Is the Congressional Leadership Really Looking Down Their Noses at Us?

The Congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle have displayed extreme arrogance lately.  They are acting like we are too stupid to see what is going on.  They figure they can decide how the members of their respective parties will vote, and the American people won't even notice the difference.  They think we are unable to comprehend what is good or bad for us.  It is my belief that too many of them don't really even care what is good or bad for their constituents.  They only care how they can work together with the press to spin everything to get re-elected.  This infuriates me, and I'm not alone.

The press is not supposed to be in cahoots with politicians.  The press should be watching every move the politicians make.  They should be looking for a scoop.  A scoop is big news, and it makes them money when they get it first.  It should raise their standing in the eyes of their readers or viewers, regardless of which politician or political party is incriminated by their story.  Today, our media has a political agenda.  They aren't watching out for the American people anymore;  the press is very simply watching out for politicians they support.  Fortunately, there are quite a few Americans that can see through the ruse.  The rest are subject to the misinformation coming out of most of the media outlets that are viewed by the largest audiences.

I just wrote an email to my Senator explaining that I am watching his votes on defunding Obamacare.  If he doesn't vote to defund this health care MessAPolitico at every opportunity, I WILL NOT EVER VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN.  I told him that I will vote for his Tea Party challenger in the primary, unless he gives me a reason to vote for him.  If I can't see a difference between the Republican and the Democrat, especially on a very, very important issue like health care, why bother voting at all?  Please tell your elected politicians what they need to do to earn your vote.  I don't care which party of which they are a member.  They are elected to do the job of representing their constituents.

Obama: The Spoiled Brat

I've heard Barack Hussein Obama on the radio and on TV one time too many today.  I keep hearing the insolent, spoiled brat saying that the Republicans are trying to appease the Tea Party folks and are willing to shut down the government to do it.  Mr. President, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT OBAMACARE!  THE REPUBLICANS ARE TRYING TO APPEASE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STUPID!  DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT YOU AND ALL OF THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS IN AMERICA WORK FOR US?  WE ARE THE BOSSES, AND YOU WILL NOT BE RE-ELECTED UNLESS YOU DO WHAT IT TAKES TO STOP THIS MESSAPOLITICO.

Maybe shouting this at the President will get it through his thick skull.  Republicans, please move forward without fear.  Let the President veto the continuing resolution.  Let the Senate vote it down and send it back altered.  If they do, just let the government shut down.  The Democrats, along with a lot of us out here in the heartland, don't believe you have the stones to stand up to this MessAPolitico.

Yesterday, I read an article in the Washington Times that was very interesting.  The author was suggesting how the House should respond when the Senate sends the altered spending bill back to the House.  They said that the House should pass a bunch of individual bills to fund all of those things that the Democrats love to talk about whenever any spending cuts are discussed.  Pass a spending bill to fund Social Security first.  Then pass one that funds the military.  Follow it up by funding Medicaid.  Make the Democrats refuse to fund these individual programs that they know are emotional to a lot of Americans.  They have fueled this emotion in the folks.  Turn this thing around and make them either fund the programs or become the "party of no."  Play political hard ball for a change.

Of course, the press will allow the Democrats to make the Republicans out to be the bad guys.  That's a given.  They will give Democrats credit where it isn't due or Republicans blame for anything that isn't good or can be spun to be bad.  REPUBLICANS, PLEASE DON"T LET THE DEMOCRATS INTIMIDATE YOU, AND DON'T FEAR THE PRESS.  FEAR THE IRE OF THOSE WHO VOTE FOR YOU!  FORGET THE FOLKS THAT WILL NEVER VOTE FOR YOU!  Remember your history from the 1990's.  The Republicans were blamed for shutting down the government when they were in a dispute with Bill Clinton.  How did the American people respond in the next election after that?  The Republicans picked up a few seats in Congress.

Any Republican that doesn't stand up until the bitter end in this fight, will never get my vote again.  If the Republicans don't learn how to get the job done, then there is no point in voting for them.  The Republican party will have left the people and they will never have control of anything again.  We will be a one party country for years to come, and our freedoms will be ripped away from us.

Public Education = No Choice Education

What scares the NEA and public schools?  Answer:  choice.  Why do some schools fear comparison to other schools?  What will we find out if we study the outcomes the students are receiving?

