DEFAULT, A RED HERRING

-By Bob Ward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Central Texas Tea Party speaking invitation - How to Swing Votes

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

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!

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?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Solution to the Debt Ceiling Non-Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 26, 2011

Wednesday, April 27 will be a House Vote on the re-districting map for the next decade.  Here is the Youtube video on the latest developments and the latest version of the map that will be presented by Rep. Erwin Cain.  Please call your representatives if you support this latest map and view this message from Rep. Wayne Christian and Joe Nixon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V66Ajznf8oI&feature=youtu.be Rosemary Edwards, Travis County Chairman

Pending Vote on Redisticting Could Check Conservative Advance in Texas

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

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

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

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

Dear CTRA Members and Friends,

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

In its redistricting plan “endorsement”, the TLR press release reads:

Texans for Lawsuit Reform is interested in redistricting because it will impact Texas elections for years. Politics impact policy. Elections matter. TLR PAC, in its campaign activities, has consistently worked to promote and maintain a majority in the Texas Legislature of conservative men and women who believe in a fair, balanced and predictable civil justice system.
...
Our judgment is that alternative statewide maps that have been proffered publicly recently are not likely to result in sustainable conservative majorities.
...
(emphasis mine)

Source: http://www.tortreform.com/news/tlr-statement-hb-150-house-redistricting-map

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Redistricting Regards,

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

CTRA Website
TxRA Website
NFRA Website
Twitter

The Anti Grover-Khan Fatwa at CPAC-2011

-By Timothy Bradberry, NFRA National Committeeman from Texas

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

The low down

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

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

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

The heart murmur

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

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

The fallout

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

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

The board meeting

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

The gay affirmation

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

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

The debrief (what I am and am not saying)

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

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

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

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

Time to End Lawless City Policies

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

Here is a consequence of such policies, described here:

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

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

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

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

Winning the Future

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

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

Travis GOP backs single-member districts for Austin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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