New “Dr. Donna Campbell for Texas Senate District 25″ Ad

Saw this on the New Braunfels/San Antonio Time Warner cable, on Fox Sunday

Devore: How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News

Chuck DeVore, former California Assemblyman has moved to Texas and sings our praises, while pointing out the pitfalls of statist California:

Texas’ bureaucracy, excluding teachers, is 22 percent smaller as a portion of the population than is California’s, with every Texan paying about $467 a year for government retiree benefits, compared to California’s $1,105 in pension costs. Sky-high benefits for bureaucrats may soon cause the bankruptcy of Stockton, California’s 13th-largest city.

California has more government paper-pushers but Texas has 17 percent more teachers per capita, with educational outcomes favoring the Lone Star State. In fact, Texas K-12 schools perform consistently above the national average across age, racial, and subject matter areas, while California schools perform well below the national average.

To support its bloated government, California asks more of its taxpayers who pay 10.6 percent of their income to state and local government, above the U.S. average of 9.8 percent. Texans pay only 7.9 percent.

via How California’s budget blunders led to my divorce from the Golden State | Fox News.

“I can’t write millions and millions out of my pocket.”

So went Ted Cruz’ lament on the Mark Levin radio show. Perhaps Mr. Cruz should go to work at a real job and build his own successful business and fortune before he runs for office – and begs for our hard-earned dollars – again.

(If you missed it, as I did, you can listen on the Internet, here.  The ten minute segment begins at about 92 minutes into the May 15 program archive.)

You would think that the author of Liberty and Tyranny and Ameritopia would be celebrating David Dewhurst as the living example that free markets and the American work ethic do work, and as the Citizen Legislator that he is.

Sadly, Mr. Levin didn’t do his homework. Without giving any examples or sources for the broad accusations he made during the radio spot, he proved himself clueless about the strong Conservative credentials of Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst. He did note that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst is worth “a quarter of a billion dollars” but falsely claimed that Dewhurst – who first ran for office 13 years ago,  when he was about the same age that Levin is now – is a “pretty much a career politician.”

Neither Cruz nor Levin give Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst credit for being the self-made man that he is. They ignore the fact that Dewhurst served our Nation in the Air Force and CIA before going to work to build that “quarter of a billion dollar” business from the ground up, and only then successfully running for office to serve Texas as Land Commissioner and then Lieutenant Governor.

Cruz has never been in business, made a payroll or held an elected office. After Harvard Law School, where he founded the Harvard Latino Law Review, he held only government jobs until he decided to run for Attorney General of Texas – before he even turned 40 years old. After withdrawing from that race in 2009, rather than face current Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz began his run against Governor Dewhurst for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate seat. In the meantime, he’s been working for a large legal firm, once again proving that he’s a successful staffer, but not a policy maker, and certainly not a decision maker.

If spending a career working at government jobs and running for office for the last four years isn’t the definition of “pretty much a career politician,” then what is?

Revised grammar, 5/16/12, BBN.

Governor Perry: “David Dewhurst is a conservative fighter.”

Governor Rick Perry has made a “Straight Talking” radio ad endorsing Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Of all the people you might be hearing from or reading, Governor Perry should know the facts.

And this is what he has to say:  “You know the DC insiders are scared when they spend millions of dollars attacking Texas Conservatives. . . David Dewhurst is a Conservative fighter. . .  David is the one candidate best prepared to make Conservative change happen in Washington!”

Joe Pags forces Ted Cruz to answer

Joe Pags – WOIA radio afternoon drive time host in San Antonio –  exposes Ted Cruz for his early attack ads and aggressively challenges him when he refuses to answer questions.  Jump to 9 minutes or so in to listen: May 9, 2012 Joe Pags interview with Ted Cruz  He dances all around the question, until Pags gets irritated.

You can read the legal brief that calls Cruz the  “Counsel of Record,” here.  Wouldn’t that make him the “lead” lawyer for the appeal?

And here’s the 2005 Wall Street Journal opinion piece that Cruz claims “proves” his accusations against Dewhurst.  There is no other “proof.”

(The real story on the “wage tax” comments is nowhere in this editorial: there was discussion about the best way to levy the franchise business tax that was being updated to include businesses across the board, some of which were exempted up to that time. Should the tax be on gross receipts before taxes and expenses were deducted or should it be on profit? The question was never whether employees would be taxed, but whether their employers would be given credit for employing them, paying their wages and giving benefits. Dewhurst was in favor of allowing employers to deduct the wages and benefits given, and then only assessing the tax on profits. In other words, he was against any “wage tax.”)

“CPR” for Texas from Dr. Donna Campbell

Donna Campbell for Texas Senate District 25,  has a new TV ad about her campaign, pointing out her plan for CPR for Texas: Conservative Principled Republicans.

There’s also a radio ad playing out there, somewhere, and this interview with Jack Riccardi on KSAT radio, 550 Am. 3464449.mp3

Wentworth and Jones voting records: “virtually indistinguishable” | Texas Politics | a mySA.com blog

Vote Dr. Donna Campbell, the true conservative:

According to Mark P. Jones, chairman of Rice University’s political science department, state Sen. Jeff Wentworth and former Railroad Commissioner Elizabeth Ames Jones’ House voting records are not just “virtually indistinguishable.”

They’re also “in the center (with a modest leftward tilt) of the Texas House Republicans.”

His analysis is in today’s Texas Tribune, you can read all the GOP candidate comparisons here.

This won’t be news to supporters of Dr. Donna Campbell, but it might come as a surprise to those supporting Jones because she’s selling herself as more conservative than Wentworth.

(More trustworthy, too, but that’s a different story…)

via Wentworth and Jones voting records: “virtually indistinguishable” | Texas Politics | a mySA.com blog.

