Texas is Winner in Debate about the Debate (Issue #470)

Debates provide information about candidates and their responses under pressure.  In close contests, voters may wait for debates before deciding for whom to vote.  This is especially true of independents, those voters who are not registered as members of a particular political party.  Those who watch debates also tend to vote more often on the issues, whereas those who do not watch are more likely to vote on the basis of personality and feeling.  The media not only report on a debate itself but also usually announce a “winner,” and of course the verdict affects voter behavior by creating a positive bandwagon effect.  Candidates try to use debates to their advantage, in order to overcome negative perceptions or defuse certain issues.  Debates are great for a candidate to reach sizeable television audiences, but just as easily debates can torpedo a campaign and are considered risky so long as the candidate enjoys a sizeable lead.

Big media agencies such as The Austin American-Statesman, Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, San Antonio Express-News, and The Houston Chronicle, together with KLRU “Public” TV are sponsors of the October 19th Texas Gubernatorial Debate in Austin at the UT Campus.  There are five candidates running for Governor, and the sponsors changed their rules to allow two major and two minor party candidates to participate, they said to foster an exchange of ideas and promote the health of our “democracy.”  They voted to allow every single candidate except one, however, to participate.  The only candidate excluded by sponsors is the officially registered write-in candidate, Andy Barron, who collected thousands of petitioner signatures and then also paid the hefty registration fee.  In other words, he met State Law for ballot access—and one would hope this were sufficient to be heard.  The sponsors actually dropped their criterion down from ten percent to one percent of public support when Governor Perry declined to participate, but the substantiating poll the sponsors used did not pick up sufficient support for Barron’s write-in insurgent candidacy.  Notwithstanding, a recent KWTX News Channel 10 poll showed support for Andy Barron in the Central Texas area to be in double digits.

The Andy Barron for Governor Campaign is currently paying for a prestigious outside research group to conduct a statewide scientific poll, on the outside chance that the campaign’s media ads have stirred recognition of their candidate and upped public support sufficiently to break the sponsors’ threshold for inclusion in the debate.  The irony is that only Governor Rick Perry’s recalcitrance has materialized a debate involving more than two dominant party representatives.  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules would not have allowed the sponsors to go forward with just one candidate, turning the planned debate essentially into an interview.  Other candidates would have to be afforded equal time under such a circumstance.  The Republican Governor has long demanded that Democrat Bill White release his 1990s income tax returns from when White served as Texas Democrat Party Chairman and Assistant U.S. Energy Secretary, or else he would not engage him in a debate.

Now there’s a good chance Andy Barron will prove public support above the lowered threshold of one percent statewide and could possibly receive a late invitation to participate.  If Barron is still not afforded an invitation to debate after showing sufficient scientific polling to prove his level of support above one percent, there could be basis for a lawsuit.  Many in Barron’s campaign already suspect an anti-religious bias and specifically anti-Christian discrimination.  If four or five candidates who were invited actually appeared, it will be the most interesting cross-section of political opinions ever represented before the public in Texas gubernatorial debate history.  There would also emerge a most difficult situation for Perry, particularly if his lead in the polls narrows by a couple points.  In that situation where four of five candidates are scheduled to appear and the race between Perry and White is close, Perry might be pressured to join the debate himself.  Since 1984 the Presidential debates have become such an institution, that a candidate finds it difficult to avoid them no matter how big his lead, at least without making his refusal a big issue in its own right.  We may be headed for a similar situation in the context of gubernatorial debates.

Tea Party support among candidates for Governor this year is divided between Governor Perry, who has the backing from Sarah Palin, but also Libertarian Kathie Glass, as well as “Other” party write-in candidate, Andy Barron.  All three have expressed support for the key constitutional concept of nullification, a doctrine whereby states may prevent enforcement of Federal authority in cases where encroachment of the Federal Government on states’ rights exceeds Constitutional authority to do so in that area.  Imagine a debate scenario in which three of five candidates for Governor of Texas actually support the sovereign right of the State to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress and unconstitutional executive orders by the president!  That would make Texas the winner no matter who finally wins election on Election Day, November 2nd.

