Thursday, January 29, 2015

RAND PAUL DESERVES A FAIR SHAKE


Rand Paul's presidential campaign is for real and it will be interesting to see if the media gives him a fair shake. Why do I say that?  History!

Rand Paul's politics are not exactly the same as his famous father, Dr. Ron Paul. But if they treat him and his presidential run like they treated his father, it will be patently unfair. They not only ridiculed and marginalized Dr. Ron Paul, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, they gave their listeners very few opportunities to know what the man was selling.

What he was selling was not necessarily the same thing the media attacks. Many would say Dr. Paul was more conservative than his friend Ronald Reagan. But the fact of the matter is that some of what he was selling and the media was dogging are political positions that have become popular in the last few years.

Rather than report the news, they prevented their viewers from hearing it. Maybe they will do better with Rand. We will soon see.

Regardless, the following is an article to make sure those in my reach know Rand just scored big on his latest political play. Before I post it, let me say I am leaning toward Ted Cruz. But Paul has become a candidate I could easily get excited about if he were our nominee and we should be vigilante to help make sure all those who mistreat our candidates are identified and get their just rewards - Fox news included.

Here is the report:

The chairman of the Texas Republican Party is planning to join Rand Paul as an adviser for a potential presidential campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Steve Munisteri will join the Kentucky senator’s team in March after leaving his post as head of the Texas GOP, 
Snagging Munisteri is a victory for Paul over two other likely 2016 hopefuls from the Lone Star State — Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Rick Perry.
“I’ve known the senator for 33 years and what I’m most impressed with about him is his commitment to expand the party’s reach,” Munisteri told the Journal. “Our party cannot be successful, we cannot retake the White House if we do not do a better job of reaching out. Senator Paul has had that message since he’s been in office.”
Paul, who has made major overtures to young people and minorities, told an audience in Houston last year that Texas was at risk of becoming a Democratic state if the GOP didn’t become “a more welcoming party.”
Paul spent most of his childhood in Texas and attended Baylor University in Waco, where he was a member of the Young Conservatives of Texas group, founded by Munisteri. His father, Ron, represented Texas’s 22nd and 14th districts in Congress.
The senator announced earlier this month that he would be opening up an office in Austin in the spring or early summer.
Munisteri, 57, has served as chairman of the Texas GOP since 2010, during which time the state party has raised about $22 million. He has worked on presidential campaigns in several early nominating states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, according to the Texas GOP website.


Wednesday, January 28, 2015

CHOOSING NOT TO FIGHT DICTATORS



There is a great deal of talk about when one should stand his ground and fight. Louis Rose was known as a brave  soldier before he found himself in a situation where he thought it best to pack up his guns and hit the road. Below is a short bio on Rose without any commentary or specific point even attempted to be made. Instead, I will let the reader try to put himself in Rose’s position in 1836 and decide for themselves how this fits in their belief system.

Louis (Moses) Rose, a soldier of fortune who escaped from the Alamo and contributed to its legends, was born on May 11, 1785, in Laferée, Ardennes, France. He joined Napoleon's 101st Regiment in 1806 and eventually became a lieutenant. In 1814 he was named to the French Legion of Honor for his role as aide-de-camp to Gen. Jacques de Monfort. He served in campaigns in Naples, Portugal, and Spain as well as in the invasion of Russia. Though no one knows when or where he entered North America, he settled in Nacogdoches, Texas, about 1827. There he was employed as a log cutter and hauler at a sawmill owned by John Durst and Frost Thorn and served as a messenger between Nacogdoches and Natchitoches, Louisiana. He joined the Fredonian Rebellion in 1826 and took part in the battle of Nacogdoches in 1832. Rose was a friend of James Bowie and accompanied or followed him to the Alamo in the fall of 1835. He fought in the siege of Bexar that year.


