I found the article very informative, and though it took quite a while to read, it was well written. As it is lengthy, I won’t be able to address all relevant issues, I wanted to offer a couple of thoughts for consideration.

One of the problems I often think about when government grows too large is that it becomes nearly impossible for one individual or even a group of people to manage effectively, and we can often have unreasonable expectations for what the heads of these departments should or shouldn’t know. We of course want our elected and appointed officials to be well informed when they occupy positions of such importance and we should always seek out those who have the right knowledge for the job. However, no one can be an expert on every form of conventional energy, alternative energy, climate change, and the myriad of other topics contained in the DOE. You want someone who has at least a working knowledge of a number of relevant issues, and where he or she lacks such knowledge, is humble and willing to learn from those underneath them in the organizational structure. From the testimony of the article, it seems that those sent from the Trump administration to help run the DOE were ideologues unwilling to learn and uncaring about several important functions of the DOE. If true, this is a shame.

Though I believe much of what the DOE does is unnecessary for the federal government to do, this article certainly sheds light on some of the more necessary functions such as the protection and management of our nuclear materials. Perhaps unlike other conservatives, I’m in favor of government sponsoring research and development of new or existing technologies, especially those that have applications in national security. Sometimes, such endeavors turn out well. Sometimes they don’t. Even when experiments fail, they provide valuable information for the scientific community. As it often happens, some innovations come completely by mistake. Either way, an increase in scientific information from either successful or unsuccessful experiments can have a positive trickle down effect in multiple industries. Of course, we need to keep a watchful eye so that taxpayer dollars are being well used and that cronyism is rebuffed every chance we get. Ultimately, I believe the free market will do most of the legwork, but that’s not to say that government can’t help play a role in finding solutions to common problems. Technological innovation is going to be far more effective in overcoming challenges like climate change rather than something like capping carbon emissions or other solutions often pushed by the left. But that is a larger discussion for a different time.

I agree the Trump administration is off in a different direction than what most people would do if they were president. But I guess being president gives one the prerogative to make decisions his/her way. Isn’t that why elections are so hard fought?

What you are doing is fine — protesting, spreading the news, etc. but let’s be prepared to accept that Trump will do the job his way regardless of what we all think.

Trump is appealing to his electoral base. At least, that’s what he said. He’s fulfilling his platform promises. To say it as bluntly as he did may not be politically advantageous but we’re kinda used to it by this time. But if truth be said, previous presidents have always appealed to their base even though they said they were the president of “all” America.

I just hope that his “priorities” (protecting our borders, pumping up the economy, attacking the NFL [Jeez!], building the wall, supporting FEMA, etc.) will keep us “alive” long enough for the next administration.