PERRY ANNOUNCES TAX REFORM PLAN
October 27, 2011 -- Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced a national economic reform plan he purports will create
jobs and save the U.S. from being overwhelmed with debt. The plan includes a set of tax reforms.
Perry would give Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20 per cent and the current income tax system. The
new flat tax would preserve mortgage interest as well as charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning
less than $500,000 annually. It would increase the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
Perry says the 20 percent flat tax would allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard and save up to $483 billion in
compliance costs. By ending the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, he says, his plan
would “renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs. . . .”
The plan would abolish the death tax, providing, he says, needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.
Perry would eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits for older Americans, which he says will boost the incomes of 17
million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue
to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.
Perry claims his plan would also “restore American competitiveness in the global marketplace,” as well as provide
incentives for U.S. based employers to build new factories and “create thousands of jobs in the U.S.”
First, he would lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to
a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, he would encourage the repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion
estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the tax on those funds to 5.25%. And third, he would transition
to a "territorial tax system" that only taxes in-country income.
The plan would also put an end to corporate loopholes and special-interest tax breaks to provide a level playing field for
employers of all sizes.
Individual and Corporate Taxes
Perry would eliminate the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains to free up the billions of dollars Americans
are sitting on to avoid taxes on the gain.
In his website, RickPerry.org, he says, “American families deserve a system that is low, flat and fair.” He is calling his
plan, "Cut, Balance and Grow.” Perry seeks the Republican nomination for President.
BUSINESSMAN, EX-MAYOR SEEKS SENATE NOD
Oct. 25, 2011 -- Tom Leppert, former Dallas mayor, is running in the March 6 Republican primary for the nomination for
U.S. Senate, hoping to succeed retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in January, 2013.
Focusing his campaign on the economic recession, Leppert says in his website that he is running because Texas needs a
Senator who knows how to create jobs. He says his 25 years of experience leading businesses in a variety of industries
–– including construction, banking and real estate –– help him understand job-creation better than lawyers and career
politicians who have never “signed both sides of the paycheck.”
Leppert has crafted a plan which he says will restore the American dream and
reduce the role of government in our lives. The first step is getting government
out of the way so small businesses can create jobs. Historically, Leppert says,
small businesses have created nearly 70 per cent of new jobs, but “Washington
has created an environment nearly impossible for entrepreneurs to navigate.”
Leppert’s plan is aimed at ending: an overly complex tax code; the constant
threat of new tax hikes, and burdensome federal regulation.
Leppert’s plan also targets government spending as well as the size and scope
of government. “In the Senate,” he said, “I will have one simple rule: If a piece
of legislation or an idea reduces the role of government in the lives of employers
or citizens, then I'll consider it. If it does not, I won't.”
Institute Fundamental Tax Reform. Leppert would simplify, flatten and broaden our tax code by having one low tax
rate for everyone rather than targeting America's job creators with new taxes. Leppert says his plan will reduce the tax
burden on families and they will no longer be confronted with double and triple taxation on what they earn. Leppert
proposes reducing our corporate tax rate, which he says is one of the highest in the world and pushes jobs overseas.
Reduce Burdensome Regulation. Leppert says there are over 150,000 pages of government regulations that hit both
large and small businesses. But small businesses, he says, face 36 per cent greater compliance costs, or an average of
$10,585 per employee. Leppert says Congress should force government agencies to reduce burdensome regulations that
tie up businesses in compliance concerns rather than free them for job creation.
National Right-To-Work. Many states allow forced unionization as a prerequisite for employment. Leppert contends
that “right-to-work” states have stronger job growth, income growth, population growth and a better-educated
workforce. Unionization, he says, results in the loss of jobs overseas. Right-to-work states have more healthcare
coverage. Leppert wants to pass a Federal right-to-work law, and to protect businesses and workers from the overreach
of the National Labor Relations Board He also wants to save taxpayers money by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act which
directs the Department of Labor to determine wage rates for contractors working on federally funded projects.
Put American Energy First. Rather than forcing America to depend on foreign energy, Leppert supports
developing domestic energy sources to bring down our energy costs and become energy independent. He
believes we must expand the use of natural gas and end the drilling moratorium and restrictions that have held
back production here at home.
Leppert describes himself as a conservative, pro-life Christian and a businessman. He emphasizes that he
worked his way through college and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. He says his faith plays a
vital role in his life and has formed the framework for all of his decisions in both public and private
life.
CAMPBELL WOULD PROTECT UNBORN AS SENATOR
Nov. 8, 2011 -- Texas Right to Life PAC has endorsed Dr. Donna Campbell for State Senate District 25. In seeking the
Republican nomination for Senate in the March 6, 2012, primary, she is challenging incumbent Jeff Wentworth, who
supports a woman’s legal right to abort and does not believe he should protect the rights of unborn children.
Wentworth said in a February press release that while he personally prefers adoption to abortion, the government should
not impose such a view on women who want to abort. “Once a woman, in concert with her family, her physician, and her
clergyman has decided to terminate her pregnancy, I believe it is inappropriate and exceedingly intrusive in her private life
to tell her by law what she must do in connection with that medical procedure. And I don't believe her state legislator
should be on that decision-making committee.”
Wentworth voted against a sonogram bill this year which would require a doctor to offer a woman seeking an abortion the
opportunity to view a sonogram of her unborn child and listen to the child’s heartbeat.
Dr. Campbell is a physician who seeks to promote the sanctity of innocent human life in all stages, including the unborn,
human embryos, and patients whose lives are devalued due to disability or illness, a Texas Right to Life press release said.
She shares Texas Right to Life’s goals of enacting public policy and agency rules to protect the conscience rights of health
care providers who oppose biomedical assaults on human life, and she supports the redirection of all public funds away
from the abortion industry.
Elizabeth Graham, Director of Texas Right to Life, said the citizens of SD 25 are “frustrated that their pro-life views are
ignored by their current senator.” She continued, “We are confident that Donna will champion the sanctity of life at every
chance.”
On other issues, Dr. Campbell says in her website that she believes the “government that governs least governs best” and
that as senator she will advocate reining in the size and scope of government. She says she will promote fiscal
responsibility and that the government must face reality and act responsibly. She says she will further economic growth
and job creation by working to decrease taxation, litigation, and regulation.
Dr. Campbell’s website describes her as a woman of faith. She has volunteered her medical knowledge with a Christian
eye ministry, performing surgeries in Africa to bring sight back to hundreds.
Dr. Campbell is emergency department medical director for Columbus Community Hospital and periodically serves the
emergency departments of other hospitals in Texas. She and her husband, Stan, have four daughters and live in New
Braunfels.
Texas Senate District 25 includes Comal, Hays, Kendall and Guadalupe Counties as well as north Bexar County and
south Travis County.
RIDDLE WOULD REPEAL BAD LENDING ACT
Oct. 13, 2011 -- Wes Riddle, a retired military officer and a founder of the Central Texas Tea Party, who is seeking the
GOP nomination for Congress in District 25, says if elected he will immediately work to repeal the Community
Reinvestment Act which compels lending institutions to grant home mortgages to borrowers unlikely to be able to repay
the loans resulting in subprime mortgages and contributing to the current economic problems.
Riddle, who is running on fiscal responsiblity, limited constitutional government and free markets, says that for “the
government to use its power to promote home ownership is a misuse of power and causes a skewing of the market.”
Government, he says, put people in homes they couldn’t afford and as a result, many have lost their homes. “It was the
government, not the lenders, that put the economy at risk,” he said. Riddle supports repeal of the CRA and letting
the free market operate.
Economist Thomas Sowell, writing in National Review Online, explains that the CRA, which was passed in 1977 directed
federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs" of local
communities.
