Stop Controlling Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Power Plants

Open Email to Rep. Tim Murphy, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:

Dear Chairman Murphy,
 I am addressing this to you, because in the description of your Subcommittee, it is said that you have the responsibility to oversee all agencies and programs within the committee jurisdiction [Energy], with respect to abuse.
 There is an interesting article entitled, "Striving to Capture Carbon" in the November 25 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. You may want to assign someone on your staff to read the article and report to you. Meanwhile, I will give you a few comments.
 The essence of the article is the activity of the Obama Administration and particularly Energy Sec. Ernest J Moniz (DOE) in spending taxpayer money to promote the capture of carbon dioxide from coal burning power plants. Similar efforts are being applied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through restricting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
 For a little perspective on this matter, let's start with the fact that nitrogen and oxygen, which are normal constituents of the atmosphere are greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide is also a greenhouse gas, but apparently agency accent is on the fact that new carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere through burning of carbon containing fuels, whereas there is no similar addition of nitrogen and oxygen.
 The other key point is that even with the continuing addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, it still is present only to the extent of 0.05%. Since it is no more a greenhouse gas than are nitrogen and oxygen, its greenhouse effect must be essentially insignificant compared to the major components of the atmosphere. In other words, it is obviously a dumb idea to even be concerned about carbon dioxide emissions.
 In following this will-o'-the-wisp, Sec. Moniz has just put $270 million into a new power plant in Kemper County, Mississippi, with carbon capture. He is also giving grants totaling $84 million to 18 new experimental projects to capture carbon dioxide.
 While I am concerned with the wasting of $354 million of taxpayer money and the DOE promotion of capturing carbon dioxide from power plants, I am more concerned with the overall program of putting existing coal burning power producers out of business and replacing them with considerably higher-priced installations which will radically and unnecessarily increase electricity prices. It is also probable that the EPA control of carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants has more effect in increasing electricity prices than does the action of the DOE. It is obvious that as a consumer pays more for electricity, he has less money for purchase of other goods, leading to lower production of other goods and loss of jobs.
  I strongly suggest you get onto DOE Sec. Ernest Moniz and EPA Sec. Gina McCarthy and have them stop this nonsense.

Environmental Protection Agency Abuses

Open Email to Rep. John Shimkus, Chairman House Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy  and Sen. Thomas Carper, Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air:

Dear Rep. Shimkus and Sen. Carper,
 Here are a few quotes from the Washington Times on the abuses of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

"The EPA is currently crafting 134 major and minor regulations, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda. Seventy-six of the EPA’s pending regulations originate from the agency’s air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants."
"Carbon-dioxide limits are a key part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The EPA is set to set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology. Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants — which could put more older coal plants out of commission."
"Hundreds of coal plants that have been closed or slated for early retirement due to Environmental Protection Agency regulations, according to coal industry estimates."

“Already, EPA regulations have contributed to the closure of more than 300 coal units in 33 states,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity."

"However, the agency isn’t just working on limiting emissions from coal plants. The EPA is also working on a rule that would expand the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act to include water on private property."

Rep. Shimkus and Sen. Carper, you and I both know that these abuses of the EPA will exacerbate the economic decline of an already weak US economy. The question is, "What are you going to do to stop it?"

More on Afghanistan

Open email to Rep. Martha Roby, Chairman House Military Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Sen. Hagan, Chairman Senate Military Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Dear Rep. Roby And Sen. Hagan,
 According to public perception we're supposed to be militarily out of Afghanistan next year. However the Obama administration through Sec. Kerry is trying to negotiate a deal whereby as many as 8000 US troops will remain there for 10 years.
 An additional part of the deal includes new Rules of Engagement for those remaining troops. The key elements of the rules are that US troops may not fire upon an enemy until the enemy fires on them, and US troops may not enter private homes. There is also apparently some limitation on the use of drones, but the Washington Times does not give anything specific on that
 Let's remember that the enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban. Taliban fighters are essentially Indian fighters. They don't follow standard military rules of attack. They hide and strike much like snipers.
 It is ridiculous to fight a war where you can only attack an enemy after he has had a first opportunity to kill you. In addition, Taliban fighters hide in private residences, usually with the permission and support of the residence owners. This effectively creates a safe haven for the Taliban fighters.
 I have previously written, with the presentation of various reasons, for our not being involved in Afghanistan at all. I now maintain that position. There's no reason for the US to be negotiating with Pres. Karzai on a deal to allow US troops to remain there. Let's get out completely in 2014, as originally conceived in the public perception and maintain our ability to control terrorism activities in Afghanistan threatening the US homeland, with the use of bombers and drones.
If there is some feeling on the part of Congressional Members and the Obama administration that we need to "make the world safe for democracy", let's get that out of their heads. Our objective needs to be "self-preservation".

Illegal Immigrants

Chairman Jay Gowdy, House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Chairman Chuck Schumer, Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security
Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL)
Sen. Ted Cruz (TX)
Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)

Dear Rep. Gowdy and Senators Schumer, sessions, Cruz and Rubio,

 We are a nation of laws. That is, we have a system of making laws and enforcing them. If Congress does not make laws and the Justice Department does not enforce them, we would be a lawless society, wherein the people would operate in an unruly, disruptive, anarchic and disorderly manner. Our society would then be equivalent to those of most of central Africa and the Banana Republics. We already know the deficiencies of those operations.
 The Washington Times recently reported on a speech that Pres. Obama was giving in San Francisco. During the speech, members of the audience criticized Pres. Obama for not doing more to allow citizenship for some millions of illegal immigrants. In effect, the audience was asking the President to further ignore US immigration laws.
 I say further ignore US immigration laws,.because the President has already weakened the immigration law by two Executive Orders. The first granted work permits and authorization to remain in the U.S. without fear of deportation.to young illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children. The second was to allow illegal immigrant relatives of U.S. troops and veterans to apply for “parole in place,” which would also exempt them from being removed from the country.
 The incongruity of the situation is that the San Francisco audience is asking for more law breakage from a President who has already unilaterally changed the law. In effect, the President has broken an additional law by use of an Executive Order to change an existing law.
 This is not to say that the existence of a few million illegal immigrants in the US is unimportant or that it is a simple matter to correct the situation, which has been allowed to develop because the Justice Department did not do its job of stopping illegal immigrant entry.
 However as indicated previously, we are a country of laws based primarily on English law, which operates on the principle that a lawbreaker must be punished. It appears to be only a recent conversion in US society that a lawbreaker should be given some benefit. This is now evident in living conditions of many prisons being that of country clubs, giving special health treatment to drug addicts, and now the possibility of amnesty for illegal immigrants, with its associated benefits of food stamps, special tuition rates in universities, etc.
 I appeal to you in the handling of immigration problems to revert to the basic concepts of English law; namely, some punishment must be involved. Merely sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries is not what I call punishment. Undesirables should be sent back. Many others can be allowed to remain under penalized conditions, such as periods of unpaid social work in local governments which might include both office work and manual labor.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Obamacare, Fish and Wildlife and Energy

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
 Happy Thanksgiving, Randy!
 The news is also full of the fact that personal information revealed on the Obamacare website is not confidential. You seem to have confirmed that. I hope you are doing something about it.
 I also hope that you are successful with Fish and Wildlife to eliminate the Prairie Chicken as an endangered species, which will then allow private property owners to use their land as they wish. A good follow-up would be to eliminate Fish and Wildlife from continuing this threat of private land takeover.
 Thanks for passing three energy bills. I'm not sure what they were, but I will trust you that they will help to give us energy independence.

