Who's Fault is the Iraq Debacle?

Every morning, the local talk radio station here in Cincinnati plays a little thing called An American Story presented by Tom Brokaw.  Usually these things are inane ramblings that are more about the Tom Brokaw story than America.  Often, these little reports are about something done in other countries by non-Americans, so the name of the segment is a mystery to me.

Today Mr. Brokaw set about making everything in Iraq the fault of the George W. Bush administration.  After all, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush said that a democratic government could be set up there, the Iraqi people would have free elections, a constitution would be written, and Iraq would become just like the USA.  This certainly was a best case scenario and, given the history of the region, was a pretty unlikely scenario long-term.  However, anyone would have to admit that Obama's foreign policy decisions to tell the enemy when we would leave and turn over the country to the terrorists contributed greatly to this outcome.

I don't see how there will ever be peace and freedom in Iraq.  Even if a constitutional decree mandates separation of church and state, the people don't want that.  The citizenry feels that anyone that has a different religious affiliation than them is an enemy.  They don't want anyone to have the freedom to believe something different from them.  The majority religion in the country takes over by force or by coup or however they have to do it.  In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein oppressed religions that threatened his autonomy.  He used force or threat of force to keep opposing religious factions in check.  Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, the country is quickly dividing on religious lines, and it appears that making two or three countries out of Iraq is the best outcome.  Otherwise the majority faction will take over everything and force their will.

I wish we had never gone there and stuck our nose in other countries' business.  We started out in the first war after Iraq invaded Kuwait when George H. W. Bush was President.  I never got the impression that the Kuwaiti people appreciated what we did back then.  That "good deed" did nothing but put the USA at the top of every hated enemy list in the Middle East.  This was undoubtedly the impetus that drove Al Qaeda to commit the terrorist acts of 9/11/2001.

I think that Obama's reaction recently has been the correct one.  As Iraq falls into chaos, we should stay home and offer no assistance.  We trained and armed one million Iraqi military members.  That military has thrown down its weapons, changed into civilian clothes, and taken off for the hills.  They were prepared to fight for their freedom and their country, but they didn't have the will to do it.  These soldiers weren't willing to die for their country.  Why should we be there dying for something the Iraqis don't seem to care about?

Once again, the MessAPolitico didn't consider a point of view different from their own.  They love their country, are loyal to it, and can't understand why other peoples around the world don't feel that way.  They also don't understand why those people would be put off by our country telling them how to run their government.  I guess foreign policy isn't that much different than the domestic policies.  The government thinks they know what is best for us too.  The will of the majority party elected is shoved down our throats every day.  Why again is America's view of the federal government and politicians in general so low?

EPA Fires a Big Weapon in the War on Coal

Why has the Environmental Protection Agency decided to destroy what's left of the American economy?  Do they really believe this "global warming"/"climate change" nonsense?  Have the climatologists managed to convince the brainless bureaucrats that this stuff is real and that it is bad enough to destroy our way of life in the USA?  Apparently the answer to the last two questions is yes, and that is the answer to question number 1.

There could be another little dynamic in play here.  It's that pesky economic reality that was going to cause a huge problem shortly.  The EPA had already legislated limits on the amount of carbon dioxide that a power plant can emit per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.  Those limits were very simply designed to shut down a number of older coal-fired power plants.  Was it because those power plants were the main or even significant causes for global warming?  No.  No.  No.  The purpose of closing those plants was to drive up the cost of electricity to a level that would make wind and solar and any other alternative energy competitive with coal.

There is a bit of an issue with this strategy the EPA and the current administration has undertaken.  The states regulate the price of electricity using public service commissions.  They don't allow power companies to just raise prices without showing that costs have increased.  If an old power plant is simply shutdown, that doesn't constitute a major increase in cost of producing the electricity.  With that in mind, the utility wouldn't have enough production capacity to match the supply of electricity with the demand at current prices.  In fact, I believe that a major price increase would be required to reduce the demand, but the public service commission won't allow that price increase without a corresponding increase in the cost to produce the power.  That is likely to create a situation where the utilities will be forced to institute rolling blackouts to prevent a widespread blackout that covers large areas of the country.

These new regulations were presented yesterday as though the utilities will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to upgrade the equipment to meet the new regulations.  It remains to be seen whether this will really happen.  If the utilities decided to protest and just shut down a bunch of power plants, the government would be left in a touchy situation.  I wish these companies would fight back just like this.  It is unlikely to happen, but it needs to be done.  It's ridiculous that the government is running our business.  The federal government knows what is best for you and me and all the companies in the USA.  It is time to stand up to the tyranny.

If the power companies spend $500-$600 billion on new equipment, our price for electricity will have to rise.  That will allow the utilities to match demand to the lower capacity available.  That will drive some of the usage from electricity to natural gas or other power sources.  Unfortunately, it will drive some industries that use large amounts of electricity out of the country.  At least we can feel good that those steel and aluminum and other companies will move to those environmentally progressive countries like China and Mexico.  (In case you're a low intelligence tree-hugger, that last sentence was sarcastic.)

Not only will your electric bill rise by $200-$300 per year, look for increases in cost for anything that uses electricity in its manufacture, processing, or delivery.  Expect those commuter train tickets in New York and Chicago and San Francisco to rise accordingly.  If you were working in the steel mill making excessive steel worker wages, it's going to be hard to pay the extra cost of your electric bill, because your job will probably move out of the country.  Maybe the Obama administration is using the EPA to correct for wage inequality.  How do you like the change?  The current MessAPolitico is bringing a large dose of tyranny down upon the subjects of our benevolent king, Barack Obama.  All of this is being brought about by illegal legislation from the EPA -- not a legislative body as defined by the US Constitution.

I hope I wake up soon.  This MessAPolitical nightmare is really scaring me.  Everytime I get out of bed, it's just like Nightmare on Elm Street.  I'm never sure if I'm awake or in a dream.  The only difference is that Freddie Krueger was replaced by Barack Obama.  Maybe there should be a new movie called Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Veterans Affairs Hospital System - Let's Expand it to Cover Everyone

Isn't this what we are doing?  www.va.gov/HEALTH/ states the following:  "The Veterans Health Administration is America's largest integrated health care system with over 1,700 sites of care, serving 8.76 million Veterans each year."  This health care system is funded by our federal tax dollars and services almost 9 million Americans annually.  Obamacare also will be largely funded by federal tax dollars (or federal borrowing), and it will service around 300 million Americans if the Democrats get their way.  It is different of course, because Obamacare isn't a health care provider, but is an insurance provider in essence.  I still think that you should take a look at how well the VA system works though.  When the MessAPolitico tries to run anything, there is a much higher than normal propensity for failure.

I don't know about you, but I can call my doctor's office early in the morning and get an appointment to see a doctor the same day.  In an emergency, I can go to the emergency room at any of our local hospitals and get care in a reasonable amount of time.  If there is an ambulance involved, I will begin receiving care before I even get to the hospital.  For less pressing ailments or injuries, I can get into the emergency room within a couple of hours even on a very busy day.  It seems that some VA patients are dying while waiting for the care they've been promised.  The VA service goals are for patients to be able to schedule a doctor visit within 14 days.  Yes, that's two weeks!  In a number of cases, they have NOT been able to fulfill this expectation!  Patients have actually died of cancer because they were unable to see a VA doctor for months while the cancer spread.  If my doctor couldn't get me in to check out my symptoms that could be cancer today or tomorrow, I'm going to a different doctor.  Of course, these government health care programs don't give you the flexibility to pick your doctor.

This VA health system scandal plays right into the hands of the Republicans with Congressional elections coming up this fall.  Why not run on saving the folks that aren't receiving health care from the VA from a similar experience?  Why not run on privatizing the VA?  I wonder what would happen if a private company took over management of the worst VA facilities for responsiveness?  Get the MessAPolitico as far from the VA health care system as possible if you want to fix the problems.  And keep them as far from my health care as possible.

Mitch McConnell: What has he done for Kentucky?

I hate to keep harping on Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign, but every time I get in the car, there is a campaign ad on the radio.  I'm still waiting on one where Mitch tells us something he has specifically done for his constituents.  Time after time, his advertisements sling mud at his opponent, Matt Bevin.  I've heard Mr. Bevin refute the McConnell allegations in interviews.  Hearing all the smear tactics over and over just makes me mad.  This is the stuff that makes many Americans mad.  These tactics might win campaigns, but our opinion of Congress and politicians in general continues to fall to new lows every two years.

