Thursday, April 26, 2012

Old SD Convention Movie: I Put You On The Nominations List - that other guy dropped you!

Lists, lists, lists....

All this chatter on the State GOP Convention Delegate lists, with SD/County Convention nominations committee members boasting power to put you on a "list" (a list which is never publicly released, and later claimed doesn't even exist), followed by accusations against others that "THEY took you off the list", is the same bad old movie I saw 10 years ago in Travis County. Same old, same old.  Like many, I believed the characters in that movie the first time I saw it, but I think the rational among us now understand how that movie-game power play is done.

The all powerful nomination committee member can say, "I have the power to make you a Delegate, and you're on my 'list'".  Since there is no definitive list, nor any kind of rational scoring or ranking of delegates after interviews, but only personal note-taking lists among the chair and different committee members, the committee member can repeat this false promise as many times as he wants - many dozens or even hundreds, if that many people can be reached.  These persons who received these nomination promises don't realize there is no definitive "list", that no "list" will be printed or actually committed to until the Convention sees (or only hears) a list, or that each member may have a LIMITED number of appointments to that final presented list, etc.  (I myself was a State Delegate Nominations Committee member in SD-14 in 2008).  You are encouraged to simply believe, on faith, that the powerful nominations committee member is actually committed to, and actually has the power to, make you a State Delegate.

In 2002, the first year I was eligible to be a Delegate from Travis County (after having been State Delegate from Harris County in '96, '98, '00), I went through the Nominations Committee interview process and was told repeatedly by several committee members I was "on the list"; I kept asking specific questions about this list, about how delegates could be prioritized if there were more people than available positions, and kept asking for copies of any preliminary list that I had been added to.  There were no rational answers to these questions, and no list was ever produced.  In fact, the first "list" anyone saw was a list presented on paper at the Saturday Convention, minutes before the vote was to be called.  With the exception of having NO PAPER LIST, Saturday's ending in the garage looked remarkable similar to the 2002 one -- same old bad movie.  Of course, I was NOT on the that actual "list" in 2002, in spite of being a Precinct Chair, active in electoral campaigns, a large donor to GOP candidates, a newly elected Utility District President, a veteran of 3 prior State Conventions, and so on.

So - as for this 2012 movie sequel, when the "list" is finally "presented" to Delegates (say, at 10:30 PM, read through a weak bullhorn in a parking garage), *surprise!*  people are "dropped" from the presented list, and let the recriminations begin!  These recriminations are useful for creating artificial division and building up power of some characters, at the expense of others.  Again, the power guy is free to make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about the mythical "list", and falsely (or truely?) claim that other guy is to blame for you being "dropped" from "the list".  The process is designed such that the truth is difficult, if not impossible, to be known, and there is disincentive for the power players involved to actually seek out the truth.

To review, if you were promised a position on the "list", and you were not on the "final" Delegate list (days after the SD-14 Convention voted on the "list" - we still didn't know exactly what's on the "list"), then you were dropped from the "list" by someone who should be the target of your divisive, emotional anger or frustration.

However, if you ask for proof of that "list" which showed you were in fact on a list, or proof that you weren't on another list or proof of who was responsible for your removal, then the "list" doesn't exist, can't be found or printed out or released, etc.  

In this 2012 bad movie sequel, the Precinct Caucus Rule, passed overwhelmingly against the sophistry of the incumbent controlling leadership, has been blamed for people being "dropped from the list", but when asked for proof of any list which they were dropped from, nothing is offered.  Another excuse is the Nominations Committee had no plan for dealing with Precinct Caucus nominations, as they had to do in '06, '08, '10.  This could well be true, but it's inexcusable since the Committee (and practical everyone else paying attention) knew there would be a credible effort to restore the Precinct Caucus Rule; if you assume responsibility for a task, you should prepare for reasonable alternate scenarios, such as, the way it was done the last 3 Conventions.  Yet another excuse is that the 2012 Precinct Caucus Rule is defective because it "disenfrancises" small precincts, or doesn't allow small precincts to Caucus.  Two notes on that - first, it should be argued that small Democrat precincts with very small Republican vote are not "enfrachised" in the first place to demand delegate representation, and second, the people making this criticism are the same ones who REJECTED a Rule amendment in 2008 which would have granted ability of small precincts to combine their vote and nominate a delegate.  We're incredulous at hearing criticism for omitting a Rule they stand in firm opposition to.  How can the critics who want ALL precinct caucusing eliminated claim the rule is defective because MORE precinct caucusing isn't done?  If that was a true concern, we would have very gladly amended the rule for MORE precinct caucusing, but since opponents already rejected the rule 4 years ago, we would be open to "rule change" accusations, and valid arguments that the convention rejected it in 2008, if we had included it.  Another excuse to eliminate Precinct Caucusing was that it was "too complicated" because Travis was split in 4 SDs, and further split by 5 CDs.  However, Harris County was split into 7 SDs, split further in 9 CDs, yet they didn't attempt to eliminate Precinct Caucusing with the excuse of complexity.

