Conservative Views on Supreme Court Ruling on 2nd Amendment

The mainstream media won't provide readers with all the conservative viewpoints that will be issued today regarding the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2nd Amendment.

So in the interest of offering Travis Monitor readers with additional viewpoints, we'll find and post various reactions in their unedited versions:

Ted Cruz says "McDonald v. Chicago Decision “Major Victory” for Gun Rights"

HOUSTON—Former Texas Solicitor Ted Cruz, a leading Second Amendment advocate, made the following statement Monday regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago. Cruz’s efforts in defense of gun rights played a significant role in laying the groundwork for the decision:

“Today’s ruling is a major victory for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is yet another important step toward protecting the Second Amendment across the nation. With fidelity to the intent of the Framers, the Supreme Court rightly held that the Second Amendment -- just like the rest of the Bill of Rights -- protects each and every American.”

Background on Ted’s Second Amendment expertise:

• Ted is best known for his work with the NRA in DC v. Heller, assembling an impressive and diverse coalition of 31 States behind an amicus brief in which he explicitly argued that the Second Amendment should be incorporated against every State in the Union.

• In addition, Ted also drafted amicus briefs in both Parker (known as Heller when it reached the Supreme Court) and in Seegers (a companion case brought by the NRA) and presented oral argument before the D.C. Circuit for the amici States in Seegers.

• Before defending the Second Amendment as Texas Solicitor General, Ted was responsible for all issues concerning gun rights as Domestic Policy Advisor to President George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign.

• Ted’s work extends beyond our highest tribunals into the court of public opinion as well. He fought for the Second Amendment on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and has debated the leading anti-rights scholars before the New York Bar Association and the National Association of Appellate Court Attorneys. He has been published in the Wall Street Journal arguing for an individual right to keep and bear arms (republished by NRA in America’s 1st Freedom) and spoke at the NRA Annual Firearms Seminar in May 2009.

Supporting links:
Cruz interview on Newshour:
Cruz-led brief on DC v Heller

This from the NRA:

National Rifle Association Hails Historic Victory on Second Amendment Freedom in McDonald v. City of Chicago


Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

“This is a landmark decision,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

“This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.”

SBOE Textbook Review - Letter to the Editor sent but not published

I commend the Austin American-Statesman for publishing “Two takes on textbook strife,” (5/18/10).

One take was written by the Texas Freedom Network (TFN), an organization that lost my trust.

Eight years ago, I volunteered to review textbooks for the Texas Board of Education. I was astounded by the number of factual errors I found. I conveyed these to the publishers, as well as some dangling concepts.

One textbook states “John Locke believed that all people are born with certain rights (‘inalienable rights’).” Locke’s reasoning was not explained. This was corrected by the publisher to read: “Locke believed that God created people who all, equally, had certain rights. To deny people these rights would be going against God ….Thomas Jefferson added these ideas to the Declaration of Independence.”

Notwithstanding the truth, the TFN cast me into their bucket of stereotypes as a far right promoter of Christianity!

Austin Becoming California with Gun Buybacks

There's no doubt that Californians have flocked to Austin over the last five years or so. California's once mighty economic engine has broken under the weight of the social-political philosophy of liberalism and its heavy burdens on business and enterprising individuals. Its crime and gangs are other reasons they've fled big cities like Los Angeles, Oakland, etc.

That is why  it breaks my heart when I see California-ism creeping into the social fabric of Texas, which is evident with the gun buyback program touted in yesterday's Statesman.

As the lead paragraph says, "For the first time in Central Texas, a law enforcement agency will take a gun off your hands, ask no questions and give you money for groceries." Ahhhh, doesn't that feel nice, warm and fuzzy? Sort of like a California Teddy bear?

Then later in the story, the reporter, to his credit, finds some examples of how well California programs have worked:

Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Oakland., Calif., also have gun buyback programs.

According to Los Angeles police, a buyback program in May accumulated more than 2,000 guns.

Oakland police officer Jeff Thomason said that officials there held a successful gun buyback program a few years ago but that it was very expensive. He said many people came from outside the city and sold older guns they had in storage, defeating the purpose of getting guns off the street.

I see the problem. Californians like feel-good programs over anything that really works.  The City of Austin is in tow.

In my view the Oakland police officer who is quoted lives in liberal la-la land in terms of how he defines results. He called their gun buyback program 'successful' and then 'expensive' and then admits that the actual functioning of the program served only to get old guns out of storage, defeating the purpose of the program. That's success? Expensive programs that defeat the purpose of the program. I guess so, in Oakland, California.

Note also how either the cop or the reporter trot out the liberal cliche "guns on the street." To the liberal mind it's a big bad world out there with millions upon billions upon trillions of guns that are on the verge of going off simultaneously on their own on the street that need to be confiscated somehow, in this case through incentive programs. The problem of course is that criminals keep their guns. That's their means of being, their tools of trade, their power. Why would they give them up for $100 or $200 in food vouchers? Get real.

Of course, to the liberal, law abiding citizens should give up their guns too. But those folks are turning in worthless pieces of steel and wood for money.

It's instructive to note here also that Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo is himself a California native and so I would bet that he's very knowledgeable and comfortable with the ineffective feel-good programs for which California is now famous.

Maybe that's why the Austin City Council hired him -- they love California and all the things that have steered the state and many of its cities toward bankruptcy.

Sadly, I'm sure there's more of this kind of baloney to come, which is a shame. As Austin becomes more Californian and less Texan in its attitude toward crime, guns, energy, healthcare, abortion, etc., it becomes a more dangerous place.

As I've written previously here and here, more "guns on the street" in Texas has really meant more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens and increasingly lower crime rates. Texans are increasingly qualifying for their concealed handgun licenses and crime continues to drop despite ever larger influxes of people into Texas.

Instead of ineffectual and expense gun buyback programs, Chief Acevedo and the City of Austin should be working with its law abiding citizens to give them the weapons training they need to protect themselves in a responsible manner with the guns they legally possess. An old timer around my neighbor remembers the day when his county's Sheriff office would conduct a summer time gun training for the teenagers of his town. Makes sense to me. Take the mystery out of guns for teens. Show teens how to respect the power and danger of the weapon and how to handle them responsibly. Make them responsible citizens, empowered with the 2nd amendment protections the founders intended against intrusive tyrants. Oh the good ole days of Texas!

But that would make too much sense and it flies in the face of the liberal illogic, especially that which is now coming to Austin from California.

KAGAN NOMINATION ADVANCES OBAMA TOTALITARIAN AGENDA

By Bob Ward

The nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is the latest salvo in President Obama’s war on the Constitution. In this case the target is our First Amendment rights to free speech.