Employment Preference Given to Immigrant Aliens over U.S. Citizens (Issue #469)

You may have noticed Ethiopians collecting tolls in Dallas, or Somalis working for the Texas prison system doing contract work.  Not African-Americans, mind you—we’re talking Africans.  Apparently state agencies hire people on visas and not necessarily the thousands of qualified American citizens who are out of a job in need of work.  Preferring aliens over U.S. citizens, particularly in times of economic downturn, is a despicable policy even for Obama’s “Amerika.”  The liberal mantra is that one truly can’t find an American to do “that kind” of work in America, no matter what kind of work that is.  At the heart of the matter are preference categories, affirmative action for so-called disadvantaged minorities and women, or special categories like handicapped.  Employers have to verify that an individual whom they plan to employ or continue to employ in the U.S. is authorized to accept employment, not whether he/she is a citizen—about that, employers frankly don’t care.

It is true that no alien may accept employment in the U.S. unless he/she has been authorized by the Government, but you see aliens are more equal than the majority of U.S. citizens and that’s the rub.  Aliens, such as those who were admitted as permanent residents, granted asylum or refugee status, or admitted in work-related nonimmigrant classifications have employment authorization as a direct result of their immigrations status.  Moreover, other aliens may apply individually for employment authorization.  In general, temporary non-immigrant workers will fall into the work category of seasonal agriculture, or else specialty areas like defense, nursing, fashion, athletics and entertainment.  Permanent workers fall into one of several categories that represent extraordinary ability, advanced degree, a certain profession, business or skill.  There are in fact many ways in which a person may be able to work in the U.S.  Approximately 140,000 immigrant visas are available every year for alien permanent worker categories, and there are millions of permanent resident aliens already living and working legally now in the United States.

You’ll also be happy to know that Congress mandates a Diversity Immigrant Visa Program too, which is administered annually by the Department of State.  Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes 55,000 Diversity Visas (DV) available each year to persons from countries with low rates of immigration.  The Department of State conducts a lottery to hand these out, and international registration for one of these babies opens up on October 5th and closes the day after Election Day, November 2nd.  These lucky “Lotto” Winners will have preference for hiring when they arrive in the U.S.  All of which doesn’t sound that terrible, until one considers something else alongside of it.  American citizenship places one at a positive disadvantage for employment opportunity, especially if one is white and it involves applying for a government job or government contract.  U.S. citizens are actually disadvantaged when it comes to getting a job with the U.S. or State Government in these United States of America!

Whereas a government job now and again may require a security clearance, which could possibly advantage citizenship, most government jobs do not require one.  Some preference categories such as for veterans in the State of Texas might also give a citizen the edge.  Federal preference categories, however, direct preference in hiring based on minority race/ethnicity, female gender, or disabled status.  State agencies across the state follow Federal Guidelines and Federal “Law” with respect to the eligibility to work in the U.S. based solely on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy directives.  The USCIS standard is that, as long as an individual completes an I-9 and the agency can verify an individual is legally able to work in the U.S., that state agency (or any private employer) is able to hire them.  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines with respect to non-discrimination practices further and expressly do not have “preference” criteria to hire American citizens over someone else, say, who is legally able to work by virtue of permanent legal residency or the VISA that authorizes work in the U.S.!

Virtually every Human Relations (HR) Department in government and quite a few larger businesses parrot the politically correct policy position that, why yes, we certainly do not preference a mere citizen but will gladly hire someone with a VISA if that person is the “most qualified candidate” and most especially if that person happens to fall into a minority category.  As the U.S. Department of Labor proclaims, “Affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities.”  Translation: a person who is African and black has a better chance to get jobs under the law and EEOC guidelines than a person who is a U.S. Citizen and happens to be white—for Federal jobs and contracts to be sure, and also for the states and employers who follow the same idiotic rules.

