Posts Tagged ‘Texas’

Summary of this week’s report:

The 2012 Texas primary is only a few weeks away and voting for the right candidates is more essential than it’s ever been. The stakes
are huge at both the state and national levels. It’s vital that we nominate true conservatives to represent us on the ballot in
November. Here are my thoughts on the primary, along with my
personal endorsements.


Read Full Post »

Oh, you HAVE to be kidding me!

Rep. Larry Phillips identified in ethics inquiry involving speakers race

Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, the vice chairman of the House comittee charged with investigating ethics complaints, was identified today as the House leadership member who allegedly warned a colleague that lawmakers who fail to support Speaker Joe Straus for re-election could face retribution through redistricting.


Read Full Post »

From Peter Morrison this week:

New information provides hard evidence of Joe Straus’ pro-abortion and anti-family-values agenda.

The fight to replace liberal, pro-abortion Joe Straus as Texas Speaker of the House continues. If you have not contacted your state representative, please do so and encourage them to vote for a true conservative for Speaker. You can find who represents you here:



Read Full Post »

This is a Peter Morrison Report from earlier this month that technical problems didn’t allow me to post (my apologies to Mr. Morrison.) Yet it’s still very timely, giving an insider’s view of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) controversy without the invective and belittling the Left so loves to do:

It is extremely important that conservatives and patriots from around the state contact the Texas State Board of Education to voice support for the revisions that the SBOE made earlier this year to the Texas social studies textbook standards.

If you can, please take one of the following actions:

1. Sign up to testify before the State Board meeting in Austin. Wednesday, May 19th will be a full day of public testimony before the SBOE. The signup to testify starts early on Friday, May 14th. Be sure to call the Texas Education Agency early on that morning at 512-463-9581 to make sure you get a spot to testify!

2. Contact the SBOE by sending them an email at sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us and let them know that you support the revisions that have been made.

Right now, the SBOE is hearing from groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Texas Families of Incarcerated Youth, Sikh Coalition, U.T. Austin Department of History, Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, Hindu-American Foundation, Coalition for Educational Reform, Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission, and many other individuals. They have been asked to include more minorities, more liberal groups, less about our Christian heritage, less about limited government, more about race and gender, and less about free markets and gun rights.

The SBOE has already heard from lots of liberals and liberal groups. They need to hear from conservatives as well!

Please either call 512-463-9581 and get a spot to testify or email the SBOE at:


The information below is from my SBOE representative, Barbara Cargill, one of the conservative members of the SBOE:


This Fact Sheet clears up much of the misinformation from the media about the K-Grade 12 social studies standards. Please feel free to share it. Many of us on the State Board of Education (SBOE) will continue to work diligently for rigorous history standards that teach our children about their rich heritage and emphasize our country’s founding principles. We want students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and patriot heroes of both our state and nation. Important leaders who were neglected previously have been added to the standards. These include John Quincy Adams, John Hancock and John Wise. And we have placed stronger emphasis on key historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Students will learn the liberties and responsibilities guaranteed by each amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Here are examples of some of the outstanding standards that have passed so far:

American History:
-The student understands the concept of American exceptionalism.
-Describe how American values are different and unique from those of other nations;
-Describe U. S. citizens as people from numerous places throughout the world, who hold a common bond in standing for certain
self-evident truths.
-Discuss the meaning and historical significance of the mottos “E Pluribus Unum” and “In God We Trust.”

U.S. Government:
-Analyze selected issues raised by judicial activism and judicial restraint.

Grades 1-3: (with the word “equality” added in Grades 2-3)
-Identify characteristics of good citizenship including truthfulness, respect for others and oneself, responsibility in daily life, and participation in government by educating oneself about the issues, holding public officials to their word, and voting.

Grade 6:
-Understand the importance of morality and ethics in maintaining a functional free enterprise system.

Grade 8:
-Describe how religion and virtue contributed to the growth of representative government in the American colonies.

Over the last few months, the SBOE has heard testimony from people representing League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Texas Families of Incarcerated Youth, Sikh Coalition, U.T. Austin Department of History, Carrizo-Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, Hindu-American Foundation, Coalition for Educational Reform, Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission, and many other individuals. We have been asked to include more minorities, more liberal groups, less about our Judeo-Christian heritage, less about limited government, more about race and gender, and less about free markets and gun rights.

The final vote is on May 21st. The conservatives on the SBOE need help from patriots across the state to ensure that the revisions we have made to the standards are upheld. On Wednesday, May 19th we will have a full day of public testimony. People from many of the same organizations listed above will be back to speak to the SBOE. Please use this opportunity to come and address the Board yourself! Signing up to testify for the May 19th State Board meeting begins on Friday, May 14th. Please call the Texas Education Agency early at 512-463-9581.

If coming to Austin is not an option, let your voice be heard by e-mailing sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. The proposed social studies standards are posted at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643. Charts that list the historical figures in the social studies standards are posted on that same page for verification of information. Please take a look at the standards for yourself and do not rely on what the media says. The Fact Sheet is pasted below for your convenience.

Thank you for your encouraging messages and for your support about this important issue.

For our children,

Barbara Cargill
State Board of Education, District 8
Chair, Committee on Instruction


State Board of Education
Social Studies TEKS Fact Sheet

A. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education is not listening to educators and experts and as such the SBOE should send the social studies standards back to the original review committees.

FACT: The Social Studies TEKS review committees and some history experts made some revisions that were unsupportable, and the State Board of Education had to direct changes or vote to return to the original content.

Christmas, Neil Armstrong, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, religious heritage language, Independence Day, Veterans Day and Christopher Columbus were either removed completely or partially from several grade levels by the review committees. The State Board of Education members have assured concerned members of the public that these historical figures and important concepts were placed back in the standards where they had been taught for the previous 10 years. This action was based on the urging and feedback from numerous educators, experts and concerned members of the public. One “historian” even suggested Alexander Graham Bell and the Texas Rangers should be removed from Texas social studies standards. This recommendation was not adopted.

B. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education is making decisions on its own and not listening to educators.

FACT: Numerous educators urged the State Board of Education to teach students accurately about the country’s religious heritage and American Exceptionalism.

The State Board of Education voted to include requirements that students study about America ‘s religious heritage and American Exceptionalism.

C. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education is deleting minority figures from the social studies curriculum.

FACT: The proposed Social Studies TEKS include more minority representation than ever before.

Among the many individuals who have been added to the standards are Crispus Attucks, Jose Bernardo Guillermo de Lara, Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, Wentworth Cheswell, Francisco Coronado, Bernardo de Galvez, Juan de Onate, Adina de Zavala, Enrique Esparza, W.E.B. DuBois, Carmen Lomas Garza, Henry B. Gonzalez, Raul A. Gonzalez, Maria Mitchell, Ellen Ochoa, Jose Antonio Navaro, Irma Rangel, Juan Seguin, Erasmo Seguin, Phillis Wheatley, Lulu Belle White, Diane Gonzales Bertrand, Simon Bolivar, Bessie Coleman, Tomie de Paola, Marcus Garvey, Lydia Mendoza, Kadir Nelson, Danny Olivas, Raymond Telles and Amado Pena Jr.

D. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education is eliminating Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall from the standards.

FACT: The State Board of Education members have not made any amendments to delete Cesar Chavez or Thurgood Marshall. The SBOE actually increased the emphasis placed on these historically significant individuals.

Both Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall have been made required elements of the curriculum framework. Students will study the legacy of these historically significant men in both the elementary grades and in high school, as Cesar Chavez has been added to Grade 5 American history and Thurgood Marshall has been added to the Grade 2 standards. Both already are taught in U.S. History Since 1877.

E. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education has included conservative groups in the Social Studies TEKS without listing any liberal organizations.

FACT: The curriculum standards include historically significant individuals and groups from a wide array of ethnic, cultural, racial and religious backgrounds.

For example, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is required study at two different grade levels. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also is required, as is separate study of founders W.E.B. DuBois and Ida B. Wells at various grade levels. Other notable leaders such as Anne Richards, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Jordan also are included. Students are required to study various social and political advocacy positions, including organizations that promoted civil rights for African Americans, Chicanos and American Indians.

Individuals who promoted civil rights, labor rights and women’s rights also are included, such as Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida B. Wells, W.E.B.DuBois, Clarence Darrow, Martin Luther King Jr, Cesar Chavez, Thurgood Marshall, Hector P. Garcia, Frances Willard, Jane Addams and Dolores Huerta. The proposed history standards include diverse individuals and groups for study at each grade level.

F. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education is excluding Hispanic and African American Medal of Honor recipients.

FACT: The State Board of Education expects students to know the significant contributions and heroic actions of Medal of Honor recipients from all backgrounds.

The SBOE added Medal of Honor recipients William Carney and Philip Bazaar to Grade 8 American history, and added Medal of Honor recipients Vernon J. Baker and Roy Benavides to the high school U.S. History course. The social studies curriculum standards specifically require that students study male and female Medal of Honor recipients of various racial backgrounds.

G. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education has eliminated Tejanos who fought at the Alamo.

FACT: The Social Studies TEKS include Tejano leaders who fought at the Alamo .

In Grade 4 Texas history, Tejanos Juan Seguin , Placido Benavides and Francisco Ruiz are required to be studied as important participants in the Texas Revolution. Lorenzo de Zavala and Jose Antonio Navarro, Tejano leaders who died at the Alamo, also are required figures in Grade 4. In Grade 7 Texas history, students again study the significant roles played by Tejano leaders Lorenzo de Zavala and Juan Seguin as they review the events of the Texas Revolution, the siege of the Alamo and the Battle of San Jacinto .

H. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education has removed capitalism from the standards and substituted it with “free enterprise system.”

FACT: In Texas , students are required to study economics with an emphasis on the free-enterprise system and its benefits. “Free enterprise system” is the terminology used in the TEKS since 1998 to describe the U.S. economic system. The State Board of Education has voted to retain this term in the social studies standards. At each grade level starting in Grade 2, however, information has been added that states: “Students identify the role of the U.S. free enterprise system within the parameters of this course and understand that this system may also be referred to as capitalism or the free market system.” The SBOE will be retaining the term “free enterprise system” that aligns with state requirements.

I. FALSE ALLEGATION: Thomas Jefferson has been removed or downplayed in the Social Studies curriculum framework.

FACT: Only George Washington is emphasized more heavily than Thomas Jefferson in the social studies standards.

Thomas Jefferson is taught in Grade 5 American history, in Grade 8 American history and in U.S. Government. These are the same grades where Jefferson and his important legacy have always been taught, and the State Board of Education has not changed this emphasis. As the author of the Declaration of Independence , and as a strong proponent of limited government and states’ rights, Thomas Jefferson is the type of Founding Father and patriot hero about whom students should learn more, not less.

J. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education has decided we no longer live in a democracy.

FACT: The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

The Pledge of Allegiance correctly identifies our form of government as a republic, and the State Board of Education members expect students to recite that pledge and understand its meaning. This reference to constitutional republic refers to the form of government our Founding Fathers instituted.

K. FALSE ALLEGATION: The State Board of Education doesn’t believe students should learn about separation of church and state or First Amendment rights

FACT: Students in elementary grades, middle school and high school will learn about the important freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as the Bill of Rights is outlined in Grade 5, Grade 8 and again in U.S. Government.

First Amendment rights are among the most fundamental we share in this country. Each of these freedoms should be studied, including the freedom of religion. Constitutional protection of religion was provided by banning the Federal Government, specifically Congress from establishing a national religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. A majority of the State Board of Education members voted against a new amendment to the TEKS because its wording downplayed the “free exercise” clause. The Founding Fathers actually encouraged religion, as can be seen in the emphasis given religion in the Northwest Ordinance which passed the same year the Constitutional Convention convened to draft the U.S. Constitution.