Donna Campbell: pro-life. Jeff Wentworth: not

Not until the 3rd trimester, at 7 months or 24 weeks or so, anyway. And that’s exactly why I was one of the many who asked Dr. Donna Campbell to run for Senator for Senate District 25.

Wentworth on Abortion Feb 1 2012 Comal County

►

This is the man who fought the Choose Life license Plate for 6 years, who voted against the Sonogram Bill. Contrast this man with Dr. Donna Campbell the Conservative candidate for Senator from Senate District 25! Contrast

In fact, Wentworth brought up the subject of abortion up to the 3rd trimester at the Rotary Club meeting last Thursday, when I was either too busy giving Dr. Donna’s credentials  — and definitely too wimpy, compared to this woman. He made the same statement about abortion being illegal in the 3rd trimester.

If my video doesn’t work, you can watch it at the Wentworth on Abortion

Tea Party Rally in San Antonio May 5, 2012

Saturday evening, I drove the 30 miles to San Antonio to attend the Tea Party Express meeting at a parking lot just off the grounds of the San Antonio Zoo.

I hate to say it, but none of the candidates were “my guys.” The music was good and the citizens who spoke were great. Unfortunately, Quico Conseco, the only one I wanted to hear, wasn’t there.

I met a FRiend – another poster on FreeRepublic.com – Synchro. We’ve both been posting on that forum since 1998, but had never met, before. Synchro  (his real life name is Gary) has been traveling around the Nation with the Tea Party Express bus tour.

I also saw lots of Donna Campbell for Senate District 25 stickers and met other supporters of Dr. Donna. The “G” family truck was decorated appropriately.

Physics, philosophy and God when there’s “nothing.”

The Atlantic has a funny little interview with physicist Lawrence Krauss, the author of last year’s A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing,

Krauss states that he likes to “provoke people” and believes that science is meant to make people “uncomfortable.”

The joke is that the interview’s subject is whether science has made philosophy and religion “obsolete.”   What they should really be discussing is the claim by Krauss that physics can answer the question, “Why?”

Science is pretty good at answering the questions “How?” and “What?” In fact, one of the criteria of a scientific experiment or statement is that observers around the world should be able to replicate that experiment if they work with the same variables as the first reporter.

But science never answers “Why?”

The hypothesis of the article is that theoretical physics has answered enough “whys” that philosophy and religion – and the notion of a Creator – are “obsolete.” That’s the “hook” that Krauss says he was looking for in order to make his book sell. It also won him praise from (Red Letter Evangelical) atheists Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

It’s ridiculous to talk about any aspect of natural physics within this universe as though the discussion or findings rule out the existence of a Creator. Obviously, what is within the Universe, what can be observed, measured, or even “presumed,” must adhere to the laws of physics of this universe – whether or not there is a Creator.

The problem of “something from nothing” is resolved by Krauss by imagining an infinite number of universes, interconnected so that this universe is not a closed system: “infinite” “calculable” “multiverses.” Where did those multiverses, and the conditions that make Krauss’ quantum physics exist, come from?

We still get back to “something from nothing.”

Without philosophy, I dare anyone to explain the existence of concepts such as “like,” “provoke,” and/or “meant to.”  Or “Beauty,” “Truth,” and “Justice.” And religion is the best way to explain “Love” and to answer “Why?”

Addendum: you can down load the book, “The Irrational Athiest” here, compliments of the author, “Vox Day.” He has other free books available at his blog, “Vox Popoli.”

Romney: A Conservative Wish List

Dear Governor Mitt Romney,

Congratulations, Sir! You have won 3/4 of the 1150 or so delegates you need to win the Republican Party nomination for President.

Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans, haven’t been able to generate much enthusiasm for your campaign. Even with Rick Santorum out of the race, you still barely won a majority of votes in the various State’s Primaries this week. We don’t want Obama to win in November, but there’s still doubts about whether you can win.

Here’s a few things you could do to help win Conservatives’ enthusiasm, in no particular order:

1. Don’t talk “strategy.” Talk vision. The common theme of your Conservative opponents over the last year has been the Conservative theme of small government. Just as with the original Tea Party, the threat of increased taxes made us take action.  But the growth of laws and regulations that interfere in our homes, business, schools and churches made us ready.
2. Study with some hard-core conservatives. Send your “spokespersons” to Conservative 101. Make sure that everyone learns the “code words” that the Left and MSM is always accusing us of using. Learn why we believe what we believe and what those “code words” really mean, so that you can understand and voice our concerns in your own words.Then do it.
3. Speak about your religion. We know you’re Mormon and we don’t want you to proselytize . But we do want to be convinced that you believe and practice what you believe. We’d much rather vote for – and will have more trust in – a believer than an unbeliever.
4. Pick a Conservative for your Vice Presidential running mate. This is a great way to let us know that you’ve been listening to and learning from us.  I know it won’t be easy, because we have so many well-qualified men and women out there. You must not pick a pro-choice, anti-family, big government man or woman.
5. Last, but not least: Change that doggone logo! That “R” is too close to Obama’s “O.” Even the colors are similar!  When I wear my NO OBAMA t-shirt, I don’t want anyone thinking that it’s a “No Romney” T-Shirt.

Jordan Fishman, US Businessman, on Ted Cruz, Appellant Lawyer

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

David Dewhurst, running for Texas Senator, has been running an ad about the choice by his opponent Ted Cruz to become the lawyer for a Chinese company that stole intellectual property from a US company owned by septuagenarian Jordan Fishman.

In a new youtube audio post, hear Mr. Fishman tell Matt Patrick, a Houston talk radio host, that witnesses stated under oath that the thieves believed that they would win because the American would either die or go broke before winning the case. (If you’re short on time, go about 6 minutes in for the meat of the story.)

Mr. Fishman is the owner of the company, Alpha Tire Systems, that successfully sued the Chinese-owned Shandong Linglong Tyre Company for copying blueprints and breaking the laws of the US. A Federal jury found in favor of Mr. Fishman and awarded him $26 million. Alpha had lost business, forcing them to cut staff from 25 to 5, and costing an estimated $19 million in lost sales after Linglong copied his blueprints and used the stolen information to manufacture and sell tires identical to the Alpha products.

Listen as Mr. Fishman tells us that he intends to survive, both in life and business, until he makes the thieves pay. He details the facts: that Ted Cruz chose to take on the case as “Attorney at Record” after the jury found the Chinese and Dubai companies liable. The Linglong appeals brief is here. The appeal claims that US patent law doesn’t count, since the theft took part outside of the US borders.

Mr. Cruz claims that he’s not so bad, since he is the “appellant,” not the “trial lawyer”. He also states that “this is what lawyers do,” and asserts that Shandong Linglong is a “private company” in China.Yes, it’s “private,” since no stock is “publicly” held.

What kind of principles does it take to become the lawyer claiming that US laws don’t apply to international patent thieves *after* a jury has found the foreign company liable?

More from a 2010 Sarasota Times news story about the case, here. Politifact calls the story “Mostly true,” the only dispute is between using “guilty” vs. “liable.” And “Tire Business” reports on Mr. Fishman’s happiness two years ago, when he thought his troubles were over.

David Dewhurst, Citizen Legislator for Texas Senator

David Dewhurst is a strong Texas Conservative,a classic “citizen legislator,” who has only been in politics for about dozen years. He ran for office for the first time when he was in his 50′s, winning his race for Land Commissioner in 1998 before his election to Lieutenant Governor in 2002.

Last fall, I wanted Dewhurst to become Governor when Governor Rick Perry went to the White House, so I donated to Ted Cruz. From day one, I hated the way the Cruz team lied about Dewhurst and his record. I complained to the staff and Cruz at the Texas Republican Women convention in November and was in turn attacked by the staffers.

Dewhurst is proven and much more the self-made man than Cruz claims to be:

• Dewhurst  was born in Houston, Texas; Cruz in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (Has Cruz denounced any dual citizenship?)
• Dewhurst’s father fought the Nazis for the US and stuck it out for 85 bomber missions; Cruz’ father fought Batista with Castro, somehow leaving Cuba before the end of the revolution to attend the University of Texas. (Dewhurst has donated to the memorial at Utah Beach in honor of his father, who was killed by a drunk driver after he returned to Houston  when David was only 3.)
•  Both grew up in the Houston area, but Dewhurst attended Lamar High School, while Cruz attended private schools in Katy.
• Both joined the debate teams in high school, but Dewhurst did it in an attempt to overcome his stuttering.
• Dewhurst played basketball for Arizona to put himself through college; Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard.
• Dewhurst proved himself in the Air Force and then the CIA; Cruz founded the Latino Law Review at Harvard and went to work for government agencies.
• Dewhurst is a private businessman who built his company from scratch, surviving the slump in the ’80′s, and has succeeded outside of politics; Cruz has always been an employee and never ran a business.
• Dewhurst is 65 years old, and will be naturally “term limited.” Cruz is 42 and could potentially be in the Senate over 30 years.

Other than his abrasive manner and early unwise decision to tear down a good man using poor ethics, Cruz is an unknown. All we know for sure is that he is capable of doing what he’s assigned to do. He defended the laws that Dewhurst managed to pass in a contentious Texas Senate. In his current job, he accepted the assignment to defend a Chinese conglomerate’s patent infringement in lawsuit by an US citizen whose technology was stolen out from under him.

In contrast, as pro-life and medical ethics activist in Texas, I’ve watched Lt. Governor Dewhurst work in Austin. I’ve seen him bring together opposing factions to hammer out Bills – at least once he called us all together in his office the last day a Bill could come up for a vote, ensuring that we left with an agreement.

Every criticism of Dewhurst is based on half-truths and lies. He didn’t make it on “daddy’s money.” He didn’t use illegal or unethical tactics to pass last year’s budget Bill.  He hasn’t increased spending in Texas since 2002. For one thing, the way that Texas measures the debt changed after the 2001 session by a popular vote for a Constitutional amendment. Our State has maintained a strong fiscal position in spite of Federal Courts forcing increased Medicaid spending, “Robin Hood” education spending, and about 1000 new immigrants a day moving in from the rest of the Nation.

Texas’ 82nd Legislature passed the Sonogram Bill, the Voter ID Bill, denied illegal aliens a driver’s license and ensured that Texas law allows deportation of illegal alien criminals after they serve their time. Yes, spending was doubled on border security and maintained at previous spending on K-12 education, but spending was cut in other places. The Rainy Day Fund was protected so that it will be available if needed to cover Medicaid and education spending at the end of this budget cycle.

For a current look at David Dewhurst’s leadership, read the “Interim Charges” to Texas State Senators, available at the Lieutenant Governor’s website.

Senate District 25 candidates meet with SA News editorial board

The video – obviously and choppily edited — is online at the San Antonio Express News. I support Dr. Donna Campbell, the citizen candidate

State-Senate-District-25-29886.php

On “Tax Day”

How’s your tax return? A lot of hope, no change?

Did you over-pay and get back money – without interest – you could have been using all year long? Did you underpay and now have to scramble to make a payment — or face fines and interest that the IRS sure won’t pay you if the tables were turned?

Or are you one of the lucky few who had to make “quarterly estimated tax payments” in addition to your tax return? Yes, that’s right: if you look like you might owe more taxes than most people, the IRS forces you to pay up front, every 3 months. Still without any promise of interest if you over-pay.

Vote in the Primaries and in November like your life depended on it!

First Amendment on Life Support

“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property.” John Madison, “Property,” National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

“In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” Hippocratic Oath, approximately 400 BC.

“Refusals based on moral disapprobation, however, are not typical of medical ethics” R. Alta Charo, ”Health Care Provider Refusals to Treat, Prescribe, Refer or Inform: Professionalism and Conscience.” February, 2007.

Fully enjoying the protections of the First Amendment themselves, the New England Journal of Medicine has published yet another editorial, “Warning: Contraceptive Drugs May Cause Political Headaches,”  by Robin Alta Charo, J.D., denouncing conscience and those of us who abide by ours. I suppose that she thought it was the right thing to do.

The Journal does not offer background on Ms. Charo’s previous editorials on the subject, including the notorious 2005 “The Celestial Fire of Conscience.” The editors don’t include any  note – any “warning’ – that she was part of the political Obama transition team. Ms. Charo did not mention any of these possible conflicts of interest in her “disclosure form,” available online.

Charo’s entire argument relies on readers’ agreement that the argument is about “public policy and contraception.” It is vital to her argument since, as she quotes Georgetown University theologian Tom Reese, “If the argument is over religious liberty, the bishops win.” Because, if we understand that the issue relates to “an establishment of religion,” Congress cannot legitimately pass, and the Executive Branch may not enforce, any law that infringes on the free exercise of religion.

Charo would instead have us focus on “public institutions, public places, and public duties.” Although hospitals and universities serve the public by providing healthcare and education, they are still owned by private, religious entities. In addition, the Obama Administration’s “accommodation” – the suggestion that the institution’s insurance company provide contraception free of charge to the ensured who want it – becomes much more complicated in light of the fact that most large religious hospitals and universities privately self-insure rather than enter into the market to buy first dollar coverage from a third party insurance company.

Charo’s essay is political appeal to emotion and half-truths, full of the “partisan sound bites and slogans” she denounces. However, not even the lie about mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds compares with her earlier error of logic in warning that the institutions could withhold “ordinary salary.” I don’t know of any religious organization that considers agreed-upon salary for agreed-upon service as inherently sinful. Keeping a promise, like that in the First Amendment or a contract with an employee is sacred to those of us with a conscience.

The Constitution demands that Congress “shall make no law” limiting religious freedom. The attempt by the Obama Administration to write regulations that require religious institutions to engage in acts that are contrary to long-standing, organized tenets of that religion goes directly against the First Amendment and cannot be justified.

Conservatives, Republicans: Fire, Aim, Ready!

Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own.

When Conservatives decide not to vote for Republican candidates, Republicans lose. Conservatives lose. The Democrats, socialists, and atheists win. Obama wins.

Where Republicans voted in 2008, we won new offices. Where they voted in 2010, we won majorities. Conservatives made the difference in the winning races and in the lost races. Not only did we have fewer Republican victories in those races where Conservatives didn’t vote, the races were decided by the least knowledgeable among us or by the Dems.

More than before, in conservative blogs and forums, I’m reading good men and women declare that they will never vote for Romney if he’s nominated. They remind me that they were the ones who refused to vote for John McCain in 2008, or who (like me) voted for Sarah Palin and McCain just benefited as a side effect.

I certainly wish that Conservatives had found themselves working hard to force McCain to keep his promises for that last three years instead of watching Obama keep his.

And here come the third party rallies!

The problem is certainly the “GOP elite,” and their support for Romney — that’s why Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum couldn’t get a foothold, right? And why Newt Gingrich is still so far behind?

How many votes do you suppose the “elite” have, anyway?

Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, yesterday, Rush Limbaugh warned Conservatives what may happen if the Republican nominee doesn’t win. Yes, he  titled the post of the segment “A Warning to the Republican Establishment,” ending with a prediction that the Republican Party might never recover if “they screw this up.”

The warning to the rest of us is ignored:

If this doesn’t pan out to big-time electoral victory the way the establishment has it figured, then what will their excuse be? And I think I know. I think that if this campaign goes on and if it results in Obama winning, I think what the establishment is going to do is blame us. They’re gonna blame us conservatives for once again being too rigid and too demanding and too narrow and unrealistic and all this, and telling us that we’re the reason that Obama won.

Why not? That’s exactly what happened in ’06 and ’08. (And don’t forget Rush’s own Chaos.) The media and the Left ate it up! The lesson learned was that no one can count on Conservatives. That’s why we repeatedly watch people who should be our champions “pander” (Rush’s word) to the “middle,” the “undecideds,” the independents.

Why not learn instead from successes, like the 2000 election, a victory that the Dems never saw coming? A good friend recommended that I re-read David Horowitz’ “How to Beat the Democrats.” One of the lessons is,

Lesson 3: There Is No Natural Conservative Majority (But You Can Create One through Political Action). The critical role Republican unity played in the election leads to a third lesson: There is no “natural” conservative majority.

. . . Such facts are no cause for conservatives to despair. What they are is a reality-check. If the conservative mission is to restore basic American values, the way conservatives fight the political battle will determine its outcome. There may be no current conservative majority in America, but there is a potential majority, if Republicans have the will and intelligence to create one.

David Horowitz (2002-10-06). How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas (Kindle Locations 842-843, 861-863). Spence. Kindle Edition.

Do we have the will? The intelligence? Can we forget the animosity we have had for each other the last year? Are we willing to say, “Let him who never had a change of heart cast the first stone?”

An estimated 56% – give or take – of the Republican National delegates have been decided, but 44% have not. The numbers aren’t set in stone, yet, depending on what happens to the delegates who went to candidates that dropped out or in States like Iowa, where the actual choice will be made at caucus in June. “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

I’m sure that I won’t see Conservative blogs pulling their anti-Romney posts, but I hope to see a few willing to be positive and work together to ensure Primary victories for the remaining Conservative in the Republican Primary, in order to deny Romney an easy nomination. Is their motto, “Anybody but Romney,” or is it, “Anybody but Obama?”

The Big Lie, Buffett Version

No matter how often it’s repeated, it’s a lie that the
Buffett rule will cut deficit or increase the money available for
Washington, DC to spend. The highest I’ve seen is $47 Billion dollars
over 10 years in revenue from the Buffett tax increase. That’s less
than one day of current *deficit* Federal spending.

The entire premise is a lie. The capital gains taxes are taxed at the
corporate rate prior to bring dispersed to investors. And they’ve
already been taxed as income from the investors.

Taxes are punishment for achievement and investment. The Buffett rule
- while sparing Buffett’s own tax shelters, the foundations run by his
kids – is a disincentive for investors and punishment for the risk
required to achieve.

For more information – proof of the Big Lie -  on the rates and the amounts that “the rich” pay in taxes, take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office says about taxes and income levels:

• “The overall federal tax system is progressive—that is, average tax rates generally rise with income. Households in the bottom quintile (fifth) of the income distribution paid 4 percent of their income in federal taxes, while the middle quintile paid 14 percent, and the highest quintile paid 25 percent. Average rates continued to rise within the top quintile, with the top 1 percent facing an average rate of close to 30 percent.
• “Higher-income groups earn a disproportionate share of pretax income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.  In 2007, the highest quintile earned 56 percent of pretax income and paid 69 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 19 percent of income and paid 28 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 4 percent of income and paid less than 1 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13 percent of income and paid 9 percent of taxes.”

Feral Hogs and “Real Budget Solutions” for Texas

While reviewing budget issues with Dr. Donna Campbell, we discovered “Real Texas Budget Solutions” (a pdf) from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Besides recommending that Texas’ State agencies begin cutting budgets, now, rather than later, the paper suggests eliminating funding for the following:

Commission on the Arts; Texas Historical Commission; Texas Public Utility Commission: System Benefit Fund, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Energy Efficiency Program; Fiscal Programs— Comptroller of Public Accounts: Major Events Trust Fund; Trusteed Programs within the Office of the Governor: Texas Music Office, Texas Film Commission, Economic Development and Tourism Division, Texas Enterprise Fund, Emerging Technology Fund, Economic Development Bank, and Texas Tourism program; Texas Workforce Commission: Skills Development Program; Texas Windstorm Insurance Association; Texas Education Agency: Regional Education Service Centers, Student Success Initiative, Steroid Testing, Campus Turnaround Team Support, Best Buddies; Higher Education Coordinating Board: Doctoral Incentive Program, Top Ten Percent Scholarship Program, and Research University Development Fund; Library and Archives Commission: Resource Sharing and Local Aid; Office of Public Insurance Counsel; Office of Public Utility Counsel; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Texas Emission Reduction Program; Pollution Prevention Advisory Council; Take Care of Texas Program; Texas Clean School Bus Program; and Recycling Market Development Implementation Program; Texas Department of Agriculture: Seed Quality, Seed Certification, Feral Hog Abatement, Egg Inspection Program, and Agricultural Commodity; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Promotion and Outreach Programs; Texas Railroad Commission: Energy Resource Development and Alternative Energy Promotion; Board of Plumbing Examiners; Texas Board of Professional Geoscientists; Funeral Service Commission.

I saw a couple in there that I wonder about (and had to wonder about my own Texas Institute of Health Care Quality and Efficiency) but where *do* we start? Everyone of these agencies and boards is taking money from Texas taxpayers’ own budgets.  Which can be better done privately?

(That photo is one that I took at a macadamia nut farm on  Hawaii, September, 2011).

Secret: CPAC TX Dr Donna Campbell (Senate District 25)

The speech is good, but the story told in the introduction was a huge surprise to me. Not because I don’t believe that Dr. Donna is capable of the good deeds described — but because neither she nor anyone else had told me about them!

It turns out that Dr. Donna “doctored” Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani (of Raging Elephants)  “way back in 2010,” when he collapsed in a men’s room at a party function.

According to Apostle Claver, Dr. Donna followed him when he stumbled to the bathroom at a restaurant. Even while he “regurgitated,” she nursed him and prayed for him.  She then had some of the men at the event put him in her car and she took him home, where she and her husband cared for him overnight.

I certainly admire Donna’s “guts” and Apostle Claver’s humility for telling the story to us all.

Washington Post bias rallies abortion supporters

How unfortunate that the WaPo chose to color this article, “A clinic’s landlord turns the tables on anti-abortion protesters” with “anti-choice” stereotypes depicting all pro-life activists as violent. Obviously, there hasn’t been violence at the Stave office building or, I’m sure, it would have been prominently reported in this article. Instead, the focus goes to Roy Carhartt, who does abortions at the clinic. Carhart isn’t an OB/Gyn, but performs late term abortions for a living and also claims to be a “Family Physician.”

The article is supposed to be about Todd Stave, who founded “Voices for Choice,” which solicits volunteers to contact pro-live activists, supplying names, phone numbers,  addresses and sometimes even the names of children. From the Voices for Choice website,

Todd Stave is an entrepreneur in the Washington, DC area who believes in a woman’s right to choose. He also believes in every American’s fundamental right to his or her own opinions but loathes bullies, harassers and antagonists who cross the lines of civility and decency.

In reality, Stave owns a building that once was his abortionist father’s clinic and is now an abortion business run by his sister.

After Roy Carhart started doing late term abortions there in late 2010, local pro-life activists began to petition Mr. Stave to change his business practices. They called him and personally contacted him, even going so far as to protest at his home.  Last August, two people stood outside of the school where one of the Stave children attended middle school, quietly – and legally – praying and demonstrating with signs.

I don’t support protesting outside the school of such young survivors of abortion and agree that it’s a horrible thing to have to explain to an 11 year old that Daddy makes his living from renting a building to people who perform late term abortions.

I believe in small government and personal responsibility. Communicating our moral beliefs and community standards by personal interaction are much better than sweeping laws in the pursuit of influencing our neighbors.

Speaking of responsibility: I hope and pray that those “pro-life” activists who receive the phone calls from the pro-abortion volunteers are engaging their callers in a real conversation about elective abortion.
I also hope that the pro-life men and women make note of the caller ID information. After all, most violence around those who advocate in favor of elective abortions is committed by the so-called “pro-choice.”  I hope Mr. Stave’s (& now Wapo’s) volunteers at VOChoice.org never commit violence.

May the Lord bless all of our Nation with understanding about what abortion really is. Odd that if you break the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list, it doesn’t matter that it was an embryo or fetus, you’ve still broken Federal law. But the only species having this conversations doesn’t protect our own children of tomorrow from elective, intentional abortion.

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

The only thing sure in life is death and taxes. The difference is that “We the People” can avoid taxes by making sure our Republic is sound and avoid the errors that the founding fathers  and de Tocqueville (and I) warned us about.

Unfortunately, our Nation has decided – whether by default or not – that a group of nine appointed Justices are not only the “highest court in the land,” they are the highest LAW in the land. And so, we find ourselves at the mercy of the whims – and sometimes the least consistent – of these justices

I’ve been scanning the transcript from the Tuesday, March 27, 2012 debate before the Supreme Court, which is available at the SCOTUS website.

A question by Justice Alito :

“All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, “You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else.”

“Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?”

RedState.com’s Erick Erickson wrote about “Sinners in the hands of Anthony Kennedy,” and noted “the quote heard round the world,” from Justice Kennedy:

“But the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

“And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

Erickson points out that the media are changing the meme of the debate from whether the law is Constitutional to a rant that the Conservatives on the Court are bullying the rest. The Houston Chronicle joins the chorus and proves Erick’s point.

To think that I almost posted this without adding the Category “Media Abuse.”

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

Public policy in education and ethics discourse are approaching a climate in which there are no standards of morality and no expectation of – much less recognition of – any ultimate Truth and no acknowledgement of right or wrong other than arbitrary enforcement of faddish laws.

“The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”

Earlier this month, I reported on the Journal of Medical Ethics’ “After Birth Abortion; Why should the baby live?” The quote above is from one of the editors of the Journal, Julian Savulescu, who apparently does not understand that his support of “rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression” is a substantive moral view, dogma or moral outlook. Savulescu is a perfect example that my opening statement is true.

Among the many unintended consequences of this lack of standards is that there is now seems to be no place for teaching and learning. How do our teachers, much less our students, develop judgment about ethics in a world with only subjective standards? How do our teachers correct a horrible overstepping of what were once considered boundaries if there are no boundaries?

Where and when do we find the teaching moment, an opportunity to review basic ethics and learn once again why these ethics fit the event or question?

David Dewhurst for Senate, Ted Cruz should retract his negative ads

I’m endorsing Texas‘ Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in his race for US Senator and calling on Ted Cruz to retract his false, negative ads.

As a stalwart champion for the right to life, marriage and small government, David Dewhurst has demonstrated the strength of his Conservative philosophy and credentials while serving as President of the Texas Senate.  He supported the passage of our Tort Reform, Prenatal Protection Act, Woman’s Right to Know Act,and this year’s Sonogram Law, “Loser Pays,” and Voter ID Law. He has opposed ObamaCare, called for the resignation of Eric Holder for his part in running guns to Mexico and backed Governor Perry in his fight against Federal attempts to encroach on Texas’ state sovereignty.  He stood his ground in spite of stunts pulled by Senate Democrats, including their month-long trip to New Mexico in 2003. His answers to the committee that interviewed him, as well as his history, won him the endorsement of Texas Alliance for Life. (I’m on the Board of Directors of TAL.)

I am impressed with his ability to work out agreements among Conservatives separated by degrees on fine points. One day in 2007 stands out in my memory as an example of Dewhurst’s leadership: Lt. Governor Dewhurst brought a group of us together in his office to hammer out an agreement on significant reform for the Texas Advanced Directive Act. He was a calming, firm influence on the large group. I didn’t detect any pressure from him, although the Session was winding down and this would be the last day the legislation could be passed in the Senate.

Last Fall, I wanted the Lieutenant Governor to remain in his current office so we’d have the security of his experience and leadership  when (as I had hoped) Governor Perry became President. Because I hoped to have a Governor Dewhurst sworn in in December, I originally decided to support Ted Cruz and even gave him a donation, even though I wondered about his switch from an aspiring Attorney General to the Senate race.

Unfortunately, Ted Cruz and his Senate campaign staff haven’t built their campaign on why Mr. Cruz is qualified and should be Senator. Instead, they’ve spent time and money on abrasive, negative attacks on the Lieutenant Governor, a fine man who has served Texas honorably. Several of the ads have been blatantly false, including a very early one concerning the Transportation Security Agency anti-groping bill (passed in the Special Session) and another claiming that Dewhurst had backed an income tax in 2005 (debunked by the Austin-American “Politi-facts” as “Pants on Fire“).

I spoke to Mr. Cruz’ staff about my disapproval of their attempts to sully the Lieutenant Governor’s reputation last November at the Texas Federation of Republican Women Convention and again at the Comal County Candidate forum on the first of February. The staffers argued with me both times and nothing changed.

The negativity continued. On February 23, Ben Shapiro of Big Government helped spread a false rumor about a “fundraiser” supposedly held by Obama supporters at the home of one of the Podestas. There were no funds raised, and the “home” is actually a townhouse that is often used by a PR firm for meetings. Neither the sponsors nor the invited guests were Democrats or “Liberals.” Shapiro wrote a luke-warm retraction on February 24th, but noted that Cruz’ staffer, James Bernson, defended using the earlier version. Many of us received emails with the false claims on February 28th.

Cruz’ facebook page still contained these false claims as late as last week.

Mr. Cruz is very young and has never held an elective office or proven himself able to build coalitions that we all know are necessary for legislation to pass in either the State or Federal House and Senate. Texas Legislators learn that it is better to persuade their opponents than to tear them down, even when one side has a majority, because of the pressures of our short Sessions. Cruz only knows the adversarial techniques that he must have used to argue cases in court where it’s evidently not enough to be right: the opponent must be depicted as wrong – and guilty.

The race for the open Texas Senate is not a matter of Conservative vs. RINO. It’s not incumbent vs. fresh ideas and energy. It is experience and a proven legislative ability vs. what appears to be a win-at-all-costs, aggressive and arrogant display of disregard for the history and the truth of a good man’s record.

David Dewhurst is conservative and a leader. He has a record over the years that proves that he is not timid or a RINO, at all. Neither is he abrasive and negative as Mr. Cruz has proven himself. I hope you will join with me in supporting David Dewhurst for the Senate.

Paralysis, Gridlock?

Are the Republicans causing “gridlock,” “paralysis,” etc. in Congress? Is it the Republican-controlled House or the Democrat-controlled Senate that can’t pass bills, can’t even pass a budget? Why is the theme of the day that nothing is happening in DC because of (wink, Republican) extreme partisanship? (See “Senate Gridlock explained in one chart,” “‘Deliberative’ Senate gripped by paralysis,” “Chipping away at Senate gridlock,” and the many articles about how “moderate” Olympia Snowe is.) (Whatever you do, do not mention “Jumpin’ Jim” Jeffords, much less Arlen Specter.)

My husband and I visited Washington, DC last week with the National Pawnbrokers Association. Members of the NBA heard lobbyists and Legislators in their meetings and visited Capitol Hill to meet with Congressmen and Senators from our States. Time after time, we heard that staffers and the occasional Rep told the pawnbrokers that the two sides are too far apart, too polarized to get any legislation done — or even to have a conversation.

First of all, the partisanship is not new. Take a look at the history of “cloture votes” in the Senate. Does anyone else remember all the talk about – the never invoked -  “nuclear option” or the “constitutional option” when Trent Lott or Bill Frist were Majority Leaders in the Senate? The problem then was that the Senate Dems were using the filibuster to block ALL judicial appointees. That the Dems didn’t want President Bush to appoint judges doesn’t seem equivalent to the fact that Republicans do wish the right to debate and amend legislation that changes or creates law.

Of course, we’re supposed to forget that the Dems had a majority in both the House and the Senate from January, 2007 until the Republicans won the House in the 2010 election and were sworn in in January, 2011. Don’t look at the number of Dems in the Senate, today, or read the news reports that Harry Reid will not even allow a vote on the budget.

Good Dems don’t remember that the Nancy Pelosi House had such a huge majority that they didn’t need a single Republican vote to pass legislation — and yet they still shut down the tradition of “open rule” on Republican amendments. One day, Pelosi even shut off the lights and CSPAN cameras in an attempt to silence Republicans!

And really good Dems deny that Harry Reid used the “nuclear option” to force ObamaCare through the Senate — while changing the rules for the Senate for all future Congresses. (Reid used “reconciliation” to pass Obamacare. Furthermore, the Act mandates that any recommendation from the Independent Payment Advisory Board on Medicare cuts must go straight to the Senate Finance Committee and all future Congresses may only debate Obamacare with a 2/3 majority vote, and then only for a time set in the original “Accountable Care Act.“)

Why are we called “Conservatives” in the first place? Isn’t it because we prefer transparent government, lower taxes, a strong defense, less spending and defend the right to life and traditional marriage? These are matters of principle that have been in the Republican platform since the ’60′s, at least.  And yet, we’re portrayed by the media as “do nothing,” the “party of no,” and as though it is WE who are trying to make radical changes in the law.

“Obama Standoff,” or To Coin a Phrase – Revised

We used to call it a “Mexican standoff,” but that could be considered bigoted these days. Or at least non-PC.

“Obama Standoff”  is a better description for a specific condition – one that’s becoming more common and hitting us more frequently. In the “Obama Standoff,” the Obama administration demands that Texas, some other State, or any individual or organization of individuals with a conscience,  violate their own laws, Constitution, or conscience – threatening to withhold Federal tax money, fine, or break that law himself if others don’t comply.

Unbelievably, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius visited Houston today and announced – on the Friday before the funding for Texas’ Women’s Health Program expires on Wednesday, March 14 – that she is going to deny renewal of the Medicaid waiver. She did this *before* notifying the State or the Commissioner! See the Governor’s announcement in response, here. http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/17025/ )

The Obama Administration doesn’t even care that there will be no meeting of the Texas Legislature until January 2013. Of course, this is the Constitutional scholar in the White House who ignored the meaning of “recess appointment” in January. Why should he honor concepts like the Legislature makes laws and the Executive Branch must follow them?

It doesn’t matter that Texas has had the same law for 10 years  any more than it matters that the Catholic Church has opposed contraception for thousands of years. It doesn’t matter that physicians have defended the right to follow their consciences for 2500 years, since Hippocrates’ oath was adopted by the Profession.

Why should they? They don’t care that the First Amendment guarantees the free expression of religion — to “establishments of religion,” by the way!

In a particularly unconscionable moment, one Obama Administration official told representatives of religious organizations that they had a year to reconcile – with Obama, not with God.

And they certainly don’t understand, much less care, what a “conscience” is other than some roadblock in their goal to control and force every doctor to be complicit with ending human life – or at least make sure to move next door to someone who will.

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis: We laugh at honor and are surprised to find treachery among us.

“Women Speak for Themselves” up to 4 pages

The list of women who have asked to co-sign the open letter to President Obama and Secretary Sebelius is still growing. Have you signed up?
There’s a button on the top of the page, just fill in your name and State, more information is optional. You, too, can say,

Here We Are!

Update on Texas, Contraception, and Women Who Vote (and blog)

Over the weekend, there were more op-eds published in online magazines and newspapers all over the Internet championing women’s “right” to contraceptives and nearly everyone of them tied that “right” to the “right” to obtain an abortion. Search the news on “Texas contraception politics” and you’ll find a few dozens of articles published repeatedly in newspapers across the Nation. They often begin discussing cuts in State funding for contraception and move straight to the theme that mean old Republicans in Texas just don’t want to pay for abortions.

Yes, we don’t want to pay for abortions or support corporations that do them. That is our “choice.”

However, the reality is that Texas Legislators had no choice other than to cut spending. Where is the money going to come from?

Texas also cut money to train resident doctors – the future family doctors, OB/Gyns and pediatricians because there was not enough money. But I don’t see any articles on “The war against physician workforce.”

The only way to raise money would be to raise taxes. In order to raise taxes, we would have to have a vote to change our Constitution. I, for one, would vote “no.”

Everyone – including the Obama Administration – ignores the fact that Texas’ part-time Legislature will not meet again until January 2013, so there won’t be a chance to change the funding until after the November election.

Please notice the hateful tone of many of the blogs, op-eds and especially the readers’ comments and letters to the editors. And note that they always focus in on abortion – and that even the National articles narrow in on Texas. The truly mean comments claim that Republicans hate women. Some articles are even titled, “. . . War on Women,” and “When States Abuse Women.” One of the “War on Women” articles was published in the UK’s Guardian.

Women vote in Texas. We believe that life begins at fertilization and that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the right to life.

And we sure don’t have extra money to pay higher taxes. How hard is that concept to understand?

Here are the women – thousands of us

Earlier, I linked to an “Open Letter to President Obama, Secretary Sebelius and Members of Congress.” There are now about 2000 names of women from all over the country who volunteered to add their “signature” to the letter. I believe that more will be added, since I received a response from the organizers on March 3, but can’t find my name on the list.

Here is the “Open Letter” in full:

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, SECRETARY SEBELIUS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

DON’T CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN

We are women who support the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage and family life. Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Many, at some point in our careers, have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been part of the religious mission of that school, or hospital, or social service organization. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work Catholic institutions perform in the community – particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is always also a vocation.

Those currently invoking “women’s health” in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken, and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects, or that some forms act at some times to destroy embryos, or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.

No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious liberty issues currently at stake. Each of us, Catholic or not, is proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage and family life. We call on President Obama and our Representatives in Congress to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to witness to their faiths in all their fullness.

 

(Found my name! Add yours!)

Pro-Planned Parenthood against @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry wrote an Editorial about the refusal of the Medicaid waiver for our Women’s Health Program by the Obama Administration. While it appears that very few news organizations actually print the op-ed, many have published their own, and a few reference the Governor’s essay. (A search at Google News on “Women’s Health Program” yields about 100 media posts, more blogs.)

Once again, the comments from the media and readers are derogatory, don’t contain the facts, and very critical of all of us “anti-abortion idiots” (per one commenter at Texas Tribune).

Texas has had law limiting the distribution of Medicaid and the Woman’s Health Program funds to those who perform, refer to, or affiliate with abortion providers for years, and received waivers in the past – even from this Administration – under this law.

The real difference is that this year, the Legislature prioritized funds to providers who provide comprehensive, continuing care at Federal, State, local, and County health clinics.

Yes, there was a renewal of the ban on abortion providers, although PP itself was never mentioned. And, yes, the Attorney General has clarified the meaning of “affiliate.”

However, while a nice side benefit, PP wasn’t excluded because they are PP. They were excluded because the State had to prioritize our funds and PP doesn’t offer comprehensive continuing care. They don’t treat high blood pressure, but Federally Qualified Health Centers do. They don’t treat diabetes, but the health clinic run by the county does. They don’t even write orders for mammograms, they just have a list of clinics that do.

In the last few months, the State has already made contracts and arrangements with other providers for a more efficient use of the limited funds we have. If access is cut, it won’t be for a lack of doctors and clinics – it will be because the Obama Administration doesn’t like the way our Legislature decided to prioritize the funds.

There is no federal law that says that Texas has to make contracts with anyone and everyone. As pointed out by the Governor and in this fantastic letter from the Executive Commissioner of the State Department of Human Services, Tom Suehs, the Social Security Act specifically gives the right to the State Legislatures set preconditions for contracting with the State to provide Medicaid.

Since PP only provides a narrow range of care, they don’t qualify – even though they aren’t mentioned in the law. They don’t treat high blood pressure or diabetes, or even do mammograms.

However, the Obama admin – and all those hateful commenters and editorializers – choose to focus on only one “provider.” The same organization that had 4 illegal abortion clinics shut down in San Antonio. The one that gives directions to facilities that do mammograms, but doesn’t even write prescriptions or give orders for the mammogram lab. The one that Texas is finding surprisingly easy to replace.

Now, our limited State tax dollars will go to Women’s Health Program doctors and clinics where they can receive treatment after being screened.