The Travis Monitor

Lamar Smith Supports Religious Liberty, but Will He Do Anything about It

2012-01-31T10:44:00.001-06:00

Austin area Congressman Lamar Smith replies to my letter regarding the protection of religious liberty from the unconstitutional healthcare laws instituted by the Obama administration:

Dear Mr. Gimenez,
Thank you for taking the time to give me your opinion regarding Department of Health and Human Services regulations and the conscience rights of health care providers. I appreciate hearing from you.

We agree that all citizens should be free to practice their religious beliefs without fear of employment discrimination.

H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to protect rights of conscience with regard to requirements for coverage of specific items and services. This bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which I am not a member.

Please be assured that I will have your views in mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process.

For more information on my work in Congress or to send me an electronic message, please visit the 21st District's website, http://lamarsmith.house.gov.

Sincerely,
Lamar Smith
Member of Congress

Catholics Mobilize In Austin against Obama Administration's Assault on Religious Liberty

2012-01-30T13:15:00.000-06:00

The Catholic Diocese of Austin has mobilized with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to protest the decision of the Obama Administration to order employers to provide health care insurance that pays for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs. The mandates run counter to the Catholic conscience for the protection of the unborn and interfere directly with ability of Catholics to practice their faith.

In other words, this is an all-out assault on the religious liberties of Catholics and those Christians who believe abortion in all its forms is murder.It's also an assault on the Constitution.

Please visit these sites to learn more about the issue and to participate with the protest.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Diocese of Austin

Despite his leading his Sunday homily with a quote from the "Philosopher Karl Marx," my associate pastor Fr. Adrian Chishimba after the Mass read a letter from the Most Reverend Joe S. Vasquez, Bishop of Austin. You can see his letter here and here is an excerpt:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

[I have to comment on Fr. Chishimba's appreciation for the "wisdom" of Karl Marx as a lead-in to his homily. I nearly threw up when he started his lesson that way, quoting a man whose published poems, "Savage Songs," contained an "intense pessimism about the human condition, hatred, a fascination with corruption and violence, suicide pacts and pacts with the devil," according to historian Paul Johnson. Please read more about Marx in the chapter "Howling Gigantic Curses," in Johnson's book "Intellectuals." If he had more knowledge of the atheist, non-Christian, "philosopher," maybe Fr. Chishimba would have questioned the value of a man whose poetic imagery contains such gems as" "We are chained, shattered, frightened/Eternally chained to this marble block of being...We are the apes of a cold God." Reconcile that with a lead-in to a homily, any homily. And I won't even delve into the bloodstained history of Marxism right now. Surely that too is anathema to Fr. Chishimba's appreciation for this "philosopher." Unfortunately, you can never be sure these days with some Catholic priests. ]

US Supreme Court strikes down San Antonio court's redrawn map

2012-01-21T12:23:00.000-06:00

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting

AUSTIN - Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion which vacated the orders implementing Texas redistricting maps prepared by the Western District of Texas three-judge panel. The opinion also remanded the case back to the Western District of Texas three-judge panel for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
This opinion means that currently there are no district lines for State House, State Senate and Congressional districts. By vacating the three-judge panel’s order, the Supreme Court did not reinstitute the legislative maps drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. Rather, the opinion states that the three-judge panel is to issue new Texas redistricting maps in a manner consistent with the guidance found in the Supreme Court opinion as to what factors should be considered in drawing these new maps.
The Republican Party of Texas interprets this opinion as meaning that the three-judge panel exceeded its authority by altering district lines where there had not been established a probable basis for constitutional or legal challenge. However, as a note of caution – today’s opinion by the Supreme Court did not order the enactment of maps and lines drawn by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The opinion still allows the three-judge panel to make some alterations to the legislatively drawn maps.
In addition, it should be noted that when the Western District three-judge panel issues new maps for the 2012 elections - these maps are "interim" only. Final maps for Texas redistricting still have to be cleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which will take place in front of a Washington D.C. federal panel. At this time, we do not know exactly when new lines will be published by the Western District federal panel, nor do we know where the district lines will actually be.
The RPT applauds the good news that the Supreme Court acted relatively quickly, and that the Justices acted in time to allow for an April unified primary. To keep the current election schedule, it is incumbent upon the Western District three-judge panel to also act expeditiously and redraw the maps in the next week or so. We are hoping that they will do so.

In commenting on the Supreme Court decision, RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri stated, "We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the Western District three-judge panel exceeded its authority in drawing lines for our elected officials. The opinion stated very clearly that the Legislature's intent and judgment is an important consideration and "starting point" in the process of judicially redrawing maps and that the Legislature’s intent should not be overlooked. I am especially pleased that the Supreme Court apparently took notice of the Republican Party of Texas’ advisory which we filed last week and our subsequently filed brief in support of that advisory. In those documents, we alerted the Court to the fact that an expeditious decision was needed in order to maintain our current April 3rd primary schedule, to prevent havoc with our elections, and to protect the parties’ State Conventions as well. Again, we would like to thank Chris Ward and the law firm of Yetter Coleman LLP who did a fabulous job in providing a brief pro bono on a quick turnaround."
Munisteri continued, "I am hopeful that the Western District three-judge panel will issue new maps in time for us to maintain our current April 3rd primary. Until the panel issues new orders, we will not know how many legislative districts will likely be Republican and how many will be Democrat. Thus, any conclusion as to the overall result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court will have to be withheld until that time. In the meantime, the RPT will continue to advocate for an election schedule that will allow an early April primary."

The Republican Party of Texas also issues the following advisory to all of our county chairmen, precinct chairmen and party activists. At this time, it is not known with certainty whether the April 3rd primary schedule will hold. The timely decision by the Supreme Court today makes it possible for the April 3rd primary schedule to hold, but we will not know this for certain until we get further guidance from the three-judge panel in San Antonio. As soon as we receive additional information from that panel relative to this issue, the State Party will issue an advisory through our website, social media, and email database.
Click here to read the full Supreme Court decision.
Click here to read the RPT advisory brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND SEXUAL RESPONSIBILITY

2011-12-23T19:58:00.000-06:00

By Sarah Torres

President Barack Obama is considering granting a broader exemption to religious organizations from rules that require health insurance issuers to provide women with free contraceptives – including those which cause early abortions – sterilizations and related education and counseling, all of which are prohibited by the Catholic Church. Catholic Belmont Abbey College is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule, and more than 18 Catholic colleges and groups have written HHS protesting the rule. Many Protestant groups can also be expected to object to the mandate because of their objection to contraceptives which cause early abortions.

The current rule, implementing Obamacare, exempts religious organizations whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values and that employ and serve primarily persons who share those religious beliefs. The organization must also be non-profit as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.

Religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges are not exempted under the rule.

For most religious organizations, the inculcation of religious values is only one purpose, and many of them employ and serve people who do not share their beliefs. As the Becket Fund points out, religious hospitals, charitable service organizations, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, adoption agencies and colleges have a long history of feeding the hungry, educating children, providing medical care in hospitals, and providing other much-needed social services to those who need them most.

Without a true exemption for religious organizations, the rule violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Religious groups’ refusal to support contraceptives, including abortifacients, and related counseling, constitutes a religious exercise.

The rule also violates religious organizations’ First Amendment freedom of speech rights by forcing them to pay for education and counseling that conflicts with their religious beliefs and teachings against pre-marital sex, contraception, sterilization and abortion.

“A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception, and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government forces him to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounced,” says Hannah Smith, Senior Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represents Belmont.

The penalty for non-compliance – heavy yearly fines and a prohibition on offering health plans altogether – would put religious groups at such a competitive disadvantage to attract sufficient staff and students that they could be forced to close, says the Becket Fund, leaving many of the poor without needed services.

The New York Times reports that Democrats in Congress object to broadening the exemption, saying it would keep contraception out of reach for millions of women. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan has said, “Birth control is essential for women’s health,” according to the Washington Times.

Even if free contraceptives are essential to women’s health, obtaining them does not depend on forcing religious groups to provide them against their sincerely held moral convictions. Those who truly cannot afford contraceptives can either obtain them at family planning clinics funded by Title X of the Public Health Service Act or move to a non-objecting employer or college.

All employers, whether operating for profit or not, and whether or not they serve or employ people who share their religious beliefs, have a Constitutional right to the exercise of their religion unburdened by the government. Insurance companies have a right not to offer such coverage, and individuals have the right not to enroll in such coverage.

Zimmerman: Honoring King while shutting out Jesus reeks of hypocrisy

2011-12-23T00:02:00.000-06:00

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/zimmerman-honoring-king-while-shutting-out-jesus-reeks-2049382.html

I've witnessed the success of the political war against Christmas in public school in my own generation. I remember well the excitement and joy of my fourth-grade public school Christmas party in 1970 (complete with nativity scenes of the infant Jesus), but in 2008 I experienced the virtual prohibition of even a secular Christmas party for my fourth-grade daughter in the neighborhood public school.
Contemplating the motivation of government school bureaucrats and politicians for the gradual repression of Christmas over the decades led me to examine the public schools' treatment of two well-known political and religious figures — one Jesus of Nazareth and one Martin Luther King Jr. I conclude that the motivation has to do with justifying and consolidating government power, which bureaucrats must consider easier to do with the life of King than with the life of Christ.

It's first necessary to demonstrate a war on Christmas exists, as a chorus of secular voices claim there is no such war. Consider the Plano school district "candy cane" case. The district in December 2004 instructed parents that they could only supply white plates and white napkins for the "Winter Break Party," that red and green were to be avoided at all costs, that a ban on the words "Merry Christmas" should be observed, that candy cane pens and other "religious oriented items" should be prohibited on "school property" (as if that property belongs to government bureaucrats, instead of the parents and taxpayers who paid for it), and other such extreme absurdities. This month, the Fort Worth school district issued a memo saying schools cannot "endorse or sponsor any religious activity or doctrine" and that "students should not be allowed to exchange gifts or distribute personal holiday messages." The arrogance here is the implication that respect for individual choices — arbitrarily labeled "religious activity" — amounts to government endorsement or sponsorship of such choices, and I believe that is the key to understanding the government's war on Christmas. It's as if freedom of individual conscience and choice, and the appeal to a higher authority (either one's God, or one's individual conscience) for justification of that choice, offends a power hungry, womb-to-tomb government that demands the dependence of, and obedience from, the people it aims to control.

Consider Jesus and King, and school policy toward recognizing these two men.
Most honest scholars and educators recognize Jesus as the "greatest teacher who ever lived" — who by example, not coercive political force, changed history immeasurably for the better. Christ was bitterly opposed by the most powerful religious forces of his day — forces which eventually collaborated with the hated Roman political state to have Jesus executed without legal cause.
In like manner, Martin Luther King was a spiritual and organizational force in an effective crusade against discrimination that had powerful religious and political overtones.
King, the Baptist minister who quoted Christ in his sermons and political writings, was jailed 20 times, stabbed in the chest, had his home firebombed, endured countless religious and political attacks, and was eventually assassinated.

So we should question why King — a Baptist minister and student of Christ — is universally honored by the Austin school district in an "annual celebration honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King," while the life and legacy of Christ is universally ignored, and Christmas virtually prohibited. A key to understanding this might be seen in a Beacon Publishing commentary: "with a universal message of hope that continues to resonate, King demanded an end to global suffering, powerfully asserting that humankind — for the first time — has the resources and technology to eradicate poverty." If one accepts this humanistic assertion that King trusted "humankind" exerting collective political force, rather than Christ working individualized personal transformations, as the best hope for humanity, then it would make sense that government would embrace this King as morally justifying ever increasing government control — including the repression of Christ and Christmas.

I certainly don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about Jesus Christ or Martin Luther King yet, but it's already evident that the public school engages in a dangerous hypocrisy when it censors Santa for an affiliation with Christ, while endorsing a political agenda it affiliates with King.

Zimmerman is a Travis County member of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee.

Dec 2-3rd (2011) Texas SREC Meeting Report (Don Zimmerman, SD-14)

2011-12-04T18:04:00.000-06:00

A number of interesting issues came up at this meeting, which was one of the longest meetings ever -- the meeting started at 9 AM and was adjourned at around 7 PM. These are the highlights as I noted them:

1. Discussion and approval of Texas GOP budget for 2012 -

State Chairman Steve Munisteri presented a 2012 State GOP budget which is around $105k per month; the budget was approved with minimal discussion.

2. Consideration of SREC By-Law changes for legislative reports -

On the contentious issue of “scorecards” or "legislative reports" or whatever “accountability” directive you want to call it, that was based in the June, 2010 Platform Directive - which grassroots Republicans have been chewing on for months, the SREC rejected any SREC by-law change (to Art. 9, Sec 3-4) to provide an exception for such SREC approved reports. The by-law change which came out of the Rules Committee (chaired by Dan Pickens) wasn't as simple, or as strong, as the rule change proposed by Mr. Halvorsen last meeting (which more closely resembled the simple changes passed by some County GOP Executive Committees), but it certainly did capture the essence of making exception to allow SREC legislative reports to move forward. The vote was 32 – 28 in favor of by-law change, but a 2/3rds majority is required to change by-laws, so it fell short. I was on the losing side of that by-law vote. Someone immediately moved for a recorded (roll call) vote on that by-law change – I voted for a recorded vote, but it also failed, 12 for - 39 against. My SD-14 colleague voted opposite to me on both these issues (and on most other issues of the day), which means, all SD-14 Republican positions got a vote on the crucial issues, no matter what their position.

The other matter on this issue regarded an opinion from a committee led by RPT counsel, "clarifying" that a platform plank could not require or compel actions of others (or something to this effect). The clarification wasn't completely clear to many of us, and after some debate it was postponed (until a later, unspecified SREC meeting) by a vote of 37 for postponing, 17 against.

3. Discussion of court action nullifying the Texas legislature's redistricting --

Paul Bettencourt (former Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector) gave an extensive review of the redistricting, mentioning several times that the San Antonio court's redrawing of lines is so egregiously lopsided in Democrat's favor that even a Democrat controlled state legislature would not be able to pass it. There is a possibility the US Supreme Court could reverse the new maps, but Bettencourt believes it's likely the Texas legislature will end up redrawing maps in 2013; it's looking like a repeat of what happened 10 years ago. Bettencourt also argued effectively to make redistricting one of the top 5 Primary Ballot Initiatives.

4. Selection of March 2012 primary ballot issues -

The Resolution Committee reported that about 58 (non-duplicate) potential issues were submitted to that Committee; the Committee also discussed and recommended approval of a Resolution for the State Chairman to ".... assemble a special political team to garner statewide public support..." for the the redistricting issue. That resolution was easily passed.

The Resolution Committee discussed numerous issues and recommend five issues to the SREC for ratification:

School Choice

Repeal of Obamacare

Public Prayer

Balanced Budget & Limited Government Growth

Enforcement of Immigration Laws * (the SREC body substituted issue on Redistricting)

Considerable debate and language alteration was done, and a redistricting issue was substituted for the immigration issue; other than that the issues above were approved. Final ballot language will be reported in official SREC minutes.

5. Consideration of "censure resolution" for incumbent Upshur County Republican Chairman -

Later in the evening, Steve Findley (SD-1) introduced a group of about 10 people (mostly precinct chairs) who drove down from Upshur County to present a case for censuring the Upshur County (a rural county at the north east Texas border with Oklahoma) incumbent Republican Chairman. The debate on this issue was evenly divided and passionate, and a number of close votes were taken, and considerable time was taken considering whether the motion of censure was out of order. In my view, since we had argued for months about whether the SREC should do official “reports” or scorecards, and the SREC has just said no earlier in the day, I could not follow how was it that they would now consider an official censure of an incumbent Republican Chairman. I’ve been hearing about the Upshur County problems for about a year, and my sense was the Upshur County chair was similar (if not worse) to the former Travis County chair's behavior (2000 – 2008), but since the SREC already voted “NO” on issuing reports for incumbents, it made no sense for us to give the Upshur County chair an official censure – which I’d say the average Republican primary voter would consider a report card of “F”. After losing the fight to change by-laws so we could issue report cards to incumbent legislators, I felt it my responsibility to oppose issuing a report card to the incumbent Upshur County chair, so I voted to uphold the point of order ruling the “censure” out of order, and later voted against the censure resolution itself.

After hours of contentious debate, the censure eventually passed.

After a few other items were quickly decided, the meeting was adjourned at around 7 PM.

Special note of commendation goes out to Chairman Steve Munisteri, who in my observation presided over a long and contentious meeting with impressive skill; as an SREC member on the losing side of many votes, I still commend the chairman for conducting the meeting with remarkable fairness.

Don Zimmerman

SD-14 Committeeman

512-577-8842

THE REVOLT OF THE SPOILED BRATS

2011-11-08T21:45:00.000-06:00

by Bob Ward

The gatherings of malcontents in cities across the nation have been called “protests” by the participants and by the media. A more accurate term would be “tantrums.”

These so-called “protesters” have been vague about what they want but the main complaint seems to be that some people are wealthy and others – specifically, them – are not. They claim that this is somehow “not fair.” They resemble a three year old who cries, kicks the chair and holds his breath because he thinks his brother’s piece of pie is bigger than his. The main difference is that the Occupiers don’t hold their breath.

The image fits because of the infantilism revealed by their complaints and their stated objectives. Frequently their statements reveal a failure to understand what they are saying. For example, a Pasadena City College student was quoted in the Austin American Statesman. “The banks,” he complained, “are here to steal from us. Everybody is in debt, whether it’s medical bills, or school or loans.”

This guy considers it stealing if someone who lends you money expects you to pay it back, when, in reality, to borrow money and not pay it back would be stealing. But apparently they don’t consider it stealing because, they are entitled to whatever they want and the rest of us have a duty to supply it.

Accordingly, among their “demands” is the abolition of all debt – worldwide. We can only wonder if the people making that demand realize that every individual, business or institution that has lent money would simply lose the amount of the loan. That loss would include the money belonging to the bank’s depositors who are not the much-maligned one percent but are ordinary working people trying to build a nest egg by saving something out of their paychecks.

And we have to wonder if they realize it would put an end to the business of lending money thereby making it nearly impossible for anyone to buy a home or a car or to attend a college unless he first saves up the money himself. To be fair, they did anticipate that last item by demanding free college so borrowing money to go to college would not be necessary – someone else would pay for it.

