with Wright as akin to his relationship with his grandmother, to divorcing himself from Wright and denouncing the Chicago pastor's views. Does this mean that Obama would do the same to his grandmother and the black community, or to America?

Obama has come out of the Wright episode bloodied and battered, and the scandal has not gone away. And it won't go away. Whether or not McCain speaks out against TV ads repeating Wright's words after the Democratic Convention is irrelevant, because some 527 group will be repeating the phrase again and again until every single voter knows exactly what Wright said, when he said, and that Obama has called him his "spiritual mentor", was married by him, had his children baptized by him, and was a close confidant of Wright for over a decade. Wright is the same man that he was 20 years ago, the person who has changed is Barack Obama, and it is not even that he has changed, but his circumstances and opportunities have changed. The new circumstances and opportunities have now made Wright inconvenient and dangerous to Obama's future as a politician.

Christopher Hitchens has recently raised an important and unanswered question: "All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?"

Little is known about Michelle Obama, and what is known is troubling. She seems to think that despite her Princeton and Harvard education, her family's income of over $500,000 per year, and having to take her kids to piano lessons makes her just as disadvantaged as a family making $30-40,000 per year. She has commented that she found no reason to be proud of her nation until her husband started winning primaries (Michelle, think Cold War, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, feeding the world's poor and hungry, rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII, etc).

So if the Democrats end up with Obama as their nominee, they will have an incredibly vulnerable candidate who faces an experienced and seasoned GOP opponent. Obama will have plenty of baggage (Wright, flag pins, etc.), while McCain has his record as a POW and a war hero.

But if the Democrats select Hillary as their nominee, they will undoubtedly face turmoil within their party like they have never before experienced. It could threaten to divide the party permanently. Rev. Wright will be able to claim that his comments about “racist” America are correct while the black community may feel it is without a party. Even if Obama was to be selected as the VP for Hillary, it is inevitable that he and his supporters will feel ripped off and harbour plenty of resentment towards Hillary and Co.

Perhaps most amusing is that the Democrats cried and carried on for years that Bush was “selected” rather than elected because of the Florida 2000 mess (incidentally caused by a Democrat elected as supervisor of elections in south Florida) which led to the Supreme Court battle and decision between the Gore and Bush camps. But the super-delegates will undoubtedly “select” their nominee for 2008 rather than have their grass roots elect the party’s nominee. How ironic.

The American people know Hillary and we know Bill, perhaps more than they wish. It may be that Democrats and voters prefer the devil they know to the one they're just learning about. So despite the dismal performances of Republicans since 2000 in Congress and the White House, McCain's chances are looking to be fair to good come November. I'm not huge fan of McCain, but I'll certainly take him over Billary or Obama/Wright. Whether or not Obama's mistakes have been made because of inexperience or poor judgment, either answer makes him unfit for the Oval Office.


This article is also available at Family Security Matters.

Happy 60th Birthday Israel

The state of Israel was re-created and re-established in 1948, 60 years ago today. Some believe it was a fulfillment of prophecy, others a righting of the most horrible wrong in the history of mankind that caused untold suffering by Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Whatever the reason, Israel is a remarkable entity.

It is surrounded by enemies from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean. It has become a military power in the region despite being attacked countless times by Arab armies, terrorists, guerillas, and tyrants. And yet, Israel remains. Not only that, it thrives. It thrives as a democratic nation who loves freedom, respects human rights, and exercises its military might with caution and reluctance to defend its people.

We should celebrate Israel's freedom, because Israel is the canary in the mine for the West in its struggle against radical Islam and Islamic fascism. Should Israel be defeated or perish, the West will soon follow. Israel is rightly our ally, our friend, and worthy of admiration despite its faults. Israel will continue to face danger and violence as it struggles to survive amidst those who want to exterminate the Jewish state just as Hitler tried during the 1930's and 40's.

Long live Israel.

McGuinty's Priorities

A common criticism of Canada, from Canadians, is that we don't have much of a history to speak of, at least in comparison to our southern neighbour. Whether or not that is true is up to debate, but an argument in favour of such a proposition would be to examine the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty (McGoofy), and contrast his priorities to the economic reality.

As it stands, Ontario is poised to become a "have not" province eligible for federal transfer payments for perhaps the first time in its history. This, after decades of being the economic engine of the nation. Alberta is now positioned to be the leader of the Canadian economy in terms of wealth generation, innovation, and prosperity.