The majority of unemployed and underemployed people fall into that unfortunate category of being both white and citizen, but then a policy of not hiring them first over immigrant aliens is only idiotic if the Government chiefly serves them.  Silly Rabbit, you just answered your own stupid question.  Consider the full extent of the mess we’re in.  As stated, employers must verify that an individual whom they plan to employ or continue to employ in the U.S. is authorized to accept employment in the U.S.  That’s truly amazing, even if it no longer sounds strange, because it wasn’t always so.  You see, once upon a time Americans enjoyed an existential right to work and a corresponding right to hire virtually unimpeded by government “oversight.”  The presumption of freedom changed only with the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which provided terms of the last amnesty for illegal immigrants.  In other words, we started enforcing dictatorial terms of hiring, in order to advantage certain legalized and formerly illegal immigrants over newly arriving illegal ones.  Of course there shouldn’t have been too many of those, since the implicit precondition for amnesty was that we would secure our U.S. borders.

In periods of economic downturn and high unemployment, citizens compete more directly with alien residents and temporary workers for scarce job openings.  Some of them will no doubt experience disappointment and anxiety if/when they do not “win” the competition for jobs.  Today there are more than four job-seekers for every opening.  For any given job, there probably are dozens of applications.  Historically periods of economic downturn correlate strongly to increased political nativism and to anti-immigrant sentiment among the native population (majority ethnicity and citizens).  Prior to 1965 the political establishment showed a pattern of responding to this, through steps to alleviate the overall numbers of legal immigrants being admitted to the U.S.  National origins percentages were applied to aid in the process of assimilation.  In many ways, the period we witness today is atypical, because there are many favored categories for hiring that did not exist before the Civil Rights Era.  Moreover, we have a much larger problem today with illegal immigration, as well as with illegal hiring and employment.

Under such a circumstance, it would appear prudent to introduce legislation and administrative policy preferences that address the obvious and valid concern, and which recognizes the fact that U.S. Citizens do indeed have greatest stock in our society.  The edifice of government is chiefly maintained by the citizen-voter and citizen-taxpayer.  The government’s obligation to its American citizens and the rights that inhere in them under the Constitution exceed that for resident aliens or nonimmigrant workers, foreigners and visitors of every stripe.  Preference in hiring should be afforded to the native born and naturalized citizen worker in these United States.  Government agencies do not currently discriminate on the basis of citizenship versus non-citizenship, so long as the person is authorized to work in the U.S., but it is time that they should.

States Must Resist the Tyranny of the Federal Government (Issue #468)

As parties to the compact that created and empowered the U.S. Government, States have legal standing to check the federal government’s use of powers that States did not delegate. Inaction and refusal to comply with an unconstitutional federal mandate is the primary tool that States can employ. An example of this peaceful, efficient and effective resistance to federal meddling is the response to The Real ID Act 2005, which requires States to implement certain driver’s license and identification card standards and sharing of the same with other States. Most States simply have done nothing, or in fact have passed resolutions opposing it. Neither have they funded the program or implemented it. The Tenth Amendment is very important for state officials to understand because it authoritatively explains that: (1) the States and the people have kept all powers which they did not specifically delegate or specifically give up to form the Union; and (2) U.S. authority at the national federal level is limited, defined, and delegated by the States. The first point reminds us that Texas is independent and sovereign and has the wherewithal to take care of herself. The second aspect reminds us that the U.S. is not an unlimited and all powerful master but rather, a steward charged by the States with certain duties.

The original Constitution was quickly amended with the “Bill of Rights” (the first Ten Amendments) because there was considerable concern among the Founding Fathers that the original Constitution, without it, might be later misconstrued or misunderstood. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, in particular, do not add or subtract anything in the way of powers or authority. They do, however, explain to subsequent generations what the Founders explicitly meant by the original Constitution—in military parlance, they communicate the Founders’ “intent.” The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are simply authoritative declarations which, like a monument, mark a boundary for future generations, and like a fence, keep some things on and some things off your property. If Texas is to remain sovereign and independent, Texas officeholders must wisely, peacefully, but immediately endeavor to take care of the State’s own affairs and its people and to defend the State and its people against the Federal Government’s use of “powers not delegated to the United States.”

But what happens if Texas does not preserve local self-government? What happens if the U.S. exercises “the powers not delegated” to it by the Constitution? What if Texas gives up local self-determination either voluntarily or otherwise? What if the U.S. Government overreaches into the affairs of the States and individuals? Is it of any consequence? Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution indicates that it is of grave consequence: “The maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.” ‘Houston, I’d say we have a problem!’

In fact, we’ve had a dual problem for quite some time: (1) the abdication or neglect of self-government by States; and (2) the usurpation of “the powers not delegated” by the U.S. Federal Government. Both acting in tandem make for a perfect storm, in terms of endangering our freedoms and the national Union itself. Patriots are passionate about the Tenth Amendment because it is the cornerstone of our Federal Republic. If we ignore it and fail to line up the other stones in the Constitutional edifice with it, the entire building is in jeopardy of collapsing, and this is very much the way the Founders explained their rationale for building a federal structure with dual State and Federal sovereignty in the first instance. To violate the intent and letter of the Constitution in this regard is illegal, in that it violates the Organic Law of the land. Moreover, it is risky, imprudent and foolish from the basis of history and politics, which the Founders understood extremely well. But this does not need to happen!

If your neighbor begins to build a greenhouse on your property, the neighborly thing to do, is to go talk to your neighbor and point out the problem, i.e., that he has crossed the property line and is on your property. If necessary, you may need to uncover boundary monuments and get out a survey instrument to demonstrate to your neighbor where the boundary line is and how he is encroaching upon your property. This usually solves the problem, especially if it is done in a timely manner. The first point of the illustration is that there is a dual responsibility: one must not encroach, and the other must be diligent enough to identify and defend against such encroachment. This is especially true for a federal republic made up of independent sovereign states. The second point is that vigilance and timely defense is necessary to avoid costly disputes. Even reasonable neighbors are very slow to admit and correct encroachments that are left uncontested for years. Unfortunately, the States have for a long time acquiesced to encroachments on their rights and the rights of the people—often because an unconstitutional federal action appeared to be beneficial.

If Texans are to be free and our Union preserved, then Texas officeholders must wisely, peacefully, incrementally but immediately endeavor to restore our State’s self-government, which is now impaired by the Federal Government’s use of “powers not delegated to the United States.” There are two areas where the General Government of the U.S. is presently seeking to unconstitutionally extend its authority: (1) healthcare; and (2) environmental regulation. Other areas of overreach include firearms regulation and legal tender laws. Moreover, the General Government of the U.S. has not merely usurped State and individual rights, but it has also failed to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States. All of which means that, as a sovereign, independent State Texas must refuse to comply with, facilitate, or enact unconstitutional federal legislation. We do not fund or budget it. We do not manage or implement it. We do not allow the Federal Government to harass or serve warrants, unless they are for Constitutional laws. This is a tall order but absolutely essential if we are to escape abject tyranny. May God turn us back to Him, and may God save Texas and keep these United States.

What Would Jefferson Say? No Good Government Here (Issue #467)

As a modern Jeffersonian Republican, my political philosophy can pretty much be summed up by Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address.  In that speech, he outlined what he considered to be the sum of good government.  Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence and our nation’s third president, said that good government consists of these attributes: (1) it is wise and frugal; (2) it keeps men from injuring one another; (3) government otherwise leaves men and women free to their own pursuits of industry and improvement; and (4) government does not take out of the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned.  The first two of the attributes have to do with the limited nature of civil government itself, whereas the second two posit an expansive view of the human individual.

Good civil government is first of all wise and frugal.  Wise is an adjective purporting wisdom, and wisdom is the right application of knowledge.  Scripture says the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God.  So how does that apply to civil government?  Directly, in that, wise political leaders are humble, recognizing that they are not omniscient; good civil magistrates recognize their limitations and govern from a felt sense of humility—they do not profess to know everything.  Wise political leaders are cautious, recognizing that though they wield much power, rarely do they achieve the ends which they set out to accomplish.  There are sad and unintended consequences to the careless use of power, as with mishandling a loaded gun.  Wise political leaders recognize that they too are subject to live under the same laws as they put upon others; and all men and women, including themselves, are subject to fundamental principles of right and wrong and correct behavior.