The Peter Morrison Report



Read Full Post »

Texas is in the midst of controversy today. As our Attorney General Greg Abbott has just recently joined 14 states in challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare, Governor Perry is stubbornly refusing to re-convene the Texas Legislature (which meets only every other year) to invoke the Tenth Amendment and Nullify ObamaCare.

The Reason?  It’s an election year, and candidates (including Perry) are prohibited from fundraising when the legislature is in session.  As you can imagine, many of us are up in arms about it.

The Facebook Group Texan to Texan posted these two messages in the last few days. This first is from March 29th:

It’s official as of today:

With the Governor refusing to take action to call a special session of the legislature to formally nullify the disastrous legislation or to take SUBSTANTIVE protective action on behalf of Texans, or to take a stance on the matter, a delegation from each county will be selected to convene as allowed by the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 which states that the People of Texas have the right at all times to alter, reform or abolish their government.

We don’t need more legislation, we need leadership to enforce the Tenth Amendment which declares all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people.

If our government will not take action, the people of Texas will.

Historically, the federal government has declared nullification illegal and has declared that federal law trumps state law, so we do not expect that the joint law suit which the Texas Atty. General joined, will be successful.

Christians (but not only Christians) are up in arms over federal funding of abortions, which causes them to be complicit in the murders; Texas is on a deficit trajectory and in fact, 12 billion dollars in stimulus money was used to balance the budget this year. We cannot bear these new mandates, which will destroy our competitive advantage and our economy.

The federal government has not only refused to protect our border, but has supplied incentives to illegals to cross into Texas and the federal government is planning to grant amnesty.

The federal government is altering our Republican form of government legislatively and without our consent.  These are but a few of the reasons we must act.

IT IS NOW TIME TO CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO EXERT PRESSURE ON THE GOVERNOR AND TO RECONSIDER THEIR POSITION. Please call your reps immediately and inform them of our intent to convene. You can find them easily at:


And just in case you thought that was so much hot air, this one arrived this morning. And, no, None of this is an April Fool’s joke:

Since we learned there is a movement afoot to call for a convention of delegates to protect the sovereignty of Texas and nullify the oppressive and unconstitutional legislation that would destroy our form of government and our economy, citizens from these 13 counties have voiced their personal support for the endeavor:

Johnson, Brazoria, Gonzales, Rains, Ft. Bend, Jefferson, Hood, Hill, Dallas, Hunt, Navarro,  Comal and Harris counties.

Some are calling for an Ordinance of Secession rather than Nullification.

If you are FOR taking this measure so that our Texas government will have authority from its people to rebuff the enforcement of these mandates, please send me your YES vote and state the county you reside in.

It will be necessary to enlist the aide of high-ranking officials in the Texas government in order to gain political legitimacy for this action and secure support at the county level.  I will be taking the list of counties with me to a meeting with the Conservative Coalition on April 1st–and I hope we are able to persuade them to take a stand with the people. The names of individuals supporting this action will NOT be revealed.

It is still necessary to keep up the pressure on Governor Perry and our legislators:

Governor Perry:

Opinion Line: 1-800-252-9600
Direct Line: 1-512-463-2000

Find your rep at: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

If you are AGAINST this measure, please respond as well. If you are NOT sure, please discuss it with each other, Texan to Texan. This is a grassroots effort, just talking Texan to Texan about what we can and should do about our current       situation.  Thanks,

Theresa Matthews

I’ve just replied to Theresa, so you can count Bexar County in as well.

Boy, THIS could get ugly fast.  Continuing to gain steam as we watch — and you heard it here first.


Read Full Post »

A funny thing happened along the way to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s win in the Republican primary last week. He actually lost support among voters along the way, according to Rasmussen Reports:

Fresh off his resounding Republican primary victory Tuesday, Texas Governor Rick Perry now finds himself in a close general election contest with Democratic nominee Bill White. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in Texas finds Perry leading White, the popular former mayor of Houston, by just six points, 49% to 43%. Three percent (3%) opt for some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Late last month, Perry led White 47% to 41%, after leading by nine points earlier in February. Just after White first announced his candidacy in January, he trailed Perry 50% to 40%.

So Perry, who originally lead Bill White by ten points, then nine points, now leads by only six points. One has to wonder how this will shape up as we get closer to the election, for several reasons.

First, the Tea Parties are fed up with “business as usual,” whether it’s in Washington or Austin. Governor Perry’s mis-steps in the last few years have earned him no small amount of enmity within conservative circles; many of whom feel he’s a “Johnny-come-lately” to the conservative cause. It’s no coincidence that he had two opponents for the Republican nomination, and had not Glenn Beck pounced (many still feel unjustly) on Far-right Debra Medina’s candidacy, she may have very well forced Perry into a costly runoff. (Beck appears to be paying a price for his “beating upon” Medina; as he has lost thousands of followers on the TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) website, falling from Number one last month to number five currently.)

Second, Democrat and former Houston Mayor Bill White has a much more impressive background as a conservative than Perry, which White’s campaign is emphasizing on this web site:

In a recent editorial, the Houston Chronicle praised White’s management skills and his hit-the-brakes approach to spending, noting, “Mayor White has deftly steered Houston through both fiscal and tropical storms. His successor will have a tough act to follow.”

The results of his strong leadership were noticed nationally in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Bill “mobilized more than 100,000 Houstonians in the public, private business and faith-based communities to help evacuees rebuild their lives with independence and dignity,” said the John F. Kennedy Foundation in presenting him the Profiles in Courage Award.

Bill has been a nationally recognized energy expert for decades, pushing for practical measures to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Earlier in his career, he helped build and manage one of the nation’s most successful law firms. White attended Harvard University on an American Legion scholarship and law school at the University of Texas.

Bill White grew up in San Antonio. Both his parents were public school teachers and his father is a disabled WWII veteran. Bill’s civic involvement began when he led voter registration drives in San Antonio’s West Side almost forty years ago.

For decades, Bill White and his wife Andrea have helped lead numerous charitable and civic organizations. The Whites are parents of three children and attend St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Houston, where Bill taught Sunday school for many years.

I have to tell you (and it’s not the latent Democrat in me talking either) that based on their records, Bill White may be the real conservative in this race. The tens of thousands of disaffected Medina voters are noticing this too, and the Republican Party of Texas issued this e-mail aler this week to stem a potential tide of defections in November; although failing to mention Debra Medina is NOT the way to win over her supporters:

The 2010 Texas Republican Primary ended tonight with a strong victory for Gov. Rick Perry. As Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said in her eloquent concession speech, the primary is behind us and now is the time to unite as one and get ready to defend our state’s strength, freedom and prosperity.

Congratulations to all of our candidates in our 92 contested primaries. While the governor’s race is decided, there are still many races that will require runoffs. Those will take place April 13.

The general election is November 2. That seems like a long time from now, but it will be here before we know it. Our task from now to then is to articulate our values and vision for our great state, and to prepare the way for victory.

It looks to me like Bill White’s got you beat on that one there, Rick.  The only thing left to see now is whether Glenn Beck, after shooting down Debra Medina in flames just weeks before the election, will actually live up to his 9-12 goals of supporting the best conservative candidate and support Bill White for Texas Governor.

Or, perhaps not. Debra Medina was a 9-12 member too.  There’s still time for Beck to shoot down White before the election.

Alamo City Pundit wholeheartedly endorses Bill White for Governor of Texas.


Read Full Post »

Debra Medina has graciously taken time to participate in my “2010 Project” which gets the candidates to answer questions pertinent to the coming election.  And some of the answers are NOT what you might expect from the candidate if you’ve been listening to the drive-by media:

Please answer Yes or No to indicate whether you support the following issues. You may include up to a fifty word response to each topic:

• Abortion on demand - No. 100% Pro-Life from conception to natural death.

• Concealed Carry Reciprocity Laws for all states – Yes. States have the right to make their own laws. I fully support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms without permit or registration.

• English as the official language of America. - Yes. We acknowledge America is made up of immigrants with diverse backgrounds and languages, and that to have a lawful society means to have one that can understand the law as it is written.

• Fair Tax – one universal 20% tax across the board vs a universal federal sales tax – No. The problem is spending. The federal government currently funds a multitude of unconstitutional programs and departments that need to be repealed and those responsibilities and powers returned to the states and the people.

• ID checks at voting places – No. Currently we issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Unless we stop doing that, checking ID at the polling place is not going to prevent voter fraud.

• Immigration Reform, to include a Border Fence with Mexico - Yes, in those areas that it makes sense to have a fence. We are committed to working with the border sheriffs and respecting the private property rights of the land owners along the border.

• Marriage being defined as being between one man and one woman. Yes, but this has to be decided by the states, not federally. The Defense of Marriage Act was voted on by the Texas voters and signed into law in 2003 and is consistent with my beliefs.

• No tax increases may be passed without 35ths of Congress voting for the tax increase. No. There should not be any spending increases at all until Congress returns to its proper duties and limits under the Constitution.

• “One Payer” Universal Health Care vs. Health Care Reform of the system we have now. No government involvement in health care beyond enforcing contracts. The only “reform” needed is removing unconstitutional regulations and monopoly powers that prevent the operation of the market and give advantage to lobbyists and special interests over the people.

• Repeal of the Economic Stimulus Package. Yes, the stimulus is entirely unconstitutional and Congress should repeal its mistakes. Whether it is repealed or not, each state is sovereign and needs to aggressively use interposition and nullification to negate unlawful federal action.

• Repeal of the Federal Income tax. Yes. If man is not allowed to keep the product of his labor, he stops producing. Man must own his property, whether it’s physical property, or the product of his own labor.

• Repeal of the TARP Bailout Bill. Yes, the bailout is entirely unconstitutional and Congress should repeal its mistakes. Whether it is repealed or not, each state is sovereign and needs to aggressively use interposition and nullification to negate unlawful federal action.

• Second Amendment Gun Rights. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Permits equate to asking for permission, and registration leads to confiscation. Neither has any place in our society.

• Term Limits (12 years each) for senators and Congressmen. We absolutely support term limits on all offices, but they are most properly and directly implemented at the party level as each party utilizes its power to control who is allowed to run on its ballot.

Union “Card Check” Law to abolish secret ballots. No. Government has no place setting terms or regulations on how free citizens may associate or bargain with each other.

Meanwhile, the Medina camp remains confident when they’re getting press like this:

It’s working. Previously unheard of by the vast majority of Texans, Medina has set the race for governor on fire, upsetting the primary contest between the incumbent, Rick Perry, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Those gathered to see Medina in Lytle loved her. Young and old, men and women, Latino and white, listened with rapt attention as she outlined her agenda and asked them to back her in this week’s first round of voting. If she can beat Hutchison into second place, she can secure a runoff against Perry. That would raise the possibility – distant but real – of a Tea Party activist capturing the government of the second biggest state in America. The Tea Party movement would have gone from being a bunch of ragtag protesters to heading one of the largest single economies in the world. “If we can change politics as usual in Texas, then we can change politics as usual across America. This is not just about Texas, but about changing the whole country,” Medina told the Observer before addressing her supporters in Lytle.

She is not alone in that ambition. Across America other extreme candidates have emerged on the Republican right to challenge familiar party figures with a fiery mix of Tea Party-inspired populism. In Arizona, Senator John McCain is facing a tough re-election fight against a former congressman, JD Hayworth, who has expressed public doubts as to whether Obama was born a legitimate American citizen. In Florida the moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, is lagging badly in his own primary election to rightwing challenger Marco Rubio, who has the backing of local Tea Party groups.

