I address ANWR as part of a specific plan that we should be drilling anywhere that oil is, recognizing that drilling in any one area such as ANWR is not going to be the only solution. Leases that already exist offshore need to be explored, and those companies taking the initiative to explore leases they already hold should be the first companies to be granted new leases in unexplored areas. We need to start building refineries now as well. America’s addiction to oil is not going to be fixed quickly, but it is Government’s job to get out of the way and allow expansion in this industry now.

I’m also not saying the Green Jobs Act is bad legislation, and I also agree it would put a number of people back to work. If we can eliminate the deficit and find programs that we can cut to make this program fit into a balanced Federal budget, I might be willing to revisit my position. However, with the growing demand for energy resources within this country and around the world, I feel that getting government out of the way of growth in both oil and Green Energy will create more jobs in construction in the short term and jobs within the new power plants and refineries (both for oil and biofuels) going forward. If the energy source is not going to be profitable, it is not the job of Federal Government to subsidize it so it makes money. Why should the taxpayer bear that expense?

Ty, thanks again for your comment, and I appreciate you taking the time to look at my positions. We may agree to disagree in some areas, but having a conversation and positive debate is always a good thing in a Free Country!!

James

First you brought up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge they make it sound like we have SO MUCH oil up there, but if we were to only use the oil from the refuge it has been shown to be at best around a 6 month supply. Also if we were to open it up for drilling it would do nothing to help gas prices now it would take up to 10 years to actually start pumping the oil down to refineries. Even then it has been shown that it would lower gas prices by at most somewhere around 1.5 cents per gallon. So instead of paying 4 a gallon we’d be paying 3.985 a gallon not much of a difference there.

You say it’s not up to federal government to help renewables become profitable, but hasn’t the federal government been doing this for the coal and oil industry for years through subsidies. Subsidies were created to help emerging markets and new technologies get up on their feet why is it that our government still pumps so much money into the fossil fuel industry it’s not like they are struggling.

I completely agree with you that CORN ethanol is a bad idea. It raises food prices and it takes at least a gallon of oil to create a gallon of Ethanol meaning their is no new energy created and it is not a viable source of fuel to offset our dependence on foreign oil. There are other sources that we can use that take little energy and less resources to grow that can actually give a bigger payout. Biofuels aren’t some new creation Henry Ford commisioned George Washignton Carver to start research and production of Biofuels because Ford realized that oil might not be the best way to go. The reason oil became our primary source is that government investment into the oil industry didn’t allow for the market to decide who would come out on top. Don’t you think we should fix these problems from the past?

Lastly you say you would vote against the Green Jobs act and the Efficiency Grant because we have to first cut spending. Well we could start by cutting funding from many of the outdated COLD WAR programs that we are still pumping millions of dollars a year into which no longer serve any purpose for national security. We would also be savign money in the long run through efficiency programs. Plus Through green jobs we can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for the people in this country that need them the most, and don’t you feel it is important that every American should have a good job so that they may support their family.

I also believe, as it seems do you, that if a religious organization of some kind wishes to recognize same sex unions, or plural marriage, or some kind of marriage definition that we have not thought of yet, that is the right of that religious organization to recognize. It should be our stand as Liberty-Minded individuals to recognize and fight for that right. Not that this would be a choice of a religious organization that I would want to be part of, but there it is. Personally, I think the raid on the FLDS Compound in Texas was a gross overreach by government, and it seems as it is being slowly corrected by the courts. We should have left those people, who were practicing their religion as they saw fit, well enough alone…it looked like a witch hunt to me in my opinion, not to mention a violation of those people’s rights! Many of those children that I saw on TV being removed from that FLDS Compound looked better cared for and more well mannered than many of the kids I see running around cities in my state! Who are we, as the government, to be forcing our values onto another group of individuals because of the way they live and the religion they choose to practice? If we did this to a Muslim group in the same manner, there would be outrage on the part of the Liberals and Liberal Media Complex!! The Ayotollah Khomeini of Iran married an 11 year old (he was around 30 at the time), so imagine if that happened in this country?

I was simply addressing the whole legal recognition of same-sex unions as something that should be left to the states, and ultimately to religious organizations as to what their church recognizes. I would have no part of voting to recognize same-sex unions on a Federal Level.

I hope this answers your question! Thanks for your interest.

First, I would like to compliment you on your willingness to run for office in your home state. You truly are a constitutionalist in the purest form, and Nevada would be better off with you in office.

Now, I’d like to comment directly to your position on gay marriage. Being as you have qualified yourself as a liberty minded individual, I was wondering why you feel the government (either federal, or state, or local) has the right to define what is, at the very core, a religious institution. The way I see it, we should remove all tax breaks given to married couples, remove the issuance of marriage licenses, and leave it as a church matter. I’ve never understood why I need the governments permission to get married if it is a religious institution! Or why married couples need that piece of paper from the government to confirm that they are now married in the eyes of their God. And I have never understood why one group of people (married people) have more rights (tax breaks) than another group of people (unmarried people).

To put it another way, liberty means that we are free to do as we want, as long as we are not interfering on another individuals life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If there is a church somewhere that believes that a homosexual couple should be allowed to wed in their church, how does that infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Is passing laws that prevent this not using government to coerce one group of people to conform to what another group of people think is right?

Please respond, as I am very interested in your thoughts on my opinions. And I hope you can rethink your position or show me why my thinking may be wrong and bring me over to your position.

Thank you for reading.

James

I was happy to see you’re running. The media and the established system can stop Ron Paul but they can’t stop the Revolution.

- Alan
West Wendover, NV