Friday, December 23, 2011


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

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.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

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

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

Tuesday, November 8, 2011


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.  

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Remembering Arsenalna and the "Progressive" Rule of Man

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).
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.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Bill to Abolish Corporate Income Tax, Create Jobs

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.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Corporate Income Tax Unfair, Impractical

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.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

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

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:

Thanks, and stay tuned.

- Hector

Hector Nieto
Texas State Director
Obama for America

Thursday, July 14, 2011


-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!

Saturday, June 11, 2011

David Mamet on the Left and their Palin-phobia

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?

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!

Friday, June 10, 2011

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

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?