We have seen and heard a lot of advertising through the years in Texas, that the Texans for Lawsuit Reform Group is a conservative organization. There are certain new developments that raise questions among the most trusting of individuals in Texas.
A bill is pending in the Texas House (HB 912) that would prohibit the use of drones to take pictures of individuals’ property without their consent. HB912 is an important piece of legislation to protect the privacy rights of Texans and has over 100 co-authors. Unfortunately, the special interest group “Texans For Lawsuit Reform” is actively lobbying against this bill because it includes necessary civil penalties.
When laws are made, they serve two purposes. The laws provide boundaries for appropriate actions in society, and civil and criminal consequences if one disobeys those laws. For something as serious as a drone being used without consent to surveil innocent property owners, I would think the public would want as many deterrants to that activity as possible. A child will not hesitate to tempt his boundaries if there are no penalties or consequences. Do we simply trust everyone has good intentions and hope for the best?
TLR hired an Austin Law Firm to give testimony to the legislative committee arguing against the bill which will protect property owners. This is yet another item to add to the list of: Is this a Conservative action?
Below, there is a letter from the President of TLR “explaining” why they believe the property owners should not have protection under the law
Please reach out and speak with your legislator today. Don’t let this special interest group override the rights of Texans for remedies under the law.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Is there any doubt that America’s Constitution is under attack? For decades, the power and intent of the Constitution have been whittled away by liberals and others who do not value the foundation of this country. For that reason, we must send constitutional conservatives to Washington. This is not the time to send people who do not have the experience defending the constitution. It is not the time to send a person who needs to use this as a learning experience for the first couple of years.
Ted Cruz, does not just talk the talk. He has exhibited a willingness to defend the constitution and liberty for all Americans on multiple occasions. He is the freedom fighter we must send to Washington. I’ve listed my reasons below, why my vote will be cast for Ted Cruz.
1. Defended US Sovereignty
Successfully represented Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas, which upheld U.S. sovereignty and held that the World Court cannot bind the United States justice system and the President cannot order the state courts to obey the World Court.
2. He has defended our second amendment right to bear arms
Ted authored a brief on behalf of 31 states supporting the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. The ban on firearms was struck down in a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court?
3. Ted Cruz fought to defend our religious freedom.
Successfully defended the constitutionality of the Texas Ten Commandments monument, winning in a 5-4 landmark decision before the U.S. Supreme Court, setting an important national precedent for the right to display similar monuments.
4. The Tenth Amendment is one of the keys to preserving the balance and vision for our countr
y by the founding fathers. For years, Ted has defended this key amendment.
Tenth Amendment language: The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
Ted Cruz has consistently championed the 10th amendment, speaking and writing nationally on the virtues of federalism and why excessive regulation and federal government intrusion threaten to destroy America’s free-market economy and the American Dream.
5. Ted opposed the TSA groping at airports
This is an invasion of privacy, that Mr. Cruz’s opponent was afraid to tackle. Cruz said that we should look to Israel and follow their example. “Instead of looking for terrorists, we’re looking for weapons. It’s an ill-advised approach that hurts citizens.”
6. He was unafraid and stood up to protect our efforts for energy independence in America, at a time when the administration was fiercely undermining America’s efforts.
Authored an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a diverse coalition of 29 Gulf Coast chambers of commerce and industry groups in Hornbeck Offshore Services v. Salazar, in opposition to the Obama Interior Department’s moratorium on offshore exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. One week later, the Fifth Circuit agreed, and ruled against the moratorium.
7. Reinforced the words: “All men are created equal” as written in the Declaration of Independence. There is no place for hate or bigotry in America.
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Rahn v. Robb, urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse a decision of the Eight Circuit allowing the Ku Klux Klan to participate in Kansas’s “Adopt-A-Highway” program.
8. Ted Cruz signed the Contract from America.
The Contract from America, clause 4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words–the length of the original Constitution.
9. Mr. Cruz took a definite stand on Border Security.
He has worked on efforts to increase penalties for felons who enter the country illegally. Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales, urging the strictest enforcement of laws punishing those with prior felony convictions who entered the country illegally.
Having met and spoken with Mr. Cruz on multiple occasions, prior to his campaign, I can assure you of one thing. No one is more passionate or driven to defend America’s constitution. There are many more illustrations of his commitment and efforts on behalf of our constitution and liberty. In fact, there were too many for one article.
What can you do to help?
If you are in Texas: I urge each of you to vote. Early voting begins July 23. Election Day is on July 31.
If you are in other states: Fight to take back the Senate. Go to www.tedcruz.org and help to call and get out the vote!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
The President had his two cabinet secretaries out on the media circuit this weekend, trying to give a positive spin on military action he decided to take in Libya. The result was more than underwhelming. It was a moment of clarity as the two people, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Gates became a bit rattled under pressure.
What did we learn? The US will not engage unless a lot of other people say we need to do it. Secretary Clinton’s answer says it all. The spin from the President that we cannot stand by while innocent people are killed is a complete farce. In Secretary Clinton’s answer below, she explains how the US “picks” who to save on humanitarian grounds.
On March 1, the Senate passed a resolution on the no-fly zone. In Secretary Clinton’s answer she refuses to state that Speaker Boehner was against it. Odd, that they had over two weeks, and couldn’t get it heard and voted on by the House. It was clear from her answers that she was unable to say Congress supported this effort. Look at the choice of words.
So, the President’s own people have some difficulty explaining what is happening…
Quotes from Face the Nation transcript:
Bill Scheiffer: Madam Secretary, let me start with you. Tens of thousands of people have turned out protesting in Syria, which has been under the iron grip of the– the Assad for so many years now. One of the most repressive regimes in the world, I suppose. And when the demonstrators turned out, the regime opened fire and killed a number of civilians. Can we expect the United States to enter that conflict in the way we have entered the conflict in Libya?
HILLARY CLINTON (Secretary of State): No. Each of these situations is unique, Bob. Certainly, we deplore the violence in Syria. We call, as we have on all of these governments during this period of the Arab awakening, as some have called it, to be responding to their people’s needs, not to engage in violence, permit peaceful protest and begin a process of economic and political reform. The situation in Libya, which engendered so much concern from around the international community had a leader who used military force against the protestors from one end of his country to the other, who publicly said things like, we’ll show no mercy. We’ll go house to house. And the international community moved with great speed in part because there’s a history here. This is someone who has behaved in a way that caused grave concern in the past forty-plus years in the Arab world, the African world, Europe and the United States.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But I mean– how can that be worse than what has happened in Syria over the years, where Bashar Assad’s father killed twenty-five thousand people at– at a lick. I mean, they opened fire with live ammunition on these civilians. Why is that different from Libya? This is a friend of Iran, an enemy of Israel.
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of a Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal but that is not going to happen because I don’t think that it’s yet clear what will occur, what will unfold. There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is– is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.
End of the transcript from Face the Nation.
So, we are now acting in concert with many countries because of what we “think” someone may do. After the military efforts began, and the President asked Gadhaffi to go, the Arab League said this is a legitimate government and to not interfere. This was a byline on the BBC one night after the military exercise began by the various countries.
On Meet the Press, more troubling statements were made by both Secretaries, that indicate the US has been heavily involved in conversations with rebels in most of the middle eastern countries.