An outside observer would think that McGuinty's first priority would be to get his province back on the right track, but they would be wrong. Instead, McGuinty's first priority is to get rid of a longstanding tradition of the Ontario legislature: the recital of the Lord's Prayer. Even the NDP thinks McGuinty has his priorities backward, shocking from Canada's most atheistic political party.

McGuinty has even promised to forge ahead on removing this historic ritual to bewilderment and anger of his mother, a committed Catholic parishioner. So why would McGuinty do this? Mainly because he's a bad premier and an idiot. There is no other explanation.

He should be cutting personal and corporate taxes, reforming health care so that he can eliminate the unnecessary health premium which only raises taxes to fill the general revenue, and cutting red tape for business to operate more efficiently. The Tories seem hapless to point this reality out to the general public, so changes will not be forthcoming in the near future.

Maybe Mayor Miller can come up with a province-wide transit plan for McGuinty and figure out how to go into dept and blame it on the federal government.

This altered Lord's prayer seems appropriate:

The Lord's Prayer (adjusted for Ontario's legislature)
Our Premier, Who are a Liberal,
Dalton McGuinty be thy name.
Thy province come,
Thy plan is dumb,
in Queen's Park, as it is elsewhere.
Give us this day our daily spin,
And forgive us our political incorrectness,
As We forgive those
Who are politically incorrect against us.
Pray lead us forth into revision,
And deliver us from tradition;
For Thine is the government,
And a Majority.
With time on your hands,
At least until the next election.
Amen (and women)

Obama and Ayers

If this picture doesn't make you question Barack Obama's judgment, nothing will. Obama can pretend all he wants that Ayers, Wright, and Rezko are distant friends, but the facts and record prove otherwise. It is obvious that Mr. Obama has a serious credibility problem because of the people he has associated with.

The recent picture of William Ayers stomping on the US flag is beyond troubling. Ayers has refused to express any sort of remorse for his terrorist activity in the 1960's as a member of the Weathermen.

So what is the connection between Ayers and Obama exactly? Well, in 1995 Obama launched his campaign for the Illinois Senate from Ayers' home. Ayers has also a fundraiser to Obama's past campaigns. Some have stated that Obama and Ayers are "friends" but neither Ayers or Obama will explicitly comment about what their relationship is. And perhaps that is most worrying, that Obama will not be upfront about it. He has brushed it off as Ayers conducting his terrorist activities when he was "eight years old", which may be partly true, but Obama's connection to Ayers began well after he was out of elementary school.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001. That statement was after Obama's political career began, so Obama needs to fess up about what kind of relationship he really has.

He as also embraced Rev. Wright by saying that he "cannot disown him" any more than he can the black community and his own "white" grandmother. The questions about Obama's character and judgment continue to pile up in worrying amounts the longer the campaign drags on.

Incidentally, it appears Obama will win in North Carolina tonight and lose in Indiana to Hillary Clinton.

Carter Redux

I was under the impression that Obama was the heir apparent of Jimmy Carter, but perhaps Hillary would prefer the title;

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at."(Politico)

I though the Democrats opposed unilateral action. Shouldn't Hillary go through the UN, WTO, NATO, World Food Program, IMF, World Bank, and Greenpeace first? Isn't this more American arrogance?

She says OPEC isn't a market, it's a monopoly. Well, OPEC is an oligopoly, but that is reality. The fact is, America isn't drilling for new oil, and the fault lies with liberals like Clinton who oppose drilling, refinery expansion, and increasing supply at every turn.

Biofuels, Energy, Ethanol, and Hunger

Since the release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, scientists, the United Nations, governments, lobbyists, and activists have been telling us that the Earth/climate is in “crisis”, that we “must act now to save the planet”, and that we are on the verge of “catastrophe”. Never mind that inconvenient fact that the Earth has cooled over the past few years, governments in the United States, Canada, and Europe have now set targets to mandate a certain level of ethanol or other biofuels to replace traditional fuels. This has been a result of powerful lobbying groups like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and other environmental groups who have pushed hard for reducing our dependence on brown energy.

While I am no fan of Al Gore, I do agree that we should do a better job of taking care of the planet. I believe this, not out of a worship or reverence for the Earth, but because I believe that God gave humanity, created in His image, an obligation to care for the planet and creatures He created. But I also believe in fairness and equality, and thus, I adamantly oppose the Kyoto Protocol for its obvious unfairness and punishment of economically prosperous nations for the benefit of developing nations.