On the right of US politics, this is big stuff. Instead of forcing mainstream Republicans to woo them for their votes, the rightwingers are now bidding for power. It is an attempt at revolution that could have huge meaning for America and the world, especially given the disastrous showing of Democrats in recent polls and elections. Medina knows this. After her speech she ended with a plea to her audience. “We can win this race,” she said, then held up her hand and squeezed two fingers together. “It is this close.”

The American way, she said, was simple. “There are two rights essential to freedom: private property and gun ownership.”  Such thoughts find fertile ground in Texas.  One poll puts her as high as 24%, just behind Hutchison and within reach of catching her and forcing Perry into a runoff.  Medina believes she is not really in third place, citing the fact that the polls only telephone previous Republican primary voters, whereas she is bringing in thousands of new supporters. “I feel fantastic. I think we can win this,” she said in Lytle.

Meanwhile Glenn Beck has come under increasing criticism first for his remarks at CPAC last week, as well as for his Johnny-come-Lately conversion to Man-Made Global warming, even as the theory has come to be grossly discredited. In fact, more than a few bloggers have speculated that the notable absence of Michelle Malkin from CPAC (where she is a frequent flyer) may be related to Beck’s giving the keynote address on Saturday night. (Malkin had no comment, although she did make an unannounced visit to blogger’s row at CPAC.)

And while we’re skirting the subject, can I address the whole blow-up between Beck and Medina. Medina on Beck’s radio show said that “there’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.”
This is a far, far cry from saying that the U.S. Government blew up the World Trade Center — in any way, shape, or form. Because — can I just say it — I too believe there’s a lot of evidence out there the American public hasn’t seen, either. Let’s look at what we DO know:

  • The 9-11 Commission acknowledged in their report that the CIA and other government agencies had credible evidence of an impending terror attack for September.
  • The government also knew in several cases that commercial airliners would be used in these attacks — and frankly did not believe these reports. (Who would have before 9-11 anyway?)
  • The government was in many cases prohibited from passing this information between agencies by an Executive Order. The CIA and FBI could not share and corroborate each other’s evidence.

And whose fault would that be? The previous President’s — Bill Clinton. But with the 9-11 Commission packed with Democrats, this information has not been widely publicized.

Is that what Debra Medina meant?  I dunno — but it’s what I believe.  And it’s consistent with the evidence presented in the 9-11 Commission report. Does that make me a “Truther”?  Hell No — and neither do Medina’s words make her one either.

I do have it on good authority (but not currently able to document it)  from a local Radio station manager in the San Antonio area that since Medina’s interview with Beck, his ratings are down significantly, rebounding to about 10% less than the previous levels.  Some stations have even cut back Beck;s three-hour airtime to two hours, and about 10 stations nationwide have dropped him entirely in the last two weeks.

So, in case it’s escaped you, I’m still voting for Debra Medina, and you Texans should, too.

Election is Tuesday.  Get out and vote — make a difference.


Read Full Post »

The Wall Street Journal has noted Debra Medina’s impact on the Texas Gubernatorial race for the third time this month:

A wild Texas GOP primary is getting wilder. A new poll out Tuesday shows Tea Partier Debra Medina trailing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison by a mere four points, within the poll’s margin of error.

The Public Policy Poll shows Governor Rick Perry leading the field for the Republican gubernatorial nomination with 39% of GOP voters. But he would need a majority of the vote on March 2 to secure an outright victory — any less and he’s headed toward a run-off. Not only is such a run-off looking more likely with the rise of Ms. Medina, formerly the Wharton County GOP chairwoman. But if Ms. Hutchison doesn’t move quickly to shore up her support among conservatives, the candidate who once polled as Texas’s favorite politician may end up the odd woman out.

The PPP poll shows Ms. Hutchison at 28% and Ms. Medina at 24% – up from 16% in last week’s Rasmussen poll, and up from 4% since November. A former nurse and state coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty, Ms. Medina is appealing to voters with populist rhetoric that takes aim at incumbents of both parties. “We Texans are undoubtedly unhappy with how this state has been run for the past decade, which includes having unfunded federal mandates shoved down our throats. The polls demonstrate that dissent loud and clear,” says Ms. Medina.

Not only does Ms. Medina lead among those GOP voters who say they disapprove of Washington; ironically, she leads among those who consider themselves liberal Republicans. Ms. Medina’s pitches to eliminate property tax, protect gun ownership and secure the border overlap most with Mr. Perry’s populist platform. Yet Ms. Medina still seems to be drawing voters away from Ms. Hutchison, not Mr. Perry. Since September, Ms. Hutchison has fallen 11 points in the polls, while Mr. Perry has gained six points and Ms. Medina has catapulted by 20.

Ms. Medina’s biggest problem now is a lack of funding. As of Jan. 21, she had only $68,000 in the bank compared to the $10 million that Mr. Perry and Ms. Hutchison each have socked away.

You can see the Public Policy Poll results HERE.

Medina’s main problem seems to be that of name recognition, which may soon become a non-issue, as she’s scheduled to be a last-minute guest on the Glenn Beck show (the nation’s #3 rated talk show) Thursday morning. You can listen live HERE. (Top left corner icons.)

This may well be the Tipping Point of the Texas Governor’s race. If Kay Bailey Hutchison is surpassed by Debra Medina, it may become a real snakefight from that point on.


Read Full Post »

Growing up on the Great Lakes we used to have a saying: “You either Fish, or Cut Bait.” It has the same meaning as what we say here today in Texas: “Either S**t or get off the pot.”

Time to commit, Texas. And not making a decision already IS a decision to stay with Governor “More-Of-The-Same” Perry.

Rasmussen Reports has a new survey of likely Texas voters out yesterday:

Texas Survey of 538 Likely GOP Primary Voters

Conducted February 1, 2010; By Rasmussen Reports

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

1* Suppose the Republican Primary for the 2010 Governor’s race were held today.  Would you vote for Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison or Debra Medina?

44% Perry

29% Hutchison

16% Medina

11% Not sure

The Good News: Medina has increased her share of voter 4%, the only candidate who has increased. The bad news is that most of that came from the failing campaign of Kay Bailey Hutchison. Very little came from Perry. And 4% every two weeks is not enough to pass Kay Bailey Hutchison in March for the runoff election.

2* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

Candidate Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable Not sure
Rick Perry 24% 56% 15% 4% 1%
Kay Bailey Hutchison 18% 49% 23% 8% 1%
Debra Medina 16% 34% 21% 8% 21%

The bad news: Perry has the lowest Unfavorable ratings of any candidate. The Good news is thatMedina has a huge “Not Sure” contingent that just want to know more about her.  These are the folks she needs to reach, and who need to Fish or Cut Bait.

3* How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

18% Strongly approve

56% Somewhat approve

16% Somewhat disapprove

9% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure

That’s a 72% Approval rating, but 56% have some reservations of Perry’s term as Governor.  Note also 25% disapprove of Perry, which is almost identical to the 21% who aren’t sure about Medina.  Not that they are the same group, but surely there’s some amount of overlap of the two.

The second part of the poll released today has still more Good News for Medina:

The surprise, as in the new Rasmussen Reports survey of the GOP gubernatorial primary, is the growing strength of Debra Medina, a businesswoman active in the state’s Tea Party movement. Medina now edges White 41% to 38%. Last month, White had a 44% to 38% lead on her. In this contest, six percent (6%) favor some other candidate, but a more sizable 16% are undecided.

So Debra Medina is just as viable a candidate against a Bill White candidacy as either Perry or Hutchison. That’s very good news for the Medina camp.

The question remains, however; Are those “Somewhat approve”-ing voters going to make the move, or just settle for “Governor Somewhat?

If you’re one of those voters, you should watch this video.  Just a few minutes; make the time:

If you feel you don’t know enough about Debra Medina, YouTube has over thirteen pages of interviews, debates, and news pieces about her starting HERE.

No excuses.  No reason not to be informed on your choices.

And you only have yourselves to blame if Governor Somewhat bankrupts the Texas economy in a year or two — which is what’s looking more and more likely all the time.

Are you gonna Fish? Or Just sit there cuttin’ bait all night?

Me — I’m gonna catch some fish, Texas. Let’s Go.


Read Full Post »

BELO-TV sponsored the second Texas Gubernatorial debates tonight, and it was a knock-down, drag-out fight. Fortunately for the audience, that included the fights between the candidates themselves as well as the fights between the panelists and the candidates.

To watch the replays of the debates, you can find them here:

Observations on my part of the debate: first, I was well ensconced at Fatso’s Sports bar with 500 of my close personal friends at a Debate Watch party. BELO could not have done more to favor the incumbents, first by scheduling the debate on a Friday night when few (if any) would be home to watch it, and dragging on for a long time the question of whether independent Debra Medina would be allowed to attend, even after her stellar showing last time.

But that’s just me. Your mileage may vary.  I’ll discuss the various rounds and then award each round to one of the candidates based on the raltive number of Cheers or Boos from the Fatso’s crowd.

In the first round of questions, all the candidates were asked the same questions with each candidate alternating who went first.

Asked about Public transportation funding, Hutchison said that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was grossly mismanaged, and needed to be audited and revamped. Medina said that we can’t even be sure the current figures for the TxDOT budget were correct, and agreed with the need for an audit. Governor Perry pointed out that the Legislature audits TxDOT every two years, and that the problem was that Washington sent back only 70 cents on every tax dollar for transportation. Perry then had his “deer-in-the-headlights” moment when he endorsed toll roads, saying that “private concerns” had a part in new road construction in the state. It was a glaring mistake so early in the debate.

Round is a Draw; but Perry lost points.

The next question was if the candidates would require all employers to use the federal e-verify system to ensure all new employees in the state were here legally. Medina went first this time, saying that the e-verify system is a flawed solution.  She stated that if Texas would just fix it’s own Driver’s licensure laws to require proof of citizenship or legal residence, we would not need e-verify.  She also called for immigration law reform.   Perry said that e-verify was a federal program and an abject failure.  He then used the rest of his time to slam Hutchison on the “Sanctuary Cities” law that passed while she was in the Senate.  Kay opened her statement by saying “Shame on the Governor,” then stated as a small businesswoman herself, e-verify was the best solution available.

Round goes to Medina.

The next question asked about Governor Perry taking $15 billion in stimulus money to cover a state budget shortfall,and asked what programs would be cut or taxes raised to cover next year’s shortfall.

Perry pointed out he had already issued a statewide directive to cut all departments 5%,and that the state budget had been balanced in 2003 ahead of a projected shortfall like this one without raising taxes.  Hutchison said that Perry was wrong to take the stimulus money, and favors across the board cuts.  She said that when she was state Treasurer she was able to find plenty of places to cut the budget – “It wasn’t hard to do.”  Medina said that while cutting the budget is the way to go, she favored discarding property taxes altogether and implementing a statewide sales tax of 6-14%. Eliminating property taxes would give Texans a 3% increse in real income and promote spending in the economy, which would increase tax revenues overall.

Round goes to Medina from the Standing ovation in Fatso’s.

The next set of questions were one-to-one interviews with each candidate.

Senator Hutchison went first, and her questioner nailed her with a clip of Kay’s “deer-in-the-headlights” moment from last debate on abortion.  Kay was clearly flustered then, and clearly flustered now also. Kay emphasized we need to promote more adoptions. rever life, but wouldn’t commit to saying she would support overturning Roe v. Wade.   The questioner then tried the same tactic again, saying her position on health  care had changed. Kay did the right thing this time and agreed it had changed, saying she stood “firmly against socialist health care.”  The questioner then tried to nail Kay on her earlier decision to resign her Senate seat to run for Governor, asking what would happen if a De3mocrat were elected to the seat. Kay laughed and said the was “not one scintilla of evidence a democrat would be elected to the Senate from Texas.”