SO FINALLY, please understand this is the same old political power manipulation that has been going on for a decade and more, and it's why I wrote a message to Mr. Crocker REJECTING his request for me to send my "list" (yes, yet another "list") -- a request he made by phone call on a Sunday afternoon (the day before the Nominations Committee was to start interviews) See open letter blog.  Still another "list" is said to have been generated in the parking garage in the late evening on Apr. 21st -- I did not lead or promote any such last minute "whitelist" in the parking garage, for the obvious reasons I've described here.  Nor did I personally attempt to work a last minute outcome by demanding another "list" be approved as a condition for passage of the Committee list as read; these are tactics the opposition uses, and tactics I detest.

Now a question for all of you - why not destroy this ridiculous bad old movie by giving ALL nomination power to the Precinct Delegations?  We would be done in under 30 minutes, as you saw last Saturday; in fact, Precinct Caucuses have always had a time limit in Travis County of 30 minutes or less, and they have complied.  Why not move all the nominating power to the Precinct Delegations -- and put an end to the miserable sequels of the same bad movie, and end the divisive power plays of the current nominations process?  Is the preservation of control in the hands of the old establishment power brokers really worth all this ridiculous contention and arbitrary division?  Let's say NO!

Don Zimmerman
SREC SD-14 Committeeman

Monday, April 23, 2012

What happened at the 2012 SD-14 Convention, and why?

First, let me congratulate everyone who showed up at the Convention on Saturday, and helped us win an improbable battle to restore the SD-14 Precinct Caucus Rule.  I want to assure you all that a very competent and productive team contributed to this remarkable outcome, and many of us worked very hard on it.  We faced the most skilled, experienced, well liked, and arguably, powerful team of Bill Crocker and Kirk Overbey, who are recognized as the most trusted experts in GOP political Convention Rules and questions and procedures in Texas, and beyond.  We must admit that you do NOT win such a contest without help from the Hand of Providence, and we acknowledge that.  We also acknowledge the courage and integrity of Dr. Ron Paul, who has endured decades of attacks from unscrupulous power brokers - Dr. Paul's example inspired enough people to make the difference in winning this important battle, but in fact we must recognize that many non-Ron Paul supporters also supported our victory.

Second, I want it publicly acknowledged that the reason I was kept off the Rules Committee by the leadership was so that I would NOT have the opportunity to present a "minority report" rationale for keeping Precinct Caucusing, from a position of credibility as a Rules Committee member, speaking from the podium as my opposition did.  This is important, because I did not have proper time or recognition to present the argument which could well have earned a 2/3rds vote in favor on the FIRST vote, saving us valuable time, and avoiding so much divisiveness and confrontation which spilled into the night.  Leadership pounded away with an argument of "complexity" and "uncertainty" of the 2010 data, and the new configuration of 4 Senate Districts and 5 Congressional District.  In fact, Harris County had 7 SDs, and 9 CDs, and made no such excuses for "complexity"; they held Precinct Caucuses on Saturday, as they have for nearly 20 years.  I had many other such rational arguments in favor of keeping our Caucuses that I had no opportunity to make.

Third, the strong arming to stop our side from distributing copies of our proposed Precinct Caucusing was unseemly, but completely ineffective.  We asserted our Constitutional right to distribute pertinent political information at a political convention; however, the misguided efforts to suppress our right to be heard really deserves an apology.  There was some irony in the fact that our opposition refused to release their Temporary Rules, even when asked to do so many days in advance; at the same time, our opposition attempted to suppress our right to distribute our rule.  Such unethical attempts to keep delegates uninformed should be firmly opposed in future conventions.

