Law

Senate rejects ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ – Scott Wong – POLITICO.com

Senate rejects ‘Cut, Cap, Balance’ – Scott Wong – POLITICO.com.

The Democratic-controlled Senate voted Friday to block a Republican measure that would force Congress to pass a stringent balanced budget amendment and cap spending before increasing the debt ceiling.

And on it goes . . .

Angelina County jury finds man guilty of evading arrest after being mistaken for burglar in his own home – The Lufkin Daily News: Local & State

Angelina County jury finds man guilty of evading arrest after being mistaken for burglar in his own home – The Lufkin Daily News: Local & State.

Following a one-day trial and four-hour deliberation, a six-panel Angelina County jury concluded Sauceda was guilty of resisting arrest on March 15, 2009, while being pepper-sprayed, shot with a pepper ball gun and wrestled to the ground by nine Lufkin Police officers in his own living room, according to testimony.

The man in question is evidently mentally retarded and his crime was that he hid in the bathroom and refused to come out when police crashed into his house. This looks like a case of an attempt to prevent a lawsuit and over-reaching.

According to the DA: “We tried the case simply because we really did believe he resisted arrest,” Jones said. “The statute says that you do not have the right to resist the arrest. We were going to try the case no matter what.”

Well, in my opinion, you ought to have the right to hide when frightened. Not in East Texas – the police get to claim a locked door is “resisting arrest.”

The police evidently beat the man up pretty badly when they got him out of the bathroom.  The jury found the man guilty under the law, but sent a note to the judge saying that,

“We’ve all reached a verdict. To us we feel he has been wronged. Please consider that in his sentencing.”

The victim received 30 days in jail, along with his beating and pepper spray assault.

Franken got it wrong

Al Franken, (See the Politico story, here) the nominal Senator from Minnesota, attacked the representative of Focus on the Family, Tom Minnery, claiming that Mr. Minnery is unreliable because of the way he read a report on statistics on marriage and the health of children. Mr. Minnery’s testimony is here.

Franken claimed that Minnery was wrong in assuming that the families in question were composed of one husband and one wife. Hamming it up, pausing for laughter, Franken claimed to have read the study from the “Department of Health and Human Services” and to understand it better than Mr. Minnery. Franken’s claim was that Mr. Minnery had no reason to assume that the definition of “nuclear family” used in the study (“A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family.”) did not include same-sex married couples.

Franken was wrong. See the original CDC study, “Family Structure and Children’s Health, in pdf, here.

The CDC paper Franken waved around about specifically mentions – on Page 12 – that it is referring to the “‘traditional” nuclear families” and further confirms that “spouse” is defined as “husband/wife.” The data came from 2001 to 2007, and Massachusetts became the first State to legalize homosexual marriage in 2004. There were evidently not enough same sex married parents to cause a bump in their years-long process. The definitions and clarifications in question are on page 12.

Regardless of your personal political leanings, there simply is not enough empirical or historical evidence to justify changing the basic unit of society. First same sex legal marriage in the States was less than 10 years ago. There have always been legal interracial marriages throughout history, with evidence that the marriages produce stable families. There’s more historic evidence that polygamous families are stable forces in society than there is for same-sex couples.

The social eugenics are bad enough, but in the litigious United States, the problem then becomes, if you don’t want a church that preaches homosexual acts are a sin and won’t bless their marriages, don’t go to one. Or, if you don’t want an Inn that refuses to host same-sex weddings, don’t own one. Sure —- The problem becomes lawsuit here a lawsuit there, etc.

Conservatives in Action: TED CRUZ THE SQUEAKY CLEAN TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE

Conservatives in Action

Conservatives in Action: TED CRUZ THE SQUEAKY CLEAN TEXAS SENATORIAL CANDIDATE.

From “Red Sonja”, Conservatives in Action:

In an attempt to bring first hand information to you about some of our 2012 candidates I sat down and visited with Texas Senatorial candidate Ted Cruz. The YouTube video is just 5 minutes and 17 seconds in length. Actually, I spent more like 30 minutes visiting with him. Cruz has never run for elected office before but has a very successful record as former Texas Solicitor General. He has a very impressive family background and other than not graduating from a Texas university, has a squeaky clean record. He has a way about him that is pleasing and his manner of speaking is easy listening. He seems sure of himself and is passionate and unshakable about his conservative values. Because of his court battles he is unflappable and knowledgeable in the critical issues facing us. I believe he would stand firm against the Obama Administration and against tyranny.

As the Solicitor General under Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, Cruz was instrumental in winning several landmark cases in the US Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. He has personally argued cases before the US Supreme Court, such as Medellin vs Texas and successfully defended the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006. Consequently he is well versed in understanding what it takes to win. His knowledge and expertise will be extremely effective if he is elected to the Senate.

Cruz exemplifies the American Dream. His father born and raised in Cuba fought in the Cuban Revolution and was imprisoned and tortured. Ted’s grandfather got him out of prison and he fled to America in 1957 seeking freedom from oppression. Ted’s father enrolled at the University of Texas and worked hard all his life. Ted’s parents, as small business entrepreneurs, managed a data processing company in the oil and gas field. It was great listening to Cruz comment that his father was his ‘hero’.

Read the transcript from the interview, here and watch the video on YouTube:

Dividing Conservatives: Who Started This, Anyway?

(The ACLU is probably hiring lawyers as we speak. See! Government can create jobs outside of Government bureaucracies.)

Remember when we were told not to pay attention to what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Now, they’re forcing us to watch. We didn’t start this round, but get ready: Conservatives who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman will be treated as divisive and accused of splitting the Conservative vote.

President Obama has declared his support for legislation ending the Defense of Marriage act. The bill, the Respect for Marriage Act, will be heard today in the Senate Judicial Committee.

The full title is, “S.598, The Respect for Marriage Act: Assessing the Impact of DOMA on American Families.” In the House, it’s H.R. 1116. According to the Examiner.com,

The bill which was introduced by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) would repeal all three sections of DOMA which places a strong federal hold against states rights in the matters of legalized same sex marriage recognition.

The new bill is set out to repeal specifically the sections in which DOMA defines marriage as the union between a man and a women, instructs states not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states and prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.

Which is probably exactly where it should be heard. After all, now there can be more lawsuits,like this one in Vermont against private business owners who does not want to celebrate same sex marriage in their Inn.

There’s a conversation on Facebook about whether the phrase “gay conservative” is an oxymoron. I maintain that it is.  Will organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans still want to vote with Conservatives who are happy to form coalitions on fiscal  matters, small government, and the sanctity of life, but who won’t support the change they want to make in the family or the definition of marriage? Will they join in the debate in favor of “Respect for Marriage,” and how will they do it?

The basic unit of society is the family. Social experiments with the family are not conservative because they risk weakening that basic unit, the source of support and protection in times of crisis and where we learn the skills that allow us to function in the greater society.

There is no historical support for same sex couples forming a stable family.  There’s more empiric evidence for stable families resulting from polygamy. For that matter, the Egyptian Pharaohs, who practiced incest in order to keep their power in the family, managed to hold their reign together longer than the entire history of open same-sex lifestyle, much less the legalization of their “marriages.”

Those who disagree with me tell me to go along to get along and to quit bringing “the church” into politics, “because parties are about politics & policy issues not religious ideology.”

While I do have strong religious convictions, I don’t like to use religious arguments in politics. I don’t need to claim that the only reason to support traditional monogamous marriage is because marriage is a covenant with our Creator. I consider the fact that I can debate tough philosophical (even “ideology”) by using empirical arguments is proof that my position is close to the truth.

My fellow conservatives and I did not start this. The ones bringing in “controversy” are the ones who demand to make us aware of what should be a very private matter and that we agree with their redefinition of marriage and the family.  It is they who insist on dividing conservatives by identifying first as homosexual, then as fiscal conservatives, etc. This identification declares that their purpose is not to cut spending or support small government: their primary purpose in forming a political group is to gain sympathy for their true cause.
(edited, 11AM, 7-20-11, to remove a repeated sentence. 8-9-11, for grammar and to add link to NYT story on Vermont Inn.)

Texas Succession (not secession)

Yesterday, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst threw his hat in the ring for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s soon to be vacated seat.

The media keeps telling us that Governor Perry will soon declare his candidacy for President.

So, if Perry and Dewhurst win their (speculative) primaries, then in November, how would the New Governor be chosen? Would Dewhurst resign and let us appoint Abbott, or would we wait ’til the middle of November to start the succession, would we need a special election, or what?

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need” with New Taxes

I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college

via Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need” with New Taxes.

In other words, you don’t own anything. According to this man, everything belongs to the government, you keep “according to your needs.”

The de Tocqueville Moment? (Are you for sale?)

