Pending Vote on Redisticting Could Check Conservative Advance in Texas

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

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

"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

Refuting Statements by "Conservatives 4 Joe Straus"

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.

Conservatives up, Republicans Down

Via Redstate, a Gallup poll shows increasing numbers of voters are self-identified conservatives:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004.

So, rumors of conservatism's death have been greatly exaggerated: "Ed Morrissey argues that this trend may indicate a further polarization of America along ideological lines."

That may well be true, looking at data like this:



Republicans are veering right on social issues. Meanwhile, Blacks are as conservative as Republicans on social issues, and Americans continue to oppose gay marriage.

And yet, we find Republican voters themselves have a poor view of the Republican Party. "Lost their way" is a popular negative image of the Republican Party. Republican base voters are mostly white, religious and conservative. So we see more evidence that, whereas Democrats manage to encompass more voters than their liberal ideology would indicate, the Republicans can grab only a subset of the natural conservative and right-leaning moderate base. We have conservative independents unhappy with the GOP, minority conservative Democrats who agree on some issues, and moderates with a poor image of the Republican party.

If only we had the state-run media on our side. Sigh.

UPDATE:

Comeback will require the right attitude:

... what the leadership lacks is that “Braveheart” spirit - they are like those Scottish nobles trying to cut deals with the English King for their own hides, while the TEA-Partying rabble want someone who will FIGHT!

It’s not unhelpful to know where you stand, but it is pointless to bemoan it rather than change it. It’s not the snarling that we need, but the “Dont give up” DETERMINATION TO MAKE OUR VOICES MATTER. ... instead of waiting for the ‘next Reagan’ while clutching the martinis and muttering how all is lost, realize that we have among us 10,000 Reagans ready to take on the Obama-borg. We are the solution, the 40% of American that self-admits to being ‘conservative’.

Live Blog from AFP-Texas Defending the American Dream (Day Two)

Day 2 of the Defending the Dream Summit is underway. It's 9:10 AM. This morning we're all in a general session awaiting the speakers, who will be:

Michael Steel, Chairman of GOPAC and former Maryland Lt. Gov.
Hon. John Carter, U.S. Congressman - 31st District of Texas
Grover Norquist - President of Americans for Tax Reform
John Fund - Editorial Writer for the The Wall Street Journal
Steve Moore - The Wall Street Journal
Hon. Michael Williams - Texas Railroad Commission Chairman
Hon. Elizabeth Ames Jones - Texas Railroad Commission Member
Marrie Spaeth - Spaeth Communications, Swift Veterans for Truth
Erik Erickson - RedState.com
Hon. Steve Lonegan - State Director, American for Prosperity Foundation New Jersey
Peggy Venable - State Director, American for Prosperity Foundation - Texas
Tim Phillips - President, American for Prosperity Foundation

Tim Phillips opens with a pep talk to the attendees. He says that it is time for conservatives to not just be online but to take on the liberals online. We are establishing our own netroots.

Cap and Trade really ought to be called "duck and cover". The Cap and Trade legislation killed recently in Congress would increase our taxes by 1.2 trillion dollars at the Federal level. Al Gore and company "need" 32 such bills. Cap and Trade would mean a loss of 1.2 million jobs across the economy. State legislation would drain more on top of that out of our economy. Incandescent light bulbs will be banned starting in 2012 and the alternative bulbs are hazardous substances if they are broken (they can't be disposed of in the trash like regular bulbs). Lifestyle changes that Al Gore and company want are changes that government will decide for us on our behalf (how sweet). It means giving away the freedom to determine our own destiny.

Peggy "the Invincible" Venable (dubbed that by Robert Novak last night) is now at the podium. Lone Star Times is the most visited political website in Texas. When we say we are behind online we only mean we are behind where we want to be. Texas Public Policy Foundations has built a web site where citizens can investigate the spending of local government entities.

David Hartman just introduced Steve Moore of The Wall Street Journal who told a joke on himself about how he is so bad at shooting a gun that his fellow skeet shooter told him he must be from the New York Times. See The Nanny-State Diaries.

The top 1 % of income earners pay 40% of the income taxes collected. Those who make above the marginal income level in this country pay 97% of the taxes. Obama's sweet spot is a 53% marginal tax rate. Twenty-three countries in Eastern Europe have a flat tax, some as low as 10%. Ireland has the most robust economy in Europe after cutting the marginal tax rate from 48% to 12% fifteen years ago.

Moore says that the death tax goes to zero in 2010 (I believe that was the year he said) and back up the next near. Dr. Kevorkian will be very busy in 2010 offing grandmas for their heirs' sake, he jokes.

Cap and trade should be called Cap and Kill because it is going to kill our economy.

Grover Norquist is up. He talks about how Republican's in Washington have kept their promise not to raise taxes and to cut taxes (8 times), about the importance of freedom, and about keeping government out of our lives. This is the "Leave Us Alone Coalition". The left's list of what they want to make us do is "slightly longer than Leviticus" (and much less beneficial, I might add). "The left is made up of competing parasites." "Republican's who vote for tax increases are like rat heads in Coke bottles. They destroy the Republican brand." Grover talks about the dangers of increasing capital gains and dividend taxes and recommends www.congressionaleffect.com, which is a mutual fund that invests in the market only when Congress is out of session.