There has been a lot of commentary about her booting the military recruiters off the campus at Harvard and less about a far more important problem with Kagan – her anti-constitutional view of freedom of speech. Put simply, she just doesn’t believe in it.

While the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” Kagan says Congress can make such a law, provided its motives are pure. In a 1996 article in the Univ. of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan said that determining the government’s motive is “the most important” consideration when deciding whether a law restricting speech or press violates the First Amendment.

Restricting speech would be a violation only if it were done just because the message or the messenger may be harmful to elected officials or their political priorities.

Even more disturbing is her view of the free marketplace of ideas. Kagan doesn’t believe in that either. In that same article she argues that the Supreme Court – on which she is about to sit – should not be concerned with protecting the free marketplace of ideas because, she wrote, “it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace.”

Also in the article, she contradicts herself by asserting that the government is capable of determining an ideal marketplace of ideas and should manage the marketplace to achieve it. “If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action -- which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate -- then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote. She refers to this government micro-management of speech and press as “redistribution of speech.”

So, according to Kagan, the government can and cannot decide what is the ideal state of public debate. And it is permitted by our constitution to limit the expression of certain ideas if it determines those ideas are being expressed too often, or too loudly or too effectively or too whatever the government decides.

This bizarre interpretation of the First Amendment would allow the government to silence talk radio if it determines that it is dominated by conservatives resulting in an “overabundance” of conservative ideas being expressed.

Kagan’s notion about an “overabundance” of some ideas could also be applied to the Internet, another target of the Obama administration. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski was recently rebuffed by a Federal appeals court which said his agency had no authority to exert the kind of control he was seeking. With Kagan on the Supreme Court Genachowski could appeal that ruling with some expectation of a different outcome.

This is an expectation that Obama appears to share. He was highly critical of the Supreme Court when it ruled that a corporation has a right under the First Amendment to express a political opinion. In that case, Kagan, as Solicitor General of the United States, contended that Congress could constitutionally prohibit corporations from publishing pamphlets that advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

Responding to her claim, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that her interpretation of the First Amendment, “would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern.”

It could even, Roberts continued, “empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are.”

Kagan on the Supreme Court would be a threat to the most fundamental liberties the Constitution
was written to protect – the right to speak our minds and express our opinions. It is hard to
imagine any right more central to the notion of representative government.

Government to the Rescue .... NOT!

The media is treating to us a ping-pong blame game for the failed clean up effort for the blown out BP rig. The pundits are engaged in the pointless question of what the government or BP should be doing about the clean up. The one quote that stands out to me is the Coast Guard chief's statement that his agency wouldn't know the first thing about a clean up effort.


So, I've just got to ask, isn't it government's core job to protect the public interest? Isn't it in the public's interest not to have oil fouled beaches, dead fisheries, and a ruined tourism business for Louisiana?

With all the billions that the government has reaped from taxes on oil company profits and lease payments on offshore oil rigs over the decades, and the certain knowledge that __it happens, wouldn't you think the government would have invested those billions of dollars into an environmental safety net that would protect our national coastlines from such disasters?

Once again I see in my mind's eye all those New Orleans school district buses lined up safely in their depot, without one single person's life-saving idea to use them to transport people out of the city, safely away from Hurricane Katrina.

Based on these two incidents, you realize that it's every man for themself because the government, robber and thief of your hard-earned money, is no guardian of your safety or your fundamental interests when __it happens. Make sure you're prepared for.... whatever. The government -- at all levels -- is not.

P.S. Peggy Noonan spelled out these same thoughts in more detail in her WSJ article a few days after my post.

Fox Austin Pillories Perry Over "Mansion" After Poll Shows White Getting Shellacked

To those who complain about Fox News having a rightward tilt haven't watched the Fox Austin affiliate recently. Its approach to generating 'people's opinion oriented' news tilts in only one direction -- against Republicans and conservative positions.

I wrote last year on Travis Monitor about Fox News Austin's horrid fear mongering about the spike in gun sales that was occurring. They never mentioned that it was a result of people's reaction to the Obama government's runaway, rights-stealing, anti-Constitutional effort to wrest power from the people at every turn. The Austin Fox News story was a vapid treatment laced with predictable leftist views. It was Exhibit A for why I don't regularly tune into the program.

Last night though I happened to leave Austin Fox News on after Jack Bauer's rampage on 24 and I was treated to yet more vapidity. I need to do better job of managing my remote control.

Immediately after a short segment showing Perry to be kicking Bill White's butt in early polls, Fox did a hit piece on Perry's shacking up in a tent while trying ineffectively to do the work of the people while waiting for the Texas Governor's mansion to be repaired. Ummm... not.

What they did instead -- I guess in the name of balance -- was reference an Associated Press story about the costs associated with the Governor's taking up residence in a gated house with a pool while the Governor's mansion is being rebuilt after a fire. "It costs more than $10,000 a month in rent, utilities and upkeep to house Perry in a five bedroom, seven bath mansion," according to the report. Hey, it costs me about $3,000 in mortgage payments, utilities and upkeep for my modest 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath house. $500 of my expense is county taxes. I wonder what the monthly taxes are for the "Mansion." $1,500?

Fox reporter James Irby relays the costs for various items like they're a scandal. $8,000 for pool maintenance for instance. Well, there are a lot of people who would love to have only $8,000 in annual pool expenses. Heck, just last year a government-mandated requirement for pool equipment cost my community association $5,000, in addition to the upkeep and chemical expenses of about $5,000, but no breaking story on that.

The drabble goes on.

Irby and Co. did their best to find expert commentators like afternoon bike rider Jason Kahle, identified by Fox as "Taxpayer," who's wearing a very proletariat oriented "Austin Gliding Tours" t-shirt,  to say "I don't think it's really necessary to be paying that much money, $10,000 a month, for our governor to be living in the lap of luxury." Sounds likes Kahle's got it tough. Here's a follow-up story idea that Irby should investigate: Kahle's living in the lap of luxury. After all, he's biking around in the afternoon, and is tied somehow to Austin Gliding Tours, which doesn't sound to me like the local brick layers or roofing or meat packing union. Maybe he got it at Goodwill, though. Please find out, Mr. Irby.

Then, we're treated to the expert commentary of Chris Surgeon, another person identified as "Taxpayer," but whom I doubt it is a brain surgeon when he's not commentating for Fox, who says "He's living like a rich person while we're all suffering. I mean there's homeless people all over the place, and you wonder, you know. It makes you wonder, doesn't it." It's my guess Chris Surgeon does a lot of wondering about a lot of things. You know. Like what life might be like if marijuana were legal. Or maybe he already knows, you know.