Fourth, we should not appreciate the Robert's Rules manipulation which attempted to impose a 2/3rds vote on initial Rule adoption which the people intuitive knew should have been simple majority.  The sophistry of that 2/3rds argument hurt the credibility of the incumbent TCRP leadership, in my opinion, and I'm very grateful that over 55% of the voting strength -- far greater than the percentage of just "Ron Paul" people, contributed to that vote which restored our voting rights for Precinct Caucusing.

Fifth, it appears that incumbent SD-14 temporary leadership was so confident of regaining exclusive power to nominate all Delegates that they had no plan for quickly merging the at-large list with the Precinct Caucus list.  Consequently, while the Precinct Caucuses finished in under 30 minutes, the Nominations Committee was still not finished when they read their list at about 10:30 PM in the garage, after 5 hours or so.  We were obligated to pass the Delegate list so we could see the Delegate list (namely, which slots had not been filled at all); but after passing the list we still couldn't get the list, and the nominations committee refused requests for the list to be posted, and refused to reveal how many OPEN SLOTS remained on their "bullhorn list" read aloud in the garage (there were something like 70 - 80 open slots, apparently).  The Nominations Committee had exclusive power over the at-large list (with all those open slots), and consequently they kept home many individuals - even currently active Precinct Chairs, who certainly deserved to at least be Alternates.  This must not happen again, and we must continue to work for more transparent and more competent technical solutions for the Nominations process.

I want to thank all the 2010 SD-14 Delegates who voted for me to serve as your SREC Committeeman for the past two years, and I ask for your vote again at the June Convention.  Let us press on to restore the Constitution, enforce the Texas GOP platform, and advance local control of our political process with integrity and transparency, instead of bullying and secrecy.

Don Zimmerman
SREC SD-14 Committeeman

Friday, April 20, 2012

Registered Voter / Oath of Affiliation Elligibility Details from RPT -- VERY important read

County Chairs, please pass this email onto your temporary SD convention chairs.

There has been recurring questions regarding registered Texas voters who are new to your county and also state delegate nominees who miss the county convention and I thought it would be helpful to answer these questions to our entire group:

Regarding voters who are new to your county:  There has been some question about people who are qualified Texas voters but have moved to your county within the past 30 days and therefore are not qualified voters in your county.  As you know, in order to participate in the convention, you have to be a qualified voter of your county - a qualified voter is someone who has been registered to vote for at least 30 days.  In addition, anyone who is a resident of your county and able to vote a limited ballot is able to participate in your convention - this is a person who is NOT a qualified voter in your county, but is a qualified voter in another Texas County and has completed an application to register to vote in your county within the last 30 days, including the date of the convention is a person eligible to vote a limited ballot in your county.  Practically speaking, a person who comes to your convention with a valid voter registration card from another Texas County can complete a voter registration card for an address in your county and will be able to participate in your convention.

Please note that state law prohibits anyone other than a Deputy Voter Registrar from handling completed voter registration applications.  If someone shows up at your county convention to register to vote, only a deputy voter registrar may accept their completed application.

Regarding state delegates who miss the county convention: Some of you may have seen the email below from Governor Rick Perry that went out yesterday afternoon. We are very appreciative of the Governor's help in promoting our county and district conventions this weekend. However, we wanted to clarify that the email contains an inaccuracy about the RPT Convention process, and we wanted to bring this to your attention in case you received any questions. The item in question relates to how delegates and alternates are chosen this weekend. We visited with the Governor's staff and clarified that under RPT Rules, you do not have to attend this weekend's convention in order to be nominated and confirmed as a State Convention delegate or alternate. The Governor's staff is correcting the mistake before publicizing online any further. We just wanted to make you aware of this, in case you received any questions from your constituents.

Please note that on your delegate/alternate report you will flag these nominees as not having attended your county convention and we will get their oath of affiliation when they arrive at State Convention.

And, speaking of state convention, check out and "like us" on the RPT 2012 state convention Facebook page,!/pages/The-2012-Republican-Party-of-Texas-State-Convention/204342813001984

Please let me know if I may be of further assistance as you prepare for tomorrow. Thanks again for all you are doing.