Now I would say that a lot of the blame for poor outcomes belongs in the homes of students.  Parents that don't care about education for their children will not inspire success in school.  When they don't encourage the kids to do their best and don't demand that they get up and go to school, those kids are likely to have high rates of absenteeism.  These kids are the ones that show up without doing their homework.  They are also much more likely to drop out of school before graduation.

The schools have been used for everything but education for years.  Desegregation was initiated in the schools.  The end result has been very good, but the school system was in turmoil for years in the process.  It led to a huge waste of time and money hauling kids back and forth across town, and that is money that could have been spent on actual education instead.  Then there has been the man made global warming indoctrination.  Our government schools are reinventing the history of our country in books and curriculum.  The liberals that run the public schools are creating a bunch of little walking and talking (and voting) liberals.

First, we have our tax dollars confiscated to run the public schools.  Then amazingly, we have no choice about which school our child attends unless we pay out money for private school tuition.  Of course, you still have to pay school tax either way.  We pay the school tax even if we have no children at all.  We have little say in the curriculum either.

If grocery stores worked like schools, here's how they would work:

• The government would decide where you can buy your groceries.
• You would pay a monthly fee for your groceries that is determined by a very complex formula that is difficult to figure out and expensive for the store to administer.
• The grocery would need to hire several people to keep track of how much each person must pay, and that will drive up costs to the consumers.
• If you choose to go to another store that you like better, you can buy groceries there, but you still have to pay your monthly fee to the other store mandated by the government.
• The assigned store will decide what groceries to stock, and they won't care what you want to buy.
• If the government decides that you should be a vegetarian, then the store will only stock vegetables.
• Your grocery bill will depend on how much your home is worth.  If your home is worth $250,000, then your groceries will cost twice as much as your buddy that has a home worth $125,000.  Of course, you will both get the same groceries.
• The grocery stores will have no incentive to improve service or stock the things you want or even to be open in the evening or on weekends.

Why would anyone oppose school choice?  Wouldn't it be great if you could shop for the best possible school?  How would you like to choose a school that offers an excellent math and science program for your future engineer or chemist?  If your child is interested in vocational or agricultural education, why shouldn't they get to choose a school with that curriculum?

Our MessAPolitico consistently opposes any school choice or competition.  They need to get out of the education business.  Our outcomes and our costs per student would both improve if education was privatized.  Too many politicians are in the back pockets of the NEA.  Schools need to serve the students, not the teachers.  Let your politicians know that you want freedom in education.

Will the House Stand Their Ground?

I was pleasantly surprised and cautiously optimistic when I heard that the house has passed a continuing resolution that doesn't fund Obamacare.  I honestly thought they would back down without any fight whatsoever.  They have listened to their constituents.  There's only one problem -- the Senate.  I hear that they won't pass this CR.  It's time that everyone that wants to stop Obamacare calls his or her Senators and House member.  TELL THEM THAT THEY WILL LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION IF THEY VOTE AGAINST A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT DE-FUNDS OBAMACARE.  TELL THEM THAT VOTING FOR ANY FUNDING OF OBAMACARE WILL GUARANTEE THE END OF THEIR POLITICAL CAREER AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

I'm ready for the House to stand their ground.  Tell them to shut down the government if that's the only way to stop the PPACA.  Remember how bad the sequester was?  Did you notice the cuts?  Don't give in -- ever!

Our federal budget can't take the high cost of Obamacare.  Our personal budgets can't take the 80% increase in premiums for health insurance starting in 2014.  The US economy can't survive the recession that will happen when all the money being sucked up by high insurance premiums is removed from the rest of the economy.  When more manufacturing jobs move out of the USA with the high cost of benefits, high taxes, and expensive regulations, this recession will kick back in harder than ever.  When the brilliant financial minds in the Obama regime finally quit propping up the economy with "quantitative easing," the stock market will be devastated.  The coming inflation will be curbed by drastically raising interest rates, and that will kill the capital markets and any industries that live on credit purchases.  That would include homes and cars.

Call or write your legislators and tell them that their political futures depend on the proper votes to kill Obamacare.  Don't fear the press or the MessAPolitical leadership.  Fear me, a conservative that might not be able to see the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.  Protect my freedom.  Don't make this the former Land of the Free.

Corporate Profits = Greed?

