Open Letter to Governor Baker on Modernizing Nuclear Power

October 13, 2015

Dear Governor Baker,

I have been so pleased with the progress you’ve made this year to confront dysfunction within the MBTA and DCF. It is incredible how much room for improvement remains in Massachusetts government.  I am writing now about legislation (Bill S.1965) you introduced to facilitate the delivery of hydroelectric power from Canada in order to comply with CO₂ reduction targets mandated by the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) of 2008, particularly in light of the announced 2019 decommissioning of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant.  The GWSA targets CO₂ emissions cuts of 25% from 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

I hope you succeed in setting an example in Massachusetts for clean energy generation, but I urge you to focus on modernizing nuclear power instead of emphasizing solar, wind, hydro, and other “designer” energy sources that amount to less than 10% of our electricity portfolio. Consider that a single 43-year-old nuclear power plant still supplies Massachusetts with about 20% of our electricity demand. Nuclear power should remain prominent on the energy roadmap towards reliable and affordable energy, lucrative jobs, and energy independence. Unfortunately, I have not heard of any plans to replace the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, much less plans to modernize and expand nuclear power.

Furthermore, nuclear is the only viable technology that could feasibly and quickly supplant fossil fuels as our primary electricity source if Global Warming alarmists are correct about the threat of CO_­2 emissions to society.  Being overly reliant instead on intermittent wind and solar power generation would be a real disservice to future generations.  Aside from the crippling costs, it would require smart meters and an additional brigade of government bureaucrats to devise and run a price and tax structure to match usage with supply. The additional subsidies needed for families unable to afford the higher rates would be compounded by fewer job opportunities and lower pay resulting from the higher costs of doing business in the Bay State.

Please consider a leadership role in the modernization of nuclear power for our state and our country.

Sincerely,

John Lock

Donald Trump for President

Consider some of the issues in play this election season:

(Listed in the order of my priorities)

1. Illegal Immigration / Securing the Border / Eliminating Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Aliens and Tourists
2. The Runaway National Debt
3. Unsustainable Entitlements, esp. Social Security
4. Low Workforce Participation (combination of job market and welfare abuse)
5. Second Amendment Rights
6. Tyrannical Environmental Agenda of the Left
7. Military / Iran Deal / Conflict in the Mid East (Downgraded in urgency somewhat so long as Putin stays on the scene to hit ISIS)
8. Mass Data Collection (HUD, NSA, IRS, ... ) / Privacy
9. Tax Reform / Kill the IRS
10. Repeal and Replace ObamaCare
11. End CommonCore
12. Late-Term Abortions / Planned Parenthood

All of these issues will eventually have to be addressed if we hope to reverse the transition of our country from a Constitutional Republic to an Open Border, Equal Outcome Welfare State.  The problem is, no candidate is going to realistically address all of them.  A candidate that does set out to address every issue will get nothing accomplished well.  

Therefore, it's critical that we select a candidate that will genuinely tackle the most critical issue of our generation!

I believe that if we don't get a handle on illegal immigration, very few of the other issues matter.  When I first heard of the Leftist project to Turn Texas Blue, I figured they were embarking on a campaign to win over Independents. The most nefarious scheme I would have attributed to the project was an expansion of welfare programs in Texas to recruit more voters to the Democrat Party through dependence on the government. I never suspected that the plan was to open the Southern Border and simultaneously sue the state for implementing Voter ID laws intended to guard the integrity of the ballot box! If Texas, with its 36 electoral college votes, ultimately turns blue, it will signify the end of an opposition party to the Democrats' Socialist agenda. It would be check mate for the Equal Opportunity, free market founding principles of our country.

Only Trump has made illegal immigration his signature issue, which explains much of his strength in the polls.  I question whether any other candidate in the race has the fortitude to actually build a wall on the Southern Border, expand deportations of illegal aliens, turn off the job and welfare magnet for illegal immigrants, and force adjudication on whether birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment extends even to illegal aliens and tourists.  I have little doubt which way the Leftist Progressive courts will rule on the issue of the 14th Amendment.  Then it will be time to push for an additional amendment to clarify that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States refers to people with allegiance to the US who are here legally and permanently - not anyone who finds themselves within our borders regardless of their intent.

Some principled Constitutionalists and Conservatives that I admire greatly will recoil at my endorsement of Donald Trump.  They will recite numerous Liberal positions that Trump has held relatively recently on key issues, including single-payer healthcare and gun control - positions on which I believe he has had a change in heart. (See http://johnlockforarticlev.blogspot.com/2015/08/donald-trump-candidate-of-wakeup-crowd.html)

Regardless, I am not supporting Trump in hopes that he will save the Constitution from its erosion by the Left, but in the hope that he will reassert our borders and sovereignty so that a Constitutionalist after him, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, will have a country again where our founding principles can be reestablished. 