Then, as if Surgeon and Kahle didn't raise enough hackles about the inequities of Perry's "Mansion," Irby and Co trot out the expert opinion of  Lisa Trevino, "Taxpayer," who does her best to coherently express her theory on the role of government and better uses for the money. "Ten thousand dollars seems like it could be used um elsewhere like in you know job seeking services, other government funded sources, something that will benefit more of the public." Um, what?

Finally, we're treated to the expert opinion of Fred Lewis, who earlier in the program is mentioned as
a "campaign finance watchdog." Lewis is referred to by Irby as a campaign finance expert who says he can't tell if the listings for how his campaign pays for Mansions are violations.

Hold on. I thought Irby was talking about taxpayer funding? What's the link here with Perry's campaign? Is Irby and Lewis claiming something's going on with the government funding Perry's campaign through the payments for the mansion? If that's what they're saying, they never said it outright in the segment. The hapless viewer is suddenly moved from taxpayer funding to a campaign finance watchdog without much segue or introduction.

In fact, what the reader should know is that Lewis is a very partisan liberal that has a history of calling Republicans into the court of public opinion over alleged campaign abuses and otherwise advocating for liberal causes. Here's Lewis in Texas Weekly going after former Republican Speaker Tom Craddick. Here's Lewis, dutifully covered by Gardner Selby, in the Statesman advocating for Perry's extending voter registration in Harris County after Hurricane Ike hit Houston, with the liberal Equality Texas Foundation and People for the American Way Foundation. In 2005, the Statesman reported that Lewis was successful in getting 25 Republicans to sign on as supporters of a bill limiting corporate and labor money in the final weeks of an election. Of course, we know now that the U.S. Supreme Court deems such restrictions as unconstitutional despite the protestations of President Barack Obama.

Whatever you may think of Fred Lewis's expert opinion, it is indeed partisan opinion. It's too bad for them and the viewing public that the Fox folks don't label his comments as such, to truly claim the mantle of non-partisan, objective reporting. Instead, Lewis is  just a "campaign finance watchdog" ostensibly doing the work of the people, like Kahle, Surgeon and Trevino. But to me, he's a political hack and Fox News Austin reporters are, by virtue of their half-true representation of Lewis' bona fides, partisan propagandists as well.

My point here is simply that Fox News Austin is, once again, incoherent and biased in its treatment of serious subjects. How about delivering some real journalism at some point?

Here's a simple one: How about asking whether the "Mansion" that the Perrys live in now compares at all to the Governor's Mansion that was burned down in terms of room, maintenance costs and 'burden' to the taxpayer? After all, the Governor and his family need to live somewhere, right? Hasn't the Governor's Mansion been provided to Governors of all political stripe in the past? How is taxpayer funding of a house -- somewhere -- different than they're funding it near the state house?

And here's a tip for earning credibility with more viewers: How about identifying Fred Lewis as a partisan who is always associated with liberal causes?

Fox News Austin delivers simple, mindless propaganda that's geared toward dishing innuendo and scandalous non-correlations to feed its Republican-hating, class-envy trained viewers. It's a disgrace to the practice of journalism and ultimately an insult to the citizens of Austin who misplace their trust in this station's news organization.

In Their Own Words: Obama and Biden Strike Out with the Elena Kagan Pick

Because I gamed the system one time by using the Internet organs of the Democratic Party to vent about Obamacare, I became attached to the receiving end of their email propaganda pipeline (a pipeline spewing more dangerous stuff than crude oil). So, from time to time I get emails from President Barack Obama and his loose/foul mouth side kick, Vice-President Joe Biden. Naturally, the deployment of these "communications" coincide with some pending lurch to the left, such as the shoving of Obamacare down Americans' collective throat or the proposed reform of Wall Street (by adding command and control mechanisms through "the broadest rewrite of the rules governing Wall Street since the Great Depression").

But the upside of getting these email communications is they they provide first hand unfiltered and timely access to the the words and reasoning of the most radical US Administration since FDR. First, I wish to highlight some things that President Obama wrote in his email and said in his 4:18 minute Organizing America (for Obama) sponsored video announcement about his choice of Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.

Her work as Solicitor General has allowed me to see firsthand just why Elena is particularly well-suited to the Court: She has not only a keen understanding of the law, but also one that is rooted in a deep awareness of its impact on people's lives. Last year, she made that clear -- choosing the Citizens United case as her first to argue before the Supreme Court, defending bipartisan campaign finance reform against special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.
(emphasis added)

Strike One: Kagan is an enemy of 1st Amendment (Free Speech) and that demonstrates to Obama why she "is particularly well-suited to the Court". So, Obama is against free speech if it involves political speech (especially speech against Democrats, no doubt).

Now, I look forward to the prospect of Elena taking her seat alongside Justice Ginsberg and Justice Sotomayor. For the first time, our nation's highest court would include three women, ensuring a Court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.
(emphasis added)

Strike Two: So Kagan was picked because of her sex as much as the content of her character or of her perceived jurisprudence. The Court, which is not a representative but rather a judicial body, should not need to be made up of people from all genders, ethnicities, and walks of life (how could 9 people possibly be representative of the mosaic which is America?). How can having three women on the court, even assuming true the rumors that Kagan is gay, "be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of [America in determining matters of Constitutional law], than ever before?"

Vice-President Joe Biden added this in his email with the subject line, "A reason to smile":

She helped us confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even then, it wasn't hard to picture a day when we'd be helping Elena prepare for confirmation hearings of her own...Since that time, I've followed her career, and today, I believe Elena Kagan is an inspired choice for the Supreme Court.

Strike Three: Biden conjures up a Heavenly Mandate here. There was just something about Kagan way back when "she helped us confirm Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Joe pegged her for the Court back then. It is her destiny. It is as if God revealed this to him. Why, she is an inspired choice. The implication is that she is the Anointed One for the Supreme Court, just as Obama is for President. Joe, this is America, not China.....at least not yet!

Thus, in their own words the President and Vice President demonstrate that the Obama Administration has struck out in terms of their rationale for picking Elena Kagan for Supreme Court and thus Ms. Kagan should not be confirmed by the Senate.

9.9%

Unemployment ROSE to 9.9% this past month, and the media is spinning it as 'good news' because jobs were added... yes, jobs are being added after a long drought of jobs, but we have more workers looking for work, and the broader unemployment measure, by including discouraged workers, hit 17.1% in April.
The 17% number means is that we have a large pool of unemployed and under-employed people who will be seeking opportunities should they arise. If they don't they stay on as the large long-term unemplo. We have 6 million fewer private sector jobs now than in 2006, and many of that 17% were in that group.