Round was a draw; Kay stumbled badly early, but eventually recovered.  The laugh was a nice touch.

Debra Medina went next, and at this point the crowd began murmuring about this being the “GOTCHA!” Round as the next questioner tried to nail Debra with a clip of her speaking about secession of Texas.  Debra quickly pointed out that her remarks (which were out of context) were in response to Governor Perry’s “ill advised” remarks at the April 15th Tea Party in Dallas; and that she supports Nullification through the Tenth Amendment.  The questioner then asked if Medina was “all about personal liberty,” did she support Gay marriage?  Debra stated that marriage is a sacrament of the church, and the government had no right to tell the church what to do. Marriage by the church is between a man and a woman, and she favors that.  The questioner again pressed if she would be in favor of gay marriage, and Debra stonily relied, Absolutely Not!, which brought wild cheering in Fatso’s.  Her final question asked if we would be able to fund the state government on solely a sales tax, to which she replies that a “fairly structured” tax of 6-14% would be sufficient for the government’s needs.

Round goes to Medina, Hugely.

Governor Perry brought up the rear, and it became apparent he had few friends in Fatso’s.  Asked about illegal immigrants getting in-state tuition, the Governor defended the practice — and was loudly booed and jeered by the crowd.  Asked about reforming that practice, he said the Texas Education Association was supposed to be checking the immigration status of illegals – which even the panel of reporters found hard to swallow.  Asked for his stand on Roe v. Wade, the Governor stated “I always stand for life.”

Round to the Panel, with two Big mis-steps by Perry.

The next round was termed by the panel as the “Jeopardy” Round, which was quickly called by the Debate Watchers the “Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric” Round. A panelist asked Governor Perry about jobs in number of jobs created, and Perry replied in percentages.  Perry snidely replied to the questioner, “I know you’re having trouble understanding percentages . . . ” which brought a glare from the panelist and boos from the crowd.  Hutchison was asked about how many miles of border fence was acutally built – she said “about 150″ 9actually “105.8 miles”.  Medina was asked what percent of the state budget was Transportation, to which she guessed “about 9%) (actually the reporter didn’t know either, saying “12-13%.”

Hutchison then had her worst moment of the night, responding with a blank stare to the question “Who was the first Governor of Texas?”

Medina slam-dunked the final question of the round, answering “about $46,000.00″ to the question “What is the average annual teacher’s salary in Texas?”

Round to Medina, with bad mis-steps by both Perry and Hutchison.

The next round was viewer questions. The first was for Hutchison, and was asked what she would do as Governor to “Stop illegal immigration.”  She replied the DPS should be able to assist the Border Patrol in arresting illegals who commit crimes, and the e-verify system should be used.

The next was for Medina, and the viewer asked “why don’t we tax the wealthy to get their money from all the tax breaks they’ve got the last few years?”  Medina’s reply brought the crowd to a standing O – “Absolutely not!” She then reiterated that taxes are a drain on the economy, and we should get taxes off the backs of all Texans.

Perry was asked about Social Security benefits for retired teachers, and he blamed the mess on Congress. Not his best moment.  Asked about the Texas Enterprise Fund, Perry said that was “all screwed up too.”  Hutchison als agreed with assesment, saying it should be done away with, and the TxDot should be audited too.

Medina then had her glory moment of the night. Asked again about taxes, she said that property taxes should be eliminated, and that the role of government was to protect Freedom.   At this point the camera gave a wide shot of the trio.  Perry was visibly avoiding looking at Medina, while Hutchison was turned towards Medina, smiling as as Medina spoke.  Asked about Governor Perry’s comment after the last debate that Medina was “tearing down Texas,” Medina responded responded that “I’m a nurse and a businesswoman.  Our Government has failed by not demanding excellence and accountability.  She slammed Perry for awarding contracts “through cronies and slush funds.”

Perry was asked about toll roads – he tried to slam Hutchison by saying the legislature had passed a law prohibiting the tolling of free roads — “And I signed it.”

Hutchison responded by saying that Perry was manipulating people’s rights to freeways. She said TxDOT had fought her on this in Congress – “And that won’t happen when I’m Governor .”

Round – Very decidedly to Medina.  No question.

The closing statements were unusually revealing.  Governor Perry said Texas was the number one state in so many ways.  We don’t spend all our money, taxes are low, tort reform was passed, and we have “countless good schools.”  He closed with “May God Bless us and continue to Bless the Great State of Texas.”

Hutchisons’ closing statement was very nagging.  “As Treasurer I fought taxes.” Texas needs to fight crony-ism. Perry’s decision to vaccinate all schoolgirls against HPV virus was wrong and violated personal rights.  The Trans-Texas corridor was also a major mis-step.  And Texas continues to have a 30% dropout rate.  Not all is well in Texas.

Medina, having sanguinely watched the previous two speeches, commented dryly that they were “about what you’d expect from politicians.” She said with the Perry administration, financial ruin is at our doorstep. The Hutchison administration would support globalisation.  Her administration would “seek to remove the shackles that bind families and constrain businesses” by freeing Texans from Taxes.

The crowd stood and cheered.  And cheered some more. And whistled for good measure.

NOTES on the debate:

If Medina didn’t win the last debate, she surely knocked this one out of the park. She was the only candidate to get a question right in the “Jeopardy” segment, and refused to back down, even when relentlessly question by an obviously testy panel.

Go watch those links at the front of the post.  They a WELL worth watching.

The primary is 32 days away on March 2nd. The deadline for registering to vote in Texas is Monday — February 1st.

Get a move on.


Read Full Post »

The Peter Morrison Report Newsletter (Subscribe HERE) had an interesting Alert on Multiculturalism in Texas schools:

Recently the conservative website WorldNetDaily featured a shocking report from someone in the process of applying for teaching certification in Texas. As part of the certification process, he was required to read several extremely disturbing online articles.

He chose to remain anonymous for fear of being punished for speaking out, because there are radicals deeply entrenched in the Texas educational system who don’t want this information to be made public.

Some of the materials that this prospective teacher was forced to read if he wanted to be certified to teach in a public school had absolutely nothing to do with education as most people understand it. Instead, their purpose was instilling in future teachers the idea that their role in kids’ lives is to act as agents of “social change” in the classroom, all in the name of “multiculturalism.”

Multiculturalism is one of those liberal buzzwords that are so dangerous precisely because they can mean whatever the speaker or writer wants them to mean. In the past few decades, innocuous sounding terms like “social justice” and “celebrating diversity” have become code words used to sneak a radical left wing agenda past an unsuspecting public. Extreme liberals now want to use teachers to indoctrinate our children in the name of multiculturalism.

On one of the websites that is required reading for future teachers, there’s a discussion of what multiculturalism means. Even this site admits that there’s no fixed meaning; but all the definitions they propose make it clear just what multiculturalism is all about – indoctrinating our kids with a radical left-wing agenda. One of their suggested definitions is “education change as part of a larger societal transformation in which we more closely explore and criticize the oppressive foundations of society and how education serves to maintain the status quo — foundations such as white supremacy, capitalism, global socioeconomic situations, and exploitation.”

This ideological jargon makes it perfectly clear what our kids will be learning if we don’t put a stop to this. They’ll be taught that white people are a bunch of racists; free enterprise is unjust and socialism means fairness for all; and the main reason third world nations are impoverished is because they’ve been exploited by greedy, oppressive Western countries. In other words, instead of being given a real education, our children will be taught the philosophy espoused by Barack Obama and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who famously said “white folk’s greed runs a world in need.”

That’s just the beginning. If there’s one trait all left wingers share, it’s their unrelenting hatred of traditional family values. The new “certification standards” that liberals want to impose on Texas teachers are no exception. Future teachers are warned that they must not harbor any feelings of “heterosexism,” and that one of their main functions as a teacher will be to eliminate this same “heterosexism” in their students. This is apparently just as important as teaching reading, writing and arithmetic, if not more so, because schools now serve a higher purpose, which is “the transformation of society” to eliminate all forms of “prejudice” and “oppression.”

Heterosexism is the radical new PC term for the belief that homosexual conduct is immoral, or in any way inferior to heterosexual behavior. It’s now established liberal doctrine that homosexuality and heterosexuality are moral equivalents which should be treated exactly alike, and anyone who disagrees is guilty of “hate.” Of course, traditional Americans don’t view homosexuality as being on an equal plane with opposite sex attraction, and part of the teacher’s job is to eradicate this “privileging” of heterosexuality in the minds of our children. The ultimate goal is the very “transformation of society”, in the words of the radical left wing website future teachers are required to read.

What would a “transformed society” look like to these people? Look no further than a book published in October of last year by Sarah Schulman to see what they have in mind for us. Schulman is a lesbian activist, as well as a professor at City University of New York, College of Staten Island. She’s also a Fellow at New York University, and is considered one of the leaders in the fight against “homophobia” and “heterosexism” in America. Here’s what one reviewer says of her book, Ties That Bind: Familial Homophobia and Its Consequences: “In her book, Schulman offers a strategy for dealing with homophobic trauma: Homophobia should be identified as a sickness, with families court-ordered into treatment programs.” To be clear, Schulman is not talking about people who physically assault homosexuals. She’s talking about people who regard homosexuality as immoral. She says they’re “sick” and they should be forced into “treatment” until they’re “cured.”

That’s just one aspect of the “transformation of society” agenda Texas teachers are now expected to take part in. These social engineers want Texas schools to teach this moral insanity to our innocent children, in order to lead the next generation into their brave new world, where free enterprise is oppression, Mom and Dad are racists, America and the rest of the Western World are the cause of third world poverty, and Christianity and traditional moral values are labeled as hate.

It’s imperative that we raise our voices against our schools being used to perpetrate this outrageous radical agenda. This sort of stuff is the last thing our future teachers should be reading, but some of them are being forced to if they want to become teachers. When WorldNetDaily contacted the Texas Education Agency about this, their spokesperson downplayed it, saying these new “standards” aren’t statewide; Texas schools are divided into 20 Education Service Center regions, and so it’s only a regional issue, as if that settled the matter.

That’s not good enough. None of the Education Service Centers should be requiring prospective teacher to read through this radical left wing propaganda in order to become certified to teach. They shouldn’t even be recommending this sort of material in the first place. Our children are our most precious heritage; they’re not pawns to be programmed and used by liberals to accomplish their radical goals of “transforming society.”

Contact Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott and demand that he put a stop to this practice of forcing prospective teachers to read these materials, no matter where in Texas it’s happening:

Click here to send a fax:


Commissioner Robert Scott
William B. Travis Building
1701 N. Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas, 78701

Phone: 512-463-8985
Fax: (512) 463-9838
Email: commissioner@tea.state.tx.us







The Peter Morrison Report



If you haven’t subscribed to Peter’s excellent little newsletter, you really should.

And click through that link above to send that fax. Fax early and often.  Run their damned Fax machine out of paper before lunch.


Read Full Post »

From Facebook:

Friday, January 29, 2010
6:00pm – 9:00pm
15630 Henderson Pass
San Antonio, TX

The San Antonio 912 Project will be hosting a watch party to view the second Texas Gubernatorial debate of the primary season which will be broadcast live on KENS 5 at 7pm.

This debate will include Governor Rick Perry, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and former Wharton County Chair Debra Medina. Members from several different organizations will be present at this event to root for their favorite candidate, or to get more information if they are undecided.

Guests are encouraged to bring their apathetic friends, family, neighbors and co workers to light fires under them and get them involved in the political process. This debate is sure to be exciting and educational and the party will be a fun experience for all no matter who their choice for Governor is.

As a special treat, candidates for local office will be welcome to announce their candidacy and tell a little about themselves (time permitting) between 6 and 7 before the debate begins. All three Gubernatorial candidate camps are also invited to attend and have campaign materials at this event.