Is it somehow immoral for a corporation to earn a profit?  Too many people think that it is these days.  I don't see much evidence that anyone in America or anywhere else thinks that high profits are a good thing.  Is that right?  What are the benefits of high profits?

• Employees' jobs are secure
• Employees' are more likely to get a raise and good benefits
• The corporation has generally got good cash flow, and that provides
• cash to invest in new products and R&D
• cash to invest in new equipment for better quality and lower cost products
• cash to pay the obligations and prevent bankruptcy
• The corporation pays more taxes to keep the government solvent (or at least it will help delay national bankruptcy)
• When the corporation invests in new plants and buildings and equipment, other companies sell more of these things and become more profitable, leading to
• lower unemployment
• more taxable profits

What determines how profitable a company can be?  I know you've been told that they earn excess profits because they are jacking up the sell prices of their stuff.  Of course, it's not quite that simple.  We have all heard earnings reports from various large companies saying that they "lost millions or billions of dollars last quarter or last year."  If excess profits are as easy as jacking up the price, why don't the morons running these other companies just jack up their prices and rake in the dough?  The next time you hear someone complaining about some corporation making too much profit, think about how illogical that concept is.  You could try explaining it to them, but you are likely to just get in a big argument that neither of you can win.  Why bother getting all worked up in a pointless effort?

Anyway, let's get back to the subject at hand.  What determines profitability in a corporation?  The profit is very simply the value delivered to the customer minus the cost of delivering it.  That is a fairly simple concept to grasp, although there are some intricacies you may not have considered.

• A product isn't valued the same by all consumers.  Does a soccer mom with three kids value a 4-wheel drive pick-up truck the same as a construction worker?
• Some people see products as having high or higher value than the sell price, yet they don't have the means to afford something that expensive.  For example, you might think a Mercedes Benz is well worth the $60,000 it costs, but you only earn $30,000/year.
• In most industries, you have multiple similar products to choose from, and they are made by multiple competing companies.  If you want to buy a sedan, think of all the makes and models available.  There are also multiple dealers from which to purchase the car.  They may have similar features and prices.  All the competition and choices in the marketplace help the consumer develop a value for a particular product relative to the other alternatives.  For instance, you might like the features of a Honda and a Chevrolet about the same, but you value the Honda a little more highly because of reliability.
• There are many attributes to consider when a consumer decides on the relative values of the choices available.  With cars, there is styling, power, luxury features, reliability, initial quality, handling, roominess, warranty, and dealer service and reputation.
• Sometimes there are competing technologies.  For instance, cars can be purchased with a standard gasoline powered internal combustion engine, a diesel powered internal combustion engine, a plug-in electric vehicle, or a gasoline-electric hybrid.
• There are generally choices between whole competing markets.  If you live in New York City, you don't need to buy a car.  You can probably take public transportation around the city.  With that you have a choice of a bus, a subway train, or a taxi.  If you go out of the city, you can ride on Amtrak, a bus line, an airplane, or you can rent a car and drive.

Most people have at least some understanding of the laws of supply and demand.  Let's look at the demand side first.  If some people value a product being sold at least as much as the sell price, they will want to buy it, and that is demand.  Looking at the supply side, if the sell price is higher than the cost of production, manufacturers will want to supply the product because it earns them a profit.  If profits are really high, companies already making the product will be happy to invest in more equipment and increase their production rates.  Also, other companies may want to develop their own competing products to participate in this profitable market.  Of course, as supply of the product increases, more consumers will need to be induced to make a purchase.  Since different consumers value it differently, reducing the sell price will induce more consumers to purchase it, because more will find that the value they see in the product is at least as high as the price.  Thus, shifting the supply curve up will reduce the price in order to ride up higher on the demand curve.  What causes the supply curve to shift up?  That's right, high profits -- you know the ones that are considered excessive.

The intersection of the supply and demand curves is the point of equilibrium where the quantity being supplied equals the quantity demanded.  Setting the price higher than equilibrium will lead to excess inventories.  Setting it too low will result in shortages, and the consumer will find that it is out of stock.

