

**A Vision for 21** st **Century America**

by Thomas W. DePaepe

On why we need a national effort to safeguard Western

Democracy, and to protect it from our greatest threat since

Communism, namely Radical Islam.

COPYRIGHT 2013 THOMAS W. DEPAEPE

SMASHWORDS EDITION

License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free e-book. Although this is a free book, it remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy online. Thank you for your support.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1 What's Energy got to do with It?

Chapter 2 North American Oil and National Gas - The First Steps on the Road to Energy Independence

Chapter 3 Alternative Fuels - The Future Source of American Energy

Chapter 4 A New U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda - Relating to Radical Islam

Chapter 5 Our Utility Companies will not need to Use Fossil Fuels to Generate Electric Power in the Future

Chapter 6 Homes and all other Buildings will not be Consuming Fossil Fuels by the End of the 21st Century

Chapter 7 Can we create a Transportation Industry that does not depend on Fossil Fuels in the 21st Century?

Chapter 8 Why is Energy Independence so important to our National Security?

Chapter 9 A Visionary Government has always been important for the growth of America

Chapter 10 Why is Radical Islam the Greatest Threat to Western Democracy since 20th Century Communism?

Chapter 11 How can we fulfill a Vision for 21st Century America?

Conclusion

Introduction

At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States stood as the only remaining superpower. We had successfully moved from a Cold War economy to a diversified civilian economy. We were able to reduce the size of our military because our arms race with Russia had ended. We also encouraged the growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web by not over- regulating nor taxing Internet service. These measures, along with affordable personal computers, caused a commercial revolution in this country and around the globe. The combined result of reduced government spending and increased commercial activity on PC's via the Internet created an economic environment that allowed our federal government to balance its budget in the last years of the 20th century.

In fact, things were going so well in America at the turn of the century that George W. Bush ran for president in the year 2000 on a platform of reduced personal income taxes and less government regulation of business. He believed that the resulting growth of U.S. businesses and the corporate tax revenues this could generate would offset the reduction in personal income taxes and continue to grow our economy. Of course, corporate America embraced this idea, and corporate money poured into his presidential campaign.

George W. Bush was subsequently elected, and America looked forward to a 21st century of growing prosperity. The Bush tax plan was passed, and America looked for that extra personal income to be spent on the expansion of U.S. business. Unfortunately, the president was less than nine months in office when the unimaginable occurred and altered the course of American history.

On September 11, 2001 Islamic terrorists with the support and leadership of Al-Qaeda successfully hijacked four American commercial airplanes, and three of them hit their targets. Two of them destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, and the third crashed into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania, despite the heroic efforts of the passengers and the flight crew to regain control of the aircraft.

This was the first time since World War II, that the United States had been attacked on its own soil. But on that day, in September, 2001, no nation claimed responsibility. And no nation declared war on this country. In fact, Osama Bin Laden issued a videotape and claimed that his organization, namely Al-Qaeda, was responsible for the attacks on the United States of America. At that time we had no choice but to declare war on Al-Qaeda in particular and Islamic terrorism in general.

Consequently, we have embarked on two wars since then. The first was in Afghanistan, which overthrew its Taliban rule, and led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden and many of Al-Qaeda's top men. The second was in Iran, where Saddam Hussein was supporting and training terrorists.

In light of these historic events, we Americans must ask ourselves two very important questions. How have terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hezbollah in Lebanon been able to rise to their positions of political power? And secondly, what can the United States do to successfully defend itself from this threat to our freedom and democracy?

In the following chapters of this book, I will show that the so-called radical Islamic movement is a well-defined political power, and that where it can gain control of a nation, it will govern like the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There will be no freedom and no democracy in countries that will be ruled by radical Islam. If we are to have a vision for our future in this country, I believe that we must take the threat of Islamic terrorism as seriously as we dealt with the threat of Communism in the 20th Century. I will also unveil a vision for 21st Century America that I believe will continue to make the United States the best democracy in the world.

CHAPTER 1

What's Energy Got to do with It?

Everything.

The modern society we live in today depends on energy to thrive. Our railroads, airplanes, ships, trucks and cars all depend on oil for power. Electrical power, whether it comes from coal, natural gas or nuclear energy, allows us to have all of the modern conveniences we enjoy at home, at work and at play. Heating, air conditioning, telephones, televisions, computers and all of our appliances depend on electricity to operate. If the electricity to your home or business goes out, nothing works unless it has backup battery power, or you have a generator that can produce electricity to power everything. Without energy life as we know it today would cease to exist.

Without energy we would be forced to live in the 18th Century world that the founders of this country lived in, or worse. Without abundant supplies of energy we will not be able to sustain and grow our modern American society. So any vision for America's future security and growth must include a plan to develop North American energy resources.

Why North American energy, you may ask? Because in the second half of the 20th Century the United States and Europe became dependent on Middle East oil to power a significant portion of their economies. This resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from the western democracies to the oil rich countries.

To get the oil out of the ground and to refineries and then into tankers that would transport it to the West, American and European oil companies were allowed to operate in these countries. The oil companies had the technology and financial resources to do the job. At first, the oil rich countries were eager to allow the West to move in and begin exporting their oil. These countries were economically poor. They knew that selling their oil and natural gas to the West would bring wealth and prosperity to their nations. It could vastly improve their way of life, bringing their societies into the 20th Century.

Unfortunately, their way of life and ours are very different. By allowing large numbers of Americans and Europeans into their countries to develop the oil fields, they became exposed to western culture.

Some of these oil rich countries became fearful that they would be taken over by the West. So in the interest of their own security many countries nationalized their oil industries. And then to consolidate power, they formed OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Who could blame them? They just wanted to govern their countries, and protect their way of life.

However, the OPEC nations really wanted more than that. With massive wealth and control of their oil industries, they wanted to be recognized as a collective world power. These nations thought that by controlling the output of oil, they could control its price globally. So in 1973, OPEC voted to reduce its supply of oil by limiting production. This action was so successful that it resulted in what was called the Middle East Oil Embargo here in the United States. For the first time since World War II, we had gasoline rationing in this country.

Gasoline stations across the U.S. were limited in their supply of fuel by the refineries, because they just did not have enough oil supply to meet the demand for gasoline in this country. In order to conserve fuel our government mandated a 55mph speed limit on our interstate highway system. And long lines of cars formed at and around gas stations to buy what limited amounts of gasoline that were available. My local service station was so limited by decreased supply, that it only pumped gas from 7:00 am until 10:00 am, even though they were open from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm at the time. On some days they even ran out of gasoline before 10:00 am.

In line with the laws of supply and demand, gasoline prices rose in the U.S. and Europe, and the price of a barrel of oil rose globally. When gasoline prices here reached 50 to 60 cents per gallon, OPEC increased oil exports. They were satisfied that they were getting a fair price for their oil, but we were hit by increased prices. So we were faced with the need to increase oil production here in the U.S. We initiated government incentives for oil companies to produce oil from the Alaska pipeline and by off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and along the California coast. By the end of the 1970's the international price of oil had stabilized. But the U.S. and Europe were then and still are now, net importers of oil.

Naturally, political tensions arose between the western democracies and the OPEC nations. In fact, political tensions also arose among some of the OPEC nations themselves. Iraq and Iran went to war with one another. This war posed a threat to Middle East oil exports. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates became fearful that this war would threaten the shipping of oil through the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Since the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were long-time allies, we were encouraged to increase our naval presence in these waters to insure that oil exports from the Middle East would continue to flow to the international markets. Our naval presence was effective. Oil supply from the Middle East was not disrupted.

However, our increased military presence so angered many in Iraq, Iran and as far away as Libya that these nations sought to eliminate the U.S. influence in their regions altogether. Iran was the first nation to achieve this goal, when in 1978 they overthrew the Shah of Iran, severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. and held 56 U.S. citizens hostage.

We attempted a limited invasion of Iran to rescue the hostages, which failed. But when Ronald Reagan was elected president, the Iranians feared that the U.S. would mount an all-out invasion, taking the country over and freeing the hostages. So they released the hostages. But they also rid themselves of U.S. influence and proceeded to create a government headed by a religious leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

In my opinion, the success of the Ayatollah in Iran inspired Muslim religious leaders across the Middle East to exert more political influence within their nations. To date, the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have all risen to political power in their respective countries. This could not have happened without the support of the faithful in their mosques. Muslims are expected to donate between 2.5 and 10 percent of their income to the mosque. As the incomes of Arabs in the Middle East rose, the wealth of the Imams heading the mosques rose also. And money in the Arab world is power.

For instance, in Saudi Arabia the Wahhabi became it's most powerful religious sect. They now head most of the mosques there. They have not become powerful enough to challenge the Saudi monarchy for leadership like the Ayatollah has in Iran, but they were powerful enough to persuade the monarchy to allow them to take over the educational system in that country.

What, you may ask, has all this got to do with America? Well, when it comes to terrorism, the answer is plenty. Many of the Arabs involved in the 9/11 attacks on our country were from Saudi Arabia. Although Osama Bin Laden's family is originally from Yemen, his father accumulated the family wealth doing massive construction projects in Saudi Arabia. The Bin Laden family was moved to Saudi Arabia, and the children, including Osama, were raised and educated there, in the Wahhabi educational system.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the Iraqi army stationed itself along Kuwait's border with Saudi Arabia, the Saudi monarchy allowed the U.S. military, with the support of a United Nations referendum, to occupy the northern regions of their country. From there we were able to invade Kuwait. And in the military operation called Desert Storm, we defeated the Iraqi army, and drove them back to Iraq.

Although most countries in the region were relieved that we had stopped Saddam Hussein's plan for expanding Iraq, some people were not happy. In fact, some Muslims were outraged. They were not angered about the military success of Desert Storm, however. They were upset by the fact that the United States military had occupied Saudi Arabian soil. Osama Bin Laden was one of these Muslims. They believed that the western "infidels" had no right to be a military presence in the heart of Islam.

And so, Osama Bin Laden motivated by his hatred for the U.S. formed Al-Qaeda, using his estimated 250 million dollar inheritance to recruit hundreds of Islamic radicals from places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Afghanistan. We all know the outcome of the formation of this radical Islamist group. These terrorists attacked America on 9/11/2001 killing nearly 3000 civilians. Because Osama had a share of his family's wealth, combined with a charismatic leadership personality, and the religious zeal of a fanatic; he was able to build the most feared terrorist organization in modern times. But his family's wealth would not be Al-Qaeda's only source of income. Money came from wealthy Arabs and Imams who shared his views. So where did all this money come from in the first place? It came from the U.S. and Europe, who were buying Middle East oil.

The significant point is this. By relying on Middle East oil imports to power our economy, we inadvertently empowered the radical Islamist movement. These militant groups are now exerting their influence in Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan; not to mention some of the nations in the former Soviet Union. The Middle East was one of the poorest regions in the world before oil was discovered there. Now it has some of the richest nations on earth. And much of that wealth has been poured into the radical Islamic movement that is now terrorizing western democracies.

In my opinion, North America, Europe and even Russia should eliminate their imports of Middle East oil and natural gas. This would significantly decrease the flow of money to these militant groups. In so doing, we might be able to stem the growth of Islamic terrorism. At the very least, it would bring energy independence to the western democracies, and it would protect us from any possible future OPEC oil embargos. There are also at least two other benefits that can be derived from a movement toward energy independence. First, it would improve national security. And second, it would increase employment in our energy and transportation sectors. This will definitely insure 21st century economic growth for America.
CHAPTER 2

North American Oil and Natural gas - The first step on the road to energy independence.

The known oil and natural gas reserves in the U.S. must be developed if we are to reduce our dependence on imports. We need to allow drilling in Alaska and along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Over the past three decades the oil and gas companies have vastly improved the safety and efficiency of their drilling operations. New drilling technology has significantly reduced the risk of oil spills. We should allow it to be used now to reduce our demand for foreign oil and to increase employment in this country.

Environmentalists will oppose this measure, citing the potential damage to our wildlife and our seashores from oil spills. But in U.S. history, we have only had two major oil spills. The first was the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill along the Alaskan coast. Today we could open regions in northern Alaska to oil drilling for known reserves and mandate that this new oil be moved through the Alaska pipeline. The mandate would eliminate the threat of another oil spill on Alaska's coastline. The more recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a far more tragic event. That well was one of the deepest drilling operations ever attempted in the Gulf. The valve system used to contain the oil and gas at those depths was not strong enough to withstand the pressure. When the system failed, there was an underground natural gas explosion, that the valves could not contain. The natural gas explosion reached the drilling platform, killing eleven workers.

Before the well was successfully capped, the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida Peninsula were flooded with oil. As damaging as this oil spill was, BP was able to clean it up and financially compensate the businesses directly affected within two years. An investigation into this incident revealed that BP willfully ignored high gas pressure readings that were coming from the well site. And in the interest of cost savings, they gambled on using lower pressure shut off valves. They also took shortcuts in the construction of the well casing in the interest of saving time and money. It cost BP 23 billion dollars to cap the well, cleanup the Gulf coast and provide financial compensation to businesses that lost income as a result of the spill. In addition the U.S. government's Department of Justice filed a criminal lawsuit against BP. This lawsuit was settled in November of 2012. BP was found guilty of criminal negligence in the construction of its well. It also pleaded guilty to a charge of involuntary manslaughter. BP was fined 4.5 billion dollars to settle this lawsuit.

Furthermore, the guilty plea to manslaughter charges opens the door for surviving members of the victim's families to file wrongful death lawsuits against BP. And the federal government has yet to determine the amount of oil that was spilled in the Gulf. BP will be fined for each barrel of oil spilled. Current estimates of the volume of oil spilled in this incident put the cost of this fine in the range of 20 to 30 billion dollars. By the time everything is settled, BP will have paid out in excess of 50 billion dollars for having caused this oil spill. The Gulf oil spill has shown us that oil companies can safely develop deep-sea oil wells with existing drilling technology. The point I am trying to make is this, the BP oil spill would not have happened if the company had used the appropriate equipment to develop this well. It also demonstrates the need for more government oversight of off shore drilling operations. So even though these oil spills caused environmental damage, they were successfully cleaned up. And the shores, wild life, and businesses in Alaska and along the Gulf coast have come to flourish once again.

When it comes down to oil production, we have an important decision to make. Which is the greater risk, environmental damage from an oil spill or Islamic terrorism's continued rise to power? The answer is simple. The radical Islamist movement is the greater threat to our democracy and our national security. But if we can stop importing oil from the Middle East, we will stop American dollars from going into the coffers of Al-Qaeda and other extremist organizations. It will also send a strong message to the countries in the Middle East and North Africa. We will be telling the governments in that part of the world that we are no longer willing to support their way of life. How these countries will react is, of course, uncertain. What is certain is that they will have important economic, political, and religious decisions to make regarding their future. It will help us put our future in our own hands, and it will force the governments in North Africa and the Middle East to seriously consider what kind of future they wish for themselves.

Now we need to look at natural gas. In the past decade, horizontal drilling and fracturing underground shale to release natural gas have allowed this industry to open vast reserves in the U.S. We now have a huge surplus of natural gas in this country that we did not have ten years ago. Some experts have said that the United States is now the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. This fuel is so plentiful that it is selling here at below $4.00 dollars per thousand cubic feet. In contrast, Europe must import its natural gas at a cost of around $16.00 dollars per thousand cubic feet.

Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. And here in the United States it is also the least expensive fossil fuel. Utility companies in this country are steadily increasing their use of natural gas for electrical power generation. It helps them meet environmental pollution requirements and is more economical to use.

Even our transportation industry is coming to realize that natural gas is a better fuel alternative than diesel fuel for powering large trucks and buses. Clean Energy Corporation is a company that builds and operates natural gas filling stations for semi trucks. In the early part of 2012, they contracted with Chesapeake Energy, a major natural gas supplier to build 100 of their fueling stations along our east coast. With that contract as a catalyst, this California based company now plans to have a network of natural gas truck stops connecting our Interstate Highway System by 2014.

This new natural gas fueling network will allow our trucking industry to move away from expensive diesel fuel made from oil and into cleaner and less expensive natural gas. There is, however, one potential economic drawback for the trucking industry. The current natural gas fuel storage system being used on semi trucks costs about thirty thousand dollars more per truck than the existing diesel fuel storage system. But there are at least three ways that our federal government can help the trucking industry overcome this economic hurdle. First, they could charge a significantly lower tax on natural gas than they are currently charging for diesel fuel. Second, they could allow the trucking companies a tax credit for buying the natural gas storage system. Or third, they could allow the trucking industry to rapidly depreciate their new trucks, allowing them to recapture their increased upfront cost quickly.

If our federal government in cooperation with private industry can convert our semi trucks from diesel fuel to natural gas, the environmental and economic impact for our country will be huge. We will have cleaner air than we do today, because natural gas burns cleaner than diesel fuel. We will also be building more natural gas pipelines and truck stops. Thousands of construction workers will be needed to build this new fuel network. And we will be consuming less oil in the U.S. In time, all of our large trucks and buses could be fueled by natural gas.

If our federal government would take the lead in implementing this approach to oil and gas use, we could be well on our way to energy independence by the year 2020. The benefits to this country would be many. We could have cleaner air, more employment, a stronger economy, and more income tax revenue for our government. This approach would not only have a beneficial impact in North America, it would have an international impact as well. Were Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. to establish a fossil fuel trade pact, North America could provide all of its fossil fuel needs by 2020. In fact, the continent of North America would become potential net exporters of coal and natural gas.

North American natural gas exports will increase the international supply of this fuel. This would put downward price pressure on the commodity. encouraging places like Western Europe, England, Japan and South Korea to increase their imports of this fuel for electrical power generation. Japan, in particular, has announced that it will be phasing out all of its nuclear power plants. They will need to replace these facilities with power plants that consume fossil fuel to generate electricity. Our coal and natural gas will be Japan's preferred alternatives. Germany is also shutting down its nuclear power generators. They will probably replace this electrical power source with natural gas, because they can be easily supplied with this fuel from Russia. But if relations between Germany and Russia were to sour, Germany could rely on North American natural gas to meet its needs.

But that's not all folks! Our ability to supply Western Europe with a reliable source of natural gas can help them reduce their demand for imported oil. Europe's transportation industry will be watching the U.S. as we move away from diesel fuel into natural gas. At some point, they will want to make this conversion also, because it will reduce their oil imports, and because natural gas is a cleaner fuel alternative. When Europe can be assured of a stable supply of natural gas from Russia, the U.S. and Canada, it will make the conversion. And if Russia became the major supplier of European oil, both North America and Europe would no longer be importing Middle East oil. In effect, the western democracies would be telling the Middle East that they will no longer support, nor sanction the growth and intrusion of radical Islam in the free world. We could also reduce and possibly eliminate our military presence in the region. We would no longer need to protect the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz from a potential oil export blockade by countries like Iran, because we would not be depending on that oil to fuel our economies. This may also reduce tensions between the U.S. and the Middle East.

So far, we have only discussed the potential future use of oil and natural gas. There is a third fossil fuel that we have in abundance, namely coal. But this fossil fuel is presently at an environmental disadvantage. It is not as clean as natural gas, when the utility companies burn it to generate electrical power. And until the coal industry can come up with a combustion and pollution recovery system that can compete with natural gas, coal will not be used to grow our electrical power generation grid. But coal is a very rich source of carbon, and carbon is becoming an important industrial commodity.

New carbon fiber technology is now being used to replace steel and aluminum in two areas of the world economy. The first area to recognize the benefits of using carbon fiber was the auto industry, initially in auto racing. Two racing venues, Formula 1 and Indy Cars, recognized that carbon fiber chassis and body panels were lighter and stronger than steel and aluminum. These two racing organizations proved that carbon fiber could make cars lighter, stronger and safer than cars made with metal components. In the past decade GT Prototype race cars like the ones racing at Le Mans and in the 24 Hours of Daytona have also been produced from carbon fiber. Exotic sports cars like Ferrari are now using carbon fiber in some of their models. And the auto industry has already moved away from steel to make car bumpers out of organic compounds. As the cost of producing carbon fiber decreases, and the demand for greater fuel economy in standard production cars increases, carbon fiber parts will be in demand. Car hoods, fenders, doors and trunks will replace steel and aluminum, making cars safer and more fuel efficient

The latest industry to recognize the benefits of carbon fiber is the airlines. They have a strong desire to have carbon fiber replace aluminum in the construction of mainframes, wings and even the skins of airplanes. The motivating consideration is weight savings. Since carbon fiber is stronger and more importantly, lighter than aluminum, large weight savings can be realized from building a "carbon fiber airplane", and lighter airplanes use less fuel.

So to meet this demand, Boeing designed and is building and selling the first "carbon fiber airplane". It is the Boeing 787 Dream Liner. I hope that as Boeing profits from the sale of these planes, it will invest in the design and development of a "carbon fiber airplane" that will replace its current midrange aircraft; the Boeing 737.

If the coal industry is paying attention, it will begin to do the research and development necessary to extract carbon from coal. As an industrial commodity, this carbon can be used to make carbon composite materials. And these materials will be used in cars, trucks, airplanes and appliances like refrigerators, stoves and clothes washers and dryers. So although coal may have a limited future as a fuel, it may have a very bright future as a commodity.

Fossil fuels can provide for our current energy needs. But they are finite resources. Once they are used in the combustion process, they decompose and cannot be recycled. Unlike plastics, glass and the metals, once fossil fuels are burned they are gone. At some point in the 21st Century the supply of fossil fuels will be greatly diminished. For instance, even given our huge natural gas reserves, it is estimated that the U.S. has about a one hundred year supply of this fuel. In addition, the short term demand for oil will increase as countries like India and China purchase more cars and trucks. But new oil fields are getting harder to find, and the oil that is being discovered is mostly offshore, which makes it more expensive to capture and transport.

Given this well-known oil scenario, we can expect the price of oil, gasoline and diesel fuel to continue to rise. At some point in the last half of the 21st Century, countries that import oil to be used as a fuel will find the increased cost to be prohibitive. They will demand vehicles powered by more cost effective alternate fuels. What are these fuels? And how can America use them to power our economy throughout the 21st Century and beyond? Let's move on to the next chapter and find out.
CHAPTER 3

Alternative Fuels – The Future Source of American Energy

Alternative fuels like hydroelectric power, solar panels, wind turbines and steam generated in nuclear power plants are all being used to generate electricity in the United States. These "green technologies" are environmentally friendly, because they do not release pollutants into the atmosphere. And they will be able to provide us with the electricity we will need from our utility companies as fossil fuels become less available.

But what alternative fuels will we be able to use in our cars, trucks, trains and airplanes? At first glance, we have to say that none of the above mentioned alternative fuels will be used by the transportation industry.

The good news is that the first phase of replacing fossil fuels with alternative fuels has already begun in the transportation industry. In the United States and Brazil respectively, ethanol is being produced from corn and sugar cane to replace gasoline. Brazilian cars can run on 100% ethanol and some U.S cars can run on a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Also, some energy companies have begun operating pilot plants that use algae to produce a type of oil that replaces diesel fuel. Only time will tell if we can produce enough ethanol and biodiesel to replace gasoline and diesel fuel refined from crude oil.

Meanwhile, our government and the auto industry have been working together to reduce the amount of gasoline we use in our cars. Our government recently mandated a fleet fuel efficiency standard of 54.5mpg for cars beginning in the year 2025. Auto manufacturers are already headed in that direction. They are building hybrid vehicles that operate on a combination of gasoline and battery power. Some of the hybrid cars produced in 2012 can claim highway mileages of 40mpg. These cars run on gasoline until their batteries are charged. Then the gasoline engine shuts off and the car runs on an electric motor, powered by the batteries.

The newest version of the hybrid car is the Chevy Volt. The battery system in the Volt is charged by plugging it into an electrical outlet. The car can be charged in your garage and driven on battery power over a certain range. Then the gasoline engine takes over. The car only runs on gasoline until you recharge it. This car will most likely meet the 54.5mpg fuel efficiency standard.

But there is an even better alternative energy car on the horizon, one fueled by hydrogen! Toyota has announced that it will begin selling its Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle in 2015. Remember that Toyota led the way in manufacturing hybrid cars, when it introduced the Prius in 1997. Toyota is a leading hybrid car producer, selling four models of the Prius today. General Motors, Honda and Mercedes are developing and field testing their versions of the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle. But none of them have announced plans to begin selling them at this time. They express concerns about fuel cell cost, and the lack of hydrogen fueling stations as major drawbacks to putting their cars on the market. Toyota, however, sees things differently. They point out that Japan, South Korea and California, which is planning to have 68 hydrogen fueling stations operating by 2015, will provide them with an adequate fueling network to sell their cars in these areas. So Toyota will once again lead the way to marketing and selling a new alternative energy vehicle.

But what is a hydrogen fuel cell? And why are auto manufacturers spending research and development dollars to build cars using them? First of all, the hydrogen fuel cell in some respects is like a car battery. But in one very important area it is quite different. Car batteries get their energy from an alternator, which operates to charge the battery when the car is running. The car battery then supplies power to the starter motor and ignition system to run a gasoline engine. Fuel cells use hydrogen to generate electricity, which powers the car's electric motor. No gasoline engine required! In simple terms, a hydrogen fuel cell brakes down hydrogen into protons and electrons. Protons are positively charged particles, and electrons are negatively charged. When these particles are moved through the fuel cell properly, they generate an electric current. This current is then directed to the electric motor, which runs the car. After these hydrogen ions have generated current, they are combined with oxygen from the air to form water. This water becomes the cars exhaust, which now in the form of water vapor, enters the atmosphere. And this is why the auto industry wants to build hydrogen fuel cell cars. These vehicles will not consume fossil fuels, and they will not pollute our atmosphere! The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle will become the 21st Century's car of the future. And executives and engineers at companies like Ford, GM and VW agree with me. They foresee their cars selling in the American market as early as 2020.

I am not going into the engineering development or the sophisticated technology involved in manufacturing these vehicles in this book. But for those of you who are interested in finding out more about the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, I suggest that you visit your local library and also do a Google search on Hydrogen Fuel Cells. The point I am trying to make here is that in the next 20 years, we will not need to use oil in the form of gasoline to power our cars.

If Europe also adopts the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle, together we will have made a huge impact on the global economy. The oil exporting countries will be faced with a decreased demand for their oil unless India and China increase their imports to drive gasoline powered cars. But what if these two nations also decide to move forward with Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology? It is conceivable that the oil exporting nations will become the major users of their own oil. By 2050 they may no longer be exporters of oil at all. Russia has its own oil, and South America can now produce enough oil to support itself. And as Brazil continues to produce ethanol from sugar cane, other South American countries will follow suit, making South America energy independent in its transportation sector. South America also has natural gas to power its electrical utilities and if electrical power demand increases, they could use American coal to fuel future power plants. In effect, both North America and South America can become energy independent from the rest of the world.

The increasing wealth that the Middle East enjoys today will be curtailed. And the amount of money available to support radical Islam will be significantly diminished. The loss of oil export revenues in the Middle East will reduce radical Islam's ability to infiltrate and attack the free world. In this future 21st Century world, we could develop a foreign policy agenda that can defeat radical Islam. This new policy might differ greatly from the one that the United States, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan and in alliance with NATO, used to defeat Russian communism and dismantle the USSR in the 1980's. But I believe a new foreign policy agenda, regarding radical Islam, can be equally as effective. There is one very important common element in this foreign policy agenda, money. If we can reduce the amount of money that the Middle East earns from its oil exports, we will also be reducing the amount of money that they can spend on building an offensive military force.
CHAPTER 4

A New U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda – Relating To Radical Islam

In the 1980's, we were engaged in the "Cold War" with China and the Soviet Union. But China, faced with internal economic problems, chose to opt out of the "Cold War". They began spending more on their civilian economy and less on the military. In effect, China began withdrawing from the "Cold War", leaving the United States and the USSR to play out this dangerous game. Both countries were spending huge amounts of money for national defense. But the USSR did not have an economy as large as the USA's economy. So by trying to keep up with the United States, Russia was going bankrupt, and this economic crisis resulted in political turmoil. The net result was the end of communist control in the country, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, all of the countries in Eastern Europe and Asia that were under the communist control of the Soviet Union were free to establish their own governments. And they did so, many of them forming democracies.

The political situation in the Middle East and North Africa is quite different from the one that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. But there is one similarity that these regions do share with the former Soviet Union. And that is political turmoil. From Libya in North Africa to Afghanistan in the Middle East, the oil exporting nations have been dealing with political turmoil since the 1970's. That is when OPEC began exercising its power over the international oil economy. In that decade Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Moammar Kadhafi in Libya, and Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran rose to power. And since then the region has become a hotbed for war and terrorism.

In the 1980's Iraq and Iran went to war with each other. And Russia launched its unsuccessful invasion of Afghanistan. In the 1990's Iraq invaded Kuwait, which resulted in the war known as Desert Storm. And in the past decade, we were involved in the U.N. sanctioned war to overthrow the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That war was also an attempt to bring down Al-Qaeda. Even though Al-Qaeda still exists today, we were able to find and kill its leader, Osama Bin Laden, and many of the key men who were involved in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And there was also our invasion of Iraq, which overthrew Saddam Hussein's military dictatorship. Since 2010, Egypt and Libya have staged revolutions, overthrowing their military dictators. And Syria is trying to do the same thing today.

Over the past four decades the Middle East and North Africa have had more wars and revolutions than any other region on earth. And the main reason the United States has become entangled in these upheavals is our need to import foreign oil. If North America becomes an energy independent continent, the U.S. will be able to develop a new foreign policy agenda with the nations of North Africa and the Middle East. I hope that our new foreign policy with these nations will be based on mutual respect. Simply stated, nations that respect our values and our sovereignty will become our allies. Countries who do not will be our enemies.

In fact, we could begin implementing this foreign policy approach today. The nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Libya already qualify as allies. We can establish foreign trade agreements with these nations, wherein we would protect their oil exports to our shores with diplomatic and military support. In exchange, these countries could allow our technology companies to help them start up manufacturing industries. Something like this will be mutually beneficial. We would be importing their oil, and they would be diversifying their economies. And as these nations begin manufacturing products, they will need to educate their people in the fields of science, engineering, computer programming, patent law and business. A growing manufacturing economy will produce a higher standard of living and an improved quality of life for these nations.

These nations will also be intolerant of radical Islam. For instance, Saudi Arabia has already taken this position. In the 1990's they forced Al-Qaeda out of their country. Osama Bin Laden and his men were exiled to Sudan. Libya is moving in the same direction. Since NATO and the U.S. aided in the overthrow of the Kadhafi dictatorship, the new government in Tripoli has shown that it wishes to be aligned with the United States and Europe. Our diplomatic corps, and especially our former ambassador, had been warmly received throughout the country. Our ambassador was cheered and applauded wherever he traveled in Libya. The Libyan people were expressing their gratitude for the part the U.S. played in helping them achieve freedom. But with the demise of the Kadhafi regime and its army, radical Islamic militias have been able to form in the eastern part of the country. One of these militia groups attacked and destroyed our embassy facility in Benghazi on 9/11/2012, killing our ambassador and three other members of our diplomatic corps. The Libyan government is making a concerted effort to capture these terrorists and bring them to justice. I hope that Libya will develop an army that is strong enough to rid itself of these radical militias. Here we have another opportunity to gain an ally. The U.S. and NATO could provide training and military support for this army. That would go a long way toward establishing an alliance between Libya, Europe and the United States.

If the Western Democracies form alliances with countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, we would be sending North Africa and the Middle East a strong message. The rest of the nations in the region will come to realize that the kind of relationship they will have with the West will depend on whether they reject or embrace radical Islam.

Once these nations make their choices, we will be able to interact with them in political and economic terms. And this is a foreign diplomacy arena that we are very familiar with. We have been involved in this kind of diplomacy since World War II. We will be able to recognize those nations that embrace radical Islam from those who don't. This will effectively place radical Islam outside of the religious realm, and put it into its true perspective. That it is a theocratic political movement which intends to rule nations in North Africa and the Middle East.

We don't know how these nations will develop politically. But depending on the political model each nation chooses, they will know, and we will know, where they stand with respect to Western Democracy. When some of these nations follow Iran and try to form political theocracies, we will see an international political drama developing that will resemble the "Cold War". But instead of Communism versus Democracy, this New Cold War will pit Islamic Theocracies against Western Democracy. Given this New Cold War over political ideologies, North America, South America, Europe and Russia will need to become energy independent, if they want to gain an advantage over radical Islam.

We are already seeing this scenario being played out in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, and even in Egypt. I don't know how the political situation in North Africa and the Middle East will evolve. But I do know this. Radical Islam will need lots of money, if it is going to overtake and govern nations in the region. And the less money the oil rich countries get from exporting oil to the United States and Europe, the harder it will be for radical Islam to achieve its goals.

The Middle East will still be able to export its oil and natural gas to the rest of the world even if the U.S. and Europe no longer import from there. This includes the two most populated countries on earth, China and India. In the short term, the oil and natural gas exporting nations in Africa and the Middle East will continue to increase their wealth. In the long term, however, their oil and natural gas reserves will be diminished to the point where they will have to cut back exports. They will need to do it in the interest of supporting their own economies. And if they want to continue to grow both politically and economically, they will have to diversify their economies. If they move into the manufacturing and service sectors to diversify, they will need to generate more electrical power than they are using today. This will put upward price pressure on both oil and natural gas. How can the United States react to a situation like this? Can we afford to use oil and natural gas as primary energy resources that will support and grow our economy? I don't know the answer to these questions. But I do know that we need to research and develop more alternative energy sources that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
CHAPTER 5

Our Utility Companies Will Not Need To Use Fossil Fuels To Generate Electric Power In The Future.

We know that fossil fuels are finite resources. If we continue to burn coal , oil and natural gas to produce the energy that powers our transportation and electrical generating industries, at some future date we will run out of these commodities. So if we want to continue to live in a modern society, we must develop alternative energy sources to replace the fossil fuels. If we are unable or unwilling to do this we will enter a period of cultural and economic decline. Our standard of living will need to be adjusted downward, if we can not or will not generate alternative energy supplies that will keep up with our energy consumption.

In the transportation industry, even if we operate our cars, SUV's and light trucks with Hydrogen Fuel Cells, our boats, trains, semi trucks and airplanes may still need diesel and jet fuel to power them. In the electric utility industry, we will probably be using a mix of natural gas, clean coal, solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power plants to meet our electricity needs. We can continue to increase our use of solar and wind energy to reduce the amount of clean coal and natural gas consumed for electric power generation. But we will not be able to build enough solar panels and wind turbines to completely replace coal and natural gas. That is because these technologies provide intermittent power to the electricity grid. Solar panels only produce electricity when they have sunshine, and wind turbines only produce power when the wind blows. Unless we can research and develop new alternative energy resources, we will need to build more nuclear power plants to replace our existing coal and natural gas facilities.

From a scientific point of view, nuclear power is the best alternative energy resource available to replace the fossil fuels for electric power generation. It is the cleanest and most efficient way to produce electricity that we know of today. So why haven't we been building more nuclear power plants in America?

Here's the answer. There arose a societal resistance to nuclear power plants after the Three Mile Island power plant had to be shut down in 1979. Even though no damaging levels of radiation were released from the plant, and the remaining plant continued to operate, Americans developed a negative attitude toward nuclear power. This resulted in a 25 year long moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants in this country. Only in the past 5 years have some utility companies sought approval and funding to build new nuclear power generating facilities. So what happened?

During the 1940's, 50's and 60's, we developed the most advanced and safest nuclear facilities in the world, under the regulation and oversight of our federal government's Atomic Energy Commission. But then the government decided to consolidate all of its energy related branches into a Department of Energy. So the Atomic Energy Commission was absorbed into this new government entity. At the same time, we needed to address environmental issues relating to air and water pollution. The pollution of the Love Canal near Buffalo, New York, and acid rain damaging trees in New England became key events, which ultimately led to the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. In order to fund this new agency, the government cut budgets in other departments, one of them being the Department of Energy. Since acid rain is known to be caused by air pollutants that come from coal and gas power plants, the EPA was charged with regulating the emissions of our utility industry. Our priority changed from energy production to emissions regulation. And the budget cuts within the Department of Energy led to less oversight of the energy industry by this department. And utility companies became lax in the maintenance of their facilities, focusing mainly on reducing air pollution to meet EPA regulations. But the EPA was only regulating fossil fuel burning power plants. Nuclear power plants were nonpolluting entities. And faced with budget cuts, the Department of Energy decreased its manpower accordingly. As a consequence, nuclear power plants were inspected less frequently. And I believe that this was the major factor that allowed the Three Mile Island incident to happen.

Now, four decades later, we can no longer consider ourselves to be the world leader in nuclear power generation. France has assumed that position. So what have the French done to achieve this status? Well, first of all, they kept their version of our Atomic Energy Commission intact, maintaining strict oversight of their country's nuclear power plants. And then they addressed the nuclear waste problem.

Nuclear fuel rods made with enriched uranium are the engines that power a nuclear reactor. But over time, these fuel rods lose their power and become contaminated with lower atomic weight particles, which occur when uranium decomposes. So these fuel rods need to be replaced over time with new ones to keep a nuclear power plant in operation. The spent fuel rods become a waste product of the process. And we have been trying for decades to find safe places to store this nuclear waste in America. France, however, decided to take a different approach to this problem.

The French decided to try to reclaim the spent fuel rods. They built a facility that removed most of the contaminants from the spent fuel rods. And then they enriched them again with new uranium, so that they could be used over and over again in their power plants. This recycling program has been highly successful in France. The amount of waste left over in this process is only about 5% of the volume of a nuclear fuel rod. And France has found safe ways to store this much smaller amount of nuclear waste material.

Our federal government should begin doing the same thing here in America. But, because we are a much larger country than France, we should consider building two of these recycling facilities, one in the eastern part of the United States, and one in the west. They should be located on government land, insuring federal government control and protection of these facilities. Once the sites have been approved, funding and construction can begin. In conjunction with this nuclear recycling project, we should resinstate the Atomic Energy Commission to provide regulation and oversight for the operation of these facilities. The commission should also be involved in the enrichment, transportation and replacement of the recycled fuel rods. In this way, we can insure the safety of our nuclear power plants, and the American people will once again gain confidence in the nuclear power industry.

I believe this will be the case for two reasons. First, Americans are very concerned about nuclear contamination and nuclear waste. Once the government builds and safely operates a fuel rod recycling program, the public concerns about contamination and waste will no longer be an issue. And second, if our government and the utility companies educate the public about the advantages of safely growing the nuclear power industry, it will be accepted as an alternative energy resource for the future.

So let's explore the advantages that nuclear power has an alternative energy resource. First of all, when a nuclear reaction is started in the nuclear reactor core, the primary by product of this reaction is heat. This heat is directed toward water lines, and the water in these lines is converted to steam. The steam, under high pressure, is then channeled to turbines, which start to rotate. The rotating turbines are connected to generators, that produce electricity. After the steam passes through the turbine blades, it is cooled and becomes water again. As the steam is cooled to become water vapor, some of it is released into the atmosphere. This reduces the pressure in the cooling system, allowing the water vapor to condense into liquid water once again. So in a nuclear power plant we have a system, which heats water to produce steam. The steam drives a generator that produces electricity, and then the steam is cooled down to become water again. Scientifically, this is the cleanest and most efficient system that we have available today to produce electricity.

Second, if we adopt an energy policy using nuclear power, solar panels, and wind turbines to generate our electricity, we will have solved the electrical power generation problem. And in all likelihood we will be able to stop using coal and natural gas as fuels in the second half of the 21st Century. These commodities can then be used to manufacture carbon composites and synthetic polymers, which can then be used in manufacturing. And if we are wise, we will recycle these products, preserving our reserves of oil, coal and natural gas for other uses. But even if we stop using coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity, we will still be consuming huge amounts of two of these commodities to fuel semi trucks, boats, trains and airplanes.

But there is one other sector of our society that can become independent of fossil fuel energy. And that sector is our building industry. Homes, factories, retail outlets, commercial and government buildings, and office complexes will not need to use fossil fuel energy in the future, if our utility industry uses nuclear power, solar panels and wind turbines to generate electrical power. We will discuss this revolutionary transition in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 6

Homes and all other Buildings will not be consuming Fossil Fuels

**by the End of the 21** st **Century.**

As the utility companies move to eliminate coal and natural gas power plants, our housing construction industry will follow suit. New homes will be using electricity as their primary energy source, and many of them will have solar panels installed on their roofs. The solar panel system will reduce the homes' electric consumption. And if electric storage batteries are also added, these batteries will store electricity that can be used if power outages occur.

The main reason electricity will replace natural gas is cost. It costs thousands of dollars to permit and then run a natural gas tap from a gas main line into a home. Additional cost savings will be passed on to the homeowner in the form of reduced insurance premiums. Natural gas is a much higher insurance risk than electricity. If a natural gas leak occurs in a home, the gas will build up inside, and a spark can ignite the gas. The result is an explosion that will severely damage or completely destroy the house. Given this risk, insurance companies charge a higher premium for homes using natural gas. And if the homeowner decides to use the cost savings incurred by not using natural gas and has a solar panel system installed instead, they will be paying less for their electricity.

Another benefit to the homeowner is the heating system. Forced air natural heating systems heat air and then blow the heated air throughout the house. These systems are noisy and they don't distribute heat evenly. Some areas of the home will be cooler, and some areas will be warmer. Electric heating systems generate radiant heat. When they are properly designed and installed, these systems heat the house evenly.

So future housing will be built only using electricity and solar power. And existing houses will be retrofitted with radiant heating systems and solar panels. One hundred years from now very few, if any, homes will be using natural gas for heating and cooking.

Why, you may ask, will existing homes be converted from natural gas to electricity? Once again, the answer is cost. Remember, natural gas is a finite resource. Energy analysts have estimated that we have about a one hundred year supply of natural gas reserves in this country. The accuracy of these estimates may be questionable. But one thing is certain. Natural gas reserves will diminish. And as available supply decreases, the cost of natural gas will increase. At some point in this century, natural gas will become more expensive to use than electricity. The increasing cost of natural gas will be a big incentive for homeowners to convert from gas to electricity. In time, gas water heaters, gas stoves and gas forced air heating systems will be replaced by their electric powered counterparts. One hundred years from now very few homes will be using natural gas for heating and cooking. And then gas water heaters, gas stoves and gas furnaces will be replaced with their electric counterparts. .

All other buildings in the U.S. are commercial, manufacturing, warehousing, and government facilities. The majority of these buildings have flat roofs, and the rest are skyscrapers. Flat roof buildings are ideal structures for incorporating solar panel arrays on top of them. These buildings have a large roofing surface area in square feet relative to their internal volume in cubic feet. Solar panels on the roofs of these buildings will generate substantial electric power to be used for lighting, office machines and even hot water. And in some cases they will generate enough electricity to partially operate heating and air conditioning systems.

Office buildings, shopping centers and warehouses will benefit the most from installing solar panel systems on their roofs. There are several reasons for this. First, these buildings are open for business mostly during day light hours. With the exception of shopping centers, these businesses are closed at night. So, in off business hours, these buildings only require supplemental electricity for heating, lighting and air conditioning. Secondly, these businesses have low hot water usage. In most cases, these businesses can replace their natural gas hot water heaters with on demand electric water heaters. As we move forward into the 21st Century, the cost of solar panels will come down and the cost of natural gas will go up. At some future time these two energy products will reach a cost crossover point, i.e. natural gas will become more expensive to use than solar power. And so, just like housing, these businesses will convert from gas to solar.

All other buildings in this country can be classified as high- energy use flat roof buildings and skyscrapers. High- energy use businesses are primarily factories, hospitals and hotels. Skyscrapers may or may not have flat roofs. But their roof size is so much smaller than the buildings volume, that virtually no benefit can be derived from installing solar panels on top of them. Because of their unique design and high- energy use, we will address skyscrapers in a class by themselves later in this chapter. One thing all of these buildings will have to deal with, however, is fossil fuel consumption. As the cost of using fossil fuels increases, all of these buildings will need to replace their fossil fuel systems with alternative energy systems before fossil fuel reserves are totally depleted.

The first thing that came to my mind, when I looked at flat roof buildings, is that they all have huge asphalt paved parking lots around them. These parking lots and the vehicles parked in them absorb sunlight and become very hot when the sun is shining. I'm sure that all of you have gone shopping and parked in an unshaded parking space and later returned to a very hot car on a sunny day. These businesses could build covered parking for their customers and employees, and then install solar panels on the roof. Just go to your local shopping center, park your car and look around. You will notice that the parking lot is about the same size as the buildings that are in it. And in some cases the parking lot is even bigger. So, by building covered parking with solar panels on the roof, these shopping centers could at least double the amount of electricity they generate. They would also reduce their maintenance costs on the parking lot in the areas of repainting parking spaces, asphalt resurfacing and snow removal. And finally, they would improve their customer service profiles. Customers would not have to return to hot cars on sunny days, and they and their purchases would be protected from rain or snow when the weather is inclement. I chose shopping centers as an example of how to produce more electric energy in flat roof complexes because most of you can visualize this business environment. But the same concept can be applied at factories, warehouses, office complexes, hotels and hospitals. So in the future most of our homes, businesses and government buildings can and will be powered by electricity from utility companies and solar panels. And those facilities that require backup electricity to function during a power outage, like hospitals, will be using bio-fuels instead of diesel fuel to power their electrical generators.

Now let's look into skyscrapers. These buildings pose unique problems, when it comes to energy consumption. First of all, because of their design and construction, these buildings do not lend themselves well to the installation of solar panels. In fact the only area of a skyscraper that can effectively employ solar panels is the unshaded east and south facing wall of the building. Even if that portion of the building is completely solar paneled, it will only produce enough electricity to provide energy for lighting, and maybe for the partial operation of office machines like computers and copiers. But the primary use of fossil fuels in skyscrapers is for heating and air conditioning. These buildings use huge amounts of natural gas to heat and cool them today. In fact their daily fuel consumption is comparable to what a freight train, a commercial airliner or a submarine will use on a daily basis.

I mention the submarine for a very specific reason. All of our submarines in military use today are powered by nuclear reactors. The heat generated in these reactors is used to convert water into steam. The steam is funneled to turbines, which begin to rotate. The rotating turbines drive generators, which produce electricity. These nuclear reactors are much smaller than the ones used by the utility companies. They are small enough to fit into a skyscraper. They can replace the fossil fuel heating system in existing skyscrapers. And these reactors are powerful enough to provide a skyscraper with all of its energy needs. So in the future, skyscrapers can choose this approach or rely on the utility companies for their electrical power. In either case, skyscrapers will be able to operate without fossil fuels.

I do not expect most commercial skyscrapers to install their own nuclear power plants. But there are government facilities, and perhaps a few commercial enterprises, that will go nuclear in order to be independent of our electrical power grid. That is because the electrical power grid is vulnerable to cyber attacks and sabotage. So, key government facilities, our stock markets and our financial institutions will need to seriously consider the nuclear option unless other alternative energies can be found to replace the fossil fuels.
CHAPTER 7

**Can we create a Transportation Industry that does not depend on Fossil Fuels In The 21** st **Century?**

By 2025 most, if not all, of the cars, SUV's and light trucks in this country will be either battery powered hybrids like the Chevy Volt and the Toyota Prius, or they will be powered by Hydrogen Fuel Cells. The auto manufacturers will need to do this in order to meet the EPA fuel efficiency standard of 54.5 mpg beginning in that year. And Hydrogen Fuel Cells will power all of these vehicles eventually. So at some point in the 21st Century, cars, SUV's and light trucks will no longer run on gasoline.

The rest of the transportation industry, including semi trucks, boats, construction equipment and airplanes will still be operating with diesel fuel, natural gas and jet fuel. Semi trucks and construction equipment can and will run on natural gas, our cleanest and most plentiful fossil fuel. We should be able to rely on natural gas to power these vehicles throughout the rest of the 21st century. Meanwhile, energy companies will be working to develop bio-fuels that can replace natural gas, as our reserves of this commodity run out.

What about the rest of the transportation industry? Are there alternative fuels available that can replace diesel and jet fuels? Diesel fuel is used primarily in the shipping and railroad industries. An alternative energy technology already exists that can replace diesel fuel in these industries, and that alternative energy is nuclear power. Nuclear reactors have been used to power our Navy's aircraft carriers since 1975, when the USS Nimitz was commissioned into service. The USS Nimitz was the first of ten nuclear powered aircraft carriers that the Navy built and has in service today. These are by far the largest ships in the world, and their load carrying capacity is easily twice that of most ocean going vessels. These aircraft carriers use two pressurized water reactors to power them. But the vast majority of commercial ships at sea will only need one of these reactors to power them. The only other ships that might need to use two reactors are the oil carrying super tankers. As North America and Europe become independent of Middle East oil, the need for super tankers will decline. They could become the dinosaurs of the oil transport industry. Smaller nuclear powered tankers will probably replace them.

Our federal government can share this technology with American ship builders, and insure regulatory, operational and maintenance oversight for these ships through the U.S Navy and a reinstated. Atomic Energy Commission. And if we also build the nuclear fuel rod recycling facilities that I have proposed, we can provide replacement fuel for these oceangoing vessels.

Since our government will have responsibility for the nuclear portion of these ships, it stands to reason that these vessels will be built in U.S. shipyards and will be registered with the USA as the country of origin. A plan of this nature will revive America's long neglected commercial ship building industry, creating thousands of high paying jobs. And we would not only be a naval superpower, we would also become a ship building superpower.

Inland ships and boats are much smaller than oceangoing vessels. So they will not be able to take advantage of nuclear power. Cargo carriers, barges and recreational boats will probably need to depend on natural gas, diesel and bio-fuels to power them. Hopefully, bio-fuels will become plentiful enough to ultimately replace natural gas and diesel fuel before our reserves of oil and gas are exhausted.

The railroad industry is the other sector of our transportation economy that consumes diesel fuel. Railroads were first developed in Great Britain after the steam locomotive was invented. The first working steam locomotive was built in Britain in 1804. And rail lines were built to carry coal from mines in Wales to factories in England. Steam locomotives powered these coal trains.

The United States began developing steam locomotives in 1829, when the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad built the Tom Thumb. This locomotive was named for its small size, and weighed less than one ton. It demonstrated that a steam locomotive's traction worked on steep, winding grades, and therefore could be used to power a passenger train carrying up to 36 passengers. After that the U.S. railway system developed rapidly. Railroads replaced horse drawn vehicles for long distance hauling and public transportation. Railroads became the first land based transportation industry in our modern era, and steam locomotives were the drivers of this industry.

In the 1930's, the first diesel electric locomotives were placed into service in America. And by the 1960's, the steam locomotive was replaced by diesel engines. These locomotives had several advantages over steam engines. They were cleaner than the coal burning steam locomotives. They were also less complicated to operate. And they didn't need to replace the water that steam engines used to generate power.

But with the invention of steam driven nuclear power generators, we can once again return to building steam locomotives. Yes, nuclear reactors can be used to replace diesel engines in railroad locomotives. We can design and build nuclear reactors that are approximately the same size as the reactors now being used in our nuclear submarines. These reactors will fit into today's diesel electric locomotives, and they will produce comparable electric power. The heat from the reactor will transform water into steam, and the steam will propel the locomotives turbine electric generators. The electricity generated will power the motors that drive the locomotive's wheels just like a diesel electric engine does today.

Amtrak passenger trains will only need to use one of these nuclear powered steam locomotives. The number of locomotives needed to drive a freight train will depend on the trains length and weight. And that is how freight trains are assembled today. Consequently, the railroad industry will just replace diesel fuel with nuclear steam power. Some of the steam will be exhausted into the atmosphere to allow for the engines condenser system to produce water vapor. Then the water vapor can be cooled enough to become liquid water that can be used once again to produce steam.

We can operate our railway system without diesel fuel in the future. But if we are going to do this, the federal government must take the lead, allowing locomotive manufacturers to design and build nuclear powered steam engines.

So far, we have shown that railroads, ocean going ships and smaller transportation vehicles like cars, SUV's and light trucks will be able to operate without using fossil fuels. The rest of our transportation industry includes semi trucks, buses, farming, mining and construction equipment, inland boats and ships and airplanes.

Where will the energy come from to power the rest of our transportation industry? The most promising source of alternative energy for these transportation sectors seems to be bio-fuels. Corn and sugar cane are bio-fuel plants that produce ethanol. Other plants including sunflowers, canola, soybeans and a wild flax seed plant named Camelina produce a variety of oils that can be used as bio-fuel.

Ethanol is blended with gasoline in the U.S. today. It comprises 10 to 15 percent of our nation's gasoline fuel consumption. In Brazil, ethanol produced from sugar cane has replaced gasoline altogether. In the U.S. we will be converting our gasoline consuming vehicles with Hydrogen Fuel Cell and battery power. Once that is done, we will be able to use our corn based ethanol to fuel large trucks, inland boats and ships, and all other vehicles that run on diesel fuel and gasoline today. Ethanol is the bio-fuel manufactured in corn producing states like Iowa, Nebraska and Illinois.

But in states that have little or no corn production, farmers are turning to oil producing plants to make bio-fuel. Vermont is a classic example. Several years ago this state launched the Vermont Bio-fuel Initiative. This plan encourages Vermont farmers to grow energy crops of sunflowers, canola and soybeans. These crops also produce livestock feed and food grade oils. As of 2011, at least eight large farms were using oilseed presses and processing equipment to produce bio-diesel fuel. They produced over 500,000 gallons of bio-diesel in 2011. The average cost of producing the fuel was $2.81 per gallon, compared to an average price of $3.85 that the farmer would have paid for diesel fuel refined from crude oil. Farmers across this country will soon recognize the benefits of this approach for their own operations, and grow their own oil producing crops. The American farming industry will then become independent of crude oil.

The cost of diesel fuel made from crude oil will increase as we enter the second half of the 21st century. That is because worldwide demand for diesel fuel will increase, as crude oil reserves decrease. North American farmers will then increase their production of sunflowers, canola and soybeans to produce bio-diesel fuel, because it will be able to compete with regular diesel fuel on price. This means that more land will be allocated to farming on our continent. If the farming industry can produce adequate supplies of bio-diesel to fuel our large trucks, construction and mining equipment, and inland ships and boats; then all of our transportation industries will become virtually independent of crude oil with the exception of the airlines!

There will only be two sectors of our economy that will be dependent on crude oil, namely the U.S. military and commercial aircraft. Our military consumes large amounts of diesel and jet fuel. And this is the main reason that we need to develop and conserve North American crude oil reserves. We will address this national security issue in the next chapter. We will now conclude this chapter by discussing jet fuel, the power behind the commercial airline industry.

Jet fuel is refined from crude oil as kerosene. This group of hydrocarbons is lighter than diesel fuel, but they are heavier than gasoline. In fact, kerosene was the first hydrocarbon refined from crude oil to provide indoor and outdoor lighting for this country before electric light bulbs replaced it. The replacement of kerosene began here in the1920's. The house I was born in had a kerosene lighting system installed in it when the house was built in 1922, but it was converted to electric lighting in the 1930's.

Today there are two plants we have found that can produce kerosene oils economically. They are the Camelina and Jatropha plants, respectively. Great Plains Oil and Exploration, a U.S. based corporation, is the largest producer of Camelina in the world today. They have accumulated extensive agricultural and genetic intellectual property relating to the production of Camelina plants in North America. This allows them to select the best varieties of these plants for production in any area of North America. They are producing large quantities of Camelina in the northern plains of the United States and in Canada. In 2012, BioJet Corporation, another U.S. company, executed a Teaming Agreement with Great Plains for the purpose of producing renewable jet fuels. These companies plan to jointly develop Camelina cultivation and refining projects in the United States, Europe, South America and Asia. BioJet estimates that 5 years from now Camelina cultivation will be able to produce about 200 million gallons of refined bio-jet fuel annually, and 2.3 million tons of Camelina meal to feed livestock. BioJet hopes to produce one billion gallons of its jet fuel annually by 2020.

In 2011, our commercial airline industry consumed 2.2 billion gallons of jet fuel. Add in military use, and we are consuming about 3 billion gallons of jet fuel, annually. Our most advanced commercial airliner, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, has achieved a 30% reduction in fuel consumption, using lightweight weight carbon fiber technology to replace aluminum in its construction. When all of our existing commercial airliners are replaced with planes constructed of carbon fiber, we could reduce our annual commercial jet fuel consumption from 2.2 to 1.5 billion gallons per year. And if our military can achieve similar results with fuel efficiency, we could reduce our total annual jet fuel consumption from 3 billion to about 2 billion gallons per year. If BioJet can produce one billion gallons of jet fuel worldwide 10 years from now, that only amounts to half of my projected U.S. demand. As I see it, fuels refined from Camelin and Jatropha oils will account for about half of the current worldwide demand for jet fuel. Unless new technologies are developed that can produce the remaining half, we will be faced with a worldwide shortfall of jet fuel production, as crude oil reserves are depleted. Either way, jet fuel prices will continue to rise in the future of the 21st century. And new carbon fiber airliners are more expensive to build than the aluminum ones in use today. The airlines will have no choice but to pass these increasing costs on to their customers. At some point, the cost of some flights will be much more than the cost of an Amtrak ticket to the same destination.

As an example, let's say that a round trip airline fare from Los Angeles to San Francisco costs $600, and the cost of riding Amtrak round trip is $200. It will probably take about four hours longer to ride the train each way. But if you could have an enjoyable meal on the train, and socialize with other passengers while dining and sightseeing, you will probably take the train and save $400. The point I am making here is this: the traveling public will be riding the train instead of flying for trips that are less than 600 miles in length.

France, Japan and China have made train travel a priority in their countries already. They have built high-speed rail systems that move trains at speeds of more than 200 miles per hour. And these trains run on electricity, not jet fuel. They have recognized that high-speed rail travel is a viable alternative to flying distances of 600 miles or less. As more Americans begin traveling on Amtrak trains for their short trips, the federal government and private industry will see the economic advantages of building a high-speed rail system in this country. The government, particularly the military, will want to replace jet airliners with high-speed trains, because these trains don't run on jet fuel. And the government needs to insure that it has an adequate jet fuel supply for military purposes. Private industry will see this as an opportunity to grow a new railroad system that will be welcomed by the traveling public. And a railway passenger system that can replace half of our airline passenger demand by the end of the 21st Century will complete our modern transportation systems. And the whole transportation industry will operate independently of fossil fuels!

But this will only be possible if we can produce enough diesel and jet fuel to power both the civilian and military sectors of our economy. If a shortfall of bio-diesel and or bio-jet fuel occurs, the military will have its energy demands met at the expense of the private sector, because these fuels are critical to our national security. If bio-jet fuels cannot meet the demands of the airline industry, a high-speed railway system will become a necessary component of our 21st century transportation industry. And if bio-diesel production cannot meet the demands of the long haul trucking industry, then the goods shipped by them will move to our railway system also. And if nuclear powered locomotives have replaced diesel locomotives, we will still have a transportation industry that operates without using fossil fuels! As you can see, I predict that we will need to develop nuclear locomotives and a high-speed rail system to meet our future transportation needs. I hope our federal government will have the foresight to recognize this need also. And that it will begin to initiate the necessary research and development required to build these systems.
CHAPTER 8

Why is Energy Independence so important to our National Security?

Our federal government must come to recognize that energy independence is a national security issue. The most important national security issue that Washington, D.C. is directly responsible for today is providing for our national defense. The government is charged with defending our country from military attacks by foreign nations, terrorist attacks on our homeland and most recently, cyber attacks on our computer systems.

The next most important national security issue is protecting and insuring the three natural resources that all nations need to sustain themselves, namely land, air and water. We need good land that produces crops and provides grazing areas for livestock. We need clean air for our health and welfare, and for the health of crops and livestock. We need clean water for personal use, and for livestock and wildlife consumption. And we need clean water to grow our food.

And in my opinion, the third most important national security issue that our government should be responsible for now is energy independence. This is especially important today in light of the Islamic Revolution that is taking place in the Middle East, North Africa and Indonesia. In the second half of the 20th century, the United States began consuming more oil than it was producing. So we began importing oil to supply the increasing demand. Most of the imported oil initially came from the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. They had oil fields to develop and oil to export, and we needed to import oil. So, oil rich countries in the Middle East entered into trade agreements with the U.S. and European governments and their oil companies. The oil companies developed the oil wells, installed pipelines and built the refineries that allowed these countries to export their oil. In exchange, the oil produced in these countries was first exported to the U.S. and Europe. This initially seemed to be a good working agreement. We provided the technology and infrastructure that allowed these countries to export their oil, and we received the oil we needed for our economies.

The first signs of trouble with this relationship occurred in the 1970's. OPEC initiated its first oil embargo by cutting oil production in 1973. Then, Saddam Hussein established his dictatorship in Iraq. And in 1979, Iran deposed the Shah. During this revolution Americans were taken hostage and the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, creating the first radical Islamist state in the region. Since then, tensions between the Middle East and the Western Democracies have steadily increased, but the West was not the initiator of these actions. The terrorist attacks that began in the 1980's and continue to this day were the result of state sponsored terrorism movements originating in Iran, Iraq, and Libya. We now classify these people as Radical Islamic Terrorists, and we name them as such for good reason. Over time we have come to understand that these people are motivated by a radical religious philosophy that is based on Islamic Sharia Law.

Today the primary goal of radical Islamic groups like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood is to become the ruling government of as many nations in North Africa and the Middle East as possible. The nations of Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all actively engaged in conflicts between their existing governments and the radical Islamic movement. The second goal is to rid the region of Western Democratic influence, especially the influence of the American Infidel.

The vision that these radical Islamic groups have is clear. They want to establish governments that will be ruled in accordance with fundamentalist Islamic principles. And Sharia Law will become the governing principle used to rule the nation. Islam teaches that shari'a is God's law. It is considered to be perfect and eternal, and it is binding on individuals, societies and the state in every detail. Consequently, any criticism of shari'a is deemed to be heresy. Muslims who deny the validity of shari'a are considered to be non-Muslims or infidels. Muslims who convert to another religion are called apostates. And apostasy is a crime that carries the death penalty in shari'a. Religious discrimination is a fundamental principle of Sharia Law. Only Muslims are considered to be full citizens in these nations, and Islam must be the dominant religion. Jews and Christians may be protected in an Islamic nation, if the state decides to be tolerant of them. This protection is granted only if they do not carry nor own weapons. They must accept a low class status in society by honoring and respecting the Muslim upper class, and they are required to pay a special poll tax. Sharia Law also practices gender discrimination. Men are deemed to be the superior sex and women are considered to be the weaker sex. Women are deemed to be deficient in intelligence, morals and religion. Therefore, they must be protected from their own weaknesses. Shari'a enforces modesty in women's dress and behavior. For instance, women cannot play tennis in most Middle Eastern nations, because it would be a dress code violation. And in Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars, because it is believed that they don't have the strength and intelligence to operate them safely. And they wouldn't be under a man's protection if they drove alone or just with other women. And since men are considered to be superior, women are placed under the legal guardianship of their male relatives.

Segregation of the sexes is also a common practice in the Middle East and North Africa. It begins with the school system. Since by law, males are considered to be more intelligent than females, girls don't go to school with boys. There are separate schools for girls and young women. And since women supposedly have inferior intelligence with respect to men, they are not taught many of the things that boys and young men learn in school. For instance, religion, politics, medicine and law are subjects only men are allowed to learn. This of course insures a male dominated society.

Women also have restricted human rights under Sharia Law. Men are allowed to have as many as four wives, but women can have only one husband. Men can divorce easily, but women have a very difficult time divorcing their husbands. And women are often economically penalized. For instance, when the father of a family dies, the surviving daughters receive only half of the inheritance that the sons receive. This is mandated by Sharia Law. But the most flagrant abuse of women's rights can be seen in places that use the Sharia court system exclusively. Instead of supporting a female rape victim, these courts often accuse her of illicit sexual relations. The male perpetrator is never arrested and prosecuted in these cases. But the woman is charged with an offense, which carries punishments ranging from imprisonment to flogging and even death.

Under Sharia Law women are designated to a lower class than Muslim men. And in many ways they share the same class status as Christians and Jews. The resulting society becomes a government ruled by Muslim men. The government may be a theocracy, a monarchy or even a military dictatorship. But it will certainly not be a democracy. Even if voting is allowed in a country governed by Sharia Law, its citizens will only be able to vote for one political party. And that is the same kind of voting system that the communists imposed on the Soviet Union in the 20th century.

The most serious threat that radical Islam poses to democracy is its world view of two domains, the House of Islam and the House of War. Radical Islam teaches Muslims that they should embrace jihad, the holy war that will change the House of War, where non-Muslims are dominant, into the House of Islam. In others words, radical Islam teaches its Muslim faithful to wage war against western democracies, especially the United States. And that is why radical Islam must be understood as our 21st century enemy, just like communism was in the 20th century. The message is clear. If the Muslim nations of North Africa, the Middle East and Indonesia become governed under Sharia Law, they will wage war, first against the democracies in their regions and then against the United States and Europe.

In order for a nation to wage an offensive war, it needs to build a large military like Hitler did in Germany and like Stalin did in Russia in the 20th century. Back then, these countries built manufacturing industries that improved their standard of living. Then they were able to use their factories to manufacture the cannons, tanks, airplanes and naval ships needed to wage war. Iran is in the process of doing just that today. They have developed a powerful army and navy already. They are also developing short- range missiles for national defense and long-range offensive missiles. And finally, they are building a nuclear energy industry that will be capable of producing an atomic bomb.

The United Nations has become involved in Iran's efforts to develop nuclear power through the IAEA, its international atomic energy watchdog. But Iran has stymied the IAEA's inspections that could determine whether Iran is using their uranium enrichment facilities to build nuclear reactors that will produce electricity for the country, or to build atomic weapons. The U.N. issued strong economic sanctions against Iran in 2009. Another motion to increase sanctions against Iran was put to vote in the United Nations in 2012, but the resolution was not passed. Reacting to the lack of U.N. support, the European Union enacted its own export sanctions on manufactured goods from Europe to Iran. And similar sanctions were enacted by many other nations, including Japan, India, South Korea, Canada and the U.S. These sanctions have had a significant impact on the Iranian economy. Their currency has suffered a serious devaluation, resulting in price inflation for most goods and services. As a consequence, Iranian citizens have begun demonstrating against the government in Tehran. They are angry about inflation and the lack of imported goods caused by the sanctions.

Most of the Middle East does not support Iran. In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran consider each other to be enemies, rather than allies, because of their political and religious differences. But what if the Wahhabi Imams in Saudi Arabia and the Ayatollahs in Iran were able to negotiate a peace treaty between these nations. This possibility may seem unlikely today. But Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy established an unlikely peace treaty before World War II, and they became staunch allies once the war began. The more important consideration is this. If the OPEC nations align themselves politically, they could impose oil export sanctions on the U.S. and Europe. My point is this; sanctions can work both ways. And if something like this were to occur before we become energy independent, it would devastate our economy. It would also weaken us politically in world affairs. And that is why energy independence is of vital importance for our national security!

This scenario is far from unlikely. Consider this - Israel and The U.S. have vowed to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons. The Israeli prime minister has suggested that we drawn a red line on Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities. Fuel grade uranium is less radioactive than weapons grade uranium. Israel has suggested that we stop Iran from making weapons grade uranium, when they cross the red line and begin producing highly enriched uranium for weapons use. If we adopt this policy, the resulting outcome will be very clear. As long as Iran enriches uranium below the red line there will be peace. But if they cross the red line, we will go to war and try to destroy their nuclear facilities. In retaliation Iran will probably attack Israel with its missiles and it will try to impose a naval blockade on oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf. All Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Emirates would need to do to cause a worldwide oil shortage would be to honor the blockade. This scenario could play itself out as early as the last half of the year 2013. Even if the Keystone pipeline is completed by then and oil is flowing out of northeast Ohio, we will not be able to make up for the loss of oil that a situation like this would create. A successful blockade of the Persian Gulf would mean that our military forces in the region would have to engage and defeat the Iranian navy and its air force. A military operation of this nature will take months to resolve itself, assuming that our military forces defeat Iran. Meanwhile, we would need to tap into our strategic oil reserves to help make up for the oil shortage. But given that, oil supply will probably not meet demand, and gasoline prices will rise. In light of this example and considering the current political instability in North Africa and the Middle East, it is in our best interest to encourage oil production in the United States to the point where North America becomes independent of foreign oil. Mitt Romney recognized this problem. And he proposed a plan to have North America become independent of foreign oil imports by the year 2020. I hope that President Obama recognizes the importance of this strategy for our national security also. We can no longer afford to be hostage to Middle East oil.
CHAPTER 9

A Visionary Government has always been important for the growth of America.

The founding fathers of the United States of America were its first visionary leaders. They envisioned a nation that would be free of British rule. And they accomplished that by winning the Revolutionary War. When the representatives of the thirteen colonies met in Philadelphia to form a constitutional government, two governing philosophies prevailed. One was for a democratic form of government that resembled ancient Greece. The other was for a stronger federal government modeled after the republic of Rome before the emperors came to power there. Initially, the Greek model prevailed. They formed a government that granted statehood to the thirteen colonies, and established territories that would eventually become states in the rest of the nation. At the time U.S territory extended from the Atlantic Ocean in the east to the Mississippi River in the west. Our newly formed democracy quickly became attractive to people in northern Europe. And so many Europeans came to America and settled the new territories. Most of the territories achieved statehood by 1820.

Our nation was only 25 years old when Thomas Jefferson envisioned a United States of America that occupied territories west of the Mississippi River. He saw that the rapidly growing territories east of the Mississippi would all soon become states. And to insure future growth, we needed to acquire land west of the river. At the time, the French occupied that land, known then as the Louisiana Territory. So Jefferson sent James Monroe and Robert Livingston to Paris. Their mission was to negotiate the purchase of land in the lower Mississippi Valley.

At the time, Napoleon had already lost a war, trying to recapture the island of Hispaniola from the Haitian rebels who had seized control of the island in 1801. After the loss of Hispaniola, he did not foresee a need to further agricultural development and expand trading centers in the Louisiana Territory. And he also desperately needed money to support his military operations in Europe.

So, when the two Americans came to Paris with the intention of purchasing land, Napoleon surprised everyone by offering to sell all of the Louisiana Territory to the United States for the sum of 60 million Francs, which was about 15 million dollars at the time. Jefferson was overjoyed by the offer and made the purchase, which in effect doubled the size of our country!

The French had already established trading centers in New Orleans and St. Louis before we made the Louisiana Purchase. Once we acquired the territory, Americans went to these cities and formed wagon trains that moved west to settle the land. The most important migration was along the Oregon Trail, which allowed Americans to establish towns and farms from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean. And Thomas Jefferson's vision was achieved, in essence, before the Civil War began.

The next most important vision for 19th Century America came under the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Although Lincoln is most widely recognized as the president who ended slavery by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, his administration and the congress also completed the Jeffersonian vision for America. Together they passed the Pacific Railroad Acts between 1862 and 1866 and the Homestead Act of 1862.

The first Pacific Railroad Act was signed by president Lincoln in 1862. This act authorized extensive land grants and 30 year bonds to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads for the building of a transcontinental railroad. When the railroad was completed, we were able to move people, freight, mail, and military equipment across the United States in a timely manner. The following railroad acts eventually lead to the formation of the Great Northern Railroad that connected Seattle to Chicago, and the Southern Pacific Railroad, which connected Los Angeles to Chicago.

The Homestead Act of 1862 gave farmers ownership of 160 acres of land at no cost if the applicant fulfilled certain conditions. The law required a farmer to complete three steps; file an application, improve the land and farm it, and after five years, file for a deed of title to his land. Anyone who had not taken up arms against the United States, including slaves, and anyone who was at least 21 years old or had a family, could file an application for a federal land grant.

The idea of passing a homestead act for the western United States began in the 1850's. But it quickly became a political issue between the North and the South. Northerners wanted individual farmers to own and operate there family farms, but wealthy Southern plantation owners wanted to develop large land tracts using managers and slaves to operate their farms. The North opposed this plan, fearing that small farmers would be forced onto marginal land by the wealthy southerners. But after the South seceded from the Union in 1861, the remaining members of Congress were able to pass the Homestead Act of 1862. And The Jeffersonian ideal of the independent small farmer was fulfilled. But it did not happen easily.

Cattle ranchers and farmers found out that water was a limited commodity in the West. Ranchers need large acreage land tracts with available water to raise livestock profitably. And farmers need water to irrigate their crops. Ranchers abused the Homestead Act to acquire more land, and farmers and ranchers battled over water rights. These issues were resolved by our state and federal governments early in the 20th Century. And since then, we have been able to peacefully develop the farming and ranching operations that thrive west of the Mississippi river today.

In the first half of the 20th Century, our country transformed from a rural farming and small business economy into the manufacturing and service economy that most of us enjoy today. During that time our government addressed issues that resulted from this transformation, preventing corporations from exploiting their labor force. Laws for Social Security, and unemployment insurance were enacted, and child labor laws were passed. Workers formed labor unions, and they were able to exercise union power to negotiate better wages and benefits. We also engaged in two World Wars during that time period. So, our federal government was forced to deal with these developments. And it needed to be focused in the here and now, rather than having a vision for the future. After World War II, however, visionary leaders began to emerge again.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first post war president to implement his vision. He recognized the need for improving our national defense against foreign invasion. With the exception of the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor, we had fought the two world wars on foreign soil. But after World War II, Russia and China became world powers, and they had the resources to mount an invasion of the United States. Eisenhower was the general in charge of the invasion of Europe in 1944. After we defeated Germany in 1945, Eisenhower studied the German infrastructure that was built to conquer Europe in the World War II.

He observed two important things that Germany did to prepare for war. First, they used their manufacturing sector to build a military industrial complex. Then they built a highway system called the Autobahn, which allowed them to move their army across the country quickly. When Eisenhower became president in 1952, he had two important visions that he felt would be necessary to insure our national security. The first was to build a military industrial complex that would protect us from communism. The second was to build an interstate highway system that would allow our military to move personnel and equipment to any part of our country. Before Eisenhower was elected president, we were involved in the Korean War, which began in 1950. That was the first in which jet powered fighter planes were engaged in combat. And by then, Russia had already developed and tested an atomic bomb. In defense of the Russian nuclear threat, Eisenhower also placed top priority on the development of a long- range jet powered bomber that could attack Russian cities and military installations with atomic weapons. Boeing Corporation was given the contract, and they built the B-52 bomber. Later in the 1950's, they built the first jet powered commercial airliner, the Boeing 707. McDonald- Douglas followed suit, manufacturing its DC-7. Both of these aircraft manufacturers used jet airplane technology that they had first developed for the U.S. Air Force to help build the Eisenhower military industrial complex.

These jet airliners transformed our commercial airline industry in the 1960's. Travelers began moving away from railroad passenger trains to the airlines to reach their destinations in a much shorter amount of time. This was especially appealing to business travelers at first, but many vacationers joined in as well. By the late 1960's the railway passenger train was in danger of becoming extinct. The federal government had to form Amtrak to save the few remaining passenger trains still in operation. The airlines had become the major public transportation industry in less than a decade. So Eisenhower's vision for the B-52 bomber was the catalyst that led us into the age of jet airline travel that began in the 1960's.

I don't know if Eisenhower foresaw the economic impact of the Interstate Highway System, but the American traveling public and the long haul trucking industry surely did. American families took advantage of the new highway system to go on vacations and to visit relatives who lived in far away cities. This led to new business development along the interstate highways. Motels, restaurants and service stations were built for this new generation of family travelers. Even automobile manufacturers got in the act. Chevrolet, in particular, placed ads on television with Dinah Shore singing 'See the USA in your Chevrolet'.

The over the road trucking industry took advantage of the new highway system also. Semi trucks were now able to travel to their destinations faster and more directly than before. And with the addition of truck stops, they were able to travel longer distances than ever before. So whether Eisenhower recognized the impact that the Interstate Highway System would have on our economy or not, the outcome was dramatic. It revolutionized public travel by car, and it allowed the commercial trucking industry to grow substantially.

The Interstate Highway System also changed America demographically. Working people discovered that they could travel longer distances from home to work on the new highways in a relatively short time. That led to the development of the suburbia many Americans live in today. I'm sure that if president Eisenhower were alive today, he'd be pleased. His vision of an Interstate Highway System for national defense, turned into an economic and demographic boon to the United States that has benefited all of us.

John F. Kennedy followed Eisenhower as the next visionary president. His vision was based on military considerations also. Beginning in 1958, Russia became the leading nation in rocket and space technology. That year they launched the first earth orbiting space satellite, the Sputnik space capsule. And shortly after Kennedy became president, Russia began building rocket launching missile sites in Cuba. Fortunately the Cuban missile crisis was resolved, and Russia removed its military hardware from Cuba, in return for our removal of missile launching equipment that we had in place in Turkey. But by this time there was no doubt that the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a serious space race. The first part of the race was to build and launch a manned spacecraft. Russia won that race, and president Kennedy was not pleased. So he decided to up the ante announcing that America would launch a space program that would send a man to the moon by the end of the 1960's. His intention with this program was to make the United States the dominant power in missile and space technology by the end of the decade. Kennedy's vision was fulfilled, when NASA landed a manned spacecraft on the moon in 1969.

Our society is still benefiting from the technological advances that were made in that decade, particularly in electronics. Successfully launching a rocket into space, and then guiding it into a path that will allow it to orbit the moon requires a navigational system that responds to electronic signals that are sent from a computer on earth to the rocket. The rocket's flight path is calculated mathematically before the rocket is launched. Mathematicians develop a flight path program for the mission, and then install it in the computer. Computer technicians on earth use this program to guide the rocket into an orbit around the moon. Once the rocket and the manned space capsule arrive in moon orbit, the space capsule is separated from the rocket. Then the computer technicians on earth begin using a different computer program to guide the space capsule to a landing on the moon itself. It does this by communicating with another computer in the space capsule. The technicians also have voice communication with the astronauts in the spacecraft. That allows the astronauts to operate the on board computer manually. From that point, they can fly the space capsule to a successful landing on the moon. So the computer on board the space capsule had to be small and light to accomplish this mission.

Our electronics industry developed transistors, solid-state diodes and silicon chips to replace the much heavier vacuum tubes that operated the computers in the early 1960's. And by 1967 a new generation of small, light- weight computers was born. As our scientists and engineers began using this new technology to make computers, they realized that if you could make even smaller components, you could produce machines that would use less power to operate them, and also increase their memory capacity. And so the microelectronics industry was born. Intel Corporation is a classic example of this development. Today Intel microchips are inside most of the computers being manufactured today. President Kennedy's mission to land a man on the moon by 1969 was the catalyst that led to the development of the desk top computers most of us use today.

Lyndon B. Johnson became president after president Kennedy. And he had a vision for America also. It was called the Great Society. The major achievement of his vision was the creation of Medicare.

Richard M. Nixon became president in 1968. His vision was to normalize our relationship with communist China. Shortly after his election, Nixon directed his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, to begin opening channels of communication with the Chinese communists. And by 1971, Kissinger was able to meet secretly with the government leaders in Beijing. At the meeting, he was able to set up president Nixon's visit to China in February of 1972. After his visit Nixon called it "the week that changed the world", and he was certainly right in making that statement. His visit resulted in the establishment of a diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and China. Diplomacy led to trading agreements between the two nations. And in addition China aligned itself with the U.S. in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan was the president who was able to take advantage of Nixon's accomplishments to fulfill his vision. Reagan was passionately anti- communist. His vision was to free Eastern Europe from the control of the Soviet Union. He eventually accomplished this goal by initiating huge defense spending programs. The Russians at first tried to keep up with our military spending, but that caused a sever strain on its domestic economy. And the USSR soon saw itself going bankrupt. This economic crisis resulted in political unrest within the Soviet Union, resulting in the demise of the communist party. And that led to the break up of the Soviet Union, which freed Eastern Europe from communist rule. Ronald Reagan saw his vision fulfilled in the decade of the 1980's. The last visionary of the 20th Century that I want to mention was not a president, but he did become vice president. He is Al Gore, the senator who introduced the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. The first important achievement of this bill was the development of the World Wide Web software program known as Mosaic. The funding for this bill was also used by researchers at the University of Illinois to create the Mosaic Web Browser. And that computer technology became the springboard that launched the Internet. This all happened as a result of our government's funding for research and development into the area of high performance computing. Once the Internet was born, private industry began using it. Companies like Google, Amazon and E-Bay were created because of the Internet, and they are very successful large corporations today. After that Al Gore became known as the father of the Internet.

By now, it should be obvious to anyone reading this book, that visionary government leaders in Washington have made great contributions to our national security, to our social welfare, and to our quality of life in the second half of the 20th Century. Please note that with the exception of Al Gore and Lyndon Johnson, all of the other men beginning with president Eisenhower developed their visions as a reaction to the threat of Communism. But as we developed friendly relations with China, and witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union, another threat to Western Democracy began to raise its ugly head. And that is the threat of Radical Islam, which gained its first victory in the Middle East when Iran became an Islamic nation under the rule of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
CHAPTER 10

Why Is Radical Islam the greatest threat to Western Democracy since Communism?

After a Radical Islamic government was established in Iran, it began supplying arms and financial support to like - minded Islamic groups in the Middle East. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine came to power as a result of Iranian support. And the Syrian government established an alliance with Iran. It is not a coincidence that these groups border Israel to the North, South and East. Iran's purpose was to surround Israel with Islamic militias. This is the beginning of a military effort that they hope will ultimately destroy Israel.

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has publicly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. Ahmadinejad is a Shiite Muslim, who is devoted to the Islamic Messiah, al- Mahdi. In fact, he claims that it is his mission to prepare the world for the second coming of the Mahdi. This Islamic Messiah was the son of the 11th Imam, Hasan-Al- Askan. So he is also known as the 12th Imam. And it is prophesied in Shiite Muslim literature that he is chosen by Allah to be the spiritual savior of Islam. He is said to have lived in the 13th Century, and that he will supernaturally return to earth just before the biblical Day of Judgment.

This prophesy also claims that the second coming of the 12th Imam will involve two world changing events. First, the prophesy claims that the 12th Imam will arrive back on earth after the world has experienced 3 years of horrendous chaos, tyranny and oppression. And second, the 12th Imam will rule over all Arabs and then the whole world. So, if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to fulfill his perceived mission of preparing for the second coming of the 12th Imam, he must begin by inciting worldwide chaos, tyranny and oppression. This may sound like the rambling statements of a religious fanatic, but are they really?

Remember this, Iran is in the process of building uranium enrichment facilities in their country. These facilities will be capable of producing uranium fuel the can be used in nuclear power plants. But, if they continue to enrich uranium beyond that point, they will be able to make nuclear weapons. And based on their intelligence, Israel believes that Iran will be able to make weapons grade uranium in the last half of the year 2013. In either case, Iran has an important decision to make in the near future. Will it develop nuclear power as a peaceful resource to generate electricity for the country? Or will it cross the line and enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons?

I don't foresee Iran enriching uranium to make weapons grade material now. Even though they envision wiping Israel off the map, and spreading their Islamic mission around the world, they probably recognize that the risk of developing nuclear weapons now is too great. They have invested too much time, money and effort to develop the nuclear industry that they have built to date, to risk its destruction by Israel and the United States. The Islamic movement has waited for a long time to once again become the world power that it was in the 10th Century. They have a accumulated massive financial resources from the export of oil in the past 60 years, and Iran has used its money and power to spread the Islamic movement across the Middle East and North Africa in the past 30 years. But Iran is not powerful enough to win a war with the West today. And losing a war now would seriously impede the growth of Radical Islam. Iran wants the opposite to happen.

The more reasonable approach for Iran to take now is to develop nuclear power plants. Thus demonstrating to the world, that it wants to become a leader in nuclear power generation. They could then export their nuclear technology to other nations, and that would bring large amounts of money back into Iran. By using this approach, Iran would accomplish two goals that are important to them in the long run. They would create a stronger economy at home, and they would be able to continue to support the Radical Islamic movement monetarily. And if they decided to allow the commercial manufacture of computer technology now being used in their nuclear program, they would be able to grow their economy even more. The Iranian economy is struggling right now, because of the severe trade sanctions that have been imposed on it recently. So in the short term, they need to focus on growing a healthier national economy.

In the meanwhile, Iran can continue to put more pressure on Israel by exploiting its military influence in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon. In 2012 Hamas once again started launching rockets into Israel from the Gaza Strip. But this time, they were firing longer range rockets than they have ever used before. Iran supplied these new rockets to Hams, and they reached Tel Aviv and the outskirts of Jerusalem. In its defense, Israel retaliated by launching missiles to destroy many of these incoming rockets, but about half of them were still getting through, causing property damage and threatening human life. Israel deployed its air force to try to destroy the rocket launching facilities. The Israeli Air Force also began attacking other military installations and military personnel in Gaza. One of these attacks destroyed a moving car that was carrying a Hamas military leader. That attack, which was shown on national television, outraged the Palestinians in Gaza, and motivated Hamas to increase the number of daily rocket launches into Israel.

The Egyptian government, now being headed by the Muslim Brotherhood, was also outraged by this incident. In protest, Egypt withdrew its ambassador from Israel, and then sent its prime minister to Gaza in a show of support for the Palestinian people. So far this was the most significant event to emerge from this conflict. The Muslim Brotherhood had taken the first step to align itself with Hamas, possibly threatening the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Iran can be nothing but pleased by this development. The Muslim Brotherhood, by demonstrating its support for Hamas, also indirectly supported Iran's continuing supply of arms to Hamas.

The increasing rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas motivated Israel to move its military ground forces to the borders of Gaza. They were threatening to invade unless a ceasefire truce could be negotiated. At this point, an Israeli invasion of Gaza would be sufficient reason for Egypt to sever diplomatic relations with Israel. And that maybe what Hamas and Iran wanted to accomplish. The evolving scenario would look something like this. Israeli ground forces invade Gaza. In protest, Egypt severs its diplomatic relationship with Israel. Then Hamas negotiates a truce with Israel, resulting in a ceasefire agreement. In exchange, Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel, while the Israeli's removed their military forces out of Gaza. Even if the ceasefire results in a truce between Israel and Hamas, Israel becomes the loser, and Iran becomes the winner. That is because the Muslim Brotherhood, by supporting Hamas, has now aligned itself with Iran in its efforts to continue supplying arms to the Palestinians.

In the past, Iran has been flying military hardware destined for Hamas into Sudan. It also sends military weapons by cargo ship to Sudanese ports on the Red Sea. From there, Bedouins are hired to move the military hardware overland into the Sinai Peninsula. Once in the Sinai they had to carefully avoid being captured by the Egyptian army. That was Egyptian policy before the Muslim Brotherhood was elected into power in Egypt. The Egyptians would honor their peace treaty with Israel by capturing the Bedouins and confiscating the weapons. Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has reduced the Egyptian army's presence in the Sinai Peninsula, making the Bedouin smuggling much more effective. This has allowed Iran to ship the longer- range rockets that Hamas is launching from Gaza into Israel today. Since the Muslim Brotherhood has come to power in Egypt, The Sinai Peninsula has become a lawless frontier between the Suez Canal and the Gaza Strip. Now the Bedouins can transport larger shipments of military hardware to the Egyptian border with Gaza, where Hamas takes possession of it. Then they smuggle the military supplies into Gaza through tunnels that they have dug under the border. Now that Egypt has shown its support for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, more Iranian military hardware will flow into Gaza.

But in the 2012 crisis, Egypt offered to mediate a settlement between Israel and Hamas. Both parties sent delegations to Cairo to meet with the Egyptian government in an effort to achieve a ceasefire agreement. There Israel and Hamas negotiated a truce, because Hamas was running out of rockets before Israel ran out of defensive weapons. But this truce was a victory for Radical Islam, because Egypt, Hamas and Iran effectively became allies. And Egypt can still maintain a diplomatic relationship with Israel. The net result will allow Iran to ship larger and more sophisticated military weapons into the Gaza Strip, and Hamas will become a stronger Radical Islamic movement than it was before this crisis. Iran's overall plan is to wipe Israel off the map. But in order to accomplish this, they must amass a military force that can defeat Israel. That military force does not exist today, but Iran is trying to build it one step at a time.

It appears to me that Iran is in the process of helping the Radical Islamic Movement consolidate its power in the areas of North Africa and the Middle East that surround Israel. For now the Iranians have succeeded in forming a loose coalition including Sudan, Egypt and Hamas. And Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey have recently sent diplomatic missions to Gaza in support of Hamas. If Iran can include Lebanon and Syria in this coalition, Israel will be surrounded by Radical Islamic nations. Israel will be the only democratic government left in the region. And this coalition, led by Iran, will have effectively begun a Cold War against Western Democracy.

A Cold War would be consistent with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mission to prepare the world for the second coming of the 12th Imam. Tyranny and oppression would thrive in the nations under Islamic rule. That would pave the way for all Arabic nations to become Islamic, thus fulfilling part of the prophesy, forecasting the return of the 12th Imam.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here. The major outcome of the recent crisis between Israel and the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip has been the rise of Hamas to a position of political power in the region. They have succeeded in gaining political support from Egypt, Sudan, Turkey and Tunisia as a result of the latest military conflict. And this presents a threat to Israel that it has not seen since before the last war Israel had with its Arab neighbors in 1967. In light of these developments, Israel has appealed to the United States for more military support. And it also wants the U.S. to join them in efforts to prevent Iran from shipping more weapons to Sudan.

The United States is Israel's major political, economic and military supporter. And it has already agreed to supply Israel with more military hardware to expand its Iron Dome missile system. The Iron Dome is a defensive missile system that detects incoming rockets from Gaza and determines whether or not the rockets will threaten populated areas of the country. If the system senses that the rocket is a threat, it will deploy a missile to seek out and destroy the rocket. The Iron Dome is new military technology that the U.S. and Israel have developed in cooperation with each other. It was installed and tested in Israel in 2011 and 2012. The Iron Dome was very successful in the last conflict. It prevented Israel from sustaining civilian casualties, and minimized property damage from the rocket attacks that launched over 1000 rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza.

But what efforts can the U.S. make to prevent Iran from shipping more weapons to Sudan? Iran and the United States do not want to engage each other in a military confrontation now. And Israel wants Iran to stop shipping weapons to Hamas. Whatever action the U.S. decides to take in an effort to stop weapons from entering Sudan, it must somehow insure that oil from the Persian Gulf keeps flowing to Europe and America. The United States needs to be assured that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia will continue to export oil to us no matter what action we may take against Iran and Sudan. As long as we are dependent on oil exports from the Middle East, we must have a foreign policy agenda that protects these nations from the likes of Iraq and Iran in exchange for their oil. If we can establish an alliance with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two important things will be accomplished. First, our supply of foreign oil will be assured. And second, we will have separated these conservative Islamic nations from the Radical Islamic Movement driven by Iran. This is the same kind of diplomatic approach that president Richard Nixon used when he visited China in 1972. We need similar visionary leadership in Washington today to curtail the spread of Radical Islam.

Given a stable supply of foreign oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we will be free to explore ways to prevent Iran from shipping weapons to Sudan. One possibility would be to impose further sanctions against Iran. It is unlikely that the U.N. would pass this resolution. But we would be on record as having tried diplomatically to stop Iran from shipping weapons to Sudan. It would also show us which nations support this kind of action and which nations do not support it. If the U.N. does not pass this resolution, then the U.S. and Israel will need to consider their regional diplomatic options.

Since the weapons that Iran is shipping to Sudan must cross the Sinai Peninsula to reach Hamas in the Gaza Strip, we could demand that the Egyptian Army defend its border with Sudan. We could also offer to initiate drone flyovers along the Egyptian border with Sudan. Providing the Egyptian Army with this information would aid them in locating the weapons shipments. Both the U.S. and Israel have sufficient leverage with Egypt to demand its military support. Israel and Egypt have a peace treaty with one another. And the U.S. provides Egypt with most of its military equipment. We also give millions of dollars in foreign aid to Egypt annually. But our relationship with Egypt could change radically if the Muslim Brotherhood seizes control of the country.

The recently elected president, Mohmamed Morsi, has already begun to move Egypt on a path to becoming a Radical Islamic state. His government has already shown political support for Hamas by sending a diplomatic delegation to the Gaza Strip during the latest military crisis between Hamas and Israel. Then the Morsi government negotiated a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, preventing an Israeli invasion of Gaza. This ceasefire also allows Hamas to rearm itself.

Egypt has been in the process of forming a new government since Morsi was elected president. In that election a member of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected prime minister, and a committee of delegates was also elected to write a constitution. This Muslim Brotherhood has a majority of the members on this committee. But the committee has made little progress in writing a constitution. It has been riddled with political infighting, and some elected delegates have left the committee out of frustration.

`President Morsi has taken advantage of this situation, giving himself judicial and legislative power until a constitution is written and ratified. This move effectively makes Mohmamed Morsi the new dictator of Egypt, replacing Hosni Mubarak who the Egyptian people overthrew in 2011. The existing judiciary and the Egyptians who were involved in the overthrow of their last dictator are outraged by this presidential action. They clearly don't want a dictatorial form of government in the future. So they have once again begun demonstrating in Cairo, and they have attacked and destroyed Muslim Brotherhood offices in Alexandria and elsewhere in the country. So a new era of political turmoil now exists in Egypt. Can the U.S. and Israel motivate Egypt to patrol the Sinai border with Sudan under these conditions? I think that would be a difficult, if not an impossible, diplomatic mission to accomplish under these circumstances.

I bring the developing political crisis in Egypt up for a very specific reason. We have been engaged in a war with Radical Islam since 2001. But in the past decade, we have made no progress in suppressing this movement. While we have been fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, Radical Islam has been spreading into countries like Egypt, Sudan, eastern Libya and Tunisia. And Al- Qaeda appears to be more powerful in the Middle East and North Africa than it was just 10 years ago.

The Arab Spring that began with the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Moammar Kadhafi in Libya has led to similar uprisings in Tunisia and Syria. All of these countries are trying to form new governments, and Radical Islamic Groups have moved in, attempting to gain political power. North Africa and the Middle East appear to be trying to reestablish the Muslim Empire that was created under the prophet Mohammed. It is likely that this region will be engaged in political turmoil for decades to come.

Since the United States is dependent on Middle East oil to power its economy, we have no choice but to be actively engaged in the region also. We must be active both politically and militarily to insure that oil keeps flowing into the U.S. And this is why we need to be moving toward energy independence for North America as quickly as possible. Until we become energy independent, we will need to have a military presence in the region that insures our supply of oil, even if it means going to war to protect it. But once we have achieved energy independence, we will be able to develop foreign policies in the region that encourage the growth of western democracy. We will also be able to take a more forceful stand against nations that come under the control of Radical Islam.

