Thank you, Keith. What I'm going through is not very encouraging for other
folks who might want to write their representatives, but I hope somehow folks
will persist anyway, while they still have a choice to do so. I also want to
extend my help to anyone in the U.S. who understands the real meaning of Real
ID and wants help working to get it rejected in their State and ultimately
repealed in Congress. You may write to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike DuPree
PS Keith, sorry to be a doofus, but my "latin" sucks..."illegitimi non
carborundum"..."il" and "non," double negatives? if so--legitimate abbrasive?
if so...thank you. What was that Canned Heat line, "tired of gettin dogged
around?" These "representatives" need--at least--some abbrasives.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Addison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Recent Moore Correspondence
> Good on you Mike, keep at 'em!
>
> Illegitimi non carborundum.
>
> Regards
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>>Hi folks...I'm sending along my most recent correspondence to my
>>U.S. House Rep, Dennis Moore. My State Senator (Francisco) and
>>State House Rep (Davis) also dance around this language. Why?
>>Dennis voted against the original version of Real ID, HR418,
>>apparently along party lines, which is interesting, considering the
>>stereotyped values of the Republican (less gov't) and Democratic
>>(more gov't) parties. HR 418 was a stand alone bill, so you would
>>think it would have been voted down in the House (by the Repubs,
>>seeing more gov't), but it passed, as I've said, mostly along party
>>lines. Mike PS As a side note, if you ever decide to write your
>>Reps using the email service that is part of their websites, copy
>>your email to a Word doc before submitting if you want a copy,
>>unless of course there is provision for you to receive a copy of
>>what you send, which I suspect there usually is not. Also, do same
>>with any notes attached before forwarding to other email
>>addresses. The websites make no provision for screwing up and being
>>able to back up to correct your mistake; you just simply lose
>>whatever you were trying to send and to whomever you were trying to
>>send it. Surely all these hoops are because we are in the midst of
>>basketball season, correct??? Otherwise, contacting our Reps is
>>utterly user-friendly, correct???? Excuse me while I go puke.
>>
>>
>>Dear Congressman Moore, Thank you for recent correspondence
>>regarding PL109-13, the Real ID Act. From the beginning of my
>>correspondence with your office expressing my concerns regarding
>>Real ID, I have focused upon section 201(3), specifically the
>>wording "any other purposes that the Secretary [of Homeland
>>Security] shall determine." This language alone, I believe, is
>>grounds for Repeal. And yet, your office, for some reason, will not
>>address this issue. Why? The closest your office has come to
>>addressing it, which is no address at all, is on page 2 of February
>>15 correspondence, next to last paragraph. This paragraph merely
>>reiterates what I already know reading PL109-13.
>>
>>So, to date, in answer to my concerns and questions regarding the
>>open-ended provision of the "official purpose" of Real ID, I have
>>received from your office: 1) the CRS Report to Congress:
>>Immigration: Analysis of Major Provisions of the REAL ID Act of
>>2005, which misses completely an analysis of THE major provision of
>>Real ID--the open-ended provision of the official purpose; 2) a copy
>>of S.4117 and present non-action regarding S.4117, which I did NOT
>>request, as stated on the note attached to this copy; and 3) the
>>correspondence of February 15, which is basically a restatement of
>>PL109-13.
>>
>>Will your office please focus upon section 201(3) of P.L. 109-13 and
>>either: 1) tell me what steps you are taking to either: a) revise
>>this language to specific purposes; or b) strike the language
>>completely (ie Repeal Real ID and help Senator Akaka understand that
>>he has no business waiting for regulations to come from the
>>Secretary of Homeland Security, that he should go ahead with his
>>promotion of S.4117 if for no other reason than the open-ended
>>provision of section 201[3]); OR 2) tell me how the wording of
>>section 201(3)can not be open-ended and why I have no need to be
>>concerned?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
