Politics

Attending the Republican Party of Texas State Convention?

I’ve been lucky enough to attend the last 6 Republican Party of Texas State Conventions and served on the Platform Committee in 2012. This year, I was nominated to represent Senate District 25 on the Rules Committee. The most important thing I have learned from these experiences was that when parliamentary procedure isn’t followed, the results are questioned.

Delegates and alternates, especially those who are appointed to the Temporary Committees and/or elected to a Permanent Committee, should do a little homework and get acquainted with the scheduled agenda, the current Rules and Platform  and the guidelines of the current parliamentary procedure, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. There’s a summary of those latter Rules, here.

If you were selected as delegate or alternate by your County Convention, do everything you can to attend the State Convention. Go early, attend one of the open hearings of the Temporary Platform, Rules or Credentialing Committees on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday when non-members may speak at certain times and places. Speak up if you have something unique to say or if you hear proposals that go against our Republican principles.

Committees, Caucuses, and the delegates to the General Sessions shouldn’t just agree to what seems to be a consensus. Committees and sub-committees should take votes. Learn what it means to “call the question,” “divide the question,” or “demand a roll call vote” – a vote of the members is necessary for each of these.
If you are on one of the Temporary Committees or a delegate or seated delegate at the (State) Senate District Caucus or General Session, ensure that the meetings are held according to the correct parliamentary procedure. (There isn’t a Congressional District Caucus since this isn’t a Presidential election year. This means a few less meetings and votes and we all get to go home earlier.)
Ask around about who is running for State Republican Executive Committee (SREC). This Committee is made up of one man and one woman from the districts of the State Senators.  Ask why one candidate is better than the other. Think of questions about what the candidates believe the SREC can and can’t do in the two years between State RPT Conventions.

Finally, wear comfortable shoes and clothes and take extra water or sodas and some sort of snack to the General Sessions. The Fort Worth Convention Center is huge and you’ll do a lot of walking. The food and drink are insurance in case the meeting goes long. It’s very important that you stay to the end: if you don’t someone might make motions or cast votes you can’t agree with.

Our RPT is supposed to reflect the Republican voters of Texas and our Platform and Rules originate with those voters. Our “bottom up” representation is much more “democratic” than the “top-down” Party structure of the guys on the Left.

Do your homework. Go as early as you can. Speak up. Stick around to the end, so that your voice will be heard during the debate and vote on the Platform.

Edited – BBN to add graphic

Tea Party Patriots give to themselves, not candidates

Corruption knows no party lines. (Give your money to the Candidates!)

The Post found that of the $7.4 million that the Georgia-based group’s super PAC has spent since the beginning of 2013, just $184,505 has gone to boost candidates. Three-quarters of the spending by the Citizens Fund — $5.5 million — has been devoted to fundraising and direct mail.

In addition, Tea Party President Jenny Beth Martin, who runs the super PAC, has been receiving $15,000 monthly consulting fees.

via Tea Party Patriots defends its spending.

Debate . . . between Dewhurst, Patrick

What Republican thinks it’s “dangerous” to have “a lot of money?”

Dan Patrick told the Houston Chronicle that Lieutenant Governor David H. Dewhurst is “dangerous because he has a lot of money.”

Dewhurst might be dangerous because of the skills he learned serving our Nation in the Air Force and CIA. But he’s not dangerous because of his success in business.

UK: Doctors with consciences not welcome

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Great Britain have determined that any nurses or doctors who oppose any form of contraception may not complete training and will not receive certification in the specialty:

Doctors who oppose morning-after pill on conscience grounds face qualifications bar

Guidelines confirm that doctors and nurses who oppose controversial emergency contraception on ‘moral or religious’ grounds cannot receive key specialist qualifications

This is very possible in the US. Take a look here at some fairly recent history of attempts to keep docs from practicing with a conscience.

American Academy of Family Physicians resignation

I wrote a very difficult letter today. I  resigned from the organization that is supposed to support Family Physicians in our education, practice management and good medical care of our patients. Instead, the American  Academy of Family Physicians too often strays toward forcing its members to be complicit with controversial policies such as condoning gun control and over-the-counter contraceptive drugs, and condemnation of “reparative therapy” for homosexual patients, even when those patients are unhappy with their sexuality. I write about my main conflicts and the “final straw” in the letter:

 

It is with great regret that I write this letter as notice that I have decided not to renew either my Texas or American Academy of Family Practice membership. While I am still a family doctor, neither the Texas Academy of Family Practice (TAFP) nor the American Academy of Family Practice (AAFP) represent my political or ethical views.

The political, social and ethical controversies were the main reason I remained in the Academy for the last few years since I left full time practice. I hoped that I could make a difference by volunteering my time and money as an active participant in the Texas Academy, the National Conference of Special Constituencies, the AAFP list serves, the Academy Legislative meetings in DC and our annual AAFP Congress of Delegates.

From the time of Hillary Clinton’s closed meetings on healthcare to the endorsement of the passage of the ACA before it was written, the political actions of the AAFP leaders has disappointed me in Washington, DC. Our practice hassle factors have grown and grown, too often with the blessings of – and sometimes due to the experiments with alternative methods of practice by – the Academy.

The AAFP advocated for elective abortion before I joined as a Student member and I accepted that the burden of persuasion was on those of us who disagreed.

However, the Academy’s decision to advocate for the redefinition of marriage in 2012 and the refusal to reconsider the extracted Resolution on marriage neutrality at the 2013 Congress of Delegates in San Diego were the final proof that there’s no tolerance for family doctors who hold conservative politics or traditional ethics in the Academy.

Unfortunately, our TAFP spokesperson to the 2013 AAFP Reference Committee on Advocacy misrepresented the Texas Delegation’s instructions from the Directors on marriage. As I remember the discussion and vote, the intention was to allow the Texas delegates wide latitude in voting on any final form of the Resolution.

I hereby resign from the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians and as a Fellow of the AAFP.

 

I waited to resign after nearly 30-year membership until the last minute before being dropped (for lack of paying my annual dues). There were several reasons for my hesitancy. For one thing, I didn’t want to be an undue influence on other members when they considered whether or not to write that hefty annual check to the Academy. For another, while I will continue to work with the AAFP and the Christian Medical and Dental Association to protect the right to life, marriage, the conscience rights of doctors within the profession of medicine and the specialty of Family Medicine, I do believe that it is important to work to persuade from within the organization. The biggest problem with finally writing the letter was that I was looking for a way to somehow keep my integrity while allowing the Academy to claim to represent me.

However, now that I’ve resigned, please consider sharing my letter with your family doctor. Many of them are unaware of the policies that our professional organizations push on good doctors of today and the students and residents who will be our doctors of tomorrow.

Texas doesn’t have State property taxes

I’m reading Republican primary run off ads stating that our Republican State Legislators and, in particular, the leader of the Senate – the Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst – haven’t done enough to lower property taxes. Well, those candidates are indulging in the worst sort of campaigning, since there are no State property taxes in Texas!

Here are the sources of State revenue in Texas: http://www.texastransparency.org/State_Finance/Budget_Finance/Reports/Revenue_by_Source/revenue_hist.php . The fact is that the bulk of Texas revenue comes from our sales tax and the return of tax money from the Federal Government.

In 2006, Lt. Governor David H. Dewhurst led the Senate when they cut and limited the amount local governments may assess as property tax rates and the property assessments those taxes are based on.

Unfortunately, the local districts *and their voters* raised those taxes up to the limit in some districts.

In areas such as Houston and Harris County, the appraisals are being *inflated* and/or *rising* nearly 100% due to the good economy there.  It seems that the problem is at the School Districts, City Councils, and County Commissioners Courts, not at the State legislature.

Again: there is no State property tax in Texas. The solution to high property taxes is in your home town, not Austin.

Windy/Wendy Davis gets lesbian Left “support” – as a sex object

Well, flip! Substitute my F-word for their F-word and drop the suggestion that even straight women want to “do ‘very sexy things’ to Windy, and I could have had the Vast WingRight Conspiracy laughing at this column. Ironically, the f’ing-bomb-this and f-bomb-that commenters all seem to take Wonkette’s “satire” take on Windy as a sex object as supportive!

Wonkette is a left-wing blog whose writers spew forth with a foul keyboard, and I think that she and her readers are serious about supporting Windy. It’s just that their support is . . .  shall we say “bent?”

Most of the readers of WingRight would agree that it’s preposterous to complain about “ties” to a Political Action Committee with which Greg Abbott has had no dealings since 2004. And it’s true that Windy ain’t Ann Richards.

But Wonkette’s Rebecca Shoenkopf is mostly upset that Windy’s campaign might object to the “very sexy things” comment.

Even odder than a feminists’ objection to an imagined objection from Windy  is the use of an Austin-American Statesman article entitled “Greg Abbott holds double-digit lead over Wendy Davis, who is viewed unfavorably by almost half the electorate” to support the idea that Greg Abbott is a “nothingburger:” “

Our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The First Amendment protects political speech, which includes donating what we want, when we want, and to whom we want.

The Supreme Court today did not get rid of the individual candidate limit with the ruling, only the limits on overall donations to multiple candidates. You still can’t give more than $5200 per campaign cycle to any one candidate for Federal office.

Like the signers of the Declaration of Independence, we may pledge our fortunes to political candidates – within limits.

Taking vs. Redistribution

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  Alex De Tocqueville

A March 27th Op-ed in the San Antonio Express News by Nicholas Kristof calls us a “Nation of Takers,” claiming that the US government gives welfare to the wealthy with mortgage tax “subsidies” for the wealthy and lower capital gains taxes as opposed to earned income taxes.

Forget that Kristof doesn’t understand the difference between taxes – where the government takes from some – and subsidies – where the government gives tax money to the benefactors the government selects. Taxes take, subsidies and benefits give.

Kristof assumes that all money is the government’s to tax, rather than the property of individuals who have the unalienable right to earn and accumulate what they earn to provide for themselves, their dependents, and for the future when they are unable to earn. The money doesn’t belong to even the most utilitarian – or Utilitarian* – government plan for its use.

Those capital gains taxes are on money already taxed and invested for a certain period of time. If you want to encourage investment, don’t tax it. If you want to encourage hoarding on the other hand . . .
As to those yachts and beach homes – people who don’t use these dwellings as their actual homes can’t claim the mortgage deduction. In any case, thanks to the effects of the alternate minimum tax, the wealthy don’t receive any mortgage tax deduction.

*Utilitarian good is the idea that government should rule “for the greatest good.” We end up with the biggest gun, the most charismatic leader or the majority voting — and eventually, “might makes right.”

 “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” – Thomas Sowell

Feds List Lesser Prairie Chicken as Threatened

What about evolution?

The Obama administration said Thursday it is placing a grassland grouse known as the lesser prairie chicken on a list of threatened species, a move that could affect oil and gas drilling, wind farms and other activities in five central and southwestern states.

The decision by the Fish and Wildlife Service is a step below “endangered” status and allows for more flexibility in how protections for the bird will be carried out under the Endangered Species Act.

Dan Ashe, the agency’s director, said he knows the decision will be unpopular with governors in the five affected states — Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico — but said the agency was following the best science available.

“The lesser prairie-chicken is in dire straits,” Ashe said in an interview. “The bird is in decline and has been in decline for more than a decade.”

The prairie chicken, a type of grouse known for its colorful neck plume and stout build, has lost more than 80 percent of its traditional habitat, mostly because of human activity such as oil and gas drilling, ranching and construction of power lines and wind turbines, Ashe said. The bird, which weighs from 1-1/2 to 2 pounds, has also been severely impacted by the region’s ongoing drought.

Biologists say a major problem is that prairie chickens fear tall structures, where predators such as hawks can perch and spot them. Wind turbines, electricity transmission towers and drilling rigs are generally the tallest objects on the plains.

via Feds List Lesser Prairie Chicken as Threatened – ABC News.

Conservative answers about small government and marriage

Libertarians within the Republican Party and Republicans who are called “moderate” because they aren’t social Conservatives claim that we will win over more voters and that it’s hypocritical of small-government Conservatives to use government to define or license marriage.
Radio talk show host and commentator Dennis Prager destroyed the claim that Republicans could win elections by dropping our social conservative platform planks in his recent essay :

“To respond to the first argument, it is hard to believe that most people who call themselves fiscal conservatives and vote Democrat would abandon the Democratic Party if the Republican Party embraced same-sex marriage and abortion.
“The left and its political party will always create social issues that make Republicans and conservatives look “reactionary” on social issues. Today it is same-sex marriage, the next day it is the Republican “war on women,” and tomorrow it will be ending the objective male-female designation of Americans (Children should have the right to determine their gender and not have their parents and their genitalia determine it, even at birth). Or it will be animal rights, race-based affirmative action or an environmentalist issue.”

Contrary to the claims of those libertarians, traditional marriage of one man and one woman encourages smaller, not larger, government. State marriage licenses prevent the need for a formal legal contract (and a lawyer) before marriage in order to clarify the mutual duties and rights of spouses, inheritance, and a myriad of paternity/maternity rights within intact marriages, at death, and on dissolution of the marriage. Recognizing that not all marriages result in children, the laws do recognize the State’s “compelling interest” in defending the child’s right to life, liberty and property.

While some (on the Right, as well as the Left) might favor laws making entering into a marriage as burdensome and expensive as divorce, many people would simply cohabit. When they go their separate ways – or if one dies – without a marriage license, the Courts will still determine the separation of property and child custody. At best, the new burden will be added to the old. Or, more likely, whole new layers of court rulings and State or Federal legislation would have to be added to replace current law.

There are strong historic, biologic and societal reasons behind the support for defending the Conservative definition of marriage. The new definition is not clear-cut and has very little history. However, the proponents of gay marriage are seeking not only all of the legal – government – benefits and protections afforded traditional marriage, as well as special protection from those same governments to coerce everyone with a business license into participating in their nuptials. There’s nothing “small government” about “getting the State out of the marriage.”

Fifth Circuit Paves Way for Supreme Court Showdown on Chemical Abortion Regulations | National Review Online

The Fifth Circuit pointed out that Planned Parenthood offered no real evidence to support its challenge to the Texas provision. On the other hand, the State provided ample medical evidence to support the regulation. Citing the State’s expert Dr. Donna Harrison, the court noted that the FDA approved the RU-486 regimen with restrictions, including a patient agreement that requires the woman (and the physician) to confirm that she is no more than 49 days pregnant.

Further, the court rejected Planned Parenthood’s claim that chemical abortion is necessary for some women who cannot undergo surgical abortion—noting that the abortion giant provided no real evidence for that claim. To the contrary, Dr. Harrison testified that 6 percent of chemical abortions fail and eventually require surgery, meaning that it would be medically irresponsible for a physician to administer a chemical abortion to a woman for whom a later surgical abortion might be contraindicated.

It’s important to note that the decision marks one of the most straightforward applications of the Supreme Court’s 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision. Citing Gonzales, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Texas chemical-abortion regulation does not require an exception for the life and health of the woman because the group of women who allegedly “need” chemical abortions (those for whom Planned Parenthood claimed surgical abortion is contraindicated) was vague and undefined, because Planned Parenthood failed to provide any evidence that such a group of women even exists, and because, as highlighted by Dr. Harrison’s testimony, there is disagreement regarding whether chemical abortions are “safer” for these women when subsequent surgical abortion—alleged to be dangerous for such women—may be necessary.

via Fifth Circuit Paves Way for Supreme Court Showdown on Chemical Abortion Regulations | National Review Online.

4 Texas Dem Candidates Make Themselves Ineligible (More?)

You’ve read about arrests and raids on Democrat candidates, but have you heard about those who have made themselves ineligible to run for office in Texas?

At least four Texas Democrats have been quietly disqualified by Democrat leaders after they made themselves ineligible to run as Dems by voting in the Republican Primary. (Check your local Primary voters!)

In Seguin, Guadalupe County, the Democrat candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Manuel Cavallos, has been disqualified after the County Elections Administrator noticed that the unopposed Dem had voted in the Republican Primary.

In Liberty County, Texas, Monique Duffie Brooks, candidate for Justice of the Peace, voted early in the Republican Primary.

And in Refugio County, an anonymous tipster alerted the County elections administrator that  two Democrat incumbent (again, unopposed) candidates voted Republican. Current County Commissioner Stanley Drew Tuttle and County Treasurer Elaine Henning will lose their jobs and salaries ($47,670 and $52,065, respectively).

All of these candidates will be replaced by their County’s Democrat Executive Committee. However, it was hard to find news articles about these four, even though I thought I knew where to look. With the very quiet news media, I wonder how many like them there are out there?

Texas abortion restrictions withstand legal challenge – San Antonio Express-News

Great news. If there must be abortion, and it’s “between a woman and her doctor,” shouldn’t the doctor have hospital privileges to care for complications? Or does he cease being “her doctor” when she needs him most?

A federal appeals panel on Thursday overturned a lower court decision that had deemed a portion of Texas’ controversial sweeping abortion restrictions as unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already temporarily lifted a district court injunction that blocked a state provision requiring abortion doctors to get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from going into effect.

Thursday’s ruling gives Texas the green light to continue enforcing the provision on a permanent basis.

via Texas abortion restrictions withstand legal challenge – San Antonio Express-News.

Hobby Lobby isn’t today’s most important case: Column | News-Herald Media | marshfieldnewsherald.com

Make them follow the law as written!

The issues in Halbig are simple.

Obamacare authorizes the IRS to provide health-insurance subsidies (nominally, tax credits) to consumers who purchase health insurance “through an Exchange established by the State.” That’s not a drafting error. The subsidy-eligibility rules employ that language a total of nine times, without deviation. The rest of the statue is fully compatible with this language.

The statute is therefore clear and unambiguous: the IRS may issue subsidies in the 14 states that established an exchange, but not in the 34 states that left the job of establishing and operating their state’s exchange to the federal government. Congress’ purpose is likewise clear. It wanted states to operate the exchanges, so it conditioned subsidies on state cooperation. Medicaid and countless other federal programs do the same.

The IRS’s philosopher-kings have decided to issue subsidies in those 34 states anyway.

The Obama administration has acquired a reputation for unilaterally rewriting laws (to say nothing of abusing the IRS’s powers) for political purposes, but this one takes the cake.

via Hobby Lobby isn’t today’s most important case: Column | News-Herald Media | marshfieldnewsherald.com.

The battle over Medicaid expansion

When people have the facts, they oppose ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion.

When Virginia voters learn that ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion slashes seniors’ Medicare, gives taxpayer-funded Medicaid coverage to former prison inmates and could deplete funding for critical state priorities, their support for ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion plummets; this according to a new poll released today by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), a multi-state free-market think tank based in Florida.

The 10-question poll was conducted between March 7 and March 9, 2014, with 469 likely Virginia voters responding to all 10 questions.

via The battle over Medicaid expansion.

Federal Judge overturns Arkansas law

More of the oligarchy that passes for Courts these days: un-elected judges acting as though the Constitution gives the big questions to the appointed members of the Judicial branch, leaving only the small, inconsequential decisions to the People and our duly elected representatives.

A Federal judge has ruled that “non-viable” human beings – healthy babies in healthy mothers who are exactly what they should be at that stage of life – are not endowed with the inalienable right to life.

Wright left in place a portion of the law that requires doctors to check for a fetal heartbeat and to notify the pregnant woman if one is present.

Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, had vetoed the bill, citing the viability standard. But Republicans, controlling the Statehouse for the first time since Reconstruction, overrode him with a simple majority vote.

 

Dan or Leticia? GOP senators might demur – San Antonio Express-News

Even a stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day. And here’s an example, from O.Ricardo Pimental:

Republican senators number 19, Democrats 12. If two seats flip, the GOP, if unified, has its can’t-mess-with-us majority. Most folks think Republicans will go up to at least 20. But rule changes can be done with a simple majority.

And here’s the thing: Van de Putte simply scores higher on collegiality than does Patrick, known for his red-meat policy choices and God-says-I’m-right-and-you’re-not posture.

via Dan or Leticia? GOP senators might demur – San Antonio Express-News.

Gordon Crovitz: Drones Cleared for Takeoff – WSJ.com

A victory for less regulation in our lives. Can’t wait to see what happens next.

This month a federal administrative judge held that the FAA has no legal authority to meddle in the market and dismissed a fine levied against an operator who defied regulators by getting paid to use a drone to film the University of Virginia campus. Judge Patrick Geraghty of the National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the agency had only issued internal guidance on drones and hadn’t followed any process to apply restrictions to the public. He ridiculed the FAA’s broad assertion of power to regulate drones by saying the agency could use the same argument arbitrarily to block “a flight in the air of a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider.”

via Gordon Crovitz: Drones Cleared for Takeoff – WSJ.com.

Who pushed for the metal detectors at the State Capitol? Dan Patrick

Dan Patrick got spooked after he got into an argument with a man who later fired shots *outside the Capitol.* Patrick carries a gun, but demanded the detectors for those of us who don’t have a Concealed Carry Permit. Again, no shots were fired in the Capitol.
Real-at-the-time news and blog reports are still available on-line.

Here’s two blog posts asking readers to call Senator Patrick:
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-500089.html
http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-394641.html  Dan went home to Houston and lobbied for metal detectors from his office, there.

Off the Kuff, a far-left blog,reported about Patrick’s advocacy for the metal detectors.
http://offthekuff.com/wp/?p=25408
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052748704197104575051181299172168

Republican, not Libertarian, Resolutions for the RPT

Just read a long list of long-winded resolutions, evidently sent out from Libertarians to their followers who are attending Republican Precinct Conventions. Here’s a bit of my response:

RESOLVED, the legitimate purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of individuals from infringement by others.

RESOLVED, any resolution with more than two “Whereas” clauses will be ignored by all RPT Conventions.

RESOLVED, all “resolved” clauses should be written so that they stand alone since only the “Resolved” portion of a Resolution matters and multiple “whereases” are irritating.

RESOLVED, all resolutions calling for a shorter RPT Platform shall be shorter than the Platform itself.

RESOLVED, the RPT resolutions should be in plain language rather than in pseudo-legalese.

RESOLVED, clauses directing that resolutions passed by the Precinct and County Conventions be passed to the State Convention are redundant under the rules of the RPT.

RESOLVED, the products of gardens, farms, ranches, cottage industries and manufacturing which are not transported across State lines should not be regulated more than the minimum necessary to prevent disease and the infringement of citizens’ inalienable rights.

RESOLVED, licensing of the professions and trades serves to prevent the infringement of inalienable rights of citizens.

RESOLVED, the Primary election rather than a caucus is the best way to ensure one-citizen-one-vote.

RESOLVED, the Republican Party of Texas isn’t interested in redefining marriage as anything other than the union between one man and one woman, so get over it.

Update: additional Resolutions as they come to me.

RESOLVED, laws necessarily limit our individual rights and should be minimal.

RESOLVED, gun regulations and background checks are not consistent with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

RESOLVED, . . .

Marriage, Activist Courts, Democracy and Evolution

An unelected Federal judge overturned the Texas Constitution’s definition of marriage, proving the Courts’ lack of respect for our Constitutional Republic – and democracy in general.

Marriage is what it is: the union between one man and one woman. No one, least of all a lawmaker in the form of an activist judge, can make two men or two women “one flesh,” literally or figuratively. Biology isn’t destiny, but it does have consequences. The biological reality is that the male form and the female form are complementary for both pleasurable sex and for procreation.

No one ever claimed that the design of water fountains made one fountain suitable for one race and another fountain suitable for the other. In contrast, there is an obvious biological and common sense suitability in the sexual union of the male and female body – as well as potential consequences of that union– that can’t be found in homosexual sex acts.

Even in polygamous marriage, the man enters into many marriages, each between himself and an individual woman. Polygamy doesn’t create a marriage between the man, his wives and that woman. There’s certainly more history in support of polygamy than for same sex “marriage.”

In their zeal to redefine marriage and restructure society, the Left and the US Federal Courts engage in the equivalent of LaMarckian experiments with the fundamental institution of social organization of our society and government.If, as the Left claims, our Nation has “evolved” toward their definition of marriage, why must the Courts turn over State Legislature after Legislature?

That the People and the States were to be sovereign over the United States Federal government is supported both by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the original document’s provision for an orderly Amendment process. The Courts must stop acting as though the Constitution reserves the major decisions to the Federal Courts, while only allowing the People and our elected Legislatures to decide inconsequential matters.

Note to the Anti-Incumbent Republicans

The “anti-establishment’ comments from the Right always remind me of the Left’s  “don’t trust the establishment” anti-America crowd of ’60’s and ’70’s. It’s the same knee-jerk, across-the-board, ignore-loyalties, and follow-the-(anti-establishment)-leaders chant and rant heard around 1970.

This isn’t the first time I’ve written on this subject, but here goes, once again.

The Republican’s problem is that we failed to get out the Republican vote and lost what little majority we had in the House in the 2006 mid-term election and allowed the media and the Left to claim it was because of the war on terror (read former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates’ memoirs, Duty, for verification of the belief in DC). Then, conservative voters refused to vote for Republican candidates for President in 2008 and 2012.  They ignored Reagan’s “80%” rule (“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”), stayed home, claiming “purity.”

(Or, how about Sarah Palin’s observation that the Dems never talk about “DINO’s:”

“Some far-right conservatives are enamored of the term “RINO,” standing for “Republican in name only.” But is there an equivalent term “DINO,” standing for Democrat-in-name-only? No, the Party of the Donkey isn’t that politically stubborn. They just call them “Democrats.” They win with their approach — and we lose (too often) with ours.”)

The reality we have to deal with is that there is a majority of Dems in the Senate, the White House and the media. Every effort – even the valiant effort to defund Obamacare by the House and Boehner in September – is twisted into something else. Have any of the anti-incumbents said one good thing about that effort by the House and Boehner, or did they just turn on the “establishment?”

Did they support Boehner and the House Republicans when they passed the bill defunding ObamaCare? Have they corrected anyone who claimed that the House Republicans cut Veterans benefits, when in fact, they cut the increase from 5% to 4%?

The anti-incumbents are teaching the same “lessons” of 2006-2012: Republicans can’t be counted on.

Innuendo in a Glass House

Elisa Chan – whose former staffer recorded and released her statements about homosexuals to the San Antonio press – has sent out a giant 9″ by 12″ postcard full of innuendo and unsubstantiated rumors that Texas State Senator from District 25, Donna Campbell, had problems with her staff during the 83rd Legislature. Chan’s problem is that Campbell’s former staff members are not talking – or releasing audiotape.

Chan’s mailer also claims that Senator Campbell and her family have not “moved to” the District and have a “Homestead” near Houston. That is false: I visited the home she rents in New Braunfels in 2010 and several times since. The Campbell family, like so many in the last few years, hasn’t been able to buy a new home because they have been unable to sell their old house. A little bit of research allowed me to check the County tax records on that house. They don’t claim a “homestead exemption.”

Yes, Elisa Chan is different:

• she could not win the loyalty and confidentiality of her employees,
• she quit as San Antonio City Council member midterm,
• she personally profited from toll roads,
• she donated $500 to “Friends of Hillary (Clinton).”

Vote for Donna Campbell for Texas State Senate, District 25!

Adryana Boyne: Courageous, Conservative Voice for Texas House District 102

Adryana Boyne is one of the most courageous, outspoken and well-spoken women I know – not only in Texas politics, but quite possibly in the world! What a blessing that she speaks for life, marriage and family and personal opportunity and responsibility! If you are in Texas House of Representatives District 102, you are blessed to have the opportunity to vote for Adryana to speak for you in Austin.

I’ll admit that I have longed for someone who can stand toe to toe with the minority women Democrats when they pull out the minority women victims’ card. Adryana, who is a naturalized citizen born in Mexico, educated at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas, and former missionary, founding member of VocesAction, and a speaker for True The Vote and many other conservative organizations, can certainly do that.
However, she won’t ever play the victim card. There’s no need.

It wouldn’t matter if Adryana had been born in her district and, like me, could only speak a few words of Spanish. This wife of an engineer (a minister who has served the Lord as a missionary) and mother of two young men is a stalwart, steadfast and absolutely fearless defender of Conservative values. She and I have walked the halls of the Texas Capitol in the defense of the right to life and traditional marriage and I’ve witnessed her powerful voice and presence  across our Nation as a speaker and advocate and as a moderator and participant on panels exploring current events and politics.

Please watch Adryana speaking on immigration and the 10th Amendment on Fox news (and watch Adryana overcome the effort of the Dem who tried to introduce a red herring), here. Take the time to read Adryana’s qualifications and blog posts at TexasGOPVote.Org and visit her campaign website to read the endorsements of other Texas leaders and her explanation about why her values moved her to run for office.

Texas (Democrat) Tort Lawyers for “Justice”?

If, like me, you’ve seen the promoted “affluenza” Facebook posts (here and here) about Texas Supreme Court Justices Nathan Hecht, Jeff Brown and Phil Johnson, take a look at this excerpt from an e-mail from Democrat and tort lawyer, Lisa Blue Barron:

From: Lisa Blue [mailto:lisablue@dandell.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 11:56 AM
To:
Subject: Hey! The Texas Supreme Court has “affluenza” and favors corporate crony Republicans
1ST MESSAGE TO GO OUT TO ALL CLIENTS / CONTACTS. PLEASE DO IT TODAY.      As you know we have a real shot of changing the Texas Supreme Court but we need your help. With
regards to our social media campaign for the next 4 weeks we are going to be pushing our message out. We will need your firm to once or twice a week email and/ or Facebook out to all your clients / contacts different messages. If we all participate we should be able to hit at least 500,000 people – this is significant in terms of getting the message out and influencing the primary.
In order to facilitate this, I am asking that you cut and paste the below message and email to all your contacts and clients. Also to motivate others, please email back to us how many people you have emailed the below message too. Thanks. Lisa Blue / Paul Danziger

Ms. Barron holds fund raisers for Wendy Davis. She defended John Edwards and helped hide his “love child.” She is the “Irrepressible Widow.”

Tell me, who is more likely to suffer from “affluenza?”

My Endorsements

John Cornyn, US Senate

Lamar Smith, CD 21 –

Gregg Abbott, Governor

David Dewhurst, Lt. Governor

Donna Campbell, Tx Senate, 25

Ken Paxton for Attorney General

Wayne Christian for Railroad Commissioner

Sid Miller for Agricultural Commissioner

Nathan Hecht, Jeff Brown and Phil Johnson for the Texas Supreme Court

In Comal County, I hope you will vote for Jeanne Slupik for Commissioner, Precinct 4, and for Cherie Perez for District Clerk.

I’ve also been posting about (against) Katrina Pierson, who is running against Sessions, using her anti-family, anti-“social issue” comments on Twitter from 2012.

Filibuster: A tool used by the Republican Senate

For those who claim that the Senate Republicans “cave” too often, a graph showing the increased use of the best tool the minority has in the Senate:

About Katrina Pierson for Congress

I hope everyone is looking carefully at the anti-incumbent candidates in the upcoming Republican Primary. Not all of them are as conservative as they would have you believe.

For instance, there’s the candidate running against conservative, prolife, pro-family Congressman Pete Sessions of the Texas Congressional District 32.

Katrina Pierson, who last achieved notoriety when she called an honorable man “deformed” due to his injuries as a Marine in Iraq.

However, few heard about Pierson’s anti-Conservative tweets on “social issues” and “homosexuality” which were the subject of a Wingright.org post a month later, just before the run-off in July, 2012.

(These Tweets are evidently still on her Twitter account, as I downloaded them anew, today, February 16, 2014. I wonder how long she’ll leave them up?)

It’s important that those voting know about how the candidates really feel about the “social issues,” don’t you think?

I’ve asked some supporters of Pierson to speak to her and get her on record as pro-life and pro-marriage, but haven’t heard back from them. I hope before you vote for her, you will ask her yourself.

In Third Statewide Bid, Friedman Hopes to Win With Weed | The Texas Tribune

What business does the State have in regulating anything that doesn’t require processing (and literally grows like a weed)?

Kinky Friedman is running in the Democrat Primary for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, using legalization of marijuana as a “cash crop.” (Read the Texas Tribune comments to see how much Democrats hate him for “stealing” Bill White’s votes.)

Friedman, 69 — a singer, humorist, novelist and hawker of tequila — has tried, frequently, to add “elected official” to his résumé. But his celebrity status and unique charm have not translated into success at the ballot box, and that seems to be an itch he cannot help but scratch. He has tossed his iconic black cowboy hat into the ring for the race for agriculture commissioner with what he calls a clearer focus.

via In Third Statewide Bid, Friedman Hopes to Win With Weed | The Texas Tribune.