In the name of peace (sort of)

The Nobel Peace Prize apparently doesn't mean much anymore. After all, it was just awarded to a president who, in nine short months in office, has accomplished... ready....

NOTHING!!

Obama has done nothing to make this world more peaceful. Sure, he's reached out to Muslims, but I don't feel safer now that he's our president. He wants a world without nuclear weapons. Well, that's nice- if you're playing Monopoly. Let's see which countries are working towards a world without nuclear weapons. America- yes. Iran and North Korea- no. Hmmm....

Ok, let's take a look a some of the things Obama's done in the name of "peace."

• He consistently apologizes for, and criticizes his country, the United States of America. We, as a country, have been arrogant and acted unilaterally. Terrorist acts were renamed as man-made disasters. He made us look like the bad guy because he didn't want to offend anyone.
• He has cut back on missile defense spending, including his decision to scrap plans for a global missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama turned his back on these valuable allies of ours to appease Russia. In doing so he has opened up America to a ballistic missile attack.
• He has wavered on his commitment on the War on Terror in Afghanistan. During his campaign and the early, early part of his presidency, Obama was set on what he wanted to do in Afghanistan. His supporters lauded him for it. Now because major players in the Democratic Party are opposed to this war, Obama has balked, and no one knows what is going on. The soldiers in Afghanistan don't know why they're fighting.

Let me ask you this, Mr. President: how many of our troops died while you sat on your hands knowing your general in Afghanistan needed reinforcements? How many troops died while you were on with Letterman? How many were killed while you were selling the city of Chicago to the International Olympic Committee? Are you telling me that you did not act on this information because General McChrystal didn't "officially" ask you? Were you too afraid of losing the support of your Party?

His general in Afghanistan told him if he doesn't send 40,000 additional troops we lose this war. Send the troops and this thing is still winnable. The correct course of action: SEND THE TROOPS! The president should do whatever it takes to make sure his military has all the necessary resources to win, despite any opposition. You either want to defeat the Taliban and Al Queda or you don't. It's that simple.

The president didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize because of anything he did. He won it because he spoke of a world without nuclear weapons where no one fights. He won it because he said America is no better than anyone else, and we must all lead by example. He won it because he is a nice guy, and he doesn't offend anyone.

By the way, the nomination deadline for this award was February 1, 2009. That means when he was nominated, he had been president for only eleven days. ELEVEN DAYS! Nothing happened in eleven days, everyone was still on cloud nine following the inauguration. Even the president didn't know why he won.

Here's what we've learned: if you make your country less safe to make everyone like you (even though some will always want to destroy us), you too can win the Nobel Prize for Peace. What a joke!

That's all.

Foreign Policy, anyone?

I know, it's been a while. Sorry, I'll do better in the future.

I meant to write a whole lot sooner. After all, I've been fuming with anger over the past week or so. Please let me explain:

Our county is having some problems with the War on Terror. Oops, can I still say that? (Oh yeah, 1st Amendment- that's still in effect, right?) Our problems: the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the growing nuclear threat in Iran.

We are losing our battle in Afghanistan. Our young soldiers are dying. The reason- we do not have enough troops on the ground to combat the ever-present Taliban forces. We know this because a few weeks ago a report was leaked to the press that Stanley A. McChrystal, Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan, expressed the need for more troops or we will fail in Afghanistan. McChrystal later told 60 Minutes that since he was appointed to his current position, June 10, 2009, he had met with the president (his boss) only once. That's once in 70 days.

Well you know, President Obama has been very busy. He had to make an appearance on Letterman. His presence was crucial in Copenhagen, where the president lobbied for the 2016 Summer Olympics to be held in Chicago. That didn't work out so well, did it? Chicago was eliminated in the first round. First, Obama had no business going to Copenhagen. That's not his job! Send the mayor. It was enough that the First Lady and Oprah were there. Second, how could Obama's staff let him be embarrassed like that?

I could just imagine the phone call to the White House:

McChrystal: I need more troops- is the President there?
White House: I'm sorry, he's not here right now. He's on Letterman.
McChrystal: Ok, I'll call back later.