Beth Cubriel

From: Governor Rick Perry []<mailto:[]>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 5:01 PM
Subject: Shape Our State Republican Party Platform

[Texans for Rick Perry]<>

Dear Republican,

Whether you're a longtime Republican grassroots activist, tea party patriot or TFRW volunteer, your work and energy are critical to the success of our party and to electing conservative candidates up and down the ballot.  To defeat socialism in Washington, DC, replace President Obama in the White House and keep our state and local governments strong, your efforts are critical.

The Texas Republican primary election is a little over a month away and thousands of us will gather in Fort Worth at the State Convention in June.  To become a State Convention Delegate or Alternate you must participate in either your County Convention or Senate District Convention this weekend.  To learn more about attending your convention this weekend, please visit<>.  The Republican Party of Texas has put together an easy to use web page that will explain this process.  This is a great way to get involved at the local level, to become a Delegate to the State Convention, and to pass resolutions that you would like included in our State Party's Platform.

Speaking of resolutions, this week I announced my Texas Budget Compact, which I believe is critical to keeping our state budget balanced, keeping government growth and spending in check and keeping Texas jobs and economy growing.

The Texas Budget Compact includes truth-in-budgeting reforms to end payment deferrals and other budgetary shell games, a stricter spending cap and a renewed commitment to fund the priorities of our state without raising your taxes.  To learn more about the Texas Budget Compact, please click here<>

If you agree with me on these fundamental issues, then I ask you to take the resolution below to your convention this weekend, get it adopted and send it to the State Convention.  It is important that Texans across the state stand with one voice to tell Austin that we want government to live within its means. This is a great way to effectively influence your State Party Platform and have your voice heard not only at the local level, but at the Texas Capitol as well. If you have questions, please go here:<>

Resolution language

Whereas Texas is a conservative state that taxes less per capita than almost every state in the nation;  and

Whereas the product of relative fiscal restraint has been a reasonably strong economy in Texas as compared with the rest of the nation; and

Whereas the future prosperity of Texas depends on not just continuing, but improving, the state's commitment to conservative budget principles; and

Whereas in recent years, while the national economy declined and revenues to government decreased, Texas budget-writers used a variety of accounting gimmicks to balance the buget; and

Whereas by delaying payments and spending dedicated funds on general government, lawmakers have pushed off certain financial obligations to the next budget period; and

Whereas the increasing cost of Medicaid will consume several billion dollars more of the current budget; and

Whereas until Washington acts to rein in the skyrocketing costs of Medicaid, Texas lawmakers will continue to be forced to make tough choices in order to balance the budget; and

Whereas Texans expect its government to live within its means just as they do in their businesses and homes; and

Whereas, Governor Rick Perry has proposed the Texas Budget Compact to control the cost of government;

Now therefore Be it resolved that we urge the Texas Legislature to follow the principles of that Compact such that they:
*         practice truth in budgeting;
*         support a Constitutional limit of spending to the growth of population and inflation;
*         oppose any new taxes or tax increases and make the small business tax exemption permanent;
*         preserve a strong Rainy Day Fund;
*         and cut the unnecessary and duplicative government programs and agencies.

Adopted this _____ day of ______, 2012, at the ________________________ Convention of the Republican Party of Texas.

As always, may God continue to bless you and the great State of Texas

[Governor Rick Perry]

Rick Perry

Political advertisement paid for by Texans for Rick Perry

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Time for real change in the Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector office

I have had a chance to meet most of the Republican candidates running in Travis County, and I think we've got a strong line-up this year.  I'm hoping to write about all the races more in the coming weeks, and I thought I'd start with one of the county-wide races. 

Vik Vad is the Republican running for Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector.  This is an open seat this year, with the lamentable Nelda Wells Spears having finally calling it quits.  Vik is an Austin native and a successful entrepreneur who has also worked in real estate, having first-hand experience with the issues the Tax Assessor's office deals with daily. 

I believe Vik is best person to represent the interests of taxpayers in Travis County.  The office has a largely administrative function, and efficiency is a key factor.  He's focused on integrity and running the office as he would a business - and fortunately, Vik Vad has had experience in the private sector with small businesses.

You can read more about Vik on his website.

It is thrilling to me to know we have young talent in Austin like Vik Vad, and I look forward to seeing what he could accomplish in this vital role in our county.

