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.