Iranian Nuclear Weapon

pen Email to Senators Bob Corker (TN) and Robert Menendez (NJ):

 

Dear Senators Corker and Menendez,

 Jesus is mentioned many times as saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you". Translated, this means, "What I'm telling you is really true, and I mean true". The reason Jesus says it in that way is because he lived in Middle Eastern culture, where basic lying was an accepted practice. That culture has not changed in modern times, and Iranians are probably the biggest liars of all. I say this because the application of terms of the new treaty proposal formulated by Kerry and European associates will require considerations of trust.
 While Sec. Kerry has negotiated the terms in consultation with Pres. Obama, it is the constitutional duty of the Senate to approve a treaty by a two thirds vote. That vote has yet to come up, and we might consider some of the details of the treaty proposal before the Senate votes on it.

 1. Iran has been concentrating on enriching natural uranium to increase the concentration of the fissionable isotope U-235 and in producing plutonium 239, both of which are usable in producing an atomic bomb. It is said that there are two uranium enrichment plants plants with 19,462 centrifuges usable for the enrichment process. The agreement would allow 10,000 of these centrifuges to continue to be used.
 Comment: Operating 10,000 centrifuges will continue to produce enriched uranium. It would take longer if 19,462 centrifuges were used. Continued enrichment could be starting with natural uranium to shoot for 5% U-235, which is usable in nuclear energy production plants. Or, continued enrichment could start with the 5% U-235 already in stock to produce 85% U-235, which is required for an atomic bomb. The literature also reports that a crude, inefficient weapon could be produced from 20% U-235.

 2. Iran may continue to enrich uranium, but the U-235 concentration of the product must be below 20%.
 Comment: This would allow Iran to continually increase its stock of partially enriched uranium, which would further reduce the time for a larger quantity of further enriched uranium, if there is a later cancellation of the agreement.

 3. Iran will convert its stockpile of 20% U-235 enriched uranium to oxide.
 Comment: The enrichment process uses a compound of uranium, known as uranium hexafluoride. The hexafluoride is chemically converted to uranium metal, which is required for the atomic bomb. Conversion of uranium hexafluoride to uranium oxide is a similar chemical operation, which is many times simpler and productive in volume than the original separation of the uranium isotopes using centrifuges. A large quantity of enriched uranium oxide could be converted to uranium metal for a bomb in a matter of a few months.

 4. Iran will not increase its stock of 5% U-235 uranium, but if it does, the new material will be converted to the oxide.
 Comment: This is gobbledygook wording. In the 1st place, Iran is allowed to continue to operate 10,000 centrifuges. If they are not allowed to produce 5% U-235 uranium for power plant use, what will they be producing? But, if they are not allowed to produce and then produce, the material must be converted to oxide. We have already covered the simplicity of chemical conversions from hexafluoride to oxide to metal and back.

 5. Iran has a completed plutonium (Pu-239) at Arak. Iran will not fuel or commission this plant and will halt any essential work on the plant.
 Comment: Pu-239 is an alternative ingredient for an atomic bomb. In effect, the producing plant at Arak will be in standby condition and likely be able to operate in production of Pu-239 for an atomic weapon in a matter of a few months after termination or the ignoring of an agreement.

 6. International Atomic Energy Inspectors will be allowed to visit Iran's nuclear plants on a daily basis.
 Comment: Presumably the IAE inspectors will ask Iranian authorities for arrangements to visit specific plants. What about a secret plants unknown to the IAE inspectors? The wording of this section may also be very significant. "Visit" may mean to the Iranians that the inspectors may come to a visitor's office, where they will have tea and discussions. It may not mean at all that the inspectors would have an opportunity to inspect facilities. The Iranians are also masters at deception. It may be too rainy. The lights may be out. They may have had a minor accident and radioactivity is little too high. And, numerous other excuses.

 Senators, US culture is based on English culture, wherein truth is truth, black is black, and white is white. Iranian culture involves truth as whatever is convenient and where there are an indeterminate number of shades of gray. It is basically for this reason that the Middle East is in constant turmoil. Middle Eastern's do not trust each other, having no confidence in their word.
 Our problem is that we tend to look at other cultures on the assumption that they are similar to ours. Sec. Kerry may mean well, but he does not understand Middle Eastern culture. Therefore, any attempt he makes to establish an atomic weapon treaty with Iran is always doomed to failure. However, all is not lost. Iranians do understand practicality. If there are no centrifuges, no stocks of any kind of enriched uranium, and no plutonium plant, then it will be clear that they will not be developing an atomic weapon.
 The Iranians have come to the negotiating table because the present economic sanctions are hurting them, and they think that with their usual doubletalk they can gain some headway. Based on the tentative deal now structured, they are completely correct in that assumption. However, the economic sanctions are not hurting us, and we have no reason to reduce them. In fact, with the application of additional sanctions, it is likely that we can completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat.
 It is difficult to fathom the reasoning behind the Obama administration's operations. I have proposed that Sec. Kerry and possibly Pres. Obama are naïve in understanding Middle East culture. But, I doubt that is the complete picture. It is likely that Pres. Obama is trying to take the news media heat off his Obamacare program by distractions, which could include this Iran nuclear treaty and the recent change in Senate rules.
 I specifically appeal to you to not approve of the Iran nuclear deal as previously established. It will not only accomplish nothing to impede Iran in their effort to obtain a nuclear weapon, but I believe it will actually assist them.

US Interests in Afghanistan

Open Email to House Middle East Chairman Ros-Lehtinen and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez:
Dear Chairmen Ros-Lehtinen and Menendez,
   
     The NATO combat mission in Afghanistan will end in 2014, with the theoretical withdrawal of all US troops.
     However, the US is trying to negotiate another deal with Afghan Pres. Karzai wherein the US will continue involvement in the following ways:
  1. The US would have nine bases in Afghanistan
  2. The US would have legal jurisdiction over troops and Defense Department civilians, while contractors would be subject to the Afghan judicial process
  3. US counterterrorism operations would continue in coordination with the Afghans, with the goal that the Afghan forces should be in the lead.
  4. US troops will not conduct combat operations unless they are mutually agreed on by the US and Afghans
  5. The agreement could allow 10,000 to 15,000 US troops to remain in Afghanistan for 10 years or longer, although the US says it will likely supply no more than 8000 troops.
     Afghan Pres. Karzai appears reluctant to sign, although he doesn't specify why. Does he want more money?