Frugal is also an adjective meaning thrifty, economical, careful, cautious, prudent, provident, not wasteful, sparing, scrimping; abstemious, abstinent, austere, self-denying, ascetic, monkish, Spartan; parsimonious, miserly, penny-pinching, close-fisted; tightfisted, tight, stingy.  Today our present civil government is hardly that and indeed closely resembles the opposite or antonym of the word frugal—our government is extravagant and is therefore not a good government on that basis alone!

Good civil government secondly, according to Jefferson, keeps men from injuring one another.  This too is hardly the case along our southern border with Mexico, and yet this is the fundamental and essential purpose of civil government—to protect life, liberty and property.  A Jeffersonian view of humanity recognizes that individual men and woman are sovereign; that they have inalienable rights that are not conferred; not granted by governments or compacts, but bound up in their very nature in who they are—free and responsible and special (according to Scripture made in the image of  God).  The purpose of government is limited and not extensive.  It is simply to protect individuals from harm.  Civil governments are necessary only because of irresponsible behavior, specifically aggression.  If we were angels we would not need civil government.  Sovereignty of the state is only an extension of the sovereignty of individuals.

Good civil government, thirdly, leaves men free to their own pursuits of employment and improvement.  Civil government is not to direct the actions of individuals, only to keep them from harming others.  Sovereignty again is essentially individual and not collective.  Today regulations and requirements and the threat of legal entanglements, are so pervasive and onerous in relation to just about anything one might try to do.  Government literally stands in the way of individual pursuits and dreams contrary to the vision of our Founders.  At the same time taxes kill anything you might actually accomplish!

This brings us to Jefferson’s Fourth attribute, namely, good civil government does not take out of the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned, i.e., does not steal from the fruits of our labor.  Government today steals from Peter to pay Paul and Paulette, and sustains a huge bureaucracy to enforce the terms.

A modern Jeffersonian view of civil government is humble; sees itself as a servant of sovereign individuals and not as their master; recognizes that the fundamental action and authority of civil society is left to free and responsible actions of individuals.  Today everything is turned on its head.  Instead of individuals having the most responsibility and freedom, civil government controls almost everything.  Civil government should be the least of all governments, because remember there are many governments (self, family, church, etc.).  Moreover, civil government of the State of Texas should be a far more prevalent factor than, say, the national federal government.  Again everything is turned on its head.  Mayors every day contend with extensive burdens placed on city government and local schools by a multitude of unconstitutional federal mandates.  And oh by the way, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is not merely a federal issue to be interpreted by the federal government; rather, it is an issue of great consequence for state lawmakers who, among other state officials, are responsible to defend Texas sovereignty and independence.  This is underscored by the requirement that every office bearer in Texas must swear: to the best of his or her ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the U.S. and of this State.

The U.S. Government has grown so large, so powerful and so intrusive, that the States are in very real danger of losing their self-determination and sovereignty.  One of the reasons for this growth is the misconception that the federal government itself is the final interpreter or sole arbiter of whether it has exercised “the powers not delegated” to it by the Constitution.  It is commonly believed the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say concerning whether or not the U.S. has exceeded its constitutional bounds.  If this is the case, we find ourselves in a situation akin to Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, where the creature cannot be checked and may in fact overcome its own creator.

Two Cents’ Worth and the Penny Saved (Issue #466)

You may have recently noticed a new penny.

Obviously the penny isn’t worth much, well maybe a penny but not one red cent’s worth of value. The penny pincher knows it hasn’t always been made of pure copper, but since 1962 the “cent” was minted with 95 percent copper composition and only 5 percent zinc. Today the penny has reversed itself, with 97.5 percent zinc and only 2.5 percent copper. The 2010 penny practically blows away, and practically speaking it might as well be the same denomination as a paper bill, a.k.a. Federal Reserve Note. The coin doesn’t jingle so much as clink, like some subway token or cheap fake. The penny is emblematic of the debasement of U.S. currency that has taken place under our very noses. There is more than one reason why passers-by, have long since ceased to pick up a penny, or even a nickel or a dime. There’s no dime’s worth of difference.

