How's that Affordable Care Working Out for You?

I have an individual health insurance policy for my family these days.  For over 30 years, we had group insurance.  I made a job change to a small company several months ago, and it was an uneasy time for me.

As I was shopping for the individual policy, I learned that people who are blessed with good health can buy the individual policy at a lower cost than a group policy.  When I worked for the large company with the group plan, our insurance rates were based on the cost of claims for the group as a whole last year.  Everyone paid the same average cost per family for the insurance, and the company paid about 70% of the premium.  With that rate structure, an older person or someone with poor health got the same deal as a younger, healthier person.  That was a good deal for the person with expensive medical care and a bad deal for the healthy people.

With an individual policy, the insurance company asked a lot of question about our ages and recent medical history.  My small company employer pays half of my health insurance premium.  With our good health, a much higher annual deductible, and my employer's 50% contribution, the premiums paid out of my pocket are a little lower right now.  I considered a low deductible, co-pay policy similar to the higher deductible policy.  Reducing the deductible by $3000 cost about $3000/year in extra premiums.  That didn't make sense, considering that it is highly unlikely to use the entire deductible every year.  Also, a high deductible plan allows me to have a health savings account (HSA).  I can save up the money to cover the deductible in my HSA, and I get to keep it if there aren't huge expenses.  The policy covers all of the major expenses for big problems, and I pay the smaller stuff like a visit to the doctor for a sinus infection.  Check-ups and my wife's mammograms and pap smears are provided at no cost to me.

I just got a letter from my insurer a couple of days ago.  They said that my policy doesn't meet the rules in effect starting in 2014 for the Unaffordable Care Act.  Apparently, a policy that is written in 2013 will stay in effect for the term of the policy, so the insurer is offering to renew the policy on December 31st of 2013.  Then, I will keep everything the same until December 31st of 2014.  As of December 31st of 2014, our policy premium will increase by more than 80%.  Why?

Obamacare works a lot like the group policy that I used to have.  Now everyone, no matter how young or healthy, must purchase insurance by law.  If they don't, there is a fine that is used to help buy insurance for other people that really need it.  The president says that young people need insurance, because some of them get really sick or are injured in an accident.  He claims that uninsured young people are a drain on the system, because the government has to pay for their medical care when one of these catastrophic events happens.  I don't believe it.  I believe he just wants to force them to pay premiums to reduce the costs for old, sick people.  If they still don't buy the insurance, then they pay an extra, young person tax.  You know, if these folks that don't have high health care costs paid a low premium that is commensurate with the risks assumed by the insurance company, they would be more likely to buy insurance.  These young people generally don't get a lot of wellness care and check-ups either.  They are just paying for middle age people to have check-ups.

My insurer wrote that the Unaffordable Act requires them to provide Essential Health Benefits (EHB's) whether I want them or not.  As I wrote above, it didn't make sense to pay the extra money for all those "free" services.  Now, I have no choice.  I have to pay for mental health and substance abuse services we don't need.  My wife won't be having any more kids and doesn't need birth control, but we must have a policy that provides for these things.

Now, when I start paying that extra premium of over $500/month, that money will come from somewhere.  My boss won't give me a big raise to cover it.  That money is currently being spent for something, but after Obamacare and the MessAPolitico kick in, it will go to the insurance company.  That will take it away from something else.  Maybe we won't go on vacation.  Maybe we will keep that car an extra few years, because $500 would make a pretty good car payment.

Of course, when we don't buy a new car, auto workers lose their jobs.  When we don't go on vacation, the motel doesn't need as many maids and the restaurants don't need as many cooks and servers.  This is the same ripple effect that has been going through the US economy since Obama and the "tree huggers" have been doubling the cost of gasoline and electricity.

Obamacare is a MessAPolitico that must be stopped before it does irreparable harm to the health care system.  The continuing resolution may be our last chance to stop this thing, but there are too many Republicans that are afraid to get this done.  They are afraid of the press saying that they shut down the government.  They are backing down from Obama before he has done anything.  We need to all tell our Representatives and Senators, whether they are Republican or Democrat, that we expect them to de-fund Obamacare.  If they vote for a continuing resolution that funds Obamacare, then they might as well have voted for it in the beginning.  Any politician that votes for a continuing resolution that funds Obamacare doesn't represent me.  They must vote against funding for Obamacare, or I will never vote for them again.

Where are the WMD's?

Are we ready to play "hide the WMD" with the Assad regime in Syria?  Didn't we do this before when we took that corroborated, incontestable evidence and attacked Saddam Hussein?  After a costly war, every stone was turned over, but no WMD's were ever found in Iraq.  Some people believe the WMD's were moved out of the country, and Syria was mentioned as a good place for them to go.  Others, like Barack Hussein Obama, said that George W. Bush was a liar.  He had a vendetta against Saddam Hussein and needed an excuse to go after Iraq.  Maybe it was the oil that Bush wanted to bring home to his rich oilman buddies.  I guess a bunch of Kurds just fell over dead one day.  There weren't any chemical weapons in Iraq.

So, if Barack Obama sends us down this road again, will he get hammered when the WMD's don't turn up?  Will he and Secretary of State Kerry be accused of lying?  Are they lying?  Are we as sure that chemical weapons were used in Syria as we are about man-made global warming?  The recent history of this administration says they will lie to save their skins.  Are they creating a diversion to take the focus off of all those scandals that seem to be breaking out all across the administration?  Do we need a reason to keep the NSA watching over us, because the world is dangerous?  I still don't believe the big emergency was real that closed down so many embassies in the middle east recently.

Is America the world's police force?  Should America get involved in the Syrian civil war?  What do we stand to gain?  Which side has the good guys?  Isn't this a war between the bad guys and the worse guys?  Assad is being called a child murderer by Kerry this week.  The opposition is said to be supported by Al Qaeda.  Which one is good for America or Syria or Israel or anyone?  Right now, at least they are fighting each other.  I'm sure that Israel is happy to have them occupied with fighting each other.  The things happening to the people of Syria are sad and tragic.  It isn't unlike a lot of other places around the world.

By issuing his edict last year, Obama has backed himself and us into a corner.  Our credibility and power in the world are shot.  He has to do something that none of us wants.  We could arm and support the rebels, but what if they are Al Qaeda?  We could lob some cruise missiles over there and do nothing substantial.  How about using our Air Force to take decisive action and destroy the military capabilities of Syria?  What if a few of our planes get shot down in the process?  What if we accidentally kill some civilians?  What if this war lasts a long time.  We can't afford a war or anything else.

This whole thing just looks like another Obama MessAPolitico.  Please God, give this man enough wisdom to get us out of this MessAPolitico before it goes any further.  And please deliver these poor people from the MessAPolitico that they live with everyday.

Does the United States Have Domestic Terrorism?

It would be hard to say that the Ku Klux Klan wasn't a form of domestic terrorism that was practiced in the 1960's.  Burning crosses in front of a house struck terror in the hearts of anyone that lived there.  The Klan was quite violent, blowing up churches and houses in the southern United States.  As a child in Mississippi, I still remember seeing a house blown apart in Holly Springs as my family was driving through town on US-78.  Some civil rights workers had been blown up in that house.

Now, white people don't feel safe walking through inner-city, predominantly black neighborhoods.  Is that terrorism?  When people are attacked just because of their race as they have car trouble or get lost, isn't that a form of terrorism?

Are these attacks a form of retribution for past evils?  I know I have never owned any slaves.  I'm not sure, but I don't think my relatives were slave owners either.  When we lived in Mississippi in the 1960's, I remember a restaurant near our home where we never ate.  I asked my mother why we didn't go to that restaurant, and she said it was because the owner was in the Klan.  We weren't anti-segregationist activists or anything like that, but my family certainly never treated African-Americans with disrespect.  I don't feel that I deserve to be attacked as "pay-back" for segregation or slavery.  I didn't have anything to do with it.

Like many of you, I have been watching news reports about the white Australian college student in Oklahoma.  He was gunned down as he was jogging along the side of a street.  The alleged gunmen were three African-American teenagers.  They reportedly said they were bored and decided to go out and shoot someone for fun.  Now some "tweets" have surfaced with racial hate speech, and they were supposedly sent by one of the gunmen.  There have been allegations of a gang initiation being the motivation for the killing.  That certainly sounds like intimidation, and it would tend to result in terror if white people were worried about being shot in a random act like this one.  That is terrorism.

Have inner-city gangs declared war on white people?  Are they just waging war against rival gangs?  The Mafia certainly intimidated people and used their techniques to "shake down" people in their neighborhoods.  Now, street gangs practice similar intimidation techniques.  If they have initiations for their new members that involve killing white people for sport, that is a combination of terrorism and racism.

We have our race baiting MessAPolitico in America.  These activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton love to make headlines on those rare occasions when an African-American is attacked by a white person.  Now, where are these activists when a white guest in our country is gunned down by African-American thugs out to shoot a white person for sport.  President Obama seems to always have something to say in every high profile case with even a hint of racism involved.  The president is strangely silent, and his deputy press secretary says that they aren't aware of the case.  I guess this case doesn't further the agenda of the MessAPolitico.

Most of us think of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv when terrorism is mentioned.  We also might think of Iraq or Beirut or Benghazi.  Maybe we should think of Detroit or south Chicago or south Memphis.  How about southeast Washington or the Bronx?  Would you experience terror if you are white and were dropped off in any of these neighborhoods?