     Does this sound like what we have been led to believe? Namely, that the US will be leaving Afghanistan?
     I suppose the Administration will next come up with the idea that we need a presence in Afghanistan for an ability to attack Iran, which it borders on the east. The Administration may also say we need to be able to get to terrorist forces in Afghanistan.
     Both claims would be without merit.
     Turkey borders Iran on the northwest, and we have NATO bases in Turkey from which to operate bombers against Iran.
     If there are problems with Turkey, Israel is only 1000 miles from Tehran, and it is highly likely that the Israelis would be agreeable to our using bases in that country. We also have airbases in Western European countries and in Great Britain. Tthe distance from Italy to Tehran is 2100 miles. Germany to Tehran is 2300 miles. England to Tehran 3300 miles.
     We have 85 B-52 bombers each carrying a bomb load of 70,000 pounds and having a bombing range of 4800 miles. We have 20 B2 bombers each carrying a bomb load of 40,000 pounds and having a bombing range of 6000 miles. Notice that we have a number of base opportunities well within the Tehran bombing range for both these bomber types.
     If we need to get to training camps, administrative complexes or other terrorist consolidations in Afghanistan, the distance from England to Afghanistan is 3500 miles, well within the bombing range of both the B-52 and B-2 bombers. In addition, we have drones for surveillance and limited attack.
     The bottom line is that we don't need any agreement with Afghanistan to have any troops remaining in that country. We should be OUT, OUT, OUT

Iran Nuclear

Open Email to US Secretary Of State John Kerry and UN P5 +1 Group:

Dear Sec. Kerry and P5 +1 Group,
 The Washington Times says Sec. Kerry left for Geneva to continue negotiations with the UN P5 +1 Group and Iran on a nuclear treaty with Iran. It is said that the U.S. would begin to ease economic sanctions on Tehran in exchange for an agreement from Iranian leaders to halt major sections of their nuclear program and open it to close international scrutiny.
 President Reagan once said "Trust but Verify".
 I have had personal experience in dealing with the Iranian government. I trusted but was unable to verify. The trust was that they had my money. The inability to verify was that I was unable to recover it, even though I was entitled to it.
 I strongly suggest that, in dealing with the Iranian government, the US and others of the UN P5 +1 Group always maintain a hammer over the head of the Iranian Administration and be willing to drop it at a moment's notice.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Obamacare and States Energy

Open Email to. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your newsletter.

OBAMACARE    You cosponsored a bill, which allows insurance providers to continue to offer existing health plans through 2014 so families don’t have to face immediate cancellation.
    Good political move! You will go on record with the public as being favorable toward the public being able to keep its existing health insurance. However, you likely know that it has no practical application. Insurance companies have already canceled millions of policies, and their is no practical way to reinstate them. In addition, Pres. Obama has threatened to veto the bill.

STATES RIGHTS ON ENERGY
    This week you will be voting on H.R. 2728, Protecting States Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act.  This is commonsense legislation that gives states that already regulate hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the right to continue doing so. This includes Texas.
    Again, nice political move, but in this case I don't think the public really cares. In addition, it seems highly unlikely that you will ever get the Senate to cooperate, because of its big government philosophy, and Obama is bound to veto it. Perhaps your best bet is to continue to degrade the public acceptance of Obama and the Democrats because of the healthcare fiasco. If this is pushed hard enough it may be effective in being able to get Republican control in the Senate in the November '14 election. We are already starting to see some of the Democrats in panic on holding their jobs.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Functions

Dear Rep.Neugebauer,
    Thank you for your email concerning the abuses of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    You said, "In recent years, I believe the EPA increasingly represents the overreaching arm of a government. In short, the EPA has been tirelessly promulgating environmental regulations without considering the consequences they will have on our economy, and more specifically, jobs."
    You also said, "Please rest assured that I. I hope you continue to write me about the issues most important to you."
    As a PhD chemist, I occasionally have a lopsided view of human reality. However, I have found through many years of experience that my background serves me well in analyzing various human problems related to chemistry.
    Chemical and pharmaceutical companies produce a great variety of chemical compositions, sometimes called compounds. Many of them react with humans and other animals to great advantage in curing diseases and generally improving quality of life. However, there is always a downside in that for every chemical compound that does some good, it always does some bad. In addition, production of those compounds many times involves a release to the environment of toxic byproducts.
     It is the function of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine the relative merits of chemical compositions used in treating humans. That is, if a human being takes a "medicine" into his body, is it likely to do more harm than good? That question is generally resolved by using various toxicity test methods. While the FDA can perform many of these tests itself, the basic responsibility for supplying toxicological information lies with the pharmaceutical producer. By using toxicity data and other items that may be related to human health, the FDA may approve a chemical composition for public use or deny its public use for unreasonable danger to users.
    Many chemical compositions produced by chemical companies are not intended to be used directly for the purpose of curing disease or otherwise improving the health of the public. These chemicals are generally intended for industrial/commercial use, in order to improve living conditions of the public. For example a chemical compound might be added to a plastic in order to make the plastic more easily formed into usable parts. However, industrial/commercial use chemicals accidentally find their way into the general environment and can negatively affect the health of citizens. An example might be that the previously mentioned chemical compound added to a plastic may slowly leak from the manufactured part and damage the health of citizens breathing the air contaminated with the chemical compound.
    The latter is the intended responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That is, the EPA is responsible to determine toxicity of industrial/commercial chemicals and subsequently approve or disapprove their use in manufacturing and commercial availability based upon toxicity data, concentrations in the environment, and other items related indirectly to public health. Therefore, EPA responsibility is similar to that of the FDA, with the exception that it's supposed to approve or disapprove use of chemicals not intended for use as medicines. However, similar protocols can be used. The EPA can determine its own toxicity/concentration data, but it can also require producers to supply the information for EPA's use in approving or disapproving a chemical composition's availability in industrial/commercial operations.
    With that description of basic responsibility, we have found that the EPA has expanded its role to restrict production of chemical substances which appear to have no relationship to human health. One example of this is to limit the emission of sulfur dioxide in the normal burning of coal by power plants. It had been found that sulfur dioxide further oxidizes to sulfur trioxide in the atmosphere and when mixed with atmospheric water becomes acid rain. Acid rain is not specifically dangerous to human health, but it has a negative effect on normal lower organism growth in lakes and forests. For this reason, and if one expands the role of the EPA to consider environmental art or beauty, sulfur dioxide control from power plants is logical. However, that seems to me to be a stretch of the EPA original responsibility.
    Another example of EPA control of emissions from power plants and other sources is carbon dioxide from burning carbon containing fuels. Again, there is no reason to control carbon dioxide emissions based on any negative effects to human health. However, the EPA claims control is necessary because of indirect effects on human living conditions by reason of global warming. Dissimilar to the acid rain situation, there is no data which indicates carbon dioxide emissions leading to increases of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere have any affect on global warming, with subsequent negative affects on human living conditions. In this case, we can only conclude that the EPA activity on carbon dioxide is only a matter of political significance. We can only speculate on the political significance, but we know that the Obama administration is strongly in support of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and has likely applied considerable pressure to the EPA to accommodate his position.
    These last two paragraphs are examples of EPA overreach. The sulfur dioxide situation is semi-justifiable. There seems to be no justification for carbon dioxide control. The question then arises as to what Congress should be doing in order to bring back operation of the EPA to a condition, which Congress originally had in mind when it set up this agency.
    This then gets into the general matter of law passage by Congress and the apparent traditional lack of follow-up by Congress to see that the law is working as intended, or whether it needs modification. The Toxic Substances Control Act originally set up the EPA as the operating entity. Of the various House committees, I could not find any directly related to toxic substances control or the environment in general. The closest I could get was the House Oversight. Committee, Chaired by Darrell Issa (CA).
    My search for a Senate Committee was somewhat more fruitful, but switched me over to another law, the Clean Air Act. According to Wikipedia, the Clean Air Act is designed to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations to protect the public from airborne contaminants known to be hazardous to human health. The Senate has a committee on Environment and Public Works. It is chaired by Barbara Boxer (CA). It has a subcommittee named Clean Air, chaired by Thomas Carper (DE). It seems to me that Sen. Carper should be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
    I later found that Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, has held a forum on the Clean Air Act. He probably should also be asking the EPA what information it has that carbon dioxide is "hazardous to human health".
    This brings us back to you, Rep. Neugebauer. You said that you will do everything you can to keep the EPA in line. I presume you will be in contact with Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sen. Thomas Carper to see what you can collectively do to get the EPA back on a direct course to fulfill its obligations and avoid taking on projects with political overtones that have no scientific basis.

We Need Lead for Bullets

Open Email to Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY):

Dear Sen. McConnell,
    You have been previously quoted as saying, "“The Second Amendment is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution, and we should protect it wherever we can.” As a refresher for those who may not be familiar with the Second Amendment [to the Constitution], it reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In simple terms, NO GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROL. However, we should be clear that while "arms" and "guns" are synonymous, without ammunition, they are merely clubs.
    As you know, Senator McConnell, the Obama administration and various state governments have done about everything they can to limit the public availability of firearms. However, you and your Republican Associates in the House have strongly resisted this, with some success. In spite of those efforts, we already have significant rights infringement through licensing, etc..
    The latest move toward infringement on the part of the Obama administration is an end run attacking ammunition sources to the people. This has been done through the EPA setting a standard for sulfur dioxide control by a lead smelter involving 10 times the previous restriction. The only lead smelting plant remaining in the US, from previous attacks by the EPA, is the Herculaneum plant at Doe Run, Missouri. With the new EPA restriction on sulfur dioxide emission, that plant will shut down and there will be no domestic source of lead to sell to ammunition manufacturers in the US. Since the federal government controls imports, ammunition manufacturers will be deprived of lead for bullets, and the public will be without ammunition for its firearms.
The EPA has been after the Herculaneum plant for its releases of lead dust and sulfur dioxide contaminating the environment. Ingestion of lead by human beings causes mental problems and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to acid rain. The company has responded to the lead dust problem with control measures and has bought up surrounding residential properties so that local residents are not exposed. It still emits 42,000 tons of sulfur dioxide annually to the atmosphere. This seems to be the main present concern of the EPA.
However putting the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emissions in perspective, we can compare it with sulfur dioxide emissions of all US power plants, which have been significantly reduced over the years, because of the acid rain problem. In 2012, power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide were still 3.3 million tons. At 42,000 tons sulfur dioxide emission for the Herculaneum plant, this is only 1.3% of the power plant emissions. I believe the Herculaneum plant sulfur dioxide emission is insignificant, because of its specialized application as the single lead producer in the US and an exemption should be made for it.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American. He recently had this to say, "Congress must be called upon to immediately defund the EPA and repeal the act that created it, as well as to refuse to ratify any treaty — the Arms Trade Treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership — that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Once these basic rights are surrendered to unelected, unaccountable international bodies, those rights will be regarded as fungible and revocable at the will of global bureaucrats bent on finally eliminating the Constitution."
I believe Wolverton's request is somewhat excessive. We need the EPA to handle chemical contamination of the environment, as previously recognized in its development. But, it has gotten completely out of control to the extent that it has become a political weapon for the Obama administration. More practically, I suggest Congress make an exception concerning contaminant emissions for the Herculaneum Plant at Doe Run, for the simple reason of its uniqueness as the single lead producer in the US and the need for lead to manufacture ammunition for public firearms.

Social Security Designation

    A Political Associate brought to my attention that direct deposit Social Security payments are referred to as Federal Benefits. He strongly opposes this latter designation. He says that Social Security is not a benefit. It is earned income. Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too. He wants the federal government to discontinue referring to Social Security as a "benefit". He wants it referred to as "Earned Retirement Income".
    There is some merit to his claim, since the IRS taxes Social Security as "Earned Income".
    On the other hand, Snopes says that "Federal Benefit Payments" applies to a broad class of payments made to (or on behalf of) individuals under federal government programs — everything from Social Security Disability Insurance to Medicare to farm subsidies are considered "federal benefit payments." The fact that workers themselves contribute much of the money that goes into the Social Security retirement fund doesn't affect its classification as a benefit.
    In addition, various dictionaries indicate a benefit as a payment or gift made by an employer, the state, or an insurance company. Synonyms are indicated to be: social security, welfare, assistance, employment insurance, unemployment, food stamps;  charity,donations, gifts, financial assistance. Associated words are: hand, lift, pick-me-up; support, sustenance; blessing,godsend, windfall; recourse, refuge, resort, resource.
    However, we should also consider the legal term, "quid pro quo", which means something that is given to a person or done for a person in return for something he has given to or done in return. In other words, there is a fair exchange. In the case of a Social Security payment, it would qualify as a "quid pro quo", since a person would be receiving a payment on something for which he has previously paid. That could similarly apply to unemployment insurance payments, but not to food stamps, for which no previous payment was made by the recipient.
    In essence, we have been so entangled in socialistic concepts over the last hundred years or so that Snopes and even the dictionaries have decided to ignore the difference between "something for something" and "something for nothing".
    As a Constitutional Republic convert and a believer in private property rights, I am personally on the side of "something for something". That is, if I do a job under contract, I expect to get paid. On the other hand, I also recognize "something for nothing". That is, if I decide to send a friend a basket of fruit for Christmas, I can do so as a gift without any anticipation of being repaid.
    I think we have sunk so deeply into socialistic concepts that it is difficult to revert to the realism of differences. However, it is never too late. I agree with my Political Associate that Social Security payments should be designated as Earned Retirement Income and not generally dumped into the mixed category of "Federal Benefit Payments".
    I submit that recommendation to the appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen in the House and Senate, as follows:
    The House Ways And Means Committee, chaired by Dave Camp (MI) has seven subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes legislation and issues related to Social Security's retirement. Sam Johnson (TX) is the Subcommittee Chairman.
    The Senate Committee on Finance, Chaired by Max Baucus (MT) has six subcommittees. The Social Security Subcommittee Chairman is Sherrod Brown (OH).