In the 1990s, Sowell says, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began requiring mortgage lenders
to show that mortgage loans were being made to low and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if
it meant changing mortgage eligibility standards. Government agencies which regulate lenders refused to approve lenders’
necessary business decisions and imposed fines when they failed to satisfy HUD with regard to loans to low-income
people or minorities.
Before CRA, banks defended their lending practices by pointing out the obvious: they are responsible for protecting their
depositors’ money, and lending money to people who can’t pay it back is irresponsible. However, “under growing
pressures from both the Clinton the George W. Bush administrations,” Sowell said, “banks began to lower their lending
standards.” Sowell caled this "an open invitation to
financial disaster.”
Riddle is a West Point graduate and holds a graduate degree in Modern History from Oxford
University. He spent 20 years in the Army and retired in 2003 as Lieutenant Colonel. He and
his wife, Aida, live in Belton. The District 25 congressional seat is currently held by Rep. Lloyd Doggett.
FCC KEEPING CONTROL DESPITE END OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
By David Martin
Sept. 6, 2011 -- More “free-speech” sleight-of-hand is coming from the Obama Administration. Recently, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) announced they were doing away with the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine. This
federal doctrine, a relic from 1949, was imposed to ensure that broadcasters gave equal time to differing political opinions.
The FCC is making a big deal about repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine, but they have put other tools in place to accomplish
the same goals. According to Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, the FCC “deserves one-handed applause”
for the move. Before striking down the politically volatile “Fairness Doctrine,” the FCC implemented rules of “localism,”
“media diversity,” and a nebulous requirement to “serve the public interest.”
All are designed to empower the FCC to limit speech they don’t like. As Bozell points out, “the path to censor radio
airwaves has been long paved through the back door.”
Under the nefarious concept of localism, unelected and unaccountable statists at the FCC could regulate how much time
broadcasters must dedicate to so-called local issues (as defined by the FCC) – in effect limiting the amount of time they
can give to programming their listeners want to hear.
Under government mandated “diversity” in station ownership, a station owner could have his application to renew his
license denied for no reason other than a lack of minority owned stations in their listening area. Across the rest of the
federal government the people working as affirmative action bean counters have consistently shown that their ultra left-
wing belief system takes priority over the rule of law.
Generations of American soldiers, sailors and marines didn’t die so that the First Amendment could be repealed by
overpaid government employees at the FCC. These regulations do not exist for their stated purpose. They exist only a
sneaky means for leftists in the permanent federal bureaucracy to control what the American people can hear. Liberals
know that silencing us will help them to advance their socialist agenda -- unchallenged and under the radar.
David Martin is Executive Vice President of the Media Research Center
WILL WASHINGTON CO-OPT TEA PARTY?
By Donald Devine
Aug. 16, 2010 - Former Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott told The Washington Post recently he was
concerned that election of a “robust bloc of rabble-rousers” from the tea party movement would result in “further Senate
dysfunction.”
The New York Times defined these terrible “rabble rousers” as: “wealthier and more well-educated than the general
public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York
Times/CBS News poll. The 18 per cent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be
Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than
Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as
‘very liberal.’”
They do not sound THAT bad, but Sen. Lott was not finished. “We don’t need a lot of [conservative Republican Sen.]
Jim DeMint disciples,” who actually believe in conservative principles and want to tackle real reform. “As soon as they get
here, we need to co-opt them” into our ways” the old Washington hand concluded.
What are those “ways?” The fact is that to a great degree both political parties in the U.S. are in agreement. They both
have adopted the New Deal welfare state model of governing, relying on government experts to manage society ignoring
even the educated electorate (like the tea partiers).
Political party is not the same as belief. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was the party with the
progressive orientation. The Democrats represented the South and West traditionalists. Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt considered himself a progressive and when denied the GOP nomination in 1912 ran as the candidate of the
Progressive Party. In 1928, Republican presidential candidate Herbert Hoover was touted as the progressive icon by the
leading intellectuals of the day.
After the phenomenal political success of Democratic Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal from 1932 to 1952, there was a
great movement within the GOP to accept his progressive view of expansive government if the
the GOP was ever to win the presidency again. In a bitter battle, the progressives nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower and
took his success as proof that only progressivism was politically feasible.
Even self-described conservative professors like Clinton Rossiter and Peter Viereck actually adopted the same solution as
the one adopted by the early 20th Century founders of modern progressivism, T.H. Green, Leonard Hobhouse, Gunnar
Myrdal, Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson – that the necessary reform of American limited government was to make a
distinction between positive and negative freedom.
As Rossiter put it: “The conservative should give us a definition of liberty that is positive and all-embracing, not negative
and narrow. In the new conservative dictionary, liberty will be defined with the help of words like opportunity, creativity,
productivity and security.”
The problem is no one can agree what positive freedom is. Liberal progressives say it is equality, welfare,
compassion and fairness. Conservative progressives say it is security, productivity and creativity. Changing the meaning of
liberty from “freedom from” to “freedom to” gives government the positive role of deciding just what “freedom to” entails.
But since they cannot agree, compromise is the rule of the day and nothing coherent gets accomplished. One party gets
control and makes some changes, which are quickly modified by the other and policy becomes an incoherent muddle, with
politicians throwing funds in all directions to
appease every possible interest.
Modern conservatism started in the 1950s in reaction to the progressivism of both parties but especially as an effort to
create at least one political party with a limited government orientation. The idea was to set a few understandable general
rules so that one person’s liberty did not infringe upon another’s and otherwise to allow individuals, groups and
communities to pursue their own interests in their own manner. The resulting “diversity,” as the Founders called it, was the
natural result of “freedom from” and, most importantly, it generally worked. The goal was to restore a sense of “freedom
from” as the more fundamental liberty and to
recognize that giving government a blank check how to define positive freedom would lead to poor policy, rule by experts
rather than by the people, bureaucracy, and financial irresponsibility.
Today, politicians of both parties have accommodated themselves to the welfare state, refusing to face the
impending worldwide economic collapse and simply hoping the other party will bear the burden of the crisis.
Over the past half century, Americans have generally gone along with the idea that they must give up some of
their freedom and wealth to achieve the higher goals of economic stability, welfare, fairness, prosperity and the other
positive goods promised by the welfare state. With experts promising that trillions of dollars would assure unemployment
would not reach eight percent, while the actual unemployment rate remains near 10 percent, together with exploding
entitlement costs that all recognize as unsustainable, the bargain more and more looks like a bad deal to most Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear there is no such thing as “something for nothing.” There is no New Deal tooth fairy. There
is no welfare state free lunch. Even if there were, it should not be worth handing one’s freedom over to a bunch of
bureaucrats. As inarticulate as they may be, that is what the tea party movement is trying to tell Washington – but neither
Democrats nor Republicans are listening. The bills are coming due anyway and, just maybe, Sen. Lott and his pals will not
be able to co-opt those who want to reform the welfare state and solve the real problems.
Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at Bellevue University’s Center for American Vision and
Values.
AN END-ZONE DANCE ON AMERICAN GRAVES
By Bob Ward
Aug. 11, 2010 - Faisel Rauf, a Muslin imam, wants to build a combination mosque and Muslim community center in what
should be the shadow of the destroyed World Trade Center.
He has the support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other assorted liberals dazzled by talk of tolerance,
cross-cultural understanding and other liberal fantasies.
But cutting thorough the liberal boiler plate it is plain this proposed mosque is nothing but a 13 story, multi-million dollar
gloat. On Sept. 11, 2001, the Jihadists scored a major hit against the U.S. In a single stroke they
murdered close to 3,000 of us and now they want to perform an end-zone dance to rub our noses in it.
The imam made his take on Sept. 11 clear when he said on “60 Minutes” just a few weeks later, "I wouldn't say that the
United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." So he
“wouldn’t say” that America’s chickens came home to roost in the manner of Rev. Jeremiah Wright but he came very
close.