This open event will begin at 6 PM at Fatso’s Sports Garden, 15630 Henderson Pass, San Antonio, TX 78232. This venue will hold up to 500 people. For further information, contact the lovely and talented Nadia Gaona at (210) 334-7400.

Okay, I added the “lovely and talented” part, but Nadia Gaona is a powerhouse for her candidate, and a wellspring of anti-establishment energy. Be sure to introduce yourself. Your world-famous Alamo City Pundit will be somewhere nearby and happy to sign autographs.


Read Full Post »

The Legendary Buck Ashcraft sent me these words of wisdom on “Tactics, Firearms, Self Defense and Life.”

*Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch (a firearms training facility in Arizona ),  is part drill instructor and part stand-up comic.  Here are a few of his observation on tactics, firearms, self defense and life as we know it in the civilized world.

1.) “The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary.”

2.) “Don’t forget, incoming fire has the right of way..”

3.) “Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets. You may get killed with your own gun, but he’ll have to beat you to death with it, cause it’s going to be empty.”

4.) “If you’re not shootin’, you should be loadin’. If you’re not loadin’, you should be movin’, if you’re not movin’, someone’s gonna cut your head off and put it on a stick.”

5.) “When you reload in low light encounters, don’t put your flashlight in your back pocket.. If you light yourself up, you’ll look like an angel or the tooth fairy…and you’re gonna be one of ‘em pretty soon.”

6.) “Do something. It may be wrong, but do something.”

7.) “Shoot what’s available, as long as it’s available, until something else becomes available.”

8.) “If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That’s ridiculous. If you have a gun, what in the hell do you have to be paranoid for.”

9.) “Don’t shoot fast, unless you also shoot good..”

10.) “You can say ‘Stop’ or ‘Alto’ or ‘Arret’ or use any other word you think will work, but I’ve found that a large bore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much the universal language.”

11.) “You have the rest of your life to solve your problems. How long you live depends on how well you do it.”

12.) “You cannot save the planet but you may be able to save yourself and your family.”

13.) “Thunder Ranch will be here as long as you’ll have us or until someone makes us go away, and either way, it will be exciting.”

14.) The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.

15.)  Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.

16.) If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

17.)  I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy.

18.)  When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away .

19.) A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him ‘Why do you carry a 45?’ The Ranger responded, ‘Because they don’t make a 46.’

20.)  An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.

21.) The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. ‘Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?’ ‘No ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.’

22.) Beware of the man who only has one gun, because he probably knows how to use it very well.

‘The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.’
— G. K. Chesterton

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Read Full Post »

Rasmussen Reports has released the second half of the survey they did immediately after the Gubernatorial debates last week. While interesting, it seems to mirror the results of the first half of the survey.

Texas Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted January 17, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

1* Election 2010: Texas Governor’s Race

Rick Perry (R) 50%

Bill White (D)  40%

Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)  52%

Bill White (D) 37%

Debra Medina (R)  38%

Bill White (D)   44%

This appears to reflect the trend of the country currently (and especially last night in Massachusetts)  against Democrats.  It’s interesting that Medina, with limited name recognition, is only 6% behind White, and still in run-off contention.

2* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

Candidate Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable Not sure
Rick Perry 19% 36% 21% 21% 3%
Kay Bailey Hutchison 18% 43% 27% 8% 4%
Bill White 23% 26% 18% 17% 16%
Debra Medina 10% 29% 20% 12% 29%

Or,  if you combine the Favorables and unfavorables together . . .

Candidate Favorable Unfavorable Not sure
Rick Perry 55% 42% 3%
Kay Bailey Hutchison 61% 35% 4%
Bill White 49% 35% 16%
Debra Medina 39% 32% 29%

Perry has the largest Unfavorable ratings of any candidate, which may just be a matter of exposure and being a known quantity.  However, talking with the Tea Party people here in San Antonio, I don’t think that’s all there is to it.  Hutchison has the highest favorable ratings, and Medina the lowest Unfavorables.

3* Should Kay Bailey Hutchison remain in her position as senator while she is running for Governor?

52% Yes
27% No
21% Not sure

The more I think about this one, the more I believe the only explanation is that Texans don’t trust San Fran Nan Pelosi and Dingy Harry Reid  at all, and want Kay there to B-slap them as necessary.  Whether Kay will do that remains to be seen.

4* Governor Perry withdrew Texas from a federal program offering up to $700 million in education grants. He expressed concern about education guidelines from the federal government as a result of accepting the grant. Do you agree or disagree with Governor Perry’s decision to turn down $700 million in education grants.

45% Agree

45% Disagree
10% Not sure

Split right down the middle, which mirrors the division voters feel about the Texas schools generally.  This could very well be a ticking time bomb for Perry.  I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to the star of Texas schools during the campaign if I was he.

5* Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

39%  Favor

57%  Oppose

This figure is just a few points away from the figure for Kay Bailey to stay in the Senate.  There may very well be a connection.

6* How likely is it that there will be another terrorist attack in the United States in the next year?

67% Likely
22% Not likely
11% Not sure

7* Should the December attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

68% By the military as a terrorist act
20% By civilian authorities as a criminal act
12% Not sure

Notice how the numbers on these two questions are almost identical.  Not much division of thought among Texans on Terrorism.

14* How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

53%  Approve
46%  Disapprove

2% Not sure

If I were Rick Perry I’d be very worried right now.  While he’s been Governor for two terms and has massive name recognition, yet he barely ekes out a 53% approval?  He also split approval of his schools funding question at 45% as well.  Plus his challenger Kay Bailey has higher approvl numbers than he has — and the no-name challenger (Medina) is generally acknowledged to have won the debate.

Really, all Rick Perry has going for him is inertia — and he seems to be running out of that, just like Kay Bailey.


Read Full Post »

Well, the “unscientific” polls aside, the one scientific poll I trust has weighed in at Rasmussen Reports, and it’s quite a bit different than the others.

This is a slightly different analysis than you’ll see on the Rasmussen site, thanks to my contact there.

Texas Survey of 831 Likely GOP Primary Voters

Conducted January 17, 2010, By Rasmussen Reports

(NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence)

1* Suppose the Republican Primary for the 2010 Governor’s race were held today.  Would you vote for Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison or Debra Medina?

43% Perry

33% Hutchison

12% Medina

11% Not sure

This is to be expected.  Just that Medina went from an entry position of 3% in November to 12% this week is a 400% increase; that she’s in double-digits at all shows the strength of her followers.  This 12% has been done with no major media commercials in either TV or Radio;  no major endorsements, and only yard signs, personal appearances,  and word-of-mouth to propel her campaign.

For such a limited amount of exposure, 12% is damn  near phenomenal.

But also consider that 11% of the electorate is still undecided.  That’s 12% who still will not commit to either of the incumbents, perry or Hutchison.  These 11% are Medina’s for the taking.

2* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

Candidate Very favorable Somewhat favorable Somewhat unfavorable Very unfavorable Not sure
Rick Perry 26% 46% 17% 9% 1%
Kay Bailey Hutchison 23% 50% 21% 4% 2%
Debra Medina 12% 31% 20% 9% 28%

Or, to rephrase the results by combining . . .

Candidate Favorable Unfavorable Not sure
Rick Perry 72% 26% 1%
Kay Bailey Hutchison 73% 25% 2%
Debra Medina 33% 29% 28%

Medina is an unknown quantity, so she pretty much splits the field within the margin of error.  Perry and Hutchinson have almost identical Favorable and unfavorable ratings, although Perry has a iny bit more unfavorables than Perry.  While this is very likely a trick of the statistics, it may also be betraying some simmering resentments against Perry.

Or not.  Be interesting to see what the next poll shows after the second debate.

3* Should Kay Bailey Hutchison remain in her position as senator while she is running for Governor?

65% Yes

22% No

13% Not sure

I was somewhat surprised by this. While Hutchison originally was to resign her position to run for governor, it appears the electorate doesn’t trust Harry Reid as far as we could throw him (and ten million Texans could throw his skinny butt pretty damned far, I’d reckon.)

So it would appear Texas would rather have Kay Bailey break a promise than Harry Reid.

4* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

8% Strongly approve

8% Somewhat approve

10% Somewhat disapprove

73% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure

Ithink this pretty much speaks for itself, as well as backs up the Kay Bailey question. Texans overwhelmingly disapprove of what’s going on in Washington; specifically when the President’s got his name all over it.  And Texans seem to be leading the pack of disapproval, too.

5* How would you rate the job Rick Perry has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

22% Strongly approve

46% Somewhat approve

20% Somewhat disapprove

11% Strongly disapprove

1% Not sure

This is a bit more surprising . For all the grumbling I’ve heard about Governor Perry around San Antonio, it doesn’t seem to show in this poll, and makes me wonder if I’m listening to disaffected Perry supporters, or if the survey sample isn’t being truthful with Rasmussen.  A 68% approval rating for the Governor is a death knell to the Medina and Hutchison campaigns; yet Kay Bailey had almost identical numbers on an earlier question?

I have a feeling this number will shift more the closer we get to the primary; although I could be wrong.

Rasmussen added an interesting note on their website:

Perry jumped out to an 11-point lead – 46% to 35% – in November after Hutchison’s tour of the state to announce her candidacy had turned the race into a toss-up just two months earlier. In mid-July, Perry led Hutchison by 10 points, 46% to 36%.

But Medina, the owner of a medical consulting firm, is the only candidate who is gaining ground, up from four percent (4%) of the GOP vote in November and three percent (3%) in September. Some political analysts have said Medina was the strongest performer in last Thursday night’s GOP gubernatorial debate, although most of the focus was on Perry, who is seeking an unprecedented third term as governor, and Hutchison, a member of the U.S. Senate for the past 16 years.

Count on these numbers changing.  I’m informed that BELO corporation, the sponsor of the second debate, has decided to invite Medina to the second debate, so it will still be a horse race for the forseeable future.

Stay tuned.  Medina is still the one to watch here.


Read Full Post »

A funny thing happened on the way back from the Debate Thursday night . . .

As I noted in my previous post HERE, Texas’ newspapers seemed to have many commenters who thought Debra Medina had acquitted herself well in the debate on Thursday.

Possibly as a reaction to that apparent groundswell of support, many of these newspapers put up unscientific polls of their readers to see who they thought won the debate.

The results were surprising. The Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom website, an admittedly anti-Perry Group, shows an overwhelming vote for Medina:

CBS-11 in Dallas had a similar result:

My Fox Dallas-Fort Worth was also similar:

As well as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram too:

In fact, eight of eight polls agree:

Source Perry % Hutchison % Medina % Medina Votes Total
T.U.R.F. 8.7 3.6 87.8 344 392
CBS-11 in Dallas 8 7 76 unk. unk.
My Fox Dallas-Ft Worth 14 16 68 unk. 2517
Fort Worth Star-Telegram 14 15 62 661 1073
Big Country Blog 10 13 71.3 855 unk.
Abilene Reporter-News 7 8 83 1186 1426
Univision TV 4 1 95 363 unk.
KEYE Austin 11.9 16.5 56 unk. unk.

This is where I put my Bachelor’s in Psychology and statistics to work. The first thing I noted is that the sample sizes seem to vary greatly. While two of the polls have the total number of respondents in the 300’s, the others var from around one thousand to around 1500 to around two thousand. Were the Medina campaign trying to taint the results by over-voting the surveys, the sample sizes would be more regular.

But some of the surveys, while including the nubmer of total votes or votes for one candidate, do not have all the information. We can infer this data by doing the math on the known variables, as I have in the revised table below.  (Inferred data is in italics and starred*.)

And with a little re-arrangement for clarity, we have this:

Source Perry % Hutchison % Medina % Medina Votes Total
Univision TV 4 1 95 363 382*
T.U.R.F. 8.7 3.6 87.8 344 392
Fort Worth Star-Telegram 14 15 62 661 1073
Big Country Blog 10 13 71.3 855 1199*
Abilene Reporter-News 7 8 83 1186 1426
My Fox Dallas-Ft Worth 14 16 68 1712* 2517
KEYE Austin 11.9 16.5 56 unk. unk.
CBS-11 in Dallas 8 7 76 unk. unk.

As widely as the sample sizes vary, it would be impossible for a dedicated band of, say, 350 or so Medina followers to influence the results of a poll of 2,517 respondents. This lends credibility to the results, even though the people surveyed in these polls are more likely to be active politically, and more “fired up” for their respective candidates.

Interesting. So it actually appears to show a groundswell of support for Debra Medina among committed political activists.

The survey for We Are Austin.com is actually a survey about the election with ALL candidates, Republican and Democrat, included.

So according to We Are Austin.com,  not only does Debra Medina place far ahead of all other Republican challengers (including the incumbent Governor),  she would even beat the very popular former Houston Mayor Bill White by a 6 to one margin.

And, again, obviously not a scientific poll, but . . . . interesting.

I have it on very good source that the Rasmussen organization will do a survey of the Texas Governor’s Race this coming week.  Apparently this race is generating significant “buzz” in the powers that be.

Awaiting those results as well.


Read Full Post »

The Debate Watch Party for the Texas Gubernatorial Debate at Fatso’s Sports Garden on Bandera Road drew a brisk crowd and several local candidates for local office.

Joseph “Jamie” Martinez is one of the candidates challenging incumbent Democrat Charlie Gonzalez for the House seat in Texas District 20.

Alan Strack is also a candidate for the 20th district seat. I’d vote for him if he promises to wear those jean and Converse high-tops to his swearing-in ceremony.  The look on Pelosi’s face would be priceless.

Clayton Trotter is also running for the 20th District seat. His son was killed in the Battle of Fallujah in Iraq;and he has some strong ideas on defense.

Scott Yellbell was there representing Kiko Canseco, who had a previous commitment

Dr. Robert Lowry, a local physician, is running for the 23rd District seat. His website is www.DrLowryfor Congress.com

Will Hurd is a local graduate of Marshall high School who until recently was a CIA case officer. He decided to run when he became disgustedwith how uninformed the congressmen he breifed actually were on the issues. His website is HERE.

And Brian Underwood is running for the seat in the 28th District.  That’s three congressional districts where the incumbent will NOT run unopposed in Texas this year.  Bravo to all of them!

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram understates the contentiousness of the debate:

DENTON — Texas Gov. Rick Perry opened tonight’s televised gubernatorial debate by declaring “this is the best state in the nation to be living in today.”

His opponents — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Wharton County GOP Chair Debra Medinatore into Perry as an advocate of big government and the governor who signed the largest tax hike in state history.

Hutchison said Texas lost 300,000 jobs over the past year and said, “That is not a record to be proud of.”

Perry tried to point to the jobs he has created in office and cited positive statistics stretching from November 2007 to November 2008.

“Let’s talk about ’09,” Hutchison replied.

Perry said Texas leads the nation in the development of jobs and it’s one of the top places for small businesses. But Hutchison argued that taxes have increased under Perry.

Medina accused both the governor and senator of being advocates of “big government solutions.”

On another issue, Hutchison was asked by Star-Telegram Austin bureau chief Dave Montgomery to clarify her position on abortion. She said that overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion could lead to “abortion havens.”

The San Antonio Express News agreed; it was one heck of a fight:

DENTON – Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison clashed repeatedly in the first Republican gubernatorial debate, speaking over one another and all but calling the other a liar.

Activist Debra Medina pushed for a place apart, describing Perry and Hutchison as politicians who embrace big government solutions to Texas’ problems.  After one overlapping exchange of sniping between Hutchison and Perry, Medina expressed frustration, declaring, “This squabbling isn’t getting us anywhere.”

Hutchison went after Perry’s veracity time and again, while Perry painted Hutchison as out of touch from her years in Washington.

When Hutchison and Medina criticized his record on job growth, Perry said “It really wears me out that we have two people on this stage here who want to tear Texas down,” Perry said.

Hutchison struck at Perry’s record in office, saying he is “trying to have it both ways” as he describes himself as cutting taxes while the state’s tax burden on business rises and the state’s budget grows.

Perry and Hutchison verbally slashed at each other when discussing her 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), sometimes derisively called the Wall Street bailout bill.

Perry said Hutchison told Texans she would not vote for the measure but then did. Hutchison said she voted for the measure because she was asked to by then-President Bush, but she said the bill was changed to limit how much was spent.

Hutchison then called Perry “disingenuous” because he had written a letter the day before urging congressional action. “You were for it before you were against it,” she said.

In another instance, Perry accused Hutchison of attacking Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and the Republican legislative leadership on state budget growth and the fact Texas likely will face a $16 billion state budget shortfall in 2011. Hutchison responded by saying Perry is attacking Texas’ Republican congressional delegation.

“I’m criticizing the leadership at the top. The buck stops on your desk,” Hutchison said.

Perry replied, “We’re going to cut it (the budget) just like we did in 2003. We have the experience,” a reference to a $10 billion shortfall that was eliminated without a tax increase.

Medina proposed solving the state’s budget and economic problems by eliminating the property tax and replacing it with higher sales taxes: “The governor and the senator are both going to offer big government solutions.”

When asked about her continuing support for the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, Hutchison said she continues to back it because without the decision there would be “abortion havens.” She said some states would make abortion illegal while others would legalize abortion “even as the baby is coming out of the birth canal.”

All three candidates said they could support repealing the state’s advance directives law that allows hospitals to cut off care for terminally ill patients, but Perry stumbled.   “I always stand by the side of life,” he said, but then had to admit he did not realize the law was passed by the Legislature when he was lieutenant governor, the presiding officer of the state Senate.

The three candidates also all opposed the national health care reform bill being pushed by President Obama and Democrats. But Perry used the discussion to take a swipe at Hutchison for the time she is spending campaigning for governor.

“We have heard it is hanging by a thread. I hope that our senior senator would get back to Washington, D.C., and cut that thread. That’s where she needs to be,” Perry said.

The Dallas Morning News had some interesting reader commentary.  Commenter “kids” said that “perry won…medina came in 2nd…hutchison came in 3rd…“; a sentiment echoed bycommnter EmmaJ.:  “KBH stuttered and stumbled through her answers so much that I was confused.”  Commenter Eric seemed to summarize several others saying “Are you guys blind…..two idiots mumbling about you did this and I did that. 1 Candidate had clear answers….Debra Medina won. You need to tune into the news….they are clearly giving it to Medina. All undecided voters said they liked Medina and were tired of the bickering.

Commenter Zeke agreed:

“Well if you want politics as usual, KBH and Perry are of the same coin, sell outs to special interests through CFR memberships. Perry being groomed for a Palin / Perry ticket in 2012 might appeal to some. Medina seems to be the only candidate that understands Texas must resist D.C. legislation, reduce the size of government and reduce the tax burdens on individual and business.”

Can’t wait for the second debate; although if Medina isn’t included, I’ll probably just skip that catfight.


Read Full Post »

Thge Lamestream Media are once again getting caught with their pants down, and feigning mock surprise that (gasp) conservative candidate Debra Medina appears to be gathering something of a following among the Tea Partiers in Texas.

After being surprised that she was even allowed in the debates at all, the lamestreams are continuing to be surprised that “Watch parties” are springing up across Texas to see the debate by Medina supporters. (San Antonio’s is at Fatso’s Sports Garden on Bandera Road; San Marcos is having on at Gil’s; etc.)

The Houston Chronicle relegates this revelation to the Blogs section:

Medina at the Ramparts

Debra Medina, the Wharton County nurse who makes her statewide debut tomorrow night as the insurgent candidate for the Republican gubernatorial campaign, was in Houston yesterday to unveil her plan to secure the Texas border. On paper, the plan bristles with guns, the Guard and tall, forbidding fences, as you might expect from a candidate who appeals to the Tea Party wing of the Texas GOP. In person, though, Medina is more nuanced (not to mention more earnest and didactic). It’ll be interesting to see which Medina comes across when she crashes the Rick and Kay Show at tomorrow night’s Republican gubernatorial debate in Denton.

Here’s how she talks about border enforcement: “I’m reminded by our Founding Fathers from Virginia, their legislature from Virginia early on passed this resolution — that all men are by nature equally free, independent and have certain inherent rights by which when they enter into a state of society they cannot be deprived or divested from their posterity, namely the enjoyment of life and of liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and pursuing and attaining happiness and safety. All of us — Mexican, Chinese, Asian, Texan — are endowed with those inalienable rights. Texans want to share those. I believe we want to share those with our neighbors — neighbors from Mexico and neighbors from all over the world – but we must adhere in this state of society to the rules. . . . “

That’s no sound bite, obviously. It’s more a sound gulp. Still, I hope Medina gets a chance tomorrow night to engage her better-known competitors in a real debate about the issues, including illegal immigration.

Damn! From the Chronicle, that’s no faint praise; it’s tantamount to an actual endorsement.

The San Antonio Express-News is much more sanguine:

AUSTIN — The first contested Republican primary debate for Texas governor in 20 years is scheduled to air on statewide television Thursday night as Gov. Rick Perry tries to fend off challenges from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and activist Debra Medina.

The debate will air live in San Antonio at 7 p.m. on LATV, Channel 12.2; and will be broadcast at 8 p.m. on KLRN-DT and again on Saturday at 10 a.m. on KWEX (Univision) in Spanish and at 7 p.m. on KSAT. It will also be carried live on WOAI radio, 1200 AM.

An Internet live stream of the debate can be obtained from www.TexasDebates.org.

Perry is trying to sell Republican voters on the idea that his policies have slowed government growth, limited personal injury lawsuits, blocked gay marriages and kept the Texas economy healthier than the rest of the nation. Perry is attacking the federal government and portraying Hutchison as a Washington insider.

Hutchison has won three terms in the U.S. Senate. She portrays herself as a conservative fighting against health care reform and global warming legislation in Washington. Hutchison is making the case that Perry’s rhetoric is more conservative than the policies he has implemented, and that it is time for a change.

Medina, who comes from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, is scoring a victory by being in the debate at all, because it validates her candidacy. She has been blocked from appearing in a second debate set to be hosted Jan. 29, by Belo Corp.

Medina is promoting the idea that states have the right to nullify federal laws that impinge on state sovereignty.

The debate is being sponsored by KERA public television in Dallas, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, CBS and Univision affiliates in Dallas, the Texas Association of Broadcasters, the Texas State Network and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

Well, that explains why the Debate is being carried on WOAI radio in San Antonio at 7:00 pm and at 8:00pm on KLRN Public Broadcasting. It’s not an error; the TV is tape-delayed an hour.

Been driving me crazy all day trying to figure that out.

Your humble Alamo City Pundit will be there, of course. Medina supporters tend to be seriously good-looking.


Read Full Post »

Found in my E-mail today.  This ought to put Kay’s and Slick Rick’s knickers in a knot if they aren’t already:

FAIR WARNING: Governor Medina Will Secure the Texas Border

HOUSTON, TX, Tuesday, January 12, 2010 – Debra Medina, Republican Candidate for Governor today released her plan for securing the Texas border in a joint press conference with the U.S. Border Watch.

“Failure to enforce state and federal laws has contributed to abuse of property and humanity all along the Texas border. We can no longer turn a blind eye on the situation and will, in order to protect our citizens and their property, take matters into our own hands to insure peace and protection along the Texas border,” stated Medina.

Medina has engaged in discussions with border sheriffs and will work closely with them to complement their efforts. U.S. Border Watch has recently endorsed Debra Medina stating, “U.S. Border Watch is deeply concerned about the lack of progress being made from both Washington DC and Austin, TX in securing our borders from drug smugglers, terrorists and illegal immigrants. The two candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor who currently hold elected offices (that of Senator and Governor) have repeatedly made promises and then turned their backs on these issues or completely reversed their campaign promises. They have consistently failed to protect the rule of law and the citizens of this great state.”

“Medina knows the U.S. and Texas Constitutions and the power that lies in the rule of law. This is, after all is said and done, a rule of law issue. Debra Medina has the courage to enforce those laws that protect the people and the property of Texas from the ravages of an unsecured border.”

Recent reports by the Texas Department of Public Safety document increased efforts by drug cartels on both sides of the border to “co-opt our children to support their criminal operations.”i These reports provide even more evidence that Texas must act and must act now to protect her citizens and their children.  Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety recently commented, “The concern is that the gangs are now being used by the cartels on both sides of the border for hit squads, human smuggling and counter surveillance.”ii

“Citizens have been seriously disappointed by the campaign double-speak from both Senator Hutchison and Governor Perry on this issue. We’ve heard their rhetoric. It’s time to get serious about protecting the Texas border. Debra is the only one who will take bold and decisive action to secure the Texas border,” said campaign manager Penny Freeman.

Medina’s plan to secure the border includes:

  • Calling sufficient numbers of Texas National Guard and Texas State Guard members to active duty to support local law enforcement particularly along areas in between legal ports of entry to combat drug and human trafficking;
  • Notifying Mexican authorities that the Texas Border will be secure and no entry will be allowed without proper documentation;
  • Insuring that Texas District Attorneys and Texas Attorney General exercise full prosecutorial power and have sufficient resources to enforce human slavery and child labor laws to their fullest extent;
  • Assisting local and state law enforcement in deporting individuals convicted of violating state or federal law;
  • Insuring that private citizens have the ability to protect themselves and their property without fear;
  • Insuring that the interests of Texans are protected by seeking legislation and enforcement actions that respect Texas sovereignty in the face of international treaties, like NAFTA, that violate Texas state sovereignty; These treaties create poverty in Mexico and Central America and benefit corporate investors. This poverty drives people to migrate north. Insuring that the interests of Texans are protected, Debra Medina will interpose, support nullification and declare unconstitutional all international treaties that violate Texas state sovereignty. We will not recognize those treaties or enforce their regulation or taxation.
  • Eliminating social incentives to illegal immigration by seeking legislation prohibiting use of state funds for service or benefit of illegal aliens.

“This is a decisive plan that makes sense to the citizens of Texas—Anglo and Mexican American alike.  But common sense is in short supply in Austin and Washington and our current governor and ranking senator have had long enough to enforce our current immigration laws or find new solutions,” stated Freeman.  “They have been insulated from the problems facing We Texans for way too long. Debra is the only candidate who truly cares about We Texans and will act to protect Texas.”

iDPS Warns Parents: Mexican Cartels and Gangs Recruiting in Texas Schools. Texas Department of Public Safety Information for the News Media, Nov. 17, 2009

iiTrahan, Jason.  “Mexican Drug Cartels Recruiting Texas Teens, State Warns” Dallas Morning News, Nov. 18, 2009

Visit the Medina For Texas website at http://www.medinafortexas.com.

The part that caught my eye was where it said “Debra Medina will interpose, support nullification and declare unconstitutional all international treaties that violate Texas state sovereignty.” Think about THAT statement for a second. When the second-largest state of the Union which comprises almost half of the southern border with Mexico all by ourselves starts to enforce immigration law and decides to arbitrarily nullify the NAFTA agreement — that’s going to get somebody’s attention but quick!

Meanwhile, tomorrow is the first Republican Gubernatorial Debate at 8:00 pm on your local Texas PBS Station. The Watch Party in San Antonio is HERE:

Thursday, January 14, 2010
7:30pm – 10:00pm
Fatso’s Sports Garden
1704 Bandera Rd

Your own humble Alamo City Pundit will be there with his camera to document the crowd and the fun. Be there!


Read Full Post »

Got this notice in my e-mail this week, and I’ve been puzzling over it since:

Republican Party of Texas Welcomes
New Executive Director

January 5, 2010

Austin – The Republican Party of Texas starts the New Year off with a new leader.  Chairman Cathie Adams has selected Jesse Lewis to become the Party’s next Executive Director. Mr. Lewis comes to the Party having served here before, as a Field Representative, a Statewide Field Director and its Deputy Political Director from 1999 to 2003. His extensive background includes everything from grassroots work training thousands of candidates, campaign managers and volunteers, to serving on the executive staff of a large state agency, overseeing 90 employees.  He also served as Chief of Staff to Texas House Members Arlene Wohlgemuth and Sid Miller.

“Jesse is a remarkable Texan, a remarkable Republican and he’ll be a remarkable leader for our Party,” said Chairman Adams.  “Having him at the helm as we enter the crucial 2010 election means that we will have a sure hand who has steadily led many winning campaigns, and whose experience covers every aspect of state politics.  We’re excited to have him bring his knowledge and enthusiasm to the Republican Party of Texas.”

Okay, the first thing that stuck out right away and put spit in my eye was the “Chairman Cathie Adams has selected Jesse Lewis” thing.

“Selected”?  What is this “Selected” Crap?!? This is Texas here.  We were an Republic before we were even a state, and good men died at the Alamo and at Goliad so that free Texans could be free to vote for their representatives.

So, again I would ask, what’s this “Selected’ Crap, dammit?

So I started looking into Jesse Lewis, whom I’ve never heard of, and don’t know from Adam. May be a nice guy, but I don’t know.  So I Yahoo Searched “Jesse Lewis Texas.”

Nothing.  Nothing on Wikipedia, Answers, Bing, or Ask.com,either.  Google was suspiciously silent as well, except for this one entry under the Texas Workforce Commission:

Assuming this is the same Jesse Lewis (and Cathie Adams’ statement is deliberately vague in this regard, isn’t it?), it means Jesse Lewis works for the state government in Austin as essentially a PR shill for the Perry Administration.

And believe me, NOTHING and NOBODY works for Governor Perry that hasn’t been appointed by or is fiercely loyal to Governor Perry.

So (and, again,assuming this is the correct Jesse Lewis), we now have a Perry PR shill as Republican Party Chairman in Texas. The vagueness of the statement by Chairman Cathie Adams makes me think it’s a deliberate attempt to soft-soap his background as a PR guy.


This ham-handed attempt to stage-manage Governor Perry’s re-election is just one of the many reasons I’m endorsing Debra Medina for Governor of Texas.


Read Full Post »

A few weeks ago the Peter Morrison Report (FaceBook site is HERE) was contacted by the Debra Medina campaign. She is a Republican candidate for governor here in Texas. An interview came out of that discussion.

To be fair, I have also contacted the campaigns of the other three declared candidates: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Larry Kilgore and Rick Perry. If they agree, each will be featured in a future report so you can make an informed decision in March.

The interview consists of a question followed by the candidate’s unedited responses. Let’s get to it:

Peter Morrison Report: What do you see as the top challenges facing Texas, and our next governor?

Debra Medina: Texas, like all of the United States, is facing unprecedented economic challenges. Property taxes, excessive regulation and broad use of eminent domain authority all but destroy private property ownership. Couple those concerns with a growing dependence on federal largesse, a high unemployment rate, additional school property tax buy down and diminishing sales tax returns and you quickly realize that the state of Texas must cut spending drastically and restructure tax in order to relieve the drag it places on the economy.

PMR: In your opinion, what are the causes of the terrible setbacks the Republican Party suffered in 2006 and 2008? How do you think we can reverse this trend?

DM: Failure to walk our talk. We must elect officials who follow the strict interpretation of constitution and govern in a manner consistent with our party platform. Recognizing that politics is corrupting and that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the Texas Republican Party should adopt a rule unilaterally establishing term limits as an additional eligibility requirement when seeking a place on the primary ballot for all state officeholders i.e., state representatives, state senators and all state-wide officeholders. This would serve to protect not punish Republican office holders. It would keep them beholden to the people they serve and remove incentives to be “bought and paid for” by special interest groups
seeking to use the law to gain favor in the marketplace.

PMR: What are your major differences with Rick Perry, and why should conservative Texans support you over him?

DM: I recognize that the family is the building block of a free society and that parental rights to manage that family as they deem must be aggressively defended. It is not the role of the government to usurp that right even when the government thinks it knows best. Rick Perry only wants you to manage your family until he doesn’t like what you do, then he will use the mighty arm of the great state of Texas to swoop in and mandate healthcare or take your children.

I recognize that private property ownership and gun ownership are essential elements of freedom. I will fight to curtail eminent domain authorities and will certainly recognize the duty to protect the sovereignty of Texas rejecting any attempts to cede our land to foreign interests. I will advocate the ownership and skilled use of weapons so as to increase safety and security in our state. I will not, as Perry did, cavalierly throw tax money at psychological counseling following the next tragic shooting in our state as though that will help solve the problem. I recognize that the protection of life, liberty and property must begin with us. We must be prepared to defend ourselves. In our earliest days as a country, Noah Webster recognized, “the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, of any pretence, raised in the United States.”

I recognize that the central banking system in the United States is incapable of maintaining a stable economy. I recognize that the market is the best regulator of the economy where inefficient businesses are allowed to fail and are held responsible for those failures. I recognize that Texas assets must be protected and that just as nations such as China and India are moving away from the dollar, Texas must move a portion of our assets as well to protect those assets and protect the Texas economy. I will not sit idly by and wait for Washington D.C. to protect Texas. I will not, as the Governor did with his “what recession” remark discount the suffering in Texas as many are unemployed and struggling. I will recognize that people not government care best for people. I will resist efforts to make the state the benefactor of the hurting and needy – families and businesses alike.

PMR: If elected, what concrete steps will you take to deal with the invasion of illegal immigrants which is transforming Texas?

DM: Texas must press the federal government aggressively to secure our border. Meanwhile, however, we can not simply wait on Washington D.C. to act. We must develop stronger working relationships with border county sheriffs to support and augment their efforts to secure the border to insure that all traffic enters Texas through a legal port of entry. These efforts should involve coalition building between state and local law enforcement, allocation of funds for equipment and personnel and enhanced deployment of State Guard and volunteer corps along the southern border.

Texas must also protect the economic interests of her citizens by challenging federal mandates into healthcare. The cost of
providing “free healthcare” to anyone who asks has forced many hospitals from market-driven profitable enterprises to public-dependent (tax funded) facilities. Texas’ healthcare providers must be allowed to set their own charitable service policies. Texas should fight to overturn the federal EMTALA provisions and return to the state oversight of our healthcare industry.

PMR: What is your stance on the Voter Photo ID bill from the last session?

DM: Do not believe photo ID will serve to prevent illegal voting until and unless the issuance of photo ID is restricted to U.S. citizens and legal aliens. Texas currently issues drivers licenses to individuals who admit to being in our state illegally. We should work instead to tighten voter registration requirements and to insure that the voter rolls are accurate.

PMR: Do you support sanctions against employers that knowingly employ illegal aliens?

DM: Yes.

PMR: Do you support a border fence?

DM: Only in areas where local law enforcement acknowledges that it will help in their efforts to secure the border. In discussions with these individuals believe that is in densely populated urban areas only.

PMR: Do you believe that local governments and law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce immigration laws?

DM: No, believe that immigration law enforcement is clearly the purview and responsibility of federal law enforcement. Do believe that we, local governments and law enforcement, must enforce the laws that we have. Do believe that individuals convicted of a crime in Texas should be deported if they are here illegally.

PMR: As governor, would you encourage localities in Texas to enforce immigration laws?

DM: Will work closely with local law enforcement to identify where and if state law needs to be strengthened to address this issue. Would not advocate local law enforcement becoming “federalized.”

PMR: Do you support Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona, who has vowed to keep enforcing immigration laws even though the feds have ordered him to cease and desist?

DM: Appreciate Sheriff Arpaio’s efforts to insure law and order. Appreciate his leadership in enforcing law and protecting citizens in his county in spite of “you can’t do that” opposition. Agree with Sheriff Mack regarding the role of the county sheriff, “We must start at home, in our counties, in our own ‘spheres.’ We must erect the barriers and keep those at bay who would confiscate bank accounts, guns, land, property, and children…You cannot shrink from that duty merely because the violator comes into town with a three piece suit and a fancy attaché case.”

PMR: In August, you posted an article called “Latinos and the GOP” on your campaign website, which many conservatives would find troubling. You seemed to be criticizing Kay Bailey Hutchison for voting against Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, and saying that her vote will make it harder to attract Hispanics to the GOP. Yet Sotomayor is a hard core supporter of affirmative action and quotas, as well as gun control. This seems inconsistent with your
stances on personal liberty and the right to bear arms. Can you explain what you meant?

DM: Kay Bailey Hutchison was absolutely correct to vote against Sotomayor; the problem I was addressing is that the GOP has treated Latinos so poorly for so long that George Lopez was able to characterize this as a racially motivated “no” vote instead of a “no” vote based on the fact she was the wrong candidate on the issues. Texas Republicans have for years claimed to be working hard on “minority outreach” and yet we see no indication of any meaningful relationship with or participation of Hispanics in the Republican Party. Because there is no true relationship between the party and the Hispanic community in this state, all action is viewed along strictly racial lines. People are social beings, we crave belonging to a group.

Texas Republicans must recognize that there are many areas where we share common ground with Hispanics. We must purposefully and genuinely reach out to this group (and to other groups) where there is a high likelihood of shared value. We must teach and we must engage…or Hispanics will continue to block vote straight ticket democrat…and in just a few years when that voting block alone comprises in excess of 50% of our population, conservatives will be forever a bygone relic in the Texas public square. There is no room for compromise of values and ideals; there is plenty of room to talk so that we are heard – that includes speaking the language (or, in my case, at least making sure my message is communicated in Spanish), getting into the community, meeting people where they are and where they live.

PMR: In that same piece, you went on to say that the GOP must start considering the reaction of the Latino community when it comes to illegal immigration and border security. You even refer to these as “Latino interests.” It’s hard to understand this as anything but a call for the GOP to back off on these issues. Could you please clarify what you meant?

DM: By ignoring our law, we’ve contributed to a climate that has hurt the state and no area more so than the Texas border. A new culture of lawlessness exists along the border and an area which was once a paradise of productive farm land has become economically depressed and in some areas quite desolate. We must enforce the law, but we should see this as an issue of law, not an issue of race. We must stop allowing it to drive a wedge between cultures. That doesn’t help anyone.

This issue is a polarizing one because we’ve allowed it to travel along racial lines, rather than directed the dialog along state sovereignty and economic lines where it belongs. We would not be at odds with fellow Texans if the debate were kept in proper perspective: The state of Texas and the United States have a duty to protect our sovereignty. My comments were not a call to back off on these issues. They were anything but. I said we can not be indecisive. We’ve not taken a position; we’ve not stuck to a position. Meanwhile, the social and economic divides along the Texas border have grown wider; the crime rate climbing, the drop out rate among Hispanics remains alarmingly high and is predicted to stay there. Until and unless, Republican leadership is willing to make a concerted effort to address these issues and others that are uppermost in the minds of the Latino community in this state, we are likely to see that block vote continue straight ticket Democrat.

PMR: You support the growing movement among states to reclaim our sovereignty from the federal government. What actions would you take to strengthen this trend, and to reclaim more sovereignty for Texas in particular?

DM: In particular, I have already taken steps to lead the charge against the socialization of health care presented by the Obama Administration. I have consulted with the Attorney General’s office. I have called on the citizens to lobby their representatives for special session of the Texas Legislature to prohibit enforcement. I am also looking into the legal process of suit against the federal government on constitutional authority to stop this legislation, whether it be injunction or class action.

PMR: Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit secession? If so, where?

DM: I find no prohibition to secession in the original content of the U.S. Constitution but understand that historically, secession has led to war. I prefer taking steps to declare our sovereignty as stated in the Texas Bill of Rights and nullification of federal authority on constitutional grounds.

PMR: Do you support the concept of state nullification of federal law?

DM: Yes

PMR: There is currently a move to hire hundreds of additional state employees to administer the food stamp program in Texas. Supporters say that there’s a backlog resulting in some people experiencing long delays in getting approved. Where do you stand on this?

DM: I will not grow state government. Our state has a debt of $31 billion. The inefficiency of government, whether it be federal or state, has gotten out of hand as leadership has been taken over by entrenched career politicians. Running a state is a business and should be handled as a business. We must use sound business and management practices to correct inefficient use of resources.

PMR: What additional taxes or tax increases, if any, would you support and under what conditions?

DM: I support the elimination of all property taxation and prefer a broader based sales tax that would decrease the present sales tax percentage and allow property owners to own their property without the danger of losing it to any government agency. I do not anticipate supporting any tax increases. I support shifting responsibility for government to counties and cities – closest to he area where the service is delivered and allowing/forcing the revenue to be derived there ie., altering the 6.25:2% sales tax allocation so that more of the tax stays local

PMR: Do you support the franchise tax?

DM: No, the franchise tax is nothing more than an income tax imposed on businesses.

PMR: Do you support any sort of race-based preferences (i.e. affirmative action)?

DM: No, under the rule of law, in a Constitutional Republic, all citizens are equal and should not receive unjust preference to the detriment of others.

PMR: Do you support the continuation of preferences in state spending being given to Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs)?

DM: No, the decision to patronize business should only be the decision of the consumer, through a free market economy and should not be based on preferential treatment.

PMR: Do you support extending concealed carry rights to Texas universities?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for the protection of the innocent.

PMR: Do you agree with Harrold ISD’s decision last year to allow board authorized individuals who have undergone specified training and have their concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons on Harrold ISD school campuses?

DM: Yes, the Second Amendment insures the right of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon to protect the innocent.

PMR: When does human life begin?

DM: Human life begins at conception.

PMR: When does a baby get human rights?

DM: A human baby receives rights from the creator at conception.

That’s it for the Debra Media interview. I appreciate her taking the time to answer my questions and urge all Texans to carefully consider their options in the March 2nd primary.

Many thanks to the The Peter Morrison Report (again, the FaceBook site is HERE) for forwarding this to ACP. Do him a favor and click through to check out his site too.


Read Full Post »

Went to the Tea Party meeting this afternoon and met some folks promoting their candidates. All Texans might want to check out the website of Debra Medina for Texas Governor. She’s a rancher a nurse; chairman of her local Republican Party, and has sued the state Republican Party over the 2000 convention.

She’s got some spunk; that’s for sure.

Plus she’s a homeschooler, pro-life, and her folks there put up a very spirited defense of how Debra understands the Tenth Amendment as a state way to nullify Federal overreaching.  One of the ladies there made the point that our current governor Rick Perry only won by 39% last time, and although he’s been talking tough this last year on the 10th amendment, has hd several flawed mis-steps, including the plan to require mandatory vaccinations for all Texas schoolgirls for cervical cancer, as well as the Trans-Texas corridor fiasco.

For all you Libertarians out there, she’s a ery Libertarian sort of lady.  I am, of course, sending my 2010 questionnaire to get a better grsp of her positions. I’ll let you know.

For my San Antonio readers, Robert Abaham at Campaign for Texas isworking to get Dr. Lowry elected our next Texas Representative in TX-23 (north and west side of SA.)  Ciro Rodriguez stood up against the Stimulus, but has been wishy-washy ever since.   Questionaire forthcoming, of course.

Watch this space.


Read Full Post »

Oh, you gotta love this:

Americans For Prosperity have a website that shows how dynamic nd growing the Texas economy is; which is a direct refutation to the Obama Administrations whining, mewling sad-sack songs about the rest of the economy:

Texas is one of a handful of states which are not facing a large budget deficit. Texans have been prudent in spending, and our economy has grown. Jobs have been created, and businesses are flocking to Texas!

Here are the top 10 ways Texas is No. 1:

* Transparency
* Lawsuit Reform (Tort Reform)
* Largest Electricity Market
* Balanced State Budget
* No State Income Tax
* Top Exporting State
* Top State for Business
* Most Fortune 500 Companies
* Most Job Creation
* Fastest-Growing State in the Country

And THIS tart little rejoinder:

The Obama Administration should look to Texas for ways to create jobs. While jobs aren’t created at job summits, businesses large and small look for certainty in taxation and regulation.

Instead, the Obama Administration and Congress are considering two of the biggest tax bills in history in the health care reform and the cap and trade legislation. And federal government debt has hit $12 trillion.

While Texas has created more jobs than any other state in the country, and touts creating more jobs last year than all other states combined, and has a rainy day fund of over $8 billion, officials in the Obama Administration will be convening a jobs summit.

We in Texas could have saved them the effort. Washington officials should look to Texas to see that tort reform, lower taxes, limiting government growth and debt, and common-sense regulations open the door to job creation.

Big Honkin’ Texas Hat Tip: The Always-Great Libertarian Republican Blog (And why haven’t you bookmarked that blog yet?)


Read Full Post »

Offered without much comment. A true Texan, this guy.

I owe this guy a six-pack when I find him. The kind of guy who maes me love this state more and more every day.


Read Full Post »

Bad News for Chicago’s Mayor Daley: He’s got the Texas Attorney General mad at him now!

AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today took legal action to protect Texans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and authored by Attorney General Abbott, 38 state attorneys general explain that law-abiding Americans have a fundamental right to bear arms – and that local governments cannot simply disregard that right and impose an outright ban on handgun possession.

“Just last year we successfully fought to have the U.S. Supreme Court confirm that Americans have an individual, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Now, the City of Chicago claims that the Supreme Court’s year-old decision does not apply to local governments – so cities and towns can simply ignore the Second Amendment and pass laws that disregard city residents’ constitutionally protected rights. In response, we’ve built a coalition of 38 state attorneys general who reject Chicago’s attempt to circumvent the Constitution and who understand that all Americans – whether they live in D.C. or not – have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Thirty-eight attorneys general. Mayor Daley must be completely unhinged to think his anti-gun lawsuits were a good idea. In fact, isn’t Chicago in the red now because of the millions Daley’s spent on these suits?

Texas has some small amount of experience here, both with the Supreme Court, as well as with gun cases:

Mayor Daley should really take a gun safety class and learn how to hold a gun.

The attorney general’s brief in McDonald v. Chicago supports a legal challenge by Otis McDonald, a community activist who lives in a high-crime Chicago neighborhood. McDonald’s work to improve his neighborhood subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers, but City of Chicago ordinances prohibit him from obtaining a handgun to protect himself.

Last year, Attorney General Abbott and 31 other state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which they urged the Supreme Court to overturn a Washington, D.C., law that banned all handguns and required that rifles and shotguns be disassembled or encumbered by trigger locks at all times. In a landmark 2008 decision, the Court agreed with the attorney general’s position and declared the federal city’s handgun ban unconstitutional, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Heh. Watch for this one to cause great consternation in the greater Chicagoland area. And soon.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers