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.