Rose served the cause of Texas independence a fourth time during the siege of the Alamo. He fought for ten days, up to three days before the fall of the fort, and then escaped. He is the source of the story about William B. Travis's drawing a line in the dirt with his sword. Rose got the nickname Moses because of his age at the time, fifty-one. When asked, "Moses, why didn't you stay there in the Alamo with the others?" he invariably replied, "By God, I wasn't ready to die." He was not the only survivor of the battle of the Alamo. Bowie and Travis sent out numerous couriers, including Capt. Juan N. Seguín, to plead for reinforcements, and other men left during an armistice that Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna declared. In 1907 Enrique Esparza reported, "Rose left after this armistice had expired . . . [and] after Travis drew the line with his sword. He was the only man who did not cross the line. Up to then, he had fought as bravely as any man there . . . . Rose went out during the night. They opened a window for him and let him go. The others who left before went out the doors and in the daytime." William P. Zuber, whose parents took Rose in after he left the Alamo, wrote of the escape. Rose went through enemy lines west through San Antonio, then south down the San Antonio River about three miles, then east through open prairie to the Guadalupe River, avoiding roads. He arrived at the Zuber ranch in Grimes County and stayed there for a while before going on to Nacogdoches, where he operated a butcher shop and acted as a witness for numerous heirs of Alamo defenders trying to get land for their service. In 1842 he moved to Logansport, Louisiana, where he lived with Aaron Ferguson's family until his death. Rose, who never married, died in 1851. His brother Isaac had several sons; in 1927 one of Isaac's descendants, Arthur Rose, presented Moses Rose's gun to the Alamo museum.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

BOB DYLAN IS STILL SERVING


Rumprs that one of the most famous rock stars in history recented his conversion and is no longer a follower of Jesus Christ appear untrue. It seems the media liked him more as a confused searching hippie popping pills and smoking dope than as a born again Christian, so we just don' hear much from those who use to cover him ad nauseum.

God bless you Bob! Here are the lyrics from one of his songs not long after he accepted Christ as his Lord:

"Gotta Serve Somebody"

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might be a rock'n' roll adict prancing on the stage
Might have money and drugs at your commands, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be an young turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord you might even own banks.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Jimmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say.

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.



Monday, January 26, 2015

RETHINK ALL OF THE "RINO" NAMECALLING


Why are RINO'S are pointing out other RINO'S?

I think accurate words can help communicate and describe people and where they are coming from. I am not one of those people who says they "hate labels". But an opportunity for explanation or rebuttal may be necessary by the person labeling or the person getting labeled.

Recently I have noticed a trend has developed by people that would choose to label themselves Libertarian over the label Republican. These political activists are freely labeling people in the Repblican party RINO's. RINO is a pejorative  term conservatives have used to label people they do not believe are committed enough to the principles of the Republican party. Sometimes the term has been used to describe party switchers that appear to be uncommitted and sometimes it has been used to opportunists who seem to have a commitment to themselves and no principles. But in all cases whatever the person labeling someone a RINO might intend ........ it has never been a good thing. In  the past this was not compliment.

A problem arises when people that do not identify themselves as Republicans (without reservations) chooses to use this label. Now we must wonder if  the person using this label means it as a positive thing. Anyone who does not want to commit to being a Republican or has reservations about their goals could easily be labeled a RINO if they associate themselves with the party as a candidate or as a member. Therefore, their use of the term RINO could easily mean something good.

It "could" mean something good,but it has been my experience that it is mix of two totally different things. They are identifying the same RINO's Republicans have tried to shun for decades or it is libertarians criticizing Republicans they do not want to hold office.

As a result, we Republicans have the strange situation where many times we agree and appreciate the help from these Libertarians, but we also realize they are not real Republicans. Libertarians have huge fundamental differences with the pro-life party that believes the best way to prevent war is to have a military budget that is more than enough to fulfill its Constitutional duty. Their labeling who RINO's  would be the same thing as a third party effecting who the Democrat party nominates by pushing labels on their candidates in a similar way.

