Election 2012

Dewhurst listens to South Texans @teamdewhurst #texsen

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was the only Republican candidate for US Senator willing to meet with Texas Border Volunteers and South Texas citizens who live with the threats posed by illegal border crossings.

An ad hoc consortium calling itself the Tea Party Coalition of Texas invited the top-tier candidates — Dewhurst and Cruz, plus former Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert and former ESPN analyst Craig James — to a South Texas ranch to talk to Valley farmers and ranchers who feel threatened by illegal immigration. Dewhurst was the only one of the four to accept the invitation.

The Cruz camp told Art Bedford, one of the organizers of the event, that scheduling conflicts made it impossible for the candidate to attend. Bedford said Cruz’s people told him that if there was a runoff, the candidate would be happy to come down and talk to border-area farmers and ranchers.

Ted Cruz, Pit of Vipers, and the Council on Foreign Relations member in his family. (Updated)

Clarification, June 15, 2015  Please note: This article is about the disingenuous nature of several rants by the then-candidate in which he called the CFR “a pit of vipers” and “a pernicious nest of snakes,” without mentioning that his wife was a 5-year member of the Council until June, 2011 as part of her job for the Bush administration. The point is not the CFR or Mrs. Cruz’ job, but rather Mr. Cruz’ theatric performance, which would have been more honest if accompanied by more information.

I was researching a rumor that I read that Ted Cruz’ wife was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations until June, 2011 and that she was a Vice President at Goldman Sachs. I was curious how such a young woman could become a member of the CFR, an organization that I assumed only admitted (old) heads of State and incredibly powerful business interests.

I found this CFR Task Force report, “Building a North American Community,” which lists Heidi Cruz as a member of the Task Force which “applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.” The news release also notes that Mrs. Cruz worked for Condyleeza Rice in the Bush White House National Security Council and had been a banker at Merrill Lynch and J. P. Morgan.

Just wow! Mrs. Cruz is much more accomplished than I’d imagined.

Further searching yielded this bit of video from Ben Smith’s October 27, 2011 blog at Politico. (There’s a break in the middle, indicating editing and the source is not “conservative,” but that’s Ted saying what he’s saying. The title is also Politico’s.)

Smith comments,

Ted Cruz, the former Texas solicitor general and tea party favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, has been focusing some of his harshest campaign trail rhetoric on that longtime villain of those suspicious of U.S. internationalism: The Council on Foreign Relations.

The New York-based group, Cruz said at a speech to a Republican women’s group in Sugarland, Tex., last week, is “a pit of vipers.”

When asked about the Council at another event in Tyler, Tex., on Oct. 15 — Texas, home of Ron Paul and Alex Jones, is the sort of place this comes up a lot — Cruz called the organization “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is “working to undermine our sovereignty,” according to video provided by someone who opposes his candidacy.

Well, Cruz should know: The candidate’s wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year “term membership” program, an official at the organization confirmed.

The video and Cruz’ comments are commented on in several news and blog sites on the ‘Net, so I don’t know how I missed it and Cruz’ play-acting for his East Texas audience.

Interviews with (Lt. Governor) David Dewhurst for Texas Senate (video @davidhdewhurst )

“The government has no money, it’s the people’s money.” April 10, 2011 interview with Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst Part 1

If you haven’t already voted – tomorrow, Tuesday, May 29th, is the Primary Election Day. I hope you will look at these videos before casting your vote for Texas’ next Senator.

This is not the man you’ve seen portrayed in his opponent’s ads. You will see the thought processes of the Lt. Governor and the lessons he’s learned.

Part 2 is here,  “I’ve been living by the same principles since the Tea Party was formed! That is to keep spending as low as possible, to reduce your taxes, to have Free Market reforms.”

Part 3 is here. “Since 2008, 80% of all the jobs in the country have been here.”

(Unfortunately, You-tube has to make some money, so the videos may have commercials at the first. There’s even one of the harshly negative “Club for Growth” ads against the Lt. Governor that showed up the first time I re-visited Part 1, today.)

Texas Tribune Poll and Informed Texas Voters

Texas Tribune is hyping their poll as proof that there will likely be a run off in both the Republican and Democrat primary races for US Senator. But the big news should be how well informed and politically involved Texas voters appear to be.

It’s not just the disapproval of Obama (58% total and 46% “Disapprove strongly”) or the probable vote for Mitt Romney in the graphic above. Take a look at some of the information gathering questions.

Out of 800 registered Texas voters, 48% are “extremely interested in politics and public affairs. 32% vote in every election and another 35% vote in almost every election.

73% were able to identify the majority party in the US House of Representatives. (I wish they’d cross-checked that with the same question about the Senate.) 69% correctly stated that it takes a 2/3 vote to over turn a presidential veto. And 66% correctly identified Greg Abbott as our Texas Attorney General.

Yes, we’re probably in for a couple of run off elections, and yes,it will get even uglier. But the voters are better informed than I was afraid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised grammar, 5/16/12, BBN.

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

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

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

Voter Recommendations for All of Texas

Texas Alliance for Life has its Pro-life Voter Guide up and running. Enter your address program will produce a printable list of State and Federal Candidates that you can print and take with you to the polls or email to your friends. The site doesn’t capture your name or other identifying information, so you won’t end up on some list, somewhere. No annoying phone calls, etc.

(Yes, I’m a Board member of TAL. And yes, the organization is pro-life and pro-family. But have you noticed that the most fiscally and Constitutional Conservative politicians are also pro-life and pro-family?)

Here’s what happens when I put in my address:

The following pro-life candidates will appear on your 2012 Primary Election ballot and are endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life.* (Click on the candidates’ names below for more information at their campaign websites.)

It is your legal right to print and take this page into the booth when you vote.

United States Senator — David Dewhurst (R)
United States Representative, District 21 — Lamar Smith (R)
Railroad Commissioner — Warren Chisum (R)
Railroad Commissioner, Unexpired Term — Barry Smitherman (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 2 — Don Willett (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 4 — David Medina (R)
Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6 — Nathan Hecht (R)
Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals — Sharon Keller (R)
Member, State Board of Education, District 5 — Ken Mercer (R)
State Senator, District 25 — Donna Campbell (R)
State Representative, District 73 — Doug Miller (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 2 — Jeff Rose (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 3 — Scott Field (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 5 — David Puryear (R)
Justice, 3rd Court of Appeals, Place 6 — Bob Pemberton (R)
County Republican Chairman — Larry Nuckols (R)
For your reference, here is your county and district information:
County: Comal
U.S. Representative District: 21
State Senate District: 25
State Representative District: 73
State Board of Education District: 5

“CPR” for Texas from Dr. Donna Campbell

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

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

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

Vote Dr. Donna Campbell, the true conservative:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donna Campbell: pro-life. Jeff Wentworth: not

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

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

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

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

Tea Party Rally in San Antonio May 5, 2012

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

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

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

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

Representing Dr. Donna Campbell for Texas Senate District 25

I’m to be a substitute for Dr. Donna today at the Rotary Club at Canyon Lake. Pray for me — and Donna!

We are the most Conservative Senate District in Texas and we need the most Conservative State Senator!

(And hope that I don’t take off my shoes and give the talk barefoot, as I did once when talking to a group of nurses about osteoporosis!)

Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program

What happened: Texas passed a law last summer, SB 7, that specifically said that if the State is forced to give money to “entities that affiliate with abortion-promoting entities,” the State would shut down the Women;s Health Program. The Obama Administration tried to force the State to violate this law. Then, a Federal Judge  ruled that the law couldn’t go into effect,

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel on Monday granted a preliminary injunction to require the state to keep Planned Parenthood in the program until he makes a decision on the merits of the case.

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s office asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency stay of the injunction, which was granted by Judge Jerry E. Smith.

via Judge keeps Planned Parenthood out of Women’s Health Program – San Antonio Express-News.

If the injunction had stood, there would be no Women’s Health Program in Texas. Planned Parenthood seems to think that if their corporation can’t have money, no one should. Luckily, Judge Smith understood the emergency.

Planned Parenthood wasn’t hard to replace. WingRight reported on the thousands of other doctors and clinics that participate in the WHP and how to find one in your area, here.

Update, 8 AM May 2:

The attacks are on against Judge Smith.

More at the usual suspects like the Texas Tribune.

Funny, the TT doesn’t take this opportunity to link to its own interactive map showing other providers or to link to Obama’s $61 million dollar grant  to Texas public health clinics.

Romney: A Conservative Wish List

Dear Governor Mitt Romney,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It ain’t over ’till it’s over, John!

A couple of days ago, my Senator John Cornyn said that the Republican Presidential Primary is over. Well, no, it isn’t in the Senator’s home State of Texas. The man is almost never wrong, but he is this time.

Our Primary is May 29, and my own County’s Republican Convention is tomorrow, April 21. We in Texas are still trying to generate enthusiasm for our candidates “down ballot,” like my own support for Dr. Donna Campbell who’s running for Senate District 25.

It ain’t over ’till it’s over, John!

David Dewhurst, Citizen Legislator for Texas Senator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate District 25 candidates meet with SA News editorial board

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

State-Senate-District-25-29886.php

On “Tax Day”

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

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

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

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

Awkard Cruz, David Dewhurst and 31 debates

I’m not sure that this rises to the level of “rigging” the debate, but it’s not a bright move.

Here’s what happened: James received a text message on his personal phone from Cruz ahead of a televised debate scheduled for April 13. In the message, Cruz asks James to consider bringing up the absence of lieutenant governor David Dewhurst, a fellow Republican Senate candidate, from past debates.

“Craig–hope you’re well. See you Friday. For what it’s worth, since you’re asking me a Q, it might be worth asking me something about Dew skipping 31 debates (or something else related to his record). Just an idea… Ted,” the message read.

James released the text message and a message blasting Cruz. “Today I was put in an awkward position by Ted Cruz, a man I’ve come to know and respect. Ted sent me a text suggesting I ask him a set-up question for Friday’s United States Senate debate. In my mind, this is nothing more than an attempt to rig the system,” James said in an emailed statement.

Well, at least we know that he’s willing to make alliances for the right goal. But this is even lower than saying that Dewhurst is too old to make a difference at 67 years of age or that he supported a State income tax for Texas.

Seriously: 31 debates? Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst has a day job! 31 debates is unreasonable and not helpful.

I’m a huge advocate for meeting and talking to the voters and have attended nearly every “debate” here in Comal County. However, not all of them are debates. At most events, there were too many people speaking, with far too little time for meaty questions — virtually none planned for back and forth between the candidates.

Conservatives, Republicans: Fire, Aim, Ready!

Conservatives are at it again: shooting our own.

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

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

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

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

And here come the third party rallies!

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

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

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

The warning to the rest of us is ignored:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPT, Texas GOP County Conventions Saturday April 14 or April 21

From the RPT:

County & District Conventions Begin This Saturday!

Starting this Saturday, April 14th, Texas Republicans will begin assembling in various counties across the state to conduct County & District Republican Conventions. The process will also continue next Saturday, April 21st, for counties which have chosen to hold their conventions on that date.

The Republican Party of Texas has created a website with a full list of county-by-county information, where you can go to learn the date, time and location of your local Republican convention, as well as finding the answers to Frequently Asked Questions and other information about the GOP Convention Process in 2012.

convention.texasgop.org

If you don’t show up, you’ll miss out! (And no telling who WILL show up and take your place!)

ObamaCare Morbity and Mortality Conference

Reading the transcripts of the three days of Supreme Court hearings (Day 3 is here) on Obamacare is enough to make me scream in frustration and pain at the convoluted arguments.  Sometimes it seems to me as though the Court is playing games with our lives and laughing about it as though it’s an inside joke.

Why don’t they just stick to the plain reading of the Constitution and the law? Who cares about Lochner or Brock or Printz, Raich, Wickard?  Why are Ginsburg and Sotomayor leading the Solicitor General?

Part of the problem is that this really is an elite group, immersed in the minutia of Court rulings that most of us have never heard of, much less read. What probably should have been a clear and easy reference by Justice Scalia, made me look up the Eighth Amendment and “cruel and unusual punishment.”

In an attempt to give the Justices and lawyers the benefit of the doubt, I’m trying to think of the hearings as a sort of “Morbidity and Mortality” (“M and M”) conference. (The other analogy had to do with zombies. Decided not to go there.)

I imagine that a layman would feel equally lost and frustrated at a M and M, watching doctors review outcomes from tough cases where something went wrong or someone died. No detail is too small or unimportant for debate and (excuse the pun) dissection, unless the attending or Chief (Justice) declares it so.  Where there are rivalries or competition, the docs try to “one up” each other by the use of jargon and eponyms, correct pronunciation, obscure research and cute little “you had to be there but you weren’t so I’m brilliant/safe/top dog and you’re not” digs.

(Even here, I indulge in jargon: “eponyms” are names given to something based on the person who is given credit for the technique or discovery or some aspect of the disease or technique discussed, a sort of nickname that saves time and breath for the speaker. My theory about jargon – at least since I’ve finished residency and can’t be made to repeat a couple of months of training – is that whoever says the word loudest, is right about the pronunciation. As a Family Physician among sub- and super-sub-specialists, I want the anatomical or pathological name, not some esoteric reference to a paper in a journal or a dead guy’s name. I advise my patients to demand the same.)

Going back to the M and M: families and patients watching the conference, with our obscure references, jargon and eponyms probably would feel that the doctors and doctors-in-training don’t care as much about the patient as we do about shaming our rivals and proving and improving our own superiority and power in the group. While that may be true in some cases, the purpose – and more often than not, the result – of the process of review and debate is to make each of us more knowledgeable and to try to make sure we never make the same mistakes twice.

So when we call patients (or the hearings) “trainwrecks” we don’t really mean disrespect. The analogy is good: just as the cars on the train hit the one in front of them, go off the track, pile up each other, turn upside down and cause damage on top of damage, treatment.of very sick patients involve correcting one problem without creating another, organ failure on top of organ failure and digging through the most urgent crises before we can get to the point where we can fix what went wrong in the first place. It just looks like we don’t know what we’re doing.

Hopefully, we’re watching the Supremes review the autopsy of Obamacare rather than a debate over how much and how long to give life support. The “patient” in this case was a “trainwreck” from the beginning, but maybe Congress will learn something.

HatTip to Sonja Harris’ Conservatives in Action for the “trainwreck” link.

Best questions from Supremes on ObamaCare debate

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

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

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

A question by Justice Alito :

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

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

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

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

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

Hear and read the passage, at Real Clear Politics.

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

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

Abortion of the Teaching Moment

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

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

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

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

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

Find a Women’s Health Program doctor in Texas

Planned Parenthood (“PP”) for years has used the media and fraud to bring in clients when those women could have gone to a family doctor or OB/Gyn. Below are three ways to find a local doctor who participates with the Women’s Health Program in Texas.

As a woman doctor, mother and grandmother from Texas, I support Governor Perry in his support of the law, passed once again by the Texas Legislature last summer, that prohibits any of our tax funds going to any “affiliate” of abortionists. Senate Bill 7, the huge law covering Texas medical financing, was passed in the Special Session of the 82nd Legislature and renewed a State prohibition on any Texas Medicaid funds going to “perform or promote elective abortions, or to contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or affiliate with entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” (See page 91.)

The Obama administration and countless media and op-ed articles would have us all believe that the law is new, but it’s not. The original Women’s Health Program (“WHP”) was created in 2005 and received a 5 year waiver from the Bush Administration in 2006, as finalized in these documents from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All of these facts are outlined in the Complaint filed by Attorney General Greg Abbott in his lawsuit against Kathleen Sebelius and Obama’s Health and Human Services:

11.From the outset of the Women’s Health Program, the Texas Legislature has explicitly prohibited taxpayer funds from going to entities that perform or promote elective abortions. The Legislature also prohibited taxpayer dollars from funding affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions. See id. § 32.0248(h) (“The department shall ensure that the money spent under the demonstration project, regardless of the funding source, is not used to perform or promote elective abortions. The department, for the purpose of the demonstration project, may not contract with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”).

Read the next few paragraphs of the Complaint for comments on dates and on approval of the waiver without restrictions on Texas’ prohibition on abortion providers.  Please note that the waiver was requested in December, 2005, and approved in December, 2006, for a period of 5 years, to end December 31, 2011. It is not true, as reported by a spokesperson for Secretary Sebelius, that the waiver was denied.

Texas law prohibited State funds from going to any provider who performed or referred to elective abortions beginning in 2003. Under a provision known as “Rider 8,” the State began requiring recipients of Medicaid and Family Planning money to sign an affidavit that they did not perform or refer for elective abortions. Texas won when PP challenged Rider 8 in Federal Court. The various PP sub-corporations in the State then set up separate corporations for the “medical affiliates” that were not licensed to perform abortions and the “surgical affiliates” that did perform elective abortions. These were shams, as all of the corporations came under the direction of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and some even shared buildings and staff. It turned out that 4 of the facilities run by the PP Trust of San Antonio and South Texas didn’t even bother with the sham. They were found to be illegally performing medical abortions, and were fined and shut down in 2009 as unlicensed abortion clinics and for fraudulently billing Medicaid.

Here are a few numbers from Governor Perry’s office that show that Planned Parenthood is not the most efficient way for Texas to spend our Medicaid dollars:

• There are more than 2,500 qualified providers in the WHP.
  Planned Parenthood represents less than two percent of providers in the WHP.
• Planned Parenthood’s cost per client is 43 percent higher than most other providers, according to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
• In FY 2010, nearly 80 percent of women served received WHP services from non Planned Parenthood providers.

What did happen is that last year, Attorney General defined “affiliates.” Logically, subsidiaries of a given corporation, such as all the “medical affiliates” of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, are “affiliates” of that corporation.

PP and their supporters would have us believe that hundreds of thousands of women will go without care because of the Texas law. On the contrary, those affiliates were easily replaced. Thousands of qualified doctors and clinics already participate with the Women’s Health Program in Texas.

And there are several ways to find one of the qualified providers for the Women’s Health Program in your town:

In Texas, we have “2-1-1,” a State services telephone information line. You can call 2-1-1 from any phone to find all sorts of assistance in your area, including doctors who participate with the WHP.  I’ve heard that this may not be the most up to date or complete list, however.

Texas Tribune published an interactive map that highlights the color coded stark reality of the differences in numbers and in the distribution of PP versus the many doctors who currently participate with the Women’s Health Program. Notice that Planned Parenthood only shows up where there are lots of other providers. Where there aren’t many doctors, there are definitely no PP facilities.

For the most accurate and largest number of WHP qualified doctors and clinics in your area, Texas’ Department of Health and Human Services has a search engine available here. Use the “Advanced Search,” then choose Plan type:”Traditional Medicaid,” Provider type: “Specialist” (although this will actually bring up family physicians and other primary care docs), and Waiver type: “Women’s Health Program.” You can search by County or by Zip Code.

Hopefully this information will help you answer the critics of Texas, our Legislature, Commissioner of Texas’ Health and Human Service Suehs, and our Governor Perry.

ObamaCare facts from American Doctors for Truth!!!

Watch this video!!!! American Doctors 4 Truth looks very interesting, and they certainly know how to tell the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PJ-p29xEM0s

The doctors on this video tell the truth about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, ObamaCare and what we need to do!

Holder blocks Texas ID Voter law

The Constitution does not mandate that all the big decisions will be made by the Courts and bureaucrats and only the inconsequential will be made by the Legislature.

Wonder how many photo ID’s Holder required in the “Operation Gunwalker” he enabled?

Breaking news this morning (Texas Tribune here, Washington Post story, here)  is that the Obama Administration has refused to allow — under the 1965 Voter’s Rights Act – the implementation of the Texas voter ID law passed by our elected  Legislature last May!

This is overreaching and poor (pointed, result-driven) use of statistics.

How many “Hispanics” don’t have “Spanish surnames?” How many with Spanish surnames don’t consider themselves disadvantaged?

Why is there no mention of the traditional racial minority, African Americans, in so many of the news article quotes from Holder?

I needed a photo ID to pick up a FedEx shipment. I can’t use my credit card without a photo ID. College and High School students get photo ID’s at school.

Good grief, I need a photo ID and to allow a stranger to grope me if I want to go on an airplane.

And last week, at the Nation’s Capitol, I had to submit to scanning to enter any of the Federal buildings!

And I needed that photo ID to check into my hotel.

The Voting Rights Act is 40 years old and was in reaction to the abuses of Democrats. Most of the subsequent 40 years, Democrats held the power in Texas and in the US House and Senate. Why is this considered a Democrat cause? (In my opinion: because they are *not* in power at the moment, at least to the extent they want it.)

Larry and I heard snippets of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Lincoln Memorial Speech, yesterday. The crowd sang, “We shall overcome.”

I wonder whether we will ever get to that point where anyone feels that we have overcome?