Quotes from Meet the Press Transcript:
SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: I think that the no-fly zone aspect of the mission has been accomplished. We have not seen any of his planes fly since the mission started. We have suppressed his air defenses. I think we’ve also been successful on the humanitarian side. We have prevented his forces from going to Benghazi , and we have taken out a good bit of his armor. So I think we have, to a very large extent, completed the military mission in terms of getting it set up. Now, the no-fly zone and even the humanitarian side will have to be sustained for some period of time.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think it’s perfectly legitimate for members of Congress and the public to ask questions. The president’s going to address the nation Monday night. A lot of these questions will be answered. But, but I would just make a couple of points. First, on March 1 the United States Senate passed a resolution calling for a no-fly zone. That was a bipartisan resolution. There were a number of people in the House , including leadership in both the Republican and Democratic Parties , who were demanding that action be taken. The international community came together; and, in an unprecedented action, the Arab League called on the Security Council to do exactly what the Security Council ended up doing. Now, the United States and other countries were in a position to be able to act to enforce it. If you look at the coverage on Al Jazeera , if you listen to the statements that are being put out by the opposition in Libya , there is a great deal of appreciation for what we and others have done in order to stop Gadhafi on his mission of merciless oppression. So this was an international effort that the United States was a part of. I certainly believe it was within the president’s constitutional authority to do so. It is going according to the plan that the president laid out. The United States will be transitioning to a NATO command and control .
MR. GREGORY: Did Speaker Boehner raise any objections when he was briefed prior to the mission ?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I know that there was a constant flow of information, both to members and staff. And, of course , the president had a, a conference with some members in person , others, many others, including the speaker on the phone. But we have no objection to anybody asking questions. But I think it’s important to look at the context in which this is occurring. And the fact that we have moved so rapidly to have this kind of international action taken answers in great measure the legitimate concerns of the people of Libya . And now, of course, we’re going to take it day by day . That’s what you do in a situation like this.
End of Quotes from Meet the Press Transcript
America has never witnessed so much unrest in the Middle East. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have acknowledged in many press briefings that our country has been engaged in a lot of conversation with rebels throughout the Middle East. Now we have unrest in almost all of the middle eastern nations as rebels protest against their governments. In the press briefings previously at the White House, it was stated that we are encouraging economic and political reform. Our country is broke. We have people at the highest levels involved in redistribution of wealth on a grand scale. Government processes are ignored on a regular basis. It is time for creative thought as to how to impede the progress of the liberals until 2012. These riots in the Middle East are occuring because the flames of discontent have been fanned by people with agendas.
“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” James MadisonRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Over the past 4 weeks, I’ve become aware of a phenomenon sweeping the nation. One by one, state by state, there is news of grassroots activists becoming candidates for office. The notion of serving our country was “catching fire”. Announcements have been made for brand new candidates running for City Offices, State offices, and Federal offices.
Recently I attended the local campaign kick-off for a candidate named Mary Huls. Mary is one of the grassroots activists who has decided to be a part of the process for improvement. She will be running for State Representative for Texas. Mary is a constitutional conservative. I came with an open mind, wanting to see for myself – what makes a person step up to such a daunting task? This would be the ultimate test of the grassroots movement.
What I found was a passionate, articulate woman who had a vision of what could be. She spoke to the issues, where she stood, and handled some tough questions. What I appreciated the most is she wasn’t sure on a very few issues, as to how to best affect the change required for improvement. Mary was unashamed to admit she will need to look at all the information before making a recommendation. It was refreshing to witness such a straightforward dialogue without the usual sidestepping of issues we have witnessed the last few decades.
The crowd was intently listening to her every word. You could hear a pin drop in the room it was so quiet. This is the moment many people in the grassroots movements have been waiting for. Much like our founding fathers, people of good moral character and conviction are stepping up to the ultimate challenge. They want to serve the country.
People such as Mary will face ridicule from local politicians and political parties. There are far too many people who automatically vote for incumbents without looking at their records. This is a big part of the problem we have in the government today. Our founding fathers faced a lot of obstruction as well. Can it be that we are experiencing the beginning of a tide to refound our country? The new candidates from grassroot organizations will need to be tough, and face down many negative detractors.
