Medicaid Expansion Would Cost Everyone

Bravo to Governor Rick Perry for refusing to move ahead on the Medicaid expansion requirements in the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” AKA “ObamaCare.”

According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, of the 6.5 million uninsured in Texas, fewer than 10% of Texas’ uninsured would benefit from expanding Medicaid to everyone at 133% of the Federal poverty guidelines. ObamaCare has no requirements other than annual income.  The law won’t allow asset verification or take into account beneficiaries’ willingness and ability to work.

Texas uninsured numbers include Nearly 1/3 that are illegal aliens, about 40% who earn more than $50,000 a year, and about 1/4 who are already eligible under Medicaid and CHIP. None of these people  would be eligible under the expansion. Many are young and healthy, not convinced they need to spend their money on insurance, anyway.

The cost of expanded Medicaid, much less the rest of Obamacare, would require increased taxes, overt and hidden, on everyone. Sure, for two years, the Federal government is supposed to “pay” for the 10% of Texas’ uninsured added to the expanded Medicaid. But it won’t pay for that 25% of uninsured that are already eligible and it won’t cover illegal aliens or “the working poor.” And after 2 years, the Federal money goes away, leaving Texas with the bill.

Even though Washington can print paper money, the government doesn’t have any money that it doesn’t take in taxes. The cost is not just what is collected by the IRS, it comes in the loss of value of the money and assets we earn or already have.  Obamacare, and the Stimulus before it,  are sold by the Left as a classic take-from-the-rich “redistribution of the wealth.”  However, hey also cost non-taxpayers and the working poor and middle class by the harm they do to our economy and the increase in cost of necessities. As well as inevitably rewarding those who are unwilling to fend for themselves, they punish everyone who lives pay check to paycheck as well as the “wealthy.”

Governor Rick Perry tells Obama Admin, “No!” #TxSen @GovernorPerry

Governor Rick Perry has made it official: Texas won’t expand our Medicaid to cover all adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty level. The ACA Medicaid expansion does not allow any requirements other than income. No need to work, no asset limits, no medical need or other hardship.

Here’s the Press Release from the Governor:

July 9, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry, in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, today confirmed that Texas has no intention of implementing a state insurance exchange or expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. Any state exchange must be approved by the Obama Administration and operate under specific federally mandated rules, many of which have yet to be established. Expanding Medicaid would mandate the admission of millions of additional Texans into the already unsustainable Medicaid program, at a potential cost of billions to Texas taxpayers.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a “state” exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better “patient protection” or in more “affordable care.” They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.

In 2010, Gov. Perry declined “Race to the Top” dollars, which would have provided some up-front federal education funding if Texas disposed of state standards and adopted national standards and testing.

To view the governor’s letter to Secretary Sebelius, please visithttp://governor.state.tx.us/files/press-office/O-SebeliusKathleen201207090024.pdf.

Déjà vu, or Repeat as necessary

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

Here’s an older post that I wrote June 1, 2010 and again, last summer? 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.

Open Letter to Texans from Senate Republican Caucus

Tonight, the Texas Senate Republican Caucus, 18 of the 19 Republicans in the Senate,  took the unprecedented step of writing a letter to refute some of the stories you’ve been hearing about Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst.

The letter pretty much speaks for itself and is an example of the consequences when Republicans forget who the opposition is and begin attacking the record of one of our own.

Setting the Record Straight:

An Open Letter to Texans Dear Fellow Texans: In the U.S. Senate primary race, statements have been made that are untrue regarding the records of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, the Republican Texas Senators, as well as Governor Rick Perry. This letter is to set the record straight.

The Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill

Many members of the Texas Senate and the Lt. Governor felt strongly about outlawing the practice of sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. During the Regular Session, the Anti-Sanctuary Cities Bill was blocked by the Democrats through the use of a parliamentary procedure. The Lt. Governor asked Governor Perry to call a special session, removed the parliamentary block, and the bill then passed the Senate along party lines early in Special Session on June 14th. The bill was sent to the House early in the Special Session where it failed to move and died. We are confident that the Senate will again pass the bill in the upcoming 2013 Legislative Session.

Controlling & Cutting State Spending

Governor Perry, Lt. Governor Dewhurst and the Republican-led Texas Legislature have always been committed to balancing the state budget without raising taxes, and have repeatedly done so since 2003. Most recently, the state budget was balanced in 2011 by cutting $14 billion in overall spending. Budget watchdog groups have repeatedly praised Texas for being a low tax, low spending state and specifically for keeping state spending lower than the rate of population and inflation growth since 2003. To characterize the Texas record as one of reckless spending is simply untrue.

The TSA Anti-Groping Bill

The Senate Republicans and the Lt. Governor wanted to protect travelers from unwanted and unlawful intrusion, so Lt. Governor Dewhurst requested that Governor Perry add the TSA Anti-Groping Bill to the agenda for the Special Session. The Texas Senate passed S.B. 29, the TSA Anti-Groping Bill, with enough time remaining in the Special Session for the House to take up and pass the bill. The bill was a tougher version than that of the House, but ultimately died as a result of opposition on the House side.

State Income Tax, Wage Tax and Payroll Tax

We the undersigned, and the Lt. Governor, have always opposed a state income tax for Texas, as well as a wage or payroll tax. Newspaper fact checks clearly confirm this.

Texans deserve to know the truth in this important election.

Signed by Senators John Nichols (Chairman),  John Corona, Bob Duell, Robert Duncan, Kevin Eltife, Craig Estes, Troy Fraser, Chris Harris, Glen Heger, Joan Huffman, Mike Jackson, Jane Nelson, Steve Ogden, Dan Patrick, Kel Seliger, Florence Shapiro, Jeff Wentworth, and Tommy Williams.

Not signing was Senator Brian Birdwell – I’m sure we’ll read the story on that, soon.

A Fourth of July Comment on ObamaCare (revised)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The discussion about reversing the trend from collecting taxes that are spent on individuals, rather than on common use, is considered by some as revolutionary as the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence. Along with everyone else, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this in light of last week’s  Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. As with any law or tax, the conversation about “ObamaCare” must begin with the basics of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

A decade after the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution of the US to “secure” the inalienable rights of the people from infringement by the government and to prevent the growth of interference by government except where necessary to prevent or punish the infringement of inalienable rights. The Constitution included a way to make changes that the People find necessary through the Amendment process. We can’t allow anyone, whether the United Nations, the World Health Organization, or “progressives” to fundamentally alter our Constitution by law, legal ruling, or bureaucratic regulations without going through the proper, Constitutional, amendment process.

The inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness carry through to all aspects of life, whether it’s working for day to day expenses, saving for the future, or making choices of foods to eat and entertainment. Rights create a non-delegable duty of personal responsibility, which means that each of us must pursue happiness for ourselves without infringing on anyone else’s rights. We cannot kill, enslave or limit others’ pursuit of happiness by forcing them to do our will or give us their property. This is true even when we face consequences that aren’t the result of our choices: accidents, natural catastrophes, bad luck or bad genes. If it makes you happy, you can freely give what you want to charity or service for the benefit of others, but even this is limited by the fact that your rights are inalienable: i.e., you can’t give away or sell your right to life or liberty.

One way that people exercise personal responsibility is to purchase insurance. Traditionally, insurance covered unexpected or catastrophic costs. There is no Constitutional justification – and certainly no economic justification – for the Federal government to turn health insurance into tax funded pre-paid “health care coverage” to pay for everything from first dollar.

When the People agree that a given purpose will secure what the Constitution calls our “Safety and Happiness,” we have allowed our governments to tax us for “public goods,” like roads, education, and defense. Social Security and Medicare are different, in that individuals were taxed and told that the money would be used for their own and their family’s future needs, rather than for common use.

After the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935 precipitated a near-Constitutional crisis, these funds were spent over the years by subsequent Congresses. They were also used to justify more taxes and spending for other people and purposes; what we now call “redistribution of wealth”. Bit by bit, good-hearted Americans have allowed the scope of both State and Federal entitlements to grow until more than half of our population receives tax funds paid by other people for food, housing, healthcare and even free cellular phones. And then came the Affordable Care Act or “ObamaCare,” which will “tax” or penalize every American if they don’t purchase government approved health insurance.

Obviously, our Nation shouldn’t break the contract with all of the people whose payroll taxes were collected over the years for Social Security and Medicare. However, the Accountable Care Act is the latest step toward the unconstitutional federalization of an industry in a way that wasn’t envisioned by the Founders of our Nation for ANY industry. What better time to evaluate Constitutional taxes and spending than  Independence Day ?

Medicine vs. “Health”

Medicine is the diagnosis and treatment of disease and injury, while the World Health Organization defines “health” as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Doctors practice medicine, but is “health” even possible?

New England Journal of Medicine: “The Health Care Jobs Fallacy”

Attempts to justify increasing intrusion of the Federal government into health insurance and health cost distract from the purpose of the practice of medicine, which is to treat patients.

Remember when doctors talked about “medical care” of individuals, not “health care” for populations?Remember when medicine was an “art,” not an “industry?” People aren’t machines with interchangeable parts and neither medicine nor “health care” are amenable to assembly line production, except in very rare instances.

The bottom line is that employment in the health care sector should be neither a policy goal nor a metric of success. The key policy goals should be to achieve better health outcomes and increase overall economic productivity, so that we can all live healthier and wealthier lives. Our ability to ensure access to expensive but beneficial treatment is hampered whenever health care policy is evaluated on the basis of jobs. Treating the health care system like a (wildly inefficient) jobs program conflicts directly with the goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to care at an affordable price.

via The Health Care Jobs Fallacy — NEJM.

David Dewhurst endorsed by Eagle Forum’s Pat Carlson

” David has worn the uniform of his country, built a business and has been the driving force behind the most social and fiscal conservative accomplishments in the nation.”

Pat Carlson could be found at the Texas State Capitol for at least the last two Legislatures, tirelessly advocating for Conservative causes for the Texas Eagle Forum.

Former Texas Eagle Forum President Endorses David Dewhurst
July 3, 2012 – 9:46am – Team Dewhurst

Dewhurst for Texas announced today that Pat Carlson, former president of the Texas Eagle Forum, has endorsed David Dewhurst for United States Senate. In her endorsement, Carlson says Dewhurst “put conservative principles into practice and delivered” for Texas, just as he will do in Washington as the next U.S. Senator from the Lone Star State.

“Throughout his life in public service, David Dewhurst has put conservative principles into practice and delivered countless conservative victories for Texans,” said conservative activist Pat Carlson. “That is why I’m proudly and enthusiastically endorsing David Dewhurst for U.S. Senate. David has worn the uniform of his country, built a business and has been the driving force behind the most social and fiscal conservative accomplishments in the nation.”

“David has balanced every budget since taking office without raising taxes, slashed state spending, killed liberal attempts at imposing a state income tax, defunded Planned Parenthood, and passed the Sonogram Bill, Photo Voter ID and the largest tax cut in Texas history. Conservatives in Texas know that David has fought for them in Austin, and he will fight for them in Washington,” Carlson said.

“It is an honor to have the endorsement of such a dedicated Texas conservative activist,” David Dewhurst said. “For more than a decade, Pat has been a loud and prominent voice for conservative values and beliefs in Texas, and she has stood up and volunteered time and again to serve on behalf of Texas. I greatly value and appreciate her support in my bid for U.S. Senate.”

Pat Carlson served as the statewide president of the Texas Eagle Forum from 2009-11. In addition to her role in that capacity, she has also been actively involved in the Republican Party serving as precinct chair, election judge, Senatorial Convention Temporary Chair, Congressional Caucus Chairman at the state Republican convention, a delegate to 10 state Republican Conventions, a delegate or alternate to four national Republican conventions, ultimately serving as Tarrant County Republican Party Chairman from 2000-2005. Continue reading →

Comments on the Cruz-Patrick Debate

An advocate for Ted Cruz has commented on the June 30th WingRight review of the confrontation between Texas State Senator Dan Patrick and Ted Cruz, here.

My reply:

“Cruz is a champion of the advice from the Sun Tsu’s Art of War:   “Call your enemy what you are.” That’s not my favorite lesson from the book, and it’s not an upright, ethical philosophy for life except in life and death struggles.

“Cruz shouldn’t have gone on the offensive right off the bat. He sure shouldn’t have said flat out that Senator Patrick, a respected and respectable radio news commentator, has been fed questions from the Dewhurst campaign. He impugned Patrick’s honor and his journalism. He then claimed to have “seen” the Senator repeatedly acting as a “surrogate” for Governor Dewhurst.

“The occasions in which Patrick said negative things against Dewhurst were said in anger, between May 24 and June 2 – all from a single episode on May 24. As he said, he is not angry at Dewhurst anymore. He’s probably regretting words he said in anger in the presence of a reporter. While “all’s fair in love and war,” Cruz should remember Patrick’s advice: he needs to learn to ask advice and that, come August, we will all have to learn to work together as Republicans.

“Everyone may listen to the interview/confrontation for themselves, so we’ll let them decide whether or not Cruz “handled himself well. I obviously think he showed us a side of himself that he’s been trying to conceal – the angry, conspiracy-weaving side that will not accept any criticism.

“Senator Dan Patrick has said that he won’t endorse in this race, although he could be forgiven after the accusations by Cruz in this interview. Why do you accuse him of not meaning what he says?”

Ted Cruz Debates Dan Patrick (#TxSen)

“Every time I go on the radio, you ask the questions that the Dewhurst campaign want you to ask.”

This, from the guy who got caught red-handed trying to influence debate questions by a fellow candidate in order to team up against Lt. Governor Dewhurst!

Listen to the radio confrontation between Ted Cruz and Texas Senator Dan Patrick on Patrick’s “The Bell and Patrick” radio show, for yourself:

Mr. Cruz argued with Patrick for 30 minutes on the Baker and Patrick Radio Show that airs on KSEV  radio in the Houston area at 4 PM, week days. He unfortunately began with the flat statement that Senator Patrick had endorsed Dewhurst in the Senate race. You would think that a man would know that sort of thing, right? As Patrick said, if he’d done so, it would be public knowledge.

Cruz actually claimed that all Republicans and Democrats play a “game” with legislation they don’t want to pass, by entering into a conspiracy to pass a bill in one chamber in Session, and then in the other the next, but cheat to keep them from passing to law.

Senator Patrick spent quite a bit of time explaining the complicated workings of the Texas Senate, especially the work on the Sanctuary Cities Bills (SB 29 and HB 41) during last Summer’s Special Session of the 82nd Texas Legislature.

The two discussed the “Rose Bush Rule,” which requires 21 members of the Senate to vote in favor of bringing any issue up for a vote. Patrick reminded Cruz that the Senate members, not the Lieutenant Governor, vote on the rules of the Senate. Patrick also explained that the Lieutenant Governor has the authority to suspend that rule in a Special Session, but not in a Regular Session.

Cruz asked Patrick whether Patrick would have been able to pass Sanctuary Cities if he had been Lt. Governor. Patrick said, “No,” because “the only thing you can do is pass it out of the Senate.” Patrick said that Dewhurst had warned the Democrats in the Regular session that if they blocked the bill in the Regular Session, he would suspend the 21 vote rule in the Special Session. Patrick reported that Dewhurst did suspend the rule as he said, in order to pass the Sanctuary Cities Bill with over two weeks left in the SS and spoke of the frustration of having the Bill sit in Committee in the House.

He also told Cruz that all 19 Republican Senators had met on the issue and decided to pass SB29 as a separate Bill, rather than to try to tack HB41 as an amendment to the School Finance Bill. They were concerned that the school funding bill would be held up, preventing schools from knowing their budget until August.

Cruz ignored Patrick’s admonition to campaign on his own merits and plans, returning again and again to statements about what people “intend,” “know,” or ” believe.” Cruz accused Patrick and others of working against him, assigning underhanded motives to them, such as how much “better” for Patrick it will be to get Dewhurst out of Austin.

The creepiest bit of Cruz’ argument was this line, delivered with a strategic lowering of the voice at the last: “You have been acting as a surrogate for Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and I have seen you do it.”

I’ve described Cruz’ reactions to me when I was still a supporter asking him to cut back on the negative campaigning. At our County forum in February and then in New Braunfels. At the New Braunfels meet, he couldn’t walk away so he engaged me in debate. He kept coming at me for twenty minutes although others had questions.

Here’s a news report about another episode of over-reacting to questioning by another woman in Fort Worth at the RPT convention.

Cruz is not a “fighter” in any good sense of the word. Rather than a champion or defender, he’s a bully and a brawler. When faced with even mild opposition, he goes out of his way to prove the other person absolutely wrong. As Patrick said, he can “make numbers lie,” and has no problem with stretching the truth if it has what he calls “a basis in fact.” He sprinkles his speeches with dramatic descriptions of imagined conspiracies such as the ones above, and the notion that “Austin” Republicans had all agreed to make sure that “no one with a ‘z’ in his name is elected to State-wide office.”

For other summaries of the episode, each with their own twist, see the Houston Chronicle and Texas Tribune. But listen to the actual recording if you want the real story.

Penumbra of a tax

It’s not tax enough to invoke the Anti-injunction Act of 1987, but it will be collected by the IRS so it’s a legal, Constitutional, tax?

Maybe it’s just a shadow of a tax?

The Roberts decision on the mandate to purchase health insurance, is more confusing to me than most legal decisions. I keep looking for a way to untangle what appears to be circular contradiction, rather than logic. Here’s the best summary I’ve found that seems to say that the money the IRS collects is a tax, not a penalty for breaking the law:

Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.

Many of us have complained that laws and regulations have become too complicated, that no one can keep up or even avoid inadvertently breaking laws here and there. But this law is even worse because it forces action and taxes or penalizes the failure to act according to the Government’s determination of what is for our own good, rather than punishing an action or inaction that infringes on the rights of another.

To repeat hundreds of others, including the Justices who wrote the dissenting report, what are the limits of the Government once it can charge me for not doing some act?

All I can say is, vote to overturn the ObamaTax.

Praise for a centrist (#TxSen @DavidHDewhurst on @teDCruz)

In a two page letter in a November, 2008 mailer from The National Law Journal, Ted Cruz (then a new partner in a global law firm)  wrote a letter endorsing John McCain for President.

Many of us supported Senator McCain in 2008.  Like Cruz, we may have commended McCain for his military service, for voting on principle, and for his efforts to fight the war on terror. Some of us may have cast our vote for Sarah Palin or against Obama.

However, Mr. Cruz specifically praises John McCain for his “moderation,” for being a  “centrist,” and for his avoidance of “divisive” issues: abortion, marriage, tort reform, free trade, and union “bosses.”

National Law Journal: Why I Choose McCain (By Ted Cruz)

Obama, to his credit, speaks often of bipartisanship. But there are virtually no issues of consequence where he has dared to part with the far left of his party. Trial lawyers, union organizers, protectionists, and advocates for gay rights and abortion rights make up some of the core constituencies of the modern Democratic party. And, predictably, Obama has pledged to oppose tort reform; to abolish secret elections for union organization (which would render workers vulnerable to being strong-armed into voting for union bosses); to oppose free trade with allies like Colombia and to “renegotiate” NAFTA; to oppose a federal Marriage Amendment; and to sign legislation repealing restrictions on “partial-birth” abortion, parental notification, and government funding of abortion.

McCain’s record, in contrast, reflects far greater moderation. Rather than advocate on these divisive issues, McCain has focused his passion on fighting and winning the global war on terror.

I’ll admit that the only reference I can give is a link posted in a “hit piece” on the David Dewhurst for Texas Senator campaign website. Nevertheless, the letter is reproduced in full and says what it says. He doesn’t pull punches when it comes to Islamic terrorism or the importance of naming Supreme Court justices. Why does he focus his praise, his whole endorsement, on what many of us on the right would consider Mr. McCain’s weaknesses?

Ted Cruz RUSE #8: TEDCRUZ THE DECEPTIVE POLITICAL WEATHER VANE

Spinning his “whole life”

I was reading an amateur pop-psychology post on the differences between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and would-be-Senator-for-life, Ted Cruz.  After dispensing with the body language voodoo, the author inserted the obligatory quotes that I’ve heard Cruz repeat for four years.

Or should I say, “all my life?”

What always gets me is Cruz’ “my whole life” line, as in, “I’ve been fighting for the Constitution my whole life.”

•  As though law school and law clerk are equivalent to service in the Air Force and CIA;
•  As though debate club is the same as World class cutting horse competition in your 60’s; or
  
• As though becoming one of 1200 partners in what he calls a “global law firm” while running for first one, and then another office is the same as scratching out a $200+ Million successful energy business and then running for and winning first one, and then another, State-wide elective office.
  

Of course, there’s also Cruz’ claim that Dewhurst is a “career politician,” although the Lieutenant Governor didn’t run for office until he was 10 yrs older than Cruz is now and after accomplishing all of the above. Does Cruz truly believe that running for two different offices for the last 4 years makes him any less a “career politician” than actual service in two different elected office for 13 yrs?

Vote @DavidHDewhurst 4 #TxSen for life of service, not spin.

@DavidHDewhurst knows Obama Administration is his real opponent #TxSen

In stark contrast, Ted Cruz, who has never served a day in the military or elected office, used his announcement to make false charges against Lt. Governor Dewhurst.

“This makes clear that sanctuary cities exist only because of state and local decision-making; it highlights that we have sanctuary cities in Texas only because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst killed the bill that would have ended sanctuary cities. Had the Texas Legislature passed that bill—had Lt. Governor Dewhurst not run from the fight and prevented its passage—then today’s decision would have upheld that Texas law as well.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling does not prove anything about Sanctuary Cities. And, in fact, the Sanctuary Cities Bill passed in the Senate in the Special Session on June 15, giving the House 2 weeks to address it.

This press release was not the time to attack a fellow Republican. He doesn’t seem to understand that on August 1, we’ll all be Republicans working to vote out Obama.

But then, that’s been the Cruz’ campaign’s problem all along and why I switched from Cruz to Dewhurst.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissent on Arizona

Read the scathing comments and review of the history of US Immigration law in Justice Scalia’s brief.

“If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should
cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.”

Just, “WOW!”

teDCruz Ruse #6: Ted Cruz deceives about being a fighter @DavidHDewhurst for Texas

Description of a fighter and doer, vs. a talker, from the Dewhurt for Texas website:

In his early 20s, his son, David Dewhurst, entered the United States Air Force. In his early 20s, Ted Cruz was the 1992 North American Debate Champion while matriculating at Ivy League universities.

In his mid-20s, David Dewhurst entered the Central Intelligence Agency, serving abroad during the Cold War. In his mid-20s, Ted Cruz began his career as a lawyer and bureaucrat in Washington, where he has spent nearly half of his career.

In his 30s, David Dewhurst founded Falcon Seaboard from scratch, a company that created hundreds of American jobs. Ted Cruz spent the overwhelming majority of his 30s as a bureaucratic staffer or running for public office. One of the most significant “fights” that Ted Cruz lost as a result of his incompetence was Kennedy v. Louisiana, which gutted Jessica’s Law. When his ineptitude was discovered by the New York Times, his first instinct was to find excuses so he did not “look silly.”

In his 40s, David Dewhurst continued growing his successful business located in Houston, Texas. In his 40s, Ted Cruz began running full time for political office and recruiting reprehensible yet highly lucrative clients across the globe, and enabling a foreign company to destroy jobs here in America.

Not until his 50’s, after a very successful business career that David Dewhurst entered public service. After years in Washington, Ted Cruz refused to pledge to limit himself to two terms in the U.S. Senate, and seeks to spend the rest of his life as an elected official in Washington, D.C.

Ted Cruz may claim to be a fighter, but David Dewhurst knows that freedoms aren’t defended in the court rooms. They are defended by the men and women serving our country in the Armed Forces.

@DavidHDewhurst and the “Payroll Tax” Press Release (False Charge)

During the Friday night televised debate between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, Cruz asked the Lieutenant Governor whether he had ever “supported a payroll tax.” The Lt. Governor answered “No.” This “When did you stop beating your wife” tactic has been the subject of much crowing from Cruz supporters who accuse the LG of lying.

In fact, the LG was telling the truth and the whole issue is baseless spin, resulting from cherry picking  two words out of hundreds in a Press Release from May 12, 2005, reproduced in part, here:

That highlighted sentence says, “Texas businesses will have a choice of paying either a low-rate revised franchise tax or a payroll tax.”

The LG definitely praised parts of HB 2 and HB 3, but the release doesn’t mention “payroll tax” until a brief note in the 4th paragraph about alternatives for calculating the tax owed by the businesses.The word “payroll” is not found in the Bill passed out of the Senate. It is not found in “quotes” in this document, so is not part of a statement made by the Lt. Governor.

The falsehoods don’t stop there. Early last Fall, Cruz has used a Wall Street Journal editorial to blur the line between the Business Franchise Tax and a State “income tax.” Editorials are simply opinion, they are not news reports and are not sufficient evidence of anything except someone’s opinion.

Cruz himself, admitted in New Braunfels last month that the “payroll tax” is in reality a hundred-years-old business tax and that he knows that Attorney General Greg Abbott successfully defended against the claim that it is an income tax on businesses, in front of the Supreme Court last November. Anyone who wants to understand the tax, could just read the AG’s response to the lawsuit, submitted to the Court in August, 2011.

Cruz’ supporters go even farther than Mr. Cruz and claim over and over on Twitter and in blogs that the LG supported or proposed not just a “payroll tax,” but a “personal income tax.”

Neither the “gotcha” question from Mr. Cruz nor this press release is something that the Cruz campaign should have based its criticism on. It certainly is not support for the false claims – beginning in the Fall of 2011 – that Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst supported either a “payroll tax” or an “income tax.”

Traditional families supported by two new studies.

The original study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, can be found, here.

Of course, most of the articles reviewing the latest studies complain that the phenomenon is too new and still carries stigma that cause the problems.  They say if we’ll experiment with our kids just a bit longer, and with more legal protection (i.e., “marriage” and laws to punish people who won’t gush over the forced changes), the kids will turn out better. (“Haven’t we heard this about socialism: it’s just never had a chance to be done right.”)

The legitimate criticism for the Regnerus study is that the statistics are weakened because there is no distinction between children raised by same-sex parents who had long-term relationships and parents with a series of multiple partners or long periods without while the children of heterosexual parents are divided into traditional families and variations including single parent, etc. The database didn’t include that information. However, the problems for the children of homosexual parents are statistically significant.

Grammar edited 8/13/12 BBN

NYT Article on @DonnaCampbell (Texas Senate District 25)

“We have a great grassroots movement, and that’s what did it.” Texas Tribune, June 22, 2012

That article by the TT was also published in the New York Times. Take a look!

The author points out that Dr. Campbell was out-spent by both of her opponents, but she garnered enough votes to win her place in the July 31, 2012 runoff against incumbent Jeff Wentworth.

Senator Wentworth is quoted in this article as saying he wants to consolidate support from those who don’t want SD 25 leadership to leave Bexar County, while at the same time he hopes to win over voters from outside of Bexar County.

The dichotomy is not that hard for Wentworth, who calls himself “pro-life” because he doesn’t approve of abortion in the 3rd trimester.  24 weeks or 6 months? During second trimester, abortion is just fine with Jeff.

Petition: “Fire Eric Holder” via @DavidHDewhurst 4 #TxSen

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst first called for the resignation of Eric Holder last Fall because one of Texas’ sons was killed  with guns in the hands of criminals, due to “Fast and Furious.”

Now, he has this excellent video and a petition up on Dewhurst for Texas demanding that President Obama not only answer Congress’ subpoenas for information on F&F, but that Eric Holder be fired.

Here’s a #TxSen…

From Texas Representative Debbie Riddle’s FaceBook comments on last night’s debate:

Just fininshed listening to the debate with Dewhurst and Cruz – We have 2 very good candidates – Dewhurst is not a lawyer – Cruz is a lawyer & it shows – he is great with words & debate. Dewhurst is a very successful businessman in the oil & gas business – started it from scratch. I know Dewhurst personally & he has served w/ me on the board of Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs out of Wash D.C. – I know he WILL stand strong for Israel & that is important – if we turn our back on Israel we are toast. I know Dewhurst knows how to make successful business decisions & has helped to make Texas the most business friendly & family friendly state in the nation. We need to elect someone who understands our military (David has served), we need someone who understands our need nationally for good national intelligence (David served in the CIA) We need someone who knows oil & gas (David is an oil & gas business owner) – David may not be as glib as his opponent – but he knows how to get the job done. Though both candidates are good – David Dewhurst has my vote.

via Here’s a #TxSen….

teDCruz Ruse #5: Attack @GovernorPerry for endorsing @DavidHDewhurst

Governor Rick Perry released the following statement last night in response to Ted Cruz’s false attacks:

“Earlier this evening Ted Cruz falsely characterized my rationale for endorsing my friend and conservative colleague David Dewhurst for the US Senate. David Dewhurst championed and passed multiple tax cuts, billions in spending cuts, major tort reform and strong pro-life measures. David will build on that Texas conservative success in the US Senate to overhaul Washington, block President Obama’s socialist agenda and restore the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Making false statements about my motives or David Dewhurst’s conservative record is a disservice to Texas voters.”

via teDCruz Ruse #5: Ted Cruz attacks Gov. Rick Perry for endorsing David Dewhurst | Dewhurst for Texas.

Together, Governor Rick Perry and Lt. Governor David Dewhurst worked to:

• Defund Planned Parenthood
• Pass 51 tax cuts for a savings of over $14.5 billion for Texas taxpayers
• Pass the largest tax cut in Texas history
• Pass Photo Voter ID
• Pass landmark tort reform to make the trial lawyer agenda obsolete

Governor Perry, integrity, Texas Senate Race

That doesn’t sound like a man who is being “expedient.” He isn’t just praising Texas’ success in general. No, Governor  Perry is giving credit to Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst for his conservative leadership.

And yet, Ted Cruz, “fighter,” believes he knows the Governor’s real motive.

From the press conference after the debate:

DALLAS — U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz is questioning Gov. Rick Perry‘s support for opponent David Dewhurst, saying Perry only supports Dewhurst to “get him out of Austin.”

Cruz saved his sharpest comments for reporters after he and Dewhurst exchanged words in an hour-long KERA/Channel 13 debate, dominated by Cruz’s criticism of Dewhurst for “negotiating” and “cutting deals” with Democrats in 10 years as the presiding officer in the Texas Senate.

First, Cruz told reporters the “Texas political establishment” is opposing him because “there are a lot of folks in Texas who would very much like to get him out of the state legislature and send him to Washington.”

Later in the press conference, Cruz named Perry, saying Perry and Dewhurst “have fought tooth-and-nail” over state budgets but “It is in [Perry’s] political interest to get rid of David Dewhurst and get him out of Austin and send him somewhere else.”

Compare Dewhurst and Cruz as Candidates for Senate

My husband received this in the mail yesterday from a fellow Texas Republican and his wife. The only problem I can find is the description of the law firm as “Democrat.” Cruz calls it a “global law firm.”  I might have added a comparison of their charity giving, but maybe some of that is covered in the “Republican Activity.”

Dr. Jack Wilke on “Romney’s Conversion”

Dr. Jack Willke is an unimpeachable pro-life activist. He has taught many of us both why and how to protect life over the years. I was reassured to read his account of the pro-life conversion of Mitt Romney on LifeSite News and that Dr. Willke (and Dr. Hurlbut) are secure in believing that it’s genuine

The first part of the article outlines the work Dr. Willke did with George H. W. Bush when Bush was named as Vice Presidential running mate with Ronald Reagan. The last part is about Governor Romney’s conversion:

As this is written, Barack Obama has proven to be the most pro-abortion president of modern times and he is now seeking a second term. Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is the presumptive nominee for the Republican Presidential slot in November. Naturally, some have questioned his pro-life credentials and convictions so let’s examine the details of Governor Romney’s conversion.

When he was first elected Governor of Massachusetts, it was generally presumed that his position was “prochoice.” However, about half way into his first term as governor in 2005, Romney announced that he was opposed to embryonic stem cell research and proceeded to veto a bill making the “Morning After,” plan B contraceptive pills available. In the same year, he declared that he was pro-life.

Governor Romney tells us that he changed his mind in November 2004. At that time, he was obviously searching and had questions. He met with Douglas A. Melton, PhD, a scientist from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute on November 9. In that interview the Governor said this researcher told him, “Look, you don’t have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue because we kill the embryos after fourteen days.” This had a major impact on Romney and his chief of staff, as they saw it recognizing that such embryonic stem cell research in fact was killing what they were convinced were human lives already in existence. Later, through a spokesperson, Dr. Melton disputed that he used the word “kill.”

But Governor Romney, wanting to know more, consulted with one of the best people available in February 2005. This expert was William B. Hurlbut, a physician and professor at Stanford University Medical Center Neuroscience Institute. Dr. Hurlbut is a dedicated pro-lifer.

The two of them met for several hours, discussing the issue in great detail. They went through the dynamics of conception, embryonic development and repercussions of the various research and experimentation that has been going on aimed at exploring the first weeks after fertilization. At that point, Romney was under intense pressure to change a state law that, at the time, still protected human embryos from lethal stem cell research. Some of the pressure came from Harvard, his own alma mater. After this in-depth consultation, Romney stated that he was pro-life.

Asked about their meeting by columnist Kathleen Parker, Dr. Hurlbut said, “Several things about our conversation still stand out strongly in my mind. First, he clearly recognized the significance of the i s s u e, not just as a current controversy, but as a matter that would define the character of our culture way into the future. Second, it was obvious that he had put in a real effort to understand both the scientific prospects and the broader social implications. Finally, I was impressed by both his clarity of mind and sincerity of heart. He recognized that this was not a matter of purely abstract theory or merely pragmatic governance, but a crucial moment in how we are to regard nascent human life and the broader meaning of medicine in the service of life.”

Similar to my time with President H. W. Bush, Dr. Hurlbut presented Governor Romney with sound scientific and medical information. The Governor responded by changing his position to support the protection of innocent human life from the point of fertilization. He declared himself pro-life and has repeatedly done so since that time.

For over twenty years, Life Issues Institute has been solely dedicated to prolife education. It has been my primary contribution to the pro-life movement since the 1960s. Our strength comes from the central fact that we are daily changing the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion. And our efforts have greatly be en assisted by science. The tool of ultrasound has resulted in an entire generation having their first baby picture taken within the womb, and it’s greatly impacted people’s opinion on abortion. Every pro-life individual and organization should rejoice when anyone—political or otherwise—responds to the unmistakable fact that human life begins at fertilization and that it should be protected.

Life Issues Institute and I are confident that Governor Romney’s conversion is real, heartfelt and authentic. Since the Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization, we cannot endorse a political candidate. As such, this article should not be construed as an endorsement of Governor Romney’s candidacy but rather a testament to the fact that we believe Mitt Romney is truly pro-life.

Ted Cruz spin, spin, spin

At work on Monday morning, I received a call on my cell phone from Jessica with the Ted Cruz campaign, stumbling over “Mrs. Nuckols” and offering me the chance to be a “host” at their fundraiser next week.

I guess someone didn’t get the memo that I switched my support to Texas’ Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst for Texas Senator months ago. Or that after being invited by several emails and phone calls – two on my cell phone, a couple at home – I challenged Mr. Cruz at a “meet and greet” here in New Braunfels back in May. Jessica’s call inspired me to revive this post I’ve been editing, on and off, since June 1.

Why would I change from one candidate to the other, even after donating money?

It comes down to principles.

As I’m sure is true for many of you, I don’t just listen to what candidates and those who endorse them say.  I look at how candidates make their decisions and conduct their campaigns.

The Conservative reveals his principles by how he reaches his conclusions every bit as much as  by his decisions and the end results of those decisions. Evaluating the decision process is especially important when the candidate has no voting or legislative history to back his rhetoric.

Ted Cruz’ problem is not only that he can’t match David Dewhurst’s solid record of Conservative victories in the Texas Senate. It’s that he hasn’t demonstrated that he acts from solid principles. In fact, rather than basing his campaign on a solid ground of philosophy, talent and plans for reform that would have strengthened the Conservative movement, Cruz set out to destroy the reputation of a good Conservative Texas Legislator by spinning half-truths and lies into campaign issues.

Mr. Cruz doesn’t even take responsibility when proven wrong or when called out for trying to cheat.

Perhaps one of the most out of control moments of Cruz’ spin – at least until the recent attack on a veteran by one of his supporters – was the day last September 9, 2011 when he exchanged snide remarks about Dewhurst with the Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith.  Both ignored the fact that the Lt. Governor was Acting Governor dealing with the wildfires in Bastrop   and in other areas of Texas. Evidently, lost lives and homes don’t trump campaign ops or opportunities for Mr. Cruz.

At that meeting in New Braunfels, Cruz gave us example after example of his spin:

• Cruz told the group that he had raised more money than David Dewhurst, forgetting that we had known the rest of the story for a week: “The Cruz campaign later clarified to the Dallas Morning News that the $6.1 million included money raised in the nine days beyond the May 9 deadline, which was the cut-off date for Dewhurst’s numbers.”
• Several times he claimed that the Dewhurst campaign had called him a “yellow Chinese Communist” because one email from a Dewhurst staffer called him “Red Ted.” (This was repeated in his speech to the Republican Party Convention. Mr. Cruz ought to talk to my friend, “Red Sonja.”)
• He once again claimed that Lt. Governor Dewhurst had proposed a fictitious State “income tax” that never was (although, when confronted, he admitted to our group that the tax was actually a business franchise tax that was “a hundred years old”) and made the false charge that the Lt. Governor “killed” both the TSA Anti-Groping Bill (passed in the Senate June 27, 2011) and the Sanctuary Cities Bill (passed by the Senate June 15th) in 2011.
•  He doubled down on his ads’ claim that Jordan Fishman is not an “American manufacturer,” and then criticized Mr. Fishman for not paying enough taxes, as though the money he earns belongs to the American government.
• He charged that endorsements and donations from Texans to Dewhurst were due to fear of retaliation.
• Perhaps worst of all, he made a dramatic show of cupping the microphone and speaking in a breathy voice when claiming that the “Austin” Republicans had determined that “no one with a ‘z’ in their name” would be elected to State-wide office.

Don’t we get tired of the combative political campaign spin that’s all jargon and no judgement?  The way out of the stall that causes a plane to spin is to turn out of the spin and regain thrust, rather than continue to corkscrew into the ground.

Liberty depends on keeping promises

Liberty depends on each of us keeping our word, following the rule of law, and honoring contracts. When men and women will not honor their promises or keep their word, the law must enforce contracts. At least nominally, this is a basic tenent of libertarians and conservatives.

A very few men and women who are supporters of Ron Paul believe that they know better than the millions who voted in their State Republican Primary and they are suing in Federal Court for the “right” to nullify the votes of people who voted in the Republican Party Primaries. This lawsuit is about members of a voluntary association, the Republican Party, who don’t want to follow the rules in existence when they campaigned to be delegates by voting in the first ballot for the person chosen at their State Primaries.

“In a revolt against Romney, at least 40 more national convention delegates asked to join 123 previous plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee, and their attorney said hundreds more may soon follow suit.
“The first 123 delegates, all from the 9th Circuit, sued the RNC, its Chairman Rince Priebus, and every state party chairman in the 9th Circuit in Federal Court on Monday, demanding the right to vote for the candidate of their choice on every ballot at the Republican National Convention, including the first.
“The delegates claim the party violated federal law by forcing them to sign loyalty affidavits, under threat of perjury, to vote for Mitt Romney, though he is not yet the official nominee.

The Republican Party has rules. ‘The people who went to the Primaries to vote thought they were voting for their candidate to be placed on the Republican ballot in November. Expecting people who join our Party to follow those rules is not “intimidation” or “disenfranchisement.” The people who are now suing to change the rules volunteered to join a political party when there were other parties available and no party affiliation is mandatory.

These people actually believe that they know better than the voters in their State’s Republican Primary. Since they are so much wiser than the voters, they want to become their own elite power to trump what they believe is another elite. The honest and honorable thing is to follow the votes in the Primaries. It’s ridiculous to believe that they would sign pledges or contracts and decide to break these contracts, yet be honorable or trustworthy enough to override the election results in their States.

The Constitution (Article 1, amended by the 12th Amendment) is clear about the national election of the President and the Vice President. However, Party delegates are not covered in the Constitution, nor are the Parties themselves. At the least, the contract put in place by State Party rules should be followed.  At the most, this is definitely a case of State’s rights that is not covered by the Constitution.

In Texas, our State law imposes some rules and the rest come from our delegates to the RPT convention. Before the candidates stood for nomination at our Congressional District meetings last week, the rules for and requirements of delegates and alternates were read. Anyone who didn’t want to follow our RPT rules shouldn’t have run.

This lawsuit probably won’t extend to Iowa, since the Ron Paul delegates are happy with the outcome in that State. Last January, I represented Governor Rick Perry at one precinct caucus in Des Moines and heard the chair of that caucus explain how the National Delegates would be chosen. Nevertheless, after the Caucus voted overwhelmingly for Santorum, the precinct participants then voted to send the two men who spoke for Romney and Paul to their County Conventions. In effect,whether they knew it or not, they actually voted for Paul and Romney, since those delegates later voted to send Paulers to the State Convention. Of the 28 Iowa delegates going to the National Convention, 23 are aligned with Paul. That’s the rules in Iowa and it’s the responsibility of the voters to know.

Irregularities at the State Conventions are completely separate from the requirement to agree to follow the will of the Primary voters. The news reports from Louisiana seem to be one place that a lawsuit to correct high handedness at the State Convention would be appropriate.  If the plaintiffs in the 9th Circuit Court lawsuit can prove their other allegations of ballot stuffing and intimidation at Conventions, then perhaps they have a case there. But two wrongs don’t make a right and they don’t have the right to unilaterally invalidate a contract that they knowingly signed.

Liberty Movement 101 (or Re-love-ution 10.1)

Check out the ongoing comments on my post at TexasGOPVote.org, if you’ve wondered about the philosophy of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to win control of the Republican Party. They reaffirm my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism. Conservatism advocates small government, with a few rules, while utilitarianism, and especially objectivism, celebrate license rather than liberty and all too often de-volve into nihilism.

I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the ’90’s and early 2000’s. I even tried out to justify “Christian Libertarianism,” which I’ve concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)

The comments at TexasGOPVote.org by one man on marriage were probably the most enlightening:

If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.

These aren’t the first time we’ve heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for “open marriage” and “do your own thing” in the ’60’s? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic “revolution” EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles:  from the enclave that gave us the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution, to the Soviet Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.

2010 RPT (original) Platform “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health”

Here is the original 2010 platform – I’ve only copied the section that was disputed. The 2010 Platform was used by the 2012 Temporary Platform Committee as a beginning for our new 2012 Platform of the Republican Party of Texas. (At least for now, the entire 2010 document is online at the Tarrant County Republican Party website. The 2012 Platform is here at the RPT website.) (Thank you Tarrant County Republican Party!)

I’ve noted amended portions in red and deleted wording in blue. You can see the final version of this section here and the version proposed by my sub-committee is here.

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH

PROTECTING INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE

Party Candidates and the Platform on Protecting Innocent Human Life– We implore our Party to support, financially or with in-kind contributions, only those candidates who support protecting innocent human life. Further, we strongly encourage the State Republican Executive Committee to hear and recognize the longstanding and overwhelmingly consistent voice of the grass roots and revise its by-laws to make this action binding on our Party.

Partial Birth Abortion– We oppose partial birth abortion. We recommend that Congress eliminate from all federal court jurisdictions all cases involving challenges to banning Partial Birth Abortion.

Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;
2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;
3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis
4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;
5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;
6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and
7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children.

Sonograms – We urge the Texas legislature in its next biennial session to enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and offered as part of the consent process to each mother seeking an elective abortion.

Harassing Pregnancy Centers– We urge legislation to protect pregnancy centers from harassing ordinances to require pregnancy centers to post signs in violation of their Constitutional rights. We further oppose any regulation of pregnancy centers in Texas which interfere with their private, charitable business.

Choose Life – We ask the Legislature to provide Texans opportunity to purchase “Choose Life” license plates.

Parental Consent– We call on the Legislature to require parental consent for any form of medical care to minors. We urge electoral defeat of judges who through judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions. We support the addition of a legislative requirement for the reporting of judicial bypasses to parental consent on an annual basis to the Department of State Health Services and such reports shall be made available to the public. Further, we encourage the Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning service programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Services Act and Medicaid.

Protection of Women’s Health– Because of the personal and social pain caused by abortions, we call for the protection of both women and their unborn children from pressure for unwanted abortions. We commend the Texas Legislature for the passage of the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a law requiring abortion providers, prior to an abortion, to provide women full knowledge of the physical and psychological risks of abortion, the characteristics of the unborn child, and abortion alternatives. We urge the state government and the Department of State Health Services to ensure that all abortion providers are in compliance with this informed consent law and to ensure that all pregnancy centers and other entities assisting women in crisis pregnancies have equal access to the informational brochures created by the Department of State Health Services.

Alternatives to Abortion– We urge the Department of State Health Services to provide adequate quantities of The Woman’s Right to Know Resource Directory to anyone that works with pregnant women.

RU 486 – We urge the FDA to rescind approval of the physically dangerous RU-486 and oppose limiting the manufacturers’ and distributors’ liability.
Morning After Pill– We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.”

Gestational Contracts– We believe rental of a woman’s womb makes child bearing a mere commodity to the highest bidder and petition the Legislature to rescind House Bill 724 of the 78th Legislature. We support the adoption of human embryos and the banning of human embryo trafficking.

Unborn Child Pain Protection – We support legislation that requires doctors, at first opportunity, to provide to a woman who is pregnant, information about the nervous system development of her unborn child and to provide pain relief for her unborn if she orders an abortion. (Language added here to prohibit abortions after 20 weeks.)

Unborn Victims of Violence Legislation– We urge the State to ensure that the Prenatal Protection Law is interpreted accurately and consider the unborn child as an equal victim in any crime, including domestic violence.

Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions.

Abortion Requirements for Hospitals– We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion.

Conscience Clause– We believe that doctors, nurses, pharmacists, any employees of hospitals and insurance companies, health care organizations, medical and scientific research students, and any employee should be protected by Texas law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs, including but not limited to abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. We call on the Texas Legislature to pass legislation to strengthen and clarify the current conscience clause in the Occupational Code to include the above-mentioned persons and practices. We further encourage legislation that requires hospitals and clinics to inform all health care personnel of their right to refuse to become involved in abortion or euthanasia, and their protection from prosecution and retaliation under Texas law.

Fetal Tissue Harvesting – We support legislation prohibiting experimentation with human fetal tissue and prohibiting the use of human fetal tissue or organs for experimentation or commercial sale. Until such time that fetal tissue harvesting is illegal, any product containing fetal tissue shall be so labeled.

Stem Cell Research– We oppose any legislation that would allow for the creation and/or killing of human embryos for medical research. We encourage stem cell research using cells from umbilical cords, from adults, and from any other means which does not kill human embryos. We oppose any state funding of research that destroys/kills human embryos. We encourage the adoption of existing embryos. We call for legislation to withhold state and/or federal funding from institutions that engage in scientific research involving the killing of human embryos or human cloning.

Human Cloning– Each human life, whether created naturally or through an artificial process, deserves protection. We confirm that somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is the process by which a human being is cloned, and that SCNT creates a unique human being with the same properties of a human embryo created through the union of sperm and egg. We seek a ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is implanted in a womb and the human clone is birthed). We also seek a ban on research cloning (where a cloned human embryo, created through SCNT, is created, grown in the laboratory, and then destroyed when its stem cells are extracted for research purposes). Furthermore, criminal penalties should be created and experimenters prosecuted who participate in the cloning of human beings. No government or state funding should be provided for any human cloning.

Patient Protection– We support patients’ rights by calling on the state legislature to amend the Advance Directive Act to establish due process of law and ensure that a physician’s decision to deny life saving treatment against the patient’s will or advance directive is not due to economic or racial discrimination or discrimination based on disability. We also support the passage of legislation to amend the Advance Directive Act by requiring hospitals intending or threatening to withdraw life-sustaining treatment against the patient’s wishes or their advance directive to continue all treatment and care for such patients pending transfer to another facility.

Gene Manufacturing – We support a ban on research that alters human DNA in living human beings at any stage of life, including the altering of artificial, manufactured, and natural genes and chromosomes.

Legion II: “Liberty Movement” Monitored RPT Committee Members, Votes

My WingRight post about a group of delegates and the odd actions of one particular boy at the Republican Party of Texas 2012 Convention was published at Texas GOP Vote, also. There were interesting comments at both sites.

While I wasn’t surprised that there would be objections to my report, I was surprised to find that one man from SD 25/ CD 21 (where I cast my votes), who posted at Texas GOP Vote, claims that I was “monitored” by “the Liberty Movement” and/or Ron Paul supporters, along with “all” my votes on the Platform Committee. It seems I was good enough not to be challenged in my SD for Permanent Platform Committee member.

The group that wanted to video-tape the meetings weren’t quite so transparent themselves, were they?

If any group wants to make changes in the conservative Republican Party of Texas, they will have to do it the same way as all of the rest of us: make contributions of time and energy in order to build up and support, rather than tear down and undermine. The “Liberty Movement,” if it includes any move to change the legal definition of marriage or dismisses the scientific definition of the beginning of all organisms that reproduce sexually, is not Conservative.

“Expect us” to object to call for change in our core beliefs.