(cross-posted from Blue Dot Blues)

Why does the TCRP SD-14 Chairman refuse to release temporary rules?

Below is an exact copy of an e-mail I sent to Mr. Bill Crocker, temporary chairman of the TCRP SD-14 Convention due to convene the morning of April 21st -- Mr. Crocker has declined to answer this and numerous other communications I've attempted with him over the last few weeks.  I publish this in the hopes others may encourage him to answer these reasonable questions, and make the Rules report public in advance of the SD-14 Convention April 21st:

-------- Original message --------
Subject: RE: List?
From: Don Zimmerman <>

APR 17th, 2012

Dear Mr. Crocker,

I'm requesting a copy of the report of the temporary Rules Committee, which completed its work last night. Since the Committee work concluded last night, I'm requesting you make the Rules Report available now (Apr 17th 2012) instead of at the start of the SD Convention on Apr 21. We all have a desire to save time, and releasing rules now certainly saves time on Saturday.

Based on how the temporary meetings were conducted last night (especially, many persons who waited 2.5 hours for a Nominations interview, including my wife Jennifer and my neighbor Ron Williams, and then were told to leave) and the fact that I'm supporting precinct caucuses for delegate nominations, which were rejected by the rules committee (per Mr Randall), and the fact that you declined to name me to the Nominations Committee, I'm declining your offer for me to "send a list" of my choices for delegates for Nomination by your committee. I'm only insisting that larger precincts be allowed to chose their own delegates. The Nominations Committee is exclusively under your power and I will not infringe or usurp that power.

I request an answer to these requests by Apr 18th. Releasing the Rules Report is fair and reasonable and will likely save time Apr 21st.

I look forward to serving grassroots Republicans in the days, months and decades to come, and having a successful Convention Saturday.

Don Zimmerman
SD-14 SREC Committeeman

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™ II Skyrocket™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

RPT "Winner Take All" Rules Change effort - who benefits with which rule?

Much has been said about the proposed Texas GOP Delegate Rule change, along the lines of, Texas should be "winner take all".

Ironically, it was the RNC itself which learned a lesson in 2008 by the early victory of John McCain, which gave us a moribund candidate and very poor voter turnout in the Primary season after McCain was declared the winner so early. Not wishing to repeat that debacle, the RNC threatened to penalize state delegations if they didn't switch to Proportional delegate representation in early primaries. But that Proportional requirement only affected states having primaries before April 1st (2012); after April 1st, you could have a winner take all with no RNC sanctions.

The SREC, thinking the Texas primary would be March 6th, voted in late 2011 for more proportional delegate allocations (more candidates could receive delegates based on the popular primary vote); knowing that the change would require DoJ "preclearance", RPT also said proportional was more fair to (racial) minorites, which is a rational argument. NOTE that Texas had a "modified" winner take all prior to 2012 - candidates scoring at least 20% in congressional districts won delegates; in fact, in 2008 Huckabee won some Texas delegates, in spite of the fact that McCain easily won the state and the nomination contest was considered over.

To this day there still is some confusion about what the WTA proponents want -- a return to 2010 rules, or a pure "winner take all" for the entire state, where one candidate with say 33% of statewide vote gets everything and all other candidates with 32% or less get nothing?

The "power" argument, which some in the Ron Paul paid campaign staff made, is this: use the entire aggregate vote of Texas as a bigger hammer to influence leading candidates; Santorum and Paul campaign staffers both wanted new WTA rules in an effort to slow down Romney and at least force him to come to Texas for a political debate.  The grassroots argument is that the voice of the voters - especially those of the reform minded and highly energized Tea Party / Ron Paul minorities, is more important than the fortunes of the political candidates, which is also my argument.

My e-mail from around the Senate District and state are about 2:1 in favor of proportional rules; however, those in favor of proportional are mostly Ron Paul supporters.

The bottom line is this: like most battles in politics, there is always an unintended consequence of both victory and defeat, and there is always another winnable battle to fight.  We should have proportional voting, but it's not a "hill to die on", IMHO.

Here's a local TV news clip that does a decent job of summarizing the issue:

Don Zimmerman
SD-14 SREC Committeeman

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Local Chapter of FAPA Commends Congress Upon 33rd Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act

My wife was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the United States in 1992 on a fiancée visa, after we met and courted during her 1989-1991 stint in graduate school at the University of Texas at Austin. When we got married, I became what the Taiwanese affectionately call a son-in-law of Taiwan, many of whom are activists in the cause of promoting the interests of the true nationalists from Taiwan, the TI (Taiwanese Identity/Independence) promoting Americans of Taiwanese decent.

