Jul 22 2008
America’s 21st Century Energy Agenda
An American Agenda for the 21st Century: Energy
As a whole – our health is inseparable from the planet’s well-being
Bo ItsHaky will promote a long term energy policy that will not only carry the United States through the 21st century – and beyond – but also will able us U.S. to continue to lead constructively and promote comprehensive health, which in return will yield a planetary well-being. All will win!
Root causes contributing to our current energy crisis:
• Increased demand for energy across the planet. Can we blame others for wanting to improve their way of life?
• Current supplies do not meet demands.
• Fossil fuels are almost exclusively the only game in town (Planet Earth).
• The largest percentage of fossil fuels supplies are currently extracted by unstable countries, many of which promote violent ideologies and the suppression of individual aspirations for equal opportunities, freedom and the right to choose. As a result Fossil fuels are the most counter-constructive factor implicated in the incitement and inducement of so many geopolitical conflicts.
America’s 21st Century Energy Agenda – Objectives:
• To provide with a realistic and balanced long term policy that will able “Us” to adjust to our energy needs – yet reinstate Earth’s ecological well-being; consequently its inhabitants – us included – we can not and will not excel without the bees.
• Achieve a planetary geopolitical peace without a single shot by reclaiming the geopolitical “trump card” – energy independence and security – and sharing it constructively.
America’s 21st Century Energy Agenda – 4 phases Solution – duration, 15 to 20 years (preferably less):
1st phase – the dim but visible light at the end of the tunnel
• Prepare and approve legislation that will initiate massive domestic energy conservation actions.
• Prepare and approve legislation that will allow further domestic fossil fuels explorations – up to 100% of our current domestic energy demands and until the end of the 4th phase.
• Prepare and approve legislation that will eliminate tariffs on the imports – until the end of the 4th phase – of cheaper, more energy efficient bio-fuels.
2nd phase
• In the spirit of the “Manhattan Project”, “Apollo Project” and CERN project combined; begin planning for a crush new energies project, which will develop the 21st century (and beyond) new energy sources and technologies.
• Begin tapping into our domestic fossil fuels resources as needed.
• Begin building additional multi purpose 21ts century refineries.
3rd phase
• E Project – full steam ahead.
4th phase – the long lasting stunning light outside the tunnel is shining upon us bright!
• E Project – Implementing new energy technologies and resources into the common market and our way of life.
• Phasing out our fossil fuels dependency.
• Modifying multi purpose refineries to the needs of E’s project new fuels and technologies.
• Harmony accomplished 
5 Responses to “America’s 21st Century Energy Agenda”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Your plan makes perfect sense, but only if you believe individuals should be subserviant to the state. Take the statement about “massive domestic energy conservation actions” for example. The federal government can certainly implement energy conservation actions on property that it directly controls, but what authority does the government have to order citizens to conserve?
What authority does the government have to seize citizen’s money for the purpose of a new Manhattan Project?
What authority does the government have to order corporations to build new refineries?
Aside from the fact that the Constitution doesn’t authorize any of these things, it is immoral to do them. If the government has authority over its citizens to order something like an energy conservation program, then by definition, the citizens are not free. Freedom is incompatible with authoritarianism, even if the authoritarian has nothing but good intentions.
All you have to do is get rid of restrictions and let the free markets work. When governments stop interfering, the cheapest source of energy will always be provided in abundance. How will it be done? Who knows. Of course, the average voter doesn’t want to hear that; they want a pro-active plan. That’s why this country is falling into socialism.
And to sugest that ending trade in energy will help bring world peace is just not right. Countries that trade with eachother and are interdependent with eachother are less likely to go to war than countries whose leaders believe their economies will not be disturbed as much by a war. Countries are also far less likely to go to war when they achieve developed economies, and free trade has been proven to accelerate the development of economies. Total energy independence (aside from being more expensive than free trade) will result in the collapse of a number of 3rd world and transitioning economies and will likely cause more wars as leaders look to distract the citizens from their troubles by inciting violence against neighboring countries.
We’re all still learning, I guess. You’re already a better option than Rosa DeLauro.
Hello Mr. Palmer,
Thanks for your valuable feedback, how are you?
Had we lived in an enlightened world, your paradigm – guaranteed – was to be mine as well. Until then let Us promote further the constructive cooperation between government and the private sector, which is what my plan is calling for.
