One more thing for which you need photo I.D. in Texas

This weekend, we went to visit my parents in their new home in Denton County.  The new place gets waste collection service once a week, and if you need to drop things off at the dump you can do so between certain hours, etc.  So, since this was a huge move and there was a lot of stuff to recycle and dump, we took a trip over to the landfill for that very purpose.

To recycle, it was no biggie.  Drop the stuff you have in the proper container, move along.  But to actually dump trash, you 1) get in line; 2) get weighed; 3) hand over your driver's license; 4) are directed to the dumping site depending on the kind of waste you brought along; 5) get rid of waste; 6) get back in a longer line to pay and retrieve your driver's license.

So now we can to the list of things you need identification for in the state of Texas.  Apparently in some places, in order to throw things away, you must show - and surrender! - your license or state-issued identification.

Has anyone told Senator Uresti about this?  I mean, surely, the poor are being trampled on here.

Waco ISD to spend $84k on Vegas trip

Here is some fresh insanity to cap off the school year for you.  The Waco Independent School District is set to spend $84,000 to send staff members to a seminar.  In Las Vegas.  Texas Budget Source's Sara Talbert has a full write-up here.  (If you are not reading Texas Budget Source daily, you are missing out on one of the best resources in the state of Texas)

I'm sure the Vegas part has you scratching your head, but the dollar amount is what should make you flat-out irate.  Especially when you learn that Waco ISD is facing a $200,000 budget shortfall, and has outstanding bond debt totaling $399,588,428 (that's principal and interest as of 8/31/09, according to the Texas Bond Review Board).

From Talbert's story, emphasis mine: "Through an open records request, Texas Budget Source obtained documents outlining the cost, totaling $84,550.40. The invoices include $39,372.00 in registration fees; $28,950.00 for 67 airplane tickets on Southwest Airlines; and $12,818.40 for guest rooms at the Paris Las Vegas Hotel & Casino. One district employee is flying separately at her own expense."

Good gracious.  I need a breather after reading that, I don't know about you.

Apparently, the money for this is all federal money, which shouldn't make Waco taxpayers feel better about it if you ask me.  It's federal stimulus funds, after all, meaning it was never part of their original budgeting scheme, and the money won't always be there for future training trips of this nature.  Waco ISD officials seem to think this is a great opportunity for their teachers and administrators, and seem to think it wasn't worth sending their staff to any such opportunities in Texas.  Who is to say they won't try to justify such expenditures in the future, with Waco ISD property-taxpayer dollars instead of federal stimulus funds?

Honestly, if you have to ask what's wrong with all of this, you're clearly reading the wrong blog and I suggest you cozy up to the leftists in the blogosphere.  It is outrageous that a school district would choose to spend this kind of money - no matter if there is or is not a budget shortfall, and no matter whether there is outstanding debt.  It is flatly unconscionable to do this sort of thing in any economy.  It is irresponsible and it is extravagant.  Waco ISD's superintendent, Dr. Roland Hernandez, makes the excuse that "the district chose to attend the Las Vegas institute was because the district did not want to pull teachers out of classrooms for training in the fall." That's amazing to me - it's really less expensive to do it now, rather than stay closer to home and get substitutes?

Major kudos to Waco Tea Party President Toby Marie Walker for speaking out on this issue.  We need more people like her, in all our school districts, calling out the officials who decide they can do whatever they wish with our money.

Guest Post: Stop the silent siege of the PEC

STOP THE SILENT SEIGE OF THE PEC - Vote Rigsbee/Summy
-By Eric Stratton, 2008 PEC Board Candidate

The Pedernales Electric Co-op is under a SILENT SEIGE by the environmental extremists and special special interest groups and has been now for 2 years. They are determined to make PEC an example and to force "green power" down our throats for the sake of climate change at all costs. As David Foster, the Executive Director of Clean Water Action even stated recently in an email to a PEC member, "The PEC is as you know the largest electric cooperative in the nation, and what is [sic] does can set a healthy precedent for others co-ops. Energy policy is directly related to water quality and quantity, since conventional methods of producing electricity (coal, natural gas, nuclear) require vast amounts of water...And the burning of fossil fuels is a leading driver of climate change...." This group alone controls a block of 7,000 votes which has helped ensure liberal victories up and down the ballot in the PEC Board elections the past 2 years--and that's not counting "Smitty" Smith's Public Citizen and PEC4U!

The only way to stop the bloodletting, ensure a conservative victory, and prevent the left from holding 6 OF 7 SEATS ON THE BOARD is to come together and vote as a block ourselves! As an activist for the past 10 years in the electric cooperative community, and a former candidate for the PEC Board myself, I truly believe that the BEST candidates for the job and to do this are KEN RIGSBEE (DISTRICT 4) and JOE SUMMY (DISTRICT 5). They are no nonsense CONSERVATIVES who have been ACTIVE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE PEC for years. They are running on a platform of "Getting back to the Business of the Business," focusing on the affairs of running the cooperative as a business and back to basics co-op principles, putting the members first, while moving away from these special interest groups and their single-issue agendas.

So let's STOP THE SILENT SEIGE of the PEC and VOTE RIGSBEE AND SUMMY for PEC BOARD. If you lost or tossed out your ballot, please contact the administrator of our elections:

Election Services Company (ESC)
Mon.-Fri. 9am-4pm CDT
1-866-720-4357
pechelp@electionservices.com

The future of your co-op and your electric power bills depends on YOUR VOTE!

HOAs - Fiefdoms for aspiring Napoleons

I've always wanted to use the word "fiefdom" in a post title.  I just wish I were joking.