McConnell has been running ads lately about a speech Matt Bevin supposedly delivered at a rally for cock-fighting.  The advertisements indicate that Matt Bevin supports legalization of cock-fighting.  After all of the other advertisements alleging many things that seem to be false, should I believe this one?  Regardless of whether the ad is truthful or not, I take this view.  I couldn't care less if cock-fighting is legalized.  It might be cruel, but the birds fight naturally.  Their nature simply causes them to fight to the death when a rival bird is placed in the same vicinity with them.  I would prefer that cock-fighting was illegal.  However, in the overall scheme of things, cock-fighting is not a big, hot-button issue for me personally.  On the other hand, Mitch voted to raise the debt ceiling.  Mitch supported a bill last fall that provided a means for funding Obamacare.  Mitch voted for a compromise bill that raised taxes.  That vote not only raised taxes, it allowed the Democrats to increase spending while saying that it was a spending cut.  Mitch's advertisements say that he forced the President to take spending cuts, while protecting 99% of Kentuckians from a tax increase.  How's that for "a pattern of deception?"

Other Mitch McConnell ads say that Matt Bevin has lied about the Wall Street bailout.  Mitch says that Matt Bevin claims to have opposed the bailouts, while his business were helped by them.  You know, Matt's business may have benefited from the bailout, but that doesn't mean he would have voted for a bailout had he been in the Senate.  It's entirely possible that Mr. Bevin may be a principled leader that isn't trying to get elected to the Senate for his own personal benefit.  One thing that definitely should be considered is that Mitch McConnell did vote for the Wall Street bailout.  Neither Mr. Bevin nor anyone else would have benefited from the Wall Street bailout had they not been passed by Congress with votes by Mitch McConnell and other career politicians in the Washington establishment.  While we're not sure about Matt Bevin's principles, Mitch McConnell has only one principle:  to get re-elected at all cost.

It never ceases to amaze and anger me when the MessAPolitico is running for office, and they accuse their opponents of supporting the things they have actually done.  It also is amazing that the media is willing to let these things pass without a challenge.

Mitch McConnell may get selected to run on the Republican ticket in November.  He very well may win the primary in Kentucky next week.  If so, it will be a shame.  Mitch may be a conservative as his advertisements allege.  He might even fight for the advancement of conservatism in the Senate.  The problem is that he never wins those fights.  You might say that it's hard to get anything passed when the Republicans only control the House, while the Democrats have the Senate and the White House.  I say that winning is no big accomplishment when your party controls all three.  A real leader can get things done like Reagan did with the Democrats controlling the House and Senate.  A real leader can get Democrat President  Bill Clinton to sign a balanced budget from the Republican controlled House and Senate.  Real leaders would just do the right thing and follow their principles.  Their election or re-election would happen because of their accomplishments instead of their mudslinging misrepresentations.

Does Benghazi Disqualify Hillary?

Benghazi should disqualify Hillary Clinton for president.  If she was anyone else, especially a Republican, she would be disqualified from everything from dog catcher on up.  Will Hillary get away with being a terribly ineffective and dangerous Secretary of State and get a promotion to President of the United States in 2016?  Looking at this Benghazi MessAPolitico today, you have to wonder about the media and the voters.  Will Trey Gowdy successfully get this thing out into the light of day?

What happened to a media that was looking for a scoop?  Why don't they want to expose the story to sell newspapers or to get the viewers to tune in?  Maybe this is exactly why the newpapers are fighting for survival.  The network news is losing market share to cable news outlets and "non-traditional" internet media.  The people are hungry for political news sources that express their personal views.  Are there really that many "low information voters" out there just watching the network news and believing everything they say?  Are we destined for a perpetual MessAPolitico?

Hillary was an incompetent manager at best.  She ignored warnings from those on the front lines in Benghazi and left them without sufficient security forces.  Unlike the other countries that had closed their diplomatic outposts in Benghazi, the US office remained open.  Those other countries didn't feel that Benghazi was safe for their diplomats, but the US stayed the course without "beefing up" the security.  What does that say about the Secretary of State?

If Hillary wasn't an incompetent manager, then she was playing politics.  Politics were placed ahead of the safety of Americans.  Lives were sacrificed for the "cause."  Barack Obama had to be re-elected.  He had announced that the war on terror was over and Al Qaeda was rendered powerless by the all powerful Barack Obama.  He had killed their leader, Osama Bin Laden.  Increasing security in the Islamic countries on the anniversary of 9/11 would demonstrate that Barack Obama's statements weren't correct.  It would even show that the Obama doctrine of "be nice to everyone and they will love you" was naive and dangerous.  Hillary was willing to risk lives to get Barack Obama re-elected.  She didn't have the leadership skills or the confidence to walk into Barack Obama's office and demand that her people get the security they needed.  She didn't go in and advise the President that added security would head off an attack that could show the incompetence of the administration.  Her advice could have protected her position as well as Obama's.  It didn't happen.  Did she not foresee this possibility?  Or did she lack the confidence to buck the President and his team?  Would a person like this make a great President of the United States?

Now, on top of all these things, Hillary participated in an idiotic attempt to cover up the truth about the events.  Would anyone with even a small modicum of intelligence believe that this attack on 9/11/2012 was about a stupid YouTube video?  It was just a coincidence that multiple embassies experienced these "protests" on 9/11, and they weren't terrorist attacks.  Do these members of the MessAPolitico think that all Americans are that stupid, or is it only their supporters that are gullible enough to buy this one?

Was the mainstream media really that stupid, or did they participate in the cover up?  I believe they facilitated the cover up.  You can't give Hillary a "free pass" on this one.  We have proof that America doesn't want her taking that phone call at 3:00 AM.  Will Hillary be decisive?  Will she make good decisions?  Will she act as a Commander in Chief and protect the country and its people?  Or will she put the MessAPolitical interests ahead of yours and mine.

Condoleezza Rice: Rutgers University Snubbed Her Because She's African-American?

Why did Condoleezza Rice's decline to deliver her commencement address at Rutgers?  She says it was because of student protests, and she didn't want to be a disruption.  So why were the students protesting?  Was it because she's African-American?  Or maybe it's because she's a woman?  Is this part of the liberal war on women, or do they have a war on African-Americans?  Or is this a very specific war on African-American women only?  How's that for innuendo.

Why is it alright for liberals to have a war on conservative women?  Why is it okay for liberals to have a war on conservative African-Americans?  Why do these liberals always accuse conservatives of acting like liberals?  If acting like a liberal is so bad, why do they act that way?  Why do liberals consider conservatives that act like liberals bad?  Do conservatives really act that way?  Really?

There are so very many questions here with so few answers.  To me, the bigger question is this.  Why do conservatives care what liberals say and do?  Why do they fret that the media and the so-called journalists are liberal for the most part?  This situation is what it is, period.  A skilled politician would figure out a way to use this against them.  It's time to turn the tables on the liberals.  Why haven't we heard more about this snub of an accomplished, brilliant, conservative, African-American, woman?  Where is the outcry from the Republicans everywhere?

Why would African-Americans support a political agenda that snubs African-Americans?  Why do they vote overwhelmingly for politicians that are members of the party that defended segregation in the 1960's?  In fact, the southern Democrats opposed civil rights legislation.  Would we have the civil rights legislation without the Republican party?  Do African-Americans need Democrats for their survival?  I think African-Americans can think and act for themselves.  Hopefully they will notice that President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are waging war on their way of life.  Have you noticed that African-Americans are suffering greatly in the current economy with the highest unemployment rate of any group in America.

Why would women vote for a Democrat?  Look at how the unemployment rate among women has risen under the Obama/Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi economic plan.  That sure looks like a war on women to me.  Or maybe it's a war on the middle class.  Drive the jobs out of the country.  Those are the jobs that employ all of us in the middle class in America.  It doesn't appear that rich folks like Ms. Pelosi are being hurt by the economy.

Let's vote for a change in the primaries.  Please select politicians that will fight for America.  That would be politicians that represent the interests of their constituents rather than the MessAPolitico.

John Boehner Promotes Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

John Boehner has decided to promote amnesty for illegal aliens again.  He was going on a few days ago about how the House didn't want to work on it because it's hard.  Yes, it is hard.  It is especially hard for the Republicans.  There is little hope that the Republican cause will be helped by giving illegal aliens amnesty.  For that matter, how is amnesty good for the current American citizens?

Why does John Boehner feel that he should take the focus off of Obamacare?  I don't understand it.  The Republican base isn't calling for amnesty.  When the illegals are made legal by an amnesty law, how will they vote?  Regardless of whether the amnesty is pushed and passed by the Republicans or the Democrats, it is most likely that the new citizens will vote Democrat.  The Republican base will definitely be turned off by a law that makes criminals full citizens that have access to free health care and all of the benefits available to the poor and unemployed in the USA.