Republican Advantage

Open Email to Republican Senators:

Dear Republican Senators,
    According to the Washington Times, the House passed the Upton bill, 261 to 157, despite a veto threat from Mr. Obama. The Upton bill lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare. 39 Democrats voted for the bill, presumably in an attempt to keep their jobs.
    This bill may not go anywhere, because of the Obama veto threat and impracticality with respect to the insurance companies, but it has political significance. It would tend to make Pres. Obama look bad if he vetoes a bill letting Americans keep their previous healthcare another year, which he has said over and over again that they would be entitled to do.
    However, the key point of this message is that the Senate must now follow up with a similar bill. Since 39 Democrats in the house were willing to defect, there are likely many more Democrats in the Senate willing to also defect. Senate passage of a bill similar to that of the House will appreciably increase public perception of the Republican cause and further weaken the Democrats.

Rep. Neugebauer (TX) on Veterans Benefits

Open Email to Rep. Neugebauer (TX):

Dear Rep. Neugebauer,
    I have read your latest newsletter with your particular emphasis on our appreciation for the service of our military veterans.
    All true, and as a veteran fortunate enough to having not been wounded in combat, I extend my appreciation to those who have not been so fortunate. This was also a nice campaigning move on your part.
    I am continually bombarded on TV by a Wounded Warrior Project requesting that I donate $19 a month to take care of wounded warriors. I find this ridiculous! It apparently only finds its basis in the deficiency of the Veterans Administration (VA).
    Men and women enter military service, either as volunteers or in times of war, as draftees. In either case, they literally devote their lives to the preservation of the United States of America. In return, they individually receive housing, food, medical care and generally all items of normal living, plus a small salary. If in the course of duty they are wounded in combat, they also receive medical attention to return them to previous health, as well as possible. In some cases, the bodily devastation is such that a normal return is not possible, and they continue their lives as paralyzed invalids or subject of posttraumatic stress.
    The Wounded Warrior Project says, "Your generous, tax-deductible donation in wounded warrior projects (WWP) enables us to help thousands of injured veterans returning from the battlefield and helps provide assistance to their families."
    Isn't this the sort of thing that we should already be supplying to our wounded veterans? I believe it is, because it should be one of the benefits that they really originally received under contract on original enlistment. There are certainly ramifications, which have bearing on the situation. One of them is that I find it ridiculous that thousands of our military personnel have been killed or severely wounded from the use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which are small hidden bombs. In World War II, we called them "Booby Traps". With the present state of high technology available, it is almost inconceivable to me that military leadership has been unable to cope with this. However whether there is still low or high damage to military personnel, it should be part of military's responsibility to appropriately handle the damage. This would include as much reasonable medical treatment as possible, followed by the use of subsequent devices, such as artificial limbs, mobile chairs, walking devices, etc.. In addition, any earning limitation placed on the wounded veteran after retirement carries through into his family's economic health and requires adequate adjustment.    Post Traumatic Syndrome is completely different. It is a mental condition which is difficult to diagnose, but still must be handled. I've written previously that military retirees, by nature of their previous service, have not accumulated the necessary experience to adequately participate in normal civilian life. Many veterans are able to make the adjustment but some are not, which is why we end up with a number of homeless veterans requiring care. Whether it could be considered that these veterans suffer from post traumatic distress is conjectural, but whether they do or don't, if is again part of the military obligation that they be taken care of, including the basic needs of their families.
    It might be assumed that if retirement benefits to military retirees and earlier wounded veterans are too generous, there could be considerable cheating. While that is true, I believe it is a risk we must take. Many veterans will not even take advantage of present benefits available to them. For example, I spent two years is a noncombat draftee during World War II, with combat infantry training and subsequent transfer to Special Engineering. I was partially responsible for the killing of a few million Japanese. I suppose I could have posttraumatic distress, but I don't. I am now 92 years old and could get my medication from the VA. I don't. I pay for it out-of-pocket. I also know that there many others like me, even though many may require retirement assistance.
    We have a Veterans Administration (VA). It should be doing the job of completely taking care of the basic needs of veterans, paralyzed or otherwise incapacitated, with the resulting detriments to their families. It should be doing its job such that the claim of the Wounded Warrior Project of "helping thousands of injured veterans returning from the battlefield and providing assistance to their families" is without merit. I would much rather see advertisements by such private organizations saying we should help veterans by supplying special reading devices, such as Kindles, or tickets to baseball games, which might make their lives more pleasant.
    Rep. Neugebauer, I encourage you to look into the Veterans Administration activities on the basis I have described above, and arrange with your associates any required changes in the Veterans Administration's program.

Obamacare Use of Web M.D. for Promotion

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    The Washington Times says Web M.D., a private Internet public advisory service on medicine, was awarded a $4.8 million contract by the Obama administration to promote Obamacare. Both Web M.D. and the Obama Administration apparently tried to keep the deal secret. Web M.D. said it had no obligation to reveal publicly this information.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA) says that details of contracts between the federal government and private industry should be made public. I agree. Since taxpayer funds are involved, I believe taxpayers should have the opportunity to see how their money is being spent. The only possible exception would be contracts involving military security of the US, which might involve details helpful to a possible enemy.