Homeowners associations in Texas are something many of us are familiar with (for a detailed history of HOAs in the United States, I recommend Wikipedia - yeah, I know, but there is good information there). You purchase a home, and when you're signing all your papers you also sign a Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&;R) for the HOA. On top of your mortgage and property tax payments, you pay dues to the HOA. The CC&R is a thick book of codes and restrictions - restrictions range from things like not having a backyard shed above certain dimensions, not having certain kinds of landscaping, having to get permission before installing a flag pole. My parents' HOA forbids barking dogs in backyards, basketball goals that aren't mobile and put away when not in use, and windchimes (I admit - that covenant is so thick I haven't read it all). They pay dues to this organization but get nothing in return - there is no community pool, community meeting facility, lawn service, or anything like that.

HOAs are not government entities, but corporate agreements, and act in the same fashion as de facto governments.  They are not subject to open records requests, their elections are done internally (if they happen at all) and there is currently nothing requiring them to notify citizens of board meetings, decision-making processes, etc.

HOAs are infamous in Texas for their abuse of homeowners. Just this past month, we've seen stories about skyrocketing HOA foreclosures (including this story about a Burleson woman who couldn't afford the HOA fees in the wake of job loss), this story about a returning Iraq War veteran having his home foreclosed on, stories about exorbitant fees and unpardonable collection practices, and last week this story out of Pflugerville about a man whose HOA is preventing him from running a legitimate business out of his home.

HOAs are already regulated by other elected government - they exist in the Texas Property Code, and the laws dictating everything down to attorneys fees in disputes are included.

HOAs were reformed in 1999 by the Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act and the legislature has taken up further reform as recently as the last session. State Rep. Burt Solomons (R-Carrollton) and State Senator Royce West (D-Dallas) were the primary persons involved in that. The HOAs, of course, declared war and made their legislation radioactive, such that it died before session ended through sheer inaction by the Senate. There was also a proposed constitutional amendment "permitting an encumbrance to be fixed on homestead property for an obligation to pay certain property owners' association fees and prohibiting the forced sale of the homestead to pay those fees unless authorized by the members of the association in accordance with general law" (link to bill).

Like all local issues that the legislature takes up (heck, MOST issues, local or not), in the end homeowners, taxpayers, and voters get completely shafted because of non-participation.  Leaders from HOAs (the people who run them, in other words) show up in force to fight against reform of any kind, and the people who are hurt by the CC&Rs, foreclosures, and other abuses have, you know, day jobs.  They are without a voice on these issues.

Like Dave Nalle over at the Republic of Dave (who brought the Pflugerville case to my attention), I abhor excessive government regulation, but I think this is something that needs to be dealt with at the legislative level.  Clearly, citizens are not being protected, and there are severe problems dealing with property rights in this issue.

I agree with the legislative priorities of this organization.

Also, if you need some levity related to HOAs, I highly recommend this.

The nasty truth about eugenics

Some day I would really love to know why it is so desperately important for historical biography to be whitewashed - this is an accusation I could throw at both sides of the political aisle, but today I aim it at the leftists of Act Blue and similar organizations.  Act Blue sent out an email this morning, expressing their indignation that it will be taught in Texas public schools that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.  If Margaret Sanger is going to get her due in history education, shouldn't students get to know her philosophy for what it really was?

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind." (quoted in Charles Valenza: "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 440)

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Sanger in Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12)

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." (Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others..." and "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." (Sanger, "A Plan For Peace", Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 10)

As for Woodrow Wilson, he too was no denouncer of eugenics, and went so far as to sign New Jersey's sterilization law.   Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the famous opinion upholding Virginia’s decision to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck:  "It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes."

Sterilization laws were popular during that period; you're talking about a generation that cut its teeth on social Darwinism, on the ideas of superior race.  Not all the bad guys post-Reconstruction wore white hoods and burned crosses.  Some of them were trying to impose sterilization and miscegenation laws "for the greater good."  And these are ideas that are still around today.

Eugenics was a progressive idea - it was never denounced by progressives during that era, and it would be very easy to conclude that it enjoys quiet support today.  Consider this 90% of women whose unborn children are diagnosed with Down's syndrome choose to have abortions.  In Great Britain, more children with Down's are aborted than are born. That is an absurdly high number, and the conclusion I draw from that is that it is somehow socially acceptable to abort a disabled baby.  In fact, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill actually said in 2008 that babies with Down's should be aborted

American history between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of World War II is such a shadowed, often misunderstood period.  We were not so unlike the rest of the world during that period as to be totally immune to the politics, policies, theories, and ideas that took hold and grew elsewhere.

ETA:  Burnt Orange Report's Karl-Thomas Musselman reposted the Act Blue email earlier, and took Margaret Sanger off of it.  But she was in the email, and here is the proof (click image for larger version):

Thoughts on history education

Boy, my post titles are boring these days. I feel like the blogging gurus are going to smack me down at any moment for not driving traffic to my blog with wit and vivacity. Let's be honest, though, and admit that such things are not always at the disposal of political bloggers.

The last couple of days have seen the Texas State Board of Education wrangling once more, hopefully for the final time this cycle, over social studies standards for Texas students. Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online chimed in about this over here. His post really amused me, especially this part: "In an essay about my education many years ago, I quipped that, for us kids in Ann Arbor, American history consisted of slavery, Japanese internment, and McCarthyism."

Why did that amuse me? Because for us kids in Oklahoma City, and later in Lewisville, Texas, it really was that way, too!  It's not like those aren't important things to study or learn about, but the point Nordlinger makes and that I'll echo here is that there is more to American history than just those things.

When I was in college, I had this crazy notion that I wanted to be a high school history teacher. The reason was that I felt like kids were getting the short end of the stick when it came to social studies in Texas. What did I take away from my history courses in high school, before I was an A.P. student? You guessed it. I guess it was slightly more well-rounded than Nordlinger's education - I distinctly recall a long beating over the head about robber barons and the evils of laissez-faire capitalism. I also recall huge gaps in American history. We spent the largest part of our classes revisiting Native American history (which I realized in college was itself butchered, because it had to be condensed), glossing over the American revolution and founding ("You'll study that in government"), skipping right to Abraham Lincoln and the start of the Civil War (never mind the reasoning or the eighty years of events that led up to it). Once we were done there, we did the robber baron thing, talked in great detail about how the newspapers started the Spanish-American War, glossed over WWI ("You'll study that in world history") and got right into the meat of the New Deal and WWII. Then, if we were lucky, the Great Society.

You know what we never learned in U.S. history, even when I did become an A.P. student? Anything at all about Vietnam. Anything at all about the presidents between Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, and then between Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Nothing that took place after 1963, except the Great Society and sometimes Watergate. I waited until college to take the meat courses - often ending up, still, with thin gruel instead.

Why are our history courses so thin? Well, here is some insight from the Texas Education Code - beginning with years 2007-2008, this was the minimum high school requirement of social studies for graduation (italics emphasis mine): "Social studies--two and one-half credits. The credits must consist of World History Studies (one credit) or World Geography Studies (one credit), United States History Studies Since Reconstruction (one credit), and United States Government (one-half credit)." This was the recommended requirement for graduation: "Social studies--three and one-half credits. The credits must consist of World History Studies (one credit), World Geography Studies (one credit), United States History Studies Since Reconstruction (one credit), and United States Government (one-half credit)."

Wow. U.S. history, since Reconstruction. Not before it. Only a half-credit of U.S. government (this hasn't changed in a very long time). I didn't copy it out, but the "distinguished achievement" course of study for high schoolers requires the exact same amount of social studies credits as the recommended route.  (It has been pointed out that U.S. history before 1865 is now taught at the 8th grade level - I still do not think this is sufficient..  I will also say that, since U.S. history before 1865 includes discussions about the foundations of U.S. government, it would make infinitely more sense to have an in-depth civics course partnered with or replacing that 8th grade U.S. history requirement, especially if U.S. government isn't going to be required for more than one semester at the end of someone's high school career).

So for one thing, kids in Texas aren't learning American history because it is almost not even required for them to do so. One credit of U.S. history, and only post-Reconstruction, for high schoolers? No wonder they don't understand the Founding!  The requirements are different for the lower grades, of course, but most of what you retain in school in history courses happens at the high school level, because before that all such things are lumped into generalized "social studies classes."

We are now at 150 years since Abraham Lincoln was elected, making it 145 since the start of Reconstruction. It might be, in fact it is, well past time that we consider breaking history courses into three sections or even four. Just to cover the basics. This was discussed by several of my professors in college. A semester spent trying to cram in everything of importance between 1865 and 2010 just means a lot of things will get missed, skipped over, or just plain ignored.  (I would really love, incidentally, to see a pass/fail rate for U.S. history core survey courses at Texas public universities - esp. if that data could be broken out for just those who attended Texas public high schools).

If there is one thing I learned as a history nerd stuck in a Texas public high school, it was that the library was my best friend. History is a passion for me. When I had questions, when I wanted to know more, I sought information - I still do this today. The majority of students will never do that - they are distracted, bored, or just plain interested and talented in other areas. History is dull - it is dust, ashes, bones, and fading paper, and on some level most people do not think it is worth teaching because it is so "inapplicable" to a dynamic job market. I disagree with all of that. I think history is enlightening, I think it is important, and I know it is applicable to every field - you need to know what came before in order to understand and change the future. Corny, sure. Less true because it's corny, no.

The debate over the social studies standards in Texas seems to me to miss out on a major point. Our history is varied, deep, and not at all clear-cut and simple. In order to be successful in teaching it, you have to whet the appetites of students just enough so that they seek out the missing pieces, the untaught battles and debates.

For another post - the real problem in social studies in Texas is that "Civics" is never taught and "Government" courses last just one semester.

The ticking time bomb that is ObamaCare

Courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.

SBOE debate - Saenz vs Miller

Wooboy.  Go Jonathan.

Guest post: The High Road to Nowhere by Andrew Kerr

It always seems that whenever I write a post (here) I find myself layin’ the smack-down (here) focusing on things people should be doing, but aren’t or are doing, but shouldn’t (here)… Overall, it’s an M.O. I’m happy to take on.

Today is no different…

Lately, I’ve been in contact with several folks interested in running for office or who are currently running that are relatively new to the process.  Shocker, I know! Especially since I work for an organization that looks to identify and train first-time candidates!  The majority of them are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, are sick and tired with the ‘politics as usual’ and the ‘establishment’ (and understandably so).   They are inspired to their candidacy by a desire see the commonsense conservative principles of limited government, individual liberty, and a free market championed from their city hall to the Whitehouse in Washington.  These are the best types of raw candidates: principled and informed.  On top of that, they want to reflect this dedication to the principles in their campaign (and I’m all for it!).

A serious divergence of opinion develops, however, when one of these starry-eyed neophytes (terms applied lovingly) starts telling me about their grand strategy to win their election by being the “anti-political” candidate, staking out what they believe to be a pure and moral high ground to win solely on the merits of their idealism.

I’m not saying that in theory they are wrong or that this type of political positioning is wrong… quite the contrary.  Ideally we would have candidates not heavily influenced by invasive special interests or those not so obsessed to play the game of appearances that they become an empty suit having no real commitment to the issues.  We absolutely need candidates of substance.  But we also need candidates that want to win.

When a potential candidate approaches me with their scheme to be “anti-political” by deemphasizing the value of a comprehensive GOTV precinct strategy, swearing off all large donations from wealthy individuals or PACs, or even refusing to leverage the plethora of name-id tools like signs/ads/mail to promote their campaign, I obviously question their tactics, but more importantly question their actual motivation and dedication to win.

I’ve actually had a conversation go something close to this:

Anti-political candidate:  “I really want to run a campaign of the people.  I’m not raising any money (especially from PACs!), won’t be doing the whole ‘yard sign thing’, and don’t really think that door-walking makes that much of a difference.  I think I will seriously influence the debate and resonate with voters by making this statement.  What do you think?”

Me: “So… you don’t want to win then.”

Mind you, up to this point, this candidate has been a rockstar on the issues and their type is sorely needed at all levels of government.  But come out and tell me you want to win an election by not executing a strategic campaign, and all that build-up goes flat and I’m left frustrated and rolling my eyes.

Let’s be straight:  Money is a very important aspect of any political campaign.  Simply refusing to accept it from large donors or PACs out of hand is a blunder.  I’m certainly not saying one should whore their campaign for influence.  But accepting large donations from individuals and PAC organizations that represent a natural alliance with one’s principles and beliefs is a highly strategic and beneficial decision.

At the very base level, what bothers me the most about this type of anti-political candidate is not their scruples regarding donations and not even their unwillingness to run a proper campaign, it’s their obsession with enthusiastically  sacrificing such solid, principled potential in order to “make a statement” which history has shown will fall on deaf ears.

Politics is policy and the winners make the policy. If we have a true desire to influence the direction of this nation then we must win.

Conservatives in America are in need of winners not whiners.

About the Author

Andrew is the Central Texas Field Representative for American Majority. While not promoting activism in the name of liberty and limited government, he is known to be found in the company of good friends, beers, books, and board games debating the finer points of various topics including: politics, religion, foreign policy, and Texas’ relative superiority to other states.

Connect with Andrew on Twitter: https://twitter.com/A_Kerr

Support Dell Children's today

A pause from the politics for a moment. I know a little girl who, when she was very small, needed heart and skull surgery. She was one of those kids to whom they don't give a great chance of survival. Maddie beat the odds, and she's still beating them, because of the wonderful doctors and nurses at the Dell Children's Medical Center in Austin. I'd like to share with you a message from my dear friend Jen Stratton, and her darling daughter the Miraculous Marauding Maddie:

So it's time for me to be on my soapbox. It won't take long, I promise. On Thursday and Friday, May 20-21, KVET 98.1 will sponsor the 11th Annual Radiothon benefitting Dell Children's Medical Center. On Thursday at 3 p.m., the Miraculous Marauding Maddie will be live on the air telling her story (ok, I'll be doing the talking. But she'll be there). Two of Maddie's three surgeries took place at Dell. Needless to say, if we didn't have this fabulous facility, we wouldn't have Maddie.

So here's the throwdown: I'm asking all of my Facebook friends to donate $10 for Dell Children's. My family will be making their donation on the air. Last year the Radiothon raised over $400,000. These kids need this hospital. Look at it this way: last year at this time Maddie couldn't stand up. Now she's running. Ten dollars isn't a lot when you think of what it can help.

Maddie thanks you in advance, and so do I.

You can donate online TODAY to help more kids like Maddie Stratton.

TPPF starts Center for 10th Amendment Studies

Today I had the privilege to attend a Texas Public Policy Event on health care, and a big announcement was made by the organization's president Brooke Rollins.  TPPF is opening another research center - this one on 10th Amendment studies.  Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister, and former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, are heading it up.

From the press release:

“The Center for Tenth Amendment Studies is arguably the most important project we have undertaken,” [TPPF President Brooke] Rollins said.  “Texas has shown that it can meet the needs of its citizens without the support or interference of the federal government. Now it is time to address the more fundamental question of how we can protect our freedoms and roll back the encroachments of an increasingly voracious national government.”

You can read the full TPPF press release, and catch a great Texas Policy Cast with Ted Cruz discussing the 10th Amendment.

Can't quit making trouble

The take-no-prisoners bloggers at Disrupt the Narrative have a post up right now about the controversy surrounding the Republican Party of Texas' refusal to let failed gubernatorial primary candidate Debra Medina take center stage in the convention's exhibition hall in June.

Drama, drama, drama.

I have to say, while the basic premise of an organization being denied booth space is debatable, the fact is that the state party has denied booth space to an organization before because of litigation - anyone remember the Log Cabin Republicans?  There may not be an official policy, but there is precedent.

And what really gets me here is the apparent co-opting of the "tea party movement."  I've ranted before about how the tea party is not monolithic, how it has no centralized leadership and refuses to have any, and on those grounds alone, I resent whenever candidates or individuals attempt to use the generic "tea party movement" as an excuse for anything.  Couple of facts here - 1) Debra Medina was around long before the "tea party" and it's really difficult to say that the tea party movement was behind her in March when Governor Perry won using tea party rhetoric (I can't prove it yet because I'm not a numbers person, but I know in my gut - if the tea party movement is as big as it appears, they split their vote in the Republican primary in Texas).  And 2) isn't it just as frustrating to We Texans members, many of whom are identified, voting Republicans as of March 2, as it would be to a non-organization like the tea party movement?

All of that being said - I'm not sure where I fall yet on the booth space itself.  I can certainly understand it from a party perspective.  At the same time, I definitely understand it from the organization's standpoint.  I also think the guys at Disrupt the Narrative bring up good points.  Look, I understand the issues that were at stake in the campaign, and I'm with We Texans on a lot of it.  I am not okay, though, with unnecessary infighting that gets displayed for all the world to see like this.  We cannot rely on anti-Obama sentiment to carry elections in November.  I get that We Texans is not necessarily pro-Republican - but certainly we can ALL agree that the ACTUAL fight we need to be armed for is the one coming in November, and that the ACTUAL enemy will be the Obama Democrat machine?

As I said.  Drama, drama, drama.

SBOE hearing taking place now

Because of conflicts here at the office, I was unable to get down to the State Board of Education hearing today.  I'm following what's happening on Jonathan Saenz' blog (he's liveblogging here).

You can watch the proceedings live online - click here, and the file you want is "May 19" at the bottom.

This will not end well

KVUE aired this story during their 10pm broadcast last night.  I think it is very compelling - Brewster County is the largest county in Texas, and there are only eight deputies and one sheriff protecting it.  Crime is skyrocketing, and there is nothing being done to help the sheriff.  Who says Texas doesn't need an Arizona-style law?  Who says we don't need more border protection?

Watch this.

Kelly Shackelford on SBOE social studies

I would get an iPhone, or an Android, for this

Texas Watchdog points to the niftiest iPhone app and use I've seen yet (and yes, that includes the Texas Government Code app that I adore).

Badass.

Now this has me thinking that a really cool app would be a GPS-based app that, when you drove into a county or city, you could automatically pull up contact information for the local government offices, with information on debt and spending.  I know, I'm dreaming.

More SB 1070 fun and fireworks

So last week, the moronic Austin City Council voted unanimously to boycott the state of Arizona.  I detailed just how moronic they were in this post.  Now, the Dallas City Council may follow Austin's footsteps.  Newsflash, Dallas - weird is not a good look for you.  Hudspeth County went in the other direction - that border county near El Paso thinks the AZ law is fine and dandy.  The Hood County Republican Party issued a statement boycotting the city of Austin over the city's resolution, and so did the Burleson Tea Party.

Seattle is also planning to boycott Arizona - but just like Austin, this won't affect their revenue-generating red light camera contract.  Convenient.

Frito-Lay is being urged to stop supporting Arizona sporting events.

There is going to be a pro-Arizona rally in Tempe on May 29.  More information about Stand with Arizona here.

She didn't win, but Miss Oklahoma supports Arizona.

You can support Arizona's economy when you join the BUYcott.  You can also sign a petition supporting Arizona here.

Would you like to be better informed that Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary Janet Napolitano (and this guy from the State Department)?  Read SD 1070 for yourself - it's relatively short at 10 pages.

How we can do something about the Austin City Council now

Austin City Council terms aren't up until next year.  That's a long time, so I thought it would be helpful if we knew how the power of recall worked in Austin.


Austin City Charter: Article IV, § 7. POWER OF RECALL.
The people of the city reserve the power to recall any member of the council and may exercise such power by filing with the city clerk a petition, signed by qualified voters of the city equal in number to at least ten (10) percent of the qualified voters of the city, demanding the removal of a councilmember.

Candidate & Activist Training - Saturday

Conservatives, listen up!  American Majority is hosting a training this Saturday - if you haven't been to one of these trainings, trust me, you should take advantage of this.

From their website:

American Majority Texas is hosting a Candidate Training on Saturday, May 22 at 4315 Guadalupe St, Austin, TX (3^rd Floor). The training will run from 10:00 am to 4:30 pm with registration beginning at 9:30 am.  Pre-registration is strongly encouraged!

Regardless of campaign experience, American Majority’s Candidate Training Program makes running for office easier! American Majority Candidate Training Seminars are designed specifically to educate candidates on every level how to run effective and victorious campaigns and prepare them to become successful elected officials.

The Candidate Training Program includes:

• Lectures* from campaign veterans, including:
  • “Your Campaign Plan to Win: Planning for the Time, People and Money to Win.”
  • “Dollars and Sense: Fundraising for What You Need, Not What You Can Get.”
  • “New Media Engagement: The New Ways to Talk to Voters and Engage Supporters.”
  • “Grassroots Action: How Ordinary People can get Extraordinary Results.”

• Personalized communications training.
• Interaction with individuals thoroughly involved with the issues confronting your state.
• The opportunity to network with other liberty-minded candidates.
• A complimentary resource guidebook full of material designed to further assist candidates.

Upon completion of this political training seminar, candidates will receive continuing education materials, access to podcasts and other presentations, communications curriculum, and suggestions to help them utilize think-tank resources.

The cost is $50 per candidate/first attendee in advance or $75 at the door and $25 for each additional attendee (spouse, campaign staff, campaign volunteers, etc.) or $40 at the door.  Space is limited.

One more to go - SBOE meeting next Wednesday

I'm passing on a message from Austinite conservative activist Heather Liggett, about next week's meeting of the State Board of Education:

Today May 14th and Monday May 17th you can register to testify before the State Board of Education regarding the history standards. 

First a HUGE thank you to all involved in the previous State Board of Education hearings!  With your support the SBOE was able to approve solid standards that are balanced, encompass the heritage of our great nation and will instill a sense of American exceptionalism along with Texas pride in our children, but now WE NEED THE STANDARDS TO BE PASSED ON MAY 21, 2010!    What happens in Texas curriculum does not stay in Texas so we are asking for help from all our fellow Tea Party/912 members!


A few of the items included in the standards are below. A more complete list can be found here, and the social studies standards can be read here (scroll down to the bottom section).

• American exceptionalism was added to the standards
• Milton Friedman and The “Navajo Wind-talkers” were added to the standards
• Christmas, Columbus Day, Veteran’s Day and The Liberty Bell all remain in the standards
• Many Tejano Leaders were added to the standards including Lorenzo de Zavala and Jose Antonio Navarro and Cesar Chavez remains in the standards.
• Groups added include LULAC and The Heritage Foundation.     

May 19, 2010 will be the last and final day for testimony and we are calling on you once more to help us complete the task and PASS THE STANDARDS!  Leftist educrats have launched a campaign against the SBOE and our right to have a voice in the education of Texas students.  The liberals are calling upon only “those with credentials” to have a voice in the education hearings and liberal educrats do NOT include parents or taxpayers in the “credential category”.

How can you help?  There are three ways:

1.       Sign the petition to support the current social studies standards in May here    http://austinreteaparty.com/Signthepetition.aspx

2.       Register to testify before the SBOE on May 19^th in support of the currently proposed standards and ask for them to be passed in May.  The SBOE will hear testimony beginning at 9am.  Instructions to register can be found here and your viewpoint should be “other”. 

3.       Send a written response to the SBOE in support of the proposed standards and ask for them to be passed in May. Send emails to sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us .  

Again the approved standards can be read here.

The changes and additions the board members have made over the last several months illustrate the important role we can and should have in the education of Texas students.   Thank you all for your support in Taking Back Our Schools!

Heather Liggett - Stay @ home mom of two in Texas Public Schools

Austin City Council demonstrates ignorance on immigration problems

The city council unanimously passed their moronic resolution boycotting the state of Arizona today.  The text of the resolution is not yet available online (funny how that works), but here are some of the choice things said by our illustrious elected councilmen on the matter, with commentary.

"It sends a message to Arizona - the state - not people in, but the state government that we choose not to do business with you." - Mike Martinez, Mayor Pro Tem, on the Jeff Ward Show this afternoon.  - Right, because there's a difference, when Arizonans support the law. 

From KXAN: "[Jeff Ward] asked why doesn't the city pass a resolution or begin discussions about the city council's feelings about immigration here.  Martinez quickly replied, "I guarantee you we will."  - We'll be waiting, Councilman.  But not with bated breath.

Again from KXAN, this time from Councilman Bill Spelman:  "I'm concerned that if they go to Arizona, as far as we know, we can't tell for sure that they'll be subjected to harassment and even the potential for false arrest." -  Heather MacDonald debunks this asinine statement here in a post responding to a similar asinine statement from a Los Angeles councilman:  "The only way the police would have a chance to discover that he is an illegal alien is if he has given them lawful grounds to stop him, such as running a red light, driving drunk, or acting suspiciously enough to suggest imminent law-breaking — and then has given them further ground to suspect that he is in the country illegally, such as possessing no valid identification."


Evidence the Austin budget should be audited - and councilmembers compelled to explain themselves:  [Bill]Spelman said the city had 45 trips to Arizona last year, in which they spent about $50,000. And while he said that is not a lot of money (no, Councilman Spelman, $50,000 on trips to Arizona is an OBSCENE amount of money), Spelman also said it's $50,000 they could be spending someplace else (um, no, not with the debt load the city has currently). (source)

Tonight during the 10pm KXAN news, reporter Erin Cargile stated that the city has no plans to cancel contracts with the AZ-based company that provides the red-light cameras the city uses.  OF COURSE NOT - that would be taking their outrage too far!

From KVUE, Mayor Pro-Tem Martinez again: “This is not something that we believe is right for Texas or any part of the country."  Okay, so, enforcing existing immigration laws and doing something to stop the flow of drugs and violence into the country is a bad idea.  It's a good thing Austin isn't sitting on the border, then.  Meanwhile, the commissioners court in Hudspeth County (on the border, one county east of El Paso) thinks the Arizona law is EXACTLY what is right for Texas and other parts of the country.


From the Statesman, Councilman Bill Spelman: “We’re not talking about a dramatic shift in the city’s policies."  Nope, just addressing the ridiculous amount of money spent on travel.  Martinez told KEYE: "The type of education and work experience they can obtain in a conference in Arizona can be easily obtainined in another state."  Yes, like TEXAS.


From KEYE, Mayor Lee Leffingwell and Martinez:   "...said they wanted to boycott travel because they were worried about the safety of their employees in Arizona."  Moronic, as MacDonald pointed out.  "They would make a much better case against the law by actually traveling to Arizona and demonstrating to the world their mistreatment at the hands of the police. Until then, their unhinged denunciations of the law reveal only one thing: They are terrified that it will work."


Do you really need more evidence that we need stronger enforcement of our immigration laws in the United States?  Do you need more convincing that the states are going to have to take matters into their own hands if the federal government continues to fail to uphold this basic duty, which it has done in both Republican and Democratic administrations?  The Austin City Council, of all entities, should be more aware of the problem than it currently appears to be.  

Shut up already. Seriously.

A couple of things set me off today.

First, the personal attacks on Elena Kagan.  I don't support her appointment to the Supreme Court for long and varied reasons - but not on the grounds of her sexuality, or her looks.  I'm extremely ticked off at the people who think Facebook statuses making cracks about her are cute or funny.  They aren't.

A friend of mine pointed out, it seems like women in public office can't do anything right.  Sarah Palin, Elena Kagan, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton are derided equally on that score.  Men very rarely deal with the same issue, but it's no less absurd when they do.

The second thing that really annoyed me today was the reaction by some on the right for the revelation that former First Lady Laura Bush is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.  I actually saw comments from people like "her husband oughta bring her back in line" and comments questioning her sexuality (and some of the comments were from other women!).  This is more outrageous in my opinion than the Kagan slurs - since when is a woman, any woman, not allowed to voice her opinion?  Especially when her opinion runs contrary to her husband's?  The reaction is horrifying.

I'm frustrated and saddened tonight.  All these things do is contribute to a stereotype, and discourage legitimate debate on issues.  I don't want you to agree with Elena Kagan, or even with Laura Bush - but I really wish you would respect them as individuals.

Oh, and while I'm calling out morons?  The superintendent over Dist. 113 in Illinois, who refuses to let a girls' basketball team travel to Arizona; the Austin City Council (permanently on the list - but Councilman Bill Spelman gets special recognition for saying that Austin could just spend $50,000 elsewhere instead of on trips to AZ - how about cutting that from the budget to begin with, just because $50,000 on travel in a year is insanity); Texas Republicans who are considering legalizing gambling to make up holes in next year's budget; Attorney General Eric Holder, on general grounds.

There is a lot of FAIL tonight.

Travis County Republicans speak out against City Council boycott proposal

From the press release issued by the Travis County Republican Party:

At their meeting on Thursday the Austin City Council is set to consider a boycott of the entire state of Arizona over the recent passage of the Immigration; Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Bill (SB1070) which mandates “cooperative enforcement” of federal immigration laws by Arizona law enforcement when the federal government fails to enforce those laws.

At a time when the city faces a $28 million budget shortfall and has a public transportation system which is in shambles, members of the city council have decided that making a symbolic statement against Arizona is a more important use of their time than cutting spending or dealing with transportation problems which impact so many of our citizens.

There is a special irony in their desire to boycott companies from Arizona, considering that the city’s own accountants, Deloitte and Touche are a division of Deloitte LLP which is an Arizona based company, a company which also supplies many of the high-paid consultants the city government relies on to provide justifications for decisions like this one which they make on the basis of whim and ideology rather than common sense and the best interests of the people. 

It’s hard to imagine the city functioning without accountants and consultants, though such a change in policy might save the taxpayers a great deal of money.

If the city actually follows through on this proposal from Mayor Lee Leffingwell, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez and council member Bill Spelman, it would include cutting off ties with Arizona businesses and prohibiting travel by city employees to Arizona because of what Martinez calls an “uncertain and potentially hostile environment.”

Illegal immigrants, coyotes and drug dealers have made the border into a war zone where “drug trains” accompanied by paramilitary forces in pick-up trucks and armed with machineguns accompany drugs and illegals over the border and kill anyone who gets in their way, including illegals who refuse to act as human shields.

In a recent press release Mike Martinez talked about the city’s “vehement opposition to racial discrimination in any form." TCRP Communications Director Dave Nalle noted that "Racial discrimination is a non-issue, since racial profiling is explicitly prohibited in the new Arizona law. Perhaps Martinez should be more concerned about the cost in lives and safety to American citizens and Mexican migrants on a border where lawlessness rules and violence is out of control."

The Arizona legislature passed this law to protect the people of their state. It is unfortunate Austin’s leaders, so far removed from any real danger, think wasting time condemning Arizona is more important than fulfilling their own responsibilities to the people they are supposed to represent.

What's wrong with the Patrick Rose fundraiser

Despite recent claims to the contrary, HD 45 erstwhile Democratic representative is no friend to Texas taxpayers or Texas business.  The Right Side of Austin did some great digging on Rep. Rose, which you can find here (and yes, it's true - Speaker Straus, a Republican from San Antonio, is lending his name and presence to a fundraiser for Rose tonight in Driftwood.  Say it with me people:  SIGH).

Rose has consistently rated low from Young Conservatives of Texas during his tenure in the House.  His composite score is a 36 - this last session, he dropped to 29 from 46 in the previous session.  Under leadership not disposed to support a conservative agenda, Rose's very true colors (read: true blue) show right on through his shiny veneer.  He got a 21 his first session (the 78th, in 2003) and a 48 in the 79th.  Rose likes to say he's "independent," but he is a fairly typical liberal Democrat, voting for hate crimes legislation (HB 824, 2nd reading, 81st session), government subsidies (HB 873, final passage, 81st session), against school vouchers (SB 1, Amendment 113, 81st session), for the expansion of welfare programs (HB 2962, final passage, 81st session), and for stripping parents of their rights and handing them over to Child Protective Services (SB 1440, 81st session).  And that's really just the tip of the iceberg, just how Rose votes, not the legislation he writes.  Legislation to give rulemaking authority to an unelected state agency on the execution of welfare programs, for instance.  Legislation designed to strip the State Board of Education of any authority in the state (thanks for the reminder, Jonathan). 

Rep. Rose likes to say he's pro-business, and indeed the speaker claims that he's helping Rose because of his pro-business stances.  But the Texas Association of Business gave Rose a 64% rating for last session, and a 61% cumulative rating.  Rose voted for pre-kindergarten subsidies and unfunded mandates,  Obamacare-style health insurance mandates, against drug testing requirements for unemployment benefits, and for unreasonable mandates on businesses.  There is no way, based on Rose's voting record, that he could be considered consistently pro-business.  Given that he also voted for the business margins tax in 2006, and brags about how he did so (the margins tax was supposed to help give property tax relief - it did not, and conservatives recognize the failure of that legislation), I think his posturing as a "pro-taxpayer, pro-business" independent is asinine.


Why is Republican Speaker Straus appearing at a fundraiser for proven liberal Democrat Patrick Rose?  The complicated answer has to do with speaker politics.  Straus is in the position he holds today because of Democratic support - if you doubt that, take another look at the committee appointments, especially the chairmanships, from the 81st session.  Some of the arguments in defense of this fundraiser have been "he's also doing this for Republicans" (true - he's doing one for Lubbock Republican John Frullo in Austin), "Craddick supported Rose" (true again - Rose was a well-known "Craddick D" until the ship began to sink), and that he's "speaker of the whole House."

Couple of problems here.  One, if he is indeed "speaker of the whole House," the interests of the people of Texas would be better served if he did not do fundraisers or lend his name to any campaigns for Texas House members, incumbent or challenger, Republican or Democrat.  Straus was elected speaker on a wave of "no more politics as usual" sympathy and promised to end the game-playing.  Well, some of us knew better, but it is disheartening to see that the game played during committee appointments extended to the general election.  Two, using Craddick's activities, or Pete Laney's, or whomever's, as a justification for his actions now is further evidence that Straus is just playing "politics as usual" and hasn't broken the mold at all.

Straus supporting Rose when there is a Republican challenger on the ballot smacks of rank political gaming.  There's no good excuse to do so, when Straus as a Republican does have his own constituents and the party to answer to.  Rose is against everything conservative and Republican - he's even publicly endorsed Bill White for governor, who, if elected, would undermine Straus', and the Republican, agenda (and likely lead to Straus' ousting in favor of a Democrat, if the balance in the House was upset enough).  Just this week, Straus appeared at a House Appropriations hearing and told the members there that he wants a balanced budget with no tax increases.  That's really excellent news - but I do guarantee that Patrick Rose and his ilk will not help the House pass that kind of budget in the 82nd Legislature.

The grassroots are pretty steamed, and this is gaining traction as the days go on and more people find out about the Rose fundraiser.  Typically, they aren't given credit for understanding "speaker politics."  But, they know enough to get that a speaker is elected by House members, who are elected by the people.  Watch this issue come up in elections where it might not have before.

CBO: ObamaCare to cost $115 billion more

Thanks to Congressman Pete Olson for this link via Facebook:  A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis shows that President Obama’s new health care law will cost atleast $115 billion more than originally estimated, nearly wiping out the purported deficit reduction in the law. Click here for more.

Todd Staples, Michael McCaul in Austin this Saturday

The Travis County Republican Party is hosting this year's "Reagan Roundup" fundraiser at the TDS Exotic Game Ranch in Creedmoor this Saturday at 11:30am. 

Special guests include all the Travis County Republican candidates for office, special guest speaker Ag Commissioner Todd Staples, remarks from Congressman Michael McCaul, and MC Sgt. Sam Cox (KLBJ 590 AM radio personality).

Want to come?  There are still tickets available!  You can purchase tickets online here:  https://secure.piryx.com/donate/0qnImHlK/travisgop/reaganroundup .  Tickets are $50 for individual adults, $100 for couples, and you can purchase a table of eight seats for $350.

Boil Water Notice for private well owners in South Austin

From the city of Austin, via email this afternoon:


Austin Water officials are advising residents living in the area between Mopac and Manchaca Road and the Shady Hollow community and Barton Springs Road who use private wells for drinking water to boil their water before consumption. This precaution is being issued as a result of a wastewater spill near Lacrosse Avenue and South Mopac.

Residents with private wells should boil water until they get it tested for acceptable results. How long this is likely to take will vary depending on how close their wells are to the spill. It may take several days for the sewage to clear out of the aquifer, and it may not have reached all the wells yet.

Residential private well owners who live the affected area can have samples of their well water to be tested by the Austin Water’s Water Quality Lab. For more information, please call 972-1450.

People should not swim downstream of Barton Springs for now. However, this spill will not have an affect on Barton Creek upstream of Barton Springs.

Austin Water crews discovered a vandalized wastewater line Sunday that caused a wastewater spill of approximately 250,000 gallons. Crews have repaired the line and no additional sewage has been released.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Mayfield, Office 972-0151, cell-585-0474; Jason Hill, Office 972-0145, cell 739-9792

Elena Kagan - Obama's pick to replace Stevens

One thing I've learned about Obama - nothing about his political moves can be kept secret or quiet for long.  It's already out that he has chosen Elena Kagan, the current U.S. Solicitor General, to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.  The formal announcement will happen tomorrow. 

A post on process and substance can be found here and it will tell you a lot of what to expect from this point.  SCOTUS Blog also has a post on Kagan's history - and Ed Whelan at National Review has a response (incidentally, you should be reading Bench Memos regularly if you're interested in judicial issues).  Michelle Malkin reminds readers that Kagan was on the shortlist for the spot that ultimately went to Sonia Sotomayor - and, I agree, we need to be as wary of Kagan now as we were back then.  Paul Campos at The New Republic has an interesting post up about what we don't know about Kagan (and has another post up at Lawyers, Guns, and Money that makes the progressive case against Kagan).

I missed a lot of news - especially regarding Saturday's elections - due to being out of town for family commitments all last week.  I'll be playing catch up over the next several days!