Maybe you're thinking that this is a little more complex than you thought at first.  There's a lot more to the story than just this though.  For example, most people think that manufacturing cost is a simple sum of the materials and the labor hours x hourly wage rate of the workers required to make the product.  That would only take the direct cost into account though.  There is also indirect cost, which is sometimes referred to as burden or overhead.  Generally, most of these costs are fixed costs that occur whether you make one or one thousand of the items.  For instance, you have to pay rent on the factory every month, regardless of production rates.  What are some other fixed costs?  Here are a few:

• Lighting, Heating
• Management Salaries
• Sales Salaries
• Cost of Various Support Departments like Human Resources, IT, Accounting, Product Development & Engineering, Warranty & Repair
• Mowing the Grass, Clearing Snow from Parking Lots
• Depreciation of Equipment

These fixed costs must be allocated per unit of production.  That means you take all of the fixed costs and add them up, and then divide that number by the number of units you built.  The answer is the fixed cost/unit.  If you don't make very many parts, the fixed cost per unit is much higher than if you make a whole lot of them.

If you think about it, just raising the price won't necessarily make profits go up at all.  Raising prices will drive down the number of units sold, so the fixed cost/unit will rise.  At least that is true unless you can shut down a plant and shed those fixed costs.  There is a price that will maximize profits, and business schools train their students to figure out what price will lead to the sales volume that will maximize profits.

I learned this in a state supported university.  So why were these government employees training me to maximize profits, while the MessAPolitico and the media and all the little liberals out there are calling business people greedy for doing it the best it can be done?  Of course, if the MessAPolitico would just stay out of the way, the market will always drive profits back down to minimum acceptable levels.  If there are excess profits in an industry, businesses will be enticed to raise production rates until the excess supply drives the price down and profits are just acceptable.  So let's get off this kick of knocking businesses that are successful.  After all, they provide good jobs, quality products that are in demand, and most of all, good value.  If you get a great product that satisfies your needs at an acceptable price, who cares how profitable the manufacturer is?

OMG, Global Cooling!

The U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that the Arctic ice pack has increased by 920,000 square miles since 2012.  2012 was a record low year, but the Arctic has made a major rebound, increasing in size by 60%.  Have we really cut our greenhouse gas emissions by that much in only one year?

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center quoted one of their glaciologists, Walt Meier, as saying “even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years.”  Goddard is intent on downplaying the massive recovery the ice pack has made in just 1 short year.  Of course, if glaciers don't turn out to be a problem, what will a glaciologist do for a living?

In 2007, the BBC News made a prediction that the "Arctic summers [would be] ice-free 'by 2013.'"  A while ago, Al Gore predicted that the sea level would rise by 10 feet, swamping New York City and Washington.

Last October 14th, Simon Kent in the Toronto Sun wrote that "Antarctic sea ice has expanded to cover the largest area recorded since satellite mapping began a generation ago."  That doesn't stop Goddard from continuing their fear-mongering.  They say that the extra ice is caused by winds that were caused by climate change.

What is wrong with all of these predictions?  In my opinion, they are disingenuous.  They are self-serving for those that make their living off of the bad news.  Everything they predict is based on their infamous climate change models.  These models try to mathematically represent all sorts of things going on simultaneously on Earth.  These include emissions of a multitude of greenhouse gases, ocean temperatures, ice pack level, solar activity, etc. etc.  These extremely complex models are considered by many to be above reproach.  They are created by PhD's, so they must be accurate.  We just don't know enough to question these folks.

One of the numerous things that makes a drastic difference on the results predicted by these models is cloud cover.  You know, water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas by these scientists.  However, clouds, which are made of water vapor, have opposing effects on global warming.  According to some scientists, low, thick clouds block the sun from reaching the ground and creating warming.  They also say that high clouds let enough sun through to heat up the Earth, and they trap this heat below the clouds, producing the greenhouse effect.  So, to get an accurate read on how much heating will occur due to water vapor, one must make an accurate prediction of cloud cover.  Recently, there has been some cooling, and scientists are saying that the deviation from many models is due in large part to poor predictions of cloud coverage.

Has anyone ever thought about what creates water vapor and clouds?  Remember the water cycle that we used to learn in grade school?  I have no idea if this is still taught in school, because they may spend the time on global warming indoctrination instead.  In any case, the water gets heated by the sun and evaporates.  This causes clouds to form.  The clouds produce rain, and the water falls back to earth, filling our lakes and streams.