(Week later)
McChrystal: Hi, it's me again. I still need more troops- is the President there?
White House: No, I'm sorry. He's in Denmark telling the Olympic Committee how great he is, I mean, how great it would be if Chicago hosted the Olympics.
McChrystal: Ok. Well he really needs to call me back because we will lose this war unless he sends me more troops.

Obama finally met with McChrystal. First by video conference, then in person in Air Force One (we came to find out the purpose of this meeting was to reprimand the General because he went outside the chain of command), and now he is having meetings to discuss our strategy. General Pelosi and Admiral Biden are there, and it would seem that the president favors sending more troops. After all, he did say that Afghanistan was the war of necessity. It was major point in his campaign.

Yet, he's done nothing! Everyday that he stalls, another soldier (or more) is killed. Mr. President, send more troops or get them out of there! Do not continue this half-assed attempt at counterinsurgency!

As far as Iran goes, he just doesn't get it. Every bit of evidence points to Iran having a nuclear weapons program, and he's done nothing except for a weak request for Iran to allow their secret nuclear facility to be inspected. Meanwhile, Israel, suspecting that Iran wishes to attack them, is considering a preemptive strike. Obama says, "No, no, please don't do anything. We must keep talks going. We plan to invite Ahmadinejad over for dinner and we will make him promise that he is not pursuing nuclear weapons. Oh, by the way, I've decided to scrap our European missile defense program. The Russian president told me he didn't like that very much. Bye now!"

This president is failing. He thought he could come in with his soaring rhetoric and bring about "hope and change." Instead, he is out of touch with reality. He just doesn't have a clue and he is way in over his head.

This guy does not have the experience necessary to be called "Commander-in-Chief." Who is this guy? He was a trial lawyer and a college professor. He served a short period of time in the Illinois State Senate and a relatively short term in the U.S. Senate, and all of a sudden he is in charge of the most powerful military in the world? This does not make any sense!


Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just Rambling.

The Cost of Government Day

Wednesday, August 12, 2009 was this year's Cost of Government Day. As written on the website for The Center for Fiscal Responsibility, the Cost of Government Day "is the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state, and local levels."

So, that means that I've had to work 224 days this year to pay for my share of the government's spending. That leaves only 141 days to work for myself. Wait a minute- do you mean to tell me that more of my money goes to the government rather than myself? How does this make sense? I can just hear Joe Biden saying, "You have to spend money to save money." Hmmm...

Now I know that we aren't really giving our money to the government 224 days out of the year, but the government's spending is quite real. But we don't all pay our portion, and that's why we have a federal deficit and debt. And the current government is more expensive: this year's Cost of Government Day came 26 days later than last year.

Now, liberals just love to point out that the Obama Administration inherited the deficit from President Bush, and it's now Obama's job to clean up the mess. Okay, fine. Bush did leave this country with a significant deficit. But let's look at some information from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO): the federal deficit at the end of 2008 was $459 billion. We can probably assume that this is the deficit Bush left us since I don't think he did much from 1/1/09 to 1/20/09. Now, please pay attention- this is important. The CBO estimates the current administration's deficit for 2009 to be $1.85 trillion! In just one year, Obama has quadrupled Bush's deficit. How does this help our economy? How does it help any one of us if this current president is going to spend more money than every previous president combined?

Think about this: I can picture a million dollars in a briefcase. To get a billion dollars, I would need a thousand of these briefcases. They could probably fill a warehouse. That means to get a trillion dollars, I would need a thousand warehouses! President Obama is spending 1,845 warehouses worth of money he doesn't have. The number looks like this: $1,845,000,000,000. All in his first year in office. And to the best of my knowledge, this doesn't include his takeover of the health insurance industry.

