Three Speeches That Destroyed Presidencies

Andrew Johnson's speech on Washington's Birthday 1866.  He compares himself to Christ and his Radical Republican political opponents in Congress to the recently defeated Confederates.

Jimmy Carter's "Crisis of Confidence" or "Malaise" speech.  He lays out a laundry list of demoralizing American problems with no solutions and no real hope of success.

Barack Obama's stunning admission, after a summer full of golf and vacations that he has no strategy for ISIL revolutionaries.

Ministry of "Truthy" Coming to a Federal Government Near You

Elizabeth Harrington of Washington Free Beacon gets an award for the creepiest federal government story of the week.

It has shades of 1984, George Orwell's masterpiece about a totalitarian society. Three ministries control the government under the watchful eye of Big Brother.  One of these is the Ministry of Truth.  This outfit tirelessly works to create the government's narrative while ruthlessly annihilating dissenting voices, or even history.  "We have always been at war with East Asia."

The Obama Administration gave a $1 million grant to a group led by an Organizing For America (Obama's old campaign organization that still exists for some reason) member.  The group is creating a program designed to spot "misinformation" and "suspicious memes" in campaigns and public discourse.

They call it "truthy" after a Stephen Colbert bit.  Referencing a comedian with a liberal agenda is hardly a good starting point.

Why is this problematic?

The New York Times recently called Obama and his minions the worst threat to press freedom in a generation.  No president has worked so hard to control the narrative about his policies, using spying, coercion, and any other tactic possible.  Few can compete with Obama and his team in the creating of "misinformation" and "suspicious memes."

Journalism school teaches about the marketplace of ideas.  The public can decide which are beneficial and which are not.  Certainly the federal government, as a player in that marketplace, cannot be trusted to referee.

Defending Dick Cheney

Time for some in the GOP to stop wringing its hands over the Iraq War.

It was the right call and by 2009 was close to lasting stability.  Because of that, former Vice President Dick Cheney has every reason to speak from the high ground about Obama's failures there.

Imagine buying a junked car.  You give it extensive repairs with new parts, get it up and running.  It is relatively reliable if you do not put too much pressure on it and sensibly maintain it.

Then you sell it to an irresponsible owner who drives it for six years with no oil changes, no transmission service, no attention to coolant cleanliness or if it even has coolant.

What would you expect to happen?  The car would break down at the most inopportune time.

Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency had held free elections, despite terrorists' intentions to disrupt.  They had assembled a relatively democratic government.  Armed forces were being put together under the tutelage of the US military.  American troops remained in place, keeping terrorists at bay.  Advisers quietly urged the government towards good policy, albeit with mixed success.

Naysayers forget about the cruelty of Saddam, of his backing of terror, of his plans to leave his country's resources and military into the hands of his sadistic and psychopathic sons.  If that day had come, Iraq itself would be a dangerous source of instability in the region.

This Washington Post rebuttal of Cheney's thoughts on Obama and Iraq centers on the Bush Administration's original agreement to keep forces in Iraq until 2011.  It infers that Obama's task in renewing that agreement was impossible.  How hard did the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even try?

The State Department's fixation on oceans for the past few years indicates that its priorities are a bit out of whack.

Over six years, Obama turned his back on the fragile, but still developing government.  He did not negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep US troops in place.  American soldiers are the best ambassadors of our system and our way of life, whether fighting for the Iraqi people or simply talking about the US every day. The enemy also fears US troops, knowing that engaging our soldiers brings a potentially heavy price for them.

Obama sent mixed signals to the Middle East.  President Bush followed the Reagan tradition of using confident expressions of freedom and liberty to inspire the world. Obama went over there and ruminated about mistakes and problems that historically pale in comparison to the good we have done.

His going to Canossa was the first step in destroying the respect carefully constructed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

Many will point to complaints, demonstrations, social media rants as proof that American policy was wrong because we were not loved.  They have it wrong.  America needs to be not loved, but respected. Respected for our power and the principles behind its use.

Iraq today stands at the edge of the precipice.  Obama abandoned it to a cruel fate and now considers a rushed last minute rescue, not because it is the right thing to do, but because Iraq's failure would hurt his legacy even more.

America cannot be the world's policeman.  Some situations, however, do call for action. Iraq was one such issue.  Had Bush's successor maintained a foreign policy based on engagement and respect rather than golf and celebrities, Iraq and the Middle East would be on a much firmer foundation today.

Iraq's Modern Day Mahdi: Bald Faced Terror On the Move In the Middle East

As the American media drones on about the primary defeat of a Virginia congressman, the lights may be going out around the Middle East.

A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul.  Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.

Some see this as a historical correction.  From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states.  Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.

ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings.  Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.

At stake is the government of Iraq.  The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy.  Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote.  American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.

Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.

Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan.  Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.

Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end.  A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.

Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah.  The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.

The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join.  He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers.  Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.

The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections.  They bring only death and suffering.  They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators.  They torture and destroy.

What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario.  A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East.  We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world.  But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.

One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.

Somewhere, Andrew Johnson Is Thankful That He Is No Longer the Worst

Until perhaps now, the worst president in the history of the United States has to have been President Andrew Johnson.  No one else has managed to reach the same reverse Midas touch (everything he touches turns to name something foul and offensive) ineptness shown by Andrew Johnson . . . again, until perhaps now.

As a president, Johnson deserves his fate.  As a man, he deserves some slack.  The nation would have never elected Johnson to this office on his own merits.  He was an aggressive, sometimes drunken, angry man bearing not chips, but full grown redwood trees on his shoulders.  Johnson was useful as a Southern Democrat in the US Senate who hated secession and everyone associated with it.

Johnson tried to follow what he assumed Lincoln's policy would be.  But he lacked Lincoln's disarming diplomatic style.  His intellect paled in comparison, also.  Most importantly, Lincoln earned more political capital than any president since Washington by winning the Civil War.  He would have had to spend all of it and test his leadership abilities to their limit to implement his Reconstruction plan and make sure the South abided.  Johnson had no such capital and no such abilities.

His suspicious and angry nature alienated moderate Republicans who had been eager to assist and even defend him against Radicals who sought full punishment for the costs of secession.  The Democratic Party remained too tainted with the recent Rebellion to have given him substantial backing.

Johnson and Obama have many differences.  One grew up in rural poverty, the other in urban comfort.  But many similarities link them.  They both saw themselves as the moral center of events.  This created trouble for both because they could not understand that others may disagree for completely honest reasons.

Johnson, on Washington's Birthday no less, savaged his House Republican opponents.   He accused Thaddeus Stevens, among others, for preventing the reconciliation of the country.  "I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies!" he shouted.  Obama, too has played the morally righteous victim, attacked by unreasonable opponents.

Both men relied on shrinking circles of trusted advisers.  Obama has few, other than Valerie Jarrett, at this point after starting off with the capable Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs.  Johnson lost most of his Cabinet outside of the increasingly moderate secretary of state William Seward.  Seward had a relatively free hand and gave Johnson one of his few accomplishments, the purchase of Alaska.

Johnson's political influence did not hit its nadir in fall of 1866, even though he invested two weeks into speeches backing Democratic candidates.  Those who allowed him to speak in their support found he was little help.  Radical Republicans won big in the midterms that year and the nation repudiated Johnson.  In 2014, most Democratic candidates avoid Obama.  Allison Grimes of Kentucky hopes to build support for her Senate race against Republican Mitch McConnell by attacking the president.

And both men broke the law.  Historians generally agree that the Tenure of Office Act was a trap laid out in the open by Republicans hoping to catch Johnson committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." they impeached, but failed to remove him.  The odium of violating the law and facing a Senate trial ended whatever influence Johnson had left.

Obama last week violated a more important federal law.  He turned five terrorist leaders and strategists back over to the enemy for a Marine who may have been at best a deserter, at worst a traitor. The law requires that any terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay come after consultation with Congress and 30 days for discussion. Obama failed to follow the law, then allowed his National Security Adviser to claim the enemy captured him on the battlefield, which was far from the case. The Taliban must know that if these men plan and execute an attack that harms Americans, that it will spark a Constitutional crisis and the likely impeachment of the president.

Democrats seem to have found their breaking point.  Senator Diane Feinstein was livid in her denunciation.  This comes on top of the Veterans' Affairs scandal and the War on Coal regulations that provoked open rebellion from Senator Joe Manchin and Congressman Nick Rahall.  Obamacare's many failures and burdens on working Americans already define his presidency. Clinton will try to separate herself from the president and his policy, but will not have much success.

Johnson with his flawed personality and good intentions sank his own presidency.   He failed in everything that he tried, but Andrew Johnson did not make the country substantially worse off than when he took office. Obama's values and beliefs have underlain every policy decision that he has made, foreign and domestic.  The utter wrongness of those ideas has put the nation and the world in a much worse position

Calling Out the Mob

Last winter, as biting winds whipped snow around the federal capital, chilling news on energy was released.  The moratorium on coal fired power plants, combined with a number of forced closures, would force energy prices to rise 70 to 80 percent.  The Obama Administration last week tried to cushion the blow of higher prices with an apocalyptic prediction of climate destruction.

Ignoring Congress, the EPA manufactured a regulatory interpretation that allowed them to force plants to use sequestration technology to capture carbon.  This technology does not even exist.  Enforcing this rule will start shutting down plants whose output was necessary to maintaining power levels in the Northeast during the record cold winter.

This is, of course, done to prevent global warming.

The Heritage Foundation's Stephen Moore and Joel Griffith researched all of the climate claims used as "proof" of climate catastrophe.  Every single weather phenomenon was debunked by the article. Temperatures have neither increased, nor dropped on average in ten years.  Tornadoes do not happen with any increasing frequency.  Hurricanes have actually happened less often.

Moore and Griffith also examined Jimmy Carter's own apocalyptic climate report, predicting oil shortages and starvation in 2000.  None of the fearsome claims made by the scientists of the 1970s ever came to pass.

And they wonder why Americans view politicized science with more skepticism now.

Putin, Ukraine, and an Abysmal Failure of US Foreign Policy

It did not have to be this way.

Today, Vladimir Putin's forces hold the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.  Barack Obama looks weaker than ever, his presidency's previous shambles even look good by comparison.  Pundits decry the loss of US influence.  The stark truth is that there is little that the United States can do to alter the situation.

But why?

First, Putin actually has defensible reasons to enter Ukraine.  This is not to say that he could not have achieved better results with a less dramatic move.  But a border country approaching chaos gives Russia a powerful excuse to protect Russian ethnics and Russian facilities there.  What if Mexico devolved even more into violence and instability?  At some point in the near future, US forces may have to occupy parts of that country to bring stability and protect Americans living there.  Before criticizing others, a nation must consider what it would have to do in a similar situation.

The West failed in Ukraine because the United States abdicated its role, dating back to the Treaty of Versailles, to bolster free societies and free markets around the globe.  US policy has, at times used the Franklin Roosevelt philosophy of "he's a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch" in backing friendly authoritarian regimes.  But the overall goal has always been transition into free societies with economic opportunity.

That does not happen by dumping money or bombs on a nation.  It comes from a consistently articulated vision by the US foreign policy establishment that natural rights, free markets, rule of law are essential to human happiness and world peace.  Praising democratic friends, such as Britain and Israel, helps to broaden the "city on the hill" ideal articulated by Democratic and Republican presidents alike in different ways.

The vision does not just come from talking about freedom.  Diplomatic, other government, and private groups must engage fragile societies to help educate and develop faith in the essential aspects of freedom and prosperity.  Internationalize the values that Americans and others take for granted.

Instead, Obama tore apart the fabric.  He blamed the United States for the trouble in the world, never realizing that wise use of American power and influence more often puts us in the referee role.  We are keeping more conflicts apart than anyone realizes.  Until the influence and respect dissipates and the world runs riot.

We are not the world's policeman, nor should we be.  But constant engagement of rhetoric, policy, and economic influence has helped to keep the world at peace.  Obama could not see the overall benefit of US power, only the rare times that it has not turned out right.  He tore it down and now instability hits one country after another.

Power seeks a vacuum,  Obama created one.  Putin and China have been happy to step in.

And so you get what we had here last week.  Which is the way he wants it.

As for Putin, he is more Bismarck than Stalin.  He's willing to bend his own region to his economic and security goals, use social issues to rally his supporters and alienate his political opponents.  Russia's sudden worry about gays smacks of Bismarck's kulturkampf against political Catholics.  But Bismarck did not want to completely revise the international system, just strengthen Germany's position within it.  The Russian Czars acted in the same way.  Russia traditionally seeks security on its borderlands and will aggressively move to ensure it.

Had the United States remained engaged in Ukraine and kept its near century old commitment to supporting freedom, that country may have solved its own problems.  It may have remained solid enough to deter Russian fears or thoughts of aggrandizement.

China is more worrisome for a number of reasons.  As is Iran.  Both countries have more revisionist fantasies.

Cold Winter Forces Soon To Be Closed Coal Fired Plants to Operate At Full Capacity

The State Journal reports that the winter cold forced many plants marked for EPA mandated closure to operate at high, sometimes full capacity.  Officials say, however, that the law remains unchanged and that they will still close as scheduled.

Melissa McHenry, speaking for American Electric Power to the State Journal noted that 89 percent of the plants scheduled for closure had to run during the cold weather.

She went on to say that AEP is making investments in generation capacity to try and make up for what will be lost.  McHenry also said that Washington regulators would need to help all power companies ensure that they could provide consistent power to customers during peak times.

After all, loss of power during very cold or very hot weather could harm their most vulnerable customers.

Added to the loss of jobs will come the higher cost of electricity.  The Washington Examiner reports that an Obama Administration official predicts an 80 percent hike in the average electric bill to pay for EPA mandates.  Although rates may eventually plateau, they are never expected to drop to current levels.

Bad news for those on fixed incomes and families already struggling in this economy.

American Electric Power plans to retire power generation plants in Mason and Kanawha County.

The Smallest US Military Force Since 1939: Why This Is Scary

The Obama Administration has determined that the US military will shrink to its smallest size since 1939.

Man for man we will remain the best.  Any US soldier, Marine, sailor, airman, Coast Guard, or National Guardsman is the best trained and most professional on Earth.  A few nations are close, namely Israel, Britain, Australia, Japan, and a few others.  None are better.

Experts say that a smaller force is less expensive and preferable.  They say that the challenges we face come from international operatives, terrorists, rogue nations and statelets.  The days of Great Power warfare are gone.

Not so fast.

China has stepped up its aggressiveness, claiming territory of friends, allies, and other states.  They want their sovereign claims over open ocean recognized.  They do not yet have a fleet that can challenge us.  But their army is massive and their military branches expanding.

They seek to revise the international status quo, starting first by establishing dominance over their neighbors.

A century ago, Great Britain ruled the waves much as we do today.  Her army was small compared to others, but it was trained and geared toward handling small scale conflicts. A 100 percent professional force, its man for man effectiveness far outstripped any other nation on Earth. Britain did not foresee having to use it in a major war of attrition against a revisionist power. While other nations counted millions in their armed forces, the British relied on hundreds of thousands.

And the British paid dearly for their error, suffering more casualties per capita than any other major power in World War I.

We are blindly stuck in the present, much as Britain a century ago.  We hope for the best, but our treaty obligations, much like Britain's with Belgium, put us square in the center of a possible coming conflict.  We are stripping our armored divisions, discontinuing production of a feared tank killer aircraft, and destroying any chance of quickly reacting, or even maintaining respect in the Far East.

Our military needs to ensure that it can respond effectively to both small war scenarios and a Great Power war.  We do not need many millions of troops, but we do need equipment and formations that serve as a foundation in case we need it.  Where do we get the money?  Start by slicing away at the bloated Defense Department bureaucracy.  Stop the foolish waste of money on "green fuels." Get back to making national security the only priority of the military.

Britain lost its entire prewar army in the first year of World War I.  They were not prepared or equipped to fight a modern war against another Great Power.  Obama is putting us in the same predicament.

Appeasing Iran Seen As a Step Towards More Mideast Nations Pushing For Nukes

Obama's lack of a foreign policy has so far resulted in a chaotic Libya, contributed to an unending Syrian civil war, discouraged Israel, and encouraged the terror linked Muslim Brotherhood.  Instability and unpredictability mark not only the behavior of groups in the region, but also US policy.

Experts told the Washington Free Beacon that this could bring disastrous consequences.  First, Iran aspires to Great Power status.  Although it lags in productivity and capital, nuclear weapons would raise it above its neighbors.  A state that once launched masses of its own citizens in suicide rushes at modern weapons cannot be trusted to be predictable with these weapons in hand.

Should Iran obtain them, other powers will as well.  Saudi Arabia most certainly will develop its own.

Other countries will adapt. Turkey has already negotiated pacts with Iran.  The NATO member, once an imperial power in the region, borders Iran.  Fear of its growing influence will doubtless pull states into its orbit.

This is the predictable result of a weak and disoriented foreign policy on the part of the United States.

There may be no solution at this point.

And Now Some Good Numbers For the Mountain State . . .

Last week, a Mercatus study forecast ominous signs for the West Virginia state government's future finances. It articulated concerns about the state's ability to pay its obligations in the near and long term future.  West Virginia, however, sits on a much more secure position than many other states, including some of the nation's largest and most prosperous.

A Washington Examiner study shows that the Mountain State's economically conservative policies of gradual tax reduction and paying down liabilities have benefited.   The state sits at 39th in unfunded pensions and total debt.  For debt per person, the state ranks higher, at 29th.

This is a ranking where being lower is better.

Credit, in part, goes to Governors Manchin and Tomblin for imposing common sense.  Manchin to a great extent and Tomblin to a lesser kept the lid on spending and gradually reduced the taxes that harmed the least able to pay.

They also took advantage of a boom in coal production and revenues that started under Bush, but is now grinding to a halt under the onerous policies of Obama's EPA.  Gas production continues to rise, but not fast enough to replace falling tax revenues from coal.

Mercatus concerns center around the state's need to address the problem of prosperity.  Manchin and Tomblin rightly deserve credit for helping to keep the state's financial position sound, but they did not take the opportunity to enact enough needed reforms.  The state needs to change its business regulation and tax regime so that small business has opportunity to start and a fighting chance to survive.  Economic observers praise the state's personal liberty, but blast the lack of economic freedom.

A state that ranks near the bottom for business friendliness and freedom cannot prosper.  With the federal government assaulting the state's main industry, the Governor and Legislature need to look at ways to unleash West Virginia's entrepreneurial spirit.

West Virginia's Sole Obamacare Provider Has 1/20th Expected Participation Rate

Is Obamacare collapsing?  West Virginia may be a part of its demise.

The state's Democratically dominated executive and legislative branches enthusiastically signed on for the Obamacare exchange plan.  Only one provider, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, is available.

West Virginia Metro News reports that only 1,200 of the expected 20-25,000 participants have been registered.  They also have concerns that not enough healthy and young people are interested in the program.

Obamacare's success hinges on young people paying out more and using less care.  Many have chosen to take the tax penalty rather than pay for insurance they do not think they will need.

Some conservatives fear that Obamacare collapse was not only predictable, but planned. They believe that the ultimate goal is a nationalized health care system with mediocre care for the masses and high quality only available for those who can pay in cash. It is unlikely, however, that voters will trust the same people who bungled Obamacare to make further drastic changes.

House Republicans have offered to meet with the president to discuss solutions, according to The Hill.  The White House has, thus far, brushed them off.

Is Obamacare This Century's Equivalent of "Who Lost China?"

In 1947, President Harry Truman engineered the passage of an aid package to Greece and Turkey.  At the time, both countries feared Communist takeover.  He used it as a foundation of his famous Truman Doctrine, which simply promises aid to any country resisting Communist takeover.

The very next year, Chiang Kai Shek fled China for Taiwan, leaving the massive mainland portion in the hands of the bloody Communist Mao Tse Dong.  Although "losing China" did not lose Truman the 1948 election, it frightened Democratic presidents for a generation.  They knew the electorate saw them as soft on foreign policy so they endeavored to not lose again.  Kennedy and Johnson fought in Vietnam for American, but also Democratic Party credibility.  Losses of both in Vietnam convinced future Democrats, rightly or wrongly, that course was unwise.  Could the Obamacare disaster do the same to their Big Government ideals?

The health care law is called the Affordable Care Act.  Since October, Americans have found out how Orwellian that moniker is.  Premiums have skyrocketed; millions lost their plans altogether.  The government system, based mostly on a $634 million website, does not work.  It is also only about 60 percent completed.

You might say that the healthcare.gov site gave Americans a crash course in why it should not run a business.

Meanwhile, Obama's poll numbers sank.  One might expect a serious dip in job performance.  But for the first time, a majority of Americans find him both dishonest and incompetent.

The long term effect of this on American politics could be profound.  The "who lost China" effect made Democratic presidents more bellicose for the next two decades.  At least one pundit believes Obamacare could make Democrats very gun shy about pursuing massive overhauls on this level again.

The cumulative effect of the first two presidential administrations on the country could be a body blow to backers of aggressive government action in any sphere.  Many still see the Iraq War (which the United States actually won) as a breakdown and a failure.  Obamacare has crashed a major segment of the country's economy and thrown millions into suffering and turmoil.  Both of these add up to further popularize libertarian concepts of government's role.

Time will tell whether this cows the Democrats and leads to a long term revision of what Americans expect from government.  But in the short term, confidence in government in any sphere is extraordinarily low.

And that is not necessarily a bad thing.

National Security Needs Must Be a Factor In Energy Policy

Energy production equals a more productive economy and a more secure nation.

West Virginia's Republican congressional delegation, Shelley Moore Capito and David McKinley, have pushed this idea for years.  They have joined many colleagues in advocating an "all of the above approach" to fulfilling not only national needs, but also to make the US a powerful energy exporter as well.

Now a panel of retired military officers has expressed the same opinion.

John Gizzi last week covered the America's Future Energy Conference.  He reported that retired military officers joined business leaders like FedEx CEO Fred Smith in arguing for higher production.  American energy dominance, they claim, will help to ward off production cut threats from unfriendly organizations such as OPEC.

One such hostile action was the 1970 production cut to protest US support of Israel.

With the Middle East perpetually on the verge of conflict, an unpopular turn of US policy or a disastrous war could hurt the world's supply of energy.  Stable American production could lead the world away from reliance on this fickle region.

One major improvement could be approval of the Keystone pipeline project.  Obama opposes the construction of this connection between the Upper Great Plains and the Gulf of Mexico which would create tens of thousands of jobs.

The group also supported decreasing reliance on oil with more innovation.  Electric and natural gas powered vehicles, once a particular interest of Senator Jay Rockefeller, could also help build energy security.

International Law Meets National Sovereignty

The International Criminal Court based in The Hague, Netherlands plans to try Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta next month on a series of serious offenses including crimes against humanity that involve illegal deporting of a group, murder, rape, and persecution for political purposes.

While the ICC claims jurisdiction, its intended defendant can only be tried if he allows it.  Mr. Kenyatta currently serves as the President of Kenya.  Although the court would like for him to appear at the scheduled date in November, it is likely to defer to an African Union request to postpone the case until Kenyatta leaves office.  AU member Sudan's president also faces criminal charges.

Kenyatta faces accusations over violence in the post 2007 elections against the Orange Democratic Movement.  In turn, he asserts that the ICC's charges come from neo-imperialist mechanisms of manipulation.  Kenyatta called it "a toy of declining imperial powers."

Although 34 of the African Union's 54 nations signed up for the ICC, calls have increased lately for individual African nations and the AU itself to leave the international convention that established it.

Established in 2002, the ICC is meant to prosecute crimes against humanity when national courts and prosecutors refuse to act.

Under Obama, the United States has assisted the ICC, but has not moved to join.  With American military and diplomats operating in controversial fields throughout the world, serious concerns have prevented full US participation. African Union leaders call the US stance hypocritical, ignoring the constitutional divide between presidential action and the near impossibility of Senate assent.

African Union leaders specifically oppose the idea of prosecuting sitting presidents.  They believe that the ICC could be used as a diplomatic weapon to attack sovereign states.  This is similar to American concerns.  The fact that the leaders of Sudan and Kenya are likely guilty does not change the fact.

Another problem is that Kenya plays a key role in regional peacekeeping, disarmament, anti-terrorism, and stability efforts.  Kenya is a front line state fighting Islamicist terrorism. Its rapidly expanding population of Roman Catholic and Pentecostal citizens forms a faith bulwark against the infiltration of radical elements farther south.

Rule of law should be promoted and political rights defended.  On the other hand, pressure on Kenyatta could weaken Kenya's prestige in the region.

In any event, Kenyatta will likely not face trial and prosecution in Europe now, if ever.  The people of Kenya ultimately must make that decision on their own.

Benjamin Franklin on Obamacare

Ben Franklin once shared a story about a crazy Frenchman who had an odd way of welcoming English tourists to Paris.  He would speak with effusive correctness to them while holding a fireplace poker with a red hot tip in his right hand.  He'd say Monsieur Anglais, would you kindly allow me to shove the tip of this up your backside.  The Englishman would inevitably say something like "Zounds! (Because that was a word back then) I'll break your head if you come near me with that!"  The Frenchman would then say "Fine, but at the very least you are obligated to pay me for heating it up!"

This was a story originally told in reference to how the Stamp Act worked.  It is much more true when considering Obamacare.

Meanwhile, this is the new reality of healthcare.

Obama's Company Town

On Monday, Salon compared Republican resistance to the Civil War.  It called the GOP rebels without noting that it currently fights, as it did then, for liberty.

We can make historical comparisons, too.

Obama's entire administration has resembled the worst examples of the old coal company town in Southern West Virginia.  How so?

In company towns, all aspects of life were provided for by or otherwise controlled by company authorities.

The company hired the teachers and controlled curriculum in the schools.  Obama's Department of Education seeks more and more control, removing local government and parents from the equation.

The company provided the health care that it thought you deserved.  Like Obamacare.

Many company towns actively monitored and suppressed dissent. They especially feared organized labor. Obama's NSA, IRS, DHS, and other agencies collect information on and/or harass groups whose influence it fears.

Reporters coming into coal towns to find the truth were routinely threatened and beaten. Obama's administration has secretly monitored the Associated Press and who knows who else.

Rising tuition costs and easy credit have trapped college graduates into a cycle of debt control.  They do not make enough money to pay their debts.  Just like the set up in the old company town stores.

In one infamous incident, striking miners living in houses on company land near Matewan were evicted by mine guards from the Baldwin and Felts Detective Agency.  This violated local law that said any evictions must go through the courts and be carried out by the sheriff.  Obama's administration evicted elderly families from homes they had lived in since the 1970s because they were on federal land.

The company towns were a bad development because they placed all power over a community in the hands of one central authority.  Even if it had good intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is a good thing that Congress has stood up for its role in our system of government. Obama has been corrupted enough already.

Obama's Stimulus Mess Continues to Create Havoc

Back in 2009, Obama convinced the Democratic led United States House of Representatives and Senate to pass what the country was told was around $800 billion worth of economic stimulus.  Others argue that the real price tag to the country ended up between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion .  Ever since its passage, reports have continued to detail the horrific waste of resources.

Among the first signs of trouble came when Franklin Center reporter Bill McMorris uncovered billions sent to non existent congressional districts.  This included assertions by the federal government that $2.5 million in stimulus funds created a total of 14 jobs in the 54th, 9th, 4th, 12th, 13th, and 00th congressional districts in the Mountain State.  Elected representatives from each of those districts were all unavailable for comment then or now.

Then came questions from Congress about stimulus funds intended for expanding broadband access in West Virginia.  Marmet's tiny public library with a single obsolete computer received a $20,000 router designed for much larger and powerful networks.  Similar purchases of expensive equipment went directly  into storage because the state had no use for them.

An Obama administration official defended these purchases on the grounds that the state anticipated future needs.  It would be interesting to know how much the West Virginia state government anticipates that the Marmet branch of the Kanawha County Public Library will expand.

Now come revelations from the West Virginia Legislature that even more stimulus money was misspent.  Furthermore, both the Legislative Auditor Aaron Allred and at least one delegate, Gary Howell of Mineral County, publicly stated that the misuse of money was illegal.

According to the Charleston Daily Mail, money from a $126 million federal grant, which also overpaid for the routers, went towards the construction of a series of microwave towers.  The allocation of funds bypassed the bidding process as required by West Virginia law.  Non licensed and out-of-state subcontractors did much of the work on the towers while funds were distributed through county governments to avoid state purchasing oversight.

Governor Earl Ray Tomblin has promised to examine the Legislature's report.  A decision to request an investigation from the US Attorney's office has not yet been made.

Post Script.  This does not mean that all state agencies wasted funds.  But the ones who spent responsibly and followed the law are now being combed over by federal auditors.  This process uses up countless manhours to answer questions about money that was spent that originally had very few guidelines.  Questions must be answered.  It is a shame, though, that the foolishness of a few has thrown many state agencies into major behind the scenes anxiety when they acted responsibly all along.

National Democrats Convince Cannon Fodder Candidate

By all accounts, Secretary of State Natalie Tennant will enter the US Senate race to take on presumed Republican nominee Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito.

On the surface, it looks like an appropriate move for a popular young statewide officeholder with definite ambitions to rise higher.  She has a strong background as an elected secretary of state with experience as a Charleston television news figure.  Even in a loss, Tennant can use the campaign to reintroduce herself to voters across the state in preparation for a run at the Governor's Mansion.

It is this ambition most threatened by her Senate run. A deeper look shows how dicey this campaign could be for Tennant.

Images like this one have already reappeared.  Standing in front of a sparse crowd of Obama supporters will not win Tennant any support in a state whose Democrats preferred a prisoner in 2012.  Obama has only lost popularity since then.  She struggles to argue that coal jobs have slightly ticked up, but cannot defend the power plant closings that are coming.  Or the dramatic rise in health insurance costs from Obamacare.

In a race for governor in 2016, Obama matters less.  Tennant will have difficulty shaking the perception that she will be anything but a water carrier for the presidency and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Joe Manchin learned that even piecemeal support for Obama policies can take a drastic toll on polling numbers.

Capito's fundraising prowess, formidable campaign team, and popularity have vanquished all comers since 2000.   Few major donors outside of the Democratic Party will seek to invest in a race that has little chance of success.

Tennant's run only makes sense in the national Democratic big picture.  A viable candidate forces the Republican Party to spend resources and raise money in a race that they should ultimately win.  Those resources will not go to tighter races with less chance of success.

She will also have to tie herself even more securely to the highly unpopular national Democratic Party agenda.  A gubernatorial race allows her to stand aloof as Earl Ray Tomblin did.  Tennant cannot erase images from a Senate run that will place her even more strongly into the camp of individuals heartily disliked across West Virginia.  She also cannot haul out the well worn liberal "War on Women" card against a respected, accomplished, and popular female candidate like Capito.

This serves the purposes of the West Virginia Republican Party nicely because it will weaken an individual who was expected to make a strong run  for governor in 2016.

Obama Is Another Politician Who Is "No Jack Kennedy"

In the 1988 vice presidential debates, Democratic nominee Lloyd Bentsen shoved a rhetorical shiv deep into George H. W. Bush's running mate Dan Quayle.  Quayle somehow compared himself to John F. Kennedy and Bentsen responded with one of the great defining "gotchas" in debate history.  "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy."

Bentsen wanted to take a dig at Quayle, sure.  But his greater intent lay in showing that Dan Quayle was not a serious enough individual to be so close to presidential power.  Bentsen may have been right or wrong about that assumption, and curiously enough, he actually was not a friend of Kennedy's.  But he did speak to the hearts of many who do worry about the White House not being in serious hands.

A little over 50 years ago, Kennedy confronted Cuba and the Soviet Union over missiles placed there by the Communist nations.  Doing nothing meant accepting a mortal threat to the southeastern United States.  Too much response could lead to regional or even global war.  Kennedy knew about the missiles for some time before the public.  In October 1962, it became international news.  The president took 13 days to craft his response.

During the entire time, Kennedy met with a specially convened executive committee, nicknamed "ExCom."  This committee included representatives from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Committee, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and others.  Kennedy observed as they debated every possible option.  From watching these debates, Kennedy was able to intelligently rule out some options, such as air strikes and invasions, while putting together the best peaceable alternatives.  He preserved American integrity while achieving the national goal.  Whatever other faults he had, John F. Kennedy knew how to use and listen to advisers during a world crisis.

Yesterday, Obama's top team on Syria met with congressional representatives to discuss US options.  Meanwhile, Obama met with Magic Johnson.

That alone should be an impeachable offense.  This man does not take his job seriously. He has no sense of priorities.