Or,
Shall “We the People…” call off the FDA? And allow the disease-care industry for all its special interests a free Kumbaya?
Or,
Shall “We the People…” not supervise VIP FoA (Friends of Angelo)?
Respectfully,
Boaz ItsHaky
The FDA isn’t a topic I’m particularly interested in, but just off the top of my head, I can think of three good reasons to get rid of the FDA.
1. The FDA kills people. Some people don’t have time to wait for FDA approval. It won’t allow people access to unapproved drugs that could save them.
2. To claim that the government has the authority to dictate what a person puts in his body is immoral. No one can claim to be free if they don’t even have control over their own body.
3. There is nothing in Article 1. Section 8 of the Constitution that permits the government to tax people for the purpose of an FDA. Should you be elected, you will have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
You’re just not thinking about the possibilities. Without an FDA, an independent orgainization would spring up. It could reject or put its stamp of approval on drugs as easily as the FDA, without restricting sales of unapproved, experimental drugs. There are multiple ways it could be funded, including by the industry itself. And if it puts its stamp of approval on something it shouldn’t, then it will lose all credibility and another orgainization will form to compete with it.
As for the Friends of Angelo thing, I don’t have a problem with that directly. It doesn’t bother me that someone else got a better deal. By itself that isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a crime. If Dodd voted in line with the Constitution then there wouldn’t be a problem at all. But, Dodd doesn’t vote in line with the Constitution and the voters don’t call him on it. That’s the problem, not that he got a deal on his mortgage. I don’t think we need to police Senators financial records, just their voting records.
You ought to delete that sentence about promoting a merger of the government and private sector before anyone else sees it. That’s just socialism. Never again will I help anyone promote that under any circumstance. You should help enlighten the world, not offer up more of the evil that the majority seems to think is good.
Hello Mr. Palmer,
• To the best of my knowledge the FDA vastly saves more people than it “kills”.
• As to VIP FoA (Friends of Angelo) – very few will agree with you – myself included. Look what they’ve done to our economy.
• The promotion of constructive cooperation between government and the private sector should not be understood as – a merger.
• “You should help enlighten the world, not offer up more of the evil that the majority seems to think is good.”
What is so evil about a true democratic process? Would you prefer the Zimbabwean democracy a la Mr. Mugabe where the minority is brutally imposing itself on the majority? What structure do you find sufficient – anarchy?
Yes, there’s plenty to improve – there will always be. For example, do you know that the average Congressional Job Approval currently stands at 17.3%?
That’s what equal opportunity and the freedom to choose is all about, isn’t it?
Respectfully,
Boaz “Bo” ItsHkay
The FDA doesn’t save anyone. Pharmecutical companies do. And, as I said, there would still be a demand for its function, but that could be supplied by the free market.
The FoA program didn’t do anything to our economy. Congress, the President, and the Federal Reserve are the cause of our economic problems. What’s happening to the economy is the predictable result of taxation, regulation, subsidization, and moral hazard. Ask any Austrian economist.
Cooperation or merger - it’s semantics. The effect is the same. The government has to impose itself on the free market either through taxation, regulation, or subsidization. Several of your points above are very pro-market. Others are not.
The Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalists make some very interesting arguments. I’m not sold on everything yet, particularly with regards to the justice system. I would settle for the Constitutional Republic that this country was supposed to be. I firmly believe that the sole purpose of government is to enforce natural law - the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Democracy’s are evil and they always fail. Regardless of who said it, it is certainly true that “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Marx believed Democracy was the foundation of socialism. I believe he’s right. Socialists have no regard for private property. I believe the foundation of freedom is a personal control over your own life, liberty, and property. Your property is a result of mixing your life (time) and liberty (work). If the government is taking your property, even if it’s with the approval of the majority, then government has essentially made you a slave. If the government takes the result of your life and liberty, what other word applies?
The only legitimate taxes are voluntary (like a sales tax) and the only legitimate function of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. That was the idea this country was founded on, and it is only that memory that people invoke to convince themselves they are free. At various times the people that protected this idea have been known as classical liberals, paleo-conservatives, or libertarians. There was a time when this was what the Republican Party believed. Now Republicans just (sometimes) say the right things, but get lost in the application.
With one exception, of course.