Marrie Spaeth - Spaeth Communications, Swift Veterans for Truth is up now talking about the power of negative words. Negative words are more memorable. Her role today is to introduce the Hon. Michael Williams - Texas Railroad Commission Chairman.

Michael Williams breaks into the middle of Marrie's intro of him. He graciously thanks the Texans in the crowd for giving him the opportunities he has had to serve them and the rest of the citizens of Texas. We are going to take over the online community from the left. Regarding energy he says increased supply is a good thing. We have resources in America that we can use to meet our needs. We don't need to sue OPEC, as some have suggested. We need to use the full plate of energy sources. In Texas we have a 200 year supply of coal. People are worried about that black stuff. "I'm partial to black stuff" (lots of laughter from the crowd). But we need to use coal in a clean way and we have the technology to do that. We need to use nuclear power. We need to innovate in energy. This summer Micheal is sponsoring two workshops for kids to create video games that are energy related. We want to make sure that liberty is protected and opportunity is expanded.

Alan Sager is at the podium to introduce John Fund - Editorial Writer for the The Wall Street Journal.

John thanks all the Wall Street Journal subscribers in the room - "they help pay my salary". There are several reason things will turn around for us in this election. The news we get is filtered. Reagan followed the people who bought the theater tickets rather than the pundits. The "lamestream media" are following their candidate around rather than reporting because they know that mainstream America is not with them. This is a center right country. They (the left) are using psychological warfare. They fear the fall campaigns. Eight out of 10 times Democrats have been ahead in the July poles. Only 3 times did they actually win. Since 1944 only one Democrat has run for President and got a majority of the vote. This election matters. Republicans can't afford to sit it out. If Democrats win we will have "card check for unions," same day registration for voters, and no excuse absentee voting. They will change the rules and consolidate their power for a generation. "If we we flight we win, if we flinch we loose."

Peggy introduces Hon. Elizabeth Ames Jones - Texas Railroad Commission Member. Texas develops 30% of the natural gas and about 20% of the oil used in America. Don't listen to the naysayers about our country's energy supplies. We are developing and will develop natural resources in a responsible way. For example, Barnett shale contributes about 6% of the natural gas used in our country. Texas is again playing our part to supply secure energy sources for the future. We need to develop nuclear energy. Wind, solar, and bio fuels cannot meet the demand alone. Texans and Texas companies have found and created these energy sources, not the Texas Railroad Commission or any other government entity or program.

Hon. Steve Lonegan - State Director, American for Prosperity Foundation New Jersey is now speaking. He is telling his personal story about dealing with Retinitis pigmentosa and how he rejected all the social programs set up to keep him hitched to his disability. He got an MBA. As his eyesight deteriorated, he found that no one would hire him but did not give up. He got a job selling kitchen cabinets and the company he was working for went out of business. So, he bought the business after getting some financing from "the bank of mom". That was 1981, after Reagan took office. His business prospered and he then got elected as the mayor in a Democrat town. His first act was to call together city departments and ask them to cut their budgets by 5%. He stayed mayor for 12 years and made that city the envy of New Jersey in terms of fiscal responsibility.

Up now is The Hon. John Carter, U.S. Congressman - 31st District of Texas. "Judge Carter" just got back from the "Devil's town (DC). He's glad to be back in "God's country". The Supreme court ruled on the Second Amendment and, "you live in Travis County. You really need the right to bare arms here." The Democrats want to take over production of oil and gas. They say that if energy prices get high enough they can get their Energy policy enacted, which is to tax exploration and to get away from oil. Just a few words by President Bush about expanding oil exploration/production and the price drops $11. The Democrats are wrong on oil.

Erik Erickson - RedState.com opens by saying "it is nice to be Travis County and not indited by Ronnie Earle." You can get online on Redstate.com and tell your story about what is going on in your town, in your state.

Michael Steel, Chairman of GOPAC and former Maryland Lt. Gov. is up. "You can't please everyone, but you can tick them all off at the same time." That's what happened in 1996...."We don't create wealth by robbing Peter to pay Paul and then robbing Paul," but that is what liberals do....Reagan made it cool to be Conservative. Now we've "lost our mojo." The issues that motivated voters in the days of Reagan still motivate people in America today...We need to be colorblind and reject the ideology that looks at people as members of hyphenated classes...Individuals transform a nation....There is a socialist-Marxist trend in America...The great opportunities in American rest in the hands of individuals...Tell the story of our cause, of why we link arms as conservatives...

Lunch with Michelle Malkin

Michelle starts off by telling how across the city the net roots are calling us freaks and our candidate not fit for leadership. She did a comparison of Obama and McCain's leadership credentials and asked in Sesame Street style "which one of these is not like the other." She said a lot more but I'm about brain dead by now...

Panel Sessions

(1:45 PM - 2:45 PM)

I'm sitting in on a session titled Map to Victory: How the Right Can Win Online. Panel members include,

Ken Emanuelson, FredHead.com; Blogger; ReaganCoalition.org
Ryan Gravatt, RedState.com
David Kralik, Director of Internet Strategy - American Solutions for Winning the Future
Maggie Thurber, Ohio Blogger

Get the substance down first, then the form. Put links high up in your emails. In emails the Subject line is very important. Remember that we have the conservative message and that people want to hear it. We do not tout something that the Party tells us to tout like the Netroots do. We are more independent....User generated content...Book Recommendation: Wisdom of the Crowds...Take your online energy into a brick and mortar world. Build a conservative group. Raise money...(a lot more was said than reported here).