And now, the Obama administration, which never hesitates to accommodate Muslim interests at the expense of
the US, is paying for this imam to travel to Saudi Arabia, presumably to raise the necessary funds to build the
mosque.
In addition to being an insult to the thousands who died in the Sept. 11 attack, it is one more not so small step in
promoting the Muslim presence and influence in American life. This is in no way comparable to other ethnic groups who
came here, made America their home, adopted our way of life and became Americans. Muslims,
want us to adopt their way of life and Shariah law – which is contrary to nearly every constitutional
principle – is part of the package.
This would be an excellent and appropriate time for organized labor to demonstrate its clout and its patriotism
by refusing to work on this affront to our nation and our values. The same goes for vendors of building
equipment and supplies. The free market could still have the last word on the repugnant project.
FRAUD IN EDUCATION
July 21, 2010 - Imagine. You’re being sued and in the middle of the trial you learn that your lawyer flunked the bar exam
but is allowed to practice anyway because the authorities think he will pass on one of the next three times he tries.
Parents of children in some Texas schools – and all Texas taxpayers – are in a similar situation in regard to the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test which their children took. It has been reported in the press that under
something called the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), a student who fails the test is counted as having passed if he is
expected to pass within three years. Using this deceptive system, every student group improved in every subject. Except,
of course, they didn’t. Press reports noted that 74 school districts in Texas were rated “exemplary” and 73 of them
gained that status by using this fraudulent scoring method.
The Austin American-Statesman reported that eight schools in the Austin school district were rated academically
unacceptable last year, the first year the TPM was used. Under an honest measure 11 would have been ranked
unacceptable. For the current year, only one AISD school has been found academically unacceptable. An accurate
scoring would have put four additional schools in that category.
Just as bad as the fraud itself is the reaction of the state’s education officials. Education Commissioner Robert Scott has
promised, not to abolish this fraudulent practice, but merely to “review.” And he wants to review it not because parents
and taxpayers are entitled to an honest assessment of our schools’ performance, but because the students' and educators'
''hard work is being overshadowed by criticism of the use of TPM.” Apparently Scott would be just fine with this
dishonest system if only the critics would just shut up.
However, faced with the criticism, Commissioner Scott has reportedly offered several options for modifying the system.
His options include abolishing the system, allowing districts that want to continue using it to do so, or modifying it in some
unspecified way.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), chairman of an appropriations subcommittee overseeing the education budget,
correctly dismissed Scott's proposals as "lipstick on a pig." Hochberg maintained that only abolishing the TPM and
instituting a “real measure of the progress students make," is acceptable. But Hochberg is facing an uphill battle if he wants
to get the TPM abolished. Whatever its faults, it does make the schools look good – and that’s what keeps the state and
Federal money flowing.
FEDS HAVE WEAK CASE AGAINST ARIZONA
July 16, 2010 -- The U.S. Justice Dept. is skating on pretty thin legal ice in bringing suit against the state of Arizona for
trying to protect its citizens from a flood of illegal immigrants.
The DOJ alleges the statute is unconstitutional and is basing its case on the claims that it violates the supremacy clause of
the constitution. The effect of this clause is that Federal law trumps any incompatible state law. The exact language of the
clause goes like this: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”
The problem with the DOJ case is that there is nothing “to the contrary” in the Arizona law. In fact, just the opposite is
true. The Arizona statute follows Federal law. All it does is put the state in the business of helping the Feds enforce their
law.
Obviously, this is help the Feds don’t want because they have no intention of enforcing the law.
The challenged statute puts Arizona in a position comparable to that of Texas, and probably most other states, which has a
law making it a crime to rob a bank. Reliable legal counsel notes that the Federal government also has a law prohibiting
bank robbery. Apparently there is no violation when a state law covers the same subject as Federal law as long there is
no conflict.
There is some irony in the DOJ’s complaint that the Supremacy clause renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional while
doing nothing about the so-called “sanctuary cities” that actually are acting “to the contrary” to Federal law. By protecting
illegal aliens, prohibiting their police officers from inquiring into the immigration status of suspicious persons, and failing to
turn over discovered aliens to the Federal authorities, these cities are engaging practices that would land an individual in jail
for obstruction of justice.
It what appears to be an attempt to give the lawsuit some moral basis, President Obama declared that the Arizona law
“has the potential” of being enforced in a discriminatory manner. And that, of course, is true even though the plain
language of the statute prohibits racial profiling. The problem with the President’s claim is that is true of just about any law.
Suppose, for example, the U.S. Dept. of Justice were to enforce the Federal Voting Rights Act only when the accused
violator is white and the victim is black. Should that ever happen it still would not be grounds for striking down the
statute. Although it would justify firing the U.S. Attorney General. That is, if it should ever happen. But, of course, it
wouldn’t happen. Did it?
There is also the idea that a state has it own jurisdiction over immigration. In an old (1837) case the city of New York had
a statute that required the captain of a vessel entering New York harbor with aliens on board to report in writing to the
Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. The Court found this did not conflict with Federal authority over
immigration. The majority opinion ruled that a state “has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons
and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is
not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the
bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people.”
Apparently, in the absence of an explicit prohibition the state is free to enact its own laws even if the Federal government
also deals with the same subject provided there is no conflict to trigger the supremacy clause
In addition to a weak legal case, the President appears also to be skating on thin political ice. A Rasmussen survey finds
that just 56 per cent of voters disagree with challenging the Arizona law and only 28 per cent agree. Another 16 per cent
are not sure. The survey found that 61 per cent of voters would like to see a similar law enacted in their state.
Even worse for the President and his party is that 86 per cent of likely voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat
important to how they will vote for Congress this November, and 55 per cent say it is Very Important. Among voters
who consider the immigration issue “very important” to how they will vote 72 per cent disagree with the challenge.
Several states, Texas among them, have filed amicus briefs with the court defending the Arizona law. Coupled with the
nearly 20 states challenging the health care law, it seems fair to say there is under way a long-overdue revolt by the states
against unconstitutional Federal power grabs.
POLL FINDS MOST PARENTS BELIEVE
TEXTBOOKS DUMP ACCURACY FOR PC
March 26, 2010 -- While the Texas State Board of Education was fighting off pressure groups demanding that more
Hispanic names be included in U.S. history textbooks, a Rasmussen poll was resporting that 60 percent of Americans with
children in elementary or secondary school believe most textbooks are more concerned with political correctness than
accuracy.
On the specific issue of how U.S. history is taught, nearly half (49%) of those with children currently in elementary or
secondary school do not believe most school textbooks portray U.S. history accurately. Just 28 per cent think they do.
When asked who should have the final say on what textbooks are used in the classroom, 34 per cent of
Americans say teachers, but 24 per cent say parents should have the final say. Only 15 per cent prefer giving the final say
on textbooks to local government and a scan nine per cent each said the federal or state governments should decide.
Parents who disapprove of the textbooks used by a school should be allowed to transfer their child to another
school that uses different textbooks according to 61 percent of the respondents. Only 27 percent disagreed.
GOP SENATE HOPEFUL DEFENDS CONSERVATISM
June 25, 2009 - Republican Railroad Commissioner and U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Williams denied claims that the
conservative message is “stale” and should be abandoned by the party.
Addressing the Johnson County Republican Women's Club, Williams said, "I don't think a message of pro-faith and family
and low taxes got old. But I think the party became unpredictable and that, for many
office holders, their record didn't meet their rhetoric."
The Republican Party, he said, needs elected officials who will adhere to the conservative message and not be swayed by
the liberal media "because we've got to say "No" to the transition to European-style
socialism.”
Williams, who has been a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and natural gas industry,
since 1990, also had recommendations regarding energy policy. He expressed opposition
to President Barack Obama's proposed cap and trade legislation.
Republicans, he said, want to clean up the environment but there are better ways than regulation, taxation and litigation.
“Jobs, capital and talent move to the low-tax areas," he said.
Williams is encouraging the conversion of school buses from using gasoline and diesel fuel to using natural gas or propane.
The border, he said, should be controlled but not closed. "We want people who want to come to America and Texas and
become citizens," Williams said. "But we want them to do it in the right way. And we want them to come here not simply
for jobs but because they want to become Americans. And part of that involves learning English.”
ALTRUISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN
By Rick Moran
March 20, 2009 - The House has passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the
GIVE Act (where do they come up with these Orwellian acronyms?). The bill fulfills an Obama campaign promise to
create a "civilian national security force."
This legislation will not mandate or force our young people into national service - not yet
anyway. But there is little doubt that we are being set up for just such an eventuality.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a
commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all
able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse
economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools
served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under
AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create
additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education
Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to
focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
Clearly, the goal of this program is to involve every single young person in America in a mandatory service program. The
"Commission" is a smokescreen. Of course they are going to recommend that there be mandatory service and they will lay
out procedures on how to do it.
During the campaign, Obama envisioned a program that would require youngsters to spend several hours a week in
community service. Many high schools already require a certain number of hours devoted to "community service" in order
to be eligible to graduate. How this all fits into "national security" will be very interesting to see.
What we have here is nothing less than altruism at the point of a gun. Fine thing we're teaching our kids - that government
can compel you to do "good."
STIMULUS BILL MANDATES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
Feb. 10, 2009 - Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has exposed what may the best kept
secret in Washington – Obama’s “stimulus” bill allows a Federal bureaucrat to overrule the treatment decisions of the
doctor who examined you.
The bill creates a new bureaucracy -- the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Its purpose is to make
sure your doctor is treating you the way the Federal government thinks is appropriate and cost effective. While your
doctor is chiefly concerned with keeping you alive and healthy, the government is intent on saving money.
A similar proposal, she reports, was made by former Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do
About the Health-Care Crisis. In the book Daschle says doctors have to give up their autonomy and “learn to operate
less like solo practitioners.”
Daschle also had advice for older persons. “Seniors,” he said, “should be more accepting of the conditions that come with
age instead of treating them.” Americans, he urged, should follow the example of Europeans and accept “hopeless
diagnoses” instead of trying experimental treatments that could save their lives.
McCaughey notes that Medicare currently pays for treatments considered safe and effective. The stimulus bill changes that
and applies instead a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research. It resembles a British government agency described in Daschle’s book. It approves or rejects a treatment
depending on the number of years it decides the patient is likely to benefit from it Treatments for older patients are
approved less often because the agency believes they won’t live long enough to justify the cost.
This, of course, is a self-fulfilling projection since denying the treatment could result in early death. A succinct term for this
policy is involuntary euthanasia or, even more succinctly, murder.
According to McCaughey, the bill doesn’t spell out what may happen to doctors who refuse to surrender their
autonomy and persist in operating as “solo practitioners.” But it does make clear that hospitals and doctors that are not
“meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. What “meaningful user” means is left to the Health and Human
Services secretary who can impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” The fact that Daschle was
Obama's first choice for this post reveals the President's plans for our medical care and, ultimately, for our longevity.
Doctors who hope to avoid the “more stringent measures” will fall in line and limit the treatments they prescribe to those
approved by the federal government even if it means the death of their patient.
October 27, 2011 -- Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced a national economic reform plan he purports will create
jobs and save the U.S. from being overwhelmed with debt. The plan includes a set of tax reforms.
Perry would give Americans a choice between a new, flat tax rate of 20 per cent and the current income tax system. The
new flat tax would preserve mortgage interest as well as charitable and state and local tax exemptions for families earning
less than $500,000 annually. It would increase the standard deduction to $12,500 for individuals and dependents.
Perry says the 20 percent flat tax would allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard and save up to $483 billion in
compliance costs. By ending the dozens of carve-outs that make the current code so incomprehensible, he says, his plan
would “renew incentives for entrepreneurial risk-taking and investment that creates jobs. . . .”
The plan would abolish the death tax, providing, he says, needed certainty to American family farms and small businesses.
Perry would eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits for older Americans, which he says will boost the incomes of 17
million current beneficiaries who see their benefits taxed if they continue
to work and earn income in addition to Social Security earnings.
Perry claims his plan would also “restore American competitiveness in the global marketplace,” as well as provide
incentives for U.S. based employers to build new factories and “create thousands of jobs in the U.S.”
First, he would lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent—dropping it from the second highest in the developed world to
a rate on par with our global competitors. Second, he would encourage the repatriation of some of the $1.4 trillion
estimated to be parked overseas by temporarily lowering the tax on those funds to 5.25%. And third, he would transition
to a "territorial tax system" that only taxes in-country income.
The plan would also put an end to corporate loopholes and special-interest tax breaks to provide a level playing field for
employers of all sizes.
Individual and Corporate Taxes
Perry would eliminate the tax on qualified dividends and long-term capital gains to free up the billions of dollars Americans
are sitting on to avoid taxes on the gain.
In his website, RickPerry.org, he says, “American families deserve a system that is low, flat and fair.” He is calling his
plan, "Cut, Balance and Grow.” Perry seeks the Republican nomination for President.
BUSINESSMAN, EX-MAYOR SEEKS SENATE NOD
Oct. 25, 2011 -- Tom Leppert, former Dallas mayor, is running in the March 6 Republican primary for the nomination for
U.S. Senate, hoping to succeed retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in January, 2013.
Focusing his campaign on the economic recession, Leppert says in his website that he is running because Texas needs a
Senator who knows how to create jobs. He says his 25 years of experience leading businesses in a variety of industries
–– including construction, banking and real estate –– help him understand job-creation better than lawyers and career
politicians who have never “signed both sides of the paycheck.”
Leppert has crafted a plan which he says will restore the American dream and
reduce the role of government in our lives. The first step is getting government
out of the way so small businesses can create jobs. Historically, Leppert says,
small businesses have created nearly 70 per cent of new jobs, but “Washington
has created an environment nearly impossible for entrepreneurs to navigate.”
Leppert’s plan is aimed at ending: an overly complex tax code; the constant
threat of new tax hikes, and burdensome federal regulation.
Leppert’s plan also targets government spending as well as the size and scope
of government. “In the Senate,” he said, “I will have one simple rule: If a piece
of legislation or an idea reduces the role of government in the lives of employers
or citizens, then I'll consider it. If it does not, I won't.”
Institute Fundamental Tax Reform. Leppert would simplify, flatten and broaden our tax code by having one low tax
rate for everyone rather than targeting America's job creators with new taxes. Leppert says his plan will reduce the tax
burden on families and they will no longer be confronted with double and triple taxation on what they earn. Leppert
proposes reducing our corporate tax rate, which he says is one of the highest in the world and pushes jobs overseas.
Reduce Burdensome Regulation. Leppert says there are over 150,000 pages of government regulations that hit both
large and small businesses. But small businesses, he says, face 36 per cent greater compliance costs, or an average of
$10,585 per employee. Leppert says Congress should force government agencies to reduce burdensome regulations that
tie up businesses in compliance concerns rather than free them for job creation.
National Right-To-Work. Many states allow forced unionization as a prerequisite for employment. Leppert contends
that “right-to-work” states have stronger job growth, income growth, population growth and a better-educated
workforce. Unionization, he says, results in the loss of jobs overseas. Right-to-work states have more healthcare
coverage. Leppert wants to pass a Federal right-to-work law, and to protect businesses and workers from the overreach
of the National Labor Relations Board He also wants to save taxpayers money by repealing the Davis-Bacon Act which
directs the Department of Labor to determine wage rates for contractors working on federally funded projects.
Put American Energy First. Rather than forcing America to depend on foreign energy, Leppert supports
developing domestic energy sources to bring down our energy costs and become energy independent. He
believes we must expand the use of natural gas and end the drilling moratorium and restrictions that have held
back production here at home.
Leppert describes himself as a conservative, pro-life Christian and a businessman. He emphasizes that he
worked his way through college and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. He says his faith plays a
vital role in his life and has formed the framework for all of his decisions in both public and private
life.
CAMPBELL WOULD PROTECT UNBORN AS SENATOR
Nov. 8, 2011 -- Texas Right to Life PAC has endorsed Dr. Donna Campbell for State Senate District 25. In seeking the
Republican nomination for Senate in the March 6, 2012, primary, she is challenging incumbent Jeff Wentworth, who
supports a woman’s legal right to abort and does not believe he should protect the rights of unborn children.
Wentworth said in a February press release that while he personally prefers adoption to abortion, the government should
not impose such a view on women who want to abort. “Once a woman, in concert with her family, her physician, and her
clergyman has decided to terminate her pregnancy, I believe it is inappropriate and exceedingly intrusive in her private life
to tell her by law what she must do in connection with that medical procedure. And I don't believe her state legislator
should be on that decision-making committee.”
Wentworth voted against a sonogram bill this year which would require a doctor to offer a woman seeking an abortion the
opportunity to view a sonogram of her unborn child and listen to the child’s heartbeat.
Dr. Campbell is a physician who seeks to promote the sanctity of innocent human life in all stages, including the unborn,
human embryos, and patients whose lives are devalued due to disability or illness, a Texas Right to Life press release said.
She shares Texas Right to Life’s goals of enacting public policy and agency rules to protect the conscience rights of health
care providers who oppose biomedical assaults on human life, and she supports the redirection of all public funds away
from the abortion industry.
Elizabeth Graham, Director of Texas Right to Life, said the citizens of SD 25 are “frustrated that their pro-life views are
ignored by their current senator.” She continued, “We are confident that Donna will champion the sanctity of life at every
chance.”
On other issues, Dr. Campbell says in her website that she believes the “government that governs least governs best” and
that as senator she will advocate reining in the size and scope of government. She says she will promote fiscal
responsibility and that the government must face reality and act responsibly. She says she will further economic growth
and job creation by working to decrease taxation, litigation, and regulation.
Dr. Campbell’s website describes her as a woman of faith. She has volunteered her medical knowledge with a Christian
eye ministry, performing surgeries in Africa to bring sight back to hundreds.
Dr. Campbell is emergency department medical director for Columbus Community Hospital and periodically serves the
emergency departments of other hospitals in Texas. She and her husband, Stan, have four daughters and live in New
Braunfels.
Texas Senate District 25 includes Comal, Hays, Kendall and Guadalupe Counties as well as north Bexar County and
south Travis County.
RIDDLE WOULD REPEAL BAD LENDING ACT
Oct. 13, 2011 -- Wes Riddle, a retired military officer and a founder of the Central Texas Tea Party, who is seeking the
GOP nomination for Congress in District 25, says if elected he will immediately work to repeal the Community
Reinvestment Act which compels lending institutions to grant home mortgages to borrowers unlikely to be able to repay
the loans resulting in subprime mortgages and contributing to the current economic problems.
Riddle, who is running on fiscal responsiblity, limited constitutional government and free markets, says that for “the
government to use its power to promote home ownership is a misuse of power and causes a skewing of the market.”
Government, he says, put people in homes they couldn’t afford and as a result, many have lost their homes. “It was the
government, not the lenders, that put the economy at risk,” he said. Riddle supports repeal of the CRA and letting
the free market operate.
Economist Thomas Sowell, writing in National Review Online, explains that the CRA, which was passed in 1977 directed
federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs" of local
communities.
In the 1990s, Sowell says, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began requiring mortgage lenders
to show that mortgage loans were being made to low and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if
it meant changing mortgage eligibility standards. Government agencies which regulate lenders refused to approve lenders’
necessary business decisions and imposed fines when they failed to satisfy HUD with regard to loans to low-income
people or minorities.
Before CRA, banks defended their lending practices by pointing out the obvious: they are responsible for protecting their
depositors’ money, and lending money to people who can’t pay it back is irresponsible. However, “under growing
pressures from both the Clinton the George W. Bush administrations,” Sowell said, “banks began to lower their lending
standards.” Sowell caled this "an open invitation to
financial disaster.”
Riddle is a West Point graduate and holds a graduate degree in Modern History from Oxford
University. He spent 20 years in the Army and retired in 2003 as Lieutenant Colonel. He and
his wife, Aida, live in Belton. The District 25 congressional seat is currently held by Rep. Lloyd Doggett.
FCC KEEPING CONTROL DESPITE END OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
By David Martin
Sept. 6, 2011 -- More “free-speech” sleight-of-hand is coming from the Obama Administration. Recently, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) announced they were doing away with the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine. This
federal doctrine, a relic from 1949, was imposed to ensure that broadcasters gave equal time to differing political opinions.
The FCC is making a big deal about repeal of the “Fairness Doctrine, but they have put other tools in place to accomplish
the same goals. According to Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell, the FCC “deserves one-handed applause”
for the move. Before striking down the politically volatile “Fairness Doctrine,” the FCC implemented rules of “localism,”
“media diversity,” and a nebulous requirement to “serve the public interest.”
All are designed to empower the FCC to limit speech they don’t like. As Bozell points out, “the path to censor radio
airwaves has been long paved through the back door.”
Under the nefarious concept of localism, unelected and unaccountable statists at the FCC could regulate how much time
broadcasters must dedicate to so-called local issues (as defined by the FCC) – in effect limiting the amount of time they
can give to programming their listeners want to hear.
Under government mandated “diversity” in station ownership, a station owner could have his application to renew his
license denied for no reason other than a lack of minority owned stations in their listening area. Across the rest of the
federal government the people working as affirmative action bean counters have consistently shown that their ultra left-
wing belief system takes priority over the rule of law.
Generations of American soldiers, sailors and marines didn’t die so that the First Amendment could be repealed by
overpaid government employees at the FCC. These regulations do not exist for their stated purpose. They exist only a
sneaky means for leftists in the permanent federal bureaucracy to control what the American people can hear. Liberals
know that silencing us will help them to advance their socialist agenda -- unchallenged and under the radar.
David Martin is Executive Vice President of the Media Research Center
WILL WASHINGTON CO-OPT TEA PARTY?
By Donald Devine
Aug. 16, 2010 - Former Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott told The Washington Post recently he was
concerned that election of a “robust bloc of rabble-rousers” from the tea party movement would result in “further Senate
dysfunction.”
The New York Times defined these terrible “rabble rousers” as: “wealthier and more well-educated than the general
public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York
Times/CBS News poll. The 18 per cent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be
Republican, white, male, married and older than 45. They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than
Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as
‘very liberal.’”
They do not sound THAT bad, but Sen. Lott was not finished. “We don’t need a lot of [conservative Republican Sen.]
Jim DeMint disciples,” who actually believe in conservative principles and want to tackle real reform. “As soon as they get
here, we need to co-opt them” into our ways” the old Washington hand concluded.
What are those “ways?” The fact is that to a great degree both political parties in the U.S. are in agreement. They both
have adopted the New Deal welfare state model of governing, relying on government experts to manage society ignoring
even the educated electorate (like the tea partiers).
Political party is not the same as belief. At the turn of the 20th Century, the Republican Party was the party with the
progressive orientation. The Democrats represented the South and West traditionalists. Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt considered himself a progressive and when denied the GOP nomination in 1912 ran as the candidate of the
Progressive Party. In 1928, Republican presidential candidate Herbert Hoover was touted as the progressive icon by the
leading intellectuals of the day.
After the phenomenal political success of Democratic Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal from 1932 to 1952, there was a
great movement within the GOP to accept his progressive view of expansive government if the
the GOP was ever to win the presidency again. In a bitter battle, the progressives nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower and
took his success as proof that only progressivism was politically feasible.
Even self-described conservative professors like Clinton Rossiter and Peter Viereck actually adopted the same solution as
the one adopted by the early 20th Century founders of modern progressivism, T.H. Green, Leonard Hobhouse, Gunnar
Myrdal, Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson – that the necessary reform of American limited government was to make a
distinction between positive and negative freedom.
As Rossiter put it: “The conservative should give us a definition of liberty that is positive and all-embracing, not negative
and narrow. In the new conservative dictionary, liberty will be defined with the help of words like opportunity, creativity,
productivity and security.”
The problem is no one can agree what positive freedom is. Liberal progressives say it is equality, welfare,
compassion and fairness. Conservative progressives say it is security, productivity and creativity. Changing the meaning of
liberty from “freedom from” to “freedom to” gives government the positive role of deciding just what “freedom to” entails.
But since they cannot agree, compromise is the rule of the day and nothing coherent gets accomplished. One party gets
control and makes some changes, which are quickly modified by the other and policy becomes an incoherent muddle, with
politicians throwing funds in all directions to
appease every possible interest.
Modern conservatism started in the 1950s in reaction to the progressivism of both parties but especially as an effort to
create at least one political party with a limited government orientation. The idea was to set a few understandable general
rules so that one person’s liberty did not infringe upon another’s and otherwise to allow individuals, groups and
communities to pursue their own interests in their own manner. The resulting “diversity,” as the Founders called it, was the
natural result of “freedom from” and, most importantly, it generally worked. The goal was to restore a sense of “freedom
from” as the more fundamental liberty and to
recognize that giving government a blank check how to define positive freedom would lead to poor policy, rule by experts
rather than by the people, bureaucracy, and financial irresponsibility.
Today, politicians of both parties have accommodated themselves to the welfare state, refusing to face the
impending worldwide economic collapse and simply hoping the other party will bear the burden of the crisis.
Over the past half century, Americans have generally gone along with the idea that they must give up some of
their freedom and wealth to achieve the higher goals of economic stability, welfare, fairness, prosperity and the other
positive goods promised by the welfare state. With experts promising that trillions of dollars would assure unemployment
would not reach eight percent, while the actual unemployment rate remains near 10 percent, together with exploding
entitlement costs that all recognize as unsustainable, the bargain more and more looks like a bad deal to most Americans.
It is becoming increasingly clear there is no such thing as “something for nothing.” There is no New Deal tooth fairy. There
is no welfare state free lunch. Even if there were, it should not be worth handing one’s freedom over to a bunch of
bureaucrats. As inarticulate as they may be, that is what the tea party movement is trying to tell Washington – but neither
Democrats nor Republicans are listening. The bills are coming due anyway and, just maybe, Sen. Lott and his pals will not
be able to co-opt those who want to reform the welfare state and solve the real problems.
Donald Devine, the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online, was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management
from 1981-1985 under Ronald Reagan and is Senior Scholar at Bellevue University’s Center for American Vision and
Values.
AN END-ZONE DANCE ON AMERICAN GRAVES
By Bob Ward
Aug. 11, 2010 - Faisel Rauf, a Muslin imam, wants to build a combination mosque and Muslim community center in what
should be the shadow of the destroyed World Trade Center.
He has the support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other assorted liberals dazzled by talk of tolerance,
cross-cultural understanding and other liberal fantasies.
But cutting thorough the liberal boiler plate it is plain this proposed mosque is nothing but a 13 story, multi-million dollar
gloat. On Sept. 11, 2001, the Jihadists scored a major hit against the U.S. In a single stroke they
murdered close to 3,000 of us and now they want to perform an end-zone dance to rub our noses in it.
The imam made his take on Sept. 11 clear when he said on “60 Minutes” just a few weeks later, "I wouldn't say that the
United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." So he
“wouldn’t say” that America’s chickens came home to roost in the manner of Rev. Jeremiah Wright but he came very
close.
And now, the Obama administration, which never hesitates to accommodate Muslim interests at the expense of
the US, is paying for this imam to travel to Saudi Arabia, presumably to raise the necessary funds to build the
mosque.
In addition to being an insult to the thousands who died in the Sept. 11 attack, it is one more not so small step in
promoting the Muslim presence and influence in American life. This is in no way comparable to other ethnic groups who
came here, made America their home, adopted our way of life and became Americans. Muslims,
want us to adopt their way of life and Shariah law – which is contrary to nearly every constitutional
principle – is part of the package.
This would be an excellent and appropriate time for organized labor to demonstrate its clout and its patriotism
by refusing to work on this affront to our nation and our values. The same goes for vendors of building
equipment and supplies. The free market could still have the last word on the repugnant project.
FRAUD IN EDUCATION
July 21, 2010 - Imagine. You’re being sued and in the middle of the trial you learn that your lawyer flunked the bar exam
but is allowed to practice anyway because the authorities think he will pass on one of the next three times he tries.
Parents of children in some Texas schools – and all Texas taxpayers – are in a similar situation in regard to the Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills test which their children took. It has been reported in the press that under
something called the Texas Projection Measure (TPM), a student who fails the test is counted as having passed if he is
expected to pass within three years. Using this deceptive system, every student group improved in every subject. Except,
of course, they didn’t. Press reports noted that 74 school districts in Texas were rated “exemplary” and 73 of them
gained that status by using this fraudulent scoring method.
The Austin American-Statesman reported that eight schools in the Austin school district were rated academically
unacceptable last year, the first year the TPM was used. Under an honest measure 11 would have been ranked
unacceptable. For the current year, only one AISD school has been found academically unacceptable. An accurate
scoring would have put four additional schools in that category.
Just as bad as the fraud itself is the reaction of the state’s education officials. Education Commissioner Robert Scott has
promised, not to abolish this fraudulent practice, but merely to “review.” And he wants to review it not because parents
and taxpayers are entitled to an honest assessment of our schools’ performance, but because the students' and educators'
''hard work is being overshadowed by criticism of the use of TPM.” Apparently Scott would be just fine with this
dishonest system if only the critics would just shut up.
However, faced with the criticism, Commissioner Scott has reportedly offered several options for modifying the system.
His options include abolishing the system, allowing districts that want to continue using it to do so, or modifying it in some
unspecified way.
State Rep. Scott Hochberg (D-Houston), chairman of an appropriations subcommittee overseeing the education budget,
correctly dismissed Scott's proposals as "lipstick on a pig." Hochberg maintained that only abolishing the TPM and
instituting a “real measure of the progress students make," is acceptable. But Hochberg is facing an uphill battle if he wants
to get the TPM abolished. Whatever its faults, it does make the schools look good – and that’s what keeps the state and
Federal money flowing.
FEDS HAVE WEAK CASE AGAINST ARIZONA
July 16, 2010 -- The U.S. Justice Dept. is skating on pretty thin legal ice in bringing suit against the state of Arizona for
trying to protect its citizens from a flood of illegal immigrants.
The DOJ alleges the statute is unconstitutional and is basing its case on the claims that it violates the supremacy clause of
the constitution. The effect of this clause is that Federal law trumps any incompatible state law. The exact language of the
clause goes like this: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”
The problem with the DOJ case is that there is nothing “to the contrary” in the Arizona law. In fact, just the opposite is
true. The Arizona statute follows Federal law. All it does is put the state in the business of helping the Feds enforce their
law.
Obviously, this is help the Feds don’t want because they have no intention of enforcing the law.
The challenged statute puts Arizona in a position comparable to that of Texas, and probably most other states, which has a
law making it a crime to rob a bank. Reliable legal counsel notes that the Federal government also has a law prohibiting
bank robbery. Apparently there is no violation when a state law covers the same subject as Federal law as long there is
no conflict.
There is some irony in the DOJ’s complaint that the Supremacy clause renders the Arizona statute unconstitutional while
doing nothing about the so-called “sanctuary cities” that actually are acting “to the contrary” to Federal law. By protecting
illegal aliens, prohibiting their police officers from inquiring into the immigration status of suspicious persons, and failing to
turn over discovered aliens to the Federal authorities, these cities are engaging practices that would land an individual in jail
for obstruction of justice.
It what appears to be an attempt to give the lawsuit some moral basis, President Obama declared that the Arizona law
“has the potential” of being enforced in a discriminatory manner. And that, of course, is true even though the plain
language of the statute prohibits racial profiling. The problem with the President’s claim is that is true of just about any law.
Suppose, for example, the U.S. Dept. of Justice were to enforce the Federal Voting Rights Act only when the accused
violator is white and the victim is black. Should that ever happen it still would not be grounds for striking down the
statute. Although it would justify firing the U.S. Attorney General. That is, if it should ever happen. But, of course, it
wouldn’t happen. Did it?
There is also the idea that a state has it own jurisdiction over immigration. In an old (1837) case the city of New York had
a statute that required the captain of a vessel entering New York harbor with aliens on board to report in writing to the
Mayor of the City, giving certain prescribed information. The Court found this did not conflict with Federal authority over
immigration. The majority opinion ruled that a state “has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons
and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is
not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the
bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people.”
Apparently, in the absence of an explicit prohibition the state is free to enact its own laws even if the Federal government
also deals with the same subject provided there is no conflict to trigger the supremacy clause
In addition to a weak legal case, the President appears also to be skating on thin political ice. A Rasmussen survey finds
that just 56 per cent of voters disagree with challenging the Arizona law and only 28 per cent agree. Another 16 per cent
are not sure. The survey found that 61 per cent of voters would like to see a similar law enacted in their state.
Even worse for the President and his party is that 86 per cent of likely voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat
important to how they will vote for Congress this November, and 55 per cent say it is Very Important. Among voters
who consider the immigration issue “very important” to how they will vote 72 per cent disagree with the challenge.
Several states, Texas among them, have filed amicus briefs with the court defending the Arizona law. Coupled with the
nearly 20 states challenging the health care law, it seems fair to say there is under way a long-overdue revolt by the states
against unconstitutional Federal power grabs.
POLL FINDS MOST PARENTS BELIEVE
TEXTBOOKS DUMP ACCURACY FOR PC
March 26, 2010 -- While the Texas State Board of Education was fighting off pressure groups demanding that more
Hispanic names be included in U.S. history textbooks, a Rasmussen poll was resporting that 60 percent of Americans with
children in elementary or secondary school believe most textbooks are more concerned with political correctness than
accuracy.
On the specific issue of how U.S. history is taught, nearly half (49%) of those with children currently in elementary or
secondary school do not believe most school textbooks portray U.S. history accurately. Just 28 per cent think they do.
When asked who should have the final say on what textbooks are used in the classroom, 34 per cent of
Americans say teachers, but 24 per cent say parents should have the final say. Only 15 per cent prefer giving the final say
on textbooks to local government and a scan nine per cent each said the federal or state governments should decide.
Parents who disapprove of the textbooks used by a school should be allowed to transfer their child to another
school that uses different textbooks according to 61 percent of the respondents. Only 27 percent disagreed.
GOP SENATE HOPEFUL DEFENDS CONSERVATISM
June 25, 2009 - Republican Railroad Commissioner and U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Williams denied claims that the
conservative message is “stale” and should be abandoned by the party.
Addressing the Johnson County Republican Women's Club, Williams said, "I don't think a message of pro-faith and family
and low taxes got old. But I think the party became unpredictable and that, for many
office holders, their record didn't meet their rhetoric."
The Republican Party, he said, needs elected officials who will adhere to the conservative message and not be swayed by
the liberal media "because we've got to say "No" to the transition to European-style
socialism.”
Williams, who has been a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and natural gas industry,
since 1990, also had recommendations regarding energy policy. He expressed opposition
to President Barack Obama's proposed cap and trade legislation.
Republicans, he said, want to clean up the environment but there are better ways than regulation, taxation and litigation.
“Jobs, capital and talent move to the low-tax areas," he said.
Williams is encouraging the conversion of school buses from using gasoline and diesel fuel to using natural gas or propane.
The border, he said, should be controlled but not closed. "We want people who want to come to America and Texas and
become citizens," Williams said. "But we want them to do it in the right way. And we want them to come here not simply
for jobs but because they want to become Americans. And part of that involves learning English.”
ALTRUISM AT THE POINT OF A GUN
By Rick Moran
March 20, 2009 - The House has passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the
GIVE Act (where do they come up with these Orwellian acronyms?). The bill fulfills an Obama campaign promise to
create a "civilian national security force."
This legislation will not mandate or force our young people into national service - not yet
anyway. But there is little doubt that we are being set up for just such an eventuality.
Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a
commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all
able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would
strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse
economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that
“service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools
served by the local educational agency.”
“The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 “new service opportunities” under
AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create
additional “corps” to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education
Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to
focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation,” reports Fox News.
Clearly, the goal of this program is to involve every single young person in America in a mandatory service program. The
"Commission" is a smokescreen. Of course they are going to recommend that there be mandatory service and they will lay
out procedures on how to do it.
During the campaign, Obama envisioned a program that would require youngsters to spend several hours a week in
community service. Many high schools already require a certain number of hours devoted to "community service" in order
to be eligible to graduate. How this all fits into "national security" will be very interesting to see.
What we have here is nothing less than altruism at the point of a gun. Fine thing we're teaching our kids - that government
can compel you to do "good."
STIMULUS BILL MANDATES HEALTH CARE RATIONING
Feb. 10, 2009 - Betsy McCaughey, an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has exposed what may the best kept
secret in Washington – Obama’s “stimulus” bill allows a Federal bureaucrat to overrule the treatment decisions of the
doctor who examined you.
The bill creates a new bureaucracy -- the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. Its purpose is to make
sure your doctor is treating you the way the Federal government thinks is appropriate and cost effective. While your
doctor is chiefly concerned with keeping you alive and healthy, the government is intent on saving money.
A similar proposal, she reports, was made by former Sen. Tom Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do
About the Health-Care Crisis. In the book Daschle says doctors have to give up their autonomy and “learn to operate
less like solo practitioners.”
Daschle also had advice for older persons. “Seniors,” he said, “should be more accepting of the conditions that come with
age instead of treating them.” Americans, he urged, should follow the example of Europeans and accept “hopeless
diagnoses” instead of trying experimental treatments that could save their lives.
McCaughey notes that Medicare currently pays for treatments considered safe and effective. The stimulus bill changes that
and applies instead a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness
Research. It resembles a British government agency described in Daschle’s book. It approves or rejects a treatment
depending on the number of years it decides the patient is likely to benefit from it Treatments for older patients are
approved less often because the agency believes they won’t live long enough to justify the cost.
This, of course, is a self-fulfilling projection since denying the treatment could result in early death. A succinct term for this
policy is involuntary euthanasia or, even more succinctly, murder.
According to McCaughey, the bill doesn’t spell out what may happen to doctors who refuse to surrender their
autonomy and persist in operating as “solo practitioners.” But it does make clear that hospitals and doctors that are not
“meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. What “meaningful user” means is left to the Health and Human
Services secretary who can impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” The fact that Daschle was
Obama's first choice for this post reveals the President's plans for our medical care and, ultimately, for our longevity.
Doctors who hope to avoid the “more stringent measures” will fall in line and limit the treatments they prescribe to those
approved by the federal government even if it means the death of their patient.
any coordination with Mexican authorities or any attempt to track the firearms.
Tragically, two of the guns were found at the scene of the shooting death of Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
And by the Department’s own admission, hundreds of guns remain unaccounted for.
It’s been a year since the death of Agent Terry. Yet, many questions remain as to how such a reckless and dangerous law
enforcement program was allowed to operate under the Justice Department.
And inconsistent statements from Department officials about who knew what and when have only raised more concerns.
Kagan and Obamacare
I am also disappointed in how the Department has responded to my oversight requests regarding Justice Kagan’s
involvement in health care legislation or related litigation while she served as United States Solicitor General.
Despite claims from Obama administration officials that then-Solicitor General Kagan was “walled off”[1] from discussions
regarding the President’s health care law, recently released e-mails indicate there may be more to the story.
On March 21, 2010, an e-mail from the Deputy Solicitor General forwarded to Solicitor General Kagan contained
information about a meeting at the White House on the health care law and asked: “I think you should go, no? I will
regardless but feel this is litigation of singular importance.” Solicitor General Kagan responded by asking him for his phone
number.
We also know from the e-mails that she personally supported the legislation’s passage. In a March 21, 2010, exchange
with a Justice Department colleague discussing the health care legislation, Ms. Kagan exclaims, “I hear they have
the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
These e-mails reveal inconsistencies with the administration’s claims that then-Solicitor General Kagan was walled off from
this issue.
To help clear up any confusion, I wrote the Justice Department to get additional documents and conduct staff interviews. It
took nearly four months before the Department sent a one page response that denied my request.
The Department did not assert any legal privilege over the requested information but simply refused to comply with the
request. That is not a sufficient answer.
Health care legislation was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Kagan told the
Deputy Solicitor General that she “definitely would like the Office of the Solicitor General to be involved in”
preparations to defend against challenges to the pending health care proposals.
Ms. Kagan found out she was being considered for a potential Supreme Court vacancy on March 5, 2010. So the issue is
how involved was she in health care discussions between January 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an
eighteen and a half minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two month gap?
The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for defending the positions of the federal government in litigation before
the Supreme Court. So it was the duty of then Solicitor General Kagan to participate in meetings and discussions
regarding the legal defense strategy for the President’s health care proposal.
It would have been a surprising departure from her responsibilities for Solicitor General Kagan not to advise the
Administration on the health care bill.
But if the Department continues to assert that she was “walled off from day one” from discussions, then they should be
willing to provide Congress and the public with documentation to prove that statement.
The law clearly states that Justices must recuse themselves if they “participated as counsel, advisor or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case” while they
worked in a government capacity.
The public has a right to know the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement with this legislation as well as any previously stated
legal opinions about the legislation while she served as Solicitor General.
The NFL would not allow a team to officiate its own game. If Justice Kagan was part of the Administration’s team that put
the health care mandate into play, she should not officiate when it comes before the Supreme Court.
If the Department has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress with the requested information? The continued refusal to
cooperate with legitimate oversight inquiries only heightens concerns that she might have a conflict of
interest.
President Obama has promised an “open and transparent government.” Unfortunately, we often see a closed and secretive
Justice Department.
Tragically, two of the guns were found at the scene of the shooting death of Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.
And by the Department’s own admission, hundreds of guns remain unaccounted for.
It’s been a year since the death of Agent Terry. Yet, many questions remain as to how such a reckless and dangerous law
enforcement program was allowed to operate under the Justice Department.
And inconsistent statements from Department officials about who knew what and when have only raised more concerns.
Kagan and Obamacare
I am also disappointed in how the Department has responded to my oversight requests regarding Justice Kagan’s
involvement in health care legislation or related litigation while she served as United States Solicitor General.
Despite claims from Obama administration officials that then-Solicitor General Kagan was “walled off”[1] from discussions
regarding the President’s health care law, recently released e-mails indicate there may be more to the story.
On March 21, 2010, an e-mail from the Deputy Solicitor General forwarded to Solicitor General Kagan contained
information about a meeting at the White House on the health care law and asked: “I think you should go, no? I will
regardless but feel this is litigation of singular importance.” Solicitor General Kagan responded by asking him for his phone
number.
We also know from the e-mails that she personally supported the legislation’s passage. In a March 21, 2010, exchange
with a Justice Department colleague discussing the health care legislation, Ms. Kagan exclaims, “I hear they have
the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
These e-mails reveal inconsistencies with the administration’s claims that then-Solicitor General Kagan was walled off from
this issue.
To help clear up any confusion, I wrote the Justice Department to get additional documents and conduct staff interviews. It
took nearly four months before the Department sent a one page response that denied my request.
The Department did not assert any legal privilege over the requested information but simply refused to comply with the
request. That is not a sufficient answer.
Health care legislation was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Kagan told the
Deputy Solicitor General that she “definitely would like the Office of the Solicitor General to be involved in”
preparations to defend against challenges to the pending health care proposals.
Ms. Kagan found out she was being considered for a potential Supreme Court vacancy on March 5, 2010. So the issue is
how involved was she in health care discussions between January 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an
eighteen and a half minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two month gap?
The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for defending the positions of the federal government in litigation before
the Supreme Court. So it was the duty of then Solicitor General Kagan to participate in meetings and discussions
regarding the legal defense strategy for the President’s health care proposal.
It would have been a surprising departure from her responsibilities for Solicitor General Kagan not to advise the
Administration on the health care bill.
But if the Department continues to assert that she was “walled off from day one” from discussions, then they should be
willing to provide Congress and the public with documentation to prove that statement.
The law clearly states that Justices must recuse themselves if they “participated as counsel, advisor or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case” while they
worked in a government capacity.
The public has a right to know the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement with this legislation as well as any previously stated
legal opinions about the legislation while she served as Solicitor General.
The NFL would not allow a team to officiate its own game. If Justice Kagan was part of the Administration’s team that put
the health care mandate into play, she should not officiate when it comes before the Supreme Court.
If the Department has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress with the requested information? The continued refusal to
cooperate with legitimate oversight inquiries only heightens concerns that she might have a conflict of
interest.
President Obama has promised an “open and transparent government.” Unfortunately, we often see a closed and secretive
Justice Department.
ARCHIVES
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| TOM LEPPERT |
REP. LAMAR SMITH
JUSTICE DEPT. ‘CLOSED AND SECRETIVE’
By Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of House Judiciary Committee
By Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of House Judiciary Committee
Dec. 9, 2011 -- Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary
Committee last May and we appreciate his willingness to appear today to address many
issues, including questions about his previous testimony.
While I am pleased to welcome back Attorney General Holder, I am disappointed in the
Department’s repeated refusal to cooperate with this Committee’s oversight requests.
This lack of cooperation is evident in the Department’s handling of inquiries related to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Operation Fast and
Furious, and the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
Operation Fast and Furious intentionally allowed straw buyers for criminal organizations
to purchase hundreds of guns so that the ATF could track them across the U.S.-Mexico
border. But Fast and Furious had a fatal flaw. Once purchased, there was no attempt
to follow the firearms. Instead, the guns were allowed to cross over into Mexico without
Committee last May and we appreciate his willingness to appear today to address many
issues, including questions about his previous testimony.
While I am pleased to welcome back Attorney General Holder, I am disappointed in the
Department’s repeated refusal to cooperate with this Committee’s oversight requests.
This lack of cooperation is evident in the Department’s handling of inquiries related to the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Operation Fast and
Furious, and the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
Operation Fast and Furious intentionally allowed straw buyers for criminal organizations
to purchase hundreds of guns so that the ATF could track them across the U.S.-Mexico
border. But Fast and Furious had a fatal flaw. Once purchased, there was no attempt
to follow the firearms. Instead, the guns were allowed to cross over into Mexico without