Al Gore and company may have had good intentions in their push for ethanol and biofuels, but the result is leading to starvation, market distortion, and possibly violence in the future. The Economist reports that since January of this year, rice has increased by 141%. In 2007, wheat prices increased 77%. Egypt has recently ordered the army to start baking bread because of food shortages and the Philippines has made hoarding rice a crime punishable by life imprisonment! Protests have also broken out in Haiti and riots have erupted in Cameroon. The results of the global warming activist/extremists are certainly being felt, although obviously not how they intended.

Hunger and starvation are now a serious threat to many poor countries. Those of meagre means are about to find themselves in even worse economic straights. But the “greens” could not manage such an incredible feat of causing a global food crisis on their own. They needed the ever expanding bureaucracy of government to enable their success. President Bush, once criticized as a puppet of oil barons, has become ethanol’s biggest promoter:

“There were 110 ethanol refineries in operation in the United States at the end of 2006, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Many were being expanded, and another 73 were under construction. When these projects are completed, by the end of 2008, the United States' ethanol production capacity will reach an estimated 11.4 billion gallons per year. In his latest State of the Union address, President George W. Bush called on the country to produce 35 billion gallons of renewable fuel a year by 2017, nearly five times the level currently mandated".(Foreign Affairs)

Some estimates, according to Foreign Affairs, state that half of US corn production will soon go towards ethanol rather than food consumption. Farmers aren’t stupid, those that used to grow wheat, barley and other grains have begun switching to corn because of the bonanza of government subsidies and rising prices that result, corn “futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years.” Direct corn subsidies are almost $10 billion a year in the US alone.(Ibid)

But of course the US is not alone, the EU produces almost 80% of the world’s biofuels. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU has distorted world food prices (almost always upward) for decades making produce from poorer areas of the world unable to compete with subsidized European farmers.

So what is the net result for the world’s poor?

"Realistically, however, resorting to biofuels is likely to exacerbate world hunger. Several studies by economists at the World Bank and elsewhere suggest that caloric consumption among the world's poor declines by about half of one percent whenever the average prices of all major food staples increase by one percent. When one staple becomes more expensive, people try to replace it with a cheaper one, but if the prices of nearly all staples go up, they are left with no alternative".(source)

All of this bad news comes with the fact that ethanol is a net energy loser, meaning it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the energy that actually results from it in final form. Leave it to the government and left-wing environmental extremists to bring us such a solution to our energy problems.

But things will not get better if the current ethanol policies don’t change, energy prices will rise as India and China continue their economic expansion and demand greater quantities of oil, natural gas, and electricity to feed their growing populations, industries, and market share.

However, all is not lost. As a conservative, I am also compelled to be an optimist. There are solutions and plenty of them. Oil is not running out, and in North America there are mass quantities of supplies that have yet to be exploited. So why aren’t they? Well, again mostly because of the environmental lobby who have prevented drilling in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere.

My native country, Canada, sits atop the second largest quantity of proven oil reserves in the world next to Saudi Arabia thanks to the oil sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Fortunately, unlike ANWR, the oil sands are being mined aggressively for energy.

Economics is not a difficult subject to understand. If you increase supply, prices fall so long as demand remains constant. But with increasing demand from India and China, and a stable or decreasing supply of oil because production remains stagnant, you have a rapidly increasing cost of oil as we’re currently experiencing.

So what should we do? First, ethanol subsidies should be ended immediately. Immediately is not a word most governments understand, but it is immoral to fund an industry that is directly contributing to the starvation of the poor in developing nations. Secondly, we (in the West) should re-double our efforts to find new supplies of energy while investing in ways to use it more efficiently. We should do this with carrots, not sticks and encourage creativity in academic institutions, private industry, and amongst entrepreneurs. Third, new nuclear power plants should replace all oil powered plants by 2010. There is absolutely no need to continue using heavy oil to produce electricity. This is plainly stupid. Finally, taxes on fuel should be eliminated. The government should not profit from rising energy costs which cut into the disposable income and well being of citizens. What incentive does government have to increasing fuel efficiency and lowering costs if the government receives greater revenue/profits from higher prices?

As Ronald Reagan famously said, “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” The subsidization of ethanol is a classic example of why the government should stay out of the free market to the greatest extent as possible. The rise of China and India is not a result of brilliant government policy, but a result of the introduction (or permission) of capitalism and free markets to flourish on their own, free of government interference.

The same factor that has resulted in an increase in the demand for energy will also be the solution to solve our energy problems. Entrepreneurs in the US, India, China, and around the world will see the need for new forms of energy and will figure out how to make a buck off this need. The hand of government needs to give way to the invisible hand of free markets, otherwise children in poor countries may starve and prosperous in the West will be less so.

This article can also be found at Family Security Matters