Speaking of emblematical debasement, one will also notice on the new Reverse side that Captain America has lent his shield to the occasion. The cartoon reflects the insubstantial and fictitious nature of the cords that bind this Union together, as well as the marshal nature of domination perpetrated by the federal government in the Twenty-First Century. The symbol is actually intended to convey that message.

According to the U.S. Mint, the design evokes Abraham Lincoln’s “preservation of the United States…as a single and united country.” Lest the country get carried away somehow by remembrance of Freedom or Liberty, it was required by the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, Title III of Public Law 109-145. While the obverse or heads side bears the familiar Victor David Brenner likeness of President Lincoln which has appeared since 1909, the reverse now shows a union shield. The shield dates to the 1780s and at first represented the united nature of political resistance to and military defense by Thirteen Original Colonies against British tyranny. The union shield was co-opted and used widely in the North during its prosecution of the War Between the States. According to the U.S. Mint, it is the foregone conclusion and symbolic representation of this shield today that thirteen vertical stripes represent all fifty states joined into “one compact union to support the federal government, [as] represented by the horizontal bar above.” This then becomes the meaning of the inscription E PLURIBUS UNUM—“out of many, one”: that all fifty sovereign states exist to support the Federal Government. Oh great, now that the Federal Government is run by a unitary Chief Executive and his appointed czars, in order to wage wars indefinitely and to command the un-free market economy! Heaven help us.

It would sure be nice if a candidate for Governor, for instance, would start sounding a theme so many Texans are wanting, and waiting to hear; namely, that the 1st and the 10th Amendments still mean what they say, and all the Bill of Rights in between. In terms of policy this could and probably does mean a return of prayer in public schools to help give our children and society the foundational set of values we need to build upon again. From a Constitutional perspective, this is Freedom in fact, and the truth of the matter is that we have not got the sort of Republic our Founding Founders intended. Self-determination is Freedom; and matters of faith and education are left entirely within the purview of the States, according to the Constitution. It is time to ‘Just say No’ to the Federal Government.

The Colonies that united together during the American Revolution did so, on the basis of self-determination and the sovereign political will of their respective peoples. They did not do so because the Federal Government ‘represented by the horizontal bar above’ screwed and bolted them down in a vertical alignment, and declared unilaterally that is how it was going to be. Ironically, the patina on the Statue of Liberty covers copper, rather than zinc, and figuratively that copper is more malleable than a steel rod or iron, intimating the way that separate societies of the several states are supposed to be able to seek and expect an accommodation with the federal government, to pursue those solutions and prescriptions the Constitution had left them free to pursue.

Prayer to Save Texas and America (Issue #465)

On August 19, 2010 an important “Save Texas” rally and concert was held at the Mayborn Convention Center in Temple, Texas.  YouTube sensation Krista Branch presented a vibrant concert performance, featuring patriotic and inspirational Christian music.  She started with her song hit entitled, “I am America” and gave an encore performance of the same song at the end of the evening.  The worship event was hosted by Dr. Andy Barron, Central Texas area orthodontist and a devout Christian, who subsequently filed on August 24th to be an official write-in candidate for the Texas Governor’s race.

Barron has stated simply that, if elected Governor, Texans will be free once again to have prayer back in their public schools.  The plank comprises much of his platform.  The following is a slightly altered version of the opening prayer presented by Yours Truly at the “Save Texas” rally and concert.  Prayer of course has a powerful alterative effect, whenever people of faith fervently invoke the Name of God, whether silently or audibly.  Prayer can change the course of nations, as well as the paths that people walk.  Please think of this as you read, in order to infuse the words with power and bring a blessing into your own experience.

“Dear Lord, our God: Thank you for being with us and meeting us always where we are; and Lord thank you for your Son.  Thank you for your mercy and for all the many blessings we enjoy.  Thank you for bringing us to this spot—this physical spot, as well as this place in our lives, this time in history.  We pray for a safe journey and return Home.

“Thank you for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen; and for law enforcement and border patrol and all those who protect us.  Lord—we pray that you’ll protect them, and grant them Victory as You would have it done.

“God grant us peace in our time.  We pray that you will always steer us clear of violence and evil.  Keep us secure also from temptation.  Keep safe those whom we love.  Protect the innocent and the unborn, the frail and weak.  And Lord, if it be Thy will that we must ever confront evil let us not be afraid when doing so.  Be with us in our hour of need and darkness; give us strength and heart, as well as the courage to prevail.

“O Lord our God we pray earnestly for our Country: for healing in our Economy, for a rejuvenation of our civil society; for resuscitation of the Body Politic and regard for the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.  Deliver us from the Evil Tide and from the imposition of socialism and communism in Your Land of Liberty.

“We pray also for your Church.  And Father, in the name of Jesus, we come before you remembering 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says: ‘If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.’  We know your promise is true, even at this grave hour.  We pray for your forgiveness and for healing in the land.  May we do what is required of us to obtain the blessing contained in this your promise.  God grant us vision Lord, as that peculiar people who are called by Your Name.  God save Texas to be that beacon that America so desperately needs, to light the way for our fellow countrymen.

“Enable us to restore the Republic of our Fathers—and so honoring the God of our Fathers again in the Schoolhouse, at the Courthouse, in all manner of private and public discourse.  Let our worship of Thee be always pleasing.  May the love of Christ enter in and bless and sanctify us wholly, that we may abound to every good work and know and follow the leadings of Truth.  Give every self-professing Christian the courage to attend to his or her civic and sacred responsibilities: to participate and to vote, as well as to live according to his or her convictions.

“Lastly, we pray that the Church will awaken to a higher sense of righteousness in every denomination, in every body of believers; that we should begin to unify under the bloodstained banner of the Cross.  Let the message be only this: Christ crucified and resurrected.  And may we know and feel with a calm assurance that He lives and reigns forever.  O God, we give Thee praise because He lives.  To Thine be the glory in our daily walk.  Amen.”

Post Script: Glenn Beck hosted the “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, 28 August with a very similar religious theme.  Like Dr. Andy Barron, he urged his audience to pray more.  Krista Branch was also there at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial performing, and several members of the Central Texas Tea Party were in attendance too.  More than 100,000 people gathered to hear speeches by Beck and Sarah Palin.  The rally coincided with the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  With so much of substance accomplished from that original Dream of his (itself from the Declaration of Independence),  it is ironically time now to begin to  restore key features of the American Dream based upon the United States Constitution, rather than to transform further.  For a very large Christian audience in America, that’s what the November 2nd Mid-Term Elections will be about.

Doggett, Edwards Deal Constitution another Blow in the Name of Education (Issue #464)

Austin Congressman Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX District 25) recently sponsored an amendment to H.R. 1586 that is grossly unconstitutional, and his friend Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX District 17) of Waco supported it enthusiastically.  It just goes to show how any good cause these days, particularly if it is a winner politically, will trump adherence to the U.S. Constitution or the intent of the Founding Fathers.  Doggett’s amendment essentially places an education spending mandate on the State of Texas alone of all the fifty states.

H.R. 1586 refers to The FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act.  The bill like so many others is a veritable grab-bag of bailouts and legislation pertaining to unrelated topics such as education, Medicaid, and nutrition—not to mention a massive bailout for state governments.  The total cost is $26 billion, which costs every American family approximately $126 per year.  The bill also allocates $10 billion for jobs in education nation-wide, of which $831 million would go to Texas, in order to pay for 14,500 teacher jobs.  The bill’s controversial amendment introduced by Rep. Doggett and voted for by Congressional Democrats including Edwards, requires Texas to maintain the same level of funding in education for the next three years.

Never mind the Governor has no such authority to guarantee or to direct the State Legislature to spend a certain amount of money, or to possibly bind future Legislatures.  As U.S. Congressmen from Texas, Doggett and Edwards should know that.  Beyond that, one would hope that they appreciate the U.S. Constitution too and the understand the fact that Court precedent precludes federal legislation from treating States unequally.  The idea being that all States, old and new, do and should share an equality of constitutional right and power as a condition of belonging to the Union in the first place.  States are equal in power, dignity and authority, each competent to exert that residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the United States by the Constitution itself.  To maintain otherwise would be to say that the Union, through the power of Congress might come to be a union of States unequal in power, including States whose powers were restricted only by the Constitution and others whose powers had been further restricted by acts of Congress!

It is clear from the legislation that Texas has some Democrat congressmen, who are either unaware of constitutional limits to their authority, or else they are outright traitors to the State.  Doggett’s Amendment would require the Governor to offer some sort of presumably written assurance to the feds to receive the funds earmarked for Texas.  Even if that assurance amounts to a prediction and there are no claw-back or enforcement provisions in the legislation, the Governor does not work for, or report to, the Federal Government.  Hence the language of the Amendment is an attempt to extort certain behavior quid quo pro for the funds, and it amounts at least to implicit infringement on State sovereignty.

Doggett sponsored his amendment essentially to pick a bone: he was unhappy that Governor Perry used part of the money Texas received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a.k.a. the federal stimulus package) to offset regularly scheduled spending.  Hence Doggett is trying to ensure Texas uses federal money to supplement rather than supplant funds for education with money it receives.  Clearly it is a continuation at federal level of partisan wrangling over Texas legislative priorities and Texas State budget.  If taken on its face, the Amendment doesn’t even satisfy Federal legislative priorities or U.S. Congressional intent.  The federal stimulus package was, well, for economic stimulus—not all about education.  Likewise, this current polyglot bill is for stimulus too.  Education spending clearly has merit, even in the area of stimulus, but there are many other things money can be spent on to foster recovery and economic growth: to put people back to work and take economic pressure off families; to keep students in school and to enable the workforce to pursue education and wellbeing.

Both Representatives Lloyd Doggett and Chet Edwards are myopic at best and, quite frankly, they lack a larger vision—conservative, progressive or otherwise.  In hindsight, Doggett apparently begrudges the fact the Texas economy is doing so well, or that state government is in a far better position than virtually any other state.  Now that Texas faces an $18 billion shortfall next year, he wants to limit flexibility and virtually assure that Texas follows the path of a California or a New York to bankruptcy.  Texans simply cannot know today whether or not they will be able to afford exactly the same percentage of the budget going towards public education.  No one doubts the Governor’s commitment to education, but limiting his and the Legislature’s flexibility in bad economic times is particularly imprudent, even foolhardy.  Not only that, the offset using federal dollars for “scheduled spending” actually includes things like textbooks and other costs which support education.  Indeed, there really is no quantifiable harm for the offset using federal funds that Doggett complains about.  Education is far more complex than that, and benefits do not accrue dollar for dollar.

Doggett’s approach would literally preclude the realization of cost savings ever (so much for improving efficiency or trying innovation to get a better return on investment, or better results in the classroom either).  The Amendment is really a stunt designed to embarrass the Governor, given that economic imperatives are likely to drive him and the Legislature to make hard choices, in order to balance the budget next year.  Doggett was elected in 1994, and if doesn’t know this then he has been in Washington, D.C. too long, having forgotten that unlike the U.S. Congress, States are required to balance their budgets!  In the bigger scheme of things, education is important but economic opportunity for high school and college graduates, as well as the solvency of state government is more important.  Typically there is not a wide trade-off and certainly it isn’t zero-sum, but during the Great Recession and for the next couple of years it could be.  Only Doggett and other liberal Democrats in Congress would attempt to play ostrich with the situation and put their heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the reality of high unemployment, the slowness of the recovery, the uncertainty of business environment.  For Chet Edwards’s part, he was first elected in 1990 and was considered for President Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick in 2008—largely for his adept record at looking and acting conservative while supporting liberal politics, such as the anti-Texan and unconstitutional Doggett Amendment to score points for supporting education while empowering the federal government even more.