The result is, the Republican party's candidates are sometimes being chosen by people who patently disagree with Republican goals. Sometimes they have a candidate that they want to elect so they spew out the RINO label. It is easy to do. Spending or enlarging government in any single area can be interpreted by them as RINO, even though reducing the size of government overall by weeding out the useless and reducing the waste does not necessarily mean voting against spending on every bill. ev.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

ANOTHER FORMER COMMISSIONER HURTS LEGACY

Years after all of the protest meetings and the secret gatherings to get a new county commissioner in Dayton, now one of the men who said he could fix the Dayton areas county road problems has served his time and has been retired by his opponent.

Former Commissioner Norman Brown faced tremendous problems as he came into office over eight years ago on the votes of an angry electorate. Whether the job was even something the public would have ever thought someone successfully fulfilled is debatable. Brown may or may not have had an impossible job. That kind of thing will be left up, as they say, to the eyes of the beholder".

But as Leon Wilson comes in to serve there is one thing Norman Brown did in his last days in office that is undebatable. Maybe he did it because as he was first elected as a Democrat, it was "old hat" for Democrats to do what Brown ended up doing after he lost in his re-election bid. What did Brown do? At best, he made decisions he should have left for his successor. At worst, he spat in the face of the voters.

What am I talking about? Among other things, I am talking about selling important equipment that belonged to Liberty County after he lost his primary to Leon Wilson. The equipment included a truck and trailers.

This is the kind of stuff that makes people hate politics. This behavior is the kind of thing that has made it difficult for Dayton to repair roads and other things they hoped their commissioner could do.

Regardless of how you thought Commissioner Brown did his job before losing, there is no doubt he did not have Dayton's best interest in mind in his waning days. And that is unfortunate.

TED POE WANTED TO AVOiD MARGINALZING HIS DISTRICT



In case you thought John Boehner always cried in the clinch, please take note: SPEAKER BOEHNER TAKES REVENGE.

Exactly what Representative Ted Poe wanted to avoid. Some, if not all of the 25 Republicans who did not vote for Boehner, may look back and realize their influence, and the influence of their district, in this Congress, was diminished as they lost plum committee posts.
Ted Poe knew what most of the Republicans knew going into the actual vote. He knew where his constituents stood on Boehner and he knew there were not enough votes to send the voting to another ballot. So Poe knew what his district wanted was not going to happen, regardless of how he voted.

After Boehner was assured of his third term as Speaker of the House f, Boehner moved swiftly to dismiss two of the insurgents from the influential Rules Committee. That could be just the start of payback in the months to come for the Speaker’s betrayers, who might never see subcommittee chairmanships and other perks as they might have.

Some of Boehner’s allies insulted the men that voted against him by calling them "insignificant" and "unheard of", as if they don't know what they are doing yet. But Boehner and his allies do know what they are doing. They are said to be eager to finally have persuaded Boehner to stop being too nice to people who are eager to stab him in the back, and go for their throats - mostly out of the sight of the public and the media. 

The removal of Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent from Rules was public however. It was meant to send a clear message that what Boehner and other party leaders accepted during the previous Congress is no longer acceptable, not with the House’s biggest GOP majority in decades.

GOP leadership thought seats on the Rules Committee were a plum that these two no longer deserved and it just took a little bit of one day for Webster and Nugent (and tehir districts) to find themselves on the outside of a power structure they were once very much a part of.

The House Republican leadership is carefully reviewing the list of members who voted against the speaker and those who opposed a procedural motion in December on the so-called “crominibus,” the $1.1 trillion spending package to keep the government open through to September. Top Republican sources suggested that the process could take months to unfold.

“This is one of those cases where the fire has only gotten more intense,” said a GOP lawmaker. “More attention has been brought to this now. It’s not going to go away.”

Tuesday’s tally brought “double the number” of anti-Boehner votes compared with 2013, noted Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), one of the most vocal thorns in Boehner’s side. Huelskamp said he was unhappy that “only three of the freshmen class” voted against Boehner.