The good news on the jobs front is strong enough that it precludes a 'double-dip'. The economy has created a total of 573,000 jobs during this year. But that is just a fraction of the jobs needed to make up for the jobs lost, and the recovery is stunted and sub-par. The underlying reason is the failure of those in power to focus on economic growth, and hostility to those who make our economy work. Instead we have gotten the 'empty calories' of stimulus and Government jobs, while private business have been given more and more burdens.

Deepwater Horizon Response

The Deepwater Horizon Response website is a great source for status and progress by BP and the Coast Guard in dealing with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They are also giving Twitter updates. In the evening of May 7th (3 hours previous to this blog post), they updated the news on the cofferdam to be used to contain the subsea oil leak:

Cofferdam Update - The cofferdam (containment dome) is currently hovering above the site as the surface is being prepped by ROVs. It will hover there until they are ready. They hope to lower to sea floor today, but they need to finish prepping the surface.

The cofferdam being lowered into the water:



Here is a picture of a controlled oil burn used to reduce the oil:

GULF OF MEXICO - Coast Guard Petty Officer 1st Class Justin Sawyer observes a controlled burn from the deck of Mark and Jace, a contracted shrimping vessel assisting with oil recovery efforts in the Gulf of Mexico, May 5, 2010. The U.S. Coast Guard, working in partnership with BP, community volunteers, and other federal agencies, conducted the controlled burn to aid in preventing the spread of oil following the April 20 explosion on the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit Deepwater Horizon. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Jeffery Tilghman Williams.

And a video of an ROV capping one of the leaks.

Status of the oil spill itself is here. Should the leak be contained by the planned cofferdam, and the mitigation efforts reduce the spill work, the worst-case scenario will be averted and the impact on the coastline may end up being minimal.

Obama's Katrina?

Something has been seriously amiss with the administration's response to the Oil Rig explosion in the gulf, which has evolved into being the worst offshore U.S. oil spill ever.

Feds knew of potential disaster and yet mitigation efforts have been slow, no burns of oil done, DHS Secretary did not know nor leverage military capabilities for 12 days ... and more than a week passed before President Obama moved to address the disaster despite the clear evidence that BP and the Coast Guard were unable to stop the flow of oil and contain the spill.

Obama manages to not get the heat Bush did when the Federal Government faced challenges.

Understanding Arizona's Immigration Law

Source - Center for Immigration Studies :

The new law recently signed by the governor of Arizona, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to violate some federal immigration statutes. While the law is extremely popular in the state, with 70 percent of Arizona voters approving of it and just 23 percent opposed, it has raised controversy. Below is a brief summary of the relevant information on illegal immigration in Arizona, followed by a short analysis of SB 1070’s major provisions.

Illegal immigration in Arizona:

• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.¹
  
  
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.² This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
  
  
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.³ Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.⁴
  
  
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.⁵
  
  
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.⁶
  
  
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.⁷
  
  
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.⁸
  
  
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.⁹
  
  
• In 2007, the Center estimated that one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.¹⁰
  
  
• The new law (SB 1070) is extremely popular among Arizona voters. A Rasmussen poll found that 70 percent of voters approve of the new bill, and just 23 percent oppose it.¹¹

Among the new law’s provisions:

• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
  
  
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
  
  
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
  
  
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.¹² Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
  
  
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
  
  • A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
    
  • A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
    
  • A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
  
  
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
  
  
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”¹³

Important U.S. Supreme Court Victory: Salazar v. Buono

Ted Cruz on this important Supreme Court decision:

Yesterday, by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a 75-year-old veterans’ memorial in California’s vast Mojave Desert can remain standing. The memorial, a seven-foot metal cross, was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans to honor their fallen brethren.

This is an important victory for every veteran and every lover of liberty in America. Nothing in the Constitution supports tearing down this monument to those who gave their lives in World War I, and the Supreme Court has rightly reversed the lower-court decision that, until now, has shamefully required that the monument be covered up in a plywood box.

As Justice Kennedy powerfully observed in yesterday’s lead opinion, the Mojave Desert Memorial “evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”

I was deeply honored to represent over three million veterans in this case. Along with my dear friend Kelly Shackelford, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the American Ex-Prisoners of War. Read our brief here.

Kelly and I also wrote a piece on the case in the Wall Street Journal, which you can read HERE.

There was much at stake in this decision. All across this nation, monuments with religious symbols memorialize fallen veterans.

The ACLU challenged the Mojave Desert Memorial. If they had won this case, veterans memorials throughout the nation would have been in jeopardy, including the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery. That is an extreme and radical view, and it is not consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The most effective part of our brief, in my opinion, is not the legal arguments, but the appendix, which has pictures of veterans memorials throughout the world that could have been imperiled by this lawsuit. I commend you to review those pictures and reflect on the stakes of this case.

Moving forward, we will certainly face many more challenges to monuments that acknowledge or reflect our religious heritage. But yesterday’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward protecting freedom of religious expression as intended by our Founding Fathers.

Listen to this interview with NPR in which I explain this very point.

America’s veterans who have died defending our country gave their last measure of devotion to preserve our right to free speech and religious expression. We owe it to them to remain vigilant against those who would dishonor their memory.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court protected them, and remained faithful to the Constitution.

- Ted Cruz, former Texas Solicitor General

New York Times Can't Admit that Obama is Unpopular

The New York Times acknowledged Saturday that there's a no patience out in the hinterland west of the Hudson River for Democrats and the direction they're taking this country, in their story "Democrats’ Long-Held Seats Face G.O.P. Threat."

Of course, the journalists Jeff Zeleny and Adam Nagourney never once mention that President Obama is a major reason for expected losses. Instead, it's Democrat representatives support for big government initiatives. The initiatives aren't linked to Obama.

Zeleny and Nagourney only say there is a 'discontent with Washington' without mentioning why there is such discontent:

Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his [21-term Democrat David Obey] seat but also Democratic control of Congress.

Sean Duffy, who is Obey's challenger, says he's running against Obey because of his leading role in the health care socialization bill and other big government efforts. That's where the discontent originates, according to the Times weak handling of that issue. Never is the 'discontent' assigned to Obama. The only mention of Obama is the fact that his old Senate seat in Illinois (and Biden's by the way) is in play as well.

The Time continues to shill for Obama, once again ignoring his unpopularity and what will be the overriding reason for Democrat losses in November.

The Democrat Jobs record

British politiicians and Obama

A concise American view of British elections:

Brown hasn’t a clue about real life, Cameron seems determined to torpedo his own political fortunes, and Clegg is ashamed of his own country.

It takes three people in the UK to do all that, while we Yanks are much more efficient, with Barack Obama doing all three things himself.

America, meet the challenge, remember in November

HT to Powerline, a powerful video on America's rising in 2010:


Remember November. 11-2, that is.

Democrats Vote For Taxpayer-Funded Viagra To Child Molesters

The above is the headline the Democrats will get to read if they vote against this. Way to go, Sen Coburn!

UPDATE: WELL GUESS WHAT - We can say it now - "Democrats Vote For Taxpayer-Funded Viagra To Child Molesters" - they voted down the Coburn Amendment.

Bill White caught lying about History

No, this is not about Bill White's failure to report all his income.

Bill White last week fired off a bold claim that Perry was 'meddling' in Education with the State Board of Education and had taken Thomas Jefferson out of the history books, saying:

"Last week the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), led by Rick Perry's appointee, voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbook standards."

Well, like a lot of things the Democrats are saying - IT WASN'T TRUE. State Board of Education Chair Gail Lowe has reported that Thomas Jefferson is in the TEKS for many grade levels - elementary, 5th grade, 8th grade, high school history. He's still in there! She says:

"Apart from Thomas Jefferson, the only historical figure with more emphasis in the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills standards is George Washington."

White's claim was JUST ANOTHER WHITE LIE I GUESS. Maybe his mistake was believing what the liberal press was telling everybody. More on how dreadfully misleading the reporting on the SBOE is, from SBOE Chair Gail Lowe:

Poor Reporting by News Media: Thomas Jefferson vs. Texas Social Studies Standards

by Gail Lowe, Chair of Texas State Board of Education

3.19.10

It did not take long for reverberations from the Texas State Board of Education's preliminary vote on Social Studies requirements to spread across the country.

And predictably, the media coverage was woefully inaccurate and blatantly distorted.

The New York Times probably was not the first to report on the board's deliberations, but it joined a host of prominent Texas news outlets that incorrectly claimed Thomas Jefferson had been dropped from the curriculum framework used in Texas public schools.

Apart from Thomas Jefferson, the only historical figure with more emphasis in the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills standards is George Washington.

The State Board of Education expects students at the elementary-grade level, in middle school and again in high school to study these Founding Fathers and to be well-versed in their contributions to American history and government.

Thomas Jefferson is included along with John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Nathan Hale, the Sons of Liberty and George Washington as Founding Fathers and patriot heroes that Texas fifth-graders should study for their notable contributions during the Revolutionary period.

During Grade 8, in which the history of the United States from the early colonial period through Reconstruction is presented, the Social Studies TEKS framework requires students to explain the roles played by the following significant individuals: Abigail Adams, John Adams, Wentworth Cheswell, Samuel Adams, Mercy Otis Warren, James Armistead, Benjamin Franklin, Bernardo de Galvez, Crispus Attucks, King George III, Haym Salomon, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, the Marquis de Lafayette, Thomas Paine and George Washington.

The U.S. Government course required for high school graduation mandates that students "identify the contributions of the political philosophies of the Founding Fathers, including John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, George Mason, Roger Sherman and James Wilson on the development of the U.S. government."

In addition, high school students must "identify significant individuals in the field of government and politics, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan."

To say the State Board of Education has excluded Thomas Jefferson from the curriculum framework is irresponsible and untruthful.

Jefferson not only penned the words of the Declaration of Independence, served as the third President of the United States and was father of the University of Virginia, but his promotion of the ideals of states' rights and a limited federal government have permeated our nation for centuries. No study of American history would be complete without his inclusion.

That is why Thomas Jefferson warrants such strong emphasis in the TEKS standards the State Board of Education has approved.

A critical skill Texas students should develop as part of their education is the ability to analyze information from primary source documents.

This should be a requirement for journalists, too. Many seem to have jumped to erroneous conclusions without even examining the actual curriculum standards.

One can disagree ideologically with the State Board of Education, but the TEKS standards themselves should be the point of reference for objective, thorough reporting.

________________________________

Gail Lowe (R-Lampasas) is chairman of the 15-member Texas State Board of Education.

Texas Responds to the Passage of Democrat Govt Takeover of Healthcare

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” -Sam Houston

We in Texas are not taking this ObamaCare assault on American freedom and common sense lying down.

For starters, our AG Greg Abbott is joining others in challenging the constitutionality of the Federal mandates that force people to buy a product against their will:

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has announced he will be participating in a lawsuit with several other states to use the courts in an effort to stop ObamaCare.

And well they should, for not only did the Democrats in Congress not read the bill, they didn’t read the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”–Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Senator Hutchison has joined Sen DeMint in a call to Repeal Obamacare… Saying:

“In tough economic times, the last thing our nation needs is higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.”

For mild-mannered Hutchison to say “unconstitutional power grab” - well, someone been drinking the Good Tea lately.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and here is the Repeal Bill in its beautiful and stunning simplicity:

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made by that Act, are repealed.

State Representative Ken Paxton has given his answer:

Following the passage of H.R. 3590, “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” by the U.S. House of Representatives, I am drafting legislation to reject this overreaching bill due to its impact and costs to our State and to Texas taxpayers. I will file this legislation at the first opportunity for consideration next legislative session, which will begin in January 2011. We must be ready to reject federal takeover of our healthcare system.

The legislation I am currently drafting will be titled, “The Texas Health Freedom Act.” This Act will declare that the public policy of the State of Texas is to exercise sovereign power providing for the rights of Texas residents to choose their own health insurance plan freely without imposition or threat of penalties from the federal or state government. Additionally, this Act gives the Attorney General the express duty to protect the rights and property of the residents of Texans with respect to federal mandates. This bill is modeled after the constitutional amendment that passed in Arizona (HCR 2014) in 2009 and the bill that was signed into law in Idaho (HR 391) on March 17, 2010.

….

If anyone thinks the passage of the ObamaCare bill means it is over, they haven’t counted on Texas. Paxton’s bill asserts common sense and defends our healthcare freedom.

The leaders of Texas will be fighting this terrible Government takeover with every tool at their disposal. They will use lawsuits, state law, state administrative action, 10th amendment assertions. They will succeed if the people join them and support this approach and give Republicans a chance to overturn and repeal this through majorities in the Congress and the Statehouse. In short, these will succeed only if we win in November. This includes all the Statehouses across the nation, not just the Congress. (So get to know your State Rep candidate!) Our enemy, more than anything, is the apathy and defeatism that leads to inaction.

Now is the time, more than ever, with an election where the stakes could not be higher and where our freedom and our future is on the line, to stand up and ACT on your beliefs. Help the campaign(s) of your choice, give Republicans the spine to support REPEAL. Don’t Give Up. Be of firm resolve and have confidence that by being right, and doing right, we will prevail. Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, and we are not about to start now.

NEWS ALERT: EDDIE RODRIGUEZ ARRESTED FOR DWI!

Well, well the incumbent in HD 51 (http://bit.ly/cs93sB) has gone and got himself arrested for DWI. Seems he is lacking in good judgment and self control.

Here are links to a couple of stories on the incident:
http://bit.ly/9loSH5
http://bit.ly/9gH3Oc

It is noteworthy that there are so few and such content-less stories on the arrest of Rep. Rodriguez in the Press. Of course, it's only been three days since the incident. But, I almost forgot, Rep. Rodriguez is a Democrat and thus has immunity from negative press coverage during this "innocent until proven guilty" phase of his prosecution. If he were a Republican, the rules would of course be reversed and he would likely be considered by the Press to be guilty until proven innocent.

KXAN-State Representative Arrested for DWI
http://bit.ly/a1t5sS

Rep. Eddie Rodriguez is a died-in-the wool “we need an income tax” liberal who has not represented his constituents well and is the kind of incumbent that deserves to be defeated, even not considering the current DWI charges against him. It's time for Rep. Rodriguez to retire and who best to retire him that someone who actually grew up in HD 51 and thus understands the district. That someone is Eddie's Republican opponent, Marilyn Jackson.

Remember In November!

Today, we saw the last gasp and high-water mark of 20th Century Social Welfare Liberalism.

This radical, partisan bill barely scraped by with a 219 vote for, 212 against.

This vote today is a victory for vote-counting Democrats in only the most tactical sense, but a defeat on so many levels for so many Americans.

For the taxpayers, this huge tax hike is a defeat. For the elderly, a defeat for their care. For the healthy and for the self-employed, a defeat for their healthcare choices and freedom, as they are all now conscripted into force health insurance mandates. For the system, a defeat for common-sense and market-driven efficiency, as we now have Government more involved than ever. For the American people as a whole, it a defeat for democracy, as the will of the people was clearly not listened to.

And for the Democrats themselves, it is a defeat for them, or at best a Pyrric Victory. Many Congressmen who voted for this, will deservedly be defeated in November. The Democrats will be dealt a crushing blow in November. Millions of Americans will heed the call - Remember in November! Repeal! Kill the Bill!

Tomorrow is perhaps the end of the American experiment as it was for 250 years. Or it might be the start of something different: Operation Restore American Freedom begins tomorrow.

This day forward, the Government takeover of healthcare has now made healthcare the central issue politically at the national and state level. It has bankrupted in one fell swoop EVERY ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM and the Federal budget itself.

Newbusters says: "Krauthammer announced upon passage of health care reform legislation in the House of Representatives, we will have a different country and on the road to nationalized health care."

RedState blogger Erick Erickson says 'repeal': "1. Pledge immediate repeal in toto of Obamacare should it pass. No nibbling at the edges — the whole thing and we pledge our lives, fortunes, and honor to crushing any member of Republican leadership who refuses to get on the full repeal bandwagon."

A Fearful Master

None Dare Call it Bribery

Special Deals-for-Votes made for Obamacare
Here are some of the special deals made to get Demonsheep-ocrat Reps sold out to sign up for the $2.5 trillion Obamacare plan.

Demoncrats Poised to Lunge Left, Telling Pro-Life Dems and American Majority: Go to Hell! We're Aborting Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness

As the vote on the latest reincarnation of socialized heath care legislation approaches, it is as if the power hungry (seemingly demon possessed -- 'deem and pass' sounds like?) Democrat majority in the House is poised to lung left, telling Stupak's Pro-Life coalition of Democrat lawmakers and a majority of Americans: Go to Hell! We're aborting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and you can't stop us.

In November, I trust that many of these leftists will find their careers in Congress aborted, and a well deserved but much too late term abortion that will be. It's about time these anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-property legislators felt a bit of the pain they have caused, and will cause, the unborn and born alike across the Republic, which God and the Founding Fathers have entrusted to us to enjoy and preserve. If the Dems are successful in going against the People's will with health care "reform", then after November these leftist will experience how law is aborted. They'll learn how to spell R-E-P-E-A-L.

Please pray for America. Here are some current stories for your prayerful consideration.

Stupak vote key in health care overhaul

Nathan Hurst / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Last Updated: March 21. 2010 12:22PM

Washington -- In the end, the health care debate on Capitol Hill could come down to appeasing the pro-life Democrat from the tiny town of Menominee on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Rep. Bart Stupak.

His firm hold-out for stronger language banning the use of federal funds for abortions has turned the Democrat's race for 216 votes in the House -- the magic number needed to pass the $940 billion legislation -- into a last-minute, nail-biting struggle for majority leaders...read more

Anti-Abortion Groups Counting on 'Pro-Life' Dems

By Lawrence D. Jones|Christian Post Reporter

The pro-life American majority, and hundreds of thousands of unborn children, are counting on the remaining self-labeled “pro-life” Democrats to hold firm for Sunday's historic House vote on health care, said the head of a leading anti-abortion group Saturday.

As a handful of self-labeled "pro-life" Democratic members of Congress announced their support for the current Health Care reform legislation, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser insisted that any member of Congress who votes for the “pro-abortion” legislation can no longer call themselves “pro-life.”...read more

Democrat bigwig: We have votes for health care reform; GOP chief: No you don't!

BY Katie Nelson AND Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Sunday, March 21st 2010, 12:31 PM

Confident Democrats declared themselves on the verge of making history Sunday as they headed into the momentous and long-awaited vote to overhaul the nation's health care system.

But Republicans - and even some Democrats - questioned whether the House leaders had really managed to round up the 216 votes needed to pass the sweeping legislation....read more (participate in a one question online poll)

Congress, Catholics debate health care

The showdown over health care reform among Democrats on Capitol Hill is nothing compared to the showdown among American Catholics. Or is it?...read more

Orange County pro-lifers anxiously await heath care vote

Orange County Roman Catholic ExaminerRichard Sikorski
March 19, 12:06 PM

Passing of the Senate health care bill by the House is in doubt. Language that supports taxpayer funding of abortion is the problem....read more

Democrat State Rep. Rodriguez Arrested for DWI

The incumbent Democrat State Rep in HD 51 has gone and got himself arrested for DWI.

The Statesman reported on it via the State Rep's own press release, so don't expect to see "DWI Eddie" as his new media label. Rep. Rodriguez is a Democrat and thus "innocent until proven guilty". If he were a Republican, the rules would be reversed and he would likely be considered by the Press to be guilty until proven innocent.

Obamacare Predictions

The vote count is close as the bill comes down to the wire. The liberal blog FireDogLake has 209 NO votes as of Saturday night, recent no votes added are Jim Matheson of Utah, Ohio’s Zack Space, Glenn Nye, Jason Altmire, and Lorreta Sanchez. This doesn't count the "Stupak bloc" of 10 votes, leading to the conclusion that the bill will fail without the Stupak bloc.... but since they did NOT buy off Stupak, then the inevitable conclusion is ... the Bill Will Fail.

Can it be real? They actually don't squeeze enough Democrats to get this elephantine pile 'o socialistic tax-and-spend road apples passed? Obama may see a repeat of his Copenhagen performance - putting his cred on the line and his chip on the table and seeing himself get bupkis.

If it succeeds, it won't be the end, nor a capstone. It will be a Democratic millstone in November. And beyond, this bill will be the CENTRAL political issue for years, a political black hole that will suck all matter around it into its vortex. The taxes, spending and bureaucracy are all so huge, there is nothing this bill won't touch. It so corrodes the Federal structure of Government that it will set off a firestorm of reaction across many states, inciting nullifications and repeals and stat-level 'opt-out' pleas and challenges. it will drain the Federal treasury, making a balanced budget impossible and real tax reform a dream.

More Obamacare predictions:
1. The bill will cost more than advertised.
2. Insurance premiums will keep rising.
3. The quality of care will be worse.
4. The Left will keep pushing for more.
5. Republicans won’t really try to repeal it. .. once an entitlement is in place, it becomes virtually impossible to take away.

That last one is a sad prediction. If the bill has all the bad effects noted in 1-4, it may well be repealed in 2013, before all the huge entitlement expansions kick in for good.

But we shall see. The best way to stop all the bad effects of Obamacare is to not pass it in the first place.

Another Former President On a Billboard

The IRS Expansion Act of 2010

Critics have insisted that the Obama-Pelosi healthcare bill in Congress is not about healthcare. This latest news shows the bill is a HUGE expansion of the IRS:

* IRS agents verify if you have “acceptable” health care coverage;
* IRS has the authority to fine you up to $2,250 or 2 percent of your income (whichever is greater) for failure to prove that you have purchased “minimum essential coverage;”
* IRS can confiscate your tax refund;
* IRS audits are likely to increase;
* IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade;
* IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans; and
* Nearly half of all these new individual mandate taxes will be paid by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty ($66,150 for a family of four.)

Let's just call Obamacare the IRS Expansion Act of 2010.

Dems Giddy over a trillion-dollar bill

Democrat whip James Clyburn announces the majority is “giddy” over the $940 billion price tag

Houston, We have a light-rail problem

Houston light rail has been a disaster.

This is a recipe for disaster and Austin is sowing the exact same seeds of fiscally reckless pipe-dream driven light-rail dreams.

Good luck, Cap Metro... and hide your wallets, taxpayers - light rail is going to skin us for a lot of money.

Obama's Deficit - TWO TRILLION AND COUNTING

Record-breaker: Obama runs up $2 trillion in debt in 421 days ...

The 2009 congress had a bigger deficit (1.41 trillion) than the 1994-2006 congresses combined (1.25 trillion). One year of Democrats' deficits was larger than the entire 12 years the Republicans were the majority.

but who's counting these days?

Democracy Subverted, The Obama Edition

John Gordon did WHAT?!?

Holly Hansen on SmartGirlPolitics says Gordon Thinks the Texas Ethics Commission is a Joke : "The Sun reported that John Gordon, candidate for the Texas House of Representatives, District 52, intentionally violated the laws for campaign reporting and has refused to pay the associated fines handed down by the Texas Ethics Commission."

It's hard to find a more arrogant and politically destructive act than snubbing your nose at campaign filing requirements. This guy has just poured gasoline on himself and lit a match ... and that's above and beyond his lawsuits against political opponents and other bizarre acts of belligerence. He's unelectable and deservedly so ...

Which means that since he is in a runoff against the much stronger Republican Larry Gonzales, in a race to take on a liberal Democrat incumbent in this Williamson district ... Go Larry, Go!

Obama Administration Cuts School Programs that Work

He cut $170 million in funding for abstinence programs this year that works: "classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study."

A History Lesson in How Democrats Screw Up

Saw on a message board at The Hill:

In 1946 - Dems were hammered for focusing on National HC when prices spiked and wages were stagnant. 1994 - dems were hammered again for Universal HC when jobs slumped. 2010 - the dems are going to be hammered again for wasting 14 months on something no one says is a top priority. We Americans are going to take the nation back in 2010, and moreso in 2012. How many times do these stupid democrats need to be taught this lesson? How many dems are going to fall on their sword, only to see it repealed? Wow, that's quite the legacy you'll have, huh? Wasting 14 months when the nation has said from day 1 that jobs was the top priority. Nice going idiots. You deserve everything that happens to you, democrats.

It is said that those who don't learn from History are condemned to repeat it, and the thought occurs that it is the ignorance of history which allows Democrat majorities to return and make the same mistakes that were made before.

Liberal Media Falls Off Obamacare Bandwagon

who have you left, other than the brass-knuckle Congressional Whips. The Seattle Times:

This is a change of position for us. This page supported Barack Obama for president, enthusiastically. We have supported the health-care effort until now. We still support universal coverage as a social goal.

But the longer the fight goes on, the more it feels that the timing is all wrong. The economy is wounded. Employers are hurting. The time to think about loading employers with new burdens is when they are strong. Not now ...

President Obama has promised that any health-care bill he signs will not add one dime to the deficit, which already has swelled beyond anything since World War II. The president has put himself in a position where he cannot keep that promise. He has let each house of Congress come up with its own health-care bills.

The result has been chaos: The public option is in then out; the Medicare buy-in for 55-year-olds is in, then out. When the congressional dance stops, the Senate may have 60 votes, but for what? It will satisfy neither Obama’s frugal promise nor progressives’ lavish hopes.

K-12 Education Costs more than reported

CATO: Spending On Public Education 44% Higher Than Reported.

Video and written report shows that actual per pupil spending in many school districts is much higher than reported. For Houston:

the average real per-pupil spending figure of over $12,200 is 49 percent higher than the $8,200 the districts claim to spend. Real public school spending is 30 percent higher than the estimated median private school spending average of $9,400 (Figure 6)

The cost of In-state Tuition for Illegal Immigrants in Texas Colleges

Thousands of non-citizens getting in-state Texas tuition:

More than 12,000 illegal immigrants, non-permanent residents or non-U.S. citizens paid in-state tuition or received other such financial aid at public colleges and universities across Texas during late 2009, the Dallas Morning News reported today.

The figures from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board show about 1 percent of all Texas college students, in the fall semester, benefited from a 2001 law granting such in-state tuition.

The law says students who are not U.S. citizens and want to seek the assistance must have attended school in the state for at least three years before they graduate from a Texas high school. Students also must file an affidavit saying they plan to seek permanent residency.

During the fall semester, 12,138 students benefited from the law. Texas awarded about $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid to those students between fall 2004 and summer 2008, according to the newspaper.

The number for the TRUE cost is likely much higher than $33 million, since beyond direct financial aid, the state subsidizes state colleges to the tune of $10 billion pr biennium.

Healthcare Cramdown Roundup

A roundup of news and views on healthcare:

Democrats will subvert the Constitution in their attempt to avoid political accountability for their vote - "It would be 100 times worse than Watergate."

Stop Pelosi's Slaughter House. The Democrats don't have the votes yet, and links to undecided Democrats are there.

Obama's illusions of cost control debunks many of the phony talking points used to justify the bill.
It won't reduce emergency room use, it won't cut mortality rates, it won't cut costs:

He's telling people what they want to hear, not what they need to know. Whatever their sins, insurers are mainly intermediaries; they pass along the costs of the delivery system. In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion. This hardly explains high health costs. What people need to know is that Obama's plan evades health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook.

Obama lies to seniors... Reality check: Medicare would be used to fund nearly half the plan, which means subsidies to Medicare Advantage programs used by seniors will be redirected, and other squeezes will be made. ... or they will blow up the deficit to paper over the gaps. The solvency of the whole nation is imperiled by a bill that adds a trillion dollars to healthcare expenditures.

Obama drops objectios to sweetheart deals. Side deals are IN as they use bribery and threats to buy off votes.

Scott Brown on Healthcare more popular video than Obama.

Polls show Democratic health care bill unpopular in key: By approximately 2-1 margins, voters in these districts oppose the current legislation, oppose a mandate to buy health insurance, believe the government can’t afford the legislation and believe that health care legislation is distracting attention from more important issues.

Catholic Bishops urge No vote on healthcare.

Cramer says Obamacare will topple rickety market.

Obama has just changed the Democrat party - it's the non-triangulating party of tax-and-spend-and-mandate-and-regulate Big Government Liberalism: "Obama has embraced polarization over triangulation. He has chosen Karl Rove’s politics of base mobilization over Dick Morris’s politics of crossover appeal..."

Lowering Higher Education Costs

Popping the higher education bubble speaks of the positive trends that are happening that could lower higher education costs: Credit-by-exam; open education resources; use of online courses and materials; etc. What can policymakers do to accelerate this change?

For example, state colleges and universities should be required to place instructional content and course information online for free, and to offer their registered students the opportunity to take courses online, for credit, at reduced cost. They should also expand credit-by-exam options.

In Texas, we have a significant amount of coursework based around the 'core' - basic academic courses for a core-based distribution requirements. All such courses could or should be made available as 'credit-by-exam' courses in community colleges.

Obama Admin Pushes Race-based Quotas at UT

In a blow to merit-based admissions at UT, Obama Administration Files Brief Supporting Racial Preferences in University Admissions:

On Friday, the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the use of racial preferences by the University of Texas in its undergraduate admissions. The brief is a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination, and it goes out of its way to say that the administration will support it at the K-12 level, too, as well as throughout university admissions: “In view of the importance of diversity in educational institutions, the United States, through the Departments of Education and Justice, supports the efforts of school systems and post-secondary educational institutions that wish to develop admissions policies that endeavor to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in accordance with [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding the use of preferences by the University of Michigan law school].”

Democrats, the Non-Working Party

The Democrats have done so many things that kill American jobs one would almost think it was deliberate and not merely stupid. Here's another one:

Stimulating Green Jobs for China: "nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power ... nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines."

This doesn't even consider the job-killing downside of wind energy subsidies.

Saw on a message board.
"VOTE DEMOCRAT, IT'S EASIER THAN WORKING"

Democrat Attempt to Break Rules In Trouble

Trying to pass a bill without actually following the proper process can be so danged hard:

But Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said the reconciliation instructions in last year’s budget resolution seemed to require that Mr. Obama sign the Senate bill into law before it could be changed.

Obama Opposes American Energy Jobs

There he goes again ... Opposing American Energy Jobs.

Texas Versus California

Via Ed Driscoll, saying California Tumbles into the Sea, a quantitative California versus Texas comparison. Other than that "ceded by Mexico" gaffe ("Remember the Alamo!"), a nice comparison.

ObamaCare - The Final Push

Via Redstate, article on Obama applying pressure on Congress to pass ObamaCare:

“They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They’ll never get my vote — ever. They’ll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue.”
“there is no chance I am voting for this bill because it raises taxes on businesses, creates job-killing mandates, grows the size of government, and cuts services to seniors.”

“Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Democratic leaders estimate they are short between 6-12 votes in the House, so “To convince these lawmakers, House leadership is preparing a whip operation described as “all hands on deck.” Pelosi and Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) will dispatch loyal lieutenants to help rub elbows and twist arms. Once the party settles on a final set of reconciliation changes, leaders in the labor community are set to launch a major campaign to help with the whipping, officials say."

Don't like it? Let them know.

Letter to Statesman

Pitt’s false implications

Recent Letters to the Editor extolled Leonard Pitts. I admit he does write well. He also cleverly interprets facts by false implications.

In his column ((2/17/10), Pitts accuses Sarah Palin of “shameless hypocrisy” in that she described the president as “a charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” Pitts asserts that she meant that teleprompter use was “the mark of an insubstantial” person while using one herself. That is absurd. Her obvious point was that anyone can read off sentences and appear knowledgeable.

Without a teleprompter, the president makes serious errors. During the campaign he blundered into “spreading our wealth around,” a socialist idea. Then he planned to campaign in “57 states!” Still, even reading a teleprompter can be embarrassing as when Obama pronounced corpsman as “corpse-man.”

However, when Palin spoke to the National Republican Convention, her teleprompter malfunctioned but she continued without a hitch. Pitts is barking up a wrong tree!

Carl Schlaepfer

Culture of Corruption Watch - Massa "railroaded"?

Democrat Congressman Eric Massa, who decided to resign for 'health reasons', then was found to be a subject of sexual harrassment complaint by a male staffer ... now says he was "railroaded":

Massa said he had not been informed of the sexual harassment allegations before they became public. He claimed that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., spoke falsely when he said he had brought the matter to him previously, Massa said. ...

Massa, who voted against health care reform in November, accused Democratic leaders of driving him out of office in the cause of passing health care reform ... "this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."

Republican Election Results for Travis County

See the County's update posted here for the March 2 primary.