Could it be as simple as understanding that global warming is a self-limiting effect?  Might a slight increase in temperature produce higher evaporation rates?  Wouldn't that increase in evaporation produce more cloud cover, thus shading the Earth and dropping the temperature?  Additionally, the higher temperatures, coupled with increase rain, would produce a longer growing season with faster growth rates of plants and vegetation.  The increase in vegetation would convert more CO2 to Oxygen, reducing that one greenhouse gas that seems to be of utmost importance to tree-huggers.

I wish the MessAPolitico would use a little logic.  I also wish they would quit rewarding people with grants only when they produce the one outcome in their research.  If you pay grants for proving that global warming exists, but not for debunking it, the scientific evidence is guaranteed to prove that we are all going to die from global warming.  The same folks that complain when anyone makes a business profit are pretty silent about hypocrites like Al Gore profiting from fear-mongering.  The best way to screw up anything is to get the government interested in fixing it, especially when there is room for crooked politicians to make a profit.

We Need a Law Against Needless Complication

This Obamacare bill is a total joke, but it isn't funny at all.  It was pushed through Congress with thousands of pages.  If congress and the rest of us had had 6 months to read it, could we have figured it out?  To make matters worse, the bill spawned tens of thousands of pages of administrative regulations.  Why?  Was the purpose of all the complication to prevent scrutiny until after is passed?  Maybe it was designed to prevent scrutiny forever.  Who can ever figure out such a mess?

How will medical care providers or insurance companies or employers figure out this MessAPolitico?  Does it do anybody any good to have such a tangle of rules and regulations?  If all of these entities need to hire high paid lawyers to interpret the bill and all of the regulations will that make medical care more accessible to folks that don't have it?  No.  In fact, it is more likely to make more of us likely to lose our coverage, because the effective cost of providing insurance goes up for our employers.  It also makes the price go up for individuals that are trying to provide for their families.

Did you know that your doctor is now required to ask you a lot of intrusive questions when you come in for an office visit?  That's Obamacare at work.  The doctor is required to ask about your sexual history and preferences.  If they don't, the doctor pays a fine.  So much for protecting my privacy.  Why is that the business of my government?  I have my own insurance, and I pay the premiums.  I pay the deductibles.  I pay the co-payments.  It's none of their business what I do in my spare time.  It's none of their business what I eat or drink.  Hey Michelle Obama.  If I want to drink a 64 ounce Mountain Dew with my fat back sandwich, it's not your concern.

In my opinion, the government getting involved in health care precipitated the high inflation in this industry to begin with.  That's right, I'm talking about Medicare and Medicaid.  Before these programs were started, people could go to the doctor and get medical care on a pro bono basis.  That was great.  Then the government decided to step in and provide these services.  The medical providers that had once been charitable suddenly started taking payouts from the government for the charity cases.  Of course, the charity cases suddenly started complaining that the care they were given at no charge to them wasn't good enough.  Then there was money thrown into the health care system by the government, and more people were basically paying for health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid.  The increased demand led to higher prices.

Of course, more and more people had better insurance at work.  When insurance pays for almost everything, why should you shop around for affordable health care?  That caused insurance companies to create HMO's and PPO's where they shopped around for providers that would take a lower price for the services.

So, what should we do?  I think that Obamacare should be repealed in its entirety.  All of us, Conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians, etc. etc. should call or write our members of Congress and tell them to repeal the bill.  There should be reforms that make sense and actually reduce cost.  It should eliminate regulations.  Stop telling them how to provide health care.  This huge, unworkable MessAPolitico should be replaced by a bunch of small, understandable bills that are based on common sense.  Congress shouldn't have the choice of everything or nothing.  Congress shouldn't have a bill that is so large that it can't be read and understood quickly and easily.  They shouldn't be able to hide things in the bill that really aren't related to health care either.

I'm really against government intervention in health care or anything else.  At this point, we have a bunch of intervention.  The bill can't even be tweaked, because the House will only vote for a total repeal of Obamacare.  The Senate and the President won't open the door to changes for fear of losing everything.  That means that we are stuck with the whole MessAPolitico.  In the end, who benefits from the "Affordable" Care Act?

Who Are the Good Guys in Syria?

The media is droning on about the civil war in Syria.  John Kerry told us that there is incontrovertible evidence showing that the Syrian government used nerve gas on their own citizens, including children.  Now some folks have speculated that the nerve gas came from the rebels instead of the government.  The Israeli's supposedly have intercepted a communication where Assad told the military NOT to use the chemical weapons.  I guess that incontrovertible evidence was actually controvertible after all.