I have a message for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.  Spend the rest of your legislative time before the November election putting together a plan for eliminating the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.  Supposedly, 7-8 million people are now covered by Obamacare.  Figure out how it can be shut down without leaving them "out in the cold."  Come up with a plan for getting the folks covered that have lost their insurance under the PPACA.  Develop a new "contract with America" that gives the voters a reason to vote Republican in the fall.  The idea of getting the folks health care coverage when they are poor is a good one.  Find a way to do that without messing up the coverage the rest of us already have.  Use the private sector rather than inefficient government programs to fix the problems we face.  That is true of health insurance, unemployment, banking, the stock markets, etc.

Competition is the answer.  If a bank screws their customers, how long will they stay in business?  Not very long, as long as there are competitive banks out there.  What keeps pricing in check in the marketplace?  Competition.  Why do companies continue to innovate, to improve quality, to reduce cost, etc.?  They have to compete.  Why does the government operate so inefficiently?  Why does everything cost so much more and require so much bureaucracy when the government operates?  The folks in government don't get rewarded in any way for efficiency.  The MessAPolitico is all about growing itself and swallowing up everything in its path.

It's time for the MessAPolitico to be reminded that they work for us.  If they want to continue to work in Congress, the voters need to be given a reason to vote for them.  The MessAPolitico should compete for our votes by coming up with a competitive plan for operating the government.  If you folks want a guaranteed win in the fall, come up with a business plan for operating the country.  Guarantee that you will begin its implementation as soon as you are elected in the fall.  The voters are tired of hearing why they shouldn't vote for the other guy.  The voters are tired of dirty politics and mudslinging.  Someone please give us a positive message that simply tells what you will do to make things better in the country.

Coexist Already

I was getting onto the expressway this morning on the way to work.  The car on the ramp in front of me had one of those "Coexist" bumper stickers on it.  Who started those bumper stickers?  Where do you get them?  I don't want one.  In fact, it would be better if I never saw another one.

Why do they make me mad?  Yes, they do tick me off every time I see one.  I guess there are multiple reasons why that silly bumper sticker affects me negatively.  For starters, it is my impression that anyone that owns a car that says "Coexist" on the back is a "mamby pamby" liberal.  "Can't we just all get along?"  Don't these people consider the United States the bad guys of the world?  "If we would just disband our military and dismantle all of the nuclear warheads, the world would be a better and safer place."  It's the Obama doctrine of foreign policy.  "Just be nice to everybody, and they will be nice to us."  Hey Barack, how's that working out for you?  You were nice to Putin, but now he's taking advantage of your weakness to start reassembling the old Soviet Union.

I wonder how many "Coexist" stickers are on cars in the middle east.  I know there are Islamic and Jewish symbols used to form the word on the sticker, but how many of them are actually displayed by the Islamic people.  Would they be seen with a Star of David on the back of their automobile?  Would they be willing to "Coexist" with their neighbors in Israel?  Does the MessAPolitico realize that some of our "neighbors" in the world don't really want to "Coexist" with us or anyone else?

Some of you might read this and think that I don't want to coexist with other countries in the world.  You would be wrong.  I want to coexist peacefully and even in a friendly manner with my neighbors on the street where I live.  I would also prefer for the USA and its leaders to get along with all of the countries in the world.  I don't want war.  I wish we could quit wasting money on national defense.  It would be great if imperialistic leaders stopped invading their neighbors and oppressing the people.

Wouldn't it be great if we didn't need police?  Do you think that crime would end in Detroit if the police department was shut down there?  No crimes would be reported if the police had no telephone number because they didn't exist.  I guess no one would get arrested either.  The MessAPolitico could then go on television and tell everyone that eliminating the police had reduced the crime rate in Detroit to zero.  It would suddenly become America's safest city.  Then, the police departments could be shut down everywhere.  Do you think that would make America the safest country in the world?  Shutting down the military and our defense technologies work just as well as shutting down the police departments.

The next time I see a "Coexist" sticker, I won't use any obscene gestures.  I will go about my business and allow that other person to do the same.  I will also think about how it is a waste to display this "advertisement" in the USA where we already try our best to coexist peacefully.  I will also remember that the places where people really do need to be reminded to coexist would ignore that sticker at best or get a bad case of road rage at worst.

Polar Bears Suffering -- Too Much Ice

Have we officially gone full circle?  Back in the 1970's, we were told that the Earth was in a dangerous period of global cooling.  Then we went through various dangerous, man-made phenomena from thinning of the ozone due to fluorocarbons in aerosol cans to acid rain from the coal-fired power plants to global warming/greenhouse effect.  Now we have climate change as the latest dangerous phenomenon.  The environmentalists were getting dizzy going around on the merry-go-round, but now they can go about there business without nausea or discomfort.  With climate change being the new environmental buzz word, any change in the weather or deviations from average in either direction are an indication of planetary doom.  Unless the temperature is exactly at the average for today, then we are experiencing climate change.  If we have too little or too much rain, that is climate change.  We never had floods or tornadoes or hurricanes or extreme heat or cold before climate change came along.  Yea right.

Don't we have climate change almost every day?  We certainly do from month to month.  July is usually a lot warmer than January.  Some environmental alarmists would say that July is HOT and January is COLD.  This year, it's a good thing the catch phrase had been changed from global warming to climate change, because it was a pretty cold winter.

A while ago, in spring of 2008, polar bears were placed on the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.  This was done after a couple of years with conditions similar to 2014.  Reportedly, there were many thin polar bears those spring seasons, and the numbers counted were down in the area of Alaska's Beaufort Sea.  The environmentalists attributed this to the melting summer ice due to global warming.  However, now there is evidence that the conclusions were errant.  In fact, spring ice that is too thick causes more problems for the polar bears.

In spring, the polar bears are ending hibernation.  They haven't eaten in many months, and there are new cubs to feed.  A major source of their food supply is seals.  The male seals make holes in the ice for breathing, as they set up dens for mating.  The seals can successfully make the holes in ice up to 7 feet thick.  When the ice gets thicker than this, the seals must move out further to find thinner ice.  This year and in 2004 and in 2006 when the environmentalists were lobbying to get the polar bears placed on the endangered species list, the ice was very thick in the spring.  This year it has been measured at about 16 feet thick.

Apparently, the polar bears have more sense than the MessAPolitico and their PhD scientists with the pointy heads that are studying them.  When the bears couldn't find enough food because the seals weren't there, they didn't call Obama and cry and beg for government assistance.  The seals moved out farther so they could still mate.  (I guess those natural urges will make a seal do anything to get laid!)  Did the bears just lay down and die?  No.  They moved on over to the place where the seals went.

I sure wish the poor welfare and food stamp and unemployment recipients had as much sense as these dumb animals.  Maybe they would if the government didn't feed them, clothe them, and put a roof over their heads.  I wonder what would happen to the polar bears over ten or twenty years if the government brought them bags of Purina polar bear chow every day.  Would they still be able to adapt and survive on their own?  I'll bet they really would be endangered if we helped them out like we do the humans.

Mitch McConnell a Workhorse?

Mitch McConnell has a new radio advertisement that has been running for the last several days.  In it, the announcer says that Mitch is "not a show horse -- Mitch is a genuine Kentucky workhorse."  The ad also says that "Last year, [Mitch] saved 99% of Kentuckians from an income tax increase."  Please let me translate that Washington speak for you:  Mitch was unable to stop a tax increase on the richest 1% of tax payers in Kentucky.

Then, the announcer says Mitch "forced President Obama to cut spending."  Ha.  Ha.  Ha.  I just can't stop laughing now.  Remember the sequester "cuts" the Republicans demanded before giving in to President Obama's tax increase on the rich.  Those were the cuts that the Democrats used to blame everything bad that happened last year on the Republicans.  We have to shut down the White House tours because of those devastating budget cuts.  Those were the cuts that weren't actually cuts.  This is more Washington speak, because the cuts were really just a slow down in the rate of growth of the federal budget.  The budget just didn't go up as much as they had originally planned.  You know, it's like when you expected the price of a loaf of bread to jump 40 cents from $1.99 to $2.39, but instead it only went up 30 cents to $2.29.  In Cincinnati, the price of bread went up by 30 cents, but in Washington, the price was cut by 10 cents.

Next this campaign ad goes on to say:

• "Mitch fights on the front lines for Kentucky miners against Obama's war on coal.  And he's leading the fight against Obamacare.  Mitch McConnell fights for our values, our future…and our jobs.  But he doesn't spend a lot of time bragging about it.  Mitch just gets it done." 