Drone Policy

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
   The Washington Times says drones are now ubiquitous. Many countries have them and use them for surveillance. Only the US, Great Britain and Israel have used drones as an attack weapon with explosives. However, it is also obvious that many other countries will develop attack weapon procedures.
    We need an international policy on drones. It should be as follows:
        1. We should advise the United Nations that we will not tolerate drones in our airspace. As we discover them, we will shoot them down.
        2. We will use drones at our discretion to search for Terrorist Administration complexes, training camps, and storage facilities in any country where we suspect terrorist activity. In each case where we intend to enter another country's airspace with our drones, we will give the Country Administration prior warning that we are doing so with the intention of finding and eliminating terrorist facilities. In that notification, we will ask that the Country Administration remove the threat itself and that our drones will be used immediately only in a surveillance capacity to confirm that the terrorist threat has been eliminated. If the terrorist threat has not been eliminated in a reasonable time, say two weeks or a month, we would use attack drones at our discretion.
        3. This may lead to the foreign Country Administration, shooting down our surveillance or attack drones. We would not consider this an act of war, but would respond with insistence using more advanced technology or a greater quantity of drones to completely eliminate terrorist activity in that country.
        4. If the foreign Country Administration uses such a heavy response as to make impossible our project of eliminating terrorist activities, we would consider the foreign Country Administration as a protector of terrorist activities and an automatic act of war. Our reaction would be then to include destruction of the foreign Country Administration's facilities interfering with our drones.
     This may sound a little heavy-handed and one-sided, but so be it. We have the capability to do it and the need to protect our citizens from terrorist activities.

Congratulations to Sen. Cornyn (TX)

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I saw you on Fox News TV in your conversation with Sebelius concerning the Obamacare website.
    You asked her twice whether a particular statement was true or false. She wheedled around with a lot of talk. You finalized with the statement that the record should show that Sebelius would not answer the question.
    Well done! We need more of that kind of direct encounter with Obama Administration officials. The question is always who is running the government; the White House or the Congress?    I have previously suggested that you be up front, rather than take a back row seat, and I am pleased to see that this is happening.

Unnecessary Federal Science Research

Open Email to Lamar S Smith (TX), Chairman House Science, Space, & Technology Committee:

Dear Chairman Smith,
    This concerns the America Competes Act, which is said to authorize most of the country's basic government research spending. The controlling agency for the America Competes Act is the Department of Energy, which is not one of my favorites, since I have previously called for its demise. The DOE has a record of doing more damage to the country than any other single agency, unless it might be the Department of Education.
    It has come to my attention that your committee has proposed to give the DOE's Office of Science its own authorization bill and a 2% funding increase over this year's level.
    The agencies involved under the DOE are the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science. Democrats are proposing a 5% funding increase for each of the three agencies and continue energy programs [whatever that means]. The Senate has yet to hold a hearing on its proposal.
The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences. It is involved in almost every branch of science that one can think of. Each year, NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout the world. It does this at a cost to the American taxpayers of $7 billion per year
The mission of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. While it is basically the old Bureau of Standards, which was and still is indispensable, present operations seem to be to spend money to convince the rest of the world how great we are in science. To do this, the NIST spent $750 billion of taxpayer money last year and requested $2.2 billion for this year.
The DOE Office of Science covers about any science one could think of. I couldn't find a mission statement. It supports 25,000 scientists in various endeavors and is spending $4.9 billion this year. It is requesting $5.1 billion for next year Some of the projects are:
Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Basic Energy Sciences
Biological and Environmental Research
Fusion Energy Sciences
High Energy Physics
Nuclear Physics
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer
Total annual federal expenditures for science research is $41.7 billion. Your share for the Department of Energy is $12.7 billion.
While all the above designations for expenditures are fine, high sounding terms, as a scientist also interested in economics, I am not impressed.
Federal expenditures for fiscal year 2014 are expected to be $3.8 trillion. Revenues are expected to be $3.0 trillion. This leaves a deficit of $800 billion, which must be borrowed. As you know, this deficit in borrowing has been going on for several years and is building up to a level of lower creditworthiness for the country. We can expect that future borrowing costs, as interest, are bound to rise, which will make the problem worse.
You and your committee have exacerbated the situation by proposing for the DOE alone a 2% increase in spending, while Democrats propose a 5% increase in spending. That doesn't make sense to me. We are already in a hole and you want us to dig deeper. 
I would much appreciate your advising me on how you can justify this action with regard to such a conjectural and potentially pie-in-the-sky matter as federal science research.

Sen. Cruz (TX) on Obamacare, Religion, & UN Mandates

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    I have read your latest newsletter.    In the first part, you have castigated OBAMACARE, which seems justifiable to me. You said we must repeal this train wreck of a law, and restore jobs and economic growth to our great nation, and that I should read "below", with the implication that I would learn how you plan to do this.
    When I read "below", all I saw was reference to Pres. Obama's lies and the great state of Texas. I saw nothing on how we get rid of Obamacare.

    You also had a section on PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ACROSS THE WORLD. In this, you went on at great length to describe how we should be protecting Pastor Saeed Abedini, an American citizen, who was imprisonment in Iran for peacefully practicing his Christian faith.
    I respectfully remind you that the First Amendment of the Constitution says that the federal government should not be monkeying with religion. It also seems pretty clear to me that that would apply to international incidents. Secondly,Pastor Saeed Abedini was jailed in Iran, because he was disobeying Iran's laws. You may not like Iran's laws, but that is beside the point. Pastor Saeed Abedini knew what he was doing when he was operating in Iran and he is now paying the penalty. Let it go.

    You also discussed US SOVEREIGNTY VERSUS UNITED NATIONS MANDATES. I agree completely with you that US sovereignty must always take preference over any United Nation's mandate. I will go further and say that any US Representative or Senator, who votes to the contrary is a Communist and should not be in any position of leadership in our Republic.

Sen. Cornyn (TX) on the DC Circuit Court

Open Email to Sen. Cornyn (TX):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I have listened to your video on Pres. Obama's proposed three appointees to the DC Circuit Court.
    Of the various US circuit courts, the DC Court seems to be one of the more important, considering the cases it handles. It is presently understaffed in number comparison with the other circuit courts, but it presently has only about one third the workload.
    You have suggested that since the other circuit courts seem to be over-worked, Pres. Obama's appointees should be directed to those courts rather than the DC Circuit. Pres. Obama and the Democratic Senators are opposed to this, since they would like to pack the DC court with Democratic judges, who will do the bidding of the Obama Administration.
    There must be Senate approval of Pres. Obama's proposed appointees. The present Senate rule is that 60 Senators must approve an appointment. The Senate can also change the rules, so that only 51 Senators would be required for approval. This would make approval of Pres. Obama's proposed appointees much simpler at this time, when the Senate has a Democratic majority. However, you have pointed out that a change in Senate rules for this situation would have subsequent ramifications when Republicans may have future control of the Senate. We will have to see how that plays out with Harry Reid and his Democratic Senators.
    In any event, I heartily congratulate you for your initiative and perseverance in taking on this particular project, especially when there are so many other items that need handling.

Affordable Boat Act

    One of our Political Advisers has written in "tongue-in-cheek" description of a fictitious Affordable Boat Act. It is as follows:

"Subject: The Affordable Boat Act"

    "The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The Affordable Boat Act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.
    This law was passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have an "affordable" boat of his own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat.
    If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees. In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.
    If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or cant afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment. Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat. A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or not healthy enough to be able to use his boat. They will also decide if your boat has out-lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat. Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat.
    Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment. Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.
    If the government can force you to buy health care [insurance], they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else.. Yea...it's that stupid."