Please, don't even begin to say that Obama needed to spend this money to save the economy from Bush's mess. First of all, the unemployment rate continues to rise. I don't think the spending so far is working. Second, if my personal budget has a $1,000 deficit, I have a problem- most likely I cannot make my mortgage payment. Since I cannot just print the money, I will be forced to do one of two things: I could borrow the money (maybe China will buy my debt too), or I could cut back on spending. When I realize that I don't need the $1,000 entertainment system, my problem is solved. What I certainly wouldn't do is go out and buy a car! Not only would I still not be able to make my mortgage payment, but I wouldn't be able to buy groceries or pay my bills, either, probably for the next five years. If it doesn't work for me, it won't work for the government.

What the government needs to do is stop spending. If not, our country will continue to be in debt to countries like China or we will just print more money, leading to destructive inflation. Eventually, the Cost of Government Day will not just be a metaphor- taxes will be raised and we will have to pay for our share of the debt.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Opposing Health Care Reform is Un-American

Sounds silly doesn't it? Whatever your views are on health care reform are, it is absolutely ridiculous that anyone can be labeled as "un-American" simply for having opposing views.



Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi have called those drown out opposing views as "un-American." They are, of course, referring to the many "town hall" meetings on health care that have gone on all around the country. The theme surrounding these meetings have been strikingly similar: many people that are opposed to Obama's health care reform plan showing up and attempting to make the voices heard.



I've seen the videos. People are angry. They have a right to be. They are being lied to by their Congressman and Senators. More and more, people are discovering what is in the bill and they are not getting straightforward and forthcoming answers. That is why they are upset and "drowning out" the crap that is coming out of their elected representatives mouths.



Darn those American voters! They're always getting in the way. First the Democrats blamed the Republicans for not getting the health care reform bill passed before the August recess. Well, that's just not the case. They have an overwhelming majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate. They have the votes- if it was just Republican opposition then they can just pass it just like everything else.



Yes, it's us voters that are causing you all this heartache. It's the 57% of Americans that oppose a single-payer system that are causing all the trouble. Because some of them are showing up to tell their Congressman how they fell, they are labeled "un-American," they are called the "mob," and they are accused of being hired by conservative- or Republican-backed organizations. Pelosi has even said that those who show up opposed to health care reform do so "carrying swastikas and stuff like that." (Please, if anyone has seen this, show me.)

Expressing opposing views isn't "un-American," even if you are yelling at your Congressman because you're ticked off. That is just about the most "American" thing we, as citizens, can do. As a matter-of-fact, there is even something call the First Amendment that protects this sort of activity.

I would suggest that the government, in its efforts to nationalize health care, is un-American. If you disagree, then please consult the Constitution. It specifically lists the duties of the government, and mandating health insurance at taxpayer expense, isn't one of them.

Once you lose free speech, you lose everything.

How laws are "made"

Don't worry. This post will not actually document the legislative process. But I do need to point out something that I've noticed. See, I've been paying attention the proceedings of our lovely House of Representatives and Senate (you know, they make our laws, yeah). Let me focus on the House for a bit.

Someone calls up a bill, they'll debate it for an hour or so. Maybe some amendments will be introduced, and they'll debate those too. After all debate, they'll vote. First, the Speaker calls for a "voice vote." He or she will ask for the "Aye's" and "No's" and determine who has more votes. Now, sometimes I just cannot tell who has more, and yet, the speaker is always able to judge. And not coincidentally, he judges in favor of the majority (Democrats). Unless you're a brain dead Republican Congressman, you'll call for an electronic vote. This ensures that everyone in the building votes, but it doesn't really help. (More on this later.)

This procedure took place many times last week, through which I saw the passage of three fairly important bills.

The first reinstituted the PayGo or "pay-as-you-go" rule regarding budgetary spending. Basically it means before Congress spends money, they have to save the same amount of money somewhere else. The concept is of course to keep new spending bills deficit neutral.

IT'S A BUNCH OF CRAP!

Here's why: PayGo exempts discretionary spending, which is spending on education, defense, homeland security, transportation, and housing. This type of spending amounts to 40% of the federal budget. If Congress wants to spend our tax dollars in these areas, they don't have to save the money elsewhere, thus increasing the deficit.