President Obama has declared that he will veto the Cut, Cap,and Balance Bill if it passes. The White House is calling the Bill “extreme, radical, and unprecedented” and  ” the Ryan plan on steroids.” I’m hoping the Republicans in Washington remember who their base is and count his threat as a dare – and call his bluff.

Cut spending first, show a good faith effort, then we”ll talk. President Obama needs to bite the bullet, eat his own peas, and decide that if he wants to cut the deficit and cut debt, some – in the form of savings from cutting unnecessary spending – is better than none.

What Congress and the bureaucracies in DC have done by expanding the federal governments, increasing regulations, permits, heaping ObamaCare on top of the “Stimulus” on top of TARP and all of this on the other spending that made Conservatives angry enough to stay home in 2006 and 2008 is not the answer. We didn’t like it in November, 2010 and we don’t like it now.

I remember that the tax code was simplified when Ronald Reagan cut the tax rates in the 80’s. The Democrat controlled Congress promised cuts in spending to go along with the lost deductions. Those cuts never materialized and federal spending grew even faster than the remarkable Federal revenue.

Federal Revenues and Expenditures 1980-1993

more and more people became beneficiaries of Federal largess.

It’s gotten to the point that more than half of people in the U.S. fell right off the tax rolls. 

Has the United States of America reached the Alex de Tocqueville moment when,”The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money?”   What’s your price?

Edited for spelling 3/28/2012 BBN

We Republicans

“We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.”

Here’s an older post that I wrote June 1, last year. It still applies, more than ever!

We Republicans are the Tea Party. If you look at the Tea Party, you will see the Conservative foundation, the remnant that have opposed “centrists” and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who have known all along what the Dems relearn each election cycle, but some of our own never seem to: Americans are conservative, to the right of center. When all the couch potatoes woke up last year, we were the ones who were here to welcome them and give them somewhere to start.

Some of us sat out the 2006 and even 2008 elections to “teach them a lesson;” that they need to legislate like Republicans if they want us to support them. Where Republicans turned out to vote, we held offices. Where the Republican voters were no-shows, we lost ground and offices. In a few cases, Republicans crossed over in the name of Chaos and strong conservatives were narrowly defeated in the Primaries, leaving us with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under vote. We ended up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Well, that was successful, wasn’t it? Can’t you just imagine all the true conservative candidates in the Presidential primary of 2008, each wishing the Chaos voters had turned out for them?

The Dems won a majority and then a super majority in the Federal House, Senate and the White House, allowing them to ram-rod their agenda to spread the wealth around, undermine families and threaten the weak and sick at all stages of life. Corrupt and corrupting Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers wield Committee Chairmanships when they should be indicted. The media ignored – and continues to ignore – our plainly stated opposition, underreporting our numbers and drowning out our voices as they proclaim that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for Change! And now, the media and the liberals are crowing about the power of the tea partiers, and asking everyone who will give them a few seconds what we’ll “do” with “them.”

Unfortunately, the “moderate” Republicans and some of our conservatives didn’t learn the lesson we wanted to teach them. Instead, they decided they need to spend more time and money wooing the swing voters and undecideds. The Big Tent is looking more like a Circus. (See CPAC and “gay conservatives.”)

Many who have appropriated the title of “conservatives” – those who have never been active (or even voted) in the Republican Party before and those who spend their “meet-up” time with the Libertarian Party – are using any and all opportunities to infect the Party with their discontent. If they can destroy us for their own political gain and “Revolution,” they will be happy.

If your goal is to throw the bums out for the sake of defeating the old established leadership, if you think it’s your turn at power, even if you’ve never been involved, much less been a leader, then perhaps your motives aren’t as pure as they should be. Please reconsider what your real goal is and how – whether – your actions will achieve your purpose.

For Texas’ Atheists

Preamble to the Constitution of the great, sovereign State of Texas:

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Just FYI.

And, BTW, according to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it’s “Freedom OF Religion,” or “the free exercise thereof,” not “Freedom From Religion.” thought you would want to know, since you’re suing Governor Rick Perry over the Response prayer gathering on August 6th, at Houston’s Reliant Stadium.

(Thanks to LukeL of FreeRepublic.com for the reminder about the Preamble.)

Texas Insider » Cong. Smith: “Republicans will not support legislation that raises taxes.”

Repeat it often, and do it! Don’t give us mock compromises. (Don’t mock us with compromises.)

