Counting on the Republicans to tackle the deficit? Think again.

If you look at the speech, they’re against debt and believe in balanced budgets. If you look at their plan, they’re spend-a-holics who get sober just in time for election. There is, unfortunately, a growing gap between the words and the actions of the GOP. Especially when it comes to the deficit. is the website for Republicans in Congress. It outlines their plan on debt like this:

Under the President’s [Obama] budget the national debt exceeds 100% of GDP in 2030. By contrast, the Republican plan gains control of the debt, by never exceeding 75% of GDP over the next 75 years.

The way one of my friends put it after I said this was: Sooo… do you want to be killed by four bullets or three? Your choice. Whether you choose the donkey’s or the elephant’s plan, your children have to pay for our mistakes. And that is just wrong.

Wordy bill syndrome? Republicans got it, too!

Many complained about the great length of the Health Care Reform bill that passed recently, and with good reason. I would contend that bills with such volume are the main reason we’re in debt right now. They’re just so much space to slip in a little money here and there. It’s death by a thousand cuts.

In fact, the House’s version of health care rationing is the longest bill ever heard (or not heard) in congress. There’s definitely a veil to keep the bill’s actual action obscure. The problem is that the Republicans can’t remove the veil while standing on it. Open Congress’ report on “How Long is Long?” speaks the truth.

Over the last 10 years, half of the top ten longest bills were proposed by Republicans. Simplicity: out the door!

Tea Party Response

Independents and loyal Republicans can turn around the status quo both by working loyally and by turning on their precious party.

In a rare moment, I got a bit of insight from a report in the Huffington Post. The point made in this article by Bill Lucey is how the tea party has made a major impact on the party by defeating incumbents. Both republican and democrat, that is.

While many people credit independently-minded tea partiers with Scott Brown’s victory, they can also take credit for Bob Bennett, R-Ut. He would have been on his fourth term, but seniority means nothing to principle-first voters. This block kicked out this TARP and Obamacare loving RINO. May his political career R. I. P.

Unless we want to face our children and tell them that they’ll have to pay for our mistakes, we need to vote on principles before party.


Pro-Life Socialists: an open letter to "conservative" republicans in Texas

(Warning: recommended for people who are voting in the election. Or are close to voting age. This is… shall we say… mature, but hopefully not vulgar. It is my intention to deal with issue honestly, not to offend.)

A bill that reduces abortion

Here at the office of Representative Robert J. Rino, we are very proud of our pro-life record. We are doing everything to not only stop, but also reduce the number of abortions, because we believe every life is sacred.

That’s why we’re sponsoring the “Pro-life Socialism in Action” house bill: a bill designed to not eliminate, but fight the tide of abortions. The genius of it is that it will not only cut down on abortion, but also gain bi-partisan approval, and get Rep. Rino elected again.

Here’s how it works: every time a male comes in for a check-up at his doctor’s office will be given a condom and explained its use in preventing unwanted pregnancy. If a doctor fails to hand out these pro-life condoms, he will loose his license.

Don’t we have the right to do this as a state? After all, we’re the ones that give the doctors their licenses and Roe v. Wade says we have the right as a state to regulate in order to reduce the number of abortions. Currently, almost 8,300 unborn lives are destroyed every day. If we can’t stop abortion, don’t you want to see that number at least go down?

That’s a good thing, right?

No. I’m being very sarcastic here. I hope you get my point.

I’ve been quite upset by the way that UT hands out condoms like they’re cough drops. I do not want the government to think it has the authority to tell doctors that they need to give me one every time I go in for a checkup. Wouldn’t you vote against such a law requiring doctors to do so?

Why does this matter?

I know you probably wouldn’t support a bill like this (if you would, then I’m not writing to you). But conservatives all over this state are just about to do the exact same thing, or at least use the same reasoning.

I’m not saying here that doctors shouldn’t show the sonogram. For me, it’s a duh. They should. However, I object to the government making it mandatory.

The Sonogram Proposal: Socialism is Socialism, even if it’s Pro-life

First, there’s Ballot Proposition #5 on Sonograms, which will appear on the Republican Primary ballot today. Then, there’s the Texas Alliance for Life griping over Medina supporting liberty. Finally, I said enough is enough.

Socialism is socialism, even if we would like to call it pro-life. There is a fundamental difference between incrementalism and unrelated compromise. How can we tell the government it doesn’t have the authority to tell doctors what procedures to preform (or what to hand out) if we reserve the right to tell them to be pro-life?

So, take it or leave it. But if you agree with what I’m saying, I hope you vote that way today. If you disagree, then post a comment. I’m open to the possibility that I’ve missed the elephant here.

The Federal Reservations

What is the federal reserve? Honestly, most people don’t really know. Most have only heard the name, if even that. Why does such a secretive institution get so much power? I’ll post some good music videos soon, but I must now address this important issue:

This is why Ron Paul is presenting a bill to audit the Fed. The only major reason why we shouldn’t get more info on them is, according to the Federal Reserve’s own representatives, is because it would undermine their “Independence.” Proponents of the bill have said that in this case “Independence” is nothing more than a codeword for secrecy.