Also exempt from PayGo is the current entitlement-spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) baseline. Entitlement spending can continue to grow at 6% annually without needing PayGo.

All that leaves is the entitlement spending above the 6% baseline amount. Oh yeah, and it would only apply to new legislation. Not really helpful, is it?

When they debated this, the Democrats told us to remember that they had PayGo during the Clinton Administration and it helped produce a surplus. "We need to be fiscally responsible!" they say, and remind us that since the Democrats regained control of the House, PayGo was a rule, and now they want it to be a law of the land.

The Republicans remind us that we were able to get a surplus because Congress instituted spending caps. The truth is, PayGo was never enforced. Even when Congress reinsituted PayGo in 2007, it was waived whenever it didn't work out for the Democrats. (Please see the Heritage Foundation's article regarding PayGo.)

Anyway, I'm getting off-track. The Republicans offered amendments to add spending caps (the true solution to deficit reduction) and the Democrats defeated them. Similarly, the Democrats were able to pass the bill without a fight. Why? They have the majority. It's not even close!

The other two bills were appropriation bills for several federal departments. The country needs to spend money on certain programs. So you have private companies bid on the contracts to do the work for the federal programs. The problem with these bills is that they contained too many earmarks. You know how it works: a private company tells their district's representative, "Hey, if you give us the contract, we'll help fund your campaign and we'll lobby for you."

Republicans offered amendments to eliminate these earmarks, and the Democrats yelled, "You naysayers! These are important programs- why don't you want to fund them?" And they replied, "We're sure they're great programs, we just want to ensure that companies compete for the contracts." Nevertheless, the amendments were defeated. And the bills passed, once again without a fight.

See, the Democrats will get done what they want to get done. Because they have the majority. And, in the cases of these three bills, no one got involved.

By no one, I mean the American citizens. If you remember several weeks ago, the House passed the Cap and Trade bill. Yes, it passed, but it was close (219-212). The reason: enough American citizens got on the phone, called their Representatives and said, "We don't want this crap! We don't want our energy costs to increase. If you support this bill, we will vote you out of office!" For once, those "yes" votes came with a consequence: they can lose their jobs. There's still a chance that this bill will die in the Senate, so those that still voted for this bill would have walked the plank for nothing.

Why do I bring this up? Because Obama, Pelosi, and the other Majority leaders want to take over our health care system and put a government organization (made up of people that we didn't elect!) between you and your doctor. They want to get rid of private health insurance and expand Medicare. AND IT'S GOING TO COST $1.6 TRILLION!!!

Maybe you don't believe me. That's okay, I'll have more about health care reform later. If you can't wait, go to the Heritage Foundation. The have got some great research articles on health care reform. Or you could just look around. Unless you've been living in a cave, you've noticed that despite the Democrats trying to ram health care reform through Congress before the August recess, we Conservatives have won a small victory. This isn't going to happen until September. That's right. Enough people have made some noise ("chatter" as the President calls it), causing Congress to think twice before rushing to get this done.

Do not let this legislation pass through Congress without a fight. Contact your Representatives and your Senators and let them know their support of this bill will come with a consequence.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Why ObamaCare is wrong for this county.

My view on Obama's proposed health care reform is not really any different that what's already been said by most if not all conservatives. But whatever, here it is anyway.

1. It will be bad for private health care.

Actually, it will destroy it. Supporters of the reform claim that the government option will be a healthy competitor to private health care, and if you want to keep your private insurance, you are welcome to do so. But remember, the rules of this "healthy" competition will be set by a committee appointed by the government. Doesn't it make sense that the rules will be bent towards the government option? After all, the reason the nation's health care system has problems is that it is run by private insurance companies, right? Of course the government will take the necessary steps to ensure that a free, public option is readily accessible and more attractive than a more costly private option.

Oh and yes you can keep your private health insurance. As long as you have it right now and you keep it forever. That's right, you can't change it, and if you leave your company-provided health insurance, you will not be able to purchase your own private coverage. "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1." (Section 102(a)1(A) of the "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009") All this says is that once this act is in effect, the only new coverage available will be the government option.