I became such an activist not just because of my marriage to a beautiful daughter of Taiwan but because it was the right thing to do and was (and still is) in the strategic interest of the United States. Now, I have the distinct privilege of leading a group of Taiwanese expatriates as the president of the local chapter of the Formosan Association of Public Affairs.

Established in 1982 in Los Angeles, CA, the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) is a world-wide, Washington headquartered, non-profit organization which:
(1) promotes international support for the right of the people of Taiwan to establish an independent and democratic country and to join the international community;
(2) promotes relations and cooperation between Taiwan and the United States;
(3) protects the right of self-determination for the people of Taiwan;
(4) promotes peace and security for Taiwan; and
(5) advances the rights and interests of Taiwanese communities throughout the world.

FAPA's mission is educational. The organization provides US policy makers, the media, scholars and the general public with information on issues related to Taiwan. FAPA informs and updates Members of Congress and their staff on Taiwanese issues. FAPA seeks to articulate the point of view of the people of Taiwan.

Today, April 10th is the 33rd Anniversary of a seminal event in the history of Taiwan which has given its people time and hope for eventual national self-determination. It's the day each year that Taiwanese Americans stand still for a moment to express gratitude in some way, shape or form to their adopted nation, the great and proud nation of the United States of America, for helping ensure that Taiwan keeps it's identity as a free and separate country from China for as long as the people of Taiwan will it to be.

The relationship between Taiwan and the United States is almost seven decades old, now. But when the Carter Administration shifted diplomatic relations from our friend and ally Taiwan to the People's Republic of China (PRC) in January 1979, Taiwan was left vulnerable to annexation by China. In response, Congress quickly passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to ensure that the United States would continue its robust engagement with Taiwan in the areas of security, commerce and culture. Most importantly, with its security guarantees the TRA enabled Taiwan to continue functioning as the de facto independent country it is today.

On April 10, 1979, with the signature of President Carter who had presided over the diplomatic disaster the put Taiwan at risk vis-a-vis the PRC, the TRA became the "Law of the Land," the statutory basis for US–Taiwan relations. Thirty-three years later, it stands as a model of Congressional leadership. Together with President Reagan's "Six Assurances" (which served as further guidelines for U.S.- Taiwan relations) the TRA remains the cornerstone of a mutually beneficial relationship between the US and Taiwan.  

In affirming "the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan" as explicit objectives, the framers of the TRA in large measure made Taiwan what it is today—a vibrant, open society governed by democratic institutions.

Still, China persists in irrationally claiming Taiwan as a "renegade province," refusing to renounce the use of force against the free choice of the people of Taiwan, should they make any move toward formalization of their nation's independence. Taiwanese live under an ominous shadow cast by over 1400 short and medium-range ballistic Chinese missiles aimed at them, a fact Texas Congressman Michael T. McCaul (R, TX-10) recently made mention of in remarks he read into the Congressional Record to commemorate the anniversary of the TRA.

The TRA makes it quite clear and emphatic that diplomatic relations with China are based on the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. The principled stance contained in the TRA has been instrumental in maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait for more than thirty years, in spite of the growing military threat posed by China.

In gratitude and appreciation to Congress, I invite all Taiwanese Americans, indeed all freedom loving American to join me in commemorating today, April 10, 2012 as the 33rd anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act.

You’re invited to a free film screening of a feature film about Taiwan

To educate Texans on the development of democracy in Taiwan from the perspective of the 85% of Taiwan’s population who did not come to Taiwan as refugees from China after World Word II or descend from these Chinese Nationalists, the Central Texas chapter of the Formosan Association of Public Affairs will hold a screening of the 2010 feature film, Formosa Betrayed starring James Van Der Beek, Tzi Ma, Will Tiao, John Heard, and Wendy Crewson. The film will be shown in the Capitol Extension Auditorium on May 10, 2012 at 7:00 PM under the legislative sponsorship of Rep. Jason Isaac (R, HD-45).

If you are interested in attending this free screening of this feature film please RSVP to by May 8, 2012.