Half a Million Americans Petition Congress to Drill for Oil Now By: June 11, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC – American Solutions for Winning the Future announced today that more than half a million Americans have now signed a petition urging Congress to immediately start drilling for oil domestically to lower gas prices. The petition is part of the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign American Solutions launched a few weeks ago.
The petition reads: “We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices) by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.”
According to American Solutions’ new research data, 81% of the American people support the U.S. using more of its own domestic energy resources, including the oil and coal already here, to combat the rising cost of energy and reduce dependence on foreign energy sources. This belief is so widespread it is supported by a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and independents. “Hard-working American families are struggling to pay the soaring prices for gas, diesel, food, electricity, and everything else affected by the high price of oil,” said Dave Ryan, American Solutions Executive Director. “The voices of more than half a million Americans are united in demanding that Congress offer real solutions to our energy challenges, starting with taking immediate action to drill here and drill now.”
As the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” petition drive continues to gain more momentum, American Solutions plans to deliver 3 million signatures to both parties at their national conventions.
Lots of exciting things are happening in the O'Hara family. We have an accepted offer and will be moving into our first house by the end of this month. It's going to be a very rushed move as we are moving, cleaning up the rental, and going to Yosemite Bible Camp for a week two days later.
There are many things about which I need to blog as I have taken an extended blog break. Today, however, I need to post this video clip. Today is the anniversary of the beginning of the end of WWII. There are two speeches by Ronald Reagan given on the 40th anniversary that need to be listened to by every single American. So for you all, I post the clip of one and the transcript of another.
Mr. President, distinguished guests, we stand today at a place of battle, one that 40 years ago saw and felt the worst of war. Men bled and died here for a few feet of--or inches of sand, as bullets and shellfire cut through their ranks. About them, General Omar Bradley later said, "Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero."
No speech can adequately portray their suffering, their sacrifice, their heroism. President Lincoln once reminded us that through their deeds, the dead of battle have spoken more eloquently for themselves than any of the living ever could. But we can only honor them by rededicating ourselves to the cause for which they gave a last full measure of devotion. Today we do rededicate ourselves to that cause. And at this place of honor, we're humbled by the realization of how much so many gave to the cause of freedom and to their fellow man. Some who survived the battle of June 6, 1944, are here today. Others who hoped to return never did.
"Someday, Lis, I'll go back," said Private First Class Peter Robert Zanatta, of the 37th Engineer Combat Battalion, and first assault wave to hit Omaha Beach. "I'll go back, and I'll see it all again. I'll see the beach, the barricades, and the graves."
Those words of Private Zanatta come to us from his daughter, Lisa Zanatta Henn, in a heartrending story about the event her father spoke of so often. "In his words, the Normandy invasion would change his life forever," she said. She tells some of his stories of World War II but says of her father, "the story to end all stories was D-Day."
"He made me feel the fear of being on that boat waiting to land. I can smell the ocean and feel the seasickness. I can see the looks on his fellow soldiers' faces--the fear, the anguish, the uncertainty of what lay ahead. And when they landed, I can feel the strength and courage of the men who took those first steps through the tide to what must have surely looked like instant death."
Private Zanatta's daughter wrote to me: "I don't know how or why I can feel this emptiness, this fear, or this determination, but I do. Maybe it's the bond I had with my father. All I know is that it brings tears to my eyes to think about my father as a 20-year-old boy having to face that beach."
The anniversary of D-Day was always special for her family. And like all the families of those who went to war, she describes how she came to realize her own father's survival was a miracle: "So many men died. I know that my father watched many of his friends be killed. I know that he must have died inside a little each time. But his explanation to me was, 'You did what you had to do, and you kept on going.'"
When men like Private Zanatta and all our Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy 40 years ago they came not as conquerors, but as liberators. When these troops swept across the French countryside and into the forests of Belgium and Luxembourg they came not to take, but to return what had been wrongly seized. When our forces marched into Germany they came not to prey on a brave and defeated people, but to nurture the seeds of democracy among those who yearned to be free again.
We salute them today. But, Mr. President, we also salute those who, like yourself, were already engaging the enemy inside your beloved country--the French Resistance. Your valiant struggle for France did so much to cripple the enemy and spur the advance of the armies of liberation. The French Forces of the Interior will forever personify courage and national spirit. They will be a timeless inspiration to all who are free and to all who would be free.
Today, in their memory, and for all who fought here, we celebrate the triumph of democracy. We reaffirm the unity of democratic peoples who fought a war and then joined with the vanquished in a firm resolve to keep the peace.
From a terrible war we learned that unity made us invincible; now, in peace, that same unity makes us secure. We sought to bring all freedom-loving nations together in a community dedicated to the defense and preservation of our sacred values. Our alliance, forged in the crucible of war, tempered and shaped by the realities of the postwar world, has succeeded. In Europe, the threat has been contained, the peace has been kept.
Today the living here assembled--officials, veterans, citizens--are a tribute to what was achieved here 40 years ago. This land is secure. We are free. These things are worth fighting and dying for.
Lisa Zanatta Henn began her story by quoting her father, who promised that he would return to Normandy. She ended with a promise to her father, who died eight years ago of cancer: "I'm going there, Dad, and I'll see the beaches and the barricades and the monuments. I'll see the graves, and I'll put flowers there just like you wanted to do. I'll feel all the things you made me feel through your stories and your eyes. I'll never forget what you went through, Dad, nor will I let anyone else forget. And, Dad, I'll always be proud."
Through the words of his loving daughter, who is here with us today, a D-Day veteran has shown us the meaning of this day far better than any President can. It is enough for us to say about Private Zanatta and all the men of honor and courage who fought beside him four decades ago: We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free.
Thank you.
President Ronald Reagan spoke at 4:33 p.m. at the Omaha Beach Memorial at Omaho Beach, France. In his opening remarks, he referred to President Francois Mitterrand of France.
Most people who live in California, or who watch news on a regular basis (if you do I’m sorry for you), know that the California State Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that the California State Constitution demands homosexuals be allowed to marry.
Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. At our preachers’ luncheon this week Garry Green, the preacher in Brentwood, was correctly arguing that marriage as ALWAYS been defined as being between a man and a woman to start a family. The state supreme court redefined the word marriage after thousands of years to fit their own agenda.
Now I will be the first to say this does not surprise me in California. California is famous for our left-wing humanist, Marxist, liberal, social evolution policy leadership. What I want to focus on for a minute is our great (it hurts to even write that jokingly) governor. Arnold says his personal view is that marriage is, “marriage is between a man and a woman.” Then he goes on to say that he is going to fight the constitutional amendment that is going to be on the ballot this fall to define marriage as between a man and a woman – figure that one out. Apparently he is going to be fighting against what he believes in. At the end of one of the articles I read the author quotes Arnold and says: “Schwarzenegger said he doesn't think same-sex marriages in the coming months will stir up Californians much. ‘I think life will go on as usual,’ he said.”
Let’s hope Arnold is wrong – way wrong! Now is the time for people who believe in family values to stand up and take a stand. Are we going to let four judges on a bench in San Francisco redefine a word that has had the same definition for thousands of years? Are we going to let the minority of our society participate in an institution that God setup to be between a man and a woman? I hope life will not go on as usual these next few months leading up to the election. I pray the people of California will send a resounding voice to the world that we still stand on the foundations of marriage. Time will tell. It’s time for people to start praying and start voting.
And one last thing… just to let everyone know I did NOT vote for Arnold so I take no responsibility for his actions :)
Today I found out that Fred Thompson was going to be writing for Townhall.com. As I read through his first blog post I found his words to be profoundly parallel with the church. Notice what he says in the context of thoughts that have been confirmed to him in the process of the presidential race: “Second, change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance…. The challenge for conservatives is calibrating whether the change being proposed is consistent with our principles and our philosophy, and whether that change is appropriate.”
Today people are looking at numbers. They are looking at truth from a pragmatic perspective. They have been sold a faulty premise which has been reinforced blatantly, and many times unknowingly, from the pulpit, eldership, our Christian colleges, and our papers (many of whom would proudly ware the label of conservative). There are others who have bought into an unbiblical worldview of what truth is or isn’t, if it exist, and if it does can I so claim to know it? There is lots of talk about postmodernism amongst the churches of Christ. I hear people chiming in about knowing lots about it or not knowing much of it. I read of people claiming to be for or against it. Recently I read a blog where the author said he had a teacher who said he was against postmodernism. I’m not sure what the teacher meant, I was not there, but there is a way in which the teacher would be correct in what he said.
The fact is we live in a country filled with people who are evaluating truth through the lenses of postmodernism. Is it helpful to understand this mindset? No doubt! But here is the rub. What is one to do when he is faced with a country filled with people who have a particular worldview that is not allowing for the results you want (i.e. the church to be increasing in numbers through the roof in a matter of years)? The following is a synopsis of the progression amongst the Lord's church.
Let's start with when a problem was set on the table. Many of the “big dogs” amongst the churches of Christ began giving blistering lectures at our “big shows” about how many are not “growing” (what that means is increasing in numbers) like we once were so we must “change” something. So how are we going to fix the problem of not growing numerically by leaps and bounds?
First, these men began advocating that we must “change” our methods of evangelism. This went on for some time amongst us. We had programs from the Jule Miller Films, to We Care, to Friendship Evangelism, to Fisher’s of Men, to Small Groups, and this list could get really long, but if you have been involved you can make your own long list here. Then the experts went back to the tables to see what the “results” were of their endeavors. The numbers came in and they did not improve. In some cases they got worse. The change the method idea didn’t seem to work.
Second, we were faced with a major fork in the road. We began to question our message. Is it really true that we have the truth on these matters of faith if nobody else is accepting them? The next natural avenue to “change” was doctrine. If the method being “changed” didn’t bring the results then the only thing left to “change” is the message. It was/is rather slow at first. A little change here or a little change there and then it quickly blasts forward into wholesale change of the message.
Let’s bring Fred Thompson back into the picture for just a moment. Pay attention to these words, “change – whether it “real change,” “bold change” or the “change we can believe in” variety others are selling – isn’t itself an innovative policy or a particularly strong leadership stance.” What Mr. Thompson is saying is that careful scrutiny needs to be applied to the source of the conflict because “change” is not in and of itself a virtue. Is there a problem? What is the problem? Is the problem real? If so how do we change to fix this problem? To use some words of Mr. Thompson, the challenge for the Lord’s church is calibrating whether or not the change being called for is founded, and if it is consistent with God’s word and His principals. Here are a couple thoughts.
First, in all the bantering amongst the churches of Christ I scarcely hear the voice that challenges the validity of the “problem.” All of this “change” is based upon the need to bring dramatic increase in numbers. But what if the problem is not really a problem? What if God never obligated His church to be the manufactures of numbers? What if God never said nor implied he was going to judge His people based upon the numbers they produced? What if we CHANGED our understanding and realized that the problem is not a problem?
Second, how do we address the postmodern culture? When the old methods didn’t work we tried lots of new ones. So when that didn’t work we changed the message. But why is it that the postmodern mind is never challenged to change? We are told we must just embrace the postmodern mind – bologna! All have conceded, from Earl Edwards to Rubel Shelly, the reality that the majority of people living in our culture have that mind, but that by no means dictates the necessity to change the MESSAGE to fit the mind. No, rather it means our job is ever before us to challenge the minds of the majority of people in our culture to change!
The task is heavy to take a message to a world that does not want to hear it, but for crying out loud have we read the Gospels? Have we read the New Testament? And have we read the Old Testament prophets and the task they bore on their backs!!! Noah, Elijah, Jermiah, Isaiah, Amos, Jonah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and every other spokesman of God in the Bible were prophets of change! Change the message? Never! Change the method? Sometimes. Change the thinking of the culture they lived in? Every single one of them! Was the soil different in different places at different times? For sure. Was their success and pleasing-ness to God based upon their number of converts? Not a single one of them. They were all pleasing to God, without exception, when they held fast and proclaimed His word regardless of the culture they found themselves, and their receptivity to the message.
Is change needed? Yes. Do we need to change the methods? Sometimes. Do we need to change the message? NEVER! Do we need to change our faulty premises? No doubt. Must we proclaim a message to the people in a postmodern culture to change their entire way of thinking? That is the task at hand – to preach the foolishness of the cross to our culture and let God handle the rest.