So let’s clarify: There’s a difference between wanting information and wanting to make decisions. If the bill was that the Fed’s decisions were subject to congress’ approval, that would undermine their independence, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

The bottom line on this bill: Why not? It’s not going to undermine your independence to just tell us what you’re doing.

In a greater context: Milton Friedman, recipient of the prestigious Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on monetary policy:
“I’ve always been in favor of replacing the Fed with a computer.” (Jim Powell. FDR’s Folly. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003. p 272.)

So, after analyzing centuries of the Fed’s work, Friedman concluded that a computer could have done a better job. Pretty tough stuff. I agree.

Brian's Voting Guide – Nov 6

Hello all,

Elections are approaching, and I’m not able to vote, so I’ve decided to help everyone else vote… like I would have.

Unfortunately, my debate partner voted before I had a change to straighten… I mean instruct her in sound voting procedures. 🙂 Oh well. For the rest of you:

1) Federal
> Vote third-party. The mainstream in both parties needs to know that if they toss the constitution out the window, we’ll toss them out after it. And they’d better bring it back.

2) State elections
Several people are up for state election. I honestly don’t have time to research all of them (who does?) so I’m just going with the recommendations of the Texas Home School Coalition.

3) Austin-Area
There are three pieces of voter-approved legislation on the ballot for Austin. The best resource I could dig up on these was the incredibly one-sided endorsements of the Austin Chronicle. (scroll down to the bottom) I make my own conclusions based on their rhetoric… I mean reporting.

a) Proposition 1

This amendment basically passes several measures that better insulates the city auditor from political pressures. Very important for that job.

b) Proposition 2

I do not agree with giving the Domain (or any other business for that matter) subsidies that the whole city has to pay for. BUT: once we’ve made the agreement, we need to honor it. The City signed a contract with the Domain, and we should hold to our word.

c) AIDS Tax Ratification


The City school system does not need more money, it needs to do better with the money it has. My Mom should know. She’s spent a long time in the system as a teacher. More money is nice, but not needed. And certainly not at the expense of more property taxes.

Hopefully this quick overview will be helpful for you! If you beg to differ, are wanting more information, or just feel like saying something, leave a comment!

Babies are a Punishment?

I am disgusted with the state of our society and how we don’t value the next generation.
A baby is not a punishment! It is a responsibility. Sure, it involves work. But it is a joy! A PRIVILEGE!!!

Either Sen. Obama really messed up, has a twisted view of family, or just slipped and told us what he really believes about children. Take a look:

“Look, I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them, first of all, about values and morals. BUT if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
~Barack Hussein Obama

I have to side with others and say that Mr. O-bomb-a should retract this statement. Yet this isn’t all that I want. He must prove that he actually supports the fundamental right to life.

My goodness. I really want to scream at someone, :arg: but I will contain myself. Abortion is not about religion! It is not about “my personal preference!” And, for goodness sake, it is NOT a gray area! :calms down to a logical state: Allow me to enumerate why I am decidedly pro-life.

  • 1) Life is the most fundamental right of all rights. It is afforded to any human by the natural order of things. Basically, people are naturally alive, not naturally dead. No other person has the right to change this.
  • 2) Babies are people for crying out loud! So what distinguishes a baby that is in the womb from a baby that it out of the womb? Only three things:
  1. a) level of dependence
  2. b) environment
  3. c) mental and physical development

    As soon as my great grandmother’s inability to feed herself means that you can through her out the window, you can kill a baby because it’s dependent on you. As soon as you start killing people in slums because of their sub-standard environment, you can kill a baby because it is in the womb. As soon as retarded people can be blown up because they haven’t “developed,” you can kill a baby because it isn’t as smart as you are. And don’t throw out the “fetus” thing. Fetus comes from Latin meaning “little child.”

  • 3) Therefore, babies (even those in the womb) should be protected by the government just like any other person’s life should.
  • 4) And for those of you who are still convinced that it’s a gray area. It’s best not to take chances when it comes to someone’s life, don’t you agree?

Alright, my frustration has been vented. What do you think? Should Obama retract his statement? Go ahead a leave a comment. I’d appreciate it.

Remember you can save yourself time and headaches by subscribing to my free RSS feed.

Global Warming and Unecessary Force

(This was originally written in February for my English Class.)

The flames engulfed twelve houses in Lewiston, California. For these residents, it was their worst nightmare coming to life: wildfire! This fire, however, was not originally wild. It had been started by well-meaning agents of the Interior Department in an attempt to eradicate a weed. In the end, John Stossel reported that the fire went out of control, destroyed many homes in the area, failed to eradicate the weed, and provided more fertilizer for the weed’s descendants.