Really?  He "just gets it done?"  I don't see how Mitch got any of it done.  The EPA is continuing with the plans to force utilities to shut down coal-fired power plants that are safely producing low cost electricity.  I guess Mitch is fighting but losing the "war on coal."  Higher costs of energy and increased government regulation and Obamacare are driving good jobs out of Kentucky and the United States.  Mitch might be fighting for the future and jobs of Kentuckians, but he seems to be losing that fight too.  If Mitch is "leading the fight against Obamacare," then he's not much of a fighter at all.  It has been fully implemented.  We are all feeling the effects of this law, and I don't expect it to change anytime soon unless we replace the members of the MessAPolitico like that good ole "workhorse," Mitch McConnell.  We need to replace all of Congress with new people that will represent their constituents rather than carrying the party banner and fighting for re-election.

Charity the Liberal Way

Liberals purportedly are filled with compassion for the poor and downtrodden in our society.  In fact, they are so compassionate about their plight that they are willing to take money from the rest of us and distribute it to the poor.  There are several inconsistencies between liberal words and actions.  Firstly, there are a lot of big time liberals that are wealthy.  Are they not part of the evil top 1% that Occupy Wall Street was railing against last year?  Secondly, liberals are often not particularly charitable with their own money.

Tax records show that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, had $407,009 in Adjusted Gross Income in 2013.  They show $20,523 in charitable contributions for the year for 5.0% of their income.  That's a substantial sum, and a lot more than a middle class guy like me could afford.  Of course, this is up quite a bit over the previous five years:

• 2013    AGI = $407,009    Charity = $20,523  5.0%
• 2012    AGI = $385,072    Charity = $7,190    1.9%
• 2011    AGI = $379,035    Charity = $5,540    1.5%
• 2010    AGI = $379,178    Charity = $5,350    1.4%
• 2009    AGI = $333,182    Charity = $4,820    1.4%
• 2008    AGI = $269,256    Charity = $1,885    0.7%

In 2013, Barack and Michelle Obama reported an Adjusted Gross Income of $481,098.  Schedule A Itemized Deductions shows that they made $59,251 in charitable contributions, or 12.3% of the AGI.  That is certainly a very respectable amount.  Reportedly, the President and Mrs. Obama have significantly increased their charitable contributions since their income has increased with book royalties.  Here is their charitable history:

• 2013    AGI = $481,098       Charity = $59,251    12.3%
• 2012    AGI = $608,611       Charity = $150,034   24.7%
• 2011    AGI = $789,674       Charity = $172,130   21.8%
• 2010    AGI = $1,728,096    Charity = $245,075   14.2%
• 2009    AGI = $5,505,409    Charity = $329,100    6.0%
• 2008    AGI = $2,656,902    Charity = $172,050    6.5%

This is a very impressive level of contributions by the President.  Of course, he gave the lowest percentages in the years when his income was the highest, but I would have to say that he and Michelle made a concerted effort to increase their giving over time.  Joe and Jill Biden by comparison were giving percentages like the regular folks amongst us.

When you figure the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the poor in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Earned Income Credits, SNAP/Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Welfare, etc. etc.  How much do the rich and middle classes really pay in charitable contributions?  I know that I'm not supposed to consider taxes as charitable giving since I was forced to donate by law.  This makes me feel like the government has taken away my ability to give money joyfully to the poor and needy.  Isn't that ironic.  The MessAPolitico has taken away my right to the satisfaction of charitable giving.

Will We Have the Electricity to Heat Our Homes Next Winter?

I heard a report last week that this cold winter took our electric generation to nearly 100% of the capacity at several points.  You might figure that it's okay since demand didn't exceed 100%.  Well that's not quite right.  You see, the EPA regulations have forced a number of power plants to shut down recently.  In the coming months, there are another 5.4 gigawatts that will be shut down due to the EPA's new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS).  Without this generating capacity available, there wouldn't have been enough power to keep the lights on everywhere.

I've been writing about this subject and talking to anyone that would listen.  The Obama EPA is doing idiotic things to appease their "tree-hugging" supporters.  Obviously re-election by environmentally conscious voters is more important to the Democrats than doing what is right for our people.

So what happens next winter if the global cooling continues?  If climate change, man-made or otherwise, gives us another winter as cold as this one, there won't be enough electricity.  Did you hear that?  Without that 5.4 gigawatts of generating capacity, we would NOT have had enough electricity this year.

What would have happened this year without the 5.4 gigawatts online in the winter of 2013-2014?  For a start, the price of electricity would have been much higher.  If the power companies were able to predict reaching the peak capacity, they could do the rolling blackouts like the folks in California experienced a while back.  That means your electric heat pump might be running to heat your home, and the electricity gets turned off by the power company for some period of time.  Maybe it is off for an hour or two leaving you with no heat.  Of course, if the power demand rises too rapidly, and the rolling blackouts aren't done as a preemptive measure, a widespread blackout could occur.  That one could take hours or even days to bring the system back online.

Power that is shut off either in a rolling blackout or an unplanned one would leave manufacturing companies shut down.  Do the workers lose work hours due to layoff?  Even if your home is heated with a gas furnace, chances are it will be useless without electricity to run the fan.

This is all brought about by the MessAPolitico.  My liberal friends laughed back before Obama was elected.  There's no way that we will lose our health insurance.  Obamacare would never use "death panels" to deny old people or very sick people health care.  We will always have enough electricity.  The power companies would never let this happen.

Next winter, we will see what happens.  Maybe it won't be so cold next year.  Maybe there will be enough windmills generating an extra 5.4 gigawatts by next winter.  Maybe those windmills will work fine day and night, every day.  Maybe the flying cows will generate enough wind to run the windmills.

Obama Won the Election - You Guys Lost

After the past two presidential elections, Obama and the Democrats have been saying this to the Republicans:  you guys lost and we won so you have to pass our agenda.  I guess they've really been saying this to the conservatives and libertarians out there as well.  Is this the way our government is supposed to work?  And, did they win everything?  No.  They lost control of the House of Representatives.

This was what the founding fathers had planned for America when they wrote the Constitution.  The House has a view that is in opposition to the Senate and the White House.  In that case, the Republicans won and the Democrats lost.  That means that nothing gets done without real compromise that allows both sides to accomplish part of their agenda.  The House says we will put these items in the budget that the President and the Senate want, but there are a few things the House needs to get in return.

Let's face it; the Democrats are more skilled politicians than the Republicans.  When the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats were crying foul unless real compromise was reached.  George W. Bush reached across the aisle on a number of occasions and supported some more liberal policies.  The first one that comes to mind is the Medicare prescription drug plan.

By contrast, when Obama came into power he didn't see the need to compromise at all.  He believes that an election is a referendum or maybe even a mandate issued by the American people that says everything he wants must be passed.  Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are more than willing to use their liberal media to run rough shod over the Republicans every time an issue is contentious.  They don't try to compromise, but in fact, they are continually resorting to name calling or giving speeches where they accuse Republicans of being racist, greedy, self-serving S.O.B.'s.

This has created a MessAPolitico in America.  Of course, the Republicans didn't do much to help themselves as they have run home with their tails between their legs.  It seems that the Republicans in the House should stand up and remind the President that he will be needing funding for his pet programs or he will be up against the debt ceiling again at some point.  The Speaker of the House needs to fight back against the Democratic dirty pool using the power that resides in the House of Representatives.  It might go something like this:  President Obama, we don't appreciate your insults, false accusations, and lies about us.  If you want to get anything you want out of the House of Representatives, maybe you need to take a more conciliatory tone.  Majority Leader Reid, if you want us to send over a bill raising the debt ceiling, then you're going to have to bring up those jobs bills we sent to you for a vote.  Maybe the Senators need to be put on record voting for or against the repeal of Obamacare too.

The Republicans are just confused about the difference between the media and their constituents.  They are so worried that the media will show them in a bad light.  The thing the MessAPolitico just doesn't get is that the conservative base cheers when the liberal media says the Republicans did something bad.  Until the Republicans and the Democrats both learn who they work for, America will continue to give them lower and lower ratings in opinion polls.  There seems to be a smoldering anger in most of the country these days, and I hope that the primaries will bring this to a raging firestorm.  Please go out and take back America at the polls.

Do Our Elected Officials Give You Electile Dysfunction?