The Republicans have a budget. Do not pass the McConnell deal. Keep the control in the House as mandated in the Constitution. Pass a short-term debt ceiling, and force the Senate and/or the President to kill it.

If there’s a bandaid that needs pulling off, this is it.

Texas Insider » Cong. Smith: “Republicans will not support legislation that raises taxes.”.

First Amendment: excuse for lawsuits or freedom?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Texas Tribune, that NPR/University of Texas online news organization that accepted $150,000 from George Soro’s “Open Society,” (whose url is “soros.org”), reports that atheists backed by an organization from Wisconsin, have filed suit to stop Governor Rick Perry’s participation in the prayer gathering in Houston next month. They claim that the 1st Amendment prohibits State Governors from public religious expression. It doesn’t seem odd to to them that the same Government should defend their right to not be religious while forcing others to refrain.
Forget for a moment that the Constitution is talking about the Federal Congress and not a State Legislature or Governor – look at the rest of the Amendment.

“… shall make no law” – no law for and no law against
“. . . the free exercise thereof . . . “
“ . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”
“. . . right of the people peaceably to assemble . . .”

The comments on TT  concerning the lawsuit are the typical Austin liberal screed, with an added anti-religious hatefulness and the obligatory hair comments thrown in. Knowing the type of readers who comment on these pages, I’m still surprised at the prejudice and lack of knowledge displayed. So, here’s my answer to their questions and doubts:

Yes, Christians do believe that the Lord chooses our Governors and other leaders. And, yes, Christians do have a need and “Commission” to testify about our faith and blessings. And many of us do not believe that we can abdicate our own private duty to Christ to care for the sick, poor or children to government, which hasn’t proven a good steward. And, no, you don’t have the right to be free from knowledge and tolerance of our free exercise of religion, speech, and assembly.

God bless their little hearts.

Addicted to spending, power, or nicotine?

I’ve noticed that addicts find some excuse to leave early or get “agitated” easily toward the end of a long meeting. May the Present President just needed a cigarette?

From CNN, a quote from Congressman Cantor: about the July 13th meeting with President Obama:

“That’s when he got very agitated and said I’ve sat here long enough — that no other president — Ronald Reagan — would sit here like this — and that he’s reached the point that something’s gotta give,” Cantor said, adding that Obama called for Republicans to compromise on either their insistence that a debt-ceiling hike must be matched dollar-for-dollar by spending cuts or on their opposition to any kind of tax increase.
“And he said to me, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff.’ He said ‘I’m going to the American people with this,'” Cantor quoted Obama as saying.
“I was somewhat taken aback,” Cantor said. When he continued to press the issue, Cantor said, Obama “shoved back from the table, said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out.”

Get the RINO’s out, now!

I tend to be a “some is better than none” type of voter. Normally, I say that just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat.
But not on life and family issues. I wont cast a vote for pro-aborts or pro-homosexual “marriage” RINO’s.
I did refrain from criticizing my own State Senator, who is both, because of a misguided loyalty to the Party – and my husband is the County chair. In reward the man refused to allow me to be introduced as “Doctor of the Day” at the Senate, this May and he fought our ultrasound bill.
Never again.
Every Republican who cannot stand for the sanctity of life and traditional marriage should be hounded out of office, not just voted out. No violence, no threats, just unrelenting pressure to resign. (My husband says, “Good!” or I wouldn’t put this on line. I really do believe what I say about marriage.)

Opinion: Why let IPAB control health care? – Sen. John Cornyn – POLITICO.com

Senator John Cornyn, my Senator from Texas, has introduced a Bill to repeal the power of the (Medicare) Independent Advisory Board. As the Senator says, the Board of 15 appointed, non-elected bureaucrats will determine what services are offered to Medicare-eligible patients. Those recommendations will be based on economics, not on actual patients or on their needs. (Did you know that the US Preventive Services says that the evidence for  Prostate Specific Antigen tests and prostate exams and annual mammograms or teaching breast self-exams is “insufficient?”)

From the Senator:

We should learn from Britain’s mistakes rather than repeat them — and we should also listen to voices of Texans in our state. The IPAB has created “immediate uncertainty at hand,” says Scott & White Healthcare in central Texas, for their 12 hospitals and more than 800 physicians. Many more organizations and associations have expressed similar concerns and urged me to do what I can to repeal this ill-conceived bureaucratic board.

That’s why I have introduced the Health Care Bureaucrats Elimination Act, and why I’m testifying Wednesday on the other side of the Capitol to build support in the House. This legislation seeks to repeal the IPAB completely and defuse this bureaucratic bomb before it explodes.

Opposition to the IPAB is already a bipartisan affair in the House. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), for one, is in favor of abolishing this panel. As Pallone put it, “I’m opposed to independent commissions or outside groups playing a role other than on a recommendatory basis.”

Repealing this unelected board of bureaucrats does not mean giving up on efforts to reduce costs in Medicare. A better model is Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage, which has come in under budget by more than 40 percent. It has achieved this by introducing competition and choice into the system.

Several other initiatives at the state level and in the private sector have also cut costs without sacrificing quality or access to care. Congress should take a look at them as well.

Our seniors have paid their hard-earned money into Medicare for years. They deserve far better than to see their health care placed at the mercy of 15 unelected bureaucrats.

via Opinion: Why let IPAB control health care? – Sen. John Cornyn – POLITICO.com.

The United Nations Bans Opposition to Its Global Tax Design Meeting

News on UN meeting on taxing carbon and energy, in Japan July 13-14, from Cathie Adams and the Eagle Forum:

The Committee consists of representatives from 40 nations, including the U.S., who are considering taxes on carbon, international aviation and shipping, international financial transactions and a wire tax for producing electricity. The UN is also pushing for removal of fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to its international green agenda, which would cause the U.S. to be even more dependent on foreign oil.

The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity and environmental neutrality. Agenda 21 is not a treaty, but a plan of action produced by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

via The United Nations Bans Opposition to Its Global Tax Design Meeting.

Need more info on Obamacare?

Ben Hoffman has written a comment in response to my post of earlier today, “53% want repeal of health care law,”  to let me know that he doesn’t believe that the Rassmussen Poll is accurate (or maybe it’s that I’m wrong.):

If people knew the truth about the reform, more would think it was good for our country. But right-wing propaganda has taken hold over facts. The main issue people cite when asked why they’re against it is the mandate, which won’t affect people who already have insurance and for those who don’t, well… they’re just sponging off the rest of us when they get sick or hurt and they have to go to the emergency room, so who cares what they think.

I disagree with Mr. Hoffman on whether or not people know “the truth” and whether or not they will like the healthcare bill as they learn more about it and about whether or not the mandate is the greatest objection or will affect other insurances. The mandate is bad enough  – as is commonly repeated these days, if the government can force you to buy health care, it can force you to buy anything.

First, the poll itself is evidence that people are changing their minds as they learn. As I do, and as I’m sure you do, the people I’ve talked to are researching, following the news and the bits of the law and the regulations that are already coming to be known.

One bit of the law that has already affected many of us is the restriction on Health Savings Accounts. The before-tax contributions were limited, cutting the amount that people can save to pay for their own health care. We can no longer use our HSA to pay for over the counter meds and devices without risking a huge penalty. Doctors are being asked to write scripts for aspirin and other over the counter meds that are medically necessary, but no longer paid under the HSA regs.

Many of us are bothered by the waivers that are going out to some companies.

And, we laughed when we all found out that the Bill had no “separate and severability” clause and would have outlawed all Congressional staffers’ insurance if the Office of Personnel had not engaged in a slight-of-hand trick.

Personally, I found the rules change abuse by Senator Reid to be offensive. He has bound all further Congresses to his debate rules: no debate at all without a 2/3 majority vote and then very limited time for each side to present their case. He also forced any changes to go through the Senate Finance Committee.

However, the biggest danger has not kicked in, yet. The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will soon be mandating cuts in Medicare services by determining what is and is not medically and financially effective. Those cuts may only be overturned by the 2/3 vote, then Senate Finance Committee route, and then only if other cuts can be substituted to meet the same dollar amounts.

The IMAB will make us forget that we ever laughed at “death panels.” This is where the government will control what your doctor does in that little exam room. What Medicare does, everyone does or they risk “exclusion” from Medicare and all those who participate with Medicare.

And finally: “rightwing propaganda?” Please give people the same credit for thinking that you do, Mr. Hoffman.

53% want repeal of healthcare law

Rassmussen’s latest poll is out concerning the Health care law sometimes known as “Obamacare.”

The numbers of those who want the law repealed have not changed much in the last year. While about a third think the law will be good for the country, but 48% believe it will be bad.

People are changing their minds about what they think the healthcare law will do. “Since June of last year, belief that the health care law is likely to force a change in health insurance has ranged from 34% to 51%.”

Historic tax rates: burden increased on top incomes

Never sit still when told that the “rich” pay less in taxes than they should due to the tax cuts in the ’90’s.
A very interesting set of tables showing relative tax rates for households from the ’70’s to 2007.
There’s also a table showing Effective Individual tax rate, social taxes (Medicare and Social Security), and Effective Excise and Corporate taxes. You can view it online, in a pdf or in your Excel files.

This information belies the concerns that the rich don’t pay their fair share or that the burden of taxes falls heavier on the middle class due to “Bush Tax Cuts.”

Partisan about partisanship (media bias)

Democrats are “Liberal/moderate” rather than simply “liberal” in this Texas Tribune piece on “partisanship” among Texas House members. And, yet, the Republicans are definitely called “conservative,” without any added qualifier.

How partisan does this make Dr. Mark P. Jones (chair of the political science department at Rice University) and the Texas Tribune?

The Tribune has published an interactive chart placing House members on either side of the “Centrist” line, according to their votes and statistics, with ‘0’ being “centrist.”  The more negative the number, the more liberal (/moderate)the legislator is and the more positive the number, the more conservative he is. The most conservative Democrat, Tracy King D-Batesville, scores a – 0.63, while 31 – 1/3 – of the Republicans are below 0.50. Another 1/2 of the Republicans hover right around 0.50, and 1/3 are greater than 0.61 or demonstrate the same level of partisanship that the least partisan of the Democrats.

Jones carefully states that none of the Republicans are Liberal, only more “moderate” than others.  (more data and charts, here.)

On the other hand, Jones and the Tribune confirm that when politicians are called or urged to be “moderate”by the press and academia, we should understand that  we are really talking about becoming more like the left.

(edited 7/9/11 AM to add more data and the graphic, BBN)

The Debt Overhang and the U.S. Jobs Malaise | Committee On The Budget

The Debt Overhang and the U.S. Jobs Malaise | Committee On The Budget.

New Budget Committee Report: Skyrocketing Debt Hampering Private-Sector Job Growth

Cut spending first. Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment with caps. Then we can talk about true “loop holes,” but leave things that we want to encourage alone – like child and mortgage interest breaks.

New Budget Committee Report: Skyrocketing Debt Hampering Private-Sector Job Growth | Speaker of the House John Boehner | speaker.gov.

Let’s see: Life or Toll Roads?

Every 30 minutes, today, the “news” on the radio claimed that Governor Rick Perry can’t count on Texas Christian Conservatives.

Well, he sure could in November, 2010! (and 2006 and 2002, too!)

The San Antonio radio station, WOAI 1200 AM, is the local talk-show leader, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and our own Joe “Pags” (I’m not even going to try to spell it – that’s what he calls himself). The Station has played harsh sound bites all day on the news, accusing Governor Perry of having “corporate slush funds.”(Money the Legislature has appropriated specifically for a specific purpose is not a “slush fund.”)

I admire the woman in question and believe that I agree with her on 98% of the issues. Terri Hall is the founder of San Antonio Toll Roads and Texans United for Reform and Freedom. I’ve held her baby while she lobbied, and testified with her against the expansion of toll roads and selling our infrastructure to foreign private interests this year.

I just don’t agree with her way of deciding which politicians to support. Matters of life and traditional marriage and family are enough to make me turn off on a politician – and they will also win my loyalty when there are some issues on which we disagree. (There’s a hierarchy: Life trumps Liberty, Liberty trumps Property and these all trump purely political divisions like how to pay for roads.)

The trouble is that Terri is as close to a one-issue person as I’ve seen, applauding pro-abortion Democrats in the same pages where she condemned those like State Rep Frank Corte. in his Republican Primary  a few years ago because he didn’t vote the way she demanded on toll roads. Never mind that Rep. Corte is one of the most conservative men in Texas and the author of dozens of pro-life and pro-family Bills that became law. Never mind that while in office, he was constantly attacked from the Left (called “Frank ‘the Fetus'”), and that her opposition fed their glee.

And yet, I can still join her in those fights we agree on.

We Conservatives can split hairs finer than Baptists – or the Galatians and Ephesians to whom the Apostle Paul wrote 2000 years ago. Whether you’re a Christian or not, Paul had gave good advice when he admonished us to edify one another and to gently correct our opponents.

Edited for grammar, 18:20, 7-7-11, BBN)

Death Penalty in Texas Internationally Criticized

Is it the concern of President Obama that if Texas executes a murderer, other nations will hold us accountable to their laws concerning murder? In the mean time, we’ll be in more danger from every murderer among us, especially illegal aliens like today’s killer.

(I’m trying to write this article without mentioning the name of the murderer, only the name of his victim. She was a child, and her killer has been in jail more years than she was alive.)

First, few realize that the Governor of Texas cannot pardon people about to be executed. Because Democrat Governor James “Pa” Ferguson, 1915 – 1917, was so corrupt that the Legislature took the power to commute and pardon away from all Governors. The Governor may only approve or reject the recommendation of the Board of Grants and Pardons. If he rejects the recommendation of the Board, he can only grant a 30-day reprieve, and that, only once.

Second, Adria Sauceda was 16 and her killer was 23, when her naked body was found because the accused’s brother had raised the alarm when the man came home saying he had killed a girl.  Her body was found on the side of a road nearby.(See transcript, and/or the excerpt below from Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.)

(And did I mention that she was 16? Adria had gone to  a party where there was beer.  She shouldn’t have.  However, she did not deserve to be gang raped or to have the man who falsely claimed to know her take her away from the party then brutally abuse and kill her. She was 16. A decent 23 year old man would have protected her.)

Third, the killer had been in the US since he was 2 years old. There’s no evidence that he told the police that he was an alien – and asking that question would have been complicated in San Antonio in 1994. (And still would be – notice all the fuss and bother over sanctuary cities in Texas.) He did not seek help during his trial. His lawyers brought up the Mexican Consulate angle on appeal.

Many of my pro-life and Catholic readers may be upset with me about my support of the death penalty. I will admit to being conflicted about the killing of people by my State. However, I do believe in punishment and I do believe that a man like this would be a real danger to the lives of other people unless he could be kept in solitary confinement.

I remember the prison break from maximum security in Kenedy, Texas, back in 2000, which ended in the death of a policeman on Christmas Eve. The seven men were serving anywhere from 5 years sentences for burglary to 50 and even 99-life for rapes and murders. One had been given a life sentence for a capital murder.  This story was probably the main reason that I became less ambivalent about the death sentence: when proven killers have nothing to lose, they have nothing to lose by killing again.

From one of the many appellant decisions filed by Adria’s killer’s lawyers:

The evidence presented at trial shows that on May 20, 1994, the intoxicated sixteen-year-old victim was at a party. The twenty-three-year-old appellant also was at the party. At some point the intoxicated but conscious victim was placed in appellant’s car. Appellant and the victim left together in appellant’s car.

About thirty minutes later, appellant’s brother arrived at the party in a car which came to a screeching halt. Appellant’s brother was very excited or hysterical. Appellant’s brother started yelling to the people left at the party, “What the hell happened!” Appellant’s brother was yelling that appellant came home with blood on him saying he had killed a girl. Witnesses Torres and Ortega were present when appellant’s brother made these statements. Shortly thereafter appellant’s brother left in a rush.

Several of the party members went looking for the victim in the same area where the party was. They found her nude body lying face-up on a dirt road. They noticed the victim’s head had been bashed in and it was bleeding. Her head was flinching or jerking. These party members called the police.

When the police arrived, they saw the nude victim lying on her back. There was a 30 to 40 pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim’s skull lying partially on the victim’s left arm. Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim’s right thigh. There was a gaping hole from the corner of the victim’s right eye extending to the center of her head from which blood was oozing. The victim’s head was splattered with blood.

There was a bloody and broken stick approximately 14 to 16 inches long with a screw at the end of it protruding from the victim’s vagina. Another 4 to 5 inch piece of the stick was lying to the left side of the victim’s skull. The police made a videotape of the crime scene[,] portions of which were admitted into evidence.

Later that day, the police questioned appellant. Appellant gave two voluntary statements. In appellant’s first statement he said he was with the victim in his car when she began hitting him and the steering wheel causing him to hit a curb. Appellant attempted to calm her down but the victim leaped from appellant’s car and ran away. Appellant claimed he sat in his car and waited about ten or fifteen minutes to see if the victim would return and when she did not he went home.

After giving this statement, appellant was informed that his brother had also given a statement. Appellant then gave another statement. In this statement, appellant claimed he followed the victim when she got out of his car and ran away. Appellant claimed the victim attacked him. Appellant pushed her and she fell to the ground. When she did not get up appellant attempted to wake her but could not. He then looked at her nose and saw bubbles. Appellant stated he got scared, went home, prayed on the side of his mom’s bed and told family members what had happened, claiming it was just an accident. After giving this statement an officer gave appellant a ride home.

Emotional Noise is Destructive to Learning.

I’ve been searching for a way to express this idea, and here it is, at 6:00 minutes in:

  “The emotional noise is destructive to learning.”  David Horowitz at UCLA – Part 7 – Q & A http://t.co/kC09PIN via @youtube

Just wow!

Federal Court Scheduled to Hear Challenge to Texas Sonogram Law

Can you imagine what would happen if Cardiologists hid the screen while a heart sonogram was being performed?

Federal Court Scheduled to Hear Challenge to Texas Sonogram Law. From Joe Pojman, Executive Director of Texas Alliance for Life:

The Office of Attorney General Greg Abbott is defending the law and filed a response yesterday demonstrating that the law is constitutional. The first hearing will be today. Texas Alliance for Life’s staff will be present.

Texas also has laws mandating informed consent for hysterectomies, radiation therapy and electric-shock therapy – all passed because of the public perception that doctors were patronistically making decisions for their patients, “for their own good.”

The sonogram has become standard of care, much as the sonogram of the heart or a catheterization before bypass surgery. Patients are already being required to pay for the sonogram in addition to or as part of the abortion fee. And yet, patients were not being allowed – in some cases, refused – to see their own medical information and the results of the test they had paid for.

For some reason, the Houston Chronicle, in its July 2 note on the lawsuit, only says that, “The center for Reproductive Right’s class action lawsuits were filed on of a San Antonio abortion provider. ” Planned Parenthood is not identified in today’s HC article, either.

Republicans: we eat our own

Can you imagine the grief of fighting the Progressives AND the Conservatives from the right, all the time? Do you ever send approval to our elected officials when they do the right thing? Do you ever offer constructive ideas, or do you bounce around like a ping pong ball, from one sound bite presented by the the lame stream media to another, with no control over your own direction?

Case in point:  I’ve been following the blogs and the rants and reactions to what they perceive as compromise on the part of Republicans, according to reports in the New York Times‘ and the Houston Chronicle’s coverage of yesterday’s interview with Senator John Cornyn of Texas on Fox News Sunday.  It seems very few people look for the original video, which is on-line, here,  at Fox News.

Senator Cornyn flatly stated that the Republicans will not support and the American People do not want tax increases. From a more balanced article on the interview at the Wall Street Journal:

Republicans want major spending cuts before they agree to increase the debt cap. Many insist the budget deal can’t include any tax increase. But like Mr. Cornyn, some have opened the window to raising federal revenue. That could pave the way for an agreement.

Mr. Cornyn said Sunday he wanted any broad revamp of the tax code to be revenue neutral, meaning it shouldn’t bring in more cash than the current system. There may not be enough time to strike such a tax deal before Aug. 2, he said.

“But it ought to be the first thing we turn to, to make our tax code more rational. We could bring down rates, eliminate a lot of the tax expenditures and loopholes,” he said.

If the sides don’t reach a long-term budget accord this month, Mr. Cornyn said Congress may have to approve a short-term deal.

“The big problems aren’t going to go away if you cut a mini-deal, all it does is delay the moment of truth. So I’d say better now than then, but if we can’t, we’ll take the savings we can get now and we will re-litigate this as we get closer to the election,” he said.

The Dems WANT the government to shut down. They can’t wait to blame it on the unyielding, “political” Republicans. Worse, they’re floating the idea that Obama can ignore Congress’ will on the debt ceiling. And somehow, the far left always manages to control one another and stay on the same page while revving up the mob that wants to redistribute wealth, secure abortion on demand and declare war on our family values and children’s innocence but not on terrorists from a culture that would kill them in a minute for the very things they support.

The media, the Left, and our own reactionary mob will convince the rest of the country that the Republican leadership’s attempts at solutions are worthless political posturing. Our mob will be worse: making the perfect the enemy of good and dredging up old slights and rivalries.

I’ve been writing about Senator Cornyn and the ceiling debt, but could just as well be discussing Governor Perry or any number of State and Federal politicians and issues. If you’re at all able, look for the original source and/or two reports before making up your mind when you hear or read anything our Republican leaders in the media.