Time for a 15 minute break.

(3:00 PM - 4:00 PM)

This is a session titled Old Media vs. New Media. Panel members include,

Dan Gainer, Vice President - Business & Media Institute; T. Boone Pickens Fellow
Douglas Kirk, Editor of the Bulverde Standard
Sherry Sylvester, Sherry Sylvester Communications

Sylvester: Gave an impassioned intro about which I did not write down anything. She did say that the small town papers are the real place where journalism is vibrant and growing, while the old regional papers are struggling.

Gainer: Traditional journalists have switched from print/TV media to the Internet. They are competing with us, the bloggers. They are doing this because we are putting out unedited content that they cannot control. Your credibility matters quite a lot. If you make a mistake your credibility is on the line. Ask fellow bloggers to edit your work. You can do creative things. Keep files on the reporters and others you blog about. Responding to a question he said there are two models that will keep local papers alive - non-profit, supported by a benefactor, and for profit supported by traditional advertising.

Kirk: Been in the newspaper business for 40 years. First newspaper called the Anti-P.U.D. (Passive, Uninvolved and Docile) Express was an underground paper he published underground in Holland (see Opinions Make A Difference), because the school paper would not publish his letters. Now as a newspaper editor ( of the Bulverde Standard) he publishes every letter to the editor sent to him. The objective of both old and new media is mass communication. He gets 6000 man hours of impact per publishing day. Both new and old have a target audience. New media comes out immediately. Newspapers are comparatively slow in distribution and are permanent, tending to get archived. Google has now put smalltown newspapers (smalltownpapers.com) online in a searchable format. Small town politics are by definition localized. Old media publishers and editors will let their bias block certain content. The new media, by contrast, has too much freedom, but that is turning around a bit.

Time for another 15 minute break.

(4:15 PM - 5:15 PM)

This is a session titled Global Warming: The Cost of Climate Change Hysteria. Panel members include,

Cathie Adams, President - Texas Eagle Forum
Sterling Burnett, National Center for Policy Analysis
Phil Kerpen, Policy Director - American for Prosperity Foundation
Iain Murray - Competitive Enterprise Institute

The biggest threat today to freedom and prosperity in our country.

Adams: Was at Kyoto. It was all about politics. Global Warming is a "moral challenge" - All Gore. The only place Global Warming is known to occur is in computer models. "This conference has nothing to do about science and everything to do about the [world] economy." - a delegate at Kyoto. 17,000 scientist who know say there is "no convincing evidence for global warming". In Bali All Gore said "My country is obstructing progress in Bali, but in two years it is [not going to be the same]." Does he mean when his country becomes the Obamanation. Congress is appropriating more and more to subsidize green energy. Wind and solar creates less than 1% of the electricity in this country. Windfall profits tax on oil has taken us for 20% to 8o% dependency on foreign oil. We must drill in Anwar. Drill here, drill now, and pay less. Global warming is a hoax.

Murray: UK is looking into carbon rationing. The fight against Global Warming is following the same game plan as that used to ban DDT in the 1960s and as a result 50,000,000 people (mainly in Africa) have died of Malaria. The Global Warming hoax could kill more than that. When people give "evidence" of global warming they usually don't give the whole story. The subsidies needed to "go renewable" is $88 billion dollars per year and will cost twice as much for the energy consumer. Since 1997 European (Kyoto) nations have had larger increases in emissions than the US has had. In terms of emissions during that period Kyoto nations have increased their emissions 4 times more than the US has (US=5%; Kyoto compliant nations in Europe - 20%). Gore's plan would increase the cost to the world by $44 trillion. See Senate Bill S3036.

Resources on The Global Warming Hoax:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://icecap.us/
http://www.noclimatetax.com/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.regulations.gov/
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
http://cei.org/
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/
http://www.acton.org/
http://thechillingeffect.org/
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/
http://www.hartland.edu/cms/
Book: Unstoppable Global Warming
Film: The Great Global Warming Swindle


Bob Barr, the Presidential Spoiler Wannabe

I'm home now but spending a little time cleaning up my live blog posts. The last "event" I attended at the Summit was a speech by the Libertarian candidate for President, Bob Barr. He talked about his involvement in the impeachment of Clinton and other good things he had done for our Freedom and Civil Liberties. I genuinely appreciate what he has done.

However, the degree of success he has in his campaign for the Presidency could be the degree that McCain will lose to Obama. Barr is setting himself up to draw votes away from McCain, and with the shaky relationship between the base of the Republican Party and McCain, that could spell disaster for our Republic. That's because Obama will be the prime beneficiary of Barr's campaign success, and if Obama wins the election we won't be saying "God Bless America," but we'll be crying out "God have mercy on America." Based on Novak's comments last night, he does not consider a 3rd Party Candidate a viable option for conservatives. Neither do I.