The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a Congressman whose district is here in southwest Ohio.  He is being challenged in the primary by a tea party candidate, J. D. Winteregg.  I heard a parody campaign advertisement done by the Winteregg campaign that says "sometimes when a politician has been in D.C. too long, it goes to his head, and he just can't seem to get the job done."  The ad also says "if you have a Boehner lasting longer than 23 years, seek immediate medical attention."  If you're wondering how to tell if someone is suffering from electile dysfunction, here are some signs noted in this little parody:

• Can't get the job done
• Constituents' voices "can't be heard on the federal level"
• U.S. border can't be secured
• Second Amendment rights in jeopardy
• Obamacare gets funded
• Planned Parenthood gets funded using our tax dollars
• Common sense can't be used anymore to solve problems
• "Inability to punch oneself out of a wet paper bag"
• "Inability to . . . maintain a spine in the face of liberal opposition"
• Playing a lot of golf

The finale of this advertisement is the suggestion that J.D. Winteregg is the cure for electile dysfunction in Washington.  I guess that's true if you live in Ohio's 8th Congressional district.

This little advertisement is pretty cute.  If you want to view it on YouTube, here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A8kq85Umco 

It probably isn't fair to blame everything bad happening in America on John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or the other Republicans.  In fact, when a bill gets written and passed by the Democrats, how can it be blamed on the Republicans?  As an example, Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote.  At that point, I blamed the Democrats fully for bringing us Obamacare.  Either the Democrats or the American people are at fault.  After all, too many of my fellow Americans either voted for the Democrats in Congress and the White House or they stayed home and let them win.

On the other hand, the Republicans have had multiple opportunities to bring us a balanced budget and stop Obamacare.  The House has control of the budget process.  All budget and taxation bills MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE.  As I have written before, the Supreme Court allowed the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act to stand based on the mandate being a tax rather than a punitive fine, so how did the PPACA originate in the Senate?  The President can blame the Republicans for shutting down the federal government.  He can call them ugly names like "obstructionist."  He and the Senate can ask the press to blame everything on the Republicans.  However, the President can never get the debt ceiling raised without the consent of the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

This is supposed to be the "give and take" built into our federal government system of checks and balances.  Without the politicians "giving and taking" we end up with one of two things:  a MessAPolitical stalemate where no one gets anything they want or an unchecked runaway train that gives one side victory on every single issue.  There are three equal branches of government that must work together to accomplish anything.  If Speaker Boehner and the House of Representatives had any spine, they would refuse to take all of the crap being dealt by Harry Reid and Barack Obama.  John Boehner is probably a good guy.  That being said, he's the Speaker of the House.  He needs to learn how to negotiate so that we make progress on our conservative agenda.  If John Boehner doesn't know how to negotiate, and there is no evidence showing that he does, then he should be replaced as Speaker of the House with someone a lot tougher.  I don't know that John Boehner should be replaced in Congress, but he should NOT be Speaker of the House anymore.

We Need Knife Control Legislation

Congress needs to pass a law requiring us to register all of our knives.  There was a mass stabbing at a school, and the Legislature needs to do something that guarantees that it will never happen again.  With this initiative to protect us from knives, there won't be any complaints about violating the constitution either.  The second amendment only covers guns.  There are no amendments or clauses in the constitution guaranteeing us the right to bear knives.

If we can't get a law completely banning knives, we should at least ban assault knives.  You might ask what that is, and the answer is very simply whatever Congress wants it to be.  Maybe it should be a knife that is "really scary looking."  An assault knife might be longer than 3" long.  No hunter needs a knife longer than 3" to gut a deer.

It would also be a good idea to have doctors ask people how many knives they own before providing medical care.  The information they gain should be provided to the federal Department of Health and Human Services so they can figure who the most dangerous Americans are.  We also wouldn't want anyone that is the least bit mentally unstable owning dangerous weapons like a paring knife or a steak knife.  If only we can save the life of just one unaborted child.

Do you have one of those butcher's blocks with multiple different knives in slots?  Do you keep your stash of these dangerous weapons in a kitchen drawer or your fishing tackle box?  Those are particularly dangerous semi-automatic knives.  We need to at least limit those to only 3 knives per household.

It's time for house to house searches to confiscate all of the knives that are threatening the lives of people everywhere.  You might even cut yourself if you've never received training in the proper use of a knife.  The knives certainly need to be locked away in a knife safe to prevent others from getting their hands on them.  Of course those would become concealed weapons then, so you'll need a license to own them.

I hope no one uses a car to run over someone.  I really like my car, and I need it to drive to work.  I have a long drive to work, and it would take me half the day to get there on a bicycle.  I'm begging the MessAPolitico to let us keep our cars.  I know they're really dangerous, but what would I do without it.  I guess I could move closer to work, but how will I get my furniture moved without a car or truck?

Barack Obama's Biggest Opponent

This morning I heard a campaign advertisement for Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign.  I was told that Barack Obama was secretly hoping that McConnell's Republican challenger, Matt Bevin, would win the primary.  I heard the President saying something about how the Senate Majority Leader's biggest goal was to stop him.  I'll bet Mr. Obama is shaking in his boots at the thought of Mitch McConnell being re-elected.  Those pesky Republicans are always there trying to stop the liberal agenda from being implemented.

So far, what have the Republicans done that has slowed down the progress of the Democratic party?  Not much.  The Republican controlled House has control of the budget process, so they could refuse to fund anything and everything.  They could have stopped the implementation of Obamacare by not funding it.  The House could refuse to raise the debt ceiling.  That would bring about a defacto balanced budget amendment.  Of course, the liberals wouldn't want the government shutdown to last very long, because the people would soon figure out that they could survive without the MessAPolitico.  But, I love to dream about how the government would operate under a balanced budget constraint.

If the government couldn't borrow any money, then it would be forced to spend no more than the incoming revenues.  The media and the Democrats bloviate that the government would have to be shut down "by the Republicans" in this situation, but that's simply not true.  The legislators and the President would be forced to make hard choices with the money they have coming in, but the entire government wouldn't need to be shut down completely.  I will add that these legislators need to make these hard choices, and they need to do it sooner rather than later.  Those are the same kind of choices all the average Americans have been making over the past five or six years when one of the bread winners got laid off.

A huge percentage of the federal budget is made up of non-discretionary spending.  That means that laws passed sometime in the past have mandated that a certain amount must be spent on this or that program.  These laws have formulas that automatically raise the amounts paid out each year based on things like the inflation rate.  None of today's lawmakers want to repeal or modify these laws because they're afraid the political opposition will run them out of Washington.  It also makes it very easy for today's politicians to blame the overblown budget on a past Congress.  Regardless, so many Americans today receive some form of tax break or government subsidy, cutting those benefits is likely to change a fiscally responsible politician into an unemployed one.

This leaves the politicians saying that they will just cut the waste and fraud from the government.  In theory, the spending could be cut without cutting benefits from anyone.  The problem is that a MessAPolitico is highly resistant to changes of any kind, especially those that would cause a government worker to lose his or her job.  The political opponents will run campaign ads that simply say that the budget of a pet government program was cut by their opponent.  The politicians from both sides of the aisle could get together and figure out where things could be cut with minimal impact on the country.  They could jointly work together and do what's best for America.  They could even take joint credit for the accomplishment.  This could happen in theory, but it will not in reality.  It is much easier for one party to turn fiscal responsibility into a political liability hung around the necks of the other party.

So, how can we stop this MessAPolitical circle of frustration?  It's simple.  Go out and vote in the primary.  Send a clear message to the party leadership that their re-election is in jeopardy.  Being an incumbent shouldn't be a guarantee of re-election.  Tell the MessAPolitico that you are fed up with career politicians who legislate their personal re-election without regard for the country.  Elect politicians that will do what is right and who don't care if they get re-elected.  They will gladly go back home to their real career in the private sector after a lost election.  I'm hoping that this new breed of politician will start taking over control of the House and the Senate next November.

Obama's Latest Diversion: Income Inequality

I'm certainly glad that we have income inequality in the United States.  You might say that I like it because income inequality works in my favor.  That's a true statement.  Those people that make below average wages are all for the concept of everyone making the same wage.  Would these people be better off if the income inequality was eliminated though?  How would things work if all jobs paid the same?

What would be the incentive to work in particularly difficult, dirty, or dangerous jobs?  Would everyone just pick a fun, easy job?  I don't believe everyone would take the easiest road, because some folks just enjoy a challenge, but a lot of people would take their "dream" job.  If you make the same money in all jobs, who would start all the businesses?  Today, entrepreneurs take a lot of risk and work very hard in hopes of getting the "pot of gold" at the end of the proverbial rainbow.  Why would they take any risk or do any extra work to get the same pay as everyone else?

