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.