I suppose Barr thinks he can have it both ways. He thinks he will draw from the left and the right. Why he even showed up at the Netroots Nation event across town:

A surprise visit by Bob Barr

Jul 19

The Washington Post notes that Bob Barr made a surprise stop by the Netroots Nation 2008 conference in Austin, Texas:

A second surprise guest at Netroots Nation 2008 is generating hallway buzz: Bob Barr. Yep — that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential ...

Read about it here in his own words., so to speak

All I have to say about that is "Give me a break."

Live Blog from AFP-Texas Defending the American Dream Summit

9:00 AM - Opening panel

David Ali
David Almacy
Rob Bluey
Matt Sheffield

About 60 folks are crammed into the San Antonio Room at the Renaissance Hotel in north Austin listening to a panel of geeks talk about the use of the net to promote our conservative agenda.

Here in this slide we see Barnie, the first dog, running around with a camera attached to his head. (Oh what Nixon would have done with that...)

That was in the early days.

They've (the Whitehouse geeks) now graduated to RSS feeds & iTunes and more relevant subject matter. It's now all about platform and content sharing.

Now published on Twitter / Twitterfeed by a private individual.

The future is video.

Now David Almacy, VP of Digital Strategies, Waggener Edstrom Worldwide is talking about an early use of Youtube to connect constituents directly with their Representatives in Congress. He told about how a member of Congress got a question sent to him via Youtube and responded directly back to the constituent via Youtube.

Slatecard.com provides a platform for you to build your on slate of candidates which you can promote and give money to. It de-localizes support. Allows you to support candidates that believe like you do no matter where you, or they live.

David is talking about how John Cornyn's "Big John" video which was shown at the RPT 2008 State Convention and now is on YouTube getting many more 1000s of views than it did at the Convention.

David has moved on the talking about how Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams is in 11 social networks online. No one is inspiring the youth and yet 70% want to be entrepreneurs Michael is hosting two camps teaching kids about how to create energy related video games. Why the Internet? "There is only one of me and I can't be everywhere...We are in a brand new day and we need to learn to communicate..." - Michael Williamson

Now we're in Q&A

Check out NewsBusters.org

A participant asked for the panel to knock the assertion that people who are plugged into the Internet and producing content are not willing to knock on doors, give to candidates, or even vote. Members of the panel basically responded that candidates cannot afford to ignore the net resources.

That's a wrap and it is now 10:00 AM.

Heritage Foundation Online Research Training (Invitation Only)

I decided to crash the Heritage Foundation training for at least a little while. It's now 10:20 AM.

So far about 9 people have introduced themselves as being from the Austin American Statesman. I feel a little out of place. The balance of the room is made up of people of various other stripes, including Don Zimmerman, our Anti-tax Collector Assessor candidate for Travis County.

I think I'll listen some now and leave the blog for a while.

11:20 AM - Going a bit slow as the instructor teaches the students (remember there are 9 AAS reporters/etc in the room) the most basic Excel spreadsheet instructions...a real snoozer for an Excel literate engineer like me.... I wonder what I'm missing from the AFP-Texas Activists and Organization tracks?

1:00 PM Sessions

I decided to try the Activist track. Matt Sheffield is the speaker.

In the intro, Matt talks about how he and others exposed (took down) Dan Rather using the net. An activist starts off by saying "somebody ought to..." That's the beginning of activism but it is important to know what it is you are trying to do. Everybody wants to do their own thing. The left work together. They collaborate. We need to do the same.

Be original. "Those who report the story control the debate."

Be original. Original...

...Stories
...Analysis (roundups / link dumps)
...Pictures
...Video
...Interviews

Reporters are basically lazy and want easy stories, so send them stuff. May want to leave some holes in the story. Also, look for holes to plug in reporters' stories and plug the holes if you have the missing information.

Must be accurate in your reporting.

70% of online users watch viral (spreads like a virus) video.

Write/post to for as many blogs as you can. Use wikipedia and link to your blog / website (adopt-a-page).

Organize->Connect->Report->Market

You want to be able to fit your activism into your lifestyle rather than vice versa.

To increase traffic, cross-post to the big bloggers. Post original, reasoned, accurate reports. Team up with other people.

That's a wrap for the first lecture of this session. Sorry about the spotty reporting...it's 2:10 PM.

It's now 3:20 PM. I took a little diversion into some Formosa Association for Public Affairs "business" as I sat in on the last part of the application of the Heritage Foundation training session that involved a case study that utilized the Excel training I has boohooed this morning. The students were doing a case study and were reporting the results in groups. The data indicated that the Mayor of the city of the case study was extremely dishonest in her reporting of the compensation of city employees. The AAS guy behind me who was the spokesman for his group of reporters was gleeful in his reporting of the mayor's extreme favoritism of the "whitie" employees in the case study.

Now we are learning how to navigate OpenSecrets.org. That's where, among thousands of other pieces of information you can see just how much money George Soros (and other 527s) is throwing in support of the far left. There you can also find who the Top Revolving Door Members are and the Top Congressional Travelers.....etc.

I think I've gotten all I can out of the Heritage Foundation "training" and in the processed have missed much of the other AFP-Texas Summit sessions of interest to me. It's 4:10 PM.