What happens to the existing businesses out there?  Should stock holders make no profit?  Obama and the progressive liberal socialist Democrats vilify anyone or any business that makes what they deem as "excessive" profits.  When the price of gasoline was rising rapidly early in the Obama reign, politicians were reporting everyday about how Exxon-Mobil was making record profits.  Obama has also made statements indicating that our health care costs are too high because the CEO's of insurance companies are paid too much money and because of the corporate profits.  You know, I think our taxes are too high because the President and Congress make too much money.  (My statement is just as ridiculous as the liberal statements above.)  Should I assume that all companies would be not-for-profit in Obama's Marxist utopian economic view?  If that were the case, then stockholders shouldn't expect any dividends because there would be no earnings.  Without earnings, why would anyone buy a stock?  For that matter, why would a company want to invest capital in new equipment or expansion?  If no one wants to buy the stock you own, then it is worth $0.  Why should the company continue to operate?  Maybe the stockholders would just turn the company over to the government bureaucrats.  I'm sure everything would be wonderful with the MessAPolitico in charge.  It would be just like our government in every aspect of the economy.

If all of the corporations just closed their doors and entrepreneurs quit opening new businesses, where would we all work?  Will the government just find jobs in the bowels of the bureaucracy for everyone?  Who will pay the salaries?  Maybe we should be taxed at 100% of our salaries, and the government could take out the costs of running the government and just pay us back what's left over as a salary.  Maybe you noticed that the math doesn't work out there.  The MessAPolitico does the math using this exact logic.  The dirty little secret is that the bureaucrats love the rich people that they "beat up" on a regular basis.  They need rich people around so they can rob them to pay the "benefits" that are doled out to buy votes.

The Senate has passed an extension of long-term unemployment benefits.  Harry Reid has been saying that the House should take a vote on this extension.  He says it is inexcusable that the House Republicans don't care about the unemployed that need this lifeline.  It sure is funny how the Senate has refused to vote on dozens of job creation proposals sent over from the House.  Why isn't that inexcusable?  Is it more compassionate to help improve the economic environment to facilitate job creation or to provide a handout?  Oh, I guess we wouldn't need to pay unemployment benefits if it wasn't for George W. Bush.  Please help me elect challengers in the upcoming primaries.  We don't need new leaders in Washington; we just need leaders, period.

Is Obamacare Delivering Health Care to the Uninsured?

Do you remember the litany from the Democrats about the uninsured people in the United States?  I remember a lot of arguments about how many people were uninsured in America.  There was a lot of discussion about how many of these folks were illegal aliens too.  We heard about how a lot of younger people decided to go uninsured, because they considered themselves invincible.  There are also some rich people that choose not to buy insurance because they can afford to pay for any medical care they need, regardless of the expense.

In March of 2009, President Obama said "all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured . . ."  Was that the real number of people in the USA without health insurance?  Who knows?  I do know that the number of enrollees for Obamacare is reportedly something less than 7 million as we are reaching the signup deadline today.  Let's assume for a minute that Barack Obama and our government are shooting straight with these two numbers.  (I know that it is a big stretch to take any statistic from our federal government as accurate or true.)  Does that mean that we have gone through a massive upheaval, the PPACA screwed up millions of satisfied Americans' health plans, and only about 15% of the formerly uninsured have insurance now?

Of course, 15% of the uninsured would have insurance now if the real number of people who have actually fully completed signing up for an Obamacare plan is 7 million and none of those people are replacing a plan that was cancelled.  Reports from the state exchanges estimate that somewhere in the 50%-75% range were previously uninsured.  It is also important to note that the nearly 7 million number is the number of people that have signed up for Obamacare, not the number that have actually completed the transaction and paid a premium.  The number that are truly Obamacare enrollees with a new Obamacare plan in force has not been reported so far.

Like most solutions created by the MessAPolitico, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act has done a miserable job of meeting its original goal -- providing health insurance to the uninsured poor.  (Do the liberals supporting this MessAPolitico even remember the original goal?  Was the real goal to create a great legacy for Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?)  It also has come with a multitude of unforeseen consequences.  As far as affordability goes, a lot more people will have to drop their insurance plans if they get much more affordable.  If more healthy people don't sign up, the premiums are going to rise further next year.  With most of the Obamacare recipients having their premiums subsidized or paid completely by the government, what will our budget deficit look like next year and the year after and off into the future?

Do the Republicans Have a Plan?

The Republicans plan to repeal the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act if they ever regain control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.  That doesn't constitute a plan though.  A plan would have to be a detailed procedure for shutting Obamacare off, including dealing with the people that lost their health care coverage and have pre-existing conditions.  The Republicans also need to figure out how to deal with the folks whose coverage has already been changed to a PPACA compliant policy that costs a lot more than their old plan.

I still remember the Contract with America that was used as a Republican campaign tool in the 1994 mid-term election during Bill Clinton's first term.  That plan was devised by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, and the voters were told what they would get if they voted Republican.  Ten legislative goals were laid out in enough specificity to get the attention of voters.  The Republicans won in a landslide, taking control of the House and the Senate.  This is what the Republicans need to do again with this election.

I've heard plenty of campaign advertisements being run by the incumbent Republicans lately.  Specifically, Mitch McConnell's ads are big on generalities with no specifics.  All of us want to know what we will get with a Republican majority after the upcoming election.  The bills they plan to introduce and pass should be published weeks before the election, so we can study them.  They should be brief and to the point.  Obamacare is a huge monstrosity that ten lawyers couldn't figure out in six months.  It needs to be replaced with simple, common sense reforms of the health care system.  These reforms shouldn't be all encompassed in one massive bill that gives legislators an "all or nothing" choice.  Each reform should be a separate bill that stands alone and can be considered on its on merits.  Hopefully the legislators will consider the pros and cons of each reform and choose to individually accept or reject each one.

Bills should be created in committees with members of both parties negotiating to find the best solution for the American people.  Legislating is not supposed to be about screwing the other party or taking 100% credit by one party.  Americans are sick of the politics and the MessAPolitico feathering their own nests at the expense of our country.  Why can't we find a reform that is good for America and that legislators on both sides of the aisle will support?

The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act is seen as some sort of great achievement of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  Even in the face of intense opposition to the bill by the American people, the MessAPolitico won't turn back.  They can't stop this great accomplishment that they see as their legacy.  The American people don't give a damn about a politician's legacy.  And you have to wonder what happens to their legacies if the Republicans succeed in regaining control of the federal government in the next two elections.  If Obamacare is repealed, the legacy they are guarding will be gone.  That means history will say that Barack Obama had a failed presidency.  The Democrats that are running the Senate and the White House still have the opportunity to spend the next six months replacing Obamacare with new bills as I have described above.  In my opinion, that is the only way they can retain control of the Senate.

It is highly unlikely that Harry Reid or Barack Obama will concede that the PPACA is the MessAPolitico that it is.  The Republicans can wait until November rolls around and hope that America will turn over the Senate to them as the lesser of two evils.  Or the Republicans can develop a legislative strategy to get this thing fixed.  They can run on the 2014 contract with America.  Their strategic plan should include tactics that address all contingencies.  That means figuring out how to negotiate a win for America even if the Democrats retain control of the Senate in 2014 and/or the Presidency in 2016.  How will they use control of the budget to stop implementation of bills they don't like?  Are there other ways to stop the liberal MessAPolitico?  Will they work with the more conservative Democrats to craft bipartisan legislation?  Can they possibly get some of their legislative initiatives passed even without control of the entire government?

The Republicans today have a major hindrance, and it is poor leadership.  There are plenty of good Republicans in Washington, but everyone isn't united in a common purpose.  They don't believe they can ever get a conservative bill to pass unless they get control of all three branches of government.  It just isn't true.  I will say this to all Republican politicians out there:

• Develop a mission statement for the Republican party
• Get together and analyze the state of the union, identifying problems
• Develop alternative solutions to each of the problems
• Create a strategic plan for fixing these problems
• Show us your plan as you campaign
• Make this a national effort or possibly a national plea to the American voters

Do this, and you are guaranteed to take back America.

Are Charter Schools Bad?

For some reason liberal politicians are against school choice.  They also seem to oppose charter schools.  Why?  They complain that people want to send their kids to private schools, especially parochial schools.  It's not fair that the rich kids' parents can afford to send them to private schools to get a better education, while poor kids are left behind in the crumbling public school system.