This is an all too common example of the unintended consequences of the government’s approach to solving problems. In an article entitled “The Environmental Issue From Hell” published in 2001, Bill McKibben presents a new governmental approach to what he considers “the great moral crisis of our time”: global warming. He proposes that this problem should be made a moral issue in order to motivate political action, while failing to address the consequences of such action. McKibben states that environmental activists need to “…pressure politicians to pass laws that would cause us all to shift our habits,” without specifically enumerating what laws. McKibben’s nebulous desire to use the government may result in governmental force being used in a manor that is unnecessary at best and destructive at worst.

McKibben believes that there are three major harms caused by climate change that are indicative of a moral issue. All these examples are certainly problems, and all of them should be addressed, but not all methods of addressing them are equal. An almost universally accepted axiom is that force should never be used unless it is absolutely necessary. It is simply immoral to force a change in behavior unless there is no alternative. McKibben focuses simply on the moral problem with climate change, not on what method will actually solve the problem. This acceptance of whatever policy solves the moral problem may lead to unnecessary government force in the form of regulation, taxation, etc.

McKibben thinks it is wrong to force urban conformity on nature, but he has no problem with forcing the conservative habits of 10% of Americans on the other 90% via government action. He states that “…10 percent would be enough to change the politics around the issue… forcing the system to respond.” If only ten percent of Americans thought that it was wrong to steal, then intervention would clearly be necessary to spark change in the other ninety percent. The criterion that should be applied is whether it is absolutely necessary in the case of gasoline consumption. If there is an alternative that would not require force, it would definitely be preferable and more effective. History and the study of economics reveal a very clear alternative to government force: a “laissez-faire” free market system.

Writing in 1776, economist Adam Smith stated that the individual is often “…led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.… By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society….” This “invisible hand” is especially present in the free trade of finite resources. As scarcity increases, companies will start working for alternatives and serving the public interest, all because they want to make a profit. There are plenty of examples of the “invisible hand” providing strong incentives for individuals to change their habits and benefit society.

Economists James D. Gwartney, Ph.D., and Richard L. Stroup, Ph.D., provide several historical examples. One of which was over whaling in the nineteenth century. At that time, whale oil was the standard fuel for artificial lighting. This changed when the whale population decreased, their oil became more expensive, and kerosene soon became the alternative to environmentally destructive whale oil. Could the same happen to fossil fuels without government tampering? Writing in their book What Everyone Should Know About Economics and Prosperity, Gwartney and Stroup almost directly answer McKibben saying: “Doomsday forecasters fail to recognize that private ownership provides people with a strong incentive to conserve a valuable resource and search for substitutes…” The age of oil is going to end. It will get more expensive, and industries will be pressed to look for alternatives like biofuels and hydrogen technology; alternatives, which will most likely be much more environmentally friendly.

Proponents of free markets are right on many accounts. It certainly is not a perfect system, and it is very clear that special interests cloud the judgment of otherwise rational people. Yet, this is true for Washington, as well. Looking at the governmental sector actually reveals examples of even more insanity than in the private sector. A good example is provided by Bruce Yandle, an economics professor at Clemson University, who recounts a major part of the Clean Air Act of 1977 that actually did not contribute to cleaner air. The act required costly sulfur removing “scrubbers” to be installed in all new coal plants. This was an excellent idea in theory but a nightmare in reality. After paying the expenses to install the “scrubbers,” coal plants actually were discouraged from using innovative low-sulfur coal. Washington had actually worked against the clean air ends that it intended to promote.

Not only has governmental regulation discouraged cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels, but, in a way, the government was responsible for creating the problem by propping up the oil industry. A study from the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) looked at what gasoline would really cost if the government didn’t subsidize oil. It found that oil companies receive both direct subsides, such as corporate welfare, research and development, etc., and indirect subsidies, in the form of environmental cleanup and health care costs. CTA’s conclusion was that gas may have cost as much as $15.14 per gallon in 1998 if government simply left the free market alone. According to the report, “In a country that professes a high regard for the free market system, the US oil industry is a glaring example of the gulf that often develops between public perception and reality.” Maybe it’s time to give the free market a chance in the area of oil. Would not fifteen dollar per gallon gasoline make bio-alternatives viable? Perhaps actually having a laissez-faire system could solve McKibben’s “moral crisis” without resorting to government force.

If America is truly going to find a solution to the fossil fuel problem, two points must be remembered. Firstly, we certainly don’t want to be so caught up in a moral campaign that we accept any old solution with a green label. Secondly, if it is possible to avoid using force and let the free market take care of itself, the government should. After all, no one wants to start a fire only to fertilize the weed.

What would Reagan do?

Reagan was an amazing voice for the Constitution in his day. Check out the link above from the Heritage Foundation. I want to point out some of his great quotes:

“We are a nation that has a government. Not the other way round.”

“The Federal Government did not create the states, the states created the Federal Government.”

“As for the enemies of freedom… they will be reminded them that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it; sacrifice for it. We will not surrender for it; now or ever!”

And so many more that you can see for yourself at the Heritage Foundation.