It would be a lot easier to save the kind of money that would make borrowing unnecessary if another of the demands on “The Collective” website were granted: a $20 an hour minimum wage and guaranteeing everyone a “living wage” employed or not. Of course there is the problem of where a business would get the money it takes to pay such a wage and the answer comes immediately – it would have to raise the price of the goods or services it sells so high that $20 an hour wage would not be enough to live on.

But then, we already knew that consequences are not the protesters’ long suit.

And they want an end to immigration controls so that anyone can go anywhere “to work and live.” This would certainly result in most people – from all over the world – going to places where the demand for a living wage – whether employed or not – has been satisfied.

What all this comes down to is a desire – backed up by threats and sometimes the fact of destructive behavior – to have every need, desire and whim be accommodated while assuming no responsibility and contributing nothing. In other words, they want everything to be as it was when they were three years old and nothing was demanded of them beyond basic toilet training. In fact, there are indications they are now rejecting even that responsibility.

Some people may wonder where such unreal attitudes come from and how anyone could live in the real world for 20 years or more and not realize how wrong, unfair and unworkable such demands are. One answer is the welfare state we have cultivated for several decades. The historic link between work and reward has been severed by governmental policies as well as the popular culture.

And we should not overlook President Obama’s contribution to this culture of entitlement, this attitude that if somebody won’t give me what I want, they are evil. The fact is that generating this kind of hostility toward anyone who is wealthy is the only thing Obama did professionally before being elected to the Illinois legislature. His only real job was that of “community organizer” which is a euphemism for rabble rouser.

Nurturing resentment is the only thing he knows how to do and he hasn’t stopped doing it just because he’s in the White House.

And as long as he holds that office we can expect more of this kind of infantile outbursts.

Remembering Arsenalna and the "Progressive" Rule of Man

2011-11-06T11:23:00.000-06:00

I’d like to commend my friend Martha for the remarkable feat of managing to keep far left and far right people on the same e-mail list you regularly post to!

Most of my friends manage to keep only one or the other.

As for the question of trusting Obama (and government force in general) to defy the Constitutional rule of law to “create jobs”, achieve economic stability, provide “free” education, health care, retirement pension, and any other conceivable cradle-to-grave benefit, I’d like to point you back in history to the Soviet Communist “paradise”, and to the idiocy there which survives (to a limited extent) to this day.

When I lived in the former soviet Ukraine for some time back in the 90s, on occasion you would see a small but noisy protest of gray hairs waving photos of Joseph Stalin, waving signs with old communist slogans, and yelling chants along the lines of going back to the “good ole days” of Stalin’s tyrannical communist regime. Their favorite protest site was Arsenalna, near the Kiev city center where the corrupt Bolsheviks took an early military stand against the corrupt Kiev government (imagine, looking at the photo below, a small group gathered in the middle of it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenalna_%28Kiev_Metro%29

THE POINT IS, “progressives” and other believers in expanding government power (and force) as a solution to humanity's problems, have irrational faith in government power – irrational because over thousands of years, history has always shown that consolidating power in the hands of one, or a few – be it Obama, Stalin, the Pope, whomever, always leads to oppression, tyranny and poverty.

Like the Bolsheviks and Communists, America has a noisy Progressive leadership which ridicules the Constitution and the rule of law, favoring the arbitrary rule of king, prince, pope, or (in this case) president. Certainly Mr. Dilworth and his old friends in Kiev will always, religiously and irrational – always demand more power and authority and obedience to the chief tyrant in charge, irrespective of the destruction to prosperous civilization such action causes.

The Progressive Wall Street "occupiers" have brothers and sisters at Arsenalna yearning for the arbitrary rule of man.

Bill to Abolish Corporate Income Tax, Create Jobs

2011-09-14T20:27:00.001-05:00

by Bob Ward

Sept. 14, 2011 – U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) has introduced legislation, his version of an "American Jobs Act of 2011," preempting the title that dithering President Obama wanted used for the tax-and-spend-to-create measure he had in mind. Alternately, Gohmert's version of the Act would abolish the corporate income tax. The very conservative East Texas Congressman asserts that the measure will create jobs in the U.S. as well as increasing revenue to the government. “America,” Gohmert said, “would instantly become a safe haven for businesses resulting in an explosion in revenue increases.” Currently, he noted, American manufacturing jobs are moving overseas where the business climate is more favorable.

Gohmert correctly pointed out that corporate taxes are “paid for by people in the form of lower wages to American workers and less money paid out in dividends in everything from 401K retirement accounts and to those who would risk their capital in business ventures. This type of capital investment is where jobs come from.”

The corporate income tax is also unfair because it double-taxes money earned by the business. An income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation and that same money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Some politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers. But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not taxpayers, out of corporations. The corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment. Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shift work from the private to the public sector. It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services. A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this. Gohmert's bill abolishing the tax is even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and Rep. Gohmert is a politician with the wit and courage to say so.

Corporate Income Tax Unfair, Impractical

2011-09-13T19:42:00.000-05:00

by Bob Ward

As Congress takes up the President’s plan to revive the economy, it would be an opportune time to review an inequitable and impractical feature of our Federal tax system - the corporate income tax.

Currently, an income tax is levied on money earned by the corporation. That money is taxed again when it is distributed to the corporation's owners -- the shareholders -- in the form of dividends which are regarded as personal income. It is comparable to a worker's wages being taxed when he earns them, at the end of each working day, and again when he collects them on payday.

Too many politicians want the public to believe that the corporate income tax reduces the tax burden of individual taxpayers. But savvy taxpayers know that corporate taxes make tax collectors, not tax payers, out of corporations. A corporation does not produce money out of thin air with which to pay its taxes. A corporation's tax bill is converted into higher prices for its customers, lower pay for its employees, fewer jobs for the community and lower dividends for its stockholders.

The impracticality of the corporate income tax is especially salient at the present time when government is supposedly doing all it can to reduce unemployment. Billions have been appropriated to create makework jobs which merely shifts work from the private to the public sector. It would be preferable to remove the obstacles to expansion and investment so that Americans can return to real jobs that produce goods and services. A drastic reduction in the corporate income tax would help achieve this. Its abolition would be even better.

While politicians may find it useful to cultivate the myth that "the little guy” is helped by socking it to "big business," it just isn't so and we need politicians with the wit and courage to say so.

Congress should take this opportunity to encourage capital formation and make it easier for business to expand and hire workers.

Robert Morrow: Perry hater; Ron Paul lover; a Libertarian, not a Republican

2011-08-27T23:43:00.000-05:00

If you're a political junkie who feels obligated to take an objective look at the political landscape, who tends to make up your own mind about candidates and issues, who counts yourself among the political Bereans that were "of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true," you really don't appreciate political terrorists masquerading as grass roots activist whose slash and burn tactics promote anything but truth. Though some of them claim the high moral ground on the right, these revolutionaries use leftist tactics such as Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and the politics of personal destruction to attack their targets and achieve their political and social objectives. In the process they pollute the airways, cable news services, email inboxes, Internet websites, pod casts, social media sites and print media with unsubstantiated accusations, half truths, conspiracy theories, and flat out lies, making Bereans' quest for the truth all the more difficult and daunting.

Meet political terrorist, Robert Morrow, hater of so-called establishment Republicans such as Rick Perry, and lover of Ron Paul, Debra Medina, many who claim the banner of personal liberty and anyone who will embrace Morrow's own personal brand of liberty (that, for Morrow, apparently includes exploitation of women as sexual objects), and his own conspiratorial thinking such as a grand conspiracy ("an enabling entourage") he claims participates in and keeps the lid on the alleged sexual escapades of Gov Rick Perry.

Morrow has personally indicted Rick Perry for sexual misconduct (the same sexual exploitation of women Morrow admits he, as a private citizen "but not a hypocrite like Perry," engages in, plus Morrow claims further that Perry also sexually exploits men) by posing this question, "Have you ever had sex with Rick Perry?" in an ad in the August 19th, 2011 edition of the Austin Chronicle (see page 14 of the Chronicle and also online in many blog posts and news reports about the ad, including this story from the Houston Chronicle), ostensibly to assemble the evidence and witnesses to prove to the world what Morrow says he already knows with 100% certainty to be true. Morrow admits that he personally hate's Rick Perry and seems to think of himself as free of moral responsibility for exploiting the same women, so he says, Perry exploits.

Morrow did not come up with his accusation of sexual misconduct by Gov Rick Perry recently (though now is the opportune time, on the heels of Perry's announcement of his candidacy for President of the United States, for him to unleash his "knowledge"). At the Senatorial District 14 Caucus of the 2010 RPT Convention, with minor children present, Morrow nominated himself for the position of RPT Vice-Chairman for the sole purpose of gaining control of the mic (for the time allotted to Party office candidates) so he could trash Gov Perry and former President George Hebert Walker Bush with graphic accusations of sexual misconduct such as he implies of Perry in the Austin Chronicle ad (the ad and Morrow's "testimony" of how he became 100% sure about Perry's extra curricular activities seem more like material for the Onion than the Chronicle). At a previous RPT Convention Congressional District 10 Caucus meeting, Morrow used similar tactics to promote his Libertarian views on the issue of legalization of marijuana and other drugs as well as to promote his own conspiracy theories.

I think the best response to Morrow's question in his ad is how Karl Rove responded to a similar question that Morrow shouted out during a Code Pink led heckling session at UT Austin a while back. Rove said to the audience, in response to Morrow's question which accused George H. W. Bush of pedophilia, "Can we have a non-lunatic question from the lunatics?"

Enough of my words about Morrow. Hear Robert Morrow, in his owns words, and judge for yourself whether he is a liar, a lunatic or a true patriot. Personally, I agree with Karl Rove:

In the 4th hour of the 8/19/2011 Alex Jones show
"He (Morrow) is a real Libertarian...a big Libertarian activist...goes around knocking on hundreds of doors."
- Alex Jones

"Who are you going to believe, Alex, a stripper, an escort, or a politician?"
-Robert Morrow

"I'm not 99% sure that Rick Perry is a rampant adulterer. I'm 100% sure."
-Robert Morrow

The Shad Olson Show Pod Casts - You can listen to following coverage of the story (Olson's monologue on the subject extends thru segment 2 and the interview with Morrow begins in Segment 4):

(1) 08-23-11 Segments 1: Shad Opens Show, Robert Morrow Says Rick Perry is A Fraud, Alleges Sex With Strippers, Drug Use and More, Shad Confronts

(2) 08-23-11 Segment 2: Rick Perry's Mysterious Closet, Robert Morrow Claims Perry's Marriage, Faith and Politics, All Fake

(3) 08-23-11 Segment 3: Rick Perry Most Inspiring 'Faith' Candidate Since Reagan, Robert Morrow Says Perry's a Fraud

(4) 08-23-11 Segment 4: Ron Paul Distances From Supporter Robert Morrow After Allegations Against Rick Perry

(5) 08-23-11 Segment 5: Hour 2 With Robert Morrow, Alleges Adultery, Drug Abuse, Entourage Orgies By Rick Perry

(6) 08-23-11 Segment 6: Conservative Activist Comes Forward Claiming Rick Perry Made Sexual Advances

(7) 08-23-11 Segment 7: Robert Morrow Talks About Patriot Shar, Conservative Female Activist Who Claims Rick Perry Hit On Her

(8) 08-23-11 Segment 8: Robert Morrow, Ron Paul Supporter Says Rick Perry Could Be the 'Swing State Hindenburg,'Warns GOP

(9) 08-24-11 Segment 1: Shad Opens Show, Qaddafi Out, Arab Spring Extended, More On Robert Morrow, Rick Perry Controversy

(10) 08-25-11 Segment 5: Shad Opens Second Hour, Robert Morrow, Rick Perry Update, Bachmann 2-dollar Gasoline Piece on Website (In this segment Chad defends his granting of a platform on his program to Morrow and says the jury is still out on the accusations but that there is no evidence or corroboration of them to day.)

Shad Olson's posted story on Robert Morrow's accusations

The question that begs to be asked, if Morrow is not simply insane but is carrying out a well orchestrated plan in cooperation with others, is just who will benefit from the destruction of the Rick Perry's candidacy who also has a history of using leftists' tactics?

I can think of none of the other viable Republican candidates that would participate in such an enterprise, not even Ron Paul. But some of his supporters, the Paulites, are quite the radicals, so you never know.

There is only one true beneficiary, though, and he is certainly trained in leftist tactics. In fact his campaign sent out this message to its mailing list on August 24th:

Rick Perry has spent a lot of the last two weeks in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina continuing to boast about a so-called "Texas miracle."

Middle-class families in Texas know that's actually a tall tale. In fact, a study published just last week reports that a quarter of Texas kids live in homes with parents who don't know where their next meal will come from -- the worst rate in the country.

When we asked supporters to share their thoughts on Governor Perry last week, hundreds of people stood up to help tell the full story -- will you join them?

Tell us what you think Americans need to know about what Rick Perry has done, or failed to do, as governor over the last 11 years.

Your feedback will help hold him accountable on the campaign trail, inspire fellow Texans to get involved, and introduce his record -- his actual record -- to voters across the country. Your words will remind him that even as he runs, he won't be able to hide -- a lesson he apparently hadn't learned as recently as last week. That's when his campaign explained that the positions he took in the book he wrote just nine months ago, like saying that Social Security is unconstitutional and "a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal," no longer represent his views.

But what other Americans are just starting to learn about -- and, frankly, reject -- Texans have dealt with for more than a decade. It's up to us to make sure he doesn't get to run away from the truth.

Weigh in and let us know what you'd most like to see Gov. Perry held accountable for:

http://my.barackobama.com/The-Truth-About-Perry

Thanks, and stay tuned.

- Hector

Hector Nieto
Texas State Director
Obama for America

DEFAULT, A RED HERRING

2011-07-14T22:56:00.006-05:00

-By Bob Ward

From the beginning of the debate over raising the debt limit, Democrats and the media have been warning us that not raising the limit means the U.S. defaults on its debt for the first time in our history. With few exceptions, the Republicans have failed to refute this claim.

In recent days, Obama has upped the ante by suggesting that there may not be enough money to make Social Security payments if the limit is not raised. The claim is not believable on its face. The President does not have to cut off payments to the elderly and the disabled. He would only do it if he hopes to blame the cut-off on the Republicans. With the help of the media it is entirely possible he could pull it off.

Terence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews, reports that according to the Treasury Dept, since Federal borrowing reached the legal limit on May 16, tax revenue will more than cover the cost of interest payments, Medicare,Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel.

Jeffrey notes that between May 16 and July 7, the Federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue. In that same time period, total interest payments on the national debt equaled $14.632 billion. So the Federal government took in enough money between May 16 and July 7 to pay the interest on the debt 20 times over.

The combined expenditures for interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs Department and Federal workers wages and insurance benefits equaled $270.151 billion. So government would have met all those expenses, paid the interest on the debt and still have $26.025 billion left over. By claiming that the government may lack the funds to pay Social Security recipients Obama is making Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe. If the government fails to send out Social Security checks it will be because Obama wants it that way for political, not economic, reasons.

If there really was a money squeeze he could take a bite out of the Education Dept, or, better yet, ask Congress to abolish it. Every state in the union operates a public school system. The Federal department is an expensive redundancy.

Or he could agree to shut down the Public Broadcasting System. There are hundreds of TV channels available on cable so there is no need for this unconstitutional haven for artists who couldn’t cut it in the private sector. And National Public Radio could go too. Americans should get their news from real journalists, not from government flaks masquerading as reporters.

Also a suitable target for abolition is the National Endowment for the Arts. Before the government was in the business of supporting art, we got composers like George Gershwin, Aaron Copeland, Rodgers & Hart, and Cole Porter, playwrights Eugene O’Neill, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, novelists Mark Twain, Sinclair Lewis and Theodore Dreiser. With government money we get a photograph of a crucifix dipped in urine.

And if things really got desperate he could stop funding Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills or even cut off Obama's pals at ACORN. Imagine that!

Central Texas Tea Party speaking invitation - How to Swing Votes

2011-06-30T09:10:00.000-05:00

Script for change as old and rocky as the Alamodowndirtyword.blogspot.com

David Mamet on the Left and their Palin-phobia

2011-06-11T17:21:00.003-05:00

David Mamet speaks to Hugh Hewitt and proves that some Hollywood writers can still think:

DM: Yeah, the left of today is not the left of my father’s day when it was made up of workers and factory workers and housewives, and veterans of World War II, and people who fix the lawnmowers, and the Republicans were the guys in the plaid pants who didn’t let the Jews in. The left of today is, it’s very much the cheese and white wine guy sitting around and talking about the greed, how greedy the world is, and how the dumb Americans have ruined this beautiful, beautiful world. And it’s kind of Malthusian. It’s saying don’t those people realize there are just too many folks on the highway, in the national forest, and they’re getting in my way? That would be, now tell me the question again. I got carried away with my own rhetoric.

HH: Sarah Palin, how Sarah Palin fits into that.

DM: Oh, sure. So Sarah Palin is a threat for several reasons. One is she’s a woman, and as I wrote an article in Misogyny, the left, if you look at it, really doesn’t like women. How do I know? Well, let’s look at Monica Lewinsky and Broadbent, and Mary Jo Kopechne, and all of these people who were in various ways vastly abused, and in one place, killed by liberal men and the left said nothing about it. They never mentioned it.

HH: Right.

DM: …because they weren’t, because as much as they’re “feminists,” it was more important to be a member of…is attacked as a woman, as attacked as an attractive woman, freed succubus, and attacked because she’s an actual worker, and because her story is part of the American myth.

HH: Yeah, she was a commercial fisherman, and like Harry Truman, actually knew of which she speaks when she talks about hard work.
DM: Sure, and also it’s part of our myth of Hollywood, you know, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, or The Farmer’s Daughter, The Candidate, Bulworth, The Contender. The myth is played out over and over and over again, Dave, the normal person who says well heck, I can do that, and in effect, can do it and rises to the highest office in the land. So when the left sees that in real life, of someone who is not on their side but on the other side, someone who has not been indoctrinated, someone who expresses herself well and is unusual and attractive and funny, it scares the hell out of them. So they say oh, you know, she’s stupid. I say I don’t get the joke. I don’t see what she’s stupid about. She seems to have succeeded wildly at everything that she ever did. All right, she’s just the governor of Alaska. Well hell, I’m not the governor of Alaska, and you aren’t. I doubt that either of us could be starting from zero. Well, it’s a small state. It just has a few people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But the left knows not why it hates Sarah Palin, but they’re still talking about her.

Got Jobs?