Last week, I heard Secretary of State Kerry saying that the Rebels aren't all Al Qaeda sympathizers, but only 10%-25% are.  Wow, that would still amount to thousands of Al Qaeda types in the rebel forces.  So, do we back the rebels that have thousands of Al Qaeda operatives and give them arms or support?  Or, should we support the government that is backed by Iran and Hamas?  I don't like to hear about women and children getting caught up in a nasty conflict like this.  I don't even like to hear about men getting killed or maimed this way.  On the other hand, there isn't any good outcome that will come from American intervention.

How would this go down?  First, Assad has moved all of his weapons and forces out amongst the people in neighborhoods.  Attacking these areas is the only thing that could make a real difference.  It would be impossible to expect a conflict with targets in residential areas to be conducted without the so called "collateral damage."  Somehow, the Middle Eastern people and most of the world media expect us to conduct bloodless wars that don't kill anyone.  That is just not possible.  How is it that Al Qaeda uses commercial air liners filled with regular citizens to knock down large buildings filled with more regular citizens, but we must meet the standard of killing only members of the military.  Of course, the rebels and Al Qaeda or Hamas are all just regular citizens.  As soon as we kill a terrorist or blow up his house, the news media reports that a U.S. strike killed three civilians and destroyed a house with kids inside.  The U.S. does it by accident or by attacking a terrorist fighter, and they do their terrorist "death and destruction thing" totally on purpose, but we are terrible.  I don't get it.

So, our current MessAPolitico in the White House wants us to go over and mess around in Syria's mess.  As tragic and disheartening as it is, we just need to stay out of it.  I don't want to see our military spending a lot of money and getting our young people killed fighting in a war that has nothing to do with America.  In the end, both sides will still hate us.  Even though Assad is an evil, oppressive, murderous dictator, the replacement government may actually be worse.  History says the new government will be just as bad, and it may be run by wacko, Islamic radicals that want to take any weapons of mass destruction in Syria and use them on Israel or the U.S.  Terrorists don't have to figure out how to deliver chemical weapons to America or Israel and worry about the political fallout.  They will just walk over with the weapons and set them off, killing themselves and everyone in the area.  You don't have to deal with political fallout after you have gone to visit Allah.  The best way to deal with this type of situation is to stay far, far away.

Is this conflict the beginning of World War III?  It might be, if we get involved.  John Kerry and Barack Obama have both said that there will absolutely be no "boots on the ground."  This will be a very limited conflict.  Are they right?  We just don't know.  That depends on the response from Syria, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc., etc.  What if Syria attacks back?  Do we still just pack up our cruise missiles and go home?  What if terrorist attacks break out across the U.S., and the groups tell the media that they are responding on behalf of Syria?  Do we run from the conflict or put "boots on the ground?"  Is this conflict still just a few, limited missile strikes?  Where does it end?  That's really not up to us.

So, all of you folks in the MessAPolitico, what is the benefit to America?  I know you say that we must respond to show that chemical weapons won't be tolerated.  How do you deliver that rational message to irrational zealots?  You can't, and you won't.  Stay home.  And, next time you are thinking about running off at the mouth with threats, learn to shut up.

Does Mitch McConnell Have a Legislative Record?

I live in the Cincinnati metropolitan area.  Since northern Kentucky is just across the Ohio river from Cincinnati, we get political advertisements from Kentucky on the TV and radio.  Apparently Mitch McConnell will be up for re-election in 2014.  He is facing a primary challenge from the Tea Party backed candidate, Matt Bevin.

I'm not familiar with Mr. Bevin, but Mitch McConnell's advertisements indicate that he owns some businesses in the New England.  I have seen and heard endless campaign advertisements where Senator McConnell smears Matt Bevin.  The ads say something about Mr. Bevin and his companies not paying their taxes.  They also say that Mr. Bevin claimed to be an MIT graduate, but he never went there.  I'm not sure about the validity of these claims by our Senate Minority Leader.  He is a politician, so I'm not sure what to believe.  We all know that politicians love to parse words and spin things in their favor.  I have been trained over time to not believe any of the propaganda spewed by the MessAPolitico.