Aren't charter schools just schools that compete for good students in the inner city neighborhoods with smaller classes and better academic performance.  The students also compete to be selected by the best charter schools.  These schools are publicly funded, but they function more like a private school.  There is competition that makes them more responsive to the needs of the students, and they help poor students excel.  The charter schools are exempt from many of the "one-size-fits-all" rules and regulations imposed upon the normal public schools.  However, they are still required to give all students the standardized tests and meet the minimum requirements for results.  Generally speaking, "cutting-edge" teaching techniques are used, and the students tend to thrive in the environment.  Parental involvement is encouraged if not required to show the students that their parents place a high importance on learning and high academic performance.

So, what's not to like about charter schools?  Rules for operating charter schools vary from state to state.  In some locations the charter school teachers aren't required to be credentialed.  Also, some of the teachers are non-union.  Could this be the stumbling block for Democrat politicians?  They have received campaign contributions from the unions, and they are beholden to them.  These Democrats will have a tougher time funding their campaigns without these huge contributions.  They also need the votes from the union members.  So, they find the performance of the schools and the academic results to be less important than re-election.

This proves that the MessAPolitico could even mess up their own good ideas.  Do they also not want the students in the inner city to perform well?  If those kids grow up and succeed in high school and college, they will likely grow up to be productive members of society that earn a living above the poverty line.  How can they be kept dependent on the government for everything in their lives with that kind of success?  They might even switch over and vote Republican.  That would be a travesty.

It's time for the poor and lower middle class members of our society to realize that liberal politicians want to sound compassionate about their plight.  However, they don't want to pull them up out of poverty and government dependence.  The MessAPolitico might be compassionate about poverty, but they are only passionate about re-election.

VA Health Care: Obamacare Preview

Don’t we have a government run health care system already in place?  The Veterans Administration operates a health care system that is funded and run by our United States federal government.  Should we expect a government run health care system for the rest of us to be run as efficiently as the VA health care system?

Of course, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act doesn’t set up a government run health care system that employs doctors and owns and operates clinics and hospitals.  Many believe it is a first step toward some larger goal like this.  Maybe that goal is to have a single payer system.  When Barack Obama was secretly recorded in a fund raiser during his first election campaign, he could be heard saying that ultimately he wants a single payer system of health care.  That is a government takeover of the health insurance industry.  The President and probably many other progressives and socialists and communists believe that the reason we have high health care costs is because of the profits earned by insurance companies and the salaries of their top management.

If the progressives ever reach their goal of a single payer health care system, what will it look like?  How will it operate?  Will there be any problems?  Will everyone get the health care they need, just like the upper and middle economic classes have today?  Will our health care cost less?  Will the health care services we need be available in a timely fashion?

Let’s take a look at the Veterans Affairs health care system for some answers to the questions above.  On November 20^th of last year, CNN ran a report about veterans dying needlessly.  They reported that these folks were dying because of delays in getting preventative care like colonoscopies or endoscopies or other tests that check for cancer in the early stages.  With regard to cancer, CNN reported that a number of veterans are dying due to delays in diagnosis and in receiving treatment.  The report focused on the Williams Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Medical Center in Columbia, South Carolina.  That hospital had a wait time in summer of 2011 of eight months for gastrointestinal appointments.

Stars and Stripes reported on their website in April of 2012 “that veterans on average have to wait nearly two months” for mental health care.  The Washington Examiner reported that “thousands of orders for diagnostic medical tests have been purged en masse by the Department of Veterans Affairs to make it appear its decade-long backlog is being eliminated.”  On March 15^th of last year, www.armytimes.com reported that “according to VA, about 49 percent of new patients and 90 percent of established patients are able to see a primary care doctor or specialist within VA’s goal of 14 days, a metric established in 2011.  But the first-time patients who weren’t seen within 14 days waited an average 50 days to schedule initial appointments.”

I have an individual health insurance policy for myself, my wife, and my daughter.  We utilize private physicians and hospitals for our medical care.  When I read things like these above, it is unacceptable.  All of us that have access to private health care know that we can call and get an appointment to see a doctor later today if it’s early, and tomorrow if it is late in the day.  When I call, it is very unusual to have a wait time or to be put on hold.  If we call for a check-up, mammogram, colonoscopy, or other preventative care, we are given an appointment at a time that fits our schedule and within a few weeks.  Is this what we will have in our future if the liberals get their wish and we have a complete government takeover of the health care industry?

I suspect that the upheaval in health care has only just begun.  If Obamacare was shut off today, what would happen to all of the folks with pre-existing conditions that have lost their health insurance?  The further we go down this road, the harder it will be to turn back.  If doctors can’t charge enough for their services to cover the costs of providing it and meeting the regulations laid down by the PPACA, will they quit or retire?  Will they go to work for the government on salary?  If enough of them quit, where will we get the health care we need and want?

The MessAPolitico has already done damage to the American health care system.  I’m not sure why my health care had to be touched in order to provide better care for someone else.  I don’t understand why this PPACA was supposed to insure tens of millions that had no insurance, but it seems to have done poorly at that.  Instead, more or as many people lost their insurance coverage as gained it.

The sooner this gets stopped, the better.  Please go to the primaries to vote for new blood in the Senate.  Get rid of anyone that voted to fund the PPACA last fall.  I don’t care if your Senator or Representative is a Democrat or a Republican.  If they didn’t do everything in their power to stop the PPACA at every opportunity, they should be replaced.

Low-Flush Toilets

Our government MessAPolitico passed the Energy Policy Act, and in 1992, it was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush.  This law specified that new toilets must not require more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush, whereas the normal flush toilets had required around 3.5 gallons per flush. 

I remember seeing Hollywood celebrities like Tom Cruise running around talking about how we need to waste less water.  Of course, the Hollywood types generally live out in the western U.S. where water is in short supply.  If there is a drought for a little while in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada, their rivers and streams start to dry up.  The big cities out there are filling with millions of folks moving out for better weather and sunny Pacific coast beaches.  They need more and more water, but the climate is quite arid.

The question is this:  why does the eastern 2/3 of America need to ration water?  In the areas where I have lived my entire life from Mississippi to Missouri to the Ohio River Valley, drought will cause your lawn and the crops to dry up, but there is always water coming from the faucet.  The Ohio, Tennessee, Mississippi, or Missouri Rivers may drop in times of low rainfall, but there is always plenty of water at the intakes to the water treatment plants.

You might ask why are low-flush toilets such a bad thing.  What is so bad about saving water?  My answer is that these "dribbling" toilets don't get enough water flowing to get the job done.  If I save 1.9 gallons of water per flush, but I need to flush three times, how did I save any water?  (How's that for answering a question with a question?)

There's another thing I heard about low-flush toilets, and I don't know for sure that it is true.  A while ago a plumber called into a radio talk show and said that the plumbing in most U.S. homes wasn't designed or installed for such a low amount of water flow.  He said that the piping has a gradual slope from the toilets and sinks and tubs in the home to the sewers under the streets.  With the low-flush toilets, there isn't enough flow generated to push the solids all the way to the main sewer system.  This results in a build up of these solids in the system that can lead to clogs and plumbing problems.  According to him, the sewer system needs more slope to work with the limited water flow.

Once again, the MessAPolitico tells folks how to run their business and design their products.  Their intentions are good, but the results aren't that great.  Some areas of the country have a limited supply of water, so the entire country needs to change how things are done.  Wouldn't the shortage of water in the west lead to very high water rates out there?  And, wouldn't the high water rates encourage the folks out west to use less water?  Maybe they would buy a low-flush toilet.  Maybe they would decide not to flush after number one.  Maybe they would install a low-flush toilet in one bathroom and only use that for number one.  Maybe the high water rates would discourage more people from moving to an area with limited water supply.  You know, those free-market solutions work so much better than the government regulations that are shoved down our throats every day.

The MessAPolitico keeps pushing Americans.  They keep telling us what we can and can't do.  Laws are passed to take away our free will to do anything they've deemed bad for us.  Please vote in the upcoming primaries to end the "nanny state."  They can't run our country, and I don't want them running my life.  I can't stand any more of their improvements.

Compact Fluorescents

The MessAPolitico has decided that we all need compact fluorescent light bulbs everywhere.  In fact, they have banned the normal incandescent light bulb.  This is the typical "one-size-fits-all" philosophy that our illustrious government specializes in delivering.  I think fluorescent bulbs are great.  I have them in many places in our home.  The light is pleasantly bright, with less glare than some incandescent bulbs and a more natural white light.  The problem is that these bulbs aren't the best solution for every application.

We all know that fluorescent bulbs require a starter or ballast.  The ballast and the bulb will both wear out if they are turned on and off too frequently.  In your family room where the light is turned on at dusk and stays on until bedtime, a fluorescent bulb should be used to save energy and reduce the monthly electric bill.  However, in a closet where the light stays on for maybe 20 minutes a day, while being turned on and off four or more times daily, a fluorescent makes absolutely no sense.  Of course, when something makes no sense, that makes it the perfect MessAPolitical solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

An incandescent bulb in a closet or a bathroom or the garage is a great solution.  They use more energy, but these bulbs run so few hours/month that the payback on a more expensive energy saving bulb would be a very long time.  No one could justify buying a CFL bulb for these places, and the frequent short usages lead to premature failure.

Outdoor applications in a front porch light might make sense for the compact fluorescent bulb, but the environment with temperature extremes and moisture are pretty rough on the average CFL bulb.  Maybe an LED bulb would be a better solution there.  If the LED is a good solution, I wouldn't expect the MessAPolitico to jump on it.

Whenever our government sets about fixing some problem a bureaucrat decided exists, they end up causing a problem.  It's the law of unintended consequences that was created just for MessAPolitical action in society.  Washington uses endless rules, regulations, laws, and tax incentives to tell Americans how to live their lives.  These arrogant, self-righteous, egotistical narcissists in Washington and in state capitols across America think they know what is best for each of us.  It's time we let them know what we think of their opinions on how our lives should be run.  Send the incumbents home in the upcoming primaries.  Let's send the next batch of politicians to Washington to represent our views, not to dictate how America should operate.  Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.

A New Record High Temperature

I was watching the weather report on Saturday night, and the weatherman showed the daily temperature data.  It showed that we had an above average high that day of 60 degrees.  The average or, as he put it, "normal" high for March 15th in Cincinnati is 53 degrees.  The implication of this statement is that any time the high on March 15th is anything besides 53 degrees, it is not normal.  Do you think that is right?  54 degrees is above normal in Cincinnati on March 15th.  It certainly is above average, but that doesn't mean above normal.  If the temperature here was very consistent like it is in a cave thousands of feet below the Earth's surface, then 1 degree above average would be above normal.  However, the high temperature in most places on the surface of the Earth varies with a standard "bell" curve distribution.  That means that 68.2% of the time, the high temperature will fall between plus or minus one standard deviation of the average temperature.  So what is the standard deviation of the high temperature on March 15th in Cincinnati?  I don't know, but it seems that normal might be defined as the range of temperatures that occurs 68.2% of the time.

Of course, this statistical math seems to make everyone's eyes glaze over.  It's no wonder that the weatherman doesn't talk about a range of high temperatures that constitutes normal.  There is a simple way to handle this.  Just refer to the average high as the average high temperature.  Quit trying to change the mindset of people watching the weather forecast using questionable wording.  53 degrees is not the only normal high temperature for Cincinnati on March 15th, and the weatherman shouldn't make it out to be this way.

There was another interesting tidbit in the daily temperature data presented in that weather summary.  It was a pretty warm day compared to the rest of this winter of 2014 with the high being 60 degrees.  However, it was nowhere near the record high of 82 degrees.  With all of this global warming hoopla we've all had drilled into our heads, that record was probably set within the past couple of years.  Do you think we hit 82 degrees in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013?  If you guessed one of those years, you would be off a little bit.  That record was set in 1944.  That's kind of interesting.  Was there global warming in the 1940's.  You might think so, because the all time warmest average temperature for the month of March was set in 2012, and it broke the old record set in 1946 for Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and a number of other cities in Ohio.  Other cities in the area had high average temperatures in March of 1921, 1945, 1973, and 2000.  You would guess that 1921, 1945, 1946, 1973, and 2000 were all relatively hot years for all the cities in the same general area, so the statistics seem to indicate that some years are hot, while others are not.  I don't see a general trend towards hotter and hotter years recently.  In fact, it looks like those really hot years are spaced out by about 25-30 years.

It should be noted that these record temperatures aren't the highest temperatures we've had here since Adam and Eve invented the thermometer and started writing down the temperature every hour.  We have temperature data going back to about 1880.  One might wonder about the accuracy of the data in the early part of that 134 year span.  In any case, with 130 years of data for a planet that is somewhere between 5000 and millions of years old, you can't show much of a trend.  The scientists have told us that an ice age came and went millions of years ago.  How did the ice age end?  Didn't we have global warming that started at the peak of the ice age?  I guess the cave men and women were driving around in gas guzzling SUV's and burning coal.

Hearing mental midgets like Al Gore or Michael Moore or Barack Obama running around talking like they are scientists is infuriating.  They are the MessAPolitico.  They've made a mess of politics, which is their area of expertise of course.  Why should you believe that they know anything about science?  When they pay out billions in grant money to scientists to prove that global warming is man-made, what would you expect the results to be?  I guess they don't realize that real scientists would set out to learn what is going on rather than trying to prove something is true so they can collect a payday.

Democrat Global Warming Smoke Screen

A few Democrats in the Senate stayed up all night Monday to "wake up" Congress to the evils of climate change.  Only thirty of the fifty three Democrats in the Senate participated in this Climate Action Task Force event.  When the MessAPolitico is bloviating, listen carefully to what they say.  The Republicans were labeled "climate change deniers."  We were told by these Democrats that there is "overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is caused primarily by humans, and will have serious impacts if unchecked."  Then, one after another, they stepped up to the microphone and said that 97% or 98% or 99% of scientists that study climate change agree.  The doubt is all gone.

Notice what that statement really said.  They didn't say that 98% of all scientists agree on climate change.  The statement said that these climatologists all agree that global warming is real, and man has caused it.  If you think about this, is it surprising?  Why would a person that disagrees with climate change/global warming write a PhD dissertation and spend years in college trying to earn a degree in climatology?  If you did the research and ended up with the opinion that climate change was a big hoax or maybe just bad science, you would be pretty far down the road with your career choice in a field rendered worthless by your research.  Would you tell anyone about the results of your research?  Probably not.

So, we have a bunch of "blow hard" politicians making judgments of a scientific or logical nature.  If there's one thing lacking amongst the MessAPolitico, it's logic.  There's probably enough hot air in Washington to actually cause man-made global warming.

This task force says the science is all settled, and now it's time to take action.  They want to kill the economy, make us all pay a lot more for alternative energy, and put everyone out of work that mines coal, drills for oil or natural gas, or works at a coal-fired power plant.  Why not take an action that really would put folks to work?  Put the people to work planting trees.  Harvest trees to make wood pellets, and use torrefaction to increase the energy density to approximately that of coal.  The wood products can be burned interchangeably with coal to produce electricity, and the carbon dioxide created is offset by the carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen during the growth of the tree.  That would be doing something that really does reduce the carbon dioxide in the environment.  It also provides a use for trees that were formerly grown and harvested for producing paper.  Why can't the MessAPolitico do something positive for a change?

Will Mitch McConnell Win in the Republican Primary?

I just saw a campaign ad for Mitch McConnell against the Tea Party candidate, Matt Bevin.  They will face off in the Republican primary in Kentucky on May 20th.  It is interesting the contrast in their campaign ads.

Mitch McConnell's ads have two messages.  Number one, they say over and over that Matt Bevin lied on his resume, saying that he attended MIT.  The other message is filled with vague generalities about how Senator McConnell opposes the Obama agenda.  Mitch is in his thirtieth year in the Senate, and he can't find any specific accomplishment in his resume.  The McConnell campaign pitch is to simply smear his opponent.  He might oppose the Obama agenda, but he voted with the Democrats to fund Obamacare with the continuing resolution back in the fall.  The Democrats could have passed it in the Senate without the help of Senator McConnell.  Every one of them could have passed the bill to fund Obamacare with no help from a Republican, but the Minority Leader joined them.  The consequence of this is Mitch McConnell losing the conservative base in Kentucky.

Matt Bevin, by contrast, tells us his stance on the issues before America.  I haven't heard anything in his advertisements that is contrary to my beliefs.  As I wrote above, I haven't heard anything in Mitch McConnell's ads, period.  Matt Bevin says that Obamacare needs to be stopped, period.  Matt Bevin will vote for a budget that cuts spending.  Unlike Mitch McConnell, Matt Bevin isn't afraid to stand up to President Obama and the other Democrats in Washington.  In fact, Matt Bevin is not a career politician and will stand up against the establishment Republican and Democrat MessAPolitico.  This is not a job Matt Bevins needs.  It isn't his career.  I don't expect any double talk to save his butt.

These primary elections are the place to stop the MessAPolitico.  Please go out and vote in the primaries in your states.  Don't just rubber stamp the incumbents in the primaries.  Vote for bringing back fiscal responsibility and leadership.