Huelskamp said he was denied a chance to get back his seat on the Agriculture Committee because of his opposition to Boehner. The Kansas Republican was removed from the panel in 2012.
“I am already hearing from my colleagues, and myself, about retaliation against those who voted their conscience, their constituents, their principles, to change the status quo,” Huelskamp said. “My colleagues fully expect that. That’s what they expect out of this leadership team.”

In almost every sense, Boehner worked much harder for this reelection than he did in 2013. Two years ago, the Ohio Republican was caught off guard by a handful of rebels, one being Steve Stockman (infamous for leading "charges" only to find no one following - example, Stockman filed a bill to impeach Obama).

Poe saw how the vote was going to go and that it would be little more than symbolism for him to vote with the rebels. And he decided to vote in a way that gave his district as much clout for future votes and issues as possible.

“We don’t need these fringe guys as much as we did anymore,” said a GOP leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We can let them walk on certain bills, and it just won’t matter. That gives us breathing room.”

INTERPRETING VOTING “PRESENT”



The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. Hold on before you hear what I have to say and simply disagree. Keep an open mind and read the entire article. I have left those who want to continue their anger and disappointment an opportunity to agree with me and still interpret a “present” vote as “cowardly” if that is their impression of the person that cast it. Keep reading and you will see how, at least historically, a “present” vote has been interpreted to send any one of three possible messages.

Regardless of what the intent of the message, I must point out however that those needing a “yes” vote are frequently the ones most upset and they are also the one with unique powers to claim revenge. Even if there is only one vote of “present”, the one who cast that vote can be the recipient of retribution for the entire time they hold office.

Undoubtedly, the “present” vote has been a tool used in elections to interpret the one who cast it in as negative a terms as possible. It has been interpreted in all three ways we will discuss by those wanting to elect someone other than the one who cast it.

Let’s start our discussion with the infamous votes cast by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. How many did he casts? Was it 191 “present” votes? Republicans lost some of the insight they could have gained by exposing his “present” votes as simply those of a fence riding coward. That is one of the three choices for sure. And these 191 Obama votes surely deserve that characterization. Especially in retrospect. 191 votes! But let me present you an argument for why that analysis falls short of what should have been identified by voters when they heard it.

First let’s look at these votes when most of them were cast. Most of them were cast when Obama had no inkling of ever running for President. If you accept that as fact, then most of these votes, if not all of them, were cast when he could have never assumed that his votes and his character would ever be examined as closely as they have because of his candidacy and his win in the run for the Presidency.
So let me submit to you reason number two some vote “present”. The one his most artful and articulate admirers have used in his defense.

Number two reason goes goes like this:”The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

This is classic Obama. Nothing is as good as he could have done it. The man with a “messiah complex” had 191 bills come through that simply were not good enough. This my friends was a huge hint into the kind of person the American people elected twice to be the Commander and Chief. Obama, we now know for certain, is a coward who tries to avoid taking a stance; AND he is an arrogant men with few things to recommend him as a leader.

The third reason? Obviously, the one I believe affected our Congressman. Someone who can not be characterized as a coward or someone who thinks they sit at the right hand of God, could conceivably cast a “present” vote. Those not willing to consider this because they already planned on giving a politician grief for their entire time in office because they wanted someone else elected, or those who interpret every single issue, even a vote in a losing cause, as a matter of principle – brace yourself. Your temperature may spike! If voting on filling a position, the third reason could be that you wanted to vote “no” on the candidate, but also wanted to preserve your vote “for’ someone (until you knew who they were a little better or until a new candidate emerged).

On the matter at hand, I have known Brian Babin for almost twenty years. I feel sorry for anyone that has judged themselves to be a better Christian than Brian. I feel the same way about someone who either openly or silently has judged him to be a coward. All I can say is you must not know him or you are a poor judge of character and perhaps you should leave that area to someone else.

For thise that simply disagree with his voting “present”….. this is politics. I love it. Now let’s do what we can to help Brian as our Congressman to vote the way we believe he should from here forward. Let’s not waste any more time or energy and help marginalize our own Representative. Two years will be here before you know it and if you don’t want to re-elect him, that is your time for unending, unfiltered criticism