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