I know that pundits say that attack ads work.  I just don't understand why Mitch McConnell can't find any of his great accomplishments to mention in even one advertisement.  Mr. McConnell has been a Senator since 1984.  Yes, he has held this office for over 28 years, yet I haven't heard about anything he has done while in office.  I haven't even heard anything that Senator McConnell plans to accomplish in the upcoming term if he is re-elected.  Why?

Senator McConnell, please give the voters a reason to vote for you.  Tell them how you are going to stop Obamacare from being implemented.  Don't just say "I'm a conservative."  Don't give us "window dressing;" play the game of politics to win.  Share with us what you can do to stop Obama from stealing our freedoms.  Please point out how liberals are transferring all power from the state and local governments to create an omnipotent central government in Washington.  If you can't do anything to stop the liberal, progressive initiative to totally circumvent the U.S. Constitution, then you're just part of the MessAPolitico.  Half of the MessAPolitico is stealing our freedoms (the Democrats), and the other half is just laying down and staying out of the way (the Republicans).

You Republicans have to quit running around scared of offending someone.  It's time to get scared of offending the conservative base.  I hope some of you get surprised in the primary by a Tea Party favorite.  We need some forceful leadership in the Republican party, like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

I'm unhappy and frustrated.  I'm wondering if the MessAPolitico has destroyed the greatest country in the history of the world.  We must re-assert the Constitution before it is too late.  Please help America.  Urge your state legislature to take action to amend the constitution to return it to the original form that was written by the founding fathers and ratified by the original states.

It's Time for Term Limits for Congress

I used to be opposed to term limits for Congress.  I thought the desire to be re-elected would encourage our members of Congress to faithfully represent our views in Washington.  It seems that the legislators have taken different steps to get re-elected over and over.  For some reason, they don't look at a law on its merits or consider whether it will have a positive or negative effect on their constituents.  Instead, they look at how their vote will likely be portrayed by the media.  How will their legislative actions make them look to the constituents?

Of course, the media plays a very significant role in this MessAPolitico.  They have the power to shape the opinions of the uninformed voters in America.  If the media tells the folks that something is good for them, they believe it.  If the media says it is bad for the average American, the folks believe that too.  If saying that the media creates "belief" is a little too strong, they create doubt at the very least.  Politicians then govern using the results of polls.

If politicians couldn't make a career of public service and politics, then maybe re-election wouldn't be so crucial to them.  This is the main argument for instituting term limits.  I'm all for them.  I think we should elect folks that have a career to which they can return after serving a term or two.  Yes, today I am supporting a constitutional amendment that limits the length of service in Congress.  I want our legislators to do what is right and good for America, and if that causes them to lose the next election, so be it.  They can just go home and re-assume their previous position.

What do we do about the media?  We have Fox News and talk radio.  We have alternative media on-line.  Of course, these outlets just don't reach the majority of Americans.  Why don't we have entrepreneurs that are ready to start new media outlets in the traditional areas, like a major newspaper.  When I was growing up, every large city had at least two newspapers.  One had a liberal editorial bent, while the other was conservative leaning.  Why can't we have a "fair and balanced" newspaper that reaches a national audience?  How about one of the network news organizations taking up a noticeable effort at providing facts with no political agenda in their reporting?  Doing this could bring their ratings up drastically as they pursue a market niche that is currently not totally fulfilled.

Is the Obamacare Tax Legal?

Section 7 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution starts with this statement:  "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."  The Affordable Care Act was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after they decided that the penalties called for in the act were taxes rather than fines.  Therefore Obamacare was a revenue raising bill.  According to Article I Section 7 of the Constitution, this type bill must originate in the House of Representatives, but it didn't.  The Affordable Care Act came out of the Senate.  When is this going to be brought before the Supreme Court?  Why does our Congress just allow the constitution to be trampled?  I would rather see the House taking a meaningful action like this instead of the symbolic stuff they've been doing.  Passing total repeal of the Affordable Care Act is nice for showing your disdain for the act, but it will never even be brought up for a vote in the Senate.

Does the Republican MessAPolitico really want to stop Obamacare?  I wonder if they do.  Are they afraid of the liberal media saying bad things about them?  Have they given in to the President, because they are afraid of him?  I think they are.  They should be afraid of their bosses -- us.  We elected them, and we will either re-elect them or not when their next election comes around.

Congress Has Abdicated Their Responsibility to Legislate

The first section of Article I of the Constitution says:  "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  So how can all of these endless regulations and orders emanate from the Executive branch of the federal government?  How can our President threaten to invoke whatever he wants into law by executive order or a new regulation issued by one of the agencies of the executive branch?  If you read Article I, how can you say that these things aren't unconstitutional?

When a new President is sworn into office, they take this oath of office:  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  It seems that President Obama has violated this oath every time he makes a law under the guise of a regulation or executive order.

Why would Congress simply abdicate this responsibility that they have been charged with to the President or anyone else?  We elected THEM to represent our views.  By relegating this to anyone else, they lose control of what happens.  We, the electorate, should hold them responsible for these things that are done against our will.  If the Congress refuses to take action against other departments of the government that are encroaching on their legislative duties, then they have given this power away willingly.  We expect them to do the job of representing the people in legislating.  Somehow they believe that they can blame the executive branch or the EPA or the Department of Labor or some other government entity when they issue an unpopular regulation.  In my mind, this is dereliction of duty, and the Congress is fully to blame for anything that happens as a result.  We can't let them off the hook.

We've got to stop this MessAPolitico.  I can't say that we should stop it before any damage is done.  Damage has already been done and is continuing to be done.  In fact, the pace of harmful rule and regulation creation has been increasing.  Mark Levin has a new book, The Liberty Amendments.  He is advocating that the states need to call for amendments to our Constitution.  These amendments will reassert the original intent of the Constitution.  This is absolutely needed.  If we're waiting on the President or Congress to fix this MessAPolitico, it will never happen.  All three branches of our government need to be reigned in by the Constitution before America is fully and completely destroyed.

Obama the Tough Guy

On Saturday, Obama announced that he had thought long and hard about attacking Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons.  He believes it should be done, but it should be debated in the Congress.  Obama thinks it is the right thing to do to let Congress vote on a declaration of war.  He thinks that Congress needs to give him a declaration of war.

Now Obama says this is going to be a very limited action with no boots on the ground.  We're not planning on getting a regime change.  I guess we're really not planning to kill or injure anyone either.  That doesn't sound like a real war.  Why does he need a declaration of war for such a limited action?  What do we plan to accomplish in this action?  Isn't it all about saving face for Obama?

Last year in the run up to the election, Obama was trying to sound like a tough guy.  He threatened Assad, saying that he draws a line in the sand at chemical weapons.  The insinuation was that the US would attack.  Well, old Bashar al-Assad didn't feel all that scared.  According to Secretary of State John Kerry, the chemical weapons were released and killed almost 1,500 people.  It has been reported that around 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict.  That didn't elicit much of a response from Obama, but the 1,500 people killed by a chemical weapon is the catalyst needed to get us into another war.  It just makes no sense.

Obama is really driven by polls.  The polls say that only about 9% of Americans support action against Syria.  I think old Obama is a little scared too.  The Syrians and Iranians have both threatened to attack Israel if the United States attacks Syria.  The Israelis must be thrilled.  The Syrians were busy fighting amongst themselves, and now they're talking about attacking Israel for something the U.S. is doing.

I believe Obama doesn't want the conflict.  He realizes now that he spoke stupidly when he made that threat, thinking that Syria would never call his bluff.  The entire Middle East believes that Obama is all talk.  They consider him a joke -- a laughing stock.  The U.S. is not feared anymore.  Thank you President Obama.  You have no foreign policy strategy.  What is the Obama doctrine?  Is it "be nice to the folks over there and they will love us?"  How's that working out?  The Middle East is all about negotiation from a position of strength.  If they don't believe you will follow through on your threats, you will get absolutely no respect.

Well Obama and his media worshipers figure he has made a brilliant move.  He said all those tough things, following up on John Kerry's words over the past several days.  Now he figured out how to get a "do over."  Ask Congress to vote on whether to take action or not.  Obama figures the war will never be approved by Congress, and he can blame them for any ramifications.  Congress doesn't care about the poor folks in Syria.  Congress is making us look weak in the Middle East.  He would have gone over there and been tough with them, but Congressional Republicans did what they always do and blocked Obama from fixing this problem.

This MessAPolitico is amateur hour in the White House.  Thank you America.  You elected him.  Don't forget that his Secretary of State for the first four years was Hillary.  Will she be our next president?  If so, what will her foreign policy doctrine be?  I hope to NOT find out.