Election Strategy for the Republican Leadership

Open Email to the Republican Leadership:

Dear Republican Leadership,
    Learn from history! We've just finished a gubernatorial race in Virginia. McAuliffe (Democrat) one with a vote of 47.9%. Cuccinelli (Republican) obtained 45.5% of the of the vote. Libertarian Sarvis obtain 6.6% of the vote.
    To develop a proper strategy for Republicans to win elections, we have to understand some of the basic characteristics of the electorate.
    Many voting Democrats are what Rush Limbaugh calls "low information voters". In other words, they are not concerned with the details of issues. They vote straight along party lines as Democrats. If Hitler were running as a Democrat, they would probably vote for him. They are unwavering in their resolve and are united by the party. A Democrat will vote for another Democrat at least 99% of the time.
    Conversely, Republicans tend to have higher education, which leads them to the deficiency of studying various issues. If the Republican Party seems to have an issue in its platform, which is contrary to an individual Republican's belief, he will relatively easily switch allegiance to a group which seems more amenable to his beliefs. The only other political party is Libertarian. Within the Libertarian group, many more have a Republican mindset than a Democratic mindset.
    The strategy for Republicans winning elections is then obvious. DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO AVOID HAVING A LIBERTARIAN OR ANY OTHER PARTY CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT. With only a choice of voting Democrat or Republican, Libertarians will usually vote Republican.    In the Virginia gubernatorial election, Libertarians obtained 6.6% of the vote. If there had been no Libertarian candidate, probably 80% of those people would have voted Republican. 80% of 6.6% is 5.3%. If you add that 5.3% to Cuccinelli, he would have had 50.8% of the vote. If you add the remaining 1.3% to McAuliffe, he would have had 49.2% of the vote. Cuccinelli would have won! 

Who Really Are Republicans and Democrats?

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    In recent years, we have had within the federal government some rather extreme differences of opinion on the responsibilities of the federal government and how it should operate. Democrats and Republicans are at extreme odds in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In addition, the Republicans are at extreme odds with the Administration, represented by Pres. Obama. Various terms, such as liberals, conservatives capitalists, communists, and socialists, are bandied about. In many cases, there seems to be no understanding of what these terms mean. We also have the case, where Pres. Obama has not declared himself with any particular designation, but has consistently claimed only that he is for change. He has also been consistent in applying governmental regulations consistent with change.
    It Is my intention in this writing to perhaps shed some light on the ideological beliefs of individual and group, through understanding the definitions of various political and economic terms. I concentrate on beliefs, because they are the controlling factors that lead to action.
    For starters, I will say that I am a liberal. With that statement, many will immediately also classify me as a Democrat, Communist, or Socialist. However, that is not the case.

LIBERALISM
     WordNet has two definitions for liberalism; a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution; and an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market. Many will jump on that to say that it sounds like capitalism.

CAPITALISM    WordNet says capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Well then, since I am a believer in private ownership of capital, it appears that my political and economic orientation is both liberal and capitalistic. With that orientation, I would obviously want my government run on the basis of private ownership of capital, reform by changing laws, in a society of free competition and a self-regulating market.

SOCIALISM    But what if I thought I was a socialist? WordNet says socialism is an economic system based on state ownership of capital. Since I believe in private ownership of capital, I obviously can't be a socialist.

COMMUNISM    What if I thought I was a communist? WordNet says communism is a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership and favors collectivism in a classless society. I don't understand "collectivism", so we check WordNet, which says it is a political theory that the people should own the means of production. Since I believe in private ownership of capital, I can't be a communist. I also don't understand "classless society". WordNet has no definition, so we go to Merriam-Webster. It doesn't define classless society, but does consider "classless" as not grouping people according to their social or economic level. This appears to mean that in Communism there are no well educated persons versus poorly educated persons nor rich persons versus poor persons. Again, since I believe educational level is based upon effort, which is variable among people, and also that persons should have an opportunity to become rich through their own efforts, I obviously can't be a communist.

    Notice that I have covered only liberalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism. I have up to now dodged the basic discord in the federal government, which involves conflict between Republicans, Democrats, and a basically non-defining President. We might then try to get some definitions for those groups to see how they might fit into any of our previously considered groups.

REPUBLICAN    WordNet says a Republican is a member of the Republican Party, but a republican (note lowercase) is also an advocate of a republic, which is a form of government. But, what is a republic? WordNet says that a republic is a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
   
DEMOCRAT
     WordNet says a Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party and an advocate of democratic principles. But what are "democratic principles"?. WordNet has nothing to say on that, but Democracy Web says . The rule of law could be defined as the subjugation of state power to a country's constitution and laws, which had been established or adopted through popular consent. The rule of law is the supreme check on political power used against people's rights. Without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts, democracy could not survive. Law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual.


        Well, that is a surprise. Here I am; now a Republican AND a Democrat, because I believe in "supreme power lying in the body of citizens who can elect people to represent them " and also "constitutional limits on power with adherence to the rule of law".
        But if US Republicans and US Democrats, have the same beliefs as the definitions, why are they at each other's throats? Perhaps it is because one or the other has changed its beliefs so that. It no longer conforms to the definition.

CHANGED REPUBLICANS?    Is it the Republicans who have changed?. It doesn't seem so. By their actions, they still seem to believe that "the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them". This translated means that the citizens hold the power and elect House Representatives and Senators to represent them. The Republicans do not seem to be doing a masterful job in representing the citizens, as they feather their nests for reelection, but it is an extremely difficult job, because of large divisions  in the desires of the citizens themselves.

CHANGED IT DEMOCRATS?     Is it the Democrats who have changed? It seems that it might be. By definition, they are supposed to advocate democratic principles, which are intimately tied into the rule of law. Remember also it is said that democracy could not survive without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts. The definition also said that law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual. As we look at the actions of Democrats, we see that they apparently turn a blind eye toward the Obama Administration's lack of law enforcement, such as immigration control. They similarly turn a blind eye toward Obama's various executive orders, the latest of which is forcing expenditure of taxpayer funds for protection against climate change and for which Congress has shown no similar agreement.

SUMMARY
     In summary, it appears that Democrats have changed their beliefs and actions over many years to arrive at a position which is now inconsistent with the original definition of a Democrat. In fact, the record shows that Democrats have moved toward an economic system based on state ownership of capital (Socialism) and abolishment of private ownership and the favoring of collectivism in a classless society (Communism).

What Motivates Obama?

     One of our Political Advisers asked me, "Why is the president trying to destroy the country? Did the free education he got help?
I replied as follows:

"I can only give you an opinion.
I don't believe that Pres. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the United States. He's doing so as a consequence of his pursuit to a higher order.
Pres. Obama is not a person of true American background, as are you and me
He was born in. Hawaii 1961. It was a mixed marriage, with his mother as a Kansan and his father as a Kenyan. The mother divorced the Kenyan in 1964, so that Obama had only three years of life with his father in Hawaii. Don't look at Hawaii in the context of tourism. It is a place of mixed social systems. Refer to the TV series "Hawaii Five O".
The mother remarried to an Indonesian in 1965, and Obama stayed with his mother's parents in Hawaii for two years. She brought him from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967. He was then six years old. In 1967, Indonesia was a third world country of significant poverty mostly populated with Muslims. His mother was presumably in Indonesia to "do good", since she later obtained a PhD in anthropology.
In 1971, after four years in Indonesia, he returned to the supervision of his maternal grandparents in Hawaii and entered a prestigious private school at the fifth grade level. Notice that he was then 10 years old and had spent those formative years in exposure to the problems of impoverished countries and the probable Communist/Socialist teachings of an intelligent mother.
I'll guess that his free education led him to the belief that he was lucky and realized that most people of the world are not so lucky, and he must personally do something for them. Unfortunately, this will require taking away much of the lifestyle of Americans to properly redistribute it to other peoples of the world."

National Security Agency (NSA) Procedure

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter concerning operations of the National Security Agency (NSA).
    You said you support programs that can detect impending threats to our homeland or diplomatic and military facilities abroad, but that we must strike an appropriate balance between remaining vigilant against terrorism and protecting the civil liberties guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution.

    Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly!
    However, when government does something, it usually does it to excess. The action of the NSA is a case in point.
    The NSA has no justification for collecting phone records of all phone calls of US citizens. Presumably, the NSA takes the attitude that every US citizen is a potential terrorist. While there is a semblance of logic in that position, it does not meet the logical standards of probability. For that reason, I am adding adamantly opposed to the NSA collecting telephone information, not only on me but every other US person in the US, unless the NSA has some other justification. "Other justification" could be information provided by foreign governments, by our own CIA through interrogation of known terrorist suspects, etc. In other words, collection of telephone information should be based upon the names of specific individuals, who are suspect and whose suspicion has been developed from other sources. Without that limitation, the NSA is imposing on the civil liberties guaranteed to the American people by the Constitution, and as a Senator you should be vigorously objecting.

Illegal Immigration

Open Email to Sen. Cruz (TX):

Dear Sen. Cruz,
    Thank you for your form letter on Immigration. You presumably sent this in response to something I had sent you, but I don't recall having written on immigration. However, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.
    It is interesting that for almost 200 years illegal immigration was not an issue in the US. Only within the last 10 years or so have politicians discovered that it can be used as a political tool to improve their chances for reelection.
    For most of US history, immigrants came to the US seeking freedom and prosperity, as you mentioned. Conversely, US immigration authorities worked on the principle of what the immigrant could contribute to the US. Did he have a job to go to? Did he have relatives or friends who would give him support? Did he have any other means of subsistence. Was he healthy enough to work? And, a few similar questions. People who looked sick, coughed, or had any other symptoms of disease were rejected, and that meant sent back to where they came from.    During some periods of US history, US immigration authorities also allowed a considerable influx of immigrants from a particular country, based on the fact that local conditions in their home country had changed to the extent that they were being persecuted. An example of this was the period of Cuban immigration, after Castro had seized power and established a socialistic government. Cuban immigrants at that time essentially met all US previous immigration qualifications. Your father was among them. He was never a drain on the US economy and made a valuable contribution to the US with your birth and education.
    Conversely, the political opportunism of Pres. Obama and Democrats has allowed entrance of a huge number of illegal immigrants to the US. Because they were not screened in the traditional manner, many of them are indigent in attitude and general mentality, although they were sufficiently physically capable to enter the US under subterfuge. Many also meet the traditional requirements for previous controlled immigration, even though they were not subjected to screening. This results in a mixed bag, with great difficulty in deciding what to do. We have a tremendous number on handouts and a tremendous number making contributions. While the balance is favorable to Democrats, because of previously mentioned votes, it is not good for the country.
    I agree with you on your opposition to Democrat generated immigration bills, which attempt to maintain for Democrats the probability of increased votes to remain in office. I also sympathize with you in your attempts to develop a workable procedure for the proper handling of illegal immigrants. I have no specific suggestions other than to point out that the main problem is the illegal immigration. Previous regulation of immigration worked satisfactorily for a great number of years. We only need to return to that and somehow eliminate the subsequent political adulteration which led to the poor situation in which we now find ourselves.

Al Qaeda in Syria

Open Email to Congress:

Dear Representatives and Senators,
    The Washington Times says Syria has become Al Qaeda's largest safe haven with more than 10,000 fighters. This provides Al Qaeda with a new base to attract recruits to its jihadist doctrine and from which to attack the US.
    For those who don't normally follow terrorist activities, I remind you that Al Qaeda is a political organization responsible for the 9/11 disaster in New York, which destroyed the twin towers and killed several thousand people. I specify "political organization", because it is not confined to the geographical boundaries of countries. It is a segment within many countries. Jihadism is a religious term, with various interpretations. Extreme jihadists have an objective to kill those who they believe are detrimental to Islam. Extreme jihadists are the fundamental part of Al Qaeda and a declared enemy of the US.
    Just why Syria has become a new home for Al Qaeda is not clear. We can speculate that they are being solicited by either the Syrian government or the rebels, or have just infiltrated in the vacuum created by the Civil War.
     Because Al Qaeda has declared war against the US by its physical actions, such as the 9/11 attack, the US must respond. It can do so by resisting any further attacks against US citizens in the homeland, and/or preferentially, it can attack the enemy at its sources. Al Qaeda bases exist in various countries. At each base, it has a physical collection of administrative personnel, training recruits, and weapons accumulation. The most efficient way to control Al Qaeda is at those sources. Let us also be specific, that in such control, the US would not be engaged in an aggressive war, but rather in defense.
     It is said that the US cannot properly engage in this war of defense because of self-imposed limitations. The US cannot use drones without violating Syrian acid-base and it cannot deploy special operations forces in the country without joining in escalating the war.
    That is so much baloney! Syria is in turmoil, but there are clearly two interested parties. The US must say to the existing Syrian government and to the rebels that it expects them to expel all Al Qaeda operations in Syria within a month. If the US determines unilaterally that that has not been done, it will use its own countermeasures of drones and special forces to do the job. It will in no way be involving itself in the Syrian Civil War, but will be attacking only criminal forces in that country, which it perceives are a physical danger to US citizens.
    In addition, this should be the US policy in its defensive war against Al Qaeda anywhere in the world. Any regime or rebel organization in any country containing an Al Qaeda group will be perceived as harboring Al Qaeda. However, the subsequent US action will not be against the harboring country or rebel group, but rather only against Al Qaeda.