2. It will further damage the economy.

This health care will be paid for by the wealthy, correct? As far as I know, the Democrats want to place a surtax on wealthy individuals to pay for this reform. This surtax will be as high as 5.45% on those that make a million dollars per year. Wait a second! The government will penalize those who are working hard and making a good living to pay for health care for those that can't afford it? Let's not forget that many of these millionaires are the very successful small business owners that drive this economy. Keep in mind that for many of these small business owners, the IRS does not distinguish between individual and business owner.

Folks, small business are what drive the nation's economy. They create revenue. They provide jobs. They are also the ones that are suffering the most during the recession. If they are forced to pay for free health care they won't be able be able to employ as many people or pump as much money into the economy as they normally would. The government wants to punish the very businesses that can actually rescue this economy.

3. We cannot afford it! When you have the director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office admit that the health care reform bill will actually increase health care costs instead of lower them, there is no clearer wake-up call. But the Democrats still want to shove it down our throats. They won't dare raise taxes for middle-class Americans so the only option is to cut costs, and that means certain procedures and medicines will be denied. Those with terminal illnesses will be forced into hospice care rather than money be spent to improve the quality of whatever life remains. If that is the individual's choice then fine. But the government should not be allowed to make that decision.

This health care reform bill is a scary proposition. Please contact your Representatives and Senators and express your opposition to this legislation.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Do I have the right to defend myself?

Since the latest Supreme Court nominee won't answer this question, please, allow me. As it stands, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment of our U.S. Constitution. But let's just say for a second there was no Constitution, no piece of paper that guaranteed anything. It still makes sense to me that I should be able to defend myself. If someone threatens my life (or my family, or my property), I have a right to do whatever is necessary to save myself, including killing my attacker, provided there are no other options and no escape. If those that would threaten the lives, security, and privacy of others use deadly force to do so, then those who are threatened must use deadly force as well to protect themselves.

Please listen: I am not a violent person, and I hope and pray that I am never in a position where I have to use deadly force. But I understand and accept that the right to defend oneself (with deadly force if necessary) is a fundamental and individual right. 233 years ago, several brave men sat down and said that the government shall make no law infringing upon that right.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Journalism Dead?

Some of you may already agree with the title of this post. Others may say, "How can you say that? You must be a right-wing extremist! Our media is wonderful and always objectively reports the news." Hmmm... It is very clear to me that mainstream media is owned and run by the administration, or, at the very least, they are in love with Barack Obama. Come on, do I really have to spell it out for you? ABC broadcasting from the White House for the entire day so Obama can sell his health care reform to the U.S. public. Remember that ABC did not allow any opposing views to participate. Yes, they love Obama. That is why he was elected- in mainstream media he is rock star, an ultimate hero that can do no wrong. But when you really look at what he is doing, you understand that he has no clue. He is in way over his head.

But here is why the U.S. media is nothing more than state-run media, and why it is a joke. Last week, it was reported that a U.S. soldier (who sacrifices his freedom to fight for ours) was captured by Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. But you didn't hear much about that because the media was enamored with the death of Michael Jackson. Now, I don't mean any disrespect. I was a shocked as anybody to hear that Jackson had died. But to ignore the capture of an American soldier is inexcusable. Even, a week after the fact, you still were unaware of the soldier's predicament because camera crews were taking tours of Neverland Ranch and reporters spending their time determining how Jackson died.

More recently, the President was in Moscow over the weekend to meet with the Russian president and prime minister. What did he do? Only reduce the our nuclear capacity by one-third. But you probably didn't hear that either, since the only thing you heard about was Jackson's memorial service. That's all I heard yesterday on the local news radio station. Listening to it, you'd think a president died. Incredible. Am I to believe that the most important event in this country is a public memorial service and not our president continuing to weaken America's defensive capabilities?