Do Rich Folks Get a Tax Break on Dividends?

Over the past several years, I've heard a lot of demagoguery thrown around by liberal politicians regarding the tax rates that rich people pay.  A lot of it centers around the fact that most rich people don't receive their high annual income through wages.  Generally they are owners of a corporation or, at least, they own a lot of stock in a very large, public corporation, and their income is largely in the form of dividends from this stock.

This issue came to light during the presidential primaries when Mitt Romney made his tax return public and timidly pointed out that he paid a low tax rate on his income because it was almost all dividend income.  Then, President Obama used some comments from the famous rich guy, Warren Buffet, to fuel the flames.  Mr. Buffet had said that his secretary paid a bigger percentage of her income in taxes than him, and it wasn't fair.  After all, he is a billionaire, and she is a lowly secretary (that earns a six figure income, by the way).  I don't think this was stated quite as clearly as I have stated it here, because it almost sounded like she paid more tax dollars than her billionaire boss.  In reality, she was paying a higher percentage of her income in taxes.

Warren Buffet chose to take his income from the company he owns, Berkshire Hathaway, as dividends.  He could have accepted a much larger salary instead of dividends, but he didn't.  If Mr. Buffet really felt he wasn't paying enough taxes, why not just avoid taking advantage of the tax breaks that our elected officials offered him?  In fact, you can pay extra taxes if you are so inclined to help out America.  The IRS will accept tax donations any time.  As long as you pay at least what you owe according to the tax code, you can pay as much extra as you desire.

Now that I have that off of my chest, here's something else to consider.  Why do dividends get taxed at a lower rate than regular salary and wages?  I believe Congress chose to allow the lower rate, because the corporate earnings were already taxed at the corporate rate before paying out the dividends.  The dividends are then taxed again at the recipient's personal tax rate.  I also remember hearing a professor in an accounting or finance class mention that a corporation can reinvest the earnings in the business rather than paying a dividend, and this prevents having to pay the personal tax.  This encourages businesses to reinvest the earnings in the corporation rather than paying dividends.  The desired result is to create growth, new jobs, etc.  I'm not sure that government should be in the habit of telling corporations how to run their business, but that is a lot different than the spin our politicians have put on these tax rates.

So, would the federal government receive a lot less in tax revenues if the tax payer gets paid income in the form of dividends?  Since this subject is always brought up with regard to rich guys, let's assume we're talking about a tax payer in the top tax bracket.  Here's their federal income tax rate:

• Single Tax Payer with Annual Taxable Income Over $400,000:  39.6%
• Married Filing Jointly with Annual Taxable Income Over $450,000:  39.6%
• Married Filing Separately with Annual Taxable Income Over $225,000:  39.6%
• Head of Household with Annual Taxable Income Over $425,000:  39.6%
• For Federal Income Tax Brackets of 25% or higher
• Capital Gains are Taxed at 15%
• Qualified Dividends are Taxed at 15%

The federal tax rate for the traditional large "C" corporation ranges from 15% for companies with profits of $50,000 or less to 35% for the ones with profits above $18,333,333 annually.  That is an extremely high tax rate when you consider that the owners of the stock will also pay tax on the dividends they receive after the corporation already paid federal tax.  If the corporation is only in the 15% bracket, here is a calculation of how much tax would be paid on the earnings paid out as a dividend to the stockholder:

• $100 of Corporate Profit --> $100 x 15% = $15 of Federal Corporate Tax
• $100 - $15 = $85 Left Over to Pay as Dividend
• $85 x 15% = $12.75 of Federal Personal Income Tax on Dividend Income
• $85.00 - $12.75 = $72.25 of After Tax Income to Stock Holder
• Total Federal Tax Collected $15.00 + $12.75 = $27.75
• Total Tax Rate on The Profits = $27.75/$100 = 27.75%

Hey, that's a lot more than the 15% that president Obama and Warren Buffet are talking about.  What if the dividend is being paid by a corporation with a modest profit of $10,000,000.  (That would be modest compared to Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway.)  These companies pay a 34% federal corporate tax.

• $100 of Corporate Profit --> $100 x 34% = $34 of Federal Corporate Tax
• $100 - $34 = $66 Left Over to Pay as Dividend
• $66 x 15% = $9.90 of Federal Personal Income Tax on Dividend Income
• $66.00 - $9.90 = $56.10 of After Tax Income to Stock Holder
• Total Federal Tax Collected $34.00 + $9.90 = $43.90
• Total Tax Rate on The Profits = $43.90/$100 = 43.90%

That's a lot more than 15% and even more than 39.6%.  Do you still think that rich guys don't pay high enough taxes?  Do you still believe that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does?  By the way, do you think Warren Buffet's secretary pays more tax dollars than Warren Buffet?  You know, that discussion certainly made it sound as though she paid more tax dollars than Mr. Buffet.  I'm really sick of the politicians phrasing things to purposely blur the lines between taxes and tax rates.

This is a MessAPolitico where the politician's main goal is to confuse and mislead.  I'm waiting with baited breath for the next debt ceiling debate, and I fully expect the Democrats to again say that rich guys aren't paying their fair share of taxes.  I'm not a rich guy by any means, so don't think that I'm writing this to help out myself or my buddies.  I'm just trying to shed a little light on the realities and the MessAPolitico here.

If you happen to be wondering how it hurts those of us in the middle class or below, consider this.  When money is paid in taxes, whether by individuals or corporations, that money can't be spent on other stuff.  If a rich guy owns a corporation that pays a bunch of taxes, he can't spend it building new manufacturing facilities or buying machines or computers or whatever it takes to grow his business.  If regular consumers, rich or middle class or poor, have less money after paying taxes, they won't buy as many dinners at a restaurant, as many new cars, as many new houses, as many new chairs for the living room, etc.  That gives us fewer jobs making, delivering, or selling this stuff.

Do you still think that high tax rates for the rich are a great thing?  Is all of that government stuff really free?  No.  Will Obamacare make your medical care free of charge?  No.  Obama will tell you that he is getting the rich folks to pay for it on your behalf.  Don't believe it.  All of the income of all of the rich people in America won't pay for it.  You can look forward to becoming rich if Obama gets his way.  No, your income won't go up.  Everyone will either be rich enough to pay high taxes, or poor enough to get a free ride.  The middle class will disappear.

This is my prediction for the coming MessAPolitico if we don't stop it now.

Do You Like the Customer Service Offered by Government Employees?

Last week I was driving along interstate 75 at rush hour.  The traffic all came to a stop suddenly, and it took me nearly half an hour to travel the next two to three miles.  I could have taken an alternate route if the highway message board had been updated more quickly, but the sign provided no warning about an accident.

When I finally arrived at the point of the accident, I saw that it had occurred on the other side of the highway.  A pick-up truck had been wedged up against the concrete barrier separating the north and south bound lanes.  The truck was carry some plastic totes that had various items of clothing and other small things.  When the truck stopped quickly, a couple of the plastic totes flew over the barrier onto the left two lanes of the opposing traffic.

As the traffic approached the accident scene on our side of the highway, the cars and trucks were being wedged over to the right two lanes.  A Cincinnati police cruiser was blocking the two left lanes, and there were also three or four motorcycle officers parked just beyond the cruiser.  These five officers were standing around in the blocked lanes doing nothing.  I certainly believe that I could have easily picked up the totes and the spilled items in five minutes by myself.  They could have been tossed back over the barrier into the back of the wrecked pick-up.

Did these fine officers do anything to clean up the mess?  No.  They just blocked off half of the highway lanes and made all of us sit in traffic.  Did they care that the folks were inconvenienced?  They didn't seem to care at all.  By the way, they are employed by us -- the tax payers.  Could it be possible that these officers weren't allowed to clean up the mess?  Did they have to wait on the public works union to send over a dump truck and some guys with brooms?  Maybe it's not safe for police officers to risk using a broom or to put on gloves and pick up debris.

This illustrates the MessAPolitico that is typical of virtually every government agency I've ever dealt with.  Does it remind you of all those trips you've made to the DMV to get your license plates renewed?  Can you imagine having to wait in a long line at the grocery like they have every month at the DMV?  What about the US Postal Service?  At busy times, there are long lines.  Unlike private mail and parcel carriers, the US Postal Service can't tell you when your package will arrive and certainly can't guarantee the day or time of delivery.

I'm a licensed professional engineer, and I have to deal with the state every two years to renew the license.  To get this license, I had to get an engineering degree.  Then I had to take two exams that were a joke compared to all of the tests I took and passed to graduate from college.  I am licensed in only one state, although the same test is used in every state.  Each state where I do work requires me to apply for a reciprocal license and pay each state a big fee.  In Cincinnati, we are located in the corner of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.  Engineers that do consulting work across the entire metropolitan area are required to maintain three engineering licenses to be legal.  I was just looking at adding another state license, and the cost was over $450 initially.  Then, every two years I have to pay another license renewal fee in each state of about $150.  Has the state really protected anybody with this licensing process, considering that the test has such limited coverage of engineering subject matter and is the same in all three states?  It's just a tax on me to allow me to do my job.

This is the MessAPolitico that we will soon have running the health care system in the United States.  Need I say more?

Does Alternative Energy Need Government Support?

According to our president and liberals everywhere, government subsidies are needed to get alternative energy business going and creating good jobs.  If alternative energy is such a great opportunity, why is venture capital steering clear of it?  If Solyndra had such a compelling and great proposition in its business plan, why did it need funding from the federal government?  Venture capital was not available, because private investors that looked at the plan with a skeptical eye didn't see Solyndra as a viable investment.

Government subsidies for companies that couldn't get private funding, regardless of the industry, are absolutely not smart.  Those companies are extremely risky investments considering that the top finance people didn't see them as viable.  Do you think that our politicians are better qualified at picking winning business plans than finance professionals and venture capitalists?  Is it possible that venture capitalists don't support alternative energy companies because they somehow oppose alternative energy?  I don't believe either of these possibilities is true.  Politicians are good at only one thing:  bringing us a MessAPolitico.  Venture capitalists are the best at picking winners and making lots of money by investing in those winners.  Making money is their goal, and their political beliefs will never be allowed to get in the way.  Isn't the liberal contention that capitalists are greedy, self-serving, money-grubbing thieves at odds with their contention that venture capitalists would avoid alternative energy companies on political grounds?

When the government takes our money and gives it to an alternative energy company, will that really kick it off and make the venture viable?  No.  As soon as the government money is depleted, the company will not be profitable.  Any company in any industry that does not have a viable business plan will end up in bankruptcy in the end.  Whether the seed money comes from a venture capitalist or from the MessAPolitico (i.e. us), the bankruptcy will ensue.

Did the Obama administration really tell us the whole plan for investing our money in alternative energy?  No.  Here's the plan in its entirety:

• Provide government subsidies to alternative energy start-up companies that couldn't get private funding
• Pass laws that tax traditional, fossil fuel based energy with Cap & Trade to run the cost of these energy sources up
• Use EPA regulations to shut down low-cost coal-fired electric generating plants to limit supply and run the price of operating them up
• Use EPA regulations to stop pipelines and stop drilling for new sources of oil to get the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etc. to rise precipitously as world demand has risen
• Use the higher energy prices to reduce energy demand and promote energy conservation
• Use the higher energy prices we are paying for electricity and gasoline to make the alternative energies economically viable and competitive

The liberals love to blame high gasoline prices on excess profits by energy companies.  You should look to the MessAPolitico for the blame though.  They are costing us more and more for the energy we use.  Additionally, the high energy costs are a big factor in driving manufacturing out of the country.  That has left America with high unemployment and stagnant wages, but higher energy costs.  Americans actually voted to have this MessAPolitico extended another four years.  Why?

Our Politicians at Work

I recently saw an article in a local newspaper written by Jack Conway, the Democrat Attorney General for Kentucky.  In the article, Mr. Conway says he is often asked what he can do about the high gasoline prices in Kentucky and why the prices vary widely across the state.  He spews the typical Democrat dribble:

"I understand the frustration with high gas prices.  I understand how tough it is on hard-working families.  No one wants to choose between filling up the gas tank or putting food on the table or paying a bill. . . . Be assured, protecting Kentucky consumers at the gas pumps is a top priority of mine."

Mr. Conway, do you and your Democrat colleagues worry about the amount of money you are costing those "hard-working" families with your gasoline taxes?  You can check ask.com (http://www.ask.com/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States) for how much the gasoline taxes are in your state.  In Kentucky, the "hard-working" families and the "lazy, sorry" families all pay the same for gasoline and the same gasoline tax of 18.4 cents/gallon to the federal government plus 32.3 cents/gallon to the state.

Of course, there is more tax that this in a gallon of gasoline.  The oil companies pay state and federal tax on their profits.  The oil company employees pay state and federal income taxes on their pay.  The gasoline station owners pay taxes on their profits, and all of their employees pay tax on their wages.  Their are drilling permits to be purchased.  The trucks delivering the fuels pay road taxes and licensing fees and income taxes.

Then we have the federal government stopping pipelines from being built.  They also stop oil well drilling and production in many places to "save the environment."  Of course, their primary means of saving the environment is to use the law of demand.  That says that demand is inversely proportional to price.  For you liberals out there, that means that raising the price of oil will reduce the amount purchased and used.  No, the liberals don't believe that the pipeline will cause some big environmental disaster in and of itself.  It will destroy the environment by reducing the price of gasoline.

So, Mr. Conway, I'm sure you believe that the evil oil companies are hurting the "hard-working" families in your state, but I believe they are being hurt more by the MessAPolitico.  Please quit trying to help us out.  We can't afford any more help.

Who Can Stop Racism in America?

How will we ever stop racism in America?  I don't think it is humanly possible.  Today, there seems to be more racism against Caucasians than African-Americans.  I live in a suburb of Cincinnati, and I have lived in three other large metropolitan areas, along with some small towns.  While my neighborhoods have always been predominantly white and some have been in the deep south, I firmly believe that an African-American could have walked down my street without any reprisal.  On the other hand, could I safely walk down the street of any predominantly African-American area in the major cities of our country?

Our country has recently been in an upheaval over the Trevon Martin killing.  As I watch the news each evening, there are shootings almost every night in Cincinnati.  Virtually all of them occur in the inner city neighborhoods.  Generally, the shootings involve African-American shooters and victims.  None of this gets much more than a brief mention on the news.

Maybe African-Americans are afraid of white people and the police.  It is certainly possible that they run from the police out of fear.  However, there are a lot of white people that are afraid to get out of their cars in an African-American neighborhood.  They drive through with the windows up and the doors locked.  All we hear about is the violence in these areas.  That creates anger amongst African-American youth.  They, in turn, do things to intimidate white people, and the result is a cycle of mistrust, fear, and racism.

How will this ever be stopped?  How can it be stopped?  Can the MessAPolitico pass laws that force it to stop?  I say no.  The laws can make certain actions unlawful, but fear, mistrust, and hatred won't be changed.  In fact, laws trying to force the actions of racists on either side tend to make them more defiant.

I believe that racism can only be stopped by God.  God has the power to change hearts and change people.  If we all want the racial divide in America to be brought together, then please pray for the change.  If enough of us pray for the end to racism, it will end.  I believe this with all my heart.  Please join me in this prayer for an end to the war between the races in America.  Only then will this truly be one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Ft. Hood MessAPolitico

The trial is underway in Fort Hood.  This whole incident is a MessAPolitico.  It was caused by a MessAPolitico.  There was evidence that Major Nidal Hasan was dangerous before the incident.  Intelligence services were spying on the radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki, and found an email exchange with Major Hasan.  Also, Hasan's co-workers noted that his behavior was increasingly odd, and he seemed to be becoming pro-islamist.  Hasan even carried business cards with the initials S.O.A., which is believed to stand for "Soldier of Allah."  No action was taken though because no one wanted to appear insensitive to his Muslim faith.  It certainly would not be politically correct to accuse a Muslim of anything.  So, Major Hasan was allowed to go ahead and act on his radical Muslim beliefs and commit an act of terrorism at a US military base.

This act was followed up with the next MessAPolitico.  The government declared that this was not an act of terrorism, but just an act of workplace violence.  It couldn't be terrorism, because the war on terrorism has ended.  It couldn't be terrorism committed on one of our military bases by a service member.  Even though multiple witnesses confirmed that Major Hasan was yelling "Allahu Akbar" while shooting the gun, it couldn't have been terrorism.  This phrase is used in many different situations by Muslims, including during prayers.  It is often translated to English as "God is Great", although it actually translates more literally to "Allah is Greater."  It is often shouted by Muslims who are engaged in a Jihadist battle.  I guess the MessAPolitico doesn't see this as terrorism though; it's not that much different than a disgruntled co-worker that shoots you and your co-workers after he is fired.

Now, since these folks who were killed or injured in the incident were simply sitting down to eat in the mess hall, it was not considered combat.  Since this wasn't an attack by the enemy, they, and their families, are denied the benefits normally afforded after injury or death in a combat situation.  That is a real travesty.  If this was a normal workplace instead of a government facility, the corporation that owned the place would be sued, because they didn't provide proper security for the workers.  The lawyers would be lining up to file suit and make a big payday after they found out that the corporation had prior warnings that the shooter could be dangerous, and they did nothing to stop him.

Political correctness has rendered law enforcement ineffective and useless.  We can't make a judgement that certain people are more likely to commit a crime.  Our law enforcement can't focus their efforts on the most likely groups.  They must spread the resources around and watch everyone.  This sort of thing creates a MessAPolitico like the NSA scandal.  They must collect data on everyone or be accused of targeting certain races or religions.  Even though we haven't heard of terrorism committed by Catholics or Methodists or Baptists or even Atheists for a very long time, we must gather up their telephone and Internet data to keep from offending Muslims.

It's time we focus our limited resources on the groups most likely to commit acts of terrorism.  Then, maybe we could stop these acts before they happen.  Maybe we would have stopped the Boston Marathon bombing without the distraction of political correctness.  I think it's time to quit worrying about offending Muslims and try to stop offending average Americans.  If the Muslims don't want this kind of scrutiny, then maybe they should clean up their ranks.

What Do We Think of Our Politicians?

I just saw a Real Clear Politics poll.  It shows that only 44.2% of us approve of the job performance of President Obama.  Congress is far worse, satisfying only 15.7% of us.  29.3% of the respondents to this survey feel that the country is being taken in the right direction these days.  If your boss felt this way about you, how long would you be employed?  Wouldn't your boss fire you?

We the people are the bosses of these government employees.  We hired them.  Why?  We have the opportunity to fire them on election day.  Why do we re-elect people we hold in such low regard?  We have the right to demand a change in their performance.  Let's clean house.

About two thirds of Americans want the Unaffordable Care Act changed.  These folks want the Congress we employ to get it fixed.  I'm not interested in politics as usual.  I don't want symbolic votes.  I want results.  We need to demand results from our employees.  They should be given a performance appraisal often, just like we all get at work.  How can we expect our employees to represent us in accord with our vision of the country, if we don't tell them what that vision is?  Write them a letter or send an email or give them a call.  Don't be shy.  They do work for us.

You know, it would be pretty cool if the president created a vision statement for America.  Then we could understand if that vision matches ours.  Oh, wait a minute.  Maybe they don't want us to know about their vision for America.  Would we vote for a presidential candidate that had a vision of America as the first communist country to "get it right?"

What about the various areas of the federal government?  I think each should have an individual vision of how they can support the president's vision for the country as a whole.  What if the department of energy had a publicly available vision of how they should operate and what they want accomplish?  How about the departments of education, labor, commerce, state, etc. etc. etc.?

I would love to have more substance when I'm selecting a candidate?  What is my senator's vision of how congress will make America better?  What tactics is he or she planning to use to drive America toward that vision?  I want to know how they will get the results I want.  They can talk about things I want all day long, but I get no satisfaction if my elected representatives can't figure out how to play the game of politics and get these things actually accomplished.

How will the "financials" look?  Yes, how do they plan to finance their proposals?  What are the benefits?  Did they do any market research to find out what the customers think of the new services?  (The customers would be us.)  Do we still want the new services when we find out how much they will cost?  Are we willing to use debt to finance the proposal?  This deal of voting for lots of benefits that you can get rich people to pay for is leading our country to financial ruin.  If everyone paid for all the government services equally, we could make much better judgement calls.  Don't you do cost-benefit analysis every time you spend your own money, even if it isn't done consciously?  If one grocery store chain offered you steak and lobster paid for by your rich neighbor who can afford it, where would you shop?

I think it would be great to have a government that was run like a successful business.  But then it wouldn't be a MessAPolitico.  Then I would need a new name for my blog!

To Defund or Not to Defund

Should the House of Representatives defund Obamacare?  Absolutely.  Some of the Republicans are afraid to do it.  Oh no, the American people might blame them for a government shutdown.  Hey Republicans, when are you going to realize that the people that would blame you for these things don't vote for you.  They will never vote for you.  They will always blame you for everything.

The problem you should be worried about is whether folks like me can see a difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Too many conservatives stay at home on election day for exactly this reason.  Obama didn't win because a lot of conservatives voted for him; he won because so many conservatives didn't vote for the Republican candidate.

I'm sick and tired of votes in the House for bills that have no chance of even getting a vote in the Senate.  When you pass a bill to repeal Obamacare, it might get passed by the Senate if it was brought up for a vote, but the president would surely veto it.  Harry Reid will continue to protect the Democratic senators by not making them choose whether to support the party line or go against the will of their constituents.  Forget the symbolism Republicans; we want substance and results.

The House does control the purse strings in our federal government.  If your local Representative refuses to vote for funding for Obamacare, it will be stopped dead.  Obama will use the media to place the blame on Republicans if he shuts down the government by refusing to sign the budget.  You Republicans need to realize that I will applaud you when the government is successfully shut down.  I am not alone.  I want this government stopped.  I don't want the government to accomplish anything further toward implementing its current agenda.

The Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi regime has created a massive MessAPolitico.  It would be great if conservative and libertarian politicians could do something positive and get policies we want passed.  However, I would settle for just stopping the MessAPolitico.  If shutting down the entire federal government is what it takes, then I'm all for it.  It's time for Republicans to quit worrying about protecting their political careers and begin representing us in Washington.  (By the way, the best way to protect your political career is to represent our desires in Congress.)

Is the War on Terror Over?

During the run-up to the presidential election last year, the president told us that the war on terror was over.  It is my opinion that the Benghazi incident in September wouldn't have happened except that the Obama administration was trying to prove that the Obama foreign policy theory was correct.  Mr. Obama took an approach of being nice to all of the middle east except Israel.  His contention is that they will love us if we are nice to the Islamic countries.

He supported the rebels in the "Arab Spring" uprisings in hopes that we would be in their good graces afterward.  Troops were even sent to help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and ultimately, Gaddafi was killed.  Of course, Obama overlooked the fact that Gaddafi wasn't overwhelmingly hated by Libyans.  He had a number of supporters, and a group of them attacked our embassy in Benghazi.  The MessAPolitico created political conflict that led to the death of four people from our embassy.  We did nothing to respond before, during, or after the incident, because politicians created a MessAPolitico.

Why didn't we close our embassy in Benghazi like other countries had done?  Why didn't we provide extra security there upon request?  During the attack, why didn't we scramble jets, helicopters, cruise missiles and everything else we had in the area to save these folks at the embassy?  If there weren't any resources in the area to protect our interests, why not?  It was the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  The answer to all of these question is politics.  Taking action would prove that the war on terror was not over, and that would create a MessAPolitico in the minds of the administration officials.  Of course, there wouldn't have been a problem at all if the administration had done the right thing instead of the politically correct thing.

Now, the MessAPolitico has created a new conundrum.  Edward Snowden has leaked the information about the NSA program to monitor our telephone and Internet contacts.  The American people are largely against this program.  The administration and others in Washington now are saying that this program has prevented terrorist attacks.  How can this be?  I thought the war on terror was over.  The world is safe now.

The Obama administration wants the NSA program to continue.  Now they have to say that there is still a terror threat that necessitates the NSA monitoring.  Is this big threat we've heard about this weekend real?  Maybe it is real.  Or, maybe this is like that YouTube video that caused the attack in Benghazi.  Could the MessAPolitico be lying to us?  Do you trust them anymore?  Did you ever trust them?

Liberty or Safety?

Lately, I find myself waffling back and forth on how much liberty I'm willing to give up.  Right after the attacks on 9/11/2001, I thought the Patriot Act was a good thing.  It seemed that people with something to hide should be worried about the monitoring and intrusion.  The rest of us would be safer.

Then, about seven years later we had a new president.  During his term, we have seen our freedoms eroded.  We've seen groups that disagree politically with the president punished by the IRS.  Certain news organizations are roundly vilified by the president and his minions, and some members of the press have been monitored while doing their jobs.  Some have even been considered for prosecution for publishing or reporting classified information.  When General Motors and Chrysler received bailouts, the government forced them to cancel the dealership agreements with some independent dealers.  Some of these dealers were scorned in spite of the fact that they weren't in the throws of bankruptcy.  It was speculated that some of these dealers were being punished for their political contributions to the "wrong" side.

When you hear about these sorts of actions, it doesn't take long to decide that giving up our freedoms was a bad idea.  Maybe that "slippery slope" we've heard mentioned could be real.  Americans may be sliding down the slope today.

At one time, we had a press that would keep the politicians honest.  They were always looking for a story to use against a politician.  Today, that press is very one-sided.  They are almost all liberal leaning.  They look for any dirt on a conservative politician, and they will stretch the truth to unbelievable lengths if that's what it takes to make a story.  Twist it or bend it or turn it around until anything done by the other side is awful.  Then, if their favorite liberal politician gets in hot water, they just look the other way.  Don't report it at all or blame someone else or minimize it.  Today, there is a lot of dissenting press out on the Internet, but not everyone follows it.  Too many Americans still get their news from the big three network nightly news or a newspaper (if they can find one).

Growing up, I remember most cities of any size having two newspapers.  There would generally be a morning and an afternoon paper, one of which would be liberal and one conservative.  Now that is talking about the editorial pages.  The news pages were supposed to be unbiased.  Compared to today, I think they were a lot better.

So, now we are left to trust the politicians.  There are a few that I trust, but the number is shrinking every year.  I believe the press is to blame for this reality.  Any conservative politician must be squeaky clean to make it past the scrutiny of the press.  Even ones that are this clean face the probability that their good name will be drug through the mud, and their entire family will be drug right along with them.  Who would put themselves and their families through this much aggravation and discomfort to get a public service job?  The answer is that very few would do it, except those folks that want to be career politicians.  Career politicians are doing the job to earn a living.  They need the job and will do anything to further their career.  THIS IS NOT PUBLIC SERVICE.  IT IS SELF-SERVICE.

We are still left with a serious choice between giving up increasing amounts of liberty or dealing with loss of our homeland security from terrorists.  We need to be able to trust the government to take certain actions that will make us safer without stealing our freedoms.  How do we fix this MessAPolitico?  We need better public servants that will work for the good of America.  When the press vilifies a conservative politician, we should take it as a sign that the liberals are afraid of that candidate.  Maybe we should go out and vote for this person.  The liberals have certainly been willing to overlook some indiscretions in the backgrounds of their favorite candidates.  Why do we conservatives have such a hard time with this?  Why do we let the liberal win because the conservative isn't perfect?

At the present time, we need all of the constitutional protections that we were given by the founding fathers.  Until we fix this MessAPolitico, I have to pick liberty over safety.  America can right the ship within a few election cycles.  We also need to have some entrepreneurs out there starting newspapers and other media outlets that provide a conservative point of view.  I pray that God will get our country back on track very soon as the best, greatest, and most free place to live on this planet.