In effect, we would be in a foreign policy situation that we were confronted with after World War II. Then, we were confronted with the spread of Communism. Now we are confronted with the spread of Radical Islam. Then, we were fortunate to have leaders like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan, who kept the western world safe for democracy. Now, we are going to need 21st Century leaders who will keep us safe from Radical Islam. The ultimate goal of Radical Islam is worldwide domination led by the 12th Imam. If we truly value our democratic way of life, we must prevent this from happening.

I believe that the first step we must make in the war against Radical Islam is to establish an energy independent North America. There are at least three reasons why the U.S. government should adopt this strategy. First, by becoming independent of Middle East oil, we would improve our national security and be able to develop a strong foreign policy again Radical Islamic nationalization. Second, we would be allowing American business to fully develop our oil and natural gas reserves. This would create thousands if not millions of high paying jobs in America. In addition, the government would benefit financially. It would be paying out less for unemployment claims, and it would be collecting income tax from the newly employed workers. In addition, the government would be gaining income from the increased taxes on corporate profits. This would strengthen our economy and reduce our national debt. And third, we would no longer be concerned about a disruption of foreign oil supplies and the possible economic impact that could have on our country. The United States would be in control of its energy supplies for the future of the 21st Century. We are going to need a strong, energy independent economy, if we are going to defend democracy against Radical Islam.
CHAPTER 11

**How can we fulfill a vision for 21** st **century America?**

The modern society we live in today is the result of burning fossil fuels to produce energy. The electricity that powers our homes and businesses is generated in power plants that burn coal and natural gas to drive the turbines that generate electricity. Our cars, trucks, ships and airplanes all depend on fuels refined from crude oil. In order to maintain and improve our society in the 21st century, we must insure that we have the ways and means to provide adequate fuel resources that will produce electricity and power our vehicles.

We will also need to manage America's land, air and water wisely. Our health, our welfare, and our food supply depend on fertile land, clean water and clean air for us to thrive as human beings. If we are going to have a better life in this century than we had in the 20th century, we will need to begin replacing fossil fuels with cleaner alternative fuels for electric power generation. In the long term, we need to replace our coal and natural gas powered electric utilities with nuclear power plants. This will significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere, resulting in cleaner air.

In the short term, we need to implement an energy policy that will make North America energy independent. This is an important move in our war against radical Islam. It should be done in the interest of our national security. By allowing oil and natural gas exploration on federal lands and offshore, we should be able to achieve energy independence by 2020 and eliminate the possibility of being held hostage by Middle East oil. This would also greatly reduce our need to engage in another war in the region. In the process of achieving energy independence we would be creating several million high paying jobs. This will grow our now stagnant economy and provide the federal government with much needed tax dollars. This should be a short- term policy in the interest of national security, and unfortunately we will continue to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So while we are becoming energy independent, we must also begin to seriously develop alternative energy resources that will reduce carbon emissions and hopefully stem the tide of global warming.

The best way that we can begin to reduce carbon emissions in the short term is to clean up our transportation industries. Our government should support a movement to encourage the use of hydrogen fuel cell technology to power our cars and light duty trucks. If these vehicles could be powered by hydrogen, we would not be consuming gasoline in this segment of the transportation industry. And instead of polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, we would be improving our air quality by adding water vapor to it.

Our federal government should also encourage the conversion of semi trucks from diesel fuel to natural gas. This would reduce the carbon emissions from these vehicles by 40% to 50%. Once the viability of this conversion is demonstrated, we should also begin converting the ocean going shipping industry from diesel fuel to natural gas. It may take a government mandate to initiate this conversion. But in the long run the industry will benefit, because natural gas is a cleaner and less expensive alternative fuel.

In the long term, we need to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels in our electric utility industry. Electric power generation can be accomplished using nuclear power, solar power and wind energy to replace fossil fuel in this industry. In my opinion, nuclear reactors should replace coal and natural gas burning electric utility plants. That would eliminate carbon dioxide emissions coming from this industry. And the by- product of a nuclear power plant is water vapor, some of which is released into the atmosphere.

But this industry cannot move in this direction without the support of our federal government. The major drawback to greatly increasing the number of nuclear power plants in this country is a problem intrinsic to nuclear fuel rod technology. Fuel rods expend their supply of enriched uranium over time. When these fuel rods can no longer produce power efficiently, they must be replaced with new ones. Currently the spent fuel rods are handled as nuclear waste, and they are stored at our nuclear power plants. Our government has tried unsuccessfully to authorize the construction of underground storage for this so called nuclear waste. But no state government has approved of this idea. The states do not want the equivalent of a nuclear garbage dump on their land.

The federal government could easily overcome this problem by adopting the French model of recycling the spent nuclear fuel rods. All enriched uranium in this country is produced in facilities like Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which are owned and operated by the federal government. Instead of trying to persuade the states to store nuclear waste, we should build nuclear fuel rod recycling plants on sites that it already operates to produce enriched uranium.

This approach would encourage our electric utility companies to convert from fossil fuels to nuclear power. First, it would eliminate the hazard of providing storage for the spent fuel rods on their property, reducing operating and insurance costs. Second, it would insure the utilities of a stable supply of enriched nuclear fuel rods. And third, it would insure that the utility companies would have a stable price for the fuel rods in the future.

A government program to build and operate spent fuel rod recycling plants would also help our economy. Jobs would be created in both the public and private sectors, and these jobs would be high tech and high paying career opportunities. The net result would be a stronger 21st century economy, based on converting from fossil fuels to alternative energy fuels.

By now, I hope you realize that our federal government will play a critical role in determining our future in the 21st century. The political reality that we find ourselves in today is reminiscent of the problems our country was dealing with in 1941. Then we were still recovering from the Great Depression and we entered World War II. In the first decade of the 21st century we launched the war on radical Islam after we were attacked on 9/11/2001. And we are slowly recovering from the Great Recession that began in 2008. Our federal government has been focused on the war against radical Islam for the past decade. We went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we are still at war in Afghanistan. In addition, we have engaged in limited military operations in Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. And for the first time in our history, we have gone to war without raising taxes to support the war effort.

When we were faced with the 2008 recession, the federal government implemented a bailout of the financial industry. And in 2009, it developed an economic stimulus package. Both of these measures helped us avoid another depression. As a result, we have greatly increased our national debt over the past decade. And so today, government spending and increasing taxes have become important political issues that our president and congress are trying to deal with. Although the government's financial moves in 2008 and 2009 prevented a depression, they have not resulted in creating a vibrant economy. Today we are in a stagnant economy where GDP growth is a dismal 1.5% to 2.05% and unemployment has stabilized at around 8% for the past year. Corporations, however, have been profitable. They have leaned out their labor force and used computer technology to become more efficient. But in today's economy, they do not see any incentives for growth.

Here are two ideas that our government could employ now to stimulate real economic growth. First, allow more drilling for oil on federal lands and offshore. This would not cost the government any money. In fact, it would earn money from oil leases. It would also make money from the income generated by corporate profits. More jobs would be created in the process, unemployment would go down and the government would get income tax revenue from the newly hired employees needed to drill for oil. Second, invest in and begin building nuclear fuel rod recycling plants. But where is the money going to come from when we are trying to cut government spending? The president and congress are in agreement that defense spending should be cut. If they were able to look at converting our electric utilities to nuclear power as part of a comprehensive energy policy that would be in the interest of national security, they could use some of the defense spending cuts to begin this project. This would become an economic stimulus package, because design engineers, construction workers and technicians need to be hired to build these plants.

It is in our national interest that we develop a comprehensive energy policy for the 21st century. The reason for this is simple. Energy production was what allowed us to create the modern society of the 20th century. Two of the most important developments in energy production were the construction of electric utility plants and the creation of the gasoline powered internal combustion engine. Electricity powers our homes, factories and businesses. And gasoline engines initially powered our cars, trucks and airplanes. So if we are to sustain our modern way of life, we must insure that we have the energy resources available to maintain it.

It is a known fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and at some future time we will run out of these fuels. We also know that these resources pollute our air when they are burned to produce energy. So if we are to have a vision for a modern 21st century society, we must develop an energy policy that will use alternative energy resources to meet our needs. We are going to need visionary leadership in our federal government to accomplish the transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy resources. There are two other areas in which the government can reduce fossil fuel consumption. First, it could develop nuclear powered locomotives for our railroad industry. The U.S. Navy is already using this technology to power our nuclear submarines. It could cooperate with the locomotive manufacturers to accomplish this mission. In effect we would eliminate fossil fuel consumption in all of our transportation industries except for the airlines and military aircraft. Airplanes present a unique problem when it comes to replacing jet fuel with an alternative energy resource. And this is the second area in which our government, particularly the military branches, can participate. Airplanes need to use a lightweight high-energy output fuel to produce power. Several alternative fuels can be considered for use in the aircraft industry. Among them are liquefied natural gas, hydrogen and agriculturally produced light oils. In fact, the production of a bio-jet fuel is already underway in the United States. We discussed the production of bio-jet fuel made from Camelina in chapter eight. This may be the future replacement for kerosene in today's aircraft.

And this brings us to the last major area of federal government involvement needed for our national security. In addition to a comprehensive energy policy for the 21st century, we need our government to insure that we have sufficient supplies of clean water, land and clean air to sustain our modern society. The United States has greatly benefited from having abundant supplies of farmland and fresh water. We have been able to produce enough food in this country to feed ourselves, and to export our excess crop production to other countries that are less fortunate. The Middle East and North Africa do not have the luxury of abundant farmland, and this is where radical Islam is trying to establish its roots.

So if we continue to improve and enhance our farming industry, we will have another advantage over the radical Islamists in their attempt to take over the Middle East and North Africa. If they succeed in conquering a food poor country in the region, we could withhold food supplies from them. Food could be another weapon for us to use in the war against radical Islam. In order to protect our farmland, we need government oversight and regulation of the agricultural industry. We need to insure that GMO's do not adversely affect our food crops, and we need to begin using fertilizers that are not produced from petroleum products.

We also need to insure that we have abundant supplies of fresh water for human consumption and agricultural use. My major concern with fresh water supplies is based on future oil and natural gas drilling on our land. The new drilling technologies, namely horizontal drilling and hydrolic fracking, will be used extensively in future drilling operations. These techniques use large amounts of water combined with a chemical mixture under pressure to fracture shale. Oil and natural gas are trapped in these underground shale rock formations. Once the shale is fractured, these products are released from the shale and can be pumped to the surface. A mixture of oil, natural gas and fracking water are released at the wellhead. The oil and natural gas are easily separated from this mixture, and the fracking water should be sent to an evaporation facility, not just dumped.

Water evaporation facilities are being used by all of the oil and natural gas exploration companies in the U.S. today. But there is no regulation of how much fresh water should be evaporated from them. And there is no regulation of how the remaining fracking mixture should be treated. Ideally it should be recycled, not dumped in underground storage facilities. The federal government needs to provide regulation and oversight in this area, in order to protect our fresh water supplies.

So our federal government will play the key role in determining what kind of a nation we will become in this the 21st century. Hopefully we will elect leaders who will take a visionary approach to governing our nation. I hope that our future leaders will develop and implement a comprehensive energy policy that includes the goal of our independence from foreign oil, and a plan that allows our electric utility companies to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy resources.

We will need men and women with leadership skills like Eisenhower and Kennedy used in the last century to insure our national security. Men and women who understand the importance of having clean energy, fertile land, clean water and clean air to sustain and grow our modern society. Men and women who want the United States of America to be the leading nation on this planet as a thriving democracy. We will need leaders who can move our modern society forward in an environmentally responsible manner.

If we continue to be dependent on oil imports from the Middle East, we will be forced to protect the flow of that oil into our country. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to develop our own resources instead? Developing our natural resources strengthens our economy and our nation as a whole. Engaging in limited military actions and perhaps even going to war in the Middle East again will weaken our economy, force us to increase taxes, and it will probably increase our national debt.

If we don't lead the world as the primary example of a modern democratic society, radical Islam will try to replace us as world leaders. Their ultimate goal is to create a world governed by Sharia Law under the guidance of the 12th Imam. Democratic nations value freedom, equality, justice, human rights and the health and welfare of their people. Radical Islam is diametrically opposed to these values. If we are to remain free, we will need to have visionary leaders who will insure that democracy prevails and radical Islam fails.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive energy policy, government regulation, and oversight of our natural resources are key factors that will insure that we will continue to live in a growing modern society. If the programs that I have proposed in this book are implemented the United States of America will continue to be a strong world leader in the 21st century. But environmental issues exist in the areas of oil exploration and nuclear power. Many Americans are against these programs today for what they cite as environmental concerns. We need to begin to realize as a nation that these programs can be safely implemented today if they are managed properly.

The more important issue in this century is the preservation of our modern way of life in the interest of national security. Now we must act in the interest of strengthening our democracy against the threat of Radical Islam. And we are going to need strong visionary leadership in Washington to succeed in accomplishing this goal.

About the Author

Thomas W. DePaepe is a college graduate with a Bachelor of Science Degree with majors in Physics and Mathematics from Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois. He went on to do graduate studies in Physics at Northwestern University. He left school in 1965 to work as a research and product development scientist in consumer electronics. After 5 years in the technical field he went on to start his own small business in the suburbs of Chicago. Then he found a business opportunity in Colorado, which he owned and operated from 1976 until 1990. A serious physical injury forced him to sell that business. And after two years of rehabilitation he found a new career in technical sales. He retired comfortably from that career in 2008.

In the summer of 1950 a close friend of Tom's enlisted in the Marines and went into the Korean War. From then on he has had an avid interest in American politics and international affairs.

