Despite an outpouring of protest from the very grassroots that just weeks ago delivered the biggest Republican advantage since Reconstruction, the word is that Joe Straus is still likely to continue his reign as Speaker.

Sources in Austin are giving him a 75% chance of retaining his seat of power, although it is possible there will be an exodus of supporters next week when the time limit for fund-raising expires in advance of the next session.  The fact is Straus is popular with the lobbyists (which should tell you something) and many legislators may be remaining on his side until the last check is able to be written on December 11.  My advice?  December 12th be burning up the phone lines!

Then there are those like Stafani Carter, who is claiming it is simply a matter of honor that she stand by her pledge to support Straus; a pledge made all the way back at the primaries and concealed from the grassroots that helped put her in office.  That anyone should believe it dishonorable to withdraw support from Straus in spite of the outcry of their constituents is ironic considering Straus himself was still on a pledge card supporting his own predecessor the day before taking his place.

In East Texas, two of the incoming Freshmen, Representatives-Elect James White (R-Hillister) and Erwin Cain (R-Como) issued a joint Press Release detailing their determination to support Paxton based on the overwhelming call for a new direction coming from their constituents.

The ‘Old Guard’ in Austin is supposedly sneering that these Freshmen are “caving to pressure” and I questioned White about this specific charge.  The Tea Party Republican, who won 58-42% unseating a 13-year incumbent (a popular Democrat with strong favorables among voters from both parties) replied, “It’s caving to pressure when an elected representative does what some lobbyist wants in spite of his people; this is not caving to pressure, this is me representing my District.”

Well said.

While not everyone is persuadable, the following is a list of either ‘soft’ supporters of Straus or those who have made no pledge at all.  These are considered prime targets for movement and the list has already paid off.  Last week Representative Van Taylor was on it, now he is committed to supporting Ken Paxton.

Stefani Carter

member elect of Dallas (972) 385-3313

Charles Schwertner

member elect of Georgetown (512) 863-4563

John Frullo

member elect of Lubbock 806-853-8275

Larry Gonzales

member elect of Round Rock 512-244-1280

Sarah Davis

member elect of Houston 713-320-2077

Linda Harper-Brown

incumbent of Irving (972) 717-2871

Kelly Hancock

(HD-91): (512) 463-0599, (817) 590-9280

Larry Taylor

(HD-24): (512) 463-0729, (281) 338-0924

Jerry Madden

(HD-67):  (512) 463-0544, (972) 424-2235

Barbara Nash

(HD 93^rd) bnash1@aol.com barbara@barbaranashfortexas.com

Rob Orr

(capital 512-463-0538)(capital fax 512-463-0897) (district 817-295-5158)(district fax 817-295-5319)

Mark Shelton

(capital 521-463-0608)

(capital fax 512-463-8342)

(district 817-921-6554)

George Lavender Texarkana, TX
(903) 838-7348
(870) 773-4631

Lance Gooden

member elect of Terrell

(903) 386-1276 campaign@lancegooden.com

Marva Beck

member elect of District 57 South Waco

( 903 )536-2290

Jason Isaac

East of Austin (512) 850-5524

Walter T “Four” Price (Not a Joke)

87th District in west Texas (806) 322-1440

Dan Huberty

Member elect of District 127 Houston (713)526-3399

Continue Reading

Weigh in on the big issues!  All week you hear from us, now we want to hear from you.  Below are links to pieces from around the web on the week’s top controversies covering both sides of the debate.  See what is at stake and tell us where you stand.

How do we deal with Korea?  ‘Turn up the heat‘ or ‘Get out of the kitchen?’

Should we sacrifice dignity for security?  ‘Give Me Liberty‘ or ‘Give Me a Pat-Down?’

Will a Constitutional Convention benefit the states?  ‘Time for a Change‘ or ‘Leave Well Enough Alone?’

Is Wikileaks treasonous?  ‘Hang ‘em High‘ or ‘Hold the Hyperbole?’

Be sure to sound off below, and feel free to disagree but refrain from being disagreeable!

Want to contribute a feature on your opinion?  Send your submission of 800 words or less to jessica@thefoundersalliance.org.

Continue Reading

There has been a huge uproar (again) about Wikileaks releasing another couple hundred thousand secret cables to the public and I have to say I am not at all impressed. Last time the big reveal involved some genuinely shocking footage of the killing of two members of the Reuters News Service by U.S. Apache gunners; an event covered up and misrepresented by military officials. It was not the best face we have seen of our generally honorable young soldiers and it brought home the realities of war in a way uncomfortable for many.

In contrast, the latest leak seems to reveal that our diplomats are asked to spy as if that surprises anyone, and Gadaffi has a sexy blonde on his arm everywhere he goes. Also that Saudi Arabia is the number one sponsor of terrorism but they are also the ones telling us to bomb Iran. Really pretty disappointing if you were waiting to hear about how the Illuminati run the world. A lot is being made of how this lowers our standing in the world and it is true that we look like snarky rubes. We have been left in the position of Harriet the Spy, who gathers her criticisms and sneering remarks on her peers into a notebook. When the notebook is discovered and those peers read what she has said of them in her most unguarded moments, well, it’s pretty ugly. But how much of what was leaked actually puts people in danger and how is that determined?

So far I have not heard of anything like troop movements or secret weapons details being in these cables. I would think that if such things were present they would be at the top of the news wire; and while I don’t condone stealing or profiting from theft, I do want to point out that Julian Assange offered to allow the State Department to ‘scrub’ the cables of information that would endanger lives. The offer was refused so it almost seems the State Department has little to no regard for the lives they say are now at risk.  If it was treasonous for the leak to release the documents, how much more treasonous is it for our government officials to refuse to remove the information that only they can be certain is dangerous? Maybe Mike Huckabee, who has called for execution of the leak should also call for execution of Hilary Clinton and Howard Koh and their cohorts who abdicated the duty of protecting innocents placed in danger by the release, even though the opportunity to do so was offered.

Calling for someone’s execution because he, in Huckabee’s own words, “has put lives at risk,” seems to me a fairly low standard for killing citizens especially when the lives could have been saved from this risk by the simple cooperation of Obama’s State Department.   If we desire small government, if we treasure our liberty we must be cautious of making such harsh declarations or condoning them in our leaders.

Coincidentally, while Governor Huckabee is justifying execution for putting lives at risk, the ladies of “The View” are calling those who planned to opt of the naked scanners, “Terrorists.”  Why?  They are putting lives at risk by tying up security.  Even conservative darling Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the show’s token Republican, gets in on the action, condemning the move to protest these obscene and worthless invasions of our person.  Should they too be executed?  Why not?  I don’t equate one (releasing secret files) with the other (objecting to security scanning) but it isn’t important what I think, what is important is what the powers that be think; maybe not today, but what about in a decade?

It is not about defending what Assange did, it is about not letting ourselves be manipulated into supporting yet another sacrifice of liberty because next time it may not be the sleazy founder of Wikileaks or some Private First Class, it may be you.  The Department of Homeland Security has already labeled anyone who isn’t a card-carrying Obama-bot a “Domestic Terrorist,” and the administration is fighting against the ACLU in Federal Court; defending its stated right to assassinate even U.S. Citizens, anywhere in the world, if they feel the citizen poses a threat to the U.S.  Surely hell has frozen over when I find myself on the side of the ACLU!  Not even remotely concerned that this lunatic is in the Executive branch, Senators McCain, Lieberman and Brown last year co-sponsored a bill that would allow the indefinite incarceration of “enemy belligerents” including U.S. Citizens with simply a stroke of an executive pen.  So much for checks and balances!  The legislation gives no clear definition of “enemy belligerent” but one must assume the standards to be one are lower than the previously popularized “enemy combatant.”  How belligerent must one be to be incarcerated with no trial, no charges, no right to even appear before a judge?  This frightens me as it should you.  I feel fairly belligerent quite often these days, and more and more I get the sense that when Washington talks about protecting the U.S. what they really mean is protecting their power.

Government – all government regardless of party – is, by reason of man’s fallen nature, like a mean dog on a chain.  You cannot expect this dog to leave any slack whatsoever.  It will struggle at the utmost length of this restraint, to go as far as possible so never, never should we expect that power assumed will be put to only the stated purpose of the moment.  Any legislation written or precedent set should be examined with the question, “What is the absolute most heinous lengths this could be taken to justify?”  Then assume it will go even further.  If your worst imaginings are not acceptable then neither is the law or precedent.  Reject it no matter how good it sounds in the present circumstances.

Suppose I am way wrong.  Suppose every man in government today is an angel with only our best interests at heart.  That does not change for one minute the fact that we are seeing a Hitleresque consolidation of power along with a defaming of those who object to that power.  Our nation has primed itself for absolute tyranny.  As Madison warned:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body… The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

Let me stress again that I am not defending the actions of Julian Assange or the PFC who may have supplied him the cables; but we are all going to be in a world of hurt if the powers that be manage to convince the masses that there are only two camps remaining: the docile sheep or the terrorists worthy of execution.

Continue Reading

Can you imagine if the United Nations decided to send its ‘blue helmets’ into the U.S. to the home of a citizen and arrest them

Continue Reading

The internet is abuzz with demands that the Congress ban earmarks as a portion of cutting our deficit.  Honestly I am hardly paying attention to who has and has not signed on to support such a measure.  This is John McCain’s claim to fame, that he has never earmarked any money.  But what exactly is an earmark and what will it mean to ban them?

An earmark is an allocation of federal money to a specified project.  So rather than $18 billion being sent to the state, $18 billion is sent to the state with strings attached.  So what will happen if earmarks are banned?  Will you receive a refund check from the federal government for the portion of taxes they collected that would have gone to save the naked mole rat if only earmarks for that sort of thing hadn’t been banned?  Exactly.

So what will happen to that money that isn’t being earmarked?  It will still get paid out, the only difference is the corruption, horse-trading, and pocket greasing will be closer to home as your state and county officials fight over whether to name a bridge after themselves or a Civic Center.  Our deficit will not be one dollar less and you will not be one penny richer.  The only difference is a bunch of Congressmen will ride the “I voted to ban earmarks” gravy train to re-election for about a hundred more terms.  How about some real reform fellows?

How about abolishing the IRS and replacing it with… nothing!?  The percentage of our labor stolen from us at the point of government’s gun is but a fraction of the total amount of money Congress spends or promises, anyway.  They print or borrow the rest no matter how much it amounts to.  Abolish the immoral, confiscatory, violence against private property that is the income tax and then let Congress fight about where they need to cut spending.  How about some real relief for the people of the nation first and then Congress can figure out how to make it work, just like when you lose your job you have to figure out how to survive.

No, what we’re supposed to accept is if we work really, really hard and call and write, we may win some token ‘victory’ which is supposed to somehow trickle down to us in the form of lower government spending.  Sure, I believe that will happen.  Does the Senator from Arizona have any oceanfront property he would like to sell me while we’re at it?

If we expect any real change in the way Washington does business we need to strip them of two immoral powers: the power to counterfeit money and the power to directly tax the people.  Our Founders knew a paper currency was devastating to the wealth of the people and was useful for only one purpose: the unfettered expansion of government power.  This is why they specifically named gold or silver coinage as the only Constitutionally acceptable currency to be produced by the government.  They also recognized that a direct tax was enslavement and this is why imposts and tariffs were the acceptable methods of revenue enhancement prior to the 16^th Amendment.

Abolish the IRS, shut down the Federal Reserve and sell off their gold (back to the citizens from whom it was stolen), repeal the 16^th Amendment, and return the duty of collecting revenue into the hands of state and local officials who are at least closer and somewhat more accountable to the people.  Task a state-level council with determining what of the federally proposed budget is actually Constitutional and pay proportionately.

This is the time for real movement, genuine change.  Demand it.  If they ban earmarks, great, but don’t be fooled into settling for some shiny bauble meant to distract you from the objective.

Continue Reading