Another disaster caused by greed and ignorance

With Hurricane Earl bearing down on the East Coast of the United States you can be certain that Democrats and activists alike will conclude that the appearance of a hurricane along a coastal region in the middle of hurricane season can only mean one thing: Global warming (excuse me, “climate change”) is causing catastrophic disasters!

It’s all your fault
The only reason why a hurricane would hit the coast of the United States in the middle of hurricane season is because you are too stupid and selfish to drive an electric car and to power your home with natural gas. Since you are too dumb to do it yourself, the government must confiscate your money to pay for green technologies. They will mandate what and even if you can drive. They will even mandate what improvements you must make to your home!

It will never be enough
Once the watermelons have taken a stranglehold on your personal freedoms, yet another hurricane will come along. Once again it will be right in the middle of hurricane season. It will serve as proof that not enough of your liberties have been smashed. Not enough of your money and property have been taken by the government. Despite their best efforts, you will still be too stupid and selfish. Obviously the government will need to amass even more power over your day to day life.

This will continue until hurricanes stop coming in the summer, earthquakes stop shaking up the west coast, tornados stop devastating the Midwest, it stops getting cold in the winter and really hot in the summer. In fact, it will not end until the climate stops changing! It’s been over 4 billion years and it hasn’t stopped yet.


August 2010

What is Obama’s religion? Leftism!

A new Pew Research poll released recently says that 18% of Americans believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  This is getting a lot of attention in the press this week.  People are asking why it is that so many people would hold this belief.  I, for one, fall into the 34% of adults who say that the President is a Christian.  But the force that truly informs the President’s values is the fact that he is a leftist.

The “Elvis” factor
In every poll, you must account for the Elvis factor.  This is a reference to the number of people (I don’t have any exact figures) who will state their belief that Elvis Presley is still alive.  You can find at different times shockingly large numbers of people who will respond to polls that they believe either we never landed on the moon, that President Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks, or that Dick Cheney dynamited the 17th Street Canal levee in New Orleans.  Some of the 18% of respondents may fall into this category.  However, his political associations may also be to blame for a lot of this confusion.

The Democratic Party was taken over by radicals
President Obama is about six months older than me.  This means that he has grown up in a Democratic Party that was taken over by the extreme left wing.  The famous riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 were the battleground for this struggle.  The traditional leadership of the party, largely pro-America and anti-Communist was pitted against the growing wave of radicals who were not just against the war in Vietnam, but were, in fact, supporters of Communism.  In 1968, the anti-Communists won the battle and Vice President Hubert Humphrey was nominated.  Four years later, the anti-Communists lost control of the party with the nomination of Senator George McGovern, a candidate so radical that Richard Nixon was re-elected and carried 49 states in what was the greatest landslide victory up to that time.

Leftists tend to side with America’s enemies
Ever since that 1972 election, the majority of the leadership of the Democratic Party has tended to side with America’s enemies.  During the 1970’s and 1980’s, that enemy was unambiguously communism.  Many Democrat members of Congress never fail to lavish applause and praise upon Fidel Castro.  It was Democrats in Congress who doomed millions of Vietnamese to the oppression of communism when they failed to honor our country’s commitment to South Vietnam when the North invaded that country in 1975.  It was Democrats again who fought vehemently to prevent the liberation of our brothers in Latin America from the evils of communism.  Remember 2004 nominee John Kerry?  He actually met with Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega to publicly show his support.  This is after he and other colleagues signed a letter addressed to him (the infamous “Dear Commandante” letter) promising their opposition to provide funding for the freedom fighters down there.

Moral equivalence
The supporters of our enemies drew a moral equivalence between the United States and the Soviet Union.  At best, they felt that there was no difference morally between the two super powers.  Some actually held the twisted view that the Soviets were morally superior.  Now that the Soviet Union is gone and communism is no longer the great threat that it once was, the left needs a new enemy to side with.  You can still see the love that leftists have for communist dictators like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  Hell, the other day, President Obama landed in Austin, TX and was greeted by Governor Rick Perry when he got off Air Force One.  Governor Perry tried to hand him a letter detailing his request for more protection for the Mexican border.  The President refused to take the letter from him.  However, when Chavez wanted to hand him an anti-American book at the Summit of the Americas last year, he had no problem accepting that!

These are people who don’t believe in American exceptionalism.  They see no difference morally between the United States’ nuclear weapons and Iran possessing nuclear weapons.

Not Muslim, just a leftist
Why do people think that President Barack Obama is a Muslim?  Perhaps it’s his Middle Eastern sounding name or the fact that he did have a father who is Muslim or that he treats Israel, our greatest ally in the Middle East, with contempt.  But as I said earlier, his true value system comes from his leftist views.  When he chose to attend church in Chicago, he chose a Christian church.  But true to his leftist values, it was an unquestionably anti-American church.

Ever since the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001, the far left extremists have shrouded Islam with the protection of political correctness.  Islam is the religion of our enemies just as communism was for our enemies of old.  Now only an idiot would believe that I am equating all Muslims with our enemies.  But it is a fact that almost every one of the terrorists bent on destroying our country is a Muslim.  [It's a simple problem in set theory: the union of the set of all Muslims and the set of all terrorists would contain about 99% of the set of all terrorists!]  Just as most Soviet citizens were good and decent people, so are most Muslims.

Ground Zero Mosque
This has been vividly illustrated in recent weeks with the controversy over the Islamic Community Center that is being planned at Ground Zero in Manhattan.  (Now there’s an actual controversy! Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman is not controversial!)  Nobody in this argument is claiming that they don’t have a legal right to build there.  So immediately tune out any argument that brings up the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion – that is not at issue here.  The argument here is an appeal to human decency and an expectation that the people planning this building act as good neighbors.  But who is it that is consistently supporting the building of this mosque?  It is the left.  Since when does the left in this country give a damn about religious freedom or private property rights?

It’s not about any of those things, of course.  Everybody who is being intellectually honest about this knows that the construction of this community center at this location is a deliberate slap in the face of this country.  If the founders of this place were really interested in outreach and tolerance, they would have long ago realized that they needed to move this to a different location.  If they really wanted to promote healing and tolerance, they should build the thing in Saudi Arabia!  We are already the most tolerant nation on the planet when it comes to accepting different cultures and religious beliefs.

Nothing wrong with being a Muslim
By the way, let me just state for the record that I wouldn’t have a problem with the President being a Muslim as long as he shared my values.  We don’t have to agree in our beliefs about the divine authorship of the Qur’an or in the truth behind the doctrine of transubstantiation.  I do care if my President believes in the greatness of our country and does not feel the need to fundamentally transform it.  I do care if he takes the proper side in the Middle East conflict.  I do care if he abides by the constitution in deciding what role the federal government should play in our nation.  I do care if he respects private property rights and does not violate them through wealth redistribution.

How the President worships is not my great concern.  How he leads the country most certainly is.


August 2010

It is never offensive to display the American flag in America

The recent unrest in California over four students being sent home because they were wearing shirts with images of the American flag on them is quite disturbing indeed.  This all happened because some boneheaded and spineless school administrators decided that this would cause trouble since it was Cinco de Mayo – a Mexican holiday.  Some of the Hispanic students even made ridiculous comments claiming that they were somehow showing disrespect by wearing the American flag on “their” holiday.

The American flag is never offensive in America
These students might have had a point – if the school were located in Mexico!  But it makes no sense whatsoever since the school is located right here in the United States of America.  It is never offensive to display the American flag in America.  Let me repeat that:  It is never offensive to display the American flag in the United States of America!  If you take offense, then you are the one who has some sort of deficiency.  It would be no different than for me to go to Switzerland on July 4th and demand that the Swiss flag be removed out of respect for “my” holiday.

We should celebrate our ethnic heritage
Let me just say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating Cinco de Mayo here in the United States.  We have a rich history of celebrating ethnic holidays.  St. Patrick’s Day, Oktoberfest, Chinese New Year, and Cinco de Mayo are all examples of celebrations that have their origins in other countries.  Many people celebrate those holidays even though they are not members of the ethnic group associated with them.  We do it because they are fun and we enjoy celebrating the diversity of heritages that make up this melting pot of a nation.  But the nation should always be a melting pot.  That means people come from all over the world to live here but they do not remain a separate entity.  Instead, they blend in and become a part of this nation’s culture.

We are Americans first
When we celebrate our holidays, we should take pride in the fact that we are Irish-American or German-American or Chinese-American or Mexican-American.  But we should never forget the common bond shared among all of those terms:  we are all American!  All Americans (and even foreigners living here) should have respect for the American flag and the country where we live.  I have visited many countries over the years and it would never occur to me to show disrespect for the local culture or their flag.  I would certainly never demand that anyone remove their country’s flag to accommodate me in any way.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few . . . or the one!
If someone takes offense at something that is not offensive, then he is the one with the problem.  The solution is not to remove the students who are doing something that is not offensive.  The proper move here is to deal with the psycho that is taking offense at an American flag in the United States of America.  Even if you are demented enough to find the flag offensive, that’s OK as long you deal with it properly and accept that nobody is going to remove that flag to satisfy your twisted sensibilities!


May 2010

Legal immigrants like the Arizona law

Before I get into the Arizona law, I must say to you people on the far left that call me racist, that you need to look deep inside your heart.  Martin Luther King’s speeches were about equality in the rule of law and opportunity, and not about disregarding the law for your own selfish interests.

As a LEGAL immigrant to this country who has been here for over 30 years, I will tell you that one of the best things about the United States is that is has been a country that has put the rule of law above that of personality and polls.  That means that no one is above the law and the law is what drives official behavior.     It means that, unlike most of the countries where immigrants come from, it values the law above anything else.  If the population does not like a law, it has the RIGHT to change it to either get rid of it or strengthen it.  In a nutshell, it’s what makes the United States a great society and provides for equality and it makes MLK’s dream a reality.

Legal immigrants like myself have enjoyed the benefits of this rule of law.  This is a country where anyone can succeed with education and hard work.  This is a country that has benefited and continues to benefit from contributions from legal immigrants, and those contributions are too many to count.  However, when the rule of law is not followed to the political benefit of the left, then we are loosing our foundation.

Arizonans voted overwhelmingly to take control of their rule of law by ensuring that ALL laws are followed, and not ignored as they have been in the past.  The idea of a sanctuary city, like we have here in Houston, is not only non-sensical, but it is also dangerous and fundamentally wrong.  It is not a discriminatory law, as the police are not looking to bust anyone with a Hispanic last name.  All the law says is that the people whom we pay to enforce our laws and maintain our rule of law must now do so.  It’s as simple as that.

The reaction from the left has been nothing short of amazing.  They are calling for boycotts of everything Arizona.  LULAC, which has never advanced Hispanic causes, just leftist political causes, is calling for the boycott of Arizona teams in Houston.  That, in itself, is not only wrong, but dangerous.  What they are really saying is that because they feel that their power in the Democratic party would be diminished if another million illegals come in this year, that they are willing to destroy our rule of law to continue building their fiefdoms.

Let me say this as clearly as possible.  There is nothing wrong with a law  designed to enforce our existing laws.  There is nothing wrong with transparency in the process and with asking law enforcement to enforce the law.  I have not doubt that many illegal immigrants that have come to this country have made great contributions, and that there will always be outcasts on either side that will provide a question to the general law.   However, if you turn the table, you will find that even Mexico’s rule of law on illegal Americans in their country is considerably stronger than what we currently have being enforced today.

There are existing programs today in which the very poor can come in to work from places like Mexico in a legal manner.   The reason that those programs are not popular is because of all of the protection, outside of the law, that illegal aliens receive.  The left and the mainstream media have even gone as far as not calling an illegal alien by that moniker.  They are now calling them undocumented workers.  That new moniker is easier in the ears and makes them sound like victims.

On the racial profiling question, I have to call BS.  I have been here 30+ years and my English, just like the rest of my family is pretty good, if not perfect.  There are very few US citizens that do not speak the language.  The tools that Arizona is providing it’s law enforcement folks is meant to be able address the issue with people who are OBVIOUSLY illegal and that are typically not contributing to society.  It is not discriminatory or predatory.  It simply asks law enforcement to do its job.

So why is the left so upset?  Because of the loss of potential Democrat voters in the future.  Just like illegal Mexicans voted for the PRI in their country overwhelmingly, they hope that they will become a voting block here for them.  If your citizens don’t like the messages you are spewing, then add others that will.  It’s about the dismantling of all that is good in America by dismantling the basic fabric of what holds us together:  the rule of law.

I remember that Miami was boycotted for several years by the NAACP and other black organizations because they chose to enforce their criminal laws and stepped up enforcement in areas of high crimes, which in that city happened to be black areas.  They went as far as limiting access to those neighborhoods, and to the dismay of the radical left, crime in Miami dropped significantly.  They didn’t see the fact that most of that crime was black on black, and at the end, the people that most benefited from that enforcement policy was the African Americans, with the great majority not being criminals, that were able to lower crime in their neighborhoods.  After crime was controlled, they went back to the normal enforcement policies of the past, and everyone lifted their boycotts.  It is simple, the rule of law is good for EVERYONE who lives within the law.  Let’s learn from Miami’s efforts.

Organizations like LULAC prey on the vulnerabilities of those inside the law by presenting them with far-fetched horror scenarios that are IMPOSSIBLE under the rule of law, in order to provide itself with more power by including those outside of the law.  LULAC does not represent me, a Hispanic, and never will.  It does not represent most of us LEGAL immigrants or Hispanic citizens who have worked hard, contributed to make this country great, and have benefited from the rule of law.

So, my response to LULAC will be quite simple:  I’m going to the Astros game when Arizona plays here next week.  If I have a reason, I will patronize Arizona, and will support the right of its citizens to maintain and reclaim their rule of law.  I hope that you join me in supporting these folks as they are under heavy attack by the radical left.


April 2010

Oil Price to around $100 and Market Correction are Coming

On this site, I predicted the decline in the price of oil when everyone was freaking about $140/boe. Here is yet another prediction:
- Oil will be at around $95 by the beginning of the Summer
- There will be a fairly major market correction coming within the next month.

So let’s talk about the first: The DOE says that there is 2x more likelihood to see lower prices vs. higher. So why would I go against what all of those very highly paid economists in the gov. are saying? Well, you see, although Gasoline production is just a part of what we use oil for, it is an indicator of activity in the economy.  There is a lot of activity prior and during a recovery that you might not have during normal times.  March 2010 set a record in both gasoline demand and gasoline production. If that trend continues, when the summer gas utilization kicks up in its normal cycle, you will see a counter-reaction in the price of oil.  I can easily see it at $95, hitting $100 during the summer.  I was right when I predicted the drop in the price a while back and I think I will be correct now.   The beneficiaries of this will be the oil producers.  Go ahead and buy their stocks.

Now for the second.  The stock market is growing at a fantasy clip, not matched in any way by the economic indicators.  With 1 in 10 of us unemployed and not hopeful, and with talk of a double dipper based on our unsustainable debt, the market at some point has to look at itself and correct.  I don’t think that the correction is going to extensive, but I do think it will be painful.  And I think it’s coming in the next four weeks.

Peace!!! (thru Strength).


April 2010

The marks of a Fascist government become more apparent. All hail Obama.

Before I can make my argument that we are moving to a Fascist type of government, we need to redefine the misunderstanding of Fascism being right wing form of government.  I am not going to go into a detailed break down, but if you look at the tenets of Fascism, it is Socialism without internationalism like Marxism is.  It is control of production thru government ownership and controls, much like the takeover of GM, AIG, and others.  It is control of the political spectrum, much like it has happened in Congress, and it is control outside of the scope of laws by bypassing lawmakers in favor of bureaucratic agencies, much like the Obama administration announced they were going to do around cap and trade and carbon output management thru the EPA, as well as focus from an SEC perspective of carbon obligations.

I subscribe to the view of Fascism in being a modified type of socialism, much like Zeev Sternhell.  Our government has shown, over the last year, that they believe that government ideals are more important than those of the individuals, and that free markets will no longer exist.  Over the last year, they have nationalized the largest auto maker, even removing the CEO on the order of the POTUS.  That’s a first in American history.  They are in the process of nationalizing an additional 13% in health care, have taken over college loan programs, have strong control over the Financial Services industries (complete with control of AIG), and are letting institutions that are controlled by leftists run amock.

After all, the name of the Nazi party was “The National Socialists”.

The latest mandate, which has not received much plan in the mainstream media, is the “forced favoritism” of unionized companies over free market companies for government contracts.  This is a huge mandate that stinks of corruption and paybacks, yet the mainstream media does not care.  This could be the beginning of having to “show your card”, NAZI style.

It is going take more than just a shovel to undo the major damage done to our democracy and our free market by this administration.  It’s going to take decades to just disassemble the new bureaucracy, the new mandates, and the incredible deficits.

It is now that we have to make sure that we take back Congress by getting rid of those fascists/socialists in Congress and replace them with people that believe in free markets, in our constitution, in limited government, and the strong will of the American people.


April 2010

Welcome to 1984. Our Republic is in danger.

By trampling every Democratic foundation that exists in our fair Republic, the evil doers in the Democratic Party have finally moved the United States to a socialized economy.  Not only did they trick a very unpopular health bill into law, but they also socialized college loans at the same time.  After having socialized the auto industry, the oil industry is next.  WAKE UP AMERICA.  THROW THE DAMNED DEMOCRATS OUT NOW!!!  Yes, they are…


March 2010

What’s old is new again: A blueprint for the GOP moving forward

I found this gem in Ed Hubbard’s site.  It’s Reagan’s view of the GOP moving forward.  Here it is…

Each age sees itself, in one way or another, as a time of change. And in the United States today it can truly be said that the election of 1976 marks an end of an era in American politics. We currently are in the midst of a reordering of the political realities that have shaped our time. We are now in the beginning of post-Watergate America. The election of 1976 served as a clear dividing line between the all-too-­familiar agony of the recent past and the unknown future.  (SAME CAN BE SAID ABOUT THE ELECTION OF 2010)

I’d like to talk to you about the problems and possibilities of this time of transition.

The principles and values that lie at the heart of conservatism are shared by the majority of the American people. … But the fact is that conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.

You know, as I do, that most experts and commentators make a distinction between what they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism. The so-called social issues–law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems–are usually associated with blue­-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues–inflation, deficit spending and big government–are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.

Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism–or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.

…When economic and social conservatives meet today, they share one major concern and that is what a big-spending, irresponsible Congress has done to the earning power of American workers. … Let us at least see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, is it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?

I believe these are the most important questions in American politics today. And my answer to all of them is: yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto, unorganized conservative majority. … What I envision is not simply a melding together of the two branches of American conservatism into a temporary uneasy alliance, but the creation of a new, lasting majority.

This will mean compromise. But not a compromise of basic principle. What will emerge will be something new, something open and vital and dynamic, something the great conservative majority will recognize as its own, because at the heart of this undertaking is principled politics.

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity”. Whatever ideology may mean–and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it–it always conjures [sic] up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. …I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free of slavish adherence to abstraction it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him, is the truth.

… When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the common sense that also tells him to come in out of the rain.

… When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is clos­est to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanatacism [sic] that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and the common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way–this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn–not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. …[T]he principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations–found through the often bitter testing of pain, of sacrifice and sorrow.

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. … [T]oday conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change. … I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party, for a variety of reasons, can and should, provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. … [T]onight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it by the title of the New Republican Party.

… The New Republican Party I envision will not, and can not, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons, both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before–but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. And let one thing be made clear; if we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not simply by “making room” for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party.

… The New Republican Party I envision is still going to be the party of Lincoln and that means we are going to have to come to grips with what I consider to be a major failing of the party: its failure to attract the majority of black voters. … [T]he time has come for Republicans to say to black voters; look, we offer principles that black Americans can, and do, support. We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes–and we believe that the long-range interest of black America lies in looking at what each major party has to offer. And then deciding on the merits. (Change Black to Hispanic).

… The New Republican Party I envision is one that will ener­getically seek out the best candidates for every elective office, candidates who not only agree with, but understand, and are willing to fight for a sound, honest economy, for the interests of American families and neighborhoods and communities and a strong national de­fense. And these candidates must be able to communicate those principles to the American people in language they understand.

…Our candidates must be willing to communicate with every level of society, every group and sub-group because the principles we espouse are universal and cut across traditional lines. In every Congressional district there should be a search made for young men and women who share these principles and they should be brought into positions of leadership in the local Republican Party groups.

… [W]hat will be the basis of this New Republican Party? To what set of values and principles can our candidates appeal? Where can Americans who want to know where we stand look for guidance? … Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like.

…We, the members of the New Republican Party believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation, should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following pro­positions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions — even their own mistakes. …Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. … As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.

Families–not government programs–are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.

Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeo­pardize the family.

…Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individ­uals, Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimi­nation of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people than the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual.

… With these basic principles as foundation, the New Republican Party pledges to work for freedom, justice and prosperity for the individual, the family and the nation.

… My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created.

And just to set the record straight, let me say this about our friends who are now Republicans but who do not identify themselves as conservatives:

I want the record to show that I do not view the new re­vitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles of the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists.

…Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it. … When we are maligned as having little thought or compassion for people, let us denounce the slander for what it is. Concern for the people is at the very heart of conservatism. Concern for the dignity of all men; that those in need shall be helped to become independent not life time recipients of a dole; concern that those who labor and produce will not be robbed of the fruit of their toil or their liberty. Concern that we shall not forfeit the dream that gave birth to this Nation — the dream that we can be as a shining city upon a hill–an “alabaster city undimmed by human tears.”

Believing in that dream, I became a Republican and because of that dream I am a conservative.


February 2010

My endorsements for the GOP primary

I received a lot of attaboys for the last set of endorsements I did, so I figure it was time to do it again.  With a little research and a lot of knowledge of my local politics, I went thru the list of the positions that I need to vote for.

U.S. Rep District 10 (Michael McCaul, Joe Petronis)

I’m endorsing Joe Petronis on this round but will endorse Michael McCaul in the overall election.  Why Petronis?  I want to send a message to McCaul that he needs to start acting like a true Republican and focus on reducing expenditures and the debt.  Petronis is part of the Tea Party movement, so it will be interesting to see what happens here.  I do like McCaul, and will certainly support him on the general, but in this primary I’m voting for Petronis.

U.S. Rep, District 29

It’s not my district so I don’t get a say, but I do like Roy Morales.  Let’s put a very conservative Hispanic for this district.  Read his pledge here: http://roymorales.com/mypledge.  Gene Green, the ultra liberal dummy that is running the district can bite it if the right candidate is chosen.  The district is 66% Hispanic, and green was nothing short of a jerk during the town halls.

Governor

We have two great candidates in this race.  I’m still undecided but leaning towards Perry.  Ideally we keep Kay in Washington and Perry in Austin.

Railroad Commissioner

There is no doubt that Victor Carrillo is the right guy for this.  He really gets the Oil & Gas industry and is the right representative for us in Austin.  I had the pleasure of working with him in the past and he is a top notch class A individual.

Justice, Supreme Court Place 3

I’m endorsing Jeff Brown on this one.

Justice, Supreme Court Place 9

Eva Guzman is by far the best candidate in this race.

1st Court of Appeals, Place 4

Evelyn Keyes was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

1st Court of Appeals, Place 8

Michael C. Massengale was highly recommended, so I’m supporting him.

14th Court of Appeals, Place 2

Leslie Brock Yates was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

180th Criminal District Court

I’m going with Marc Brown on this one.

280th Civil District Court

Lynn Bradshaw Hull was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

308th Family District Court

Tough call between Ramos and James Lombardino.  I’m going with Lombardino.

309th Family District Court

I’m going with Sheri Y. Dean on this one.

310th Family District Court

Lisa Millard was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

311th Family District Court

I’m getting more with Donna Detamore…

313th Family District Court

Your pick.  I’m going with Glenn Devlin.

County Criminal Court No. 1

Paula Goodhart was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

County Criminal Court No. 3

Fleming, Wood, or Hart.  Take a pick.  I’m going with Hart.

County Criminal Court No. 4

John Clinton was highly recommended, so I’m supporting him. Yes, I’m actually supporting a Clinton for once.

County Criminal Court No. 13

Rachel Ann Palmer was highly recommended, so I’m supporting her.

County Probate Court No. 1

All is right with Loyd Wright

District Clerk

Both Paul Dwight and Chris Daniel are very good.  I’m going with Daniel.

County Clerk

Stan Stanart was highly recommended, so I’m supporting him.

County Tax Assessor-Collector

Leo Vasquez has not just been great for the county, but he has also endured the attacks of the demo machine here in HC.

County Commissioner Pct. 2

I’m endorsing Olmos so that I can say Almost there with Dorothy Olmos

Justice of the Peace, Pct. 5, Place 2

George Huntoon gets my vote because I know him and he is a fine person…

Harris County Republican Party Chairman

Jared Woodfill was there when we took it in the pants in the county at the last election.  That’s why I’m endorsing Ed Hubbard.  I encourage you to look at his positions at http://www.hubbardforhcrp.com/reagan.html.  He is a Reagan Republican that can grow the party in Harris county when we are shrinking.  Go Ed Go.


February 2010

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech

A friend whose opinion I value and respect told me that he was “appalled” by the Supreme Court decision that struck down the heart of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The widely publicized issue here is whether or not corporations can finance political advertisements during certain periods of the election cycle. What I find appalling is that the vote of the court was 5–4. This should have been a 9-0 vote to overturn a blatantly unconstitutional law that violates first amendment rights in a way that is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts during the John Adams administration. [OK, I exaggerate greatly when I make that comparison, but I couldn’t help myself!]

Many public servants dropped the ball on this one
When the members of congress were voting on this bill originally, they had an obligation to recognize its unconstitutionality and vote against it. Then, President Bush had an obligation to veto the bill when it came to him for a signature. After that, in 2003, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to this law in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission. They had an obligation to declare the law unconstitutional at that time. But, by a 5-4 vote, they failed to live up to that obligation.

Government officials deciding which books and movies can be shown
As a result, we got the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. Here is a case where an organization named Citizens United produced a movie that was very much an anti Hillary Clinton piece. The FEC prohibited them from making Hillary: The Movie available for video on demand distribution. To be fair, they were, in fact, following the McCain-Feingold law. The Supreme Court as it was configured in 2009 found it appalling that federal government bureaucrats had the power to decide whether or not a particular movie or a book could be allowed. As I said before, what I find appalling is that any of the justices on the court would find that acceptable. Those justices would be John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The justices who find it unacceptable to have the government dictating which films and books can be allowed for publication are John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The Tonight Show and 60 Minutes become the most powerful sources of information
Under the McCain-Feingold law, corporations were prohibited from “electioneering communications” 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election. This means that during that time period, the most powerful voices in the media belong to professional entertainers and major news organizations. This, of course, gives a huge advantage to any Democrat candidate since both of those groups have a heavy left wing influence.

TV and movie stars don’t have to pay anything to appear on television in the form of gossip shows and late night interview programs. There, they have free rein to advocate for any public policy position or any candidate for office that they support – and they absolutely should have that right! If you are Rosie O’Donnell, you can get on TV and rant all you want about how your second amendment rights should be violated as a matter of public policy. If you are the NRA, you are prohibited by law. Even if you agree with Rosie and hate the NRA, the free speech issue here should still strike you.

One sided reporting with no way to rebut?
Of course, most of the major news organizations (with the exception of Fox News) are simply a satellite campaign office for the Democrat candidates in any race. Just to give one example from recent memory, during the 2004 presidential campaign, 60 Minutes would give a segment (sometimes two) to any author who wrote a book trashing President George W. Bush. Hell, Dan Rather even lost his job because, in his fervent hatred of President Bush, he allowed faked documents to go on the air in an attempt to sway the election toward John Kerry. However, when General Tommy Franks published a book that had favorable things to say about the president, he was nowhere to be found on that news magazine.

Bad decisions should not be allowed to stand
Liberals are beside themselves because this Supreme Court decision overturns the earlier McConnell vs. FEC decision as well as a 1985 decision in Austin vs. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. In that case, the court ruled that the Chamber of Commerce could not endorse a candidate for a seat in the state House of Representatives. They hold the principle of stare decisis sacrosanct (when it comes to rulings that they revere and know won’t hold up under real constitutional scrutiny). Stare decisis is the legal principle that holds that courts are to be bound by precedent rulings. However, if a previous court ruled incorrectly on a constitutional matter, it would be negligence of duty to stick to such a ruling when an opportunity presents itself to rule properly. I don’t think very many people would insist that the court committed an egregious violation in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case because stare decisis bound them to honor the 1896 ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson (when the ruling was that blacks and whites could have “separate but equal” accommodations).

Free speech with full disclosure
How do we solve this problem? Is there too much corporate money in elections? Perhaps. But do we want to grant a virtual monopoly on public discourse to celebrities and the news media? What a nightmare! I say that anyone should be able to donate as much money as they like to any candidate. However, there should be full public disclosure so that everyone knows who is backing whom. Then, the voters can decide for themselves.


January 2010