I shifted over to the Organizational track's session called "Total Reputation Management: Protecting Your Online Identity". The speaker William Beutler is with New Media Strategies. He has been talking about Wikipedia and the wiki entry he created for his company, how to get your organizational's name to appear high in a Google search, how to get your blog listed on aggregate blogs like Memeorandum.com, how to use RSS feeds, and the importance of taking ownership of your name on the Internet.

And that is the end of today's Live blog. It's now 5:00 PM.

God Blessed Texas...

...With Affordable Housing and a Good Economy

Seen in an AP story on Yahoo News last Thursday:

"Four Texas metropolitan areas were among the biggest population gainers asAmericans continued their trend of moving to the Sun Belt in 2006 and 2007,according to Census Bureau estimates to be released Thursday. ....

"People are running away from unaffordable housing, from the economic slowdown," said Karl Eschbach, a state demographer in Texas. "I would expect Texas to stay at the top of a slowing game." ....

According to figures compiled by Eschbach, 16 percent of Americans who moved to other states between July 2006 and July 2007 came to Texas, which led the nation for the second straight year in that category."

For more, click here.

Needed: Conservative Apologetics

Via American Thinker: Alan Roebuck is concerned about 'Seeker-sensitive' conservatism, which conforms to rather than challenges liberal assumptions. He says: "Let's fight liberalism where it matters most: in the realm of ideas." How? He wants a conservative apologetics to challenge the Liberal hegemony and bringing conservative back to the American people. Our most difficult challenge - "In the long run, conservatives must break the liberal monopoly over education." We need a conservative alternative institutions in higher education.

A statement that has stuck with me was the comment by a Johns Hopkins sociologist "We are at any time, twenty years from barbarism." Our culture survives and sustains itself on the next generation, and education and inculcation of our values is essential for our survival. In ideological terms, conservatives are fighting an uphill battle trying to re-educate adults who have been mis-educated into liberalism as students on campus and in our schools. We are at any time, twenty years from losing control of the destiny of our society.

Conservatism was alive in 1937

RedState has an article about 'earning the true conservative vote' and describes a piece of hidden history: Conservatives opposed and responded to the New Deal. You don't read about that in the history books, so let me share the factoid.

In 1937, US Senator Josiah Bailey of North Carolina was concerned that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal programs were leading America and North Carolina down the road to collectivism. Although he did not oppose every attempt at government intervention, Senator Bailey believed that limitations should be placed on government growth." He is credited with being part of a group that drafted the Conservative Manifesto which offered 10 "practical solutions" for the problems of the times:

1. Immediate revision of taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits in order to free investment funds.
2. Reduced expenditures to achieve a balanced budget, and thus, to still fears deterring business expansion.
3. An end to coercion and violence in relations between capital and labor.
4. Opposition to “unnecessary” government competition with private enterprise.
5. Recognition that private investment and enterprise require a reasonable profit.
6. Safeguarding the collateral upon which credit rests.
7. Reduction of taxes, or if this proved impossible at the moment, firm assurance of no further increases.
8. Maintenance of state rights, home rule, and local self-government, except where proved definitely inadequate.
9. Economical and non-political relief to unemployed with maximum local responsibility.
10. Reliance upon the American form of government and the American system of enterprise.

See this Troy Kickler article for more of the story.

Buckley's Passing Should Serve as a Reminder for Conservatives

Buckley's Passing Should Serve as a Reminder for Conservatives
by Michele J. Samuelson

George Will once said that without the National Review, we wouldn't have gotten Goldwater, and without Goldwater, Reagan. If you've been involved in the conservative movement for even just a short time, you've felt that influence whether aware of it or not.

William F. Buckley, Jr. was only 29 years old when he founded the National Review, in 1955. By that time he'd already written one of the first books to seriously critique the coming liberal takeover of our universities in "God and Man at Yale." He helped found Young Americans for Freedom, out of which grew Young Conservatives of Texas and Young America's Foundation.

Buckley wrote countless memoirs, fiction novels, and conservative tomes, and his magazine helped get intellectual conservatism in the hands of everyday Americans. It was his vision that gave us the intellectual tools necessary to found the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and countless other think tanks and grassroots organizations that promote the conservative cause today. The National Review took the Reagan Revolution and gave it shape and focus like no other publication could have. Without William Buckley, we might never have gotten to the Brandenburg Gate, where President Reagan implored the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall.

When Buckley left the day-to-day operations of National Review, it was shortly after Ronald Reagan's passing, and it would have been easy to assume that conservatism was dying without it's leaders. But looking around as statesmen, grassroots leaders, and conservative thinkers pause to mourn him, we see the fruits of his labor. We have conservatives entrenched in the very battlefields where they are needed most. It would be foolish to assume that conservatism is dead. Buckley worked to ensure that it was not right up until his passing this week at age 82.

Understandably, conservatives are increasingly disheartened as our message gets lost in electoral cacophony. The process has hurt us, and it's difficult to see our way past it. Our issues, however, and our beliefs survive despite all this. Perhaps it is time, as we remember William Buckley, to do as he once said about the National Review: "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."

Our fight is far from over, and it is critical that we not lose heart. Rather, we must, as Buckley did, work unceasingly for the cause of conservatism. Only we can stand athwart history now, and if we stand together we could turn back the tide of liberalism and socialism for good.

Romney bows out, McCain is GOP Nominee

Romney just gave a stirring and eloquent speech to CPAC, expressing his conservative values and agenda in a way that showed his usual class and demeanor - funny how those concession speeches are always the best. McCain seals GOP nod as Romney suspends campaign:

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror ... If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." - Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney ran a very good campaign, winning over 4 million votes, not far behind McCain's 4.7 million votes. But silver medals don't count in elections. Romney articulated a Reagan-coalition conservative agenda of family values, tax rate cuts, economic growth policies, and pursuing success in Iraq and the war on terror with a strong defense. Romney won the plurality of conservatives with his campaign (McCain was winning primaries by racking up large majorities of moderates), in primary staes so far. But he faced impediments to wider conservative support with some of his earlier Massachusetts positions, such as his prolife conversion.

The conservative base spent the last year casting about for a unifying candidate. For some, Thompson was the vessel for unifying conservative hope. But Thompson's campaign fizzled. When the race came down to Romney, Huckabee, and McCain, most conservatives saw Romney as the best chance for a real conservative agenda. Romney picked up endorsements from National Review, Judge Robert Bork and key conservative Senators. McCain was the choice of few conservatives even though he is right on some issues, because of how he's behaved on those issues where the 'maverick' strays off course.

So with him out, where does that leave conservatives? It leaves us with a nominee - McCain - who, while right about foreign policy issues, has been against the conservative base on some signature issues like immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming, etc. McCain has many fences to mend - and not just on the border - to unify a party and a conservative base that has been fractured and despondent lately.

Source: exurbanleague

Whither the Conservative Movement?

Newt Gingrich talks with Rush Limbaugh about the relevence of the Reagan revolution and ideas for conservative change in the 21st century. Newt:

The challenge is for our generation to come up with a platform that is as bold, a set of solutions that are as bold, as Reagan was in 1979-1980. Reagan didn't go around and say, here's what Eisenhower would have done. He didn't go around and say here's what Goldwater would have done. He went around and said, look, here are the core, unchanging principles. Freedom works, bureaucracy strangles, lower taxes give you more freedom and give you more choices, you're better at creating jobs than government is, and he walked through a series of things like this, and then he turned those into very specific, very practical programs.

Here's Rush:

I think they think that people like me are worshiping a cult of personality with Ronald Reagan when in fact those of us who view Reagan the way I do stress conservative principles and the success that comes with it. It's fine and dandy to come up with scores of proposals, and to have policy this and policy that for dealing with various issues, but that only scratches the surface. A list of policies to take to the American people without a core principle underpinning to justify those policies and explain why they will work, is senseless. ...

The era, the Reagan era, is not over because conservatism is not over. If the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Somebody tell me that. Nothing has replaced it and that's why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people a little nervous because there isn't any real leadership out there that causes people, inspires people to get behind it, go rah-rah, and make certain things happen. That's what's missing. Reaganism is leadership. Reaganism is conservatism. It's not a personality cult. ... We're always being told, "Abandon this Reagan stuff, Rush, it's old hat." It's not old hat. It's freedom.

We need ... both. We need timeless rock-solid principles; we need to never abandon faith in freedom; and we need new ideas, new applications of those timeless principles, to address the new problems that confront us.

The Next Conservatism

Where should Conservatism go in the Twenty First century?
Free Congress Foundation has a series of essays (50 of them!) to ask and answer that question. I haven't read them all, but what I have read is thought provoking.

In the really big scheme of things, we see that the Twentieth Century central global ideological battle was about the state, the economy, and man's relation to both. Communism and fascism, i.e., collectivist economics, were fashioned as the 'solution' to the 'problems' that capitalism wrought. We faced internal political struggles and global wars facing the challenge of these systems. Yet it turned out in the end that what capitalism brings us is freedom and prosperity; collectivism was the problem and freedom the solution, not the other way around. Perhaps the turning point was when Reagan declared as much
in his 1981 inaugural:

government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?

Reagan brought to American conservatism three key components: traditional 'family' values; free enterprise economics - low tax rates and less Government intervention and regulation; and a strong military.

Today the long war against collectivism seems to be won, yet Communist-led China is on the rise, and Government spending is higher than ever. On the cultural front, our very prosperity and freedom is fostering cultural change. And our country, powerful that it is, is having its sovereignty challenged by forces that seek further internationalist dictation on American actions.

These and other new challenges in the 21st century that conservatism will need to address do not require changing principles, but do require adapting priorities and applying principles to the new realities.

Protect the innocent. Punish the guilty.

Protect the innocent. Punish the guilty. That is justice.

Sometimes some thing like that needs to be said when face with the 'moral confusion' of a liberal. This came up on a Redstate posting when a 'gotcha' Liberal decided to wheel out the ol' crusty argument that pro-life Christians couldn't be pro-death penalty. Not so. While compassion for all is a Christian virtue, The Bible is decidely okay with the death penalty:

"St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions "frivolous", citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally, he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state."(St. Thomas Aquinas, 'Summa Contra Gentiles', Book III, 146.)

In truth, the mindset that ties the killing of innocent preborn life with the state-ordered execution of a hardened criminal is not a Christian mind, but a morally relativistic one, that has decided that judgements are, well, too 'judgemental'. I added: "If one can't detect the difference between how police and society should treat hardened criminals and how a mother should treat her own child, one really needs to buy a clue."

I added the following aside:

God forbid the pro-choicers who come up with this pseudo-theological sophistry actually consider the possibility that killing a pre-born human being is wrong IN ANY DECENT ETHICAL SYSTEM - Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, whatever. And that equally so, as a Jewish philosopher once put it: "To be merciful to the cruel is to be cruel to the innocent."

Those who fail to protect the innocent or fail to punish the guilty are failing to advance justice. We need to both to have justice. The liberal mindset often falls into the trap of moral confusion (and relativism) and consequently fails to acknowledge appropriate punishment as a prerequisite for justice.

Protect the innocent. Punish the guilty. That is justice.

Remembering Rev Jerry Falwell

Thousands of faithful attend the Reverend Jerry Falwell's funeral at the Thomas Road Baptist Church that he established over 50 years ago:

"He said, 'I believe God has called me to confront the culture,' and did he ever confront it," said the Rev. Jerry Vines, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who gave a sermon that ranged from personal stories about Falwell to Biblical references.

The media Liberals have been going out of their way to 'eulogize' Jerry Falwell in terms of their disagreements with him. Or maybe 'spit on his fresh grave' is a better term, given the "Ding-dong, the witch is dead" sendoff from a Sun-Times columnist and similar 'good riddance' comments from the left ("bigot" "Osama" etc.). Even the more graceful can't recount his influence without sneering at his disagreeable views. Clarence Page gets in: "Speak not ill of the dead. That's easy advice to follow until you are remembering those who spoke a lot of ill while they were alive. ... Reports that his heart had failed were greeted with grim irony by those who thought it had failed years earlier."

To understand Why the Left hated Falwell you need to understand What Falwell wrought: Falwell wrought the kind of political re-alignment that awakened in many Christian believers an understanding of who and what was attacking their world-view and their values. As a result, Falwell's Moral Majority helped awaken a conservative Christian movement that became a linchpin for Reagan's victory over Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984, built on an opposition to abortion and other countercultural (soon to be 'dominant liberal cultural') views of the liberal elites. Falwell stopped the cultural steamroller, or at least slowed it down, and helped in the process to reshape how millions voted.

As J.R. Dunn puts it:

Falwell was despised and loathed for a very simple reason: he defied the leftist consensus, and he won. He made them back down. He frightened them terribly, by confronting them with clear evidence that the country was not what they insisted it was, and that their utopian dreams would never come to pass. That was his crime, one for which he could never be forgiven.

Star Parker notes that Rev Falwell is gone, but his influence isn't. The evangelical Christian vote, 22% of the total electorate, remains a key constituency within the Republican party and one of its most reliable voting blocks.

A Case of Mistaken Identity

I'm no reporter so I did not take any pictures or interview any attendees or protesters (the protesters outnumbered the attendees at least 4 to 1) and I am not unbiased. I do have some fading impressions about what I witnessed in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night, from about 6:45 PM to 9:00 PM, so I better get this all down and posted before I forget. Please note that what I am relaying here is not an exhaustive account of what transpired, just some of my personal recollections and impressions.

Just who was I and the minority "friendly" crowd (sitting in what one of what the protesters termed the "lap dog seats up front") there to see? Mr. Chris Simcox—an evidently very personable, patient, gentle, articulate, meek (i.e. controlled strength), level headed, principled, law abiding man who has demonstrated through word and deed that he cares about the illegal immigration problem and the human beings who are being exploited by the status quo (both the illegal immigrants and legal residents of the US) much more than Congress and the President seem to, based on their own words and deeds.

I had heard Mr. Simcox speak before, at the Texas Republican Assemblies' Conservative Conference, held back in mid-February. At that time all I knew about him was what was in his bio in the Conference program:

Chris Simcox is founder and president of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen neighborhood watch and political action group that assists Border Patrol in better defending our border with Mexico. The Minutemen are preventing needless deaths in the desert and are demanding that the leaders of our country take care of an embarrassing and deadly problem – lawlessness and anarchy on a sovereign border of the United States. Drug dealers, gang bangers and other criminal foreign nationals are filtering through our porous borders creating havoc in communities and threatening public safety. What’s to keep the terrorists from similarly infiltrating our country? Minutemen are acting where government has abdicated its responsibility to ensure domestic tranquility in as much as it is endangered by the lack of enforcement of our borders.
Website (Simcox): http://minutemanhq.com/b2/index.php/simcox

I was too involved in the planning of that February conference to really get my mind around the things Mr. Simcox and his Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are doing along our borders to alleviate the suffering of all decent people who are caught in the middle of the porous border quagmire that the US is stuck in. But, Tuesday night the contrast between the man that showed up to speak and the straw man that the vitriolic, racist, anarchical protesters were there to knock down was obvious to all fair minded observers.

I was at this UT Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) sponsored event because I received a forwarded email from Liz Young, Chairman of the group, about 24 hrs prior. The email indicating that the event would be HEAVILY protested. Paul Gelencser sent the forwarded message and asked me to send an announcement to local Conservative clubs. All I could do under such short notice was to send one email to the CTRA elist. The reason for the expected turnout of the opposition was that the invitation for Chris to speak was on the same day of a pro-illegal immigration rally at the State Capitol. The leaders of the capitol rally heard about the Simcox speech and decided to take advantage of the opportunity. They hoped to bring 300-500 their own troops to stage a protest. Click here (the web domain is txcommie.wordpress.com) to read what the organizers of the protest were saying about Mr. Simcox. The majority of the protesters seem to be from an anarchist group and they demonstrated by their words and deeds that they were indeed anarchists. About 100 or so showed up in GEO 2.324.

My experience for the evening began as I drove up Congress Avenue around 5:45 PM and saw the pro-illegal immigration rally folks coming down the south bound lanes. I just looked at them wondering what the several small children (being citizens) would think when they grow up and learn about the illegal way their parents came to this country. I also made a mental note that there seemed to be no protesters squelching the free speech of the marchers. I wondered if that would be the same later at UT (NOT).

After dinner I located the Geology building and easily identified the meeting room from the UT Police and a few protesters hanging around outside. I went in, spoke briefly with Chris, and Liz and then chatted with a few of the members of the YCT (great kids—these are the same guys that brought us the ACLU Nativity Scene last Fall). Then, we all waited for the anarchists to arrive. Needless to say, we heard them coming before we saw them. When they entered the room it was obvious that there were a lot more of them than of us. They chanted such things as "out with the Racist" and we replied "out with the Racists" (the feeling was mutual). Two of them came down to the front, with one in sort of a defensive end stance, and tried to intimidate some of us "lap dogs" or perhaps Mr Simcox. I thought I recognized the guy in front (I later heard him tell a reporter his name was Jerry..). I thought I knew the guy so I laid my hand gently on his arm and said "Do I know you, I think I have seen you before?" He said "don't touch me" and then the guy behind him said, "[you saw him] coming out of your mama's room." I knew then not to worry for we seemed to be dealing with teenage brains (in much older bodies).

The protesters shouted "bring him out" and we pointed to Chris, who was standing in the middle of the room the whole time, and said "there he is, that is Chris Simcox." Chris tried to talk and the protesters shouted all manner of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and names, and otherwise verbally assaulted him. Chris stood calmly and tried to make a few points. The UT officials gave at least three verbal warnings to the protesters stating that this was a time for free speech and that if they would not let Mr. Simcox speak they would be removed from the auditorium and possibly arrested by UT police. Chris could hardly say anything for the first 20 minutes. The police began escorting and/or arresting people. Some of the first two to be removed were the defensive end (Jerry) and his teenybopper-brained sidekick (actually rearkick). As more folk got escorted out (some arrested) it got quieter and Chris had more opportunity to say something. Unfortunately he had to spend practically all his time dialoggingdialogue with the protesters. Needless to say, he did not get to give the speech he planned. He was not afforded the free speech that earlier the people at the rally and the march had been afforded.

Chris was accused by the protesters of being a racist, an immigrant hater, another Hitler, a White supremacists, a European, a vigilante, a Mexican hater, etc. He was accused of being in league with groups such as Ranch Rescue and the Minuteman Project (and maybe even El Diablo). He was accused of hate speech when someone quoted his own words from a press report out of context. He was accused of being a law breaker (by anarchists, no less). He was accused of talking out of both sides of his mouth when he criticized Bush (whom he termed the Emperor with no cloths on, vis-à-vis the immigration issue) and Congress for their failure regarding immigration, while at the same time saying he believed in the rule of law.

In response Chris Simcox never fliched, lost his temper, or mistreated any halfway reasonable person. He used reason and logic to expose the lack of the same in the diatribes of the protesters. He used facts to show that the arguments of his opponents were steeped in ignorance. He use peoples own words against them, very effectively I might add. More frequently he made note of points of agreement. When he heard things said by the protesters that he agreed with he told them so, not effecting what agreement normally effects, the establishment of common ground—the protesters did not seem to be interest in common ground, because it tended to negate the purpose of their protest. One example of this unclaimed common ground was the blaming of the whole border/immigration mess on the government. Simcox said, absolutely, he couldn't agree more—Congress and Bush are AWOL on the immigration problem as is the government of Mexico. Mr. Simcox urged everyone to come down to the border with him and see the problems in person. He also urged everyone to visit the borderlinks.org web site.

In summary the Chris Simcox that showed up in GEO 2.324 on the UT Campus Tuesday night was not the Chis Simcox that the anarchist protesters characterized. I think the whole thing is a case of mistaking identity (conscience or unconscious) on their part. I'm glad the protesters were wrong about Mr. Simcox' identity, but I'm a bit concerned about the protesters' collective identity. They seemed to BE who they were coming to protest—hate filled racists who don't care about the human trafficking, forced servitude, sex slavery, gang bangers, drug cartels, terrorist infiltration, and, perhaps, WMDs moving in, around, and through our porous borders.

There were a number of protesters who stayed to the very end and if fair minded probably came away with a more accurate understanding of who Chris Simcox and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps are and fond common ground between them. If that is the case, it is a very good thing and worth all the harassment and persecution Chris and the attendees went through Tuesday night in GEO 2.324 on the campus of The University of Texas at Austin.

Hook 'em!