What can we do in the grassroots movement to help these people of courage and honor who are stepping up to the ultimate challenge? They need our support and encouragement as much as possible. This is what America needs – not more of the same, but people who care enough to stand up and be counted for the future of America. I am thankful for Mary Huls and all the people like her, that stand ready to take the country back to an adherence of the framework of our government and our nation.
One man with courage is a majority.
Twitter: Texasfor56Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat) represents Texas. She has been in office continuously since 1994. Her next election will be in 2010.
Sheila Jackson Lee has used every possible opportunity in the previous years to vote in favor of spending money regardless of the economy and has consistently voted for government expansion in the lives of the individuals in this country. There were so many examples of being fiscally irresponsible and examples of questionable character that it was difficult to be brief on this topic. For that reason, it appears to be more prudent to concentrate on clear cases of poor judgment exhibited through the most recent time period.
Rep. Jackson Lee was one of five members of Congress who took part in a Citigroup-funded junket to the sunny Caribbean island of St. Maartens shortly after all five voted for TARP. The trip was led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), who cheated on his taxes and proposed tax increases to fund health care.
Most recently when the country was deep in debt, she voted yes to pass a huge stimulus package for the country that contained a lot of earmarks. The voting record shows that she votes yes for almost every bill that will cost the taxpayers more money.
Now we are in the midst of a healthcare debate shortly after passing one of the largest “handouts” in the history of the country. What is her contribution to the debate? First of all, she argues why all the illegals should be covered under the plan. What part of the word illegal does she not understand? America has laws in place for a reason. Why would a representative of our government suggest benefits be given to those guilty of criminal actions? Rather than address the issue of illegal aliens, she speaks about them as if they have the same rights as the working citizens of this country. Congresswoman Lee clearly views them as equal to the American citizens.
Sheila Jackson Lee justifying illegal aliens in the Healthcare Plan:
What about her character? What do we know? We know that at a townhall to discuss healthcare in August 2009, there was behavior indicative of someone who doesn’t want to listen to her constituents. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee picked up her cell phone while a cancer survivor recounted her story and begged her not to endorse the President’s health care plan. This was not quick, the Congresswoman had a lengthy conversation on the phone while ignoring the lady in the audience. Numerous news outlets interviewed her after this debacle. Although the Congresswoman explained she had a reason for the call, there was no intention to apologize for her behavior. Clearly the constituents were not the priority at the townhall.
Sheila Jackson Lee being rude to lady at the Healthcare Town Hall:
In another townhall, there was a woman who identified herself as a Doctor and asked a question to Congresswoman Lee. The exchange was quite pro-Healthcare plan on the part of the Doctor. People later discovered the Doctor was actually not a Doctor (nor a Sheila Jackson Lee constituent), but someone on the Obama staff.
Sheila Jackson Lee at townhall with woman pretending to be a Doctor:
Her recent contributions include complaining that hurricane names were too Caucasian and proposing a resolution praising Michael Jackson as the world’s greatest humanitarian. Bear in mind this was also the man who was investigated at great length for his suspicious behavior with children.
In September of 2009, she voted against a bill to pull the funding from ACORN. This community group has been charged and is in a criminal trial for voter fraud. There are 10 states that are also investigating them for voter fraud. This is also the same company that was exposed in the media recently for advising people on underage prostitutes and other criminal activities. This was an expose on this company in multiple cities. With all of this happening, Congresswoman Lee voted against the bill to put an end to their federal funding.
What is she thinking? At best, her judgment appears to be horribly skewed.
Lack of fiscal responsibility, consistently voting to grow the government, poor judgment, and a willingness to overlook illegal patterns of behavior puts this lady on our NOT the 56 list.
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Twitter: Texasfor56Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )
Senator Olympia Snowe is representing Maine as a Republican. She has been in office each year since 1994. The Senator is up for re-election in 2012.
The country was founded on the basis of less government and unalienable rights of the individual to pursue, life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This is supported by less government “controls”, where the people succeed and fail primarily by their own ambitions and efforts. Let’s take a look at some of the ways Senator Snowe has translated our country’s foundation into her voting practices.
