Coalition On Sustainable Transportation (COST) recommends NO Vote on Austin "Mobility" Bond (Prop 1)

Austin media sometimes gives short shrift to opposing views to City Council bond initiatives, so here is a press release I received from the Coalition of Sustainable Transportation:

The Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) joins a growing number of Austin organizations (like RECA - Real Estate Council of Austin, and TAG - Texans for Accountable Government) and civic leaders in opposing the Austin City Council’s proposed “Transportation” bond referendum (Proposition 1) to be placed on the November 2, 2010 election ballot.

“This proposed $90 million dollar bond package has been created with little transparency and lacks integrity. The package is a veiled hodgepodge of projects deceptively mislabeled ‘transportation and mobility’ improvements. The city has provided scant data regarding the costs and transportation benefits of any proposed project,” says COST Executive Director and well known transportation expert Jim Skaggs.


Austin citizens use roadways for 99% of their travel. Contrary to the City’s deceptive presentation, more than one-half of the bond money will be spent on projects which have no impact on roadway mobility and congestion, including the following defined projects:

1. The most expensive project in the package is a $14.4 million boardwalk on the south side of Lady Bird Lake.

2. The second most expensive is $10 million for American Disabilities Act sidewalk improvements.

3. The third most expensive is $8 million labeled as “Arterial Streets” but is primarily bike lanes and sidewalks for the 3rd street Lance Armstrong Bike Boulevard.

In addition, another $12.3 million is allocated to projects for sidewalks, trails and bike lanes making a total of $36.7 million.

More than one-third of the $90 million bond is a “blank check” for the city because specific projects are not identified.

The largest true roadway project involves $4 million in temporary improvements to the highly congested “Y” at Oak Hill. Undefined neighborhood streets are allocated $16.35 million of which $2.7m is for ‘traffic calming’ and ‘quiet zone’ funding – terms that are not well defined. Almost $20 million is allocated for street reconstruction which appears to be 'deferred/neglected maintenance' with little mobility improvement. An additional $2 million is to support Capital Metro's Bus Rapid Transit and Urban Rail which has not even been approved by voters. Clearly Cap Metro should fund this and zero should be spent anticipating Urban Rail.

The city’s selection criteria for bond package projects are decidedly ‘anti-automobile’ and ‘anti-mobility.’ They are biased against projects which should have the highest priority: Those which are cost effective in relieving the most road congestion and improving mobility for the greatest number of people.

Voters should vote NO on this poorly formulated bond proposition and require the city to present a cost-effective package with total transparency and mobility benefits data.

COST strongly recommends a different bond package be allocated based on effective projects to relieve road congestion for the most citizens, and deferred maintenance projects should be included in the city’s general fund.

For questions contact: Don Zimmerman, 512-577-8842 (don@donzimmerman.org)

ABOUT COST:
The mission of the Coalition on Sustainable Transportation (COST) is to promote sustainable, cost-effective people mobility solutions for the Austin region. COST’s purpose is to seek and provide objective, analytically based and understandable information which allows citizens, elected officials, other community leaders, and transportation officials to assess people mobility alternatives and select those which equitably serve the Austin region’s greater good.

www.costaustin.org

Voter Forum on Austin Mobility Bond is Oct. 5

Republican Club of Austin hosts voter forum on Austin Prop #1, (the Mobility Bond), Tuesday, Oct. 5th, at noon.

 Austin, TX – The Republican Club of Austin is hosting a forum on Proposition #1, the “Mobility Bond”. The time and location is:
11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Green Pastures Restaurant
811 W. Live Oak Street, Austin, TX

Speaker FOR - Ted Siff (Treasurer for the GetAustinMoving PAC).
Speaker AGAINST - Ed Wendler (Austin developer)

Reference: http://www.cityofaustin.org/news/mobility_bond.htm
“Proposition 1

The issuance of $90,000,000 in tax supported general obligation bonds and notes for constructing and reconstructing roads and streets; constructing, improving and reconstructing sidewalks, bikeways, and other bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure…”

For questions or more information, contact Don Zimmerman, 512-577-8842 (don@donzimmerman.org)

About RCA:
The Republican Club of Austin has been meeting since 1992, and meets on the first Tuesday of every month, and hosts a variety of speakers and forums on current events, from local to state and national level.

Shotgunning With Perry; Tracking White

I had the good fortune to be invited to an event featuring Texas Governor Rick Perry on Friday, at a private sporting clays competition with other bloggers from around the state and nation. The bloggers are here in Austin for a RedState.com blogging event and the organizers took us out to the Cypress Preserve in northwest Austin, through tie-ins to the Perry campaign. A few observations:

• The event was fun. Anytime you get a chance to shoot guns at a target or skeet range you're going to have a good time. I've shot skeet and hunted doves before but never shot at sporting clays, an activity which simulates hunting conditions for various types of bird and game as you might encounter them in the wild. I'd never shot at teal rising straight up in the air before but what a challenge and what fun it was to hit the two targets in the same set! At another station, for dove I think, I went 5-8, with two consecutive sets of double hits on two clays thrown at the same time, coming at the shooter from the same direction. But hey, enough about me!
• Despite the fairly limited access we had to the Governor -- he seemed to be more interested in hustling between groups and getting some shots in at each station than fielding policy questions -- a few bloggers got into policy and campaign stuff with him. But really, who can blame the Governor for not seeming too interested in doing his political duties? Indeed, I was more interested in shooting clays than talking with the Governor anyway. With all due respect, Mr. Governor...
• Rick Perry was shooting what looked like Browning Mossy Oak Duck Blind semi-auto. (Now that would have been a good question for me to ask "What gun are you shooting, Mr. Governor?" and one he might not have ducked! Punny aren't I?)
• The Governor has a very comfortable shooting stance. He moved into shooter mode very easily and quickly and I could tell he was really enjoying his time away from the office. There's no doubt he's a natural shooter, one who has been using guns a long time. In some of his pre-event comments he exuded great confidence in his abilities, saying something like none of us could outshoot him. I believed him, like I believe the golf course hustler who plays all the time for a few bucks here and there. It would have been tempting to take on the Governor in a challenge, but I figured I would have been outgunned. I was right, but if he'd spotted me a few clays, I would have taken up the bet anyway.
• I asked Will Franklin, a media aide for the governor's campaign staff, to poll the bloggers on the bus about their shooting experience. I estimate there were about 50 people on the bus and about 20 said they'd used shotguns before while the other 30 indicated they had never done so. What a shame! I mean really, it's quite sad that adult Americans had never had the chance or the self-initiated gumption to go out and shoot before being invited on press-blogger junket! I think all journalists and bloggers should be required to take a shooting class to understand the 2nd Amendment in the way they take classes to understand the 1st Amendment. As an aside, just think what that percentage of previous shooters to non-shooters it would have been if the bus contained a bunch of left-wing bloggers. Of course they would never be on a bus returning from a sporting clays shooting event in the first place. It's sad that people are so sheltered and so comfortable in their lack of experience with guns. It's even more sad that they are always so intent and determined to dismantle a Constitutional right enjoyed by so many of their fellow Americans.
• The inimitable Anna Z and I were talking about how fun shooting is and how addicting it can be. The personal challenge of controlling the weapon so that you can hit your target is no small feat. Hold the gun correctly, line up the sights, breathe correctly, squeeze correctly all have to be performed in relaxed but focused mental state over the course of seconds. The results are easily seen. If you did it right -- hit. Wrong - miss. There's no "Jobs created or saved" attempts to rationalize poor results, of the type that liberals routinely engage. "Gun control" to a conservative means the ability to hit your target with as little wasted lead spent as possible.
• Of course Anna Z probably has some good policy/political questions for the Governor, so you ought to check her site to see some more professional coverage of the event ;-) My teammate Sibyl West at Ramparts360.com will probably do so as well.

Which brings me to Bill White, the Democrat opponent to Rick Perry for Governor.

I'd like to ask Mr. White some questions about his previous engagement with a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" and his likely alignment with their political objectives in Texas.

Last July, Democratic Senate Candidate John Sharp called on White to quit this liberal group, founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. White is no longer listed as a member as seen here. He was however, as can be seen on this advertisement found at the "MAIG group's web site. (Note to MAIG web tenders - I downloaded the ad PDF so there's no reason for you to remove the link to the Memory Hole.)

The questions then, to both candidates, but especially to Mr. White, would be something like this:

• If elected Governor of Texas, would you adopt the policy prescriptions that MAIG suggests for reducing the flow of weapons to Mexico, including the types now found in California for requiring background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows, requiring purchase permits in advance of handgun sales, allowing local jurisdictions to regulate firearms, and allowing inspection of gun dealers?
• Wouldn't you be concerned that those restrictions would pose undue hinderances on Americans to exercise their rights to bear arms as recently validated by the U.S. Supreme Court?
• Are you more interested in restricting the rights of Americans to buy and sell guns than apprehending illegal aliens who are engaged in securing those guns for transfer to Mexico?
• In a Texas led by Bill White, how much Constitutional liberty should Texans be willing to sacrifice in order for you to help Mexico with its military's fight against drug and illegal immigrant traffickers? Would you put the same emphasis on reducing the amount of drug use by Texans, the already illegal activity that supplies the narco-traffickers with their sources of revenue for purchasing and transporting weapons?

Of course I'd like Governor Perry to answer the same questions. I'd like to think he would live up to his conservative credos and defend Texans' rights to bear arms without undue government meddling, especially in the surreptitious name of helping Mexico with its problems.

Big thanks to the Perry team for having me along!

Mark Strama's Uncle T - How the Elected Class Stays in Power

Just for the record, I am pro tort reform and very thankful that Texas leads the Nation in the important area of tort reform. I do, however take issue with the methods of single issue focused Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) PAC which perpetuates bad incumbent lawmakers on the sole basis that they support TLR’s legislative agenda. In other words, groups like TLR perpetuate the problem that the TEA Party movement has recently--and Republican Assemblies have for many years--risen up to remedy.

I’m happy that Dan Neil and Paul Workman are getting matching funds from Conservative Republicans of Texas. However, it is my understanding that TLR has threatened to match dollar for dollar, in contributions to Patrick Rose and Mark Strama, any contributions to Jason Isaac and Patrick McGuinness, respectively from Conservative Republicans of Texas (CRT) and other PACs, hence no such matching funds to Patrick or Jason from CRT.

I’ve exposed Rose’s connections to powerful interests previously. But since I looked it up I might as well mention that TLR has funneled contributions to Patrick Rose to the tune of $18,493.30 (including in-kind contributions to The Committee To Elect Patrick Rose) since October 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010.

Now, turning my attention to Mark Strama.

Note firstly that Richard Trabulsi, Jr. is president of Texans for Lawsuit Reform and chairman of its political action committee (TLR PAC). In that capacity he has funneled “other people’s money” to both Patrick Rose and Mark Strama for their support of TLR’s agenda, even though on most all other issues they are in lock step with liberal Democrats seeing as how they are liberal Democrats, very liberal.

In the case of Thomas Mark “Obama” Strama, Mr. Trabulsi is his uncle. It must be nice to have an uncle who can funnel other peoples money ($15,000 since November 2009, $10,000 of which has been contributed since May 2010) to your campaign in exchange for a few token votes for TLR on its issues.

Also, I note that Mark Strama’s brother (and thus also Trabulsi’s nephew), Keith Strama is a lobbyist and just look who one of his clients is:

Texans for Lawsuit Reform
919 Congress Avenue, Suite #455, Austin, TX 78701
Type of Compensation: Prospective
$25,000 - $49,999.99
Client Start Date: 01/12/2010
Client Term Date: 12/31/2010

Now if that doesn’t smack of...

As for Strama’s Obama loving credentials, note the excerpt below about the split between Aunt Judy Trabulsi (Richard Trabulsi’s sister) and Nephew Mark (especially the red letter text):

....
Trabulsi, who noted she made her first political contribution — $30 — to Bill Clinton's race for Arkansas attorney general in 1976, has since given more than $18,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaigns since 1999, including $4,200 for her current presidential bid.
....
Generational split
Not everyone is convinced that Hillary Clinton's longtime ties in the state will tip the election in her favor.

Matt Glazer, the editor of the Burnt Orange Report, a liberal blog based in Austin that endorsed Obama, said the question is whether traditional Democratic organization will prevail or whether the primary will be decided by the first-time voters who are drawn to the Illinois senator.

"Is it the new young hip or the usual thing?" said Glazer, a native of Spring. He noted that one of the contributors to his blog is David Mauro, Garry Mauro's son.

One sign of generational differences is that Trabulsi's nephew Mark Strama, a 40-year-old state legislator from Austin, has endorsed Obama.

"Obviously, it was a hard conversation when I told my aunt a year ago I was going to support Obama," said Strama, noting his aunt was "horrified."

"For people in my generation, who didn't get to experience the JFK and RFK candidacies, this is our first chance we have had to be inspired," Strama said.

Source: Clinton's not alone in the Lone Star State: Despite 36-year network, a victory isn't guaranteed

Politics as usual must stop. November is coming! May the conservatives smash their opposition on election day.

(The source of all the PAC contributions and lobbyist information given above is the Texas Ethics Commission website.)

Dope Smokers and Sanctuary City Supporters Put More Blood on Their Hands

The news that 72 people were murdered in Mexico should sadden everyone, especially those who smoke dope, do drugs and support "undocumented aliens" in America.

 They are the ones providing the incentives for migrants to come to America and forcing them to risk getting involved with the thugs and villains in the drug gangs and the human trafficking rings. And the dope smokers are empowering the drug gangs with money and the means to organize, buy guns and evade authorities.

Count these poor souls on your conscience, along with those folks who suffocated in that truck in Victoria a few years back.

Go ahead and smoke those Blood Tokes. Maybe you'll anesthetize yourself to the death and suffering you cause, even to your own soul.

Americans for Prosperity Respond to Attack from President Bully Obama

American Presidents of the past have reserved their most pointed and damning rhethorical attacks for the true enemies of America.

By contrast, President Barack Obama coddles those enemies and conveys his animosity toward his domestic political opponents. It's sad, destabilizing and dangerous for the President of the United States to continue his attacks on American citizens he may disagree with while kowtowing to non-citizens who want to kill American citizens.

In the spirit of ensuring that Travis Monitor readers see the full response of a group that was attacked by President Obama while he was here in Travis County a few weeks back, here is the full Americans For Prosperity press release release commenting on this travesty:

AFP – TEXAS ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN ADDRESSES RECENT ATTACKS ON AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY

Ben Streusand, Texas Advisory Board Chairman for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), responds to President Obama’s comments criticizing AFP’s grassroots origins and its funding:

“President Obama’s comments at a Democratic party fundraiser August 9th, in Austin were decidedly unpresidential and showed a disturbing contempt for citizens who simply have a different vision for our country than that of the President.

“AFP’s legal, ethical, and honorable activities, such as demonstrations against Obamacare, opposition to the American Recovery Act (stimulus), and sponsorship of the statewide event held in Austin, the Defending the American Dream® Summit on July 4th, have helped educate people on these issues and contributed to a vital discourse on these critical issues. This kind of debate and expression is a crucial part of the functioning of a free society and a strong democracy.

“The President’s attack, as well as a recent article in THE NEW YORKER, by Jane Mayer, is a barely-veiled attempt to discredit our group and our members, who are simply exercising their right to disagree with the policies coming out of this administration.

“Our decisions to engage in public policy debates are governed by our primary mission, which is to advocate in support of free market policies and solutions. One must ask whether it is really the role of the President of the United States to attempt to chill free speech, simply because that speech happens to disagree with his own views.
“Our national membership consists of 1.2 million members, of which 74,000 reside in the state of Texas. To imagine that any corporation could control our agenda is ludicrous. They only positive aspect of this unfortunate incident is that we must be having some impact on the administrations policies to warrant the President’s attempt to discredit us.”

AN END-ZONE DANCE ON AMERICANS’ GRAVES

By Bob Ward

Faisel Rauf, a Muslim imam, wants to build a combination mosque and Muslim community center on a site in what would be in the shadow of the World Trade Center had the twin towers not been destroyed by Islamic terrorists. He has the support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other assorted liberals dazzled by talk of tolerance, cross-cultural understanding and other liberal fantasies.

But cutting thorough all the liberal boiler plates it is clear that this proposed mosque is nothing but a 13-story, multimillion dollar gloat and a naked attempt to promote Islam where Muslims had shed infidel blood. On Sept. 11, 2001, the Jihadists scored a major hit against the U.S. In a single stroke they murdered close to 3,000 of us and now they want to perform an end-zone dance to rub our noses in it.

The imam made his take on Sept. 11 clear when he said on “60 Minutes” just a few weeks later, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." So he “wouldn’t say” that America’s chickens came home to roost in the manner of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but he came very close.

And now, the Obama administration, which never hesitates to accommodate Muslim interests at the expense of the U.S., is paying for this imam to travel to Saudi Arabia, presumably to raise the necessary funds to build the mosque.

In addition to being an insult to the thousands who died in the Sept. 11 attack and their families, building the mosque is one more not-so-small step in promoting the Muslim presence and influence in American life. This is in no way comparable to the other ethnic groups who came here, made America their home, adopted our way of life and became Americans. Muslims, like Faisel Rauf, want us to adopt their way of life and Shariah law – which is contrary to nearly every Constitutional principle. That is part of the mosque package, part of what the Sept. 11 Jihadists were seeking to bring about through their Jihad.

This would be an excellent and appropriate occasion for organized labor to demonstrate its clout and its patriotism by refusing to work on this affront to our nation and our values. The same goes for vendors of building equipment and supplies. The free market could still have the last word on the repugnant project.

Why Obama Spoke at UT

A comment on the Statesman blog nails it:

It sounds like the students are unaware that the only reason Obama spoke to them was so the taxpayers could pick up the bill for this fundraising trip. If he went to just the fund raisers then the Democrat Party would have to pay for the trip. But by speaking to the students the taxpayers will now be billed. Kind of depressing in a recession. Hope the students enjoyed the show.

Obamas Have No Empathy for the American People

Today's headlines spell out the likely ultimate doom of His and Her Majesty Barack and Michelle Obama as they demonstrate how out of sync they are with the plight of the American people:

Headline 1: U.S. Stocks Fall After Weaker-Than-Estimated Jobs Report
Key quote, at the bottom of the article of course:

“The recovery is so weak that it is not strong enough to generate new jobs for the new entrants in the labor force, let alone to find jobs for the 15 million Americans who would like a job and can’t get one,” Stiglitz told Bloomberg Television in an interview in Sydney yesterday.

Headline 2: First Lady Under Fire for Her Glitzy Spanish Vacation
Key Quote:

Yet the bigger public furor concerns the cost and appearance of the trip. In a scathing editorial published Thursday, New York Daily News writer Andrea Tantaros trashed Michelle Obama as a "modern day Marie Antoinette" for taking such a glitzy vacation while most of the country is struggling to make ends meet.The Obama entourage is staying at the luxury Hotel Villa Padierna, a Ritz-Carlton property often described as one of the world's top 10 hotels. Rates range between $500 and $2,500 a night. It's not clear that the Obama delegation picked this hotel specifically, or if the Secret Service — which often gets final say over where a protectee stays — made the accommodations call.

Headline 3: Jobs Picture Worsens With 131,000 Losses; 9.5% Rate
Key Quote:

U.S. employment fell for a second straight month in July as more temporary census jobs ended while private hiring rose less than expected, pointing to an anemic economic recovery.

Non-farm payrolls fell 131,000, the Labor Department said on Friday as temporary jobs to conduct the decennial census dropped by 143,000. Private employment, considered a better gauge of labor market health, rose 71,000 after increasing 31,000 in June.

And of course taxes will be going up for everyone next year, to continue paying for the Obama's extravagant lifestyle and continuing unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Instead of abandoning the demonstrably failed Keynesian approach to "stimulus" and setting the markets free, we the American people have to endure seeing our failed President and First Lady whoop it up. I guess they feel the need to do so while they still can.

Texas Reigns Without Keynesian Policies

The Atlantic.com Website offers a story here about the Texas economy and how it has weathered the financial storm of 2008 and even thrived. Low taxes, a legislative environment that is not hostile to business and a laissez-faire approach to development have all been hallmarks of the success. The author's final bullet point describes the atmosphere here:

4. Something About Texas
Maybe it's the lack of a state income or capital gains tax. Or the dearth of union workers. Or the plentiful labor supply on the border of Mexico, or the lower wages, or the stable and lean regulations. There's something about Texas that makes it the most popular place for business to do its business, as CEO Magazine and CNBC both found the last year. As Brooke Rollins, president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told me: "Our research shows that the more tax incentives and less regulation you have, and the less likely businesses are to get sued, the more likely it is they'll want to come and prosper in your state."

So those are the policy prescriptions other states need to revive their economies. You would think Texas would be receiving elected officials from other states, to see how it's done.

All of those characteristics of the Texas economy stand as 180-degree opposite prescriptions to the Keynesian and authoritarian prescriptions in vogue with the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Texas is just doing what it has always done throughout its history -- let people be. That's what has attracted people who were imbued with the democratic spirit to Texas since the 1820's and even more so after Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836. Once, America was the last bastion of freedom in the world, where people flocked to opportunity. Now it seems to be only Texas.

Obama and Clinton Prepare for State Visit From China's Hu

Recently, the Obama Administration announced that it was freezing arm sales to Taiwan out of fears that those weapons, outdated though they might be, may end up in Communist Chinese hands. This concern reportedly stems from from the recent environment of cooperation between Beijing and the Ma Ying-jeou government in Taipei, cooperation that US State Department policy has actually encouraged. A recent private conversation between President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that was somehow captured on video has been made public and it shows the real reason for the freeze on defensive weapon sales to long time ally, Taiwan, weapons authorized if not mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act.

WARNING: Since this was a private conversation you may find some language used by President Obama shocking/offensive.

Man vs Screwed-up System

MI Man not the Dad, but Owes the State Welfare Reimbursement Anyway

Former Texas Supremes Betray the Republicans that Elected Them

by Timothy Bradberry
President, Central Texas Republican Assembly (CTRA)
On behalf of the CTRA Board of Directors

In similar vein to Speaker Joe Straus “endorsing” Democrat Patrick Rose by headlining a fundraiser for Rose while Rose’s very viable Republican opponent, Jason Isaac was ignored by the Speaker, three former Republican members of the Texas Supreme Court have explicitly endorsed Democrat Kurt Kuhn in his bid for the 3rd Court of Appeals while Kuhn’s very viable Republican opponent, former District Judge Melissa Goodwin, is left with what can only feel like a knife in her back.

Here is how the announcement of this latest Republican betrayal is reported on the Texas Lawyer Blog (Tex Parte Blog):

On his campaign website, Kurt Kuhn, the Democrats’ nominee for a seat on Austin’s 3rd Court of Appeals, touts endorsements by three former Texas Supreme Court justices, all Republicans. Former Chief Justice Tom Phillips and former Justices Craig Enoch and Scott Brister confirm they have endorsed Kuhn, a partner in Austin’s Brown McCarroll. Phillips, now a partner in Baker Botts in Austin, says, “Most of us who have been on the [Supreme] Court in recent years do not regard the judiciary as a partisan enterprise.” Enoch, a shareholder in Winstead in Austin, says, “I’m retired [from the bench], so I’m free to express my opinion.” Brister, a partner in Andrews Kurth in Austin, says he has known Kuhn for a long time. “I think he’ll do a great job,” Brister says. Kuhn says he is trying to run a broad bipartisan campaign. “I’m not going to be a Democrat if I’m elected; I’m going to be a judge,” he says.

The former “Republican” Supremes may not view the judiciary as a partisan enterprise but if they truly want themselves to be seen as apolitical, they picked a strange time to stir the political pot by endorsing a Democrat in a general election. Also, former Chief Justice Tom Phillips' motivation for taking off his robe at this time in this election is clouded by the fact that he advocates for appointed rather than elected judges.

Regardless of their apolitical status or reasons for endorsing a Democrat I ask, like I did about Speaker Straus, what kind of Republicans are they? If they were members of the Central Texas Republican Assembly they would be expelled from membership as our members are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates of other political parties. Though we did not end up making an endorsement in the Republican Primary in the 3rd Court of Appeals race, once Republicans choose Melissa Goodwin we were and are bound to follow the lead of the Republican Primary voters and put our weight behind the Republican nominee. What the three former Supremes have done is to betray Republican Party voters, many of whom had previously voted them into office.

Apparently ignored by the three former Supremes, the reason we need Melissa Goodwin on the 3rd Court is her extensive experience with administrative law, criminal law, and family law. These three facets of the law account for nearly 2/3 of the cases that the 3rd Court will potentially hear on appeal. Goodwin brings the most experience to the table on these important areas of law and fills a void on the existing 3rd Court, which is made up almost entirely of former civil litigators who have represented deep pocketed clients and have very little experience representing the little guy or gal. Kuhn fits that mold, and if he is elected, he would add nothing to the court that's not already heavily represented (and thoroughly dominates at the Texas Supreme Court).

All evidence from her prior jurisprudence indicates that if Melissa Goodwin gets on the court she would not carry water for trial lawyers or business interests but would be fair and respect the right to a trial by jury. She would also bring important expertise in areas of law that are very much underrepresented on the appellate courts as described above. She has a lot to contribute that isn't there yet, unlike Kuhn.

In summary, Goodwin’s experience covers a supermajority of the kinds of cases that will come before the 3rd Court of Appeals and on the flip side Kurt Kuhn is lacking in the experience that is sore needed on the Court.

So, let me just say in response to this betrayal, Republicans should ignore the three former Supremes and give our full support (read money, money, money, etc.) and encouragement to Melissa Goodwin in her bid to be the next elected Republican on the 3rd Court of Appeals.

Is the Journolist a Hate Group?

In response to my first blog entry about UT's James K. Galbraith's being a part of the Journolist the professor himself responded that my characterization of the list as being that of a hate group was "entirely false" and that "Not every comment made on such a list bears repeating. But on the whole I found it useful and appropriate."

I guess definitions of "hate" can be seen in the eyes of the beholder so let's take a look at what I deem to be "hate."

Here's a few paragraphs from a story today on the American Thinker that describe but one apparently accepted tactic by members of Journolist:

Jonathan Strong of The Daily Caller broke the news about left-wing journalists conspiring on Journolist to kill the stories during the 2008 election about Barack Obama's relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Strong writes,

"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists.""

Ackerman skipped the intermediary suggestion of even asking loaded questions of Obama's conservative critics and proceeded directly to proposing false accusations against figures -- "who cares" -- on the right.

What strikes me is the entirely capricious nature of Ackerman's false accusations. To paraphrase, his prescription is to "just levy accusations of racism against anyone who stands in the way." What a hateful thing to do to other people, to attempt to destroy their reputations with accusations of racism simply for the sake of changing the subject and pursuing your political agenda. Which then leads to the question of the motivation for such an awful act, which in my view could only be hate. Ackerman has so little disregard for his fellow man he would just sling a very hateful accusation willy nilly.


I don't know about the professor but engaging in knowingly false race-baiting is a particularly hateful act in my view and should be discouraged and reprimanded when it occurs.

Okay, so that's but one example. I don't guess it's fair to call everyone on the list a hate group member because of that. Or is it?

The American Thinker article makes the pertinent comment that:

The fact that such open malice of at least a few of the four hundred "professionals" on Journolist did not result in their expulsion from this professional Listserv, and indeed seemed tolerated at the time by its members and now by its defenders, would seem to indicate a more widespread problem. The dog doesn't bark when it's comfortable with the visitor.

More will be coming out about this list in the days ahead.

I'll tackle the example of hatred toward Rush Limbaugh in a future note, when I have some free time. My non-tenured position requres that I work to pay the taxes that support the University of Texas and it's tenured professors.

UT's James Galbraith on Journolist -- No Big Surprise But Sad Reflection on UT

University of Texas professor James K. Galbraith, the Lloyd M. Bentsen Jr. Chair in Government/Business Relations and Professor of Government, was outed this week as being part of a hate group that seemed to have had as its sole purpose the coordinated promotion of Barack Obama to the presidency and the slanderous demolition of anything that stood in the way.

Galbraith is the son of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and a recent book review indicates his sole purpose in life seems to be discrediting anything that discredits his father. If nothing else the reviewer says Galbraith is a gifted dissembler:

He writes so well, you have to pinch yourself to remember that, yes, the free market has produced robust growth and central planning has usually failed. Galbraith acknowledges that the United States has mostly enjoyed prosperity in recent years; his glib explanation is that hold-over New Deal institutions (government mortgage agencies, subsidized health care, student loans) have come to the rescue of misguided conservative policies. In other words, if it works, it's the residue of Franklin Roosevelt and Galbraith's dad; if it fails, it's the market's fault. That seemed preposterous when I first read it; but in the wake of the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when all of Wall Street could be headed for a bailout, one wonders.

Of course being a dissembler qualifies him to be a part of the Journolist group. But it's sad that it also seems to qualify him to be a tenured professor at the University of Texas.

The complete list of haters is here. They are haters because of their own words on the Journolist, discussing the exercise of fascism against their political oponents, like proposing to pull the FCC license for Fox, or worse "Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out" as Limbaugh writhed in torment of a heart attack. Seems like something you'd read from Nazi fascists' diaries. Be very afraid America. These people hate you, want to see you die, and will use any tools against you, even removing your Constitutional rights.

FRAUD IN EDUCATION

By Bob Ward

Imagine. You’re being sued and in the middle of the trial you learn that your lawyer flunked the bar exam but is allowed to practice anyway because the authorities think he will pass on one of the next three times he tries.

Parents of children in some Texas schools – and all Texas taxpayers – are in a similar situation in regard to the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test which their children took. The press has reported that under something called the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), a student who fails the test is counted as having passed if he is expected to pass within three years. Using this deceptive system, every student group improved in every subject. Except, of course, they didn’t.

Press reports noted that 74 school districts in Texas were rated “exemplary” and 73 of them gained that status by using this fraudulent scoring method. The Austin American-Statesman reported that eight schools in the Austin school district were rated academically unacceptable last year, the first year the TPM was used. Under an honest measure 11 would have been ranked unacceptable. For the current year, only one AISD school has been found academically unacceptable. An accurate scoring would have put four additional schools in that category.

Just as bad as the fraud itself is the reaction of the state’s education officials. Education Commissioner Robert Scott has promised, not to abolish this deceptive practice but merely to "review" it. And he want to review not because parents and taxpayers are entitled to an honest assessment of our schools’ performance, but because, he said, the students' and educators' "hard work is being overshadowed by criticism of the use of TPM.” Apparently Scott would be just fine with this dishonest system if only the critics would just shut up.

However, faced with the criticism, Commissioner Scott has reportedly offered several options for modifying the system. His options include abolishing the system, allowing districts that want to continue using it to do so, or modifying it in some unspecified way.

State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), chairman of an appropriations subcommittee overseeing the education budget, correctly dismissed Scott's proposals as "lipstick on a pig." Hochberg says that only abolishing the TPM and instituting a “real measure of the progress students make," is acceptable.

But Hochberg is facing an uphill battle if he wants to get the TPM abolished. Whatever its faults, it does make the schools look good – and that’s what keeps the state and Federal money flowing. And isn't that what public education is all about?

Strama Pleads the 5th?

At a July 17^th “StramaRama” campaign fundraiser event with music legend Bruce Robison, Rep. Mark Strama made the introductions but waived his right to make a political speech. That is understandable. He is an incumbent and the less attention given that fact in these days of widespread “throw the bums out” voter sentiment the better for his campaign.

Of course as an incumbent, Strama has a record. If the dust covering that liberal record were stirred, bloggers, and perhaps some truth seekers in the mainstream media, would take note. Thus, Strama might very well incriminate himself (i.e. ID himself as a liberal) if he opens his mouth.

Note: By using the word “incriminate” in this blog post I do not mean to imply criminal behavior by liberals in general and Mr. Strama in particular. Mark Strama is, by all appearances, a law abiding citizen.

Here is a snapshot of Mark Strama’s voting record:

Voted NO on 04/24/2006 and 05/15/2006; on HB 2, Property Tax Reduction; Bill passed (82 - 66) and (89-56).

Voted YEA on 05/04/2007; on CSHB 10, Tribal Casino Gaming, Tribal Casino Gaming; Bill failed (66-66).

Voted NO on 04/24/2007; on HB 218, Voter Identification Requirement; Bill passed (76-69).

Voted NO on 05/26/2007 and 05/01/2007; on CSHB 3678, Religious Expression at Schools; Bill passed (107-28) and (121-10).

Not only is Mr. Strama’s voting record liberally incriminating, so is some of his “community work.” Here, for example, is a photograph of Mark Strama, with several other infamous liberal Democrats, at a ribbon cutting for Planned Parenthood, followed by the PP's report of the event.

From left to right: Representative Mark Strama, Representative Valinda Boln, Senator Kirk Watson, Austin City Councilmember Lee Leffingwell, Representative Eddie Rodriguez, Capital Campaign Co-Chairs, Robbie and Tom Ausley, U.S. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, Austin Mayor Will Wynn, Ken Lambrecht, CEO of PPTCR and Brewster McCracken, Austin Mayor Pro Tem.

On Monday, Oct. 22, the ribbon cutting celebrated the opening of Planned Parenthood's new Education, Advocacy, and Administrative building and the successful completion of The Choice Project, a $6.6 million capital campaign. The Choice Project's flagship South Austin Clinic opened in 2004 and provides high-quality, affordable health care [*] to more than 9,000 of our 26,000 clients served each year. The new Education, Advocacy, and Administration Building hosts a library of educational resources for parents, educators and other community members seeking medically-accurate, age-appropriate sexuality education, and multiple community rooms for health educators, teen peer educators, and other Planned Parenthood volunteers to meet and attend workshops and other activities.

Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppaustin/south-austin-clinic-ribbon-cutting-18027.htm

* Note: Such “heath care” provided by Planned Parenthood culminates in the taking of human life.

Then there are Strama’s Obama moments (for as long as they stay posted to the Internet):

(1) The endorsement video

(2) The report in the Austin American Statesmen of Strama's endorsement

(3) Strama-Obama campaign pins

Actually, I don’t blame Strama for only acting as the MC at his “StramaRama” fundraiser and not making a campaign speech, for anything he would have said would and could be used against him in his bid for re-election.

If Mark Strama publicly acknowledged that he is in his first real political fight since his election to the Texas House in 2004 he might draw attention to his conservative Republican opponent, long time Austin resident and Freescale engineer Patrick McGuinness. If that happened, Republicans and independents in District 50 who voted for Strama in the past might find out they actually have an alternative candidate whose life experiences match their own much better than their current Rep and thus who could better represent them at the Capitol.

Note: I do not mean to say that Strama has not had good Republican challengers in the past, both Jeff Fleece and Jerry Mikus fielded respectable campaigns against him. However, Strama has never been as politically vulnerable as he is now and Partick McGuinness seems to be poised to run a very strong race.

Austin Catholic Reporter Ensnares Immaculee Ilibagiza in Bearing False Witness Against Arizona Innocents

Immaculee Ilibagiza is a Catholic cashing in on book tours and speaking engagements about her experience several years ago hiding in a small bathroom with seven other Tutsi women as Rwandan Hutus murdered one million people.

Based on her comments in the June 2010 "Catholic Spirit: The Official Publication of the Diocese of Austin," she is now also being used as propaganda shill for the illegal immigrant lobby.

Here's how the newspaper's senior reporter Enedelia Obregon covered remarks she made at her May 1 appearance to a sold-out crowd of the Paramount Theater in downtown Austin:

Prior to her speech, Ilibagiza briefly addressed the immigration issue in this country in light of the newly adopted Arizona law. As she signed autographs, protestors marched down Congress Avenue near the theater where she spoke.

"It's important to respect laws," she said. "What is hard is when people start to see others as less than human who don't have the same rights. Sometimes people don't see you as their brothers and sisters because you look different."

When people are seen as less than human, then people can justify treating them inhumanely, Ilibagiza said.

"That's what happened in my country," she said. "People called us cockroaches."

What we all need to do is recognize that we are all God's children, Ilibagiza said.

"Think of all those people as your child," she said. "Look at them and ask yourself how you can help them. We need to treat each other with love."

I am in full support of Ilibagiza's comments. When people fail to see that all other people are God's creatures they lose touch with God's calling to us to be fully human and to love thy neighbor as thyself. That was the source of the Civil War fought in the United States in the 1860s, one group of people failing to see others as fully human. Good triumphed then.

But there is no doubt that failure to see others as fully human was one of the many failings of the murderous Hutus in Rwanda. Hacking people to death with machetes is about as far from humanity as you can fall.

Closer to home, this blind eye to the humanity of victims is a central (and sinful) failing of the drug smugglers, human traffickers, kidnappers and murderers who are on villainous sprees against innocents in Mexico, Texas, California and Arizona. Need proof? Let's look at some headlines from Arizona, using one media outlet and one search term (drug smuggler):

• Deputy Shot by Suspected Drug Smugglers, April 30, 2010
• Smugglers Boldness an Eye-Opener for Sheriff: Drugs, Guns Smugglers Mark Desert Danger Zone, June 23, 2010
• Smugglers Threaten Police in Arizona Border City, June, 22, 2010
• Mexico's Drug War Heats Up Near Arizona Border, July 5, 2010

 The lead sentence for the latter story should send chills down Ilibagiza -- it is very similar to the heathen lawlessness that occurred in Rwanda:

Altar, Mexico -- Very few residents dare to drive on one of the roads out of this watering hole for migrants, fearing they will be stopped at gunpoint. They worry they will be told to turn around after gas tanks are drained or, worse, be kidnapped or killed.

I fully support Ilibagiza if she is chastising, with her "important to respect laws" remark, the villainous thugs in Mexico who are violating immigrants in Mexico as they refresh themselves at a watering hole before illegally crossing the border into Arizona. The thugs obviously have no respect or love for other people or laws, either Biblical law or American law or Mexican law.

I even more fully support her when she says "What is hard is when people start to see others as less than human who don't have the same rights." The innocent people who are raped, or smuggled into the United States in inhumane conditions, or left to die in the desert are not viewed by the smugglers as people with rights. The Americans who are kidnapped, raped, killed, and stolen from by the smugglers are not viewed as humans with rights. In both cases, the Mexican and American victims are obstacles to the smugglers' profits.

But in the context of the Catholic Spirit story, of the March that was occuring on Congress, to protest the Arizona law, it appears as though Ilibagiza is not referring to the villainous thugs.

Instead, it appears she is speaking against the innocent people of Arizona wanting relief through the legal system from heinous smugglers and drug terrorists, by enforcing border laws.

In doing so she impugns the innocents' development of effective laws as being inhumane to immigrants.

She should be informed that those are the laws that law abiding people of Arizona, through the democratic process, have enacted to deal with the horrific consequences of villainous thugs who have crossed the border, illegally. The innocents have crafted a law that is as humane as possible given the smugglers' inhumanity to them and Mexican immigrants. The Arizona law seeks only to check a person's 'right' to be in the United States after they are suspected of another offense. That is far more consideration of a person's rights than the non-consideration given to victims by the evil people now rampaging in Mexico and Arizona and other border states.

In my view, Ilibagiza commits the sin of bearing false witness against innocents, the Arizonans. She mischaracterizes the Arizonans' intent for their laws and impugns their motives. I feel nothing but sadness for this woman because she is being ensnared to bear false witness by catering to those who are pushing a political agenda through her story.

Truly it is they who are committing wrong.

Indeed, it is disgraceful that the Catholic Spirit would allow her to commit this sin on the front page of their paper for their own political purposes of pushing the "immigrants rights" agenda.

It is also unconscionable that the Catholic Spirit newspaper would engage in this sort of exercise in propaganda, subjugating this poor woman to becoming a shill for their political objectives.

They likewise become users of people, hoisting Ilibagazia's story and experiences as rhetorical weapons to silence those who want nothing more than to protect their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without fear in their homes. The propagandists are using Ilibagiza to remove obstacles to their political objectives. They therefore also, as consequence, encourage the continuance of immoral behavior and the violence clearly demonstrated by the smugglers and traffickers.

We should pray for Immaculee Ilibagiza, so that her new found fame and wealth on the Catholic book circuit does not further force her into the occasion of sin by bearing false witness against innocent people, those using democratic processes to secure their own lives.

And we should pray for those who -- by involving her in American politics -- diminish and dilute her story of the power of prayer and God's deliverance in times of peril. That is the real disservice that journalists like Obregon perform.

Obama vs Arizona

The Obama administration is suing to stop the Arizona immigration law. As reported by ABC:

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.

They are centering the case on a claim of pre-emption, that basically the state's action would prevent effective enforcement of immigration law at the Federal level. Why this is not the punchline in a late-night monologue is not explained. To be clear, the Arizona law explicitly makes EXACTLY violation of Federal immigration law a state trespass violation. It's the opposite of pre-emption.

By the Obama administration logic in the case, sanctuary cities should subject to lawsuits . But it's not about logic, it's about stopping the enforcement of immigration law. Obama's DOJ is not suing because Arizona is stopping imigration law enforcement, they are suing because Arizona IS enforcing it.

Arizona's response:

Devastating impact of Obama's agenda

PDF from Business Roundtable on the devastating impact of Obama's agenda on business:

Many regulations and legislation – both existing and proposed – exacerbate the uncertainty created by today’s volatile economic environment.
Virtually every new regulation has an impact on recovery, competitiveness and job creation. Often that impact is negative. On an individual basis, most businesses can cope with each new regulation. But the collective impact on the economy is enormous, and often harmful.
With a massive new health care law and financial reform legislation looming, companies are more worried than ever about the impact new regulations and legislation will have on their operations and their bottom line. Not knowing what to expect from these pending regulations, businesses are acting cautiously to forestall any negative impact. These actions are squelching economic growth and job creation, as companies are forced to freeze investments and hiring until they understand how they will be affected by these new mandates.

They conclude the executive summary with:

We believe that a new, comprehensive assessment of federal policies and regulations is fundamental to the U.S. economy regaining its competitive strength. Regulators should assess the financial impact of individual and collective mandates, remove existing mandates that have become redundant and increase efficiency through market competition. They should also establish a system for creating new regulations that do not impede private‐sector investment and job creation.

At the same time, the government must reduce spending to manage down deficit and debt. The current levels of U.S. debt, as well as those required to finance the forecast deficits, will crowd out private capital. If less capital is available for corporate borrowers, it will retard future growth and investment, erode the value of the U.S. dollar, accelerate inflation and, eventually, reduce consumer spending power.
Economic recovery must be lead by the private sector, both large and small, if we are going to create jobs and reduce the unemployment rate. In assessing all regulations, the goal should be to reduce uncertainty, fear and overall cost impact while creating a regulatory system that is business‐friendly, cost‐effective, and encourages efficiency.

Judge Slaps Down another Bad Obama Decision

The worst decision in the arena of energy made by President Obama has been the short-sighted elimination of the Yuacc Mountain nuclear repository. 20 years and $20 billion in studies, appeals, reviews and tests have gone in to verifying that Yucca Mountain in Nevada will be a safe repository for nuclear waste. Without this repository, use fuel from 40 years of civilian nuclear generation at 100 U.S. nuclear plants, and also Cold War nuclear materials and wastes would be stuck in facilities across the country. In on fell swoop, Obama had destroyed the future prospects for the our Number One Co2-emissions-free energy source.

But Harry Reid is against Yucca Mountain, and Nevada has voters to curry, so Obama had his DOE unilaterally kill Yucca Mountain. What a travesty that so much public policy damage was done on behalf of such an insignificant cause - Harry Reid's re-election. (Which won't happen anyway.)

Thankfully, some Judges have noticed the law doesn't allow such a blatant disregard for Congressional intent: Judges block Obama effort to close Yucca Mountain waste site:

"Unless Congress directs otherwise, DOE may not single-handedly derail the legislated decision-making process by withdrawing the (Yucca repository) application. DOE's motion must therefore be denied," the judges wrote, adding that the DOE had weakened its arguments by "conceding that the application is not flawed nor the (Yucca) site unsafe."

"Given the stated purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the detailed structure of that legislation, it would be illogical to allow DOE to withdraw the application without any examination of the merits," the judges found.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN

By Jack M. Pinscher

Some Americans are convinced that President Obama is not an American and are trying hard to prove he was not born in the U.S.A. but rather in Kenya or some other alien locale. They can relax. It doesn’t matter.

It would make no difference if Obama were born in Mayberry right down the street from Sheriff Andy. He is not an American and it is not because of where he was born. It is because he does not consider himself an American and has no loyalty to this country and what it stands for.

The recent flap over Joe Barton and his apology to BP are an example. It is an American maxim that everybody is entitled to his day in court and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Nobody has to prove he is innocent. But Obama, in that lame speech about the oil spill, simply stated as a fact that BP was “reckless” and that he was going to extract at least $20 billion from the company and put it into an escrow fund to compensate persons injured by the spill.

This was contrary to the principle of separation of powers which is a key factor distinguishing the American form of government from that of its European predecessors. It is also contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution which states that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” That means BP’s alleged recklessness must be proven in court and if it is, the court will determine the remedy. Barack’s action was more kingly than American.

By the way, Joe Barton was right the first time. It was a shakedown and the GOP leadership that jumped all over Barton needs to grow a pair and stand up for the Constitution.

Another uniquely American ideal is the belief, spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure our rights. This was a reversal of the old European notion that kings ruled by “divine right” making governments the agents of God. In America, the government was made the agent of the people.

A mid-June Rasmussen poll reveals that almost half of Americans (48 per cent to be exact) believe that principle has been abandoned and that government has become a threat to our rights. Only 37 per cent believe the government is performing the job for which it was created – protecting our rights.

Which brings us to another hallowed principle underlying the American form of government – the belief – also set down in the Declaration of Independence – that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Only 21 per cent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen survey, believe that today the government has the consent of the governed.

Would a true American, elected to the presidency, choose for a science advisor a man who believes the government has the right to introduce sterilizing chemicals into the nation’s drinking water in order to limit population growth? Science advisor John Holdren set out his views on population control in a book he co-authored with population fanatic Paul Ehrlich who predicted in 1968 that the human race wouldn’t make it through the 1970s because of population pressures.

And Holdren doesn’t confine himself to the U.S. government determining how many children we should be allowed to have. He believes that chore should ideally be turned over to a “Planetary Regime.” This Planetary Regime, he suggests, could determine the “optimum population” for the world and decide each country's share of population.

And the Regime’s authority shouldn’t stop at population control. Such an international, body, he proposes, "could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable.”

Does that sound like someone an American president would turn to for advice on science issues?

It’s pretty clear that Obama, regardless of where he was born, does not identify with this country, its history, its fundamental values. In fact, the waves of immigrants who came to America in the 19th century, although born in places like Italy, Ireland, Poland and Russia, were more committed to American values than the interloper who now presumes to govern this country.

The most important thing we can do now is work to elect an American to the White House in 2012.

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.