2011-06-11T16:48:00.005-05:00

The market recently fell out of bed this past week on the news of a disappointing May 2011 jobs report and other signs the 'recovery' is sputtering. The big picture is that recovery has not recovered most of the 7 million jobs lost in the recent recession. Here's a chart that says it all:

Even with the half a million new jobs so far this year, we still have five million fewer jobs than when Obama became President. With Q1 2011 at only 1.8%, it's a tepid recovery and economic growth has been inadequate. The economy is moving forward, but too slowly, and the reason it doesn't feel like a recovery is because we don't have the growth and jobs to truly get us out of this hole. Uncertainty created by Obama policies is the #1 reason this recovery is weaker than it should be.

We need real pro-growth and pro-jobs policies to get this country moving again. Got jobs? Got recovery? Not yet!

The Subtleties of Media Bias: Jason Embry's Collection of Anti-Christians

2011-06-10T10:52:00.000-05:00

Jason Embry over at the Austin American MisStatesman puts out a daily recap of news around the Capitol. Lobbyists I know typically read his stuff and then wow their clients with their supposed knowledge of inside baseball around the Capitol. I guess reading Embry beats doing any work on their own. Good work if you can get it.

The other day Embry took aim at Texas Governor Rick Perry by noting his apparent co-hosting of an event with the American Family Association in Houston, noting that the Anti-Defamation League, The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Council on American-Islamic Relations were protesting Perry's participation with a Christian group that takes very stern heaven-hell type views on homosexuals. You know, the same views that the Muslim extremists in Iran and other Muslim countries take, except no one at the AFA wants to hang homosexuals, the way the Muslims in Iran do.

But that's not the point.

The point is that the ADL, SPLC, CAIR and a fourth group, the People for the American Way (which is quoted in the story), are all very left-of-center organizations. They are way out there. Of the four, only People for the American Way is identified by Embry as a "liberal watchdog group." They could also be categorized as anti-Christian. Embry wouldn''t dare do that.

The governor's spokesperson is given some ink to say the governor has been thinking of the event for some time, but that's different from supporting the ideological positions of AFA, or even supporting the main focus of the event, which is day of fast and prayer for governors who decide to attend. In case you inferred otherwise from the liberal activist groups criticisms, the event is not to discuss homosexuals and their prospects for Heaven and Hell. That apparently is the job of the Muslims in Iran, who take a very active stance in their speeding Allah's decision making process for the homosexuals.

Now, I'm not saying Embry is a wild-eyed liberal. But his news reporting, like that of so many other reporters at the MisStatesman and other newspapers, carries the water for the liberal groups.

He's certainly never carried the water for the AFA and its views on the need for prayer and fasting by the nation's governors. His historical materialist approach to reporting the news does not allow it. But it does allow for using liberal activist groups to gang up on Christian groups and their views.

By the way, I've taken to calling the Statesman the MisStatesman because it has a problem getting facts right, even at the most mundane levels of the organization.

My case is this: I made a hole in one, on May 1, at the 17th hole at Falconhead Golf Course, using a 3-hybrid for 194 yards. I filled out a form with this information, at the course, including the names of the witnesses. The pro at Falconhead faxed in the information on May 2. The MisStatesman noted in its paper a week later that my hole in one came on the second hole at Flintrock Falls, using a 3-hyrbid for 147 yards. They did get the name of the witnesses correct. (My golf buddies were laughing that I would have to use a 3-hybrid for 147 yards.) But really, if somehow they mix up a faxed piece of information about a hole in one, what else are they getting wrong, in places throughout the paper?

SD-14 SREC Report from June 3-4th State Meetings - Patterson running for Lt. Gov, TSA "no grope" resolution passed

2011-06-04T21:07:00.000-05:00

This weekend's SREC meetings in Austin concluded today after 5 PM. Here are some notes I made.

Chairman Steve Munisteri announced the party finances being in good shape and a professional audit (by Atchley & Associates) of Texas GOP finances for 2010 being completed; that report was reviewed by SREC members at the meeting. The Chairman noted the Party has all prior debts paid with about $811 thousand in the bank after his term started a year ago with the Party deeply in debt. The Party also spent about $25 thousand on the Dan Neil (HD-48) recount and election challenge. In addition the new 8.25 grassroots club was up to 538 members (these GOP members are contributing $8.25 a month to the state GOP).

The State GOP is also conducting campaign training for candidates and campaign managers, and enrollment so far is about triple what the Party anticipated.

Near the lunch hour a panel of three state reps (Todd Hunter, Dan Flynn, Jim Keffer) discussed the State budget which was recently passed and warned of false attacks coming against Republicans from the numerous political factions which profit from the current inefficient government school monopoly - at least, that was my take on it. The panel also stayed for an informative Q&A session; they also confirmed the expectation that the special session would successfully pass a Congressional redistricting map and estimated the session would conclude in late June.

State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson gave a rousing speech and announced his intention to run for Lt. Governor in 2014. Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz also addressed the SREC.

HD-7 State Representative David Simpson also briefly spoke in the afternoon, urging the SREC to pass a resolution backing HB-1937 (now HB-41 in special session), which is the bill prohibiting TSA from invasive "groping" searches without probable cause. The resolution later passed easily without debate (the resolution is attached below).

Don Zimmerman
SD-14 SREC Committeeman
-----------------------------------------------

RESOLUTION on TSA “enhanced pat-down” Opposition, supporting HB-1937 in Special Session

Whereas 82R HB 1937 (now known as HB 41 in the current special session) safeguards basic rights defined under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for persons traveling in Texas;

Whereas “enhanced pat-downs” by the Transportation Safety Administration are administrative policies established by federal bureaucracy and not statutory law enacted by federal government and therefore cannot hold supremacy over the U.S. Constitution or the Texas State Constitution;

Whereas it is unlawful for properly trained law enforcement officers to perform “enhanced pat-downs” as performed by the Transportation Safety Administration;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee;

Whereas HB 1937 was unanimously passed by the Texas House of Representatives;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee;

Whereas HB 1937 had oral expressions of support from 30 of 31 Texas State Senators prior to being scheduled for hearing on the Senate floor;

Whereas Senate passage of HB 1937 was halted at the eleventh hour after the U.S. Department of Justice delivered a factually inaccurate letter concerning the effect of HB 1937 and that threatened an immediate injunction which included “canceling a flight or series of flights”

Whereas this level of intimidation establishes grounds for a constitutional crisis;

Whereas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst has now recommended HB 1937 for the current special session of the State Legislature;

Be It Resolved that the State Republican Executive Committee urges Governor Rick Perry to call 82R HB 1937--now filed as HB 41--as emergency legislation so that it may be considered by the Texas Legislature in special session.

A Solution to the Debt Ceiling Non-Crisis

2011-05-01T15:04:00.000-05:00

Our nation is facing a crisis. If you want to understand the nature of our fiscal crisis, consider: We increased Federal spending by over $1 trillion, from 2007 to 2011, per annum, from $2.5T budget to $3.8T budget, increase the Fed governments share of GDP from 19% to 26%, and quadrupled the Federal deficits, from about $300 billion in 2007 to $1.6 trillion by 2010 and 2011. That $1 trillion in increased spending went to Medicare, Medicaid, more domestic discretionary spending, some increment in defense spending and various “stimulus”. Redistribution, corruption, and padding the government sector payrolls and spending that did little to increase our wealth. It wasn’t paid for by expanding revenues, since we’ve had the worst 4-year economic performance in a generation, with flat tax revenues. So it all fell down to a $1 trillion increase in deficit, that expanded our national debt by almost $5 trillion in 4 years.

Now, because of that profligate behavior, we are facing the statutory debt limit and need to raise it to keep the Government operating and paying its bills. It can only pay its bills beyond the next few months by issuing ever more debt. Republicans have demanded fiscal reforms as the price of a debt ceiling increase: A balanced budget amendment, spending caps, and deficit reduction plans. Obama and his allies have stunningly refused to agree to those terms, and Obama responded to Republicans proposals with a highly partisan budget speech that outlined his own ‘cuts’ that manage to continue large spending increases and massive deficits for years to come. No wonder the public trusts Republicans more on the budget.

There are claims that if we don’t increase the debt ceiling with no preconditions now, we will go into default. Those claims are spurious. The only way the US defaults is if the Obama administration chooses to. They can always put interest payments at the head of the line. They can always defer medicare reimbursements, ag subsidies, etc. We have the revenues to continue to pay any and all debt and interest obligations. The Obama administration knows this. And further, it would surely move the poll numbers if the checks that are stopped are social security payments. The problem would be solved in a matter of days. But for the Obama admin to do the sensible thing like that would be to actually navigate in a way to smooth the crisis, not inflame it . They seek to inflame it. This is why they are making such a big demonstration about the apocalyptic nature of the debt ceiling raise.

Thus, we are treated to apocalyptic visions of a phony crisis, while the real crisis – the impending fiscal meltdown of the U.S. government – is swept under the rug.

As for real solutions to the real crisis, let us remember: Congress appropriates. Oftentimes, liberals will cite Clinton’s success in the 1990s, forgetting that it was the GOP Congress of 1994-1998 that balanced the budget via their budget bills. Forgotten also that we went through a Government shutdown to get to that point of serious fiscal responsibility. More importantly, the Gingrich Congress did it while cutting taxes, not raising them.

We can only rebalance our budget and economy by cutting that $1 T in spending. Do it slowly and you will burden our children with trillions in extra debt in the meantime. Do it fast – well, don’t worry about that, Washington had a hernia just cutting a measly $38 billion, so truly significant cuts, like cutting $500b in one year, wont even be on the table. We will end up cutting far less than we need to do – sorry, kids.

The most aggressive budget plans on the table, like Rand Paul’s budget proposal, will take 8 years to get us to balance. Yet, even the “kinder, gentler” path to fiscal responsibility outlined by Paul Ryan, and pushed by the House Republicans, is being called “radical” by President Obama. The Ryan plan spends in the range of $3.5 trillion every year for the next 10 years, not much more, not much less. The Ryan plan deliberately leaves all seniors alone, so as not to cause those on Government benefits already to lose what they have. It defunds Obamacare, but maintains other entitlements, and reforms them in the long-term. Only in Washington are tiny cuts of less than 1% of outlays called ‘historic’ (when in fact in both the last 1940s and the early 1920s, the Federal budget was cut by more than half). And only in Washington can you look at a Ryan budget that continues to increase Medicare spending in each and every year and call it not just a cut, but, as Democrat politicians claim, “ending Medicare as we know it”.

What we have here is the early peek at 2012 politics. Obama revamped his own budget and proposed his response to the Ryan plan: Higher taxes by ending the Bush tax rates, throw in more higher taxes, continued deficits in a plan that would spend close around $40 trillion over the next 10 years. 4 trillion more than the Ryan alternative. So, that’s the choice: Higher tax rates, higher spending, and higher deficits, versus a somewhat lower spending and “NO” to higher taxes. This sorry situation is a consequence of the folly of the massive overspending of the Democratic Congress of the past 4 years, and the ‘spend-it-all’ mentality. $5 trillion in extra debt and all we got was a lousy “We are all Keynesians now” T-shirt.

Which gets us back to the debt ceiling debate. There are many in Congress who are saying “I will only raise the debt ceiling if we have a serious plan to cap spending and cap deficits”. That is exactly the right approach. End the blank checks and the trillion dollar deficits. When you have a 4 trillion difference in a 10-year spending roadmap, the debate can only be reconciled with elections, and the House Republicans are right to treat their November 2010 as a mandate for fiscal responsibility. Hence they are adamant: No increase in the debt ceiling without a significant commitment to fiscal responsibility. The vehicle for that for many in Congress is a balanced budget amendment.

They are being faced with non-serious claims of calamity should the debt ceiling not be raised: “We will go into default” Only 7% of our spending in the short term is interest payments, and tax revenues cover that many times over. If we simply put interest payment at the head of the line, no default will ever happen. “the treasury market (and all other markets) will panic” Well, buy on the dip. Fools will panic. Grownups will recognize this for what it is – political gamesmanship in Washington. In 2005, Obama and a lot of other Democrats said many things and voted against the debt ceiling increase, contradicting everything they are saying now.

We were told in 1995 the Government shutdown was a ‘crisis’ – and after 3 weeks of a Government shutdown, the folks in Washington got their deal put together. The GOP got their deficit reduction, and Clinton got his reelection campaign talking points. Then a snowstorm shut the Government down for another week, proving that maybe, just maybe, the world can survive for a few days without the Federal Govt after all. Last year, the Democrats didnt even pass a budget – first time in a generation – amazingly, the Government never even batted an eye, as for the first time in a long time, half the year the Government was run on continuing resolutions. Last month, the world was supposed to end over a Government shutdown. Well … no. It didn’t.

Just like cutting up a credit card forces a family to start changing it’s behavior, not raising the debt ceiling is a ‘cold turkey’ approach to ending deficits, and an induced ‘crisis’ over Washington’s failure to agree on time may actually do some good. The real crisis is the Federal Govt’s failure to live within its means. The consequence of that real crisis is the growing debt, and that is becoming a burden on the whole country. Washington cannot and will not go cold turkey on deficit spending, but surely needs to do something.

So there are two solutions. The first is for the Obama administration to acknowledge what needs to be done anyway and agree to measures for fiscal responsibility in the debt ceiling increase. If a BBA is passed as part of the debt ceiling increase, at least some good will come out of it. The second solution is an incremental approach that increases the debt ceiling by a ‘small’ amount of $100 billion in exchange for some portion of the necessary budget reforms.

In the end, default will be a choice the administration makes out of their unwillingness to spend differently and come to real agreement with Congress on necessary reforms. In short, the only reason the phony crisis will become real is if the Obama administration refuses to address the real crisis – that we only take in 60 cents for every dollar we spend. If the path towards getting a real solution to this real problem is a game of chicken over the debt ceiling increase, so be it. As Rahm Emmanuel said, never let a good crisis go to waste.

TCRP Chair Dr. Rosemary Edwards leads effort for better redistricting map

2011-04-27T00:46:00.000-05:00

April 26, 2011

Wednesday, April 27 will be a House Vote on the re-districting map for the next decade. Here is the Youtube video on the latest developments and the latest version of the map that will be presented by Rep. Erwin Cain. Please call your representatives if you support this latest map and view this message from Rep. Wayne Christian and Joe Nixon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V66Ajznf8oI&feature=youtu.be

Rosemary Edwards, Travis County Chairman

Pending Vote on Redisticting Could Check Conservative Advance in Texas

2011-04-26T13:39:00.005-05:00

Tomorrow is an important day in Texas politics. That is because the full House will be considering the Redistricting Committee's recommended map of 150 Texas House Districts that once agreed upon will endure for a decade (5 election cycles). If they vote for the committee recommendation they will be voting to keep conservatives in check in Texas for the next decade.

In lieu of the committee's map is a map chartered by and for the conservative members of the Texas House. Previously known as the Nixon Map (being put together by Joe Nixon and Trey Trainer) Rep. Cain will be offering it as a substitute to the committee's map and it is "PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150" on the official map viewer.

It's worth repeating, Rep. Erwin Cain has filed this map as an amendment to the House Redistricting Committee's map CSHB 150 that will be voted on this Wednesday April 27th. Watch this video to learn more.

Below is a message I sent to Central Texas Republican Assembly members and friends this past weekend. I've updated the message by making reference to the version of the Nixon Map that will be laid on the table on Wednesday as a substitute to the committee's map.

Dear CTRA Members and Friends,

Late in the day on Good Friday, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) weighed in on the redistricting map passed out of committee last Tuesday. TLR expressed praise for the Solomons plan amended and adopted by the House Redistricting Committee (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ , PLANH153) and in so doing backhanded other plans. I think the Nixon plan--now called PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150--may have been an intended target, though TLR never mentioning a plan by name.

In its redistricting plan “endorsement”, the TLR press release reads:
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is interested in redistricting because it will impact Texas elections for years. Politics impact policy. Elections matter. TLR PAC, in its campaign activities, has consistently worked to promote and maintain a majority in the Texas Legislature of conservative men and women who believe in a fair, balanced and predictable civil justice system.
...
Our judgment is that alternative statewide maps that have been proffered publicly recently are not likely to result in sustainable conservative majorities.
...
(emphasis mine)
Source: http://www.tortreform.com/news/tlr-statement-hb-150-house-redistricting-map

Understand that when TLR uses the word “conservative” it means the “conservative” values and interest of TLR (namely tort reform). For the record, I am for lawsuit reform, as are many challengers that TLR opposes every election, but I am not a one issue conservative like the leadership of TLR seem to be. This TLR backhand to Joe Nixon (PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150) seems like just another attempt to neuter the TEA Party movement and true fiscal and social conservatives (i.e. Reagan Republicans like the members of the Republican Assemblies). If elections matter, then I believe the PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150 better represents the will of the voters on Nov 2, 2010.

PLANH153 pairs some conservative Reps who backed Ken Paxton for Speaker of the House. This pairing is an attempt to reduce the number of Reps who oppose Strauss by combining their districts, thus making them have to run against each other. As I understand it, PLANH153 reduces the total number of Republican districts—down from the 99 elected in 2010 to only 92 (some say 82) electable Rs in 2012 and beyond. This Solomons plan (Rep. Bert Solomons is the chair of the committee) reduces Travis County from the potential 3/3, D/R that it was 10 years ago (and I believe still was last year in spite of the certified outcome) to 5/1, D/R. The Solomons Plan (which one Travis County Democrat who testified on Palm Sunday raved over) adopted by the House committee, as amended, truly cuts the conservative baby in half, sacrificing it on the alter of “can’t we [Republicans and Democrats] all just get along.” That is not the wisdom of Solomon, Rep. Solomons.

To refresh your memory, TLR’s President and PAC chairman is Mr. Richard Trabulsi, Jr who helped (with lots of TLR PAC money) get his nephew, Mark Strama re-elected in HD 50 last year (which will be easier to do in 2012 under redistricting PLANH153—though HD 50 also loses R voters in the Nixon Plan). I live in HD 50 and did not appreciate “Uncle T” backing (with $$$$$ and TLR endorsement) my non-representive-of-my-values Representative, Mark Strama. TLR PAC also backed Obama Strama’s “twin”, Patrick Rose, in HD 45 who fortunately Jason Isaac soundly defeated. I would not put it past Mr. T, who is a Democrat, to be using this TLR endorsement of the Solomons plan, to further consolidate TLR’s, and thus his own, powerful control of the Texas House through the ruse of Lawsuit Reform, which did I mention I and many of those who run against TLR backed incumbents are also in favor of? TLR maintains its influence primarily through the perpetuation of TLR friendly incumbents.

DISCLAIMER: I’ve been told that PLANH153 is better for Williamson county Republicans than the original Nixon plan is. I believe HD 20 is the main issue there. However, PLANH153 makes HD 20 a three headed hydra, containing the northern half of Williamson with all of Burnet and Milam counties. From the testimony I heard on Palm Sunday at the committee hearing, I believe Burnet County objects to this arrangement and Milam county prefers to identify with Georgetown and not with Burnet. I’m just pointing out that there may still need to be some tweaks, but the Nixon plan is a better place to tweak from than PLANH153.

The above is my opinion and I am sure that wiser and more informed people than me will be arguing on both sides, but one thing is a given, this is a political struggle and in the end the shrewdest political heads will prevail. In the mean time, prep your Rep for the upcoming vote by the full House (that means tell them to support Rep. Cain's substitute PLAN H212 for CSHB 150). You have less than 24 hours left to do so. The vote is calendared for Wednesday. I am suggesting that on the question of CSHB 150 you tell him or her to vote for PLAN H212 REP. CAIN STATEWIDE SUBSTITUTE CSHB 150.

Conservative Redistricting Regards,

Timothy E. Bradberry, P.E.
Immediate Past President of the Board, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
Committeeman to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) for the Texas Republican Assembly (TxRA)

CTRA Website
TxRA Website
NFRA Website
Twitter

The Anti Grover-Khan Fatwa at CPAC-2011

2011-03-02T20:12:00.006-06:00

-By Timothy Bradberry, NFRA National Committeeman from Texas

On the morning of the first day at CPAC-2011, I was confronted by a major controversy that permeated the 38th annual gathering of conservative activists and wannabes. That is, the question of whether firstly moderate Muslims and secondly conservative gays are worthy of our embraced as fellow conservatives, assuming that they indeed are conservative on the major issues. Here’s my story:

The low down

I was walking into CPAC’s main meeting venue (the Marriott Ballroom) for the first time when a man handed me a goldenrod colored sheet(s) of paper with print on front and back (btw, I got the same offer every time I walked through that area and several other ingress/egress areas throughout the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel during the three day long conference). There were a number of questions on the sheet with two columns for answers (conveniently supplied), plus a bunch of paragraphs accusing the persons being targeted (sorry for the vitriol, but “target” is the best word to describe the purpose of this attack piece, this fatwa against assimilation). The first column, the “yes” column, had the first or last names of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. The second column, the “no” column, was headed “Reagan Republicans.” The questions were worded in such a way that all Reagan Republicans (as I joyfully confess to being among) would answer in the negative. In the Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan column all answers were listed as affirmative. Thus, these two American Conservative Union board members were presented as anything but “Reagan Republicans.” They were the primary targets of the fatwa (the severe denunciation).

Because it would be helpful to reference right now, I wish I had a copy of the fatwa in hand (here is a picture of the cover sheet) but I was a purest and refused to participate (in deference to Reagan’s 11th commandment) in the obvious character assassination of someone who has a long history as a staunch fiscal conservative and friend of the NFRA, Grover Norquist, along with his fellow American Conservative Union (ACU) board member, Suhail Khan. Instead, I gave my copy to Grover (who, upon me asking about them, denied the accusations) and at my own initiative I refused to accept additional copies offered to me during my many wanderings around CPAC. As I recall, the fatwa painted Grover, who serves on the Advisory Council to GOPride (a conservative gay Republican group), as sort of the conductor of an underground railroad transporting gay and Muslim (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood members and sharia law) sleeper cells into the ranks of the conservative movement and American society, thereby destroying the family through gay marriage and the imposition of a caliphate over our Judeo—Christian based society, via the radicalization of American Muslims.

But is that really GOPride’s and Grover/Khan’s agenda?

The heart murmur

I knew a bit about Grover, having met him at the 2007 National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) National Endorsement Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, but I had never heard of Khan. It didn’t help much that I could only attend CPAC on Thursday and then, after that, not again until Saturday afternoon (due to a research panel meeting on Friday that was unrelated to and displaced from CPAC, and due to an NFRA Board meeting on Saturday morning). So, I missed the opportunity to attend a session Khan chaired on Friday as well as the counter-insurgent session his opponents (the ones handing out the fatwa) held that day.

Having little or no information in hand I guess you could say I was flying blind by the seat of my heart, and my heart murmured to me that something did not add up about the fatwa. You see, Khan was identified widely as a moderate Muslim and I had spent the better part of Friday in a meeting facilitated and co-chaired by one such Muslim. I’ve known and worked/associated with many Muslims (from all over the world) throughout my over two decade career in structural engineering. I can only think of one that had a bad attitude about America (and he is long since gone—or been sent—back to his country). Actually, I am confident that there are many more Muslims I have associated with through my career whom I have not even tagged as Muslims (and even when I have so identify them, I forget their affiliation thereafter) because frankly the matter never comes up, unless they choose to explain why they can’t partake of the ham sandwich provided for lunch. :-) These Muslims are peace loving people like you and me who want to provide for their families and live their lives in freedom and prosperity (I do not mean to say that I think Islam is a religion of peace only that there are millions of moderate, peace loving Muslims in this world.)

The fallout

By late Friday afternoon, though very exhausted, I was looking forward to the NFRA dinner at The Capitol Hill Club and had pretty much put the Grover-Khan controversy out of my very weary mind (weary from too little sleep on top of my day of research project oversight). I went back to the CPAC hotel (from the Courtyard Washington Convention Center where I was staying), only to lose my multi-day metro pass in the process :-(, and was once or twice again offered the goldenrod sheet of paper. After hanging out at CPAC a bit, I headed back to the metro (but not before being offered the goldenrod paper again) to buy a trip pass and take the metro from Wardman Park to the Capitol South station (right across the street from The Capitol Hill Club). I entered the club around 7:00 pm—excited to have the privilege—found the right room and sat down and began to socialize with the NFRA Board members and guests assembled. After a somewhat stilted conversation (stilted on my part) with a former legislator from South Carolina (very animated and quick witted man), who was sitting to my left, about why we should back the liberals in Taiwan (as the conservatives—the KMT—there were busy compromising Taiwan’s sovereignty and otherwise sucking up to China) I overheard my neighbors to my right talking trash about Muslims and how none of them could be trusted.

I did not think about the effects of the CPAC panel sessions that had been held earlier in the day since I was quite unaware of them—I have a bad habit of not reading meeting agendas, especially when I’m not planning to be in attendance. So, I don't blame them. I expect that my neighbors’ “fire in the belly” may have been stoked by this controversy at CPAC, perhaps by the aforementioned fatwa. As a Christian who has sutdied the world Christian movement (i.e., the spread of God's message of redemption throughout history through many different mechanisms by many different peoples), and as one who avoids conspiracy theories like the plague, I found myself at odds with my neighbor’s characterization of all Muslims as wanting to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims, though I’ve stumbled into that line of thinking myself before. I began to argue with my right wing neighbors (the ones on my right wing) over the question of “are there any moderate Muslims in the world?” I knew that there indeed are such Muslims because I have met, associated with, and collaborated professionally with many such before. I admitted that the Koran, if taken literally and in historical context, does not seem to leave open that possibility, but just as there are liberal Christians who read the Bible like it is some kind of allegory rather than as revelation (which is how I read it), there are Muslims who either don’t take the Jihadist and discriminatory aspects of the Koran literally or are simply cultural Muslims. But my arguments were of no avail. I could see that I had become anathema to my neighbors on the right. I imagined that in their minds they probably now view me as part of the Grover—Khan conspiracy, and that was before the resolution on GOPride was passed in the NFRA Board Meeting.

The board meeting

The dinner at The Capitol Hill Club did not end the seeming deconstruction of my conservative reputation, a reputation I risked for the sake of truth and in acknowledgment of a need to engage Muslim and gay conservatives who can partner with us on major issues, hopefully even socially conservative issues. Saturday morning, the NFRA Board Meeting was held in a sort of closet-like or cloakroom-like venue at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel. After the presentations of the two bids for the NFRA National Endorsement Convention to be held in October or November of this year, and the selection of Des Moines, Iowa as the preferred location—over Rhode Island and Providence Plantations—it was time for resolutions. The first resolution up for considered had some vitriol that I felt was unnecessary and would make it difficult for the NFRA to effectively get our core social conservative message out—defending innocent life, traditional marriage and the family—because the media might caricature us as gay hating, like the America hating, American soldier funeral desecrating, un-Christian, so-called "Westboro Baptist Church" gay bashers, that the Supreme court nevertheless says have the right to their despicable behavior. After I basically lost it in the board meeting as the frustration of what I saw as unnecessary frothing over a trumped up fatwa against a known conservative and a host of wannabe conservatives who were being denied entrance out of fear rather than because of facts, the resolution was toned down a bit. The approved version is linked here.

The gay affirmation

I didn’t have to wait very long to hear someone who agreed with my take on the portion of the fatwa that was anti-gay. (I'm personally against gay sexual behavior and that has been my consistent position since College, but I'm not against gay people and what people do in private is none of my business.) Saturday afternoon, Ann Coulter, in response to a question from the floor about her friendliness with GOPride (from a GOPrider), explained that the group had agreed not to push for gay marriage after she challenged them on the issue, and that as an Evangelical Christian who is keenly aware that all are sinners, she sees no difference between gay sex and premarital hetero sex, as each act is in it’s own turn simply sin. She expressed great respect for gays who were chaste and who would make the sacrifice of remaining in that state for the sake of civilization (like the Apostle Paul remained unmarried for the sake of service to the Lord) because, as she put it elsewhere, “[traditional marriage is] a crucial linchpin of civilization that's already hanging by a thread.” She also joked, "I have a lot in common with the gays; we like the same music, the same cocktails, the same men..."

If you don’t believe gays can be conservatives, read this:

The debrief (what I am and am not saying)

Let me be clear here. I am not saying that I approve of CPAC allowing a self identified gay group to effectively sponsor the conference by paying for a booth and drawing attention to their status as gays. Like Ann Coulter, “[I] don't generally care for identity politics of any sort.” I am also not saying that I know for sure that Suhail Khan is a trustworthy conservative, no more radical than are the scores of moderate and otherwise peace-loving and freedom-loving Muslims I have encountered over the 27 years of my structural engineering career (starting in graduate school). I am also not saying that Grover Norquist’s Palestinian wife, Samah Alrayyes, who was born a Muslim, does not affect his outlook (I know she probably does, as my Taiwanese wife has fed my already established interest in advocating for Taiwan Independence—initially from a conservative based anti-communist stance and later out of a growing understanding of the suppression of and dilemma faced by the Taiwanese people).

Rather, I am simply saying that if politically active gays and Muslims who are vetted as conservatives (meaning they are found to be with us on the issues) are willing to go to the mat for our ideas, we should not issue a fatwa against them and so run them off into the open but death affirming arms of the left or of the Jihadists. As for the concern about a caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law in the United States, I have three words to offer, “Follow the Constitution”. It will not tolerate sharia law. Consider also these words from the Apostle Paul:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
—1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Therefore, I urge all conservatives to go out into the highways and byways, identify conservatives and compel them to join our efforts to advance conservative ideas. As you are going, be courageous and grow the conservative movement on a foundation of love, truth, freedom, liberty—in short the ideas and ideals of our Founders—rather than out of fear and prejudice.

Time to End Lawless City Policies

2011-01-31T13:10:00.003-06:00

Would you want to live in a lawless city? Never heard of 'lawless cities'? Well, you have heard of 'sanctuary cities', the self-description of cities that have decided to forbid their police and courts from enforcing immigration law.

Here is a consequence of such policies, described here:

In December 2007, a woman was savagely raped in a Queens park by four Mexican illegals. Once arrested, they were found to have long rap sheets and a long record of missed court appearances, which made them deportable. The Times did not report their illegal status, referring to them merely as “homeless men.” Nor did it connect the dots back to New York City’s sanctuary policies, which protected three of the four from deportation for offenses such as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses.

The above stary was embedded in an article about the bias of the New York Times in its immigration reporting: Failing to tell the whole story in cases like these, and cheerleading for policies that undermine immigration law. The article notes:

Around this time, however, the Times hailed Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s reversal of a proposal that city workers check identities of illegals, declaring that doing so would “deny privacy rights for immigrants” and that “at the end of the day mandatory status disclosure would hurt everyone’s public safety” by “chilling illegals from coming forward to report crime and abuse.”

The very term 'sanctuary city' needs to be reconsidered. When you have deportable criminal aliens out on the streets and creating victims, as the above story shows, that's a lawless city, and a sanctuary only for lawbreakers. "Sanctuary city" policies are prescirptions for lawless cities. This issue is a top priority in the current legislative session, and hopefully we will see a bill that ends flawed policies, such as Houston's, that forbids cops from determining immigration status of arrestees.

Winning the Future

2011-01-27T20:55:00.003-06:00

Obama's latest slogan creates an apropos TLA. One reaction to this graphic: LOL.

Meanwhile ... can we be the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history, with a deficit that is 10% of GDP? Yes, we can.

Travis GOP backs single-member districts for Austin

2011-01-27T19:28:00.002-06:00

Piling on to other recently-announced support for single-member districts, the Travis County Republican Party has put out a press release applauding Mayor's Backing of City Council Districts, and praising State Senator Wentworth's Single-Member District Legislation. Here it is:

Austin, Texas — The Travis County Republican Party (TCRP) applauds
Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell's new backing of single-member city
council districts, and endorses legislation by state Senator Jeff
Wentworth that would require single-member district representation on
the Austin City Council.

Currently, Austinites are represented by six city council members who
serve in an "at-large" capacity. They each represent the entire
population of Austin and are all elected by the same city-wide
constituency. The mayor, too, is elected by the city as a whole. The
latter is quite the norm; the former is highly unusual, and greatly
ineffective. With the city limits serving as a single at-large
district, multiple people are serving a single district. Invariably,
this setup leads to vast geographic areas of the community being
under-represented, or all together un-represented. Multiple-member
districts also diminish accountability by any one council member to
any group of voters, discourage citizen participation in local
governance, and suppress voter turnout in municipal elections.

"Austin is simply too large — and growing far too quickly — to not
have single-member city council districts," said TCRP Chair Rosemary
Edwards. "Austinites deserve to have direct representation on their
city council with a representative who they can go to with their
concerns and vote out if they want change, just as they do in the
state Legislature and in Congress."

Mayor Leffingwell is advocating a board in which six members represent
six individual districts, and two more members serve, like himself, at
large. He is charging a committee with preparing this and other
proposed changes to the city charter for voters next year.

In the Texas Senate, Sen. Jeff Wentworth is advancing legislation that
would require single-member districts for Austin. Senate Bill 380

requires that "The governing body of a municipality with a population
of 500,000 or more must consist of a mayor elected at large and at
least six members elected from single-member districts. A member must
reside in the district the member represents." If passed by a
two-thirds majority in the state House and Senate, Sen. Wentworth's
bill could take effect this year; if passed with a simple majority,
the act would apply to the 2012 elections.

"I'm encouraged by the growing support for single-member districts,"
Edwards said. "Our country was founded on the principles of direct
localized representation, and the voters deserve a direct voice in
their government in the capital city of Texas."

Wentworth's bill requiring single-member districts for Austin

2011-01-27T18:17:00.003-06:00

H/T from ChangeAustin, they have asked their members to support and lobby for a bill authored by Sen Wentworth, which calls on large cities - like Austin - to have single-member districts for their city council, with an at-large elected Mayor. Here is the text of the bill. It is well worth supporting.

By: Wentworth S.B. No. 380

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the election of the governing body of certain
municipalities.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter C, Chapter 26, Local Government Code,
is amended by adding Section 26.048 to read as follows:
Sec. 26.048. CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES WITH POPULATION OF
500,000 OR MORE: ELECTION FROM SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS. (a) The
governing body of a municipality with a population of 500,000 or
more must consist of a mayor elected at large and at least six
members elected from single-member districts. A member must reside
in the district the member represents.
(b) The municipality may provide for the staggering of the
terms of the members of the municipality's governing body.
(c) A single-member district must be compact and consist of
contiguous territory. To the extent practicable, all single-member
districts must be of equal population.
(d) This section does not prevent a municipality from having
additional members elected to the governing body from the
municipality at large.
(e) A municipality must comply with this section beginning
with the first general election of members to the municipality's
governing body that occurs after the year in which the federal
decennial census indicates that the municipality meets the
population requirements of Subsection (a).
SECTION 2. A municipality to which Section 26.048, Local
Government Code, as added by this Act, applies on the effective date
of this Act must comply with the requirements of that section
beginning with the first general election of members to the
municipality's governing body that occurs after December 31, 2011.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

March for LIfe

2011-01-25T22:05:00.001-06:00

I was trying to find video of the March for Life in Washington DC on Monday, but I haven’t found any that does a good job of showing the size of the crowd. I have heard estimates of 200,000 to 400,000 marchers and it took 4 hours for the marchers to get past the Supreme Court building.

One of the problems is the major networks seem to have ignored the March for Life. I did find a video on the ABC News site, and Fox News had a report also. Even the Fox News report did a poor job of show the size of the crowd and that this is not a political issue, but an issue of allowing the slaughter of innocent babies to continue in our Nation. Monday, CBS Evening News had a report about the 12,500 people killed by gunfire each year. They did not mention that 100 times as many people die each year by abortion. Over 50 million babies executed in the last 38 years.

The following is part of a letter I sent to one of the local TV news department.
I was very disappointed in your report Saturday night on the Rally for Life event in Austin. The sonogram bill is making sure women understand what happens in an abortion, makes sure a woman understands she is going to stop the heartbeat of her child. One would think Planned Parenthood would support true informed consent, but then it did seem as if their spokeswoman does not really want women to know the truth. What greater good can the government do than to help stop the killing of innocent babies?

The truth is: birth is just a change of environment for a human being, not a change to becoming a human being. The truth is: over 50 million humans have been executed in the country’s abortion facilities since Roe vs Wade was ruled on. The truth is: about 90 % of women change their mind about abortion once they see the sonogram and hear the heartbeat of their own child. It makes one wonder if a large corporation like Planned Parenthood really cares about women or if they are just afraid of losing customers and hurting their profits.