HR 4104 Senator Snow voted yes; This was passed by the Senate
H Amdt 728: Federal Health Plan Contraceptive Coverage Amendment
H Amdt 723: Increase FEC Funding
Link to Legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:hr4104
In this there was the creation of a National Drug Control Office which took control over drug policies and diminished some of the individual rights of the state to mandate laws and controls that were appropriate for specific state issues. Today, this has grown to a massive organization that is setting drug policies, allocating sizeable grant funds, and making recommendation on both thing domestically and internationally. Yes, we need drug policies, but why do we think it takes a massive “overhead” organization rather than the states to mandate these actions? At most, why couldn’t there be a policy advisor that makes recommendations and observations?
She has consistently voted to support excessive spending (such as the Stimulus bill) and enlarging the government role in people’s lives. If you think this is incorrect, please look at her voting record. In 2008 the National Taxpayers Union gave Senator Snowe a rating of F.
Senator Snowe has grown public policies which encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of people such as those currently on welfare.
Most recently her idea on healthcare to “help the people” is to compromise in a bi-partisan fashion so something is achieved. Why would anyone “compromise” on what is right for the people just to get something done?
September 7, 2009
Senator Snowe was interviewed by CNBC. Please watch this video to get a true picture of her view of reality with our government today.
CNBC: Do you think Barack Obama is a big-government liberal?
“SNOWE: No, it’s interesting, I don’t. In fact, I almost sense the opposite
In closing, I only have one thing to say. Senator Snowe, It’s time to go.
Twitter: Texasfor56Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
What on earth could I possibly have to say about the Speaker of the House of Representatives, meeting privately in Houston to discuss the current Healthcare reform considerations before Congress and the Senate? Quite a lot actually. This was simply another episode in a long line of inappropriate behavior by a person who holds one of the most influential positions in our government.
Why is it necessary for a person of the stature of the Speaker of the House to hold a private meeting to reconcile any “differences” with the CEO of a hospital or any of its’ medical personnel with regard to a Healthcare Reform Bill? Could it be the answer is money? OR is this simply a “quiet” way to ensure the healthcare “industry” will support the bill publicly if their needs are met?
Mmmm, let’s review the facts. Did the Speaker invite any questions from the people who lined the roads into the hospital complex as she whisked in and out of the meeting? Is the reform bill supposedly to “help” the people of the country? Then, why on earth would she not at a minimum make a statement to the many people who waited for hours to see her? Hundreds of people lined the streets going into the hospital. There was zero effort by Mrs. Pelosi to communicate with anyone. Who does she think her employer is?
Perhaps it was money. Let’s explore that angle. If she was raising money for healthcare reform support – the obvious question is why? Does the administration believe that money is needed to gain airwave time for their “cause”? The last time I checked, ABC, CBS, and NBC are ensuring maximum support for the President, his entire administration and their “causes”. A reasonable question might be: Is this the cause of the people, or of the administration? The uninsured are the minority in the country. So, I ask you……is this the will of the people to have a government run healthcare for everyone inclusive of the majority who do not need it? IF this is the will of the majority of the people, why does the administration feel the need to “campaign” about the reform bill? Clearly Mrs. Pelosi is putting the extra hours in, to support what the President and the administration would like to pass into law (regardless of the will of the people).
The following day after the meeting in Houston, Mrs. Pelosi was the guest in a private home in Austin. A lot of people showed up (a lot of lobbyists) to be with her at a $30,000 per plate event. What is she raising private funds for? Shouldn’t there be some form of transparency on the issue of fundraising? They are not running for office this year. If they discussed healthcare reform behind closed doors with a mixed audience comprised of the elite and lobbyists, we the people have a right to know the discussion content. What was the money for?