This is dangerous. Barack Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. Well, that's nice and charming but not very realistic. Terrorists do not respond to pacifism and peace. That's why they're terrorists. Governments that oppose America will not give up their pursuit of nuclear weapons just because we do.

Wait a second, didn't Obama just violate the U.S. Constitution? He signed a treaty with the Russian president to reduce our nuclear weapons. Article Two, Section Two, requires two-thirds consent from the Senate to enter into any treaty. How can Obama sign a treaty that has an impact on the defense and security of the nation without discussion in and approval of the Senate? Do you see what's going on here? Amazing.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Our President with training wheels

Our president doesn't really care about our country. It's quite possible that he doesn't even like America. I haven't approved of anything he's done, but he has recently acted in a way that confirms that he is not fit to lead this country.

When the former president of Honduras, Zelaya, was removed from office by the Honduran military (on order from their congress and supreme court) for attempting to hold an unofficial (thus illegal) referendum to change the constitution so he could hold office longer than he was allowed, Obama quickly called for the ousted president to be returned to office. Who else supported the former President Zelaya? The dictators Hugo Chavez from Venezuela and the Castro brothers from Cuba.

Here is the big question: why would Obama side with leftist dictators and support a leftist, dictator-in-training president that attempted to illegally change the constitution, rather than support the democratic process of a sovereign nation? Why is his support in line with Chavez, who has been able to stay in power because he has arranged similar referendum votes? Is it because it is a long-term goal of Obama's to have our constitution changed so that he may run for more than two presidential terms? Surely a move for his own agenda, and not what's best for this country. After all, Honduras is an ally of ours, and I'm sure that their government looked to our government for support, especially since they are under extreme pressure from the U.N. and the Organization of American States to reinstate Zelaya.

By the way, whatever happened to the President Obama that didn't want to meddle? When the people of Iran broke to the streets in protest of their fixed presidential election, when some of those protesters were killed, when they cried out (in English), "Where's our vote?," Obama said nothing. He didn't want to be seen as meddling. Of course he changed his tune only after pressure from the GOP, but by then, we knew where he stood. However, he didn't mind meddling when he told the Israelites to stop their settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. And now, he has no problem meddling when he asks that Zelaya be reinstated as president, even though Honduras was removing a man they saw as a threat to their government.

Like I said, I do not support the choices and actions Obama has made. His effect on our economy is becoming more apparent. Even liberals are starting to blame him for the recession. And he continues to sell America out to those whose main form of diplomacy is terrorism. But now his tacit alliance with dictators is frightening. If you are not even a little worried about what our country's future holds, then please, learn what's going on and let your voice be heard!

On a different topic: why do drivers change lines in front of you and then immediately slow down?

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Our new energy tax...

Well, despite our best efforts, the U.S. House passed The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also known as Cap and Trade or Cap and Tax. Some believe (as I do) that this will be the largest tax increase in history. Even though it seems like the passage of this bill seems like really bad news, there appears to be reason to not worry just yet.

First, it was a close vote, 219-212. Actually, that's not really a great thing, because it if it passes, it passes, there is no in-between. But a positive aspect of this vote was the 44 Democrats that joined the Republicans in voting against this bill. On the other hand, 8 Republicans defected and joined the Majority in voting for this bill. What this tells me is that this bill did not get simply pushed through the House. Enough Congressmen voiced the disapproval of this bill in the face of the President's claims.

Second, there's talk among conservatives that while this is good for Democrats now, it will be better for Republicans later, especially in 2010. More and more, the general public is starting to come around and voice a disapproval of the job their Congress is doing. The more Democrats get what they want, it will be easier for the Republicans to regain control of the House and the Senate as it becomes more and more apparent that a Democrat-controlled Congress is hurting this country and not helping it.

There were many Democrat Representatives that were content to not vote on Friday. It's not any secret, though, that these Representatives were under a lot of pressure from President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pass this bill. Several Representatives reluctantly voted for this bill when they would have preferred to abstain or maybe even vote against this bill. This has led to some speculation that these Congressmen might have consequently, "walked the plank" for nothing. Some, if not most Republicans feel that this bill will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Senate floor. As most Americans realize that this bill is nothing more than a huge tax increase, they'll look to replace those in Congress that supported.

Even though the Senate may now be filibuster-proof with the confirmed election of Al Franken as the Senator from Minnesota, we can still have a say in what happens. I urge everyone to contact their Senators and express your disapproval of this destructive energy tax.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rumbling.

Capping and Taxing our Economy to Death

That's what I call it. I've also heard it called "Cap and Tax" or my favorite, "Crap and Tax." Whatever you call it, officially it's the Cap and Trade part of the American Clean Air and Security Act (H.R. 2454), authored by House Democrats Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA). As you know, this legislation was passed in the House yesterday, by a vote of 219-212. (If you don't know, then please stop reading this because you must not care.)

If this bill gets signed into law, it will be one of the largest taxes on the production of energy ever. This legislation seeks to cap fossil-fuel emissions and add a tax on them. To emit a ton of CO2, producers will need to purchase an allowance or credit. Now, these allowances can be sold by companies that produce smaller amounts of CO2 and subsequently purchased by companies that produce more. (Hence the term "trade.) Despite the terms "allowance" and "credit," it still amounts to a fee to produce energy.

Because of this fee, or tax, it will cost utility companies more to produce energy. These costs will be passed on to the consumer, naturally. By 2035, electricity prices will increase by 90%, raising an average family's energy bill by $1,241. And that's just the direct cost. Because energy costs will be higher, consequently, production costs will be higher. By adding this to the higher energy bill, the total cost for the consumer will be $4,600 (once again, by 2035).

Another result of the increased energy and production costs is severe unemployment. That's what happens when it costs more for companies to make stuff. To cut costs, companies will have to cut jobs to keep up. How bad? Over 2 million during peak years. (And that's after all the green jobs the bill's proponents promise.) Jobs will either be lost outright, or moved overseas as certain companies realize they cannot survive in the U.S.

Some other effects (by 2035):

• Reduced aggregate gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion (that's really scary!)
• Increased gasoline prices by 58%
• Increased natural gas prices by 55%, and
• Increased national debt per person of $28,728

These are all adjusted for inflation.

All this to lower the climate by hundredths of a degree by 2050. Doesn't seem worth it, does it? Now I know that all this economic pain is still 26 years out. But think of it this way: if you've just had a child, he will be knee-deep in this mess right around the time he gets married and buys a house. Not a way to start your adult life, is it?

By the way, I know I'm a genius but I didn't come up with all this myself. I encourage everyone to go to the Heritage Foundation's analysis of this bill. You will also find articles on other important issues and topics, as well.

I hope that I have opened your eyes to this destructive legislation. If you still support it, well then, I guess no one can help you.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.

Let the ramblings begin.

I never had any intentions for this blog to become a political forum, but I can't help it. I cannot stay silent any more. I read in the news and I see on TV where our current administration is leading our country, and it scares me. We are moving closer and closer to socialism and no one seems to notice. Has Obama sweet-talked the American people so much that they are blinded to what he really wants to do? Has his fancy rhetoric that comes to him via teleprompter brainwashed us all?

Obama has increased spending, increased the deficit, increased the national debt (yes, liberals, you can no longer blame Bush). He claimed that his stimulus bill was needed to avoid unemployment reaching 8%. Well guess what genius, it's now over 9%!

And of course now Obama wants to push us towards socialized health care. That's another trillion dollars over the next decade. (And that only covers a third of uninsured Americans in this country!) I wish that was the only problem with this legislation, but it would also destroy private health care as we know it. Private health care cannot compete with a public option when the government is creating the rules of competition. I know there are problems with health care costs, but allowing the government to take care of it isn't the solution. I urge everyone to contact their congressmen to prevent this from becoming law.

I would like to say more but it's after midnight, and I'm tired. Also, Texas lost to LSU in the College World Series so I'm a little bummed. But don't worry, as long as the crap in Washington continues, I'll have much more to say.

Anyway, don't mind me, I'm just rambling.