Moreover, if Trump can deliver to the GOP the multitudes that he's already brought to this primary process, this Wake Up Crowd is much more likely to stick with a Republican successor of Trump in numbers far greater than Cruz or Paul can muster today.

When you select your candidate, don't pick one that best overlaps with your views on every issue. Instead, pick the two or three issues that are your highest priorities and choose the candidate that will deliver on those issues with all of their might. As Trump recently said in an interview, it doesn't matter what the 12th Step of your plan is - no one ever gets to the 12th Step.

And by all means, don't pick an Establishment GOP candidate that only brings bipartisanship rather than opposition to the Equal Outcome Agenda of the Democrats and Cheap-Labor Chamber of Commerce.

Donald Trump - The Candidate of the Wakeup Crowd

Most objections I hear from long-time Conservatives about Donald Trump’s ascendancy in the polls concern his former ties to Democrats and his past liberal positions on major issues like healthcare.  As a recovering Left-leaning, that is, anti-Bush, Independent, I think I understand not only Trump’s transformation, but that of many of his supporters.

Trump has supported a slew of despicable Democrats, including Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Anthony Weiner. He explains that this is part of running a multi-billion-dollar nationwide empire. To be sure, he has made contributions on the Republican side of the aisle, too.  I suspect that his contributions were not motivated by allegiance.  I think he is like many Independents and didn’t care for either party!  I am even more convinced that this is the case after seeing a story attacking Trump for not voting in the past six Presidential primaries. 

As far as his liberal policy positions in the past, I attribute those to being in line with politically correct, purportedly sophisticated and open-minded arguments espoused by intellectual NPR commentators and reputable network media, i.e. the mainstream media (MSM). Until the end of the Bush presidency, MSM policy positions were seldom disputed by professional, polite society guided by compassion, inclusiveness, and a conscious effort to avoid any negative observations that could implicate race, gender, sexuality, etc. stereotypes. Casting aside the bonds of political correctness is a very awkward transition for professionals and people in the public eye, like a gay person coming out to their friends and colleagues.  It takes compelling reasons and a confidence in your new positions that are suddenly at odds with many of the people in your professional and personal networks.

Mortgage subsidies, TARP bailouts to Wall Street, and the Cash for Clunkers stimulus for automakers precipitated the Tea Party movement in 2009. Welfare fraud was also becoming more and more overt, or maybe I was just starting to notice. However, the Tea Party couldn’t break though the MSM portrayal of the group as fringe and racist.  The Benghazi lies and IRS targeting leading up to the 2012 election exposed serious duplicity by the Democrats and the MSM. The White House spokesman became as blatantly unrealistic as Baghdad Bob.  What were the Republicans yelling at the top of their lungs? Wake UP! Well, many were beginning to and what they saw of the Republican Party was more of an accessory than an alternative to the increasingly un-American Equal Outcome Democrat party.  In 2013, the bipartisan Gang of Eight Bill allowing illegal aliens to stay with little hope of a secure border was narrowly defeated.  Then they watched in horror as the new Republican Senate majority funded Obama’s edict giving legal status to some illegal immigrants and as they abdicated their say over the Iran and Trans Pacific Partnership deals, both of which could turn into disturbing precedent for U.N. supremacy over Congress.

I believe it is these transgressions against the Constitution coalescing the Wakeup Crowd. This contingent supports Trump for bucking political correctness and for being a true alternative to political hacks.  They’ve seen how Trump fires Apprentice candidates in the boardroom and have little doubt that he would run a tight ship in the Oval Office, too. What has become abundantly clear is that no course correction will occur with an Establishment candidate from either party. If such a candidate wins the GOP nomination, the Wakeup Crowd will either stay home or vote third party in protest for the general election.

Consider that all presidential candidates have achieved the American Dream one way or another. Once elected, they legitimize that path for others and even give material support to the stepping stones they took. Earlier Presidents gained their prestige by excelling in the military. Most modern presidents came either from Congress or out of the Governor’s mansion of a state, making a political career the ultimate path to success. For Obama, that path was community activism, which has expanded greatly under his tutelage. Just look at Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and the “out-of-town” rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore. We should expect more of the same from a President Warren given her background. For Trump, it would be something new in modern history and more in line with the American Dream envisioned by much of the Wakeup Crowd: hard work and achievement.

What I find remarkable listening to the various GOP candidates and pundits is how much they are capitulating to the Democrats relative to the Wakeup Crowd.  Even on existential issues like immigration and government spending, the Establishment GOP has adopted virtually the same positions as the Democrats in a vain effort to attract rival voters.  What the Establishment doesn’t understand is that the Wakeup Crowd is onboard with the GOP only so long as it provides a platform for defending American values and prosperity – not only in campaign promises, but in action. It’s not for crony corporatism that they are sticking around. The Establishment candidates are the frogs that have been in the GOP pot the whole time it has slowly been heated up by DC’s departure from American values and the Constitution. The Wakeup Crowd is not coming in just to change drivers in DC. They are coming in to correct course.

A Response to Ed Lyons's Essay on the GOP

Ed Lyons's Essay: https://medium.com/@mysteriousrook/the-party-of-charlie-baker-c5e6c2de1625

I was very impressed with Ed's analysis on the state of the GOP and agree with many of his points, but take issue with several of his recommendations for the party moving forward.  I especially disagree with his view that the GOP should adopt the Democrat positions on the "25% issues" of gay marriage, abortion, immigration, man-made climate change, and gun control.  By 25% issues, Ed is saying that a significant majority of the Massachusetts population has settled on the side of the left and the conservative take on these issues will never win in Massachusetts.  While I agree with that conclusion, I contend that we must be more creative at finding compromise positions that accommodate both sides of the spectrum and do not completely alienate social conservatives in the party.

Gay Marriage:
I agree that there is no going back on gay marriage and see no reason why gay couples should not have the same right to the pursuit of happiness that straight couples have. However, the equivalency of gay and straight marriages has resulted in Catholic adoption agencies closing shop and has forced merchants to service gay weddings that they religiously oppose.  Tolerance should go both ways.

I agree with the libertarian approach to the issue of gay marriage: get the government out of marriage all together.  All marriages, gay and straight alike, should be legally converted into civil unions for the purposes of taxes, legal contracts, property rights, etc.  Couples that want the sanctity of marriage should get that in a church.  There are numerous denominations that welcome gay marriage while other denominations do not. Furthermore, churches should be able to use their own interpretation of marriage when making policy for church-affiliated entities like adoption agencies and schools.

Abortion:
I think the bill being considered in Congress that bans most abortions after 20 weeks is a reasonable compromise that gives women the option of terminating unwanted pregnancies up until the point that a fetus can feel pain and soon becomes viable outside the womb. With so many people on either extreme of this issue, a compromise seems the only reasonable solution.

Immigration:
Open borders in a welfare state are simply unsustainable. The GOP should take this issue by the horns and reframe it as Border Security Reform rather than Immigration Reform. Once the borders are secure and our visa laws are being enforced, then we can decide who stays.  But laying out the Welcome mat at a time of massive government debt, low labor participation rates, and stagnant wages makes no sense for the well-being of American citizens and there is no reason for the GOP to take up harmful Democrat policies that only strengthen their hold on power at taxpayer expense.

Man-Made Climate Change:
Neither stance on man-made Global Warming has been proven no matter how fervently people on both sides state their case.  It's by no means "settled science". However, there are policies the GOP could advance that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We should champion the advancement of nuclear energy technology, retrofit existing nuclear power plants, and build others. Nuclear power is the most abundant source of electricity that generates no CO2. In any case, the existence of man-made global warming is uncertain enough that it does not warrant drastic new taxes on "carbon". These new taxes would simply grow government coffers and would have a negligible effect on global climate. Too many of our tax dollars go toward negligible improvement of one problem or another.

Gun Control:
With the exception of certain lawbreakers who should be banned from owning firearms, I think people should have the basic right to defend themselves and their families. The extent to which people are allowed to possess firearms in public I think is a reasonable area of local debate. There is a strong case to be made that concealed weapons being carried by individuals trained in their use make their surroundings safer from the threat of an armed assailant.

* * * * *

The Democrat advantage in Massachusetts is remarkable. Richard Tisei could have beat John Tierney but couldn't come close as soon as a less contemptible Democrat made it through the primary. Charlie Baker barely eked out a win despite Martha Coakley's low popularity and numerous gaffes during the campaign. In most of Massachusetts today, a Democrat has to lose for a Republican to win.

I am encouraged by the job Charlie is doing penetrating the urban communities and I hope the GOP succeeds in winning over more minority voters. The difference between Democrats and Republicans, in my opinion, is Equal Outcome vs Equal Opportunity and we have to take that message to as many people as possible. The media certainly isn't going to be of any assistance.

As Ed says, there are numerous other fronts, aside from the 25% issues above, where the GOP can distinguish themselves from Democrats: education, privacy, and others. I think it's crucial that the GOP maintain an alternative to the Democrats on these fronts and advocate for local decision making rather than centralized control by the Feds. The danger of appeasing the left on these issues is that the distinction between the Democrats and Republicans becomes less clear - and then who gets to 51% just doesn't seem as important anymore.