I invite news organizations to find out more about alternatives to abortion. The truth is: Pro-Life supporters do much more than just hold rallies. There are over 200 Pregnancy Resource Centers in Texas not only helping women in crisis pregnancies, but helping them with diapers, clothes, food and at some of the centers, life skills after the baby is born. These centers do not charge for their services, but continue to support moms and their children. They depend on the donations of Pro-Life supporters, as not many, if any get government funds. In my journalism classes, I was taught the job of the Fourth Estate was to seek out the truth, I hope things haven’t changed over the last 35 years.

Obama's Full Speed Ahead on High Speed Rail is Premature

2011-01-25T20:51:00.006-06:00

President Obama in his SOTU address tonight touted High Speed Rail (HSR) as a viable means to address transportation issues. Not sure if he has read the TxDOT Restructure Council's assessment of HSR so I've made it available to him here on this blog.

Please read, Mr. President and consider that Texas is leading the nation in job creation, in large part because of our common sense and conservative leadership.

High Speed Rail in Texas: Proceed With Caution

When it comes to the development of high speed rail (HSR) in Texas, financial wariness might be the most responsible approach.

The concept of high speed rail has gathered a lot of public momentum in the U.S. in recent years, and until the recent elections, a surprising level of support in Washington as well. Recent change in control of the U.S. House of Representatives might complicate the Administration’s HSR agenda. For Texans convinced that it is the transportation idea whose time has come, a few facts might be helpful.

Without question, some European and Asian countries have developed advanced and successful HSR lines. HSR speeds clearly provide valuable travel time savings, although often at a premium cost to passengers. HSR safety records are excellent. In some cases, HSR might even free up capacity in other modes (roads and air) and improve overall transportation system efficiencies. But as intriguing as it might be, there is good reason to tread very cautiously when it comes to the financial viability of HSR in the U.S.

There are only around 50 high speed rail lines around the world today. Virtually all were developed as replacements or enhancements of existing conventional rail systems, with established, pre-existing ridership that migrated and expanded naturally from an existing service to a new and more attractive service. No such established ridership base exists in Texas.

Also, the demographic and economic conditions that support the financial viability of HSR are rare, and in the U.S. they might not yet exist. Ridership levels on successful single HSR lines in Asia and Europe ranges from 83 million passengers per year to 20 million passengers per year. In contrast, the combined ridership of all Amtrak lines throughout the U.S. was 28.7 million passengers in FY 2010; AMTRAK's Northeast Corridor connecting Washington DC, New York and Boston, which some believe represents the most viable U.S. corridor for HSR, carried just 10.4 million passengers in fiscal year 2010. Overall financial performance of HSR depends directly on whether enough people choose to pay a premium cost to choose HSR over of alternative modes; even with an existing conventional rail ridership base, HSR projects have rarely met their full ridership forecasts, and in some cases have fallen far short.

As for cost, depending on the complexity of the engineering work required, the degree of urbanization along the route and the necessary rolling stock capacity, construction and rolling stock capital costs typically range from $56 million to $112 million per mile (mileage between Houston and Dallas: 225). Also, it is not unusual for HSR projects to take over a decade to complete, creating the need for significant capital outlays before there is any cash flow. If debt is involved, delays in construction or passenger ramp-up, or shortfalls in ridership yield, can create significant financial stress. Over time most lines seem to recover operating and maintenance costs, but few fully recover the capital costs from passenger revenue alone. Governments contemplating the possible benefits of HSR, whether through public, private or public-private partnership structures, should assume a near certainty of need for continuing financial support.

It is easy to envision a future Texas in which efforts to add needed capacity to existing intercity corridors such as I-10, I-35 and I-45 are overwhelmed by prohibitive costs, lack of resources, environmental constraints and public/political resistance. At that point, supplemental capacity represented by HSR might make sense and prove even more attractive than the development of alternative highway corridors. In light of the long lead time required to plan, design and develop HSR, the immediate challenge is clearly and objectively assessing whether such a system might make sense for Texas, and if so what is the most responsible, incremental path to that future. First steps in that direction might best include analysis, planning, design and development of corridors and conventional rail strategies, from which someday an even more advanced HSR technology than exists today might emerge as a viable option for Texas.

Source: TxDOT Restructure Council Final Report

8 reasons why 2012 will not be 1996

2011-01-24T13:29:00.002-06:00

History doesn't always repeat itself, and 2012 will not be 1996.

Mayor Calls for single-member districts for Austin City Council

2011-01-24T12:58:00.002-06:00

Mayor Leffingwell gets it right. He is calling for a review of single-member based districts. More specifically, he wants a 9 member city council, with 6 single-member districts and 3 at-large.

I have felt for sometime that Austin is ill-served by the at-large city council. Who represents the needs of a specific neighborhood? Some members, like Mike Martinez, have been banging that drum for some time, and he's quoted as saying "Our city has outgrown its governing system."

Exactly so. We are now one of the largest cities in the nation, in the top 20. City council elections are expensive and unwieldy, and they end up getting elected by a tiny slice of the city electorate due to the small turnout. I would prefer 7 single-member districts and two at-large, but the Mayor's 6-3 district / at-large split is just a proposal.

Now, I am not a big fan of some of Mayor Leffingwell's moves, and he's a bete noir to our northwest neighborhood for giving us the shaft, literally and figuratively. The story there is this: The AWU plans a water transmission line from the water treatment plant near Lake Travis to a water tower on NcNeil and 183. Their plans have included an intrusive shaft that would impact the neighborhoods near Canyon Vista Middle school. The parks and recreation board didn't go along with the AWU request for the (ab)use of city parkland required for putting a shaft in our neighborhood, back in October, and decided to wait on further reports on environmental and safety impact. Impatiently, the city manager and council bypassed the process and rammed the approval through the city council on a 4-3 vote. Now, Save-our-Springs coalition is readying a lawsuit over this possible violation of Chapter 26 process.

One takeaway from this and other city council interactions is that for any given neighborhood, anyone and NO-ONE on city council really goes to bat for you.

Austin has indeed outgrown the at-large city council system; it's time for single-member districts.

Should Lobbyists Hold Elected Office?

2011-01-24T12:26:00.004-06:00

The headline "Moderate Republican Brings Criticism On State Board of Education in Texas" I thought was going to be about one of the usual suspects talking trash about SBOE conservatives. Rather, the trash-talking is over new SBOE board member Thomas Ratliff, criticized for keeping his lobbyist business while on the State Board.

Ratliff claims:

Ratliff said he sees no problem with wearing two hats in Austin. He said when he calls members of the Legislature on lobbying matters he doesn't use his position on the board to get in the door faster.

He claims there is no problem, yet the Statesman notes that he already recused himself on one vote and has asked the state AG to 'look into' possible conflicts of interest. If there is no problem, why the need for these precautions? This is about as safe a combination as a chain smoker in an oil refinery. Something may combust.

Here's a better precaution. Understand that it's the self-pocket-lining business that give politics a bad rap and simply don't mix lobbying and elected office. Not only should lobbyists not be elected officials, they shouldn't even run for office. And we need a bar from former elected officials jumping into the lobbyist business pronto. Some of the recent resignations-to-lobbyist conversions have been unseemly at best. I would be all for a 2-year bar from when someone leaves office to becoming a lobbyist. And serving and lobbying at the same time? That's RIGHT OUT.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24

MSNBC's win for Civility

2011-01-22T14:29:00.003-06:00

Olberman loses his MSNBC gig as the worst cable-show talking-point ranter in the world. Speculation on why he was canned: Office politics was to blame.

Replacing Olbie will be a man who has auditioned multiple times for unhinged ranting, Laurence O'Donnell, so the progressives will still get their fill of HateRighty rhetoric and sides of Palin-sneering. But with Comcast coming to run things, who knows what else will be afoot. I for one, welcome MSNBC's new Insect Overlords.

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam ....

2011-01-22T13:44:00.006-06:00

In honor of spam-comment weeding just undertaken on this blog, we present the Monty Python Spam skit. It comes complete with Japanese sub-titles, which seems more than appropriate given the unusually large number of spam comments here that were in Japanese:

... and the punchline? The latest comments on YouTube page for the Monty Python Spam skit say: "This has been flagged as spam."

Painting The Texas Map Red

2011-01-21T20:22:00.005-06:00

Picture that tells the story of what November changed in the Texas statehouse. State Rep party affiliations by district, before November (blue=Dem, red=GOP)...

And after ...

The massive Republican win in November in the Texas statehouse that raised (with 2 additional defections since the election) the number of Republicans from 76 to 101, has reduced Democrats to their core liberal-Democratic districts in the urban counties and the border.

Texas Republicans put Voter ID Bill on Fast Track

2011-01-21T20:17:00.002-06:00

The RPT is touting fast movement in the Texas Lege on the Voter ID, a sharp contrast to the train-wreck in the House in the last session:

On Monday, the Texas Senate is expected to meet as a Committee of the Whole to consider Senate Bill 14, legislation that would require a voter to present proof of identification when voting. Earlier this week, Governor Rick Perry declared the Voter ID legislation as an emergency item and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst immediately informed state senators that the bill will be considered next week.

All 19 Republican State Senators have signed on as co-authors to this important piece of legislation.

Bully for them. They have bills 'in the can' from the last session which will get overwhelming support and should be dealt with quickly. Get 'er done.

The Republican Spending Cut Plan

2011-01-20T15:55:00.005-06:00

Now the Republicans have their answer to the snarky question "So, you say tou want to cut spending, what will you cut?" Here are 100 programs the RSC will cut to get to $2.5 trillion in savings in 10 years. Also, "$2.3 trillion of the $2.5 trillion in savings from the Republican Study Committee's Spending Reduction Act would come from cutting non-defense discretionary spending to 2006 and freezing that spending through 2021."

Good plan. There is another good thing about it. The Texas Republicans can adopt the same concept and themselves get to the point of eliminating the shortfall ... just roll back to the 2005-2006 budget and the shortfall would be eliminated.

Some heat on the matter of light

2011-01-20T15:19:00.003-06:00

Compact fluoresecents not the brightest bulbs, says someone who does not like those CFLs. And why not? They look funny, they sometimes make noise or otherwise misbehave, and the light sometimes can flicker or be annoyingly off-color...

The good news is that CFLs will not be bugging us for long. I predict that LED-based lighting will, within 5-10 years, be a very cost-effective replacement for all other forms of light. Here's why: LED lights last for 50,000 hours, about 8 times as long as CFLs (6,000 hours). LEDs can now get over 120 lumens/watt instead of 60 lumens/watt for CFLs and about 15 lumens/watt for old fashioned incandescents. CFLs have topped out, but LEDs have room for improvement and will get to 200 lumens/watt in the next 5 years. So a single LED light bulb that replaces the 60 watt traditional will need only 4 watts and will last as long as 50 traditional light bulbs. In about 5 years, these will cost around $4 each, and such an LED light bulb will save money over the other forms. In the meantime, LEDs will be finding plenty of uses where the longevity, low energy use, and flexibility are paramount.

ObamaCare Repeal Passes House

2011-01-20T11:30:00.004-06:00

On the one year anniversary of Senator Scott Brown's stunning upset victory in a U.S.Senate race, and just three weeks after being sworn in, the new Republican House majority passed a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare. The vote was 245 - 189, a stinging and stunning rebuke of the House Democrats who passed this bill by the narrowest of margins just 9 month ago.

Claims that this vote are symbolic are empty claims - this is a very important vote that signals that the ObamaCare debate is far from over. The Unconstitutional Mandate cannot stand, and more than half of all states are suing to escape the mandates. Also, Doctors know the bill will harm their patients, their ability to do their jobs, and their income, in a survey 65% said it would worsen care. The taxes embedded in the bill, needed to pay for the trillions in extra spending the new Obamacare entitlements create, are job-destroying (the Democrats insisted that 'job-killing' was too graphic apparently, so the Republicans came back with a new way to say the same thing - job-destroying).

Then the inherent corruption that comes from political control of a large slice of the economy:

Gohmert, who brought a copy of the health care law with him to the event, made some jabs, accusing the administration of "crony capitalism" through the granting of health care waivers. "If you're a friend of the administration, you get a waiver, and it will cut your costs dramatically," Gohmert said. "If you're not a friend, you don't get the waiver. You won't compete with the friends of Obama. You'll go out of business. Government shouldn't have that kind of power. ... Crony capitalism has got to stop."

Obamacare is an over-reaching, unaffordable, unconstitutional mess. We desperately need to repeal this bad bill and start over.

Eric Cantor is right to insist on the Senate taking up this bill and having a vote:

“If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said Tuesday.

What is Senator Harry Reid afraid of, the will of the people? Reid will attempt to block a vote in the Senate, but Senator Mitch McConnell has promised a vote and he's got 47 other Republicans who can help fight to make it happen.

The Baghdad Bob's of the Democrat party can keep insisting that ObamaCare is a 'done deal', but they are wrong - Resistance is Inevitable. They say this because they have paid a stiff political price for doing something the American people rejected and they don't this
Crown jewel of socialism to be undone.

The Republicans need to not give up the fight on this. They need to continue to make the case about how and why ObamaCare is wrong for America, how is harms our economy, robs our freedom, takes away important choices, makes healthcare less - not more - affordable, and bankrupts state and Federal treasuries. And it doesn't hurt to have a debate that ends up making Democrats spout off ignorantly about the Constitution.

Here's what the Republican can and will do: Demand a Senate repeal vote; de-fund ObamaCare regulation write-ups and agencies; repeal the individual mandates; repeal the taxes in ObamaCare - the tanning salon, medical device, payroll taxes, etc.; free states who want to opt out. And on the committee front, investigate the political interference in Obamacare waivers. Rep Cantor has said Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.” With $2.5 trillion in spending rollbacks coming down the pike, a lot will be 'on the table' and Obama cannot expect to get all he wants. There will also be bipartisan offers to 'fix' parts of the bill that are just egregious - like the infamous 1099 provisions. Abortion 'restrictions' that are phony and undermined the Hyde Amendment are going to get real in HR3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act.

Eventually, Obamacare will be dismantled, and we can have confidence in that prediction because the bill and program is fundamentally flawed and unworkable. Obamacare is the biggest and most intrusive bill passed in our time and is based on the flawed controlling and corrupt mindset that believes Government action is superior to market behavior. It represents the dying gasp of socialistic thinking, thinking which has failed economy after economy in country after country.

You cannot control healthcare costs by doing things that harm cost-saving market-based actions and innovations; you cannot improve coverage by robbing $500 billion from medicare; you cannot reduce the deficit with trillions in new entitlement spending; you cannot keep our finances sound by imposing huge costs on states and on businesses and individuals.

All that is required for us to prevail in this fight is to continue to persist. This vote gives us confidence that the Republican leaders "get it" and will persist in overturning the ObamaCare monstrosity.

Travis GOP overwhelmingly passes resolution against TSA naked body scanners

2011-01-18T23:13:00.001-06:00

Whereas the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) has expressed an intention to deploy full body scanners at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA) that will use millimeter-wave radiation sometime in 2011,

Whereas the TSA has not published any of the technical specifications, details on the scanners’ operation and construction, nor any other data that is necessary to conclude an independent review of the health safety of these devices,

Whereas notable authorities, including the Los Alamos Center for Nonlinear Studies have reported that millimeter-wave (also known as TeraHertz) radiation unzips DNA molecules, which causes problems with gene expression and DNA self-repair and adversely impacts human health,

Whereas nations like Israel with outstanding security records have rejected x-ray machines as ineffective and the wrong approach to preventing terrorism and as "one more obsolete technology that does not provide any more security" in the words of Israeli security expert Rafi Sela,

Whereas the Allied Pilots Association and TSA employees have formally objected to the use of these full body scanners,

Whereas the use of these scanners to generate and store a naked image of your body represents an unwarranted search under the 4th Amendment that violates every U.S. citizen’s right to be secure in their person,

Whereas the Austin Airport Advisory Commission unanimously passed a resolution opposing the introduction of full body scanners and aggressive “pat downs” by TSA at ABIA,

Be it resolved that as the operating authority controlling ABIA and permitting the TSA to provide security services there, the City of Austin should take necessary steps to prevent the installation of these scanners at the airport.

John Bird-dogs worthless Chinese stocks

2011-01-18T22:10:00.004-06:00

I found this article of local interest: Austin investor John Bird uncovered fraud in some US-listed Chinese stocks, and he went about shorting the stocks and telling others to expose the fraud. Interesting story.

Getting To Civility

2011-01-16T12:20:00.003-06:00

In our 24/7 instant reaction media cycle, we often see observers draw generalizations or to jump to conclusions well before the facts are in. The recent Tuscon shooting tragedy devolved into a travesty of finger-pointing and name-calling, after many political observers on the left falsely accused those on the right of inciting the violent shooting. In the end, the perp, Jared Loughner turned out to have vaguely leftist political views (hated GW Bush), and was a drug user and mentally unstable individual who had threatened others in the past.

Now, if violence-infused rhetoric were responsible, then we would have to ask about how much these statements influenced us away from 'civility':

* “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Barack Obama in July 2008

* “I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008

* “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.” Barack Obama on banks, March 2009

* “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Barack Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

* “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.” Barack Obama on the private sector, June 2010

* “A Republican majority in Congress would mean ‘hand-to-hand combat’ on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy.” Barack Obama, October 6, 2010

* “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Barack Obama to Latinos, October 2010

It has been curious to see the left spout off on this and other events, exposing their own prejudices and double standards along the way, by accusing the right of doing things that the left does to a greater extent. Michelle Malkin's The Progressive Climate of Hate was a definitive retort to the bogus claims about right-wing rhetoric. The 'progressive' activists spout not just violent rhetoric, but we observe vile death threats, calls and desires to see conservatives dead, violent attacks on military recruiting stations, violence at 'immigration rights' marches, attacks by progressives on political enemies, campus assaults by progressives at conservative speakers. The list goes depressingly on and on.

In an ironic twist, one of the victims of the shooting, Eric Fuller, is himself in trouble for making death threats to a Tea Party member. Apparently, he's a liberal of the "I demand civility and I'll kill anyone who disagrees with me" form of PC police.

Did President Obama's fine speech in Tucson get us to civility? Alas, it failed to acknowledge a few key truths, leaving allegations that are unfounded 'out there'. For one, the left and the Democrats are incapable of owning up to the fact that their political rhetoric, even President Obama's himself, is as violence-tinged ("we bring a gun") as anyone on the right. Such rhetorical devices are out there. Targets on maps? Used by both sides. Slanders and slurs and demeaning personal insults degrade our politics, and yet that seems to be the 'meat' of what MSNBC serves up these days. Nobody has been subjected to such attacks more than Gov Sarah Palin. Will more attacks on Palin get us to civility? Hardly.

Getting to 'civility' starts with a recognition of a few central facts: First, the rhetorical devices that involve metaphors of violence are practiced by both sides, and both sides 'fight' for their issues; second, that neither side has a monopoly on virtue or vice; third, that those responsible for actual violence are those who engage in it, and nobody else. Most important, using these 'calls for civility' as cynical political ploys to smear your opponents is itself uncivil and wrong.

Police your own, heal thyself and look to your OWN actions first. Actions always speak louder than words. On this score, we should be not that impressed with a President calling on others to be civil, and I will be far more impressed if and when he starts taking his own advice.

We have had the most divisive leadership in Washington in a long time. Will Obama, Reid and Pelosi change their ways? Sittting down with Republicans on how to rollback and repeal part of the widely unpopular Obamacare bill, and Senator Reid actually allowing a vote in the U.S. Senate on it would be a step towards civility in DC. Recognizing that the Tea party is and should be a legitimate voice in the political arena would be a step forward. Declaring an end to the political of personal destruction would help. Actions always speak louder than words, and it is the actions - not the speeches - of our leaders that will build up or tear down our civil discourse.

Texas Alliance for Life & Board of the Texas Republican Assembly Endorse Paxton for Speaker of the Texas House

2010-12-29T20:20:00.009-06:00

Ken Paxton got the thumbs up, and thus Joe Straus the thumbs down, today from two groups that define social and fiscal conservatism in Texas.

Texas Alliance for Life (TAL), a pro-life organization that has played a key role in identifying and promoting pro-life legislators and pro-life legislation in Texas, gave Ken Paxton the nod and at the same time sub-headlined its news release, "Incumbent Joe Straus not considered pro-life." Ouch! That must make Joe Straus a bit uncomfortable considering how much his team keeps trying to convince everyone that he is pro-life.

Likewise, the Board of Directors of the Texas Republican Assembly (TxRA), a group that self identifies as the Republican Wing of the Republican Party, a fiscal and social conservative affiliate of the Republican Party of Texas (RPT) (which nonetheless is independent of the RPT since the TxRA and its local RA chapters' primary function is to endorse in contested Republican Primary races ), chose in its press release to focus on Paxton's conservative Republican credentials since, the release asserts, "[t]he race for speaker in the Texas House is the first fight for conservative principles that lawmakers will face in January."

Included below are the two endorsement announcements in their entirety:

NEWS RELEASE:
Texas Alliance for Life Endorses Ken Paxton for Texas House

Speaker Incumbent Joe Straus not considered pro-life

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 29, 2010

CONTACT:
Joe Pojman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
512.736.3708 (mobile)
512.477.1244 (office)
joe@texasallianceforlife.org

AUSTIN -- Today Texas Alliance for Life publicly endorses Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and urges all incumbent and newly-elected Representatives to support him in that race. Texas Alliance for Life also encourages pro-life Texans to contact their state representatives and urge them to support Rep. Paxton.

"We enthusiastically endorse pro-life Representative Ken Paxton for Speaker of the Texas House," said Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. "Texas deserves a committed, pro-life Speaker like Ken Paxton who will work to protect our most vulnerable Texans: the more than 80,000 innocent unborn children who die each year in Texas' abortion facilities. Ken has great integrity, and we believe he will allow the House to vote on greatly-needed, highly popular, pro-life bills that were passed last session by the Texas Senate but failed to pass the Texas House."

Pojman also announced that the vote for speaker will be used in Texas Alliance for Life's determination of the pro-life rating for each State Representative. He stated, "We intend to score the vote for speaker because we believe it will likely be among the most important votes in the 82nd Session."

Pojman said, "Texas Alliance for Life joins the large chorus of pro-life organizations and individuals who are asking House members not to support incumbent Speaker Joe Straus. Two years ago, Texas Alliance for Life voiced concern that under Speaker Straus, pro-life legislation would not pass the House. Unfortunately, our fears were realized."

Pojman continued, "Speaker Straus cannot be called pro-life. He has failed to pledge to oppose public funding for Planned Parenthood, received a $1,000 campaign contribution from a Planned Parenthood PAC, and has been given high praise by Planned Parenthood for his 'tireless efforts' during the last legislative session."[1],[2] In fact, Mr. Straus has praised Planned Parenthood, saying "they do so much good on the family planning and the women's health issues."[3]

In 2009 two pro-life bills that passed the Senate -- Senate Bill 182, the sonogram bill, and Senate Bill 1098, the "Choose Life" license plate bill to promote infant adoption -- died in the House without a floor vote. Both of these bills were strongly supported by Texas Alliance for Life.[4]

Rep. Ken Paxton is demonstrably pro-life and unequivocally opposes public funding for Planned Parenthood. On Monday, November 16, Texas Alliance for Life's standard candidate questionnaires were delivered, by email and by hand, to the offices of all announced candidates for speaker. Rep. Paxton responded within hours and answered all the questions[5] in agreement with Texas Alliance for Life's position, indicating that he supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade; supports a law banning partial-birth abortion; opposes public funding for Planned Parenthood; supports the current state law that recognizes the personhood of an unborn child beginning at conception and legally protects that child against violent crimes like of homicide and assault, performed against the mother's wishes; supports a ban on human cloning; and supports a sonogram law.

Speaker Straus has failed to answer the questionnaire.

Rep. Paxton has a strong history of authoring and supporting pro-life legislation supported by Texas Alliance for Life. For example, in 2007, Paxton authored House Bill 225, with the bipartisan support of 50 House members, to prevent state public funding of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. In 2007 Paxton authored the "Choose Life" license plate bill, House Bill 224. In 2009, Paxton co-authored the sonogram bill, House Bill 36, as well as the "Choose Life" license plate bill, House Bill 109.

By contrast, in 2007, Representative Straus co-authored House Bill 2704, a phony ban on human cloning. House Bill 2704 would allow the creation of living, human embryos by any "method other than fertilization" (i.e., human cloning) and would require the destruction of those embryos before implantation.

[1] In June 2008, Straus accepted a $1,000 campaign contribution from Planned Parenthood's San Antonio PAC.

[2] Planned Parenthood Trust of San Antonio and South Central Texas' fall 2009 newsletter praised Straus for his "tireless efforts on behalf of Texas women and children during the last legislative session." Planned Parenthood receives at least $20 million per year in Texas in appropriated public funds. Planned Parenthood currently operates 13 abortion facilities throughout the state is purchasing their 14th in Lubbock.

[3] Texas Monthly Talks, Evan Smith Interview with Speaker Joe Straus, Jan. 28, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTehIlCMMCE.

[4] Senate Bill 182 was scheduled for a House floor vote on the last possible day. Senate Bill 1098 and the companion bill House Bill 109, failed to pass the House Transportation Committee. The Straus-appointed committee chairman delayed these bills in their respective committees.

[5] See Speaker_Questionnaire_Paxton.

Texas Republican Assembly Board of Directors Endorses Ken Paxton for Texas Speaker of the House

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Michael Gallops, mgallops@texasra.org

DALLAS – Today, the Texas Republican Assembly Board of Directors announced their endorsement of State Representative Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) for Speaker in the Texas House of Representatives.

The race for speaker in the Texas House is the first fight for conservative principles that lawmakers will face in January. In November, we saw an unprecedented mandate given to the Republican Party, and we believe that the interests of all Texans will be best served with a conservative leader in the House of Representatives. With that in mind, the TXRA Board of Directors opted to endorse in this race.

Representative Paxton is the very definition of a conservative Republican. He has ranked among the most consistent conservatives in the Texas House throughout his tenure as state representative, and our board of directors is confident in his ability to lead the Texas House beginning in January.

The Republican Assembly board is demanding that Republicans caucus and select the speaker without input from the Democrats. We are endorsing Ken Paxton and are recommending that legislators support and vote for him.

The board of directors chose to endorse in the speaker's race without the membership of the Republican Assembly due to the time constraints in this race. The Texas Republican Assembly is comprised of chapters around the state of Texas. The organization regularly endorses in Republican primary contests, and this year endorsed conservatives such as incoming state representatives David Simpson, Erwin Cain, Charles Perry, and others.

The Texas Republican Assembly is a grassroots movement to take back the Republican Party for the vast and disenfranchised majority of its members: Reagan conservatives, who believe in small government, lower taxes, free market capitalism, a strong defense, the right to life, and a decent and moral America.

####

Disclosure: This author of this blog report is a member of the TxRA Board of Directors.

Census: 27 million more people in US since 2000

2010-12-21T13:29:00.005-06:00

Census observations by CIS, Center for Immigration Studies, highlight the key driver for massive increases in our population - immigration:

Immigration Drives Huge Increase; Since 1980, Population Up 82 million, Equal to Calif., Texas & N.Y.

WASHINGTON (December 21, 2010) – Most of the media coverage of the 2010 Census will likely focus on the country's changing racial composition and the redistribution of seats in Congress. But neither of these is the most important finding. Rather, it is the dramatic increase in the size of the U.S. population itself that has profound implications for our nation's quality of life and environment. Most of the increase has been, and will continue to be, a result of one federal policy: immigration. Projections into the future from the Census Bureau show we are on track to add 130 million more people to the U.S. population in the just the next 40 years, primarily due to future immigration.
• Immigration accounted for three-quarters of population growth during the decade. Census Bureau data found 13.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the last 10 years; there were also about 8.2 million births to immigrant women during the decade.1
• The numerical increase of 27.3 million this decade is exceeded by only two other decades in American history.
• Without a change in immigration policy, the nation is projected to add roughly 30 million new residents each decade for the foreseeable future.
• Assuming the current ratio of population to infrastructure, adding roughly 30 each decade will mean:
o building and paying for 8,000 new schools every 10 years;
o developing land to accommodate 11.5 million new housing units every 10 years;
o constructing enough roads to handle 23.6 million more vehicles every 10 years.

As for the political ramifications of this, Texas will gain 4 seats in reapportionment. It's Cens-mas for Republicans, as Republican-leaning states like Texas are gaining seats from northern liberal states like New York and Illinois.

Dan Neil Contests HD48 Election

2010-12-20T20:15:00.002-06:00

Dan Neil, the Republican candidate for State Representative, district 48, has filed a contest to the election results. There were several irregularities found during the election recount, which reported him as behind Democrat Donna Howard by a mere 12 votes. His campaign released the following statement:

“With all the mistakes made by Travis County election officials that we have seen and discovered, we believe that a contest must be filed for every legal vote to be counted. I believe that when all of the legally cast ballots are counted that I will be the new representative for House District 48.

“Travis County did not provide us with all of the information we requested, but from the information given to us, we have found several mistakes made by election officials. Many of the overseas ballots were improperly marked, and the county remade these ballots when they realized their mistake. They compounded their mistake when 3 of the straight-Democratic ballots were not remade and their votes counted in this election, while the intent of the other overseas voters was disregarded. If they counted 3 of the straight ticket overseas voters, all of those should be counted.

“During the recount we found several straight-Republican ballots that had been remade, and we requested copies of all the remade overseas ballots. To this day, Travis County has not provided us with the copies of all of the remade overseas ballots, and the only way we can view them is to file the contest and go through the process of discovery. I sincerely believe that when all these votes are counted, there will be a new state representative in House District 48.

“We also found mail ballots that should have been counted, but they were not, due to mistakes made by election officials. Two ballots were not counted even though their ballot signatures match their registration applications. One ballot was rejected because it was mailed from within the county even though the law does not say it can be rejected for that reason. We have also found about 1900 felons who may have been ineligible to vote. We are in the process of confirming whether these voters should have been allowed to vote.

“According to the final vote tally after the recount, we are also missing two votes. On November 18th, the final vote tally was 51,554 votes. During the recount process, we found one vote not counted that should have been counted, so the final vote tally should have been 51,555. Instead, the final vote tally is 51,553. Where are those two votes? No matter how we look at this, the numbers just don’t add up. This is just another example of why we must file a contest to make sure that every legal vote has been counted.”

Politifact's Lie of the Year

2010-12-18T10:04:00.004-06:00

Politifact has labelled "Government-run health care" as their 'lie of the year.'

The Lie of the Year is that Politifact is unbiased and in a position to judge others' words. We have noticed errors, omissions, biases and a keen desire to push a liberal POV on the various "politifact" websites. This is not surprising as it is written by the same journalists who write who purvey liberal bias in their articles and op-eds. It's a bias exposed this year by the uncovering of the "Jorno-List" a list of left-liberal journalists who cooperated on getting the politically correct 'narrative' out there to advance liberal agenda in the media.

This detailed take-down of Polifact's egregious claim identifies multiple problems with Politifact's baised story:

http://subloviate.blogspot.com/2010/12/politifacts-lie-of-year-for-2010.html

Bias in sources is one - using a Professor who opined in favor of the health-care bill as an 'objective quote' on why 'government-run' is not accurate. That source said: "The label 'government takeover" has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a 'takeover.' "

The claim that using the term 'government takeover' is a lie is based on an absolutist assumption that anything less than 100% govt ownership is not 'control' or 'takeover'. This is based on a failure to acknowledge that government regulation of private action takes control out of private sector hands. The Sublime Bloviations blog goes point-by-point as to how that is not a valid way (or at minimum the only way) to look at 'Government takeover'. Regulation is control, and control is a 'takeover'; Obamacare is a massive increase in Government regulation and control on healthcare, ergo a 'takeover'.

Many lies have been told about ObamaCare, but most have been told by Obama and the sponsors and supporters. They lied about getting to keep your care (nope, regulations have forced millions to lose coverage they had, from children-only to medicare advantage), lied about the deficit impact (it is going to cost trillions when fully implemented), lied about 'death panels' (denied they existed then tweaked the policy on QALY that was in question), lied about alternatives (claimed there was none), lied about constitutionality (denied the fact that Obamacare mandate really is NOT in the Constitution at all and an honest Judge - like happened this week - would rule it unconstitutional).

But those are minor fibs. The 'big fib' to them is the 'takeover' meme. So according to these liberals, Government can mandate you buy health insurance, mandate what that insurance must or must not contain in exchanges, subsidize millions with govt funding, have govt panels determining the standards of care, have govt subsidies and taxes to enforce compliance, and smother all 50 states with forced massive expansions of govt-run medicaid and chip, tax medical devices and tanning salons, and add 50 bureaucracies to run all this ... do ALL this, and since it is not a 100% complete Govt-owned entity, but rather private sector insurance now harrassed, regulated and dictated by the Govt ... then its not honest to call it "Government-run health care." Even though Govt spends 60% of every health care dollar under this plan and the other 40% spent privately is almost all under the direction, dictation and regulation of the Federal Government.

"Government-run health care" is perhaps the most honest 4 word description you can come up for the Rube Goldberg device. Certainly less off-target than the lies such as:

"You will get to keep your healthcare plan" or "This bill will not increase the deficit"
and of course the old chestnut "There is no liberal media bias".

Speakers race is Establishment vs Grassroots

2010-12-17T14:34:00.006-06:00

The Tea Party Message to Texas Republican Reps:

“This is a grassroots-up, not a Legislature-down caucus,”
- North Texas Tea Party.

They have a list of the Straus pledgers and non-pledgers, the committed Paxton supporters and others. This is an 'insider' versus 'grassroots' race. The status quo and incumbent-friendly Establishment sees no need to change from Straus, but the conservative grassroots does see a need for a bolder new direction and more active conservative leadership. This need, and the failures in 2009 (e.g. on Voter ID), is why most of the conservative activists have asked for a real 'conservative Speaker'.

It's why the Tea Party groups are agitating for grassroots opposition to Joe Straus. Straus, in turn, claims to be conservative, just as in the 2010 primaries many establishment Republicans touted their conservative bona fides.

The real question is: Do the current State Reps want to represent the establishment or their own grassroots supporters? Perhaps State Reps need to survey their own clubs, supporters and GOP exec committees to get an answer to the question "Who should I represent?" The 'insiders' and the 'establishment' are looking at the Tea Party and grassroots as the barbarians at the gates. Many of us see much of status quo special-interest political 'establishment' to be a problem not the solution.

The Tea Party website lists Smithee as a Straus pledger. Here is a Redstate article from a Rep Ken Paxton constituent touting Rep Paxton for Speaker, and the following comment was made:

I had already emailed and faxed my rep John Smithee and he was sitting on a fence at the time. I “requested” he put in writing who he would be supporting and I received a letter back from him which said basically he had not made up his mind one way or another and would be reviewing info, etc. Kinda disappointing as Amarillo is one of the most conversative cities in Texas. But I’ll contact him again.

So Rep Smithee, who "pledged" support for Speaker Straus is in reality undecided. If there are more calls and more pressure from the grassroots, more and more State Reps will remain in the 'undecided' column up until the end. We know that the Establishment has spoken - they paid money to Straus to spread around to help candidates. If the Speakers race is Establishment vs Grassroots, the question is - how loudly will the grassroots raise its voice? That will determine the result.

What Just Happened in the Lame-Duck Congress

2010-12-17T12:27:00.005-06:00

"Appropriately, the tax bill passed and the spending bill died on the 237th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party." -NRO

Despite the attempts by Reid and Pelosi to govern against the will of the people as expressed on Nov 2nd, America did well yesterday. A very bad pork-filled spending bill was stopped, and the possibility of a massive tax hike on January 1 was stopped as well. Good news.

The New York Times spins hopefully, asking: Could the lame-duck be a big win for Obama?

These are not 'victories' for Obama, but a victory against folly. It's dishonest to talk of this compromise as a 'tax cut' bill, all it does is merely extend the current rates in place for 2 more years. It's a status quo tax rate extension. As such, any claims of immediate success or tragedy are wrong - it is more of the same. No, it will not be bad for the deficit - not compared with trillions in stimulus, spending, pork and govt takeovers that are the real cause of the deficit.

The good part of the tax bill is that with the continued Bush tax rates, the middle-class pays less than they would have (thank you President Bush for that middle-class tax cut that the Democrats seem to refuse to acknowledge you made happen back in 2003), and with the overall tax rates maintained and payroll tax holiday in place for a year, the economy is on surer footing, and economic uncertainty is less. Yet it's not as if this will instantly supercharge the economy. Unemployment benefit extension may indeed continue to do what his has been doing - induce slower returns of employees to the workforce at a time when a new job may mean a downsized salary for many. The rest of it - ethanol subsidies, some of Obama's trinkets - are of no use to our economy, and so only a 'win' for the deal-making that is so wrong with DC.

While the tax which is why the loss of the $1.1 trillion spending bill is both more consequential, important and GOOD for America. That pork-infested earmark-laden over-spending bill is everything that is wrong with DC politics, and Reid's attempt to cram it down the senate was an act of political and economic sabotage against American taxpayers and voters. The exposure of the earmarks had chastened Republicans to get off the gravy train and left the bill bereft of support, even though Reid wanted to continue the over-spending past the expiration date. Hint: The Expiration date for over-spending, massive deficits and Government overreach was Nov 2nd.

Now the lame-duck Congress has only one responsibility: Go Home.

The only win for Obama here is how the combination of incompetence and extremism on his own side made an easy tax deal seem hard (causing him to look smaller and less capable than his predecessor-advisor Bill Clinton), and how he avoided looking as foolish as Pelosi and Co. by actually realizing that the Nov 2nd election did have consequences. Yet his churlish, disrespectful and ungrateful way of talking about his Republican counterparts (after he made his deal) and even his liberal critics shows both his leadership skills and his skin are both quite thin. I am not the only one who noticed that Obama blew the politics of the compromise. It will be a rough 2 years.

As D-Day for the Texas Speaker of the House Race Approaches...

2010-12-16T18:16:00.009-06:00

"The hour grows late, and Gandalf the Grey rides to Isengard seeking my council."—Saruman, as Gandalf rides into Isengard unaware that his former master has sold out to Sauron, the Dark Lord. From the movie, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Based on responses to my previous inquiries into his stance, I can attest that Representative-Elect Jason Isaac has been consistent in his non-commitment to any particular Speaker candidate and of his commitment to "vote his district" on the question. I don't know if he is trying to be extra careful to hold a delicate balance because of Straus' role in aiding and abetting Patrick Rose in the (soon former) Representative's failed attempt to fend off Jason's successful campaign, or if Jason simply thinks he still has not fully heard from his District.

Well, if the Hays County Republican Party is any reflection of District 45's Hays county constituents, the AAS story linked below indicates that Isaac need now only get constituent input from Blanco and Caldwell counties to know how to "vote his district" on the question of who to tap for Speaker of the House:

Hays County Republican Party to Isaac: Don't pick Straus
By Corrie MacLaggan
Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 01:36 PM

The Hays County Republican Party this week passed a resolution urging GOP state Rep.-elect Jason Isaac of Dripping Springs not to vote for Joe Straus for House speaker, according to a report by Jen Biundo in the Hays Free Press. Bud Wymore, chairman of the county party, was quoted in the Free Press as saying that there "is a place in the Republican Party for people like Joe Straus that are more moderate—it's just not in leadership positions."

Isaac was quoted in the article as saying that "it's good to hear from people in the district" but that "it's not going to force me into making a decision one way or another."

Isaac, who defeated state Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, told me this month that he has not pledged to any speaker candidate and is still undecided.

Straus, the current House speaker, is being challenged Rep. Warren Chisum of Pampa and Rep. Ken Paxton of McKinney. All three are Republicans. Some conservative activists around the state have mounted an anti-Straus campaign, saying he isn't conservative enough given the fact that Republicans dramatically increased their majority in last month's elections.

For the full story from the local Hays County perspective, see Hays GOP: Say no to Joe Straus. Note that Hays County Executive Committee joins a growing list of county executive committees asking for right change (i.e. a more conservative speaker of the Texas House, to match the Nov. 2nd voter mandate).

On a related note, David Jennings at Big Jolly Politics blog has been one of the loudest pro-Straus voices for some time. Yesterday, he turned up information on Straus and appraisal caps that does not meet with his approval or that of many of his readers. Jennings was a blogger at the now mothballed Lone Star Times back when folks were fighting for appraisal caps years ago, and he was one of pro-caps advocates' biggest allies in those early days of blogging. His post on the issue is very interesting and actually helps make the case against Straus (even though Jennings refuses to change sides).

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to share this status update from Warren Chisum's Facebook profile page:

There is no two ways about it: the Republican House members must caucus and unite behind a single conservative candidate for Speaker. If there is no caucus I will remain a candidate for Speaker when the Legislature meets on January 11, 2011. - Posted Friday, December 10th at 1:25 pm.

Now that we have an ubermajority of Republicans in the Texas House (a first in Texas history), some of whom, however, are of recent Democrat extraction and others of whom are from the ranks of moderate/liberal Republicans (some would say of RINO extraction) we need more than ever to have a Speaker who can lead and appoint from the right, rather than the left as Speaker Straus has done on average.

Even though the origins of the Straus Speakership is commonly known (i.e. "the Gang of 11" RINOs, hating the leadership style of conservative Republican Speaker Tom Craddick and willing to have as speaker anybody but Craddick (ABC), a sentiment shared with their close Democrat relations, drew lots (so to speak) and the lot fell on a virtually unknown Representative from San Antonio, Joe Straus, and with the aid of the 65 democrats, some of who were apparently offered Chairmanship positions, Straus was handed the Speaker's gavel that Craddick had welded so conservatively—and which the Democrats and ABC Republicans thought so unfairly and heavy handedly), Straus seems to be getting a free pass from the press in his patently false denial that he was chosen to be speaker by 65 Democrats and 11 Republicans.

Check it out here in this Star Telegram story.

I wish to point out just one excerpt from that story:

The San Antonio Republican took questions from attendees for about 30 minutes. Most were related to the Speaker's Race. Straus repeatedly described attacks on him as misinformation coming "from the Internet."

This sounds very much like Team Straus' previous assertion that "outside forces" were trying to influence the Speaker's race. Speaker Straus seems to fail to realize that "from the Internet" = "outside forces" = "We the People" = "Who Reps are supposed to represent." So this is just another attempt by Straus to silence opposition coming from the grass roots, from "We the People." That alone means Straus is not a conservative, as he portends.

The sequence of Straus' rise to power and the Star Telegram story seems not to be supported by the journalistic evidence.

Cases in point:

While Straus will continue to collect supporters, the truth is that, when it really counted, he had far more support from Democrats than Republicans.—Austin American Statesman, Jan. 6, 2009 (Gardner Selby)

Straus wants to keep the job he won last year, when a handful of House Republicans and most of the chamber's Democrats chose him to oust Republican Tom Craddick of Midland. Chisum and some Republican activists don't like the fact that it was mostly Democrats who chose the GOP speaker. Austin American Statesman, Oct. 18, 2010 (Jason Embry)

Additional related stories:
(1) Straus says he'll win race for Speaker
(2) County GOP leaders seek caucus on electing new House speaker
(3) Here is one from the Queer (their term, not mine) perspective:
UPDATE: Chisum Remains in Speakers Race
(4) And from another left leaning blogger rehashing the anti-Semite line:
Another Setback in the GOP Outreach To Minority Communities
(5) All Travis Monitor posts mentioning Straus

November 2nd reminder - Democrats lost, big

2010-12-07T21:18:00.004-06:00

This week, President Obama is calling the minority party Republicans 'hostage takers' for having the courage to stick firmly to the right position on taxes (don't raise them now!), and his own party is revolting over Obama's compromise with Republicans. The partisan liberal Democrats are so used to arrogantly dictating terms of bills, they are unable to cope with the new reality and are having fits over extending all current tax rates. This begs a simple question - if the Democrats have a different position, why didn't they enact their position any time in the past 20 months, when they had the power? Since the results of the last election, the new reality is that liberal Democrats do not have a monopoly on power.

Which makes the temper tantrum on the left against Obama all the more remarkable. If the Democrats revolt against Obama's compromise, it will seal their fate in multiple ways. First, the expiring tax cuts will be a huge tax INCREASE that hits everyone, and the Democrats will be to blame for the economic damage hurting the American people. Second, backing out of this deal will seal President Obama's fate as an impotent weakling who caves to no effect; it will lame-duck the President. Third, it will show America that the Democrats are STILL not listening, and encourage a further shellacking in 2012.

Here's a reminder on the Democrat wipeout in November from the Houston Chronicle: Democrat losses severe at county level in Texas:

More than 105 Democratic county officeholders, including 16 incumbent county judges lost their re-election bids. Only one Democratic county judge up for re-election survived. Victoria County Judge Don Pozzi captured another term on his 63rd birthday.

Republicans swept Galveston and Hays counties. Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia lost. And the Yellow Dog Democrat country of East Texas — where even a yellow dog could win if it ran as a Democrat — passed into history from Texarkana to Beaumont.

"The untold story is the takeover of the counties," Texas Republican Chairman Steve Munisteri said.

Munisteri said the victories not only picked up GOP officeholders, but the newly elected Republicans also will become spokesmen for the local party and its issues.

The party is expecting to have a net gain of about 300 elected officials by the time all the information is gathered, Munisteri said. The Republican Party held 802 local, state and federal offices in 1990. After Jan. 1, 2011, the Republicans likely will hold about 1,673 elective offices in Texas, Munisteri said.

December SREC meeting - and the news is? ....

2010-12-07T21:07:00.000-06:00

The major media is many things, but at the top of the list, quite predictable! We could predict that all the major papers would endorse Bill White, while the voters endorsed Rick Perry, and it happened.

At the December (2010) State Republican Executive Committee meetings, one of the items in our folder was a "Press Packet". What do you expect the press would be talking about in the wake of the Texas shellacking of Democrat state house candidates? Well, they were talking about a spirited debate between two of my fellow SREC members regarding the Republican Speaker (of the House) race, and almost miraculously, they managed to conjure up a spirit of anti-semitism, which was immediately embraced by our more radical Democrat blogger friends:

SREC member wants to oust Speaker Joe Straus because he’s Jewish, doesn’t hate gays enough

Posted on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:09pm

So here's my take. As a new SREC member (who started in June, 2010), I'm still idealistic about representing SD-14 constituents, as opposed to airing my own opinions, and fortuitously my opinions have lined up nicely with my constituents' demands (so far, those I've heard from want a more conservative speaker, and not Straus). There was some debate at the last Travis Executive Committee meeting regarding asking our outstanding chairman, Dr. Rosemary Edwards, to sign a letter asking for a more conservative speaker, on behalf of the Travis GOP, but there was a clear consensus for her to do so - and she did.

But what's the real story here? In my view, the real news - which the media still can't bring themselves to accept - is that the Tea Party pushed the GOP to big gains, and we're going to have a great 2011 session no matter who the Texas Speaker is!

Oh yeah, and there's that incredible accomplishment of the new Texas GOP, under Chairman Steve Munisteri's leadership, eliminating a huge debt AND contributing campaign resources to GOP victories, in just months after Steve took over as Chair. That, in fact, is real news. But it's so good for the GOP, can the major media stomach it? We'll see. Isn't it great that our political activism, and successes, exist in comfortable independence from a biased media?

TAX CUTS HELP DEFICITS, JOBS

2010-12-06T21:43:00.007-06:00

By Bob Ward

(updated 12/07/2010)

Even though President Obama has agreed to extending the Bush tax cuts for all income levels of taxpayers in return for GOP concessions on unemployment benefits, some Congressional Democrats are still opposed claiming the tax cuts will add to the deficit by reducing Federal revenues. It’s anybody’s guess whether they are lying or just ignorant of the historical record which shows that just the opposite is true: lower taxes produce greater revenue for the Federal government, not less.

The Bush tax cuts did not diverge from this record. In July, 2006, Michael Franc of The Heritage Foundation reported that Federal revenues rose by $206 billion (13 per cent) during the first nine months of the fiscal year when he was writing. That increase followed that previous year's “record surge in revenues,” when Federal revenue grew by $274 billion (15 per cent). These increases following the Bush tax cuts allowed the White House to lower its projected budget deficit by more than $100 billion.

Franc noted that in the two years before the Bush tax cuts U.S. economic growth averaged about one per cent and unemployment was at six per cent. After the tax cuts, he said, economic growth averaged four per cent for three years and the unemployment rate dropped to an “historic low” of 4.6 per cent.

Economist Daniel Mitchell was not surprised by these results. “Lower taxes,” he said, “leads to more work, saving and investment. It's not exactly rocket science."

The experience with the Bush tax cuts was not unique. A similar result occurred when Ronald Reagan cut taxes. The Heritage Foundation notes that annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level. Total tax revenues for the decade rose by 99.4 per cent, just short of double. Heritage also noted that Federal revenues had been dropping in the years just prior to Reagan’s tax cut.

Once upon a time even Democrats understood economics. President Jack Kennedy observed: “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that . . . an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits... In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

Kennedy’s solution to low tax revenues was to reduce the top tax rate (the one paid by Barack Obama’s hated millionaires) from more than 90 per cent down to 70 per cent. As a result, tax revenues went from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 per cent.

Kennedy, Reagan and Bush just retold an old story. Way back in the 1920s tax rates were slashed from over 70 per cent to less than 25 per cent. And revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary during the 1920s, had figured out that when taxes are too high, people just don’t pay them. Wealthy taxpayers, the target of the high marginal rates, simply withdraw their money from productive business and invest instead in tax-exempt securities or other lawful methods of avoiding having their income taxed. The result, Mellon observed, is that capital is diverted into channels “which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.”

Democrats have to choose. Do they want a tax policy that increases revenue and creates jobs, or do they want to indulge in class-warfare by opposing any tax cuts that might benefit a wealthy person.

Dan Neil got so close, and yet...

2010-12-02T19:52:00.004-06:00

As the saying goes, "It ain't over till the Fat Lady sings". Well tonight, after a two day recount, the fat lady started singing with regard to the Texas House District 48 race. Every paper ballot that had made it past the various ballot boards was examined by Republican and Democratic counters to determined the voter intent. Every electronically cast vote made on the eSlate machines was supposedly verified.

The final tally is as follows:

Donna Howard 25,023 votes
Dan Neil 25,011 votes
margin 12 votes

The margin of difference shrunk 25% from what it was before the recount, when it was just 16 votes. That's 25% human or paper ballot reader error in the spread between the two candidates' votes!

Dan Neil, in a post-recount TV interview, did not take the bait when he was asked by the reporter if he thought there might have been some malfeasance involved rather than human or machine error. He said that he simply wanted to eliminate error in the vote count and joked that "he does not make errors "but understands that "others sometimes do." There is still a possibility that error remains in the count and for that reason he is not quite ready to concede.

In a TV interview immediately following the unofficial results of the recount, in response to a question about what Dan Neil's recourse would be after the vote had been canvassed and reported to the Secretary of State, Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir said that it would be up to the Legislature to consider any challenge to the results and that the Legislature would have full and final authority to seat either Dan or Donna according to the will of the majority of its Members.

Dan said he has no plans at this time to make such a challenge. However, he remains concerned about some of the overseas ballots. In particular, he is concerned about those ballots that were supposed to be marked to limit the vote to Federal races only, i.e. the Congressional race (for voters living indefinitely outside of the country) but which were improperly marked by the County Clerk's office prior to mailing them to persons overseas who were/are in the military as well as to persons who were not residing indefinitely outside the country. His concern is that all voters who had a legitimate right to vote in the HD 48 race have their vote counted according to their intent, no matter the outcome.

I served as a ballot counter and in that capacity looked at the ballots in three different precincts (247, 379, and 364). Of all the ballots we counted there were no ballot issues that resulted in a change of the vote--so those precincts were recount neutral. Neil won the combined ballots in those precincts by 3 votes.

The ballots we counted included some of the limited ballots. For these ballots the non-Federal race choices were not all marked ineligible in the same manner on each ballot and in no case were the Straight Ticket choices marked ineligible. The recount ballot board Chairman, Judge Bill Aleshire said that the Straight Ticket choices were not eligible on a limited ballot and that the ballots should have been so marked--thus, Neil's claim that these ballots were marked improperly. I wondered if some of these ballots might have been mailed to voters who had not checked the box (c) A U.S. CITIZEN RESIDING OUTSIDE THE U.S. INDEFINITELY on their REGISTRATION AND ABSENTEE BALLOT REQUEST - FEDERAL POST CARD APPLICATION (FPCA)?

There were also some ballots by email that we looked at. The votes on each of these ballots had been made into (transferred to) a full size paper ballot. We saw both the printout of the original email (made to) ballot as well as the full size (made from) ballot that was used for the count. Most of these were limited ballots and since they were transmitted electronically, there was no question that the voter could only vote in the eligible race (the Congressional race) as that was the only race presented on the electronic ballot. Each of the other emailed (made to) ballots was simply a small version of a full size (made from) ballot with all races listed and eligible to vote in. I'm not sure how a voter requests an email ballot nor what the controls are on the eligibility and submission process.

There was one ambiguous ballot that my group counted and another similar ballot that I looked at from a precinct we didn't count but the bin of which I was asked to go through to look for certain ballots that poll watchers wanted copies of.

On the ballot that we counted, all boxes next to Republican candidates were clearly marked, but in the HD 48 race the check mark in the box beside Neil had been scratched out almost to the point that the box was completely shaded in and the box beside Howard was checked twice. Additionally, after Howard's name, in the white space, was a smaller check mark with a curved tail, unlike the other check marks on the ballot both in style and weight (it appeared to me to be from another's hand). I said that I could not determine the voter's intent, the Democrat counter objected and Chairman Aleshire ruled it as a vote for Howard pointing out in the process that he does not consider how voters vote in other races when judging voter intent in a particular race.

On the ballot from the other precinct, in which I didn't count, I saw the same voting pattern in terms of Republican Party votes but this time there was an X through the Neil box and a check in the Howard box, plus the markings beside Neil included what appeared to be someone's initials.

That pretty much covers the "exciting stuff." Now for a couple of sobering points:

There were under votes in which other races on the ballot above and below the HD 48 race were voted on a ballot but the HD 48 race was not voted. In a contest this close that under-vote seems to me to be a critical mistake for a voter to make, i.e. to be knowledgeable enough, or simply willing, to make a choice in the race for their State Representative.

Need it be said again, "EVERY VOTE COUNTS" and every effort to earn a vote counts. The candidate, the donors, the volunteers and the paid campaign staff could have done more. I could have done more to turn out the vote for Dan Neil.

It still may not be the final line or final note of the Fat Lady's song with regard to the HD 48 race but we have all been politically exercised and educated no matter how the song ends. I know from observing and interacting with Dan Neil that he just wants the legitimate intent of each and every voter to count and to be counted, no matter the outcome.

Liberty Institute Says House Ethics Committee Meeting Was Illegal

2010-12-01T21:32:00.006-06:00

This morning, Liberty Institute issued a press release (the text of which is copied below) concerning the General Investigating and Ethics committee hearing that took place last week in Austin:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Jennifer Grisham, Cell: 214.558.9455, Office: 972.941.4453, jgrisham@libertyinstitute.org;

Texas House Ethics Committee Meeting Was Illegal, Only One Witness Put Under Oath, Most Details Hidden from Public

AUSTIN, Texas, December 1, 2010 – Today, Liberty Institute announced that the hearing held last Tuesday by the House General Investigating and Ethics Committee to investigate claims of political revenge by redistricting in the Texas Speaker race was illegal under Texas law.

Texas Government Code, section 301.022, states that “All legislative committees shall require witnesses to give testimony under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury.” The law further states, “The oath required by this section may be waived by any committee except a general investigating committee.” The House Ethics Committee is a general investigating committee.

“Putting only one side under oath, in direct violation of Texas law, is not our system of justice or a way to arrive at the truth,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and chief counsel of Liberty Institute. “For one of Straus’ cardinals to allegedly threaten members and then another provide cover by holding an illegal Ethics hearing is no way to set the ethics bar high before the Session even begins. The activity going on around Rep. Straus and his cardinals is disturbing. He must repudiate such actions and illegality immediately.”

Last Tuesday, the Texas House Ethics Committee took witness statements from Rep. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) and Rep. Larry Phillips (R-Sherman). When the hearing began, Rep. Phillips was named as the Texas House member who allegedly told Rep. Hughes that elected House members would be punished for not supporting current Speaker Joe Straus, and that redistricting maps were already being drawn to get rid of opposition, including Rep.-Elect Erwin Cain (R-Sulphur Springs) and Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van). Rep. Hughes also said that Rep. Phillips mentioned Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) and Rep.-Elect Jim Landtroop (R-Plainview) in the discussion. Only Rep. Hughes was sworn in, and only at his request. Rep. Phillips was not put under oath, in direct violation of Texas law.

There is no public information as to whether Rep. Straus discussed and/or requested the Committee Chair to illegally waive the requirement of testimony under oath or whether the Chair, a Straus appointee, took such action on his own in an attempt to assist Straus or his cardinal. Additionally, the hearing was officially posted as a public hearing, but Committee Chair Hopson closed the more than three-hour hearing and ultimately only allowed the public to hear approximately ten minutes of committee discussions.

More information is available at Texas Legislative Update.

Liberty Institute, formerly The Free Market Foundation, is a public policy and non-profit legal organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of traditional family values and Constitutional freedoms.

This group sued the Texas Ethics Commission over provisions of the Texas government code which barred the public from involvement in the Speaker of the Texas House race. In the ruling on that case, United States District Judge Sam Sparks wrote:

The Court FINDS that Texas Government Code Sections 302.17 and 302.019 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in that they are not narrowly tailored and therefore significantly chill core political speech protected by the First Amendment.

Beyond that legal victory which allows us to send lots of email, make blog and Facebook posts, tweet on Twitter, appear on or fund radio and TV shows, and ads, contact Representatives, donate money to Speaker candidates and interest groups, and even hold straw poll events or make endorsements, all for the purpose of exercising our First Amendment protected right to influence the Speaker race toward a candidate we feel would best serve the interest of Texas and Texans, Liberty Institute has a very good litigation track record. They are very good lawyers who do not engage in legal action which is not part of their mission and which they do not believe they can win on Constitutional grounds.

I provide this background and commentary regarding Liberty Institute to demonstrate that the allegations in the press release shown above should not be taken lightly by activist exercising their First Amendment rights to influence House members in their selection of Speaker, by Representatives and Representative-Elects themselves as they consider the Speaker candidates, and certainly not by Speaker Straus and the Representatives involved who are subject to the accusations made by Liberty Institute.

________
More Travis Monitor posts related to the Speaker's race:

Speaker's race update

2010-11-30T22:53:00.005-06:00

November 2 was a true Tsunami election that swept out Democrats in statehouses and in the Congress, and swept in stronger Republican majorities. Here in Texas, the conservative grassroots that got 99 Republican Texas State Reps elected are demanding a conservative Speaker of the House, to turn our massive majority into an organized conservative legislative body. This has turned the Speaker's race into a passionate race involving more than just the members of the Texas House. Interested parties from Redstate to Mike Huckabee are piling on.

November items for Your Information on the Texas Speaker's race:

(1) Flowchart on the Speaker race, created by The Texas Tribune. The flowchart shows the "who's who" in the Speaker's race:
http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-house-speaker-race-flowchart/

(2) Video: "The Battle for the Texas House", http://j.mp/fPGdC2. In this video David Barton sums up what “we the people” seem to be saying—that Texans want a conservative Speaker! It lays out the history and the issues clearly and completely.

(3) Rep Ken Paxton now has his Speaker of the Texas House campaign website up at:
http://paxtonforspeaker.com/

(4) The Austin American Statesman has a “postcard” history of its coverage of the Speaker’s Race which includes stories way back to January 9th, 2007:
http://bit.ly/eV8x0E

(5) Empower Texans’ (Michael Quinn Sullivan’s group) Letter On Leadership:
http://www.empowertexans.com/issues/letter_on_leadership

(6) The Dallas Tea Party blog has a lot of information on the Speaker’s Race:
http://dallasteaparty.org/

(7) On Nov 30, State Rep Van Taylor endorsed Ken Paxton for Speaker. This brings the number of newly elected 'freshmen' State Reps endorsing Paxton publicly to 9: James White, Erwin Cain, Cindy Burkett, Bill Zedler, Charles Perry, Jim Landtroop, Kenneth Sheets, and David Simpson are also on the Paxton endorsement list.

(8) HUCK PAC has endorsed Ken Paxton for Speaker of the Texas House (Huckabee is on the Flowchart of Item 1):
http://bit.ly/hlprHR

(9) FreedomWorks / Dick Armey Oppose Speaker Straus, Announce Support for Paxton (Armey is on the Flowchart of Item 1):
http://bit.ly/fM27jA

(10) On November 10, 2010 Rep Brian Hughes withdraws his pledge to Straus, says that House leadership is trying to oust Reps Flynn and Cain and told Hughes that if he did not go along (i.e. support Straus) he would fall victim to similar retribution. Chairman Hopson’s General Investigating and Ethics Committee investigates the allegations and dismisses them after taking sworn testimony from Hughes and unsworn testimony from Rep Larry Phillips, who made the threats (Hughes and Hopson are on the Flowchart of Item 1):
http://bit.ly/fAmfiN , http://bit.ly/gGnZgX and http://bit.ly/hOTWMf

(11) Straus Chairman Shuts Out Public From Speaker Race “Threats” Information at so-called “Public Hearing”—related to Item 10 above:
http://bit.ly/gCgSUT

(12) Rep Warren Chisum announced his candidacy for Speaker of the Texas House on October 13, 2010:
http://bit.ly/ewxj8l

(13) Rep Leo Berman, first Rep to file as opposition candidate to Joe Straus (June 23, 2010—see http://bit.ly/i8OkIj and http://bit.ly/eusjYM ) wrote an Open Letter to Joe Straus on Nov 8, 2010 which is chopped full of enlightening information for those of us on the outside of the House of Representatives (Berman is on the Flowchart of Item 1):
http://bit.ly/gFJSY8 and http://ainn.ly/gSTUyL

(14) Erick Erickson (of RedState) blogs that Ken Paxton should be Speaker of the Texas House: http://www.redstate.com/erick/

(15) Gun Owners of America endorse Ken Paxton for Speaker of the Texas House:
http://bit.ly/hG7JMW

(16) On the other side, we have primarily one group that is the apologist for and promoter of Speaker Joe Straus—that is, Conservatives4JoeStraus:
http://www.conservatives4joestraus.com/home/

(17) Higher Education Committee Chair, Dan Branch questioned the constitutionality of the proposal of a Republican Caucus picking a consensus candidate for Speaker, as mentioned in the Flowchart of Item 1:
http://bit.ly/eqRGbh

(18) If you want to read what Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka is saying in his left-of-center BURKABLOG, you can follow the following link (you might need to use the blog’s search engine to find all the relevant posts):
http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/

“The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail. But hope remains, if friends stay true.”
- Elf Queen Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring
The above items and quote are courtesy of "Freedom Ain't Free".

"This is why the People have Thrown You Out"

2010-11-30T20:56:00.003-06:00

Wow. The stand-in Democrat Speaker decides not to recognize a ranking Republican on the House floor, in order to stop their lame lame-duck political stunt from being criticized and exposed. "This is why the People have Thrown You Out" said Rep Buyer. Must see:

Rep Alan Grayson was a case study in DC partisanship gone-mad, and I was attacked in a 30-second ad by my Democrat opponent for calling him and other partisan Congressional Democrats 'unfit to govern'. The above stunt by the stand-in Speaker, on top of a lame-duck session that is trying to cram legislation down our throats at the last minute before the Democrats lose their monopoly on power, is a reminder that perhaps the 'unfit to govern' label on these Congressional Democrats was accurate.

Meanwhile, no man is safe while Congress is in session.

Refuting Statements by "Conservatives 4 Joe Straus"

2010-11-20T17:00:00.001-06:00

Timothy E. Bradberry
President, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
National Committeeman, Texas Republican Assembly (TxRA)

The opinions and viewpoints expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions and viewpoints of the CTRA or the TxRA or their members.

Straus apologists talk about how conservative he is, now that conservatism is so popular. Below I attempt to refute, or at least pose questions about, some of their claims. All bulleted quotes are taken from Conservatives 4 Joe Straus.

Contrary to false rumors and allegations, Speaker Straus is and has always been pro-life, and his pro-life legislative record has been verified by Texans for Life President, Kyleen Wright, who is supporting Speaker Straus. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

If Speaker Joe Straus has been such an advocate for the unborn pray tell why/how did Rep. Joe Straus earn a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Texas in 2007? To date no explanation from the Straus team has been offered to this question.

Speaker Straus is a lifelong Republican, a family man, and a committed conservative. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

If Speaker Joe Straus is a committed conservative, why did he appoint exclusively moderate Republicans and liberal Democrats to chair committees when he became Speaker in 2009, thereby diluting the influence of conservatives and the potential of conservative bills, like Voter ID?

As Speaker, 81st Legislative Session, requested ZERO earmarks.
- Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

A ban on Congressional earmarks are all the rave these days. That seems to be the only reason that Conservatives 4 Joe Strauss made this statement. By saying Speaker Joe Straus has been anti-earmark it makes him appear ahead of the curve on earmarks. This simply exploits current sentiment to make Straus appear more fiscally conservative. I'm scratching my head trying to think of an example where a Speaker of the Texas House would ask for earmarks in the State budget, but I don't claim to be a legislative wonk.

Donated over $1.5 million to Republican House Members and candidates, helping increase the Republican majority to 99, 2010. - Conservatives 4 Joe Straus

And from the Conservatives 4 Joe Straus "Open Letter" we read this:

"...While our Republican Majority shrunk in the previous three elections, under Speaker Straus’ leadership, we made substantial gains in the November 2 election to an unprecedented 99 seats in the Texas House. Joe Straus gave unprecedented early sums of money to Republican incumbents, and Republican candidates in open seats, as well as to the Republican Party and Party organizations working to get out the vote, making the gains Tuesday possible. (emphasis added)

There was one candidate that Joe Straus did not give any money to. On the contrary, on May 12, 2010 Speaker Straus allowed his name and presence to be used to raise money for that Republican candidate's opponent, Patrick Rose. With no contribution from Joe Straus, and in fact the Speaker actually helping his opponent raise money, Jason Isaac proved to be not only a viable candidate (which Joe did not consider him to be), but he also soundly defeated Rose on Nov 2nd.

Shortly before the Rose fundraiser I had the unique privileged of talking to Speaker Straus about why he was headlining the Rose fundraiser. After our conversation I sent an email to the CTRA Members and Friends list. Here is what I wrote:

I have now talked to Speaker Straus (via phone) regarding this matter. He was very gracious and obviously had already fielded some calls on the issue. He was quite animated. He made the following points, and more I can't remember:

(1) He would not do anything that would jeopardize the Republican majority in the House;

(2) In spite of #1, he will support incumbent House Democrats if they are not vulnerable;

(3) He did not know that Rose had a viable opponent and had never spoken with Jason Issac;

(4) He is cognizant that Rose has a very substantial "war chest" (seem to implied that that is why Rose's opponent is not viable);

(5) Had he known about Jason Issac and felt like Rose was vulnerable, he would not have gotten involved with the Rose fundraiser;

(6) He said his (sic) is committed to growing the Republican majority and mentioned that the Republicans recently gained one seat with the flipping of a Democrat;

(7) He said Craddick did the exact same thing he (Speaker Straus) is doing for Rose and was not criticized. He said Craddick has been giving money to Democrats in this election cycle as well;

(8) He said he has been a lifelong Republican and mentioned his mom becoming a Republican in 1960;

(9) He mentioned that Rose voted with Republicans on some key pro-business votes in the last session;

(10) He was very gracious and said that I had the right to disagree with him. He even remembered the last time I criticized him at a TCRP Fundraiser in Austin about his committee appointments.

So lets be honest, Conservatives 4 Joe Straus, you cannot claim HD 45 as a seat Speaker Strauss helped a Republican fill. That leaves the Speaker only able to say that he was not in the way of some 98 seats, and perhaps less, and that he actively tied to fill some of those seats with Republicans, most or all of whom now actively support him in his bid to be re-elected Speaker.

Overall, Republican gains in the Texas House are due more to the backlash against Obama, Pelosi and Reid than to support from Speaker Joe Straus.

BTW, Speaker Straus and his team seem to blame Speaker Tom Craddick almost as much as Obama blames President George W Bush.

Donated over $100,000 to local Republican Party clubs, Republican Women clubs, and other local conservative groups to cultivate Republican grassroots support across Texas, 2010.

Interestingly, Speaker Straus did not give any money to the Travis County Republican Party, like he did to the Harris, Bexar and Dallas County varieties. I wonder why?

Maybe his support for and donations to the Alamo City and Bexar County Republican Women (though the amount given was peanuts compared with the Republican Party organizations and the candidates) explains this email from the TFRW that was forwarded to me with this message "Your club may not be a federated club like ours, but I have to agree with her particularly the last sentence":

Dear Club Presidents,

Again, Congratulations on an Excellent Election! Texas appreciates you. Now, as we enter the next Legislative Session we must remember our role as a Support Team for the Republicans that are making decisions for the State of Texas. One of the important decisions our Representatives will be making soon is to elect their leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Please remember that your members may choose to support their political views in the way they see best--as individuals. However, as an organization TFRW will not endorse or publicly support any candidate for Speaker of the House. Additionally, your club should not support or endorse in this race. Please encourage your members, should they choose to support one of the candidates, to do so in a positive manner.......Democrats just love when we hurl insults at each other.

Thank you,
Rebecca Bradford
TFRW President

Having that forwarded to me may be innocuous enough, but the same person sent me two emails warning me about being divisive over the Speaker race even though she knew, or should have known, that the Central Texas Republican Assembly, in it's bylaws is charged with rooting out RINOs and backing conservatives. This fellow conservative, for whom I have great respect, wrote in the second email:

Might think about William F Buckley's advice...support the most electable candidate. A "moderate" Republican may not be one's #1 choice but much better than the leftist alternative who will win against an unelectable one. Delaware is a prime example.

"Democrats just love when we hurl insults at each other."

The way I see it, the worse that could happen here is for Joe Straus to be reelected as Speaker under a mandate to move right, so I don't know why we conservatives have to back down from our clarion call for a true conservative to be picked as Speaker of the Texas House, someone like Rep. Ken Paxton who has a solid conservative voting record.

How to choose the Texas House Speaker

2010-11-17T22:19:00.004-06:00

It's the most important election in Texas that doesn't happen in November: The election of the Texas House Speaker. In the wake of the historic election of 99 Republicans in the Texas Statehouse, conservative activists and the grassroots of the party began demanding a conservative speaker that reflects that majority. Along with Rep Warren Chisum, Rep Ken Paxton stepped forward to challenge Speaker Straus. Rep Hughes defected from Straus, Rep Jodie Laubenberg and Rep Tan Parker endorsed Rep Paxton and even Mike Huckabee and Redstate's Eric Erickson weighed in with a Paxton endorsement. With complaints about last session, observations of Straus' unconservative committee chairmen and comparisons of their voting records showing Paxton to be the 'true conservative', it's easy to see why thousands of grassroots activists are rallying to get a conservative speaker and why Rep Ken Paxton is gaining most of the conservative grassroots support.

Will Lutz says the race is on the verge of "becoming a street brawl". Indeed, it appears that another one of these "establishment moderate" versus "grassroots conservative" choices needs to be made.

A few principles to keep in mind:

We need a Speaker who advocates, supports and will implement a conservative agenda in the House, an agenda that reflects the will of Texas voters in sending a large conservative and Republican contingent to the statehouse. All Republicans claim to agree on this matter, but voting records and past actions speak louder than words.

To have a productive session, the House Speaker must be supported by the majority of the House Republican caucus. To ensure this, the Republican House members should caucus and decide on a nominee for House Speaker. It will be dysfunctional to have a House speaker supported by 50 Democrats but opposed by 70 Republicans. The end result of that may be a repeat of what happened in 2009, when conservative bills that would have passed in a fair floor vote never got the chance to go forward. The further necessity of a Republican caucus is to keep the matter "in the family" of Republicans in the Statehouse, in order to maintain party unity on the House floor. An intra-party fight on the House floor might give the rump Democrat minority excessive leverage and worsen any intraparty split.

Given the 99-51 large Republican majority in the House, committees should be chaired by Republicans, and every committee should have a Republican majority on it; if not, the agenda is put at risk. However, Speaker Straus appointed and relies on Democrats for support, and that would compromise his willingness and ability to give the newly enlarged Republican majority a fair shake.

Finally, the conservative activists have already made clear on one thing: The Speaker's race affects all Texans, so it is time to stop imagining that Texans outside the statehouse shouldn't have a say on it. Citizen can, should and will sound off on this. As in all matters of public concern, one hopes the State Reps are listening.

To summarize: Let the people have their input; Have a Republican caucus meeting to select the majority-supported candidate for speaker; Pick a speaker who will implement a conservative agenda; Leverage the full strength of the new Republican majority in appointments and agenda-setting.

Do all this, and we will have a good Texas House Speaker. I suspect his name will be Paxton.