No Nuke No More

News Flash: They are closing the San Onofre nuclear power plant for good.

While those farther that 50 miles from the plant have probably read the headline and passed on to more interesting articles in the newspaper, our left-of-left Senator, Barbara Boxer is doing a victory dance that would put most players in the NFL to shame. She is joined by most of those living in San Clemente -- especially those within earshot of the alarms that were going off at the San Onofre power plant. These would be the people whose already pricey home values just rolled up faster than the meter on a California gas pump.

Those on the political left and those on the right have historically taken opposite positions on the use of nuclear energy. As near as I can tell, the Left is populated with those who sleep with a night-light on in fear of monsters climbing from under their beds or out of their closets. They seem deathly afraid that nuclear plants are destined to one day shoot up giant mushroom clouds and irradiate or vaporize the neighborhood. The Right, on the other side of the coin, is all for essentially free energy.

While that is a simplified characterization of a deeply complicated subject, it is clear that both sides may have valid points. As of 16 January 2013, the IAEA report there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries. Of these, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009. The most prominent of these were Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986; Three-mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979; and Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

Although 99 out of 439 may not be terrible odds, the failures in these reactors can range from relatively benign, as in San Onofre, to catastrophic, as in Chernobyl, where human habitation may not be allowed for several millennia. That doesn’t necessarily mean all nuclear plants are fundamentally a potential disaster in the waiting. Since the first nuclear power plant went on-line on June 27, 1954, at Obninsk, USSR, there have been huge strides in scientific advancement of the technology of nuclear fission and the construction of safe power plants. Of the 99 failures, operator errors, shoddy materials, or faulty design of the plants caused most. Each failure resulted in advancing the design of safety features or procedures.

Apparently, San Onofre was the victim of shoddy material. Could replacing the defective and potentially defective parts have rectified the problem? The question is moot now. The plant’s owner, Southern California Edison grew tired of the approval delays and loss of revenue and decided to padlock the plant.

It’s not often that you will see me joining Barbara Boxer in celebrating any kind of victory in which she is involved, but I am anything but sad to see a nuclear plant shut down. No, I don’t sleep with a nightlight on. I am not even slightly concerned about the safety of the plants. My main concern is with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

When contained, nuclear energy appears to be “clean” and “free” energy. Folks, “free” energy ain’t exactly free, and it’s anything but clean. While most of the energy used on this planet comes either directly (Solar) or indirectly from the sun, nuclear and geothermal energy originate right here on Terra. Of these two forms, only nuclear fission produces waste that is seriously dangerous for thousands of years. It’s kind of like fly paper; once you touch, it you can’t get rid of it.

Although scientists and academics are hard at work on solving the waste problem, we still wind up burying the spent fuel in bunkers underground. And while some greedy operators make money shipping this deadly cargo to third-world countries, others put it right in our own back yards. As far as I’m concerned, this is totally unacceptable. Until they come up with a reasonable plan to dispose of nuclear waste, I will be joining Barbara Boxer in a victory dance every time they shut down another nuclear reactor.

Sovereignty be Damned!

Obama is at it again. This time he is illegally signing his name as President of the United States to a UN agreement that is not only not consented to by the Senate, but was twice rejected by that august body. I am referring to the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (otherwise referred to as ATT). An agreement that potentially could relinquish the rights of this sovereign nation as defined in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution to the whims and fancies of the United Nations.

I say this is illegal because Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

According to reports http://www.infowars.com/obama-to-sign-u-n-firearms-treaty-rejected-by-senate/:

On March 23rd, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment to prevent the U.S. from entering into the treaty. It passed by a vote of 53 to 46.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced another amendment to ensure “that the United States will not negotiate or support treaties that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States.” This amendment passed in the Senate by a voice vote.

Does this sound like consent to you? Maybe he doesn’t think this applies to him as spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” There is still a huge question of his eligibility under this clause. (Until this has been completely settled, you will not see me refer to Mr. Obama as President of the United States. I generally call him the imposter-in-chief. Yeah, I’m a “birther.”)

I am writing this column on the 1^st of June. Mr. Obama said he intends to sign the treaty on Monday the 3^rd of June. If he does sign the treaty, he could easily be removed from office under impeachment for violation of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 6. “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’.” He will have clearly violated the oath of office – which he took twice  -- by not defending the Constitution as well as illegally signing the United States to a treaty without the consent of the US Senate.

There are those who will say I’m just biased. True, I not only don’t like the guy, I even campaigned against him. But the law is the law, and it is unequivocally spelled out in the Constitution. It remains to be seen, though, if the Senate will now have enough guts to take impeachment proceedings against Obama. The guy is slippery as taking a fresh caught Bullhead catfish off the line and just as dangerous to handle.

The Nonsense State of California

If anyone doubts that Democrats are knee-jerk reactionaries, they need only look at California for assurances. Our Democrat super-majority passed no fewer than ten Senate bills and five Assembly bills to chip away major portions of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Does anyone doubt that the head Democrat, Gerry Brown will sign these into law? If you voted for these people, shame on you.

Not one of these bills will make even the slightest difference in gun related crime. On the contrary, these bills will make criminals of those already legally in possession of weapons intended for self-protection, home protection, hunting, and sport shooting.

There is not a single bill related to curbing the violent tendencies of those with the mindset to create carnage. Recently in England -- a country with incredible gun control -- a Muslim radical hacked to death a decorated soldier in the streets of London and proudly made a video of it. There was not a gun in sight, only kitchen knives, and a meat cleaver.

On April 11, Dylan Quick allegedly stabbed more than a dozen people at a Houston-area college. He told investigators that he had fantasized about cannibalism and necrophilia and about cutting off people’s faces and wearing them as masks, according to a court document made public. Quick also told an investigator that he had researched mass stabbings on his home computer about a week before the attack at Lone Star College in Cypress, Texas, according to a search warrant affidavit. Again, there were no guns used in this attack.

If you bother to Google “Knife Attacks”, you will come up with page, upon page of hits for reported carnage perpetrated by people who can only be described as criminally insane. Yet their weapon of choice was not a firearm, it was a knife. You can find similar results for just about any other potential weapon, from baseball bats to golf clubs to hammers.

Are these attacks less heinous than those involving firearms? No, they are just not sensational enough to be as widely reported. Democrats, always hungry for anything to control, seem to inevitably glom onto sensational news reports with instant legislation, often without much forethought other than to make a name for themselves as being concerned. They seldom seem to take into account the overwhelming mass of people who would never even think of committing a crime or act of aggression with any type of weapon.

With fifteen anti-gun bills on the Governor’s desk, it is obvious that this is not about public safety. It is about legislators making a name within their party for creating legislation – any kind of legislation – related to a sensational news event. Will this legislation prevent or even hinder criminal action? Not very likely. Is this even well thought out legislation? Definitely not! Not a single piece of this legislation addresses the mental state of a person likely to commit a grievous act of violence. Does any of this legislation provide additional security at venues where a mentally deranged shooter might visit? No on that account too.

What these fifteen pieces of thoughtless legislation will do is make instant criminals of those of us who now own firearms or gun components named in the bills. There are no provisions for “Grandfathering”. You can either turn in your possessions without compensation or risk going to jail. Of course, before our Democrat Governor signs the bills into law, you can always find a “gun buy-back location” and get a chit for something at the supermarket. Maybe you could use it to buy a six-pack of beer to ease the pain of trashing a weapon you paid hundreds for.

To those who voted for this super-majority, don’t complain when they do to you rather than for you. You voted for them; now reap what you have sown. As for me, I will be looking for property in a state where reason prevails.