I recall writing a letter to Mrs. Pelosi a while back. It was not on this topic, but one that was important to me. I asked for her opinion and support on an Eagle Scout who did not receive the traditional flag certificate that also has the word “God” on it. The letter asked for her support to ensure the Eagle Scout got the traditional flag certificate inclusive of the word “God” which has always been on it. Her team sent me a fairly crisp letter stating they would not answer any letters of mine as I was not a “constituent” and to write someone else! She is the speaker of the House!!! Who/what does she represent?
Time and again, Mrs. Pelosi has used power and position to subvert traditions of the country. I submit that as Speaker of the House, she has an obligation to listen to the people in an impartial manner and make decisions accordingly. Most recently she called the people who are at the rallies and protests, un-American! Last time I looked the First amendment was in place that gives people that right. Is she suggesting Americans no longer have the right to assemble or the right to free speech?
In my humble opinion, Mrs. Pelosi is not one of the “56”. What do I mean by that? There were 56 original signers of our country’s Declaration of Independence. These men were also the “voice of reason and vision” as they put together a progressive governmental framework document called the Constitution of the United States. Recently, Glenn Beck put forth the notion of finding 56 honest men and women who want to end the corruption and pandering to special interest groups. This is probably the most progressive approach to the current out of control spending and corruption we are witnessing at the highest levels in the country. It is not a Republican or a Democrat or a move of any other party. It is a bi-partisan move to “clean house”. These 56 men and women of the Congress and the Senate would work together to get America back on track. They would have a sense of honor and duty that was everpresent in our founding father’s thoughts (RE: Federalist Papers). I am proposing the notion that as Americans we should be able to deduce most of these 56 by their performance records, examples of moral character and examples of following the constitution. Do they truly listen to the people? Are they being fiscally responsible? Are they transparent in their dealings? Are they respectful of the constitution? If they haven’t exhibited the above, they need to go!
Let’s start by putting Speaker of the House Pelosi on the list of who must go. She has consistently showed disdain for Americans voicing opinions, the immigration laws, and has been caught lying about key issues such as waterboarding. When caught in mistruths, calling people names or supporting illegal activity, there is usually another diversion, another topic, another speech in which the Speaker of the House diverts attention from her activities. I will refresh your memories by including 3 links to support the arguments. There are hundreds of pieces of footage on the news networks and on the internet if you prefer to find your own substantiation. Who is next on the list of who has to go? You may be surprised. Stay tuned.
Nancy Pelosi Tells Protestors “I’m a fan of Disruptors” , a different story now
Lie exposed: Pelosi’s Power, Oversight and Control of the CIA after being briefed on Waterboarding
Michelle Malkin on Pelosi calling immigration enforcement “Un-AmericanRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
This is a blog for the people, by the people, and all people who love the country and the constitution. People who love our way of life. Yes, we have problems like any other society. We can work on those. There is no need to throw away all that is good in this land.
Many years ago, 56 men of strong moral character and conviction, signed a document that began an incredible journey for this nation. They had a vision of a government for the people and by the people. These men had reasoned through the major pitfalls and things to be careful about at the beginning of this monumental undertaking. There were warnings of not allowing government to grow too big as there would be inherent dangers. The liberty of the people could be threatened if government assumed too much control. We are out of control today. The government has grown so massive that very little of the people’s voice can reach them. There is corruption and graft at the highest levels. We the people need to take back our control.
Several weeks ago, Glenn Beck on Fox News suggested we should find 56 honorable men and women in the Senate who want to “refound” the country back to the original premise. These men and women would be willing to stand up and say “Enough of the corruption”!
It is my belief that this may be difficult. However, I agree 100% that we the people need to take action. What can we do? It seems easier at this point to identify who needs to go in the House and the Senate. I am writing these blogs to cast light on who has “lost their way” and needs to go. Beginning with the Speaker of the House and continuing through the rest of them. . . one step at a time.
Time is of the essence. We need to mobilize and identify opposing candidates across the country. America, time to get busy!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )