SCOTUS Confirms: A Penalty Is A Tax

It is, in fact, a tax.

Cruz Fights for Full Repeal of Obamacare in Tx Senate Race

U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz opened his remarks on his bloggers conference call Thursday afternoon with, "It's a bad day for liberty".

Ted Cruz believes that the Supreme Court of the United States rewrote Obamacare to turn it into law with the clarification that the legislation is not a mandate for individual coverage but a tax. Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote which left many conservatives scratching their heads. Instead, it is easy to understand what Roberts did. He said that his ruling was not an affirmation that the legislation was right but that if voters didn't agree with it, they should vote in other representatives.

I completely agree. As Ted Cruz pointed out during the conference call, this legislation brings into sharp focus the need for strong conservative Republican victories in November. Not only do we need to oust Barack Obama but the U.S. Senate must go back into GOP control. And, the House must remain in GOP control. Cruz says the decision "underscores the stakes in the Senate race", as the Senate will be the battleground for repealing the law.

Calling Lt Governor David Dewhurst a "good and decent man", he went on to call him a conciliator."Now is not the time for conciliation". He said there will be much pressure in the Senate to be "reasonable" to strike a compromise. Dewhurst would "run not walk to the middle" to strike a compromise. "I intend to fight every word of Obamacare".

Cruz is "not a fan of repeal and replace" because those are "weinie words" to wiggle out of total repeal of the entire bill. He said it is the natural instinct of the GOP to go wobbly and work on compromise.

Instead, Cruz offers some solutions that would empower patients and not government bureaucrats. He suggests health savings accounts and also to de-link health insurance from employment. An employee who loses his/her job should not also lose health insurance coverage.

This ruling by the Supreme Court does in fact draw our attention to the importance of the U.S. Senate races. In Texas, the choice is clear. Do you want a go along to get along Republican or do you want a Republican who has a record for fighting the good fight?

I choose Ted Cruz.

Obamacare Mandate Survives As Tax in SCOTUS Ruling

The whole ruling on health care can be read HERE:

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the politically left members of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Anthony Kennedy sided with the conservative leaning members of the Supreme Court. According to Chief Justice Roberts, the main focus of Obamacare is not the mandate but the tax it imposes. He called it not a mandate but a tax.

Here is President Obama proclaiming that Obamacare is not a tax:



Here's the irony - then Senator Barack Obama was a loyal member jumping on the bandwagon in the Senate to deny John Roberts a spot on the Supreme Court, much less as Chief Justice. The Democrats were so very fond of complaining that Roberts was too extreme, a right wing extremist, an ideologue. I imagine that the ideologue-in-chief feels differently about John Roberts today.

From SCOTUSblog:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

You can read the ruling on the Medicaid part of the funding for the bill here. The essence of the ruling is that the states can, in fact, opt out of lowering requirements for more people to be able to meet state requirements for Medicaid benefits. The states will not lose federal funding, as threatened in the Obamacare legislation. That is in contrast to a ruling made Monday in the immigration reform legislation before the court from the state of Arizona. After that ruling, which upheld the core component that law enforcement can ask for identification verification of residence, President Obama firmly launched his middle finger to Arizona and instructed his Homeland Security Department to end federal cooperation on database information with the state. That's right - the President of the United States who is charged with keeping our borders secure and its citizens safe, told a state that it is on its own.

According to a reporter inside the room, as the ruling was read by Chief Justice Roberts, he said that the judgement is not on the correctness of the legislation but that if citizens didn't agree with it, they should elect new legislators. I agree. The races for the seats in the U.S. Senate are even more important today than they were yesterday.

Dept of Homeland Security Abandons Arizona

Immediately following the announcement of the Supreme Court's decision Monday to strike down most of the immigration law passed by the State of Arizona but to not rule against the core component - that of the ability of law enforcement to ask for proof of legal residence if stopped for a suspected violation - the government of the United States let loose with a bit of a temper tantrum and slapped the State of Arizona. There is no other description of the action. The government agency tasked with protected our country decided to no longer cooperate with Arizona with enforcing its security measures. No more use of federal databases to check on potential illegal immigrants for Arizona.

Sorry, Arizona. You are on your own. This administration has yet again shown its spite towards a state unwilling to blindly accept criticism from the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security today rescinded agreements that allowed seven Arizona law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, further hindering the state’s ability to enforce SB1070 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling today.

DHS announced that it was terminating its 287(g) task force agreements with the Arizona Department of Public Safety; the Florence, Mesa and Phoenix police departments; and the Pima, Pinal and Yavapai county sheriff’s offices. Those were the only agencies left in Arizona that had street-level 287(g) agreements.

Several Arizona police agencies also have 287(g) agreements for their jails, which allow agencies to check the immigration status of anyone booked into jail. Those agreements will remain in place, according to DHS.

In addition to the revocation of the 287(g) agreements, DHS announced that its agents would not respond to the scene of calls from Arizona law enforcement officers who want the agency to take custody of illegal immigrants, unless those suspects met the criteria it established for its enforcement priorities. DHS said its prioritizes illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals, deportees who have returned to the United States, and people who have recently crossed the border illegally.

This little spiteful temper tantrum is quite interesting, given the fact that the decision was unanimous in the Supreme Court's ruling that the provision of checking proof of residence would be kept for now and sent back to the lower court for review. Even the most liberal Justices voted with the others in that action. As this was the centerpiece of the case, it is a major public blow to the Obama administration.

By a vote of 8-0--Justice Elena Kagan recused herself--the U.S. Supreme Court this morning upheld what the New York Times calls the "most controversial provision" of Arizona's disputed immigration law. But in a decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Arizona v. U.S., the court struck down three other provisions of the law.

Most importantly in all this legal wrangling is the light shined on a liberal myth - that the Supreme Court is a conservative activist institution with the balance favoring those Justices appointed by a Republican president.

Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.

The protection of America's borders and its residents is the sole responsibility of the federal government. The Obama administration has been most brazen in its flagrant power grabs against individual states. President Obama came into office promising to be the most transparent of presidents as well as ending the practice of using executive order to govern. He continues to go around the laws passed by Congress in a blatent disregard of this campaign promise.

President Obama and his administration believe he is King, not President of the United States.

Thoughts on the Premiere Episode of HBO's "The Newsroom"

I admit it. Down deep inside this completely cynical exterior beats the heart of an eternal optimist. In the reality of the political world it is best to keep the cynicism up front and center yourself around that. In real life, though, remaining optimistic can be the difference in whether or not you can get out of bed in the morning.

So, with some feeling of anticipation, I taped Sunday night's premiere episode of HBO's "The Newsroom". I normally enjoy this kind of show. Though this one is fiction, I like a behind-the-scenes story. I'm a process oriented person and I am fascinated about the decision making process of fast paced work environments.

I have now watched the show and I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I liked the fast pace, the quick verbal exchanges between the characters, the clever dialogue, the facade that this could be a real newsroom.

I am really pissed off about the fact that the story being presented in this episode was the Deepwater Horizon explosion. It was complete exploitation of a tragic event with humans still working to get back to a normal way of life. How dare the liberal yahoos in Hollywood exploit the deaths of eleven people on an oil drilling rig while attempting to score political ideological points.

This tragedy is still too raw in the minds of many people. Real people are dealing with this, not just large corporations and hot shot executives who received the publicity.

Full disclosure: my husband is an engineer on oil drilling rigs. He commissioned the sister rig of the Deepwater Horizon as the two were built in South Korea. The story hits way too close to home for me.

The Newsroom attempts to show characters with differing political views which seep into the reporting of the news stories. We know, as news show viewers that this is a real problem in journalism today. The premise of this show is to present a newsroom that is pursuing the real story, presented without political comment or opinions.

I will have to wait until I watch the next episode before I decide if I will continue to watch this show. I want to like it. I can't, however, make a reasoned judgement given the subject matter of the storyline from the first episode. I'm only human.

Dewhurst Doubles Down on Misleading Ads Against Cruz

The Dewhurst for Senate campaign has made the decision to double down on the Cruz for Senate campaign with the claims that Cruz is unfit for the job because he was involved with a case, through his employment with a large international law firm, at the appellate level dealing with copyright infringement and foreign companies. One company in particular, a Chinese owned company, is the favored bad guy in the Dewhurst ads. No mention is made of the Dubai company that was also involved. Why is that?

It is particularly offensive that the Dewhurst supporters have taken to referring to Ted Cruz as "Red Ted". That sort of ignorance is even disputed by Dewhurst himself. Do Dewhurst supporters really think that Ted Cruz is a Communist? Or are they so blinded by their support of the candidate that they are willing to appear as intellectually stunted lemmings?

Here is what the Texas Tribune, no friend to conservatives, says in fact checking the negative ads:

But the “Red Ted” label, designed to conjure up negative and shady images of Cruz, is a stretch. While Cruz could have refused to work on the case, the notion that doing so makes him a Communist sympathizer is groundless and inflammatory. Dewhurst himself said questioning Cruz's political allegiance was "ridiculous."

Cruz’s firm was retained by the company, and Cruz was called on to assist in the case, so the Dewhurst campaign’s description of him as a “legal mercenary” is also off base.

The verdict was upheld on appeal, but Cruz was not among the lawyers doing the arguing part of it, and did not appear in court. Dewhurst has referred to Cruz as "lead counsel" in the case. The technical term for Cruz's role is "counsel of record." According to legal definitions listed on the Cornell Law School website and others, lawyers who act as counsel of record are responsible for the representation of the client, regardless of whether they ever appear in a courtroom on behalf of that client. In an interview, Cruz said he has never appeared in any courtroom in regard to this case. They are also required to sign legal documents and typically cannot be removed as counsel of record without court action.

The evidence for calling the case a “China vs. America” affair is not clear cut.

Linglong wasn’t involved in the initial conspiracy to undercut Fishman’s business. Sam Vance, one of Fishman’s most trusted American employees, initiated the damage when he encouraged Fishman’s customers to cut Fishman out of the deal and buy straight from the manufacturer (based out of China), according to the lawsuit.

Vance later went on to mastermind the conspiracy to sell the tire blueprints, court documents indicate. When Fishman found out his designs had been stolen and filed suit, Al-Dobowi, the Dubai-based tire distributor, was the most noted defendant, named 172 times in the court document.

In comparison, Linglong was mentioned 49 times — yet was the only conspirator mentioned in the Dewhurst attacks.

Also, Fishman’s lawyer, August Matteis, said he had no evidence that Linglong was connected to the Chinese government. The Dewhurst campaign said Linglong was tied to Communist-led government before market reforms were introduced in the 1970s, and has used those ties to gain unfair trade advantages.

Cruz didn’t play first chair in the appeal of this lawsuit, but he has taken the lead on other international patent infringement cases, successfully arguing a $5 million intellectual theft case before the Supreme Court against a Chinese company last year.

So, the sitting Lt. Gov of the state of Texas is running a deliberately misleading political ad against his challenger which is chock full of inaccuracies, even by standards of with no dog in the hunt. That speaks to a man's character, doesn't it? Or is blind ambition and a strong sense of entitlement a combination too powerful to resist?

Cruz-Dewhurst Debate for U.S. Senate

The first debate match-up between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst was televised statewide Friday night. Here are a few of my thoughts from the event.

Why 8:00PM on a Friday night? Doesn't that seem like a lousy time slot if a decent sized audience is the goal? It's summer. It's Friday night. Other than political junkies, who was watching?

The moderator and the questioners were liberals. The debate was live from KERA-TV in Dallas.

The two candidates sparred for one hour before an audience of Republican voters at the studios of KERA, the Dallas public television affiliate. The Texas Tribune was a partner in the debate. KERA Managing Editor Shelley Kofler was the moderator.

Conservatives have come to expect that during GOP debates, the questions will be posed by those who are not of the same political philosophy. While that can be tolerated if the moderator and questioners make an attempt to be unbiased in their tone and demeanor, often this goal is not attained. The debate Friday night was one of those times. OK, it was on public television. OK, the questioners were print journalists. But, still. This group was rude to the point of distraction. The tone devolved into snark and almost sneering as the questions were asked. It was unprofessional and just not fair to the viewers.

To the journalists who participate in political debates: it's not about you.

It is past time for Republicans to demand conservative leaning journalists and pundits conduct their debates.

The candidates performed to expectation. Ted Cruz is well established as a superior debater. David Dewhurst is well established as a mediocre debater. The novelty of the Friday night debate was the visual of these two men together alone on stage. Ted Cruz is young and passionate. David Dewhurst is 66 years old and, frankly, rather bland. I do not question the sincerity of either man but one is more interesting to watch than the other.

I didn't understand the question posed about integrity. Has integrity been an issue in this campaign? Neither man has anything that would call into question the matter of personal integrity, as far as I know. Question career choices and the like, ok, but personal integrity? It sounded like liberal distraction creeping into the hour long debate early on.

I found it a bit odd that the work experience of Cruz as an attorney was under fire by Dewhurst. Dewhurst, not a lawyer but a business man, presumes to act as though Cruz is a Washington insider. Dewhurst is a man with decades of political service in Texas so it doesn't ring legitimate as a criticism. It sounds desperate. Dewhurst touts his military record, which is legitimate, but it sounds more like it feeds into his sense of entitlement to the office.

Dewhurst touts his years in the Perry administration and his own success with the Texas economy. I know that Governor Perry has endorsed Dewhurst but did he expect Dewhurst to take credit for Texas state success? The claim just sounded unnecessary and boastful.

I was a bit surprised to hear Ted Cruz go to the left of the current timetable for withdrawal in Afghanistan. I don't recall hearing that before Friday's debate.

I am disappointed that neither candidate embraces the immigration reform policy adopted by the Republican Party of Texas at this summer's convention. It is a common sense approach and to deny it for fear of looking less than hard ass strident about dealing with the problem our state faces is not bold leadership, in my opinion.

This race continues to ask this question: do voters want a candidate who will aggressively question the status quo in pursuit of holding Senate leadership accountable for strong conservative positions or do they prefer a candidate who will be more inclined to go along to get along? Do voters prefer a candidate who falls into the next in line standard of GOP politics or do they prefer someone with the passion and ambition to jump into the fray and offer another choice?

The answer will come on July 31.

Unhinged Leftist Women Protest Award for Laura Bush

The current piece by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post confronts the twenty-two women protesting the award to be given to former First Lady Laura Bush in honor of her work helping women. It seems, in the vacuous minds of some unhinged liberal women, helping women is code for liberal feminist women.

The unhinged liberals don't care for the fact that Laura Bush has been quite successful in her own right. She holds a Masters degree in Library Science and is a former teacher and librarian working in inner city schools in Houston. She offended these unserious women by daring to use her power of personal choice - something we are to believe that feminists have been fighting for all along - and decided to be a non-paycheck collecting mom of her twin daughters.

Never mind that before the twins were finished with school and entered college, Laura Bush was the First Lady of Texas and has projects like the Texas Book Festival to show for her time in Austin, which then led to the National Book Festival in Washington, D.C. as she moved into the White House. She is to receive The Alice Award for her work for women.

Here is part of what Parker wrote:

Twenty-two such women recently wrote a letter to the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum, protesting an award to be given to former first lady Laura Bush. The Alice Award, which honors a woman who has helped other women, previously has gone to Hillary Clinton, Katie Couric, Nancy Pelosi and Olympia Snowe.

Leading the charge of “The 22,” as we shall call them, is Sonia Pressman Fuentes, co-founder of the National Organization for Women, who described her reaction upon reading that Bush was being honored as “a sudden onset of Alzheimer’s.”

Well, at least she didn’t say the vapors.

“I couldn’t believe my eyes,” she said. “It’s not partisan. I’m not complaining that she’s a Republican.” (Snowe, after all, is a Republican.) “I’m complaining that she’s never done anything for women to get this award.”

That sound you hear is the collective gasp of the many who have read a newspaper in the past 10 years or the countless women who, indeed, have been helped by Bush. To say that she has never done anything for women suggests either willful ignorance or malicious revisionism.

No mention that Pelosi was a stay at home mom to her five children until they were all grown and she decided to run for political office? Hmm. Imagine that omission.

Parker goes on to recount her travels with the former First Lady as she went to Africa and the middle east to bring modern health care technology and education to parts of the world that ignore the needs of women. The continent of Africa, to this day, sings the praises for both Mrs. Bush and former President George W. Bush for their work and American funding of health projects. Also, Mrs. Bush's pet project - the one to eliminate malaria on the continent - is widely acclaimed.

It is fairly standard pap delivered up by the leftists these days. Conservative women aren't real working women. Whether it is Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush or Laura Bush or now Ann Romney, it's the same story. Though all accomplished women, it is as though a lack of a regular paycheck means they didn't work. It is hard to understand such myopic thinking. Aren't these progressive women supposed to be so educated and accepting of all choices made by sister women? No. That's the dirty little secret. A conservative woman is never an equal to them.

These women and their ilk killed off the modern day feminist movement. They have, as Parker also points out, devolved into a single issue minority of loud women. If a conservative woman doesn't demand free birth control from our government and abortion on demand also paid for by taxpayer dollars, then that woman is some sort of relic wishing to go back to the 1950 Leave it to Beaver days. It's absurd.

Rae Lynne Chornenky, president of the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW), issued the following statement supporting the Sewall-Belmont House in presenting its highest honor to former First Lady Laura Bush in recognition of her distinguished work on behalf of women.

"The National Federation of Republican Women applauds the Sewall-Belmont House for selecting former First Lady Laura Bush as the recipient of its highest honor, the Alice Award. Mrs. Bush served our nation as first lady for eight years while her husband was in office. As first lady, she took a leading role in advocacy for women and children through education and health initiatives, both at home and across the world.

"Mrs. Bush played a leading role in the push for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a democracy leader who has been under house arrest for 13 years. Mrs. Bush has been an outspoken advocate for human rights, especially in Burma, and continues to be a passionate advocate for these issues through the George W. Bush Freedom Institute. She is a powerful example of one woman who uses the platform she has been given to empower women across the world to greater achievement.

"It is incredibly demeaning to all women when women like Sonia Pressman Fuentes, co-founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), attack the undeniable legacy of leadership of women like Laura Bush. NOW does not speak for women across America. With their attacks on former First Lady Laura Bush, Sonia Pressman Fuentes and NOW continue to prove they are nothing but a forum for faulty and demeaning rhetoric that fails to empower women of any political affiliation."

Now that President and Mrs. Bush are back in Texas, Laura Bush has a new initiative - Taking Care of Texas. The project's mission is to spur conservation efforts that benefit communities, build on the success of others, and inspire all Texans to join in. Imagine that liberal meme also dispelled by Mrs. Bush - she is a steward of the environment, as is her husband.

Mrs. Bush destroys the myths perpetuated by the unhinged left side of the political world as she goes about her every day life. She is still wildly popular. No wonder the out of touch segment of women dispise her so much. Nothing breeds contempt like success.

"Primary Runoffs are in High Gear" Reports Harris Co Clerk's Office

The latest on the July 31 primary run-off election process from the Harris County Clerk's office:

Over 36,000 ballots have been mailed for the July 31 Primary Run-off Elections.



As of close of business on Wednesday, June 20 the County Clerk’s Office has mailed over 36,000 ballots to voters for the July 31 Republican and Democratic Primary Runoff Elections. The number of ballots mailed for the runoff is already greater than those mailed for the May 29th Primary Elections. The military and overseas ballots were sent out on Friday, June 15. Mail ballots by the tens of Thousands have been pouring out of the County Clerk’s Office with over 600 already returned by early voters in Harris County.

“The Runoff Election Day is July 31, 2012 and if you qualify to vote by mail you have until July 24th for your request to be received in the County Clerk’s Office”,said Harris County Clerk and Chief Election Officer Stan Stanart. As of Wednesday, over 23,500 Republican Ballots have been mailed for the Republican Primary Runoff election and over 12,400 Democratic Ballots have been mailed for the Democratic Primary Runoff election.

County Clerk Stanart added: “Even if you did not vote in the Primary Election and are registered to vote by July 2, you can vote in the Primary Runoff Election.” For those who voted in one of the May 29th Primary Elections, please note that you can only vote in the Runoff Election of the same Party in which you voted in the May 29th Primary Election. Early Voting in person for the Primary Runoff Elections is July 23 through July 27.

In Texas a registered voter may vote early by-mail if the voter meets one of the following criteria:

· Away from the county of residence on Election Day and during the early voting period;

· Sick or disabled;

· 65 years of age or older on Election Day; or

· Confined in jail, but eligible to vote.



HarrisVotes.com has been updated with the latest information on the Primary Runoff Elections. Everything about Ballot by Mail, Early Voting, Election Day polls, and the ability to lookup your personal ballot can be found at www.HarrisVotes.com.



For more information about the mail ballot application process, voters may call the Harris County Clerk’s office at 713.755.6965 from Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., or visit www.harrisvotes.com.

Cruz and Dewhurst Battle Over Donor and Endorsement Numbers

The latest in the Texas GOP U.S. Senate battle between Ted Cruz and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst:

Whether you compare the number of donors (Cruz: 22,190 vs. Dewhurst: 3,023), the Republican Women endorsing (Cruz: over 200 vs. Dewhurst: 12), or Facebook fans (Cruz: 79,176 vs. Dewhurst: 27,405), the numbers don’t lie.

The big money lobbyists may support Dewhurst (over $800,000 and counting), but Grassroots conservatives are standing with Ted Cruz.

The Dewhurst campaign would like to paint Cruz as the Washington insider, though he has not held elected office. The numbers point otherwise.

Obama Enacts Dream Act by Executive Action

Friday morning an announcement came down that President Obama would hold a Rose Garden photo op to deliver a statement on his decision to allow the Department of Homeland Security the discretion to no longer bother with deporting young adults aged 16-30 in this country illegally with no serious criminal record and currently in school or the military. These young adults would be eligible to apply for work permits.

While President Obama stated on Univision during a March 2011 interview that he didn't have the authority legally to go around Congress and issue an executive order to implement the Dream Act,"prosecutorial discretion" was the reason Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano gave for the President's action.

Oh yeah - don't forget President Obama likes to say his administration isn't really pursuing deportation of young people anyway. If that was the truth, then why would this action be necessary? And, since it is just like Senator Marco Rubio's legislation, why are liberals supporting this measure while criticizing Rubio's? Neither Obama nor Rubio are offering a pathway to citizenship in their policies.

In other words, in order to court the Hispanic vote in November, crucial to his re-election efforts, President Obama has allowed Secretary Napolitano to take the fall for his pandering. And, he is really hoping you will forget that just a few short months ago he acknowledged that he didn't constitutionally have the power to enact this measure.

But that was then. This is now. And now is five months out from his re-election day in November.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is launching a book next week and he will be making the rounds, doing a lot of publicity for book sales. Team Obama is obviously nervous that Rubio is out there talking about common sense reform measures and that includes putting the reform to a vote in Congress. Obama is looking at his poll numbers and he's sinking in some important states. No doubt this was to shore up support from Hispanic communities in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, as well as Florida.

Team Obama even got Sec Napolitano to state that this was not a political decision! This whopper came out of the mouth of a woman who has been in politics since 1991.

Senator Rubio is said to be on the short list of those under consideration by Mitt Romney for the Vice-President slot. Is there any wonder that Team Obama is so nervous?

Obama Speech Was A Repeat, Not A Re-Framing of Economic Issues

The ads just write themselves these days at the RNC. How is it "re-framing" the issues in the economy if he is just repeating a speech made earlier this year?




No new policy ideas. No new solutions. The definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act

Today House Majority Whip Rep Kevin McCarthy, House Natural Resources Chairman Rep Doc Hastings and Rep Cory Gardner (CO-4) participated in a bloggers call about the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. To be considered by the full House the week of June 18th, it consists of seven bipartisan bills that have already passed out of committee.

Known as the HEAT Team, the House Energy Action Team has travelled across the country listening to energy producers and observing operations now in progress. The premise of the work is to promote the idea that one way to improve private sector jobs is to have an energy policy for America. In North Dakota, for example, household incomes have increased by 38% thanks to energy production, unlike the rest of the country.

My previous blog post spotlighted the video of the oil producer in North Dakota and the success of his operation there plus the benefits to the local economy. It is worth a look and listen.

Further proof of the success North Dakota residents and workers there are reaping is found in an article written in Popular Mechanics.

In 2001, North Dakota wells produced 31 million barrels of oil, less than 2 percent of which came from the Bakken. Last year the state generated a record 152 million barrels, and more than 80 percent of it was Bakken derived. For 2012, North Dakota's output is projected to surpass that of California (196 million barrels) and possibly even that of Alaska (209 million barrels) and to lag behind only Texas (533 million barrels). Estimates for the total amount of oil that could be recovered from the formation range wildly, from a few billion barrels or less to exponentially more. In an unpublished but nonetheless widely referenced paper from 2000, Leigh Price of the United States Geological Survey estimated that 200 billion barrels of oil could ultimately be extracted.

Chairman Hastings noted that the new legislation to be taken up next week in the House will focus on on land production, like in Alaska. There is a potential of billions of barrels of oil held up by red tape.

As Majority Whip McCarthy stressed:

* May's abysmal employment report should be a wake-up call to the President and Senate Democrats. They cannot continue to sit on their hands while 13 million Americans remain out of work. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act will help job creators in the energy industry invest more in American-made energy and American-made jobs. This legislation has the potential to spur the economic growth that will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and bring down gas prices from the "new normal" of $3.50 per gallon, the current national average.

* The greatest potential for economic growth in this country can be found in America's energy resources, and while the President is pre-occupied with telling Americans what he won't do on energy, the economy and jobs, House Republicans are showing what they can do.

* By working together, Congress can empower innovators to harness our domestic energy capabilities using new technologies. This will help put our country back on the road to recovery by creating jobs and growing our economy. With each discovery of American energy comes the immediate need for manufacturers, engineers, leasing specialists, rig operators and more. This is the type of employment demand that will get this country back to work.

American energy equals good paying American jobs and strengthens our nation's national security. It's a win-win.

SNEAK PEAK: Filling Up With American Made

I have the pleasure of sharing this SNEAK PEAK of a video scheduled to be released tomorrow by Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and other members of the House Energy and Action Team (HEAT) as they promote the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act. The bill consists of seven bipartisan bills that have already passed out of committee.




Tomorrow I will participate in a bloggers call with House Majority Whip McCarthy, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings, and Rep Cory Gardner (CO-4) as they discuss the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act and take questions. The Domestic Energy and Jobs Act is to be considered by the full House the week of June 18th.

Senator Cornyn Calls for Atty Gen Holder to Resign

Texas Senator John Cornyn is not known as some far right wing extremist radical nutjob. He is a reasonable, well-spoken advocate for the citizens of Texas in the U.S. Senate. He is sometimes in the crosshairs of the farther right of the Republican party because he does not go the extreme, purity driven route.

That, my fellow Republicans, is a good thing. It also further emphasizes the kind of leadership it took for him to publicly call for the Attorney General of the United States' resignation during a U.S. Senate hearing. It made everyone sit up and take notice.

“Americans deserve an attorney general whose loyalty to the justice system will trump his loyalty to the White House.” - Senator John Cornyn

Senator Cornyn explains why he called on Attorney General Holder to resign during a Senate hearing Tuesday morning.

Tuesday morning I called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign from office. Let me explain why.


The case against Eric Holder could begin and end with his handling of “Operation Fast and Furious,” the program in which our Justice Department deliberately allowed the sale of nearly 2,000 firearms to Mexican drug cartels, and then intentionally lost track of them. In December 2010, two of these guns were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, yet Mr. Holder still has not held anyone accountable. Moreover, his sworn testimony has repeatedly been contradicted by internal memos, and his administration has misled Congress.



The gunwalking scandal has destroyed Mr. Holder’s credibility. We need an attorney general who will put justice before politics. Our current attorney general is so fiercely political that he has even blocked my home state of Texas and others from implementing commonsense voter-ID laws. Ironically, Mr. Holder has ignored genuine cases of voter intimidation and failed to protect the voting rights of our men and women in uniform and their families. He is all politics, all the time.



Mr. Holder has a long history of such behavior, which is why I opposed his confirmation. While serving as deputy attorney general under President Clinton, he aggressively pushed his Justice Department colleagues to support clemency for 16 Puerto Rican terrorists, despite strong objections from the FBI and other prominent law-enforcement authorities. Then, in the final weeks of the Clinton administration, he recommended pardoning the fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich, whose wife was a major Democratic donor.



Americans deserve an attorney general whose loyalty to the justice system will trump his loyalty to the White House.

-

So it came as no surprise when, shortly after taking office as attorney general in 2009, Mr. Holder released classified memos on enhanced interrogation techniques, thereby (1) ignoring the advice of seven former CIA directors, (2) providing sensitive information to our enemies, and (3) giving our allies fresh cause to doubt America’s reliability. After releasing the memos, Mr. Holder launched a politically motivated investigation of several CIA interrogators, even though career Justice Department officials had already recommended against prosecuting them.


Last week, we again witnessed Mr. Holder’s willingness to put politics before justice, when he refused to appoint an independent special prosecutor to look into the unprecedented leaks of possibly classified operations. As Democratic and Republican Senators have made clear in a resounding voice, these leaks endanger our national security and the lives of the men and women sworn to protect it.


We know these leaks came from the Obama administration, and some may have even come from the Justice Department. Mr. Holder faces a clear conflict of interest. This is exactly the type of situation that calls for a special prosecutor.


Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has rejected that option and instead chosen Ronald Machen, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, to lead an investigation. This decision offers yet another example of Holder’s poor judgment. Mr. Machen has donated thousands of dollars to President Obama’s political campaigns; he vetted vice presidential candidates for the Obama team in 2008; and he got his first job as a federal prosecutor from, you guessed it, Eric Holder.


In short, Mr. Machen’s inquiry will not seem truly independent. It is insulting for the attorney general to pretend otherwise. Once again he has shown his penchant for putting politics ahead of justice.


Americans deserve an Attorney General who will uphold basic standards of honesty, transparency, and accountability. They deserve an attorney general whose loyalty to the justice system will trump his loyalty to the White House. They deserve an attorney general who will treat Congress and the public with respect, not contempt. They deserve someone better than Mr. Holder.

Senator Cornyn is a respected member of the Senate. He holds positions of leadership within the Republican party. Senator Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary, Armed Services and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.

Happy 88th Birthday, President George HW Bush

June 12, 2012 marks the 88th birthday of former President George H.W. Bush. Summering in Kennebunkport, Maine at his family home, it is hard to imagine a resume of a more devoted public servant in modern American history.

On his eighteenth birthday, Bush enlisted in the U.S. Navy. He would serve as a combat pilot during World War II and had a brush with death when his plane was hit during a bombing run in the Pacific. He was able to escape the burning aircraft and would be quickly rescued by a submarine. After the war, he attended Yale University where he majored in economics. Bush later moved to Texas where he found success in the oil and petroleum industry.

In 1964, Bush ran an unsuccessful campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas. Two years later, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and ultimately served two terms. Bush was later appointed to several important positions, including U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1971 and director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1976.

Bush aspired to highest office in the United States but he failed to win his party's nomination for the presidency in 1980. However, he was chosen by Ronald Reagan to serve as his running mate. Reagan won the 1980 election and was re-elected in 1984 with Bush serving as his vice president for both terms.

Bush finally reached the White House in 1989. As president, he skillfully handled foreign affairs during a tumultuous time; Responding to the dissolve of the Soviet Union, the criminal acts of Manuel Noriega and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. Despite his global successes, economic problems at home are blamed for the failure of his bid for re-election in 1992.

He continued with public service, working with former President Bill Clinton, at the request of his son, former President George W. Bush. He has been married to Barbara Bush since 1945. He is a devoted husband, father, and grandfather.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President. May you have many more.

Romney Ad Highlights Obama Gaffe

No, Mr. President, the private sector is not doing fine.

Obama Says Private Sector Doing "Just Fine"

Friday morning, President Obama made an appearance before the White House press corps and spoke about the economy and his push for some action on his so-called bipartisan solutions to the mess we are in. Not only did he blame everyone under the sun - Europe, Congress, "the worst recession since the Great Depression" - but he also stated with certainty that the private sector is doing just fine.

I kid you not.

I guess if you live in the world of $35,000 per ticket fundraisers, the private sector employment environment looks pretty good.




And, for context, as President Obama pushes more spending to "stimulate" the economy and strengthen the ability of our economy to survive the doom and gloom of the European economic outlook, here is a chart to ponder:



The fact is that the Republican led House of Representatives has passed more than 30 bills now - some with bipartisan support - and they are languishing in the Democrat led Senate. The real obstructionists are the group advising Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The proposal brought forward from President Obama has been sitting in Congress since last November and he has been unable to unite both sides to take the recommendations into action. The basis of his action is to promote federal spending with the thought that this will create more jobs. This is a failure of leadership on his part, not on Congress. The man who campaigned in 2008 on being a uniter for both parties has been the most divisive in modern history.

Now President Obama states that the private sector is "doing just fine". I think most clear thinking Americans would disagree with that statement.

S.C. Rep Gowdy Questions Attorney General Holder on Fast and Furious

Here is an interesting exchange between Attorney General Holder and S.C. Rep Gowdy during the House hearing on Fast and Furious:





Yeah, that's right, Mr. Attorney General. Americans are only upset over the utter stonewalling by the White House and your office on the botched Fast and Furious operation because you are a progressive. How completely in line with the attitude of this administration.

National Bloggers Club Raises Funds for Member Denied 1st Amendment Rights

Have you been following the events concerning threats and arrests against conservative bloggers for speaking out against convicted felon and bomber Brett Kimberlin? Here is the latest, in the form of a press release from the National Bloggers Club.

NATIONAL BLOGGERS CLUB ANNOUNCES THAT JAILED BLOGGER AARON WALKER HAS APPEALED AGAINST CONVICTED DOMESTIC TERRORIST BRETT KIMBERLIN

WASHINGTON, DC -- The National Bloggers Club, Inc. is announcing that it will continue to raise funds to provide financial relief to member Aaron Walker. An appeal to the peace order granted by Judge C.J. Vaughey was filed Monday.

Last week the Maryland judge issued a 6-month peace order and jailed attorney Aaron Walker, preventing him from mentioning Brett Kimberlin in public. A Blogger and Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney wrote of this order that, “this is a clear-cut case of a First Amendment violation — about as clear-cut as you’ll ever hear.”  Since then, Walker has been working with a new legal team and the National Bloggers Club to legally restore his free speech rights.

"We've got over a dozen lawyers coordinating on this now, volunteering their time. Aaron’s first amendment rights are being violated when he is barred from even being able to publicly mention the case or Kimberlin’s violent past," said Bloggers Club president Ali A. Akbar.

Akbar continued, "Yesterday they came after the Bloggers Club and my family -- my family. We're not stopping. We've got to raise $5,000 more dollars to continue to stand with Aaron Walker and I'm positive supporters will continue to step up."

The National Bloggers Club is working to promote KimberlinFiles.org where supporters continue to give financial and written support to this cause.
In keeping with the ruling of the court, Walker's response was simply, "thank you".

Gov Walker and Lt Gov Kleefisch Sail to Recall Victories

"This is a big night for all Americans". - RNC Chairman Reince Prebius said in an interview following Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's victory Tuesday night.

The act of recall was never meant to be taken for the reasons it was taken in Wisconsin against Gov Walker, Lt Gov Kleefisch and four Republican state senators. Instead of for reasons of acts of corruption, or official misconduct as the recall is meant to address, this was all about union revenge. The gravy train of the public sector employees was being reined in and the union bosses were hell bent on revenge. It's as simple as that.

Gov Scott Walker was elected over his challenger in the recall race back in 2010. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett apparently doesn't accept defeat easily.

Exit polls were wildly incorrect. This is a trend that continues after several recent election cycles. Evidently the American voters are no longer willing to leave a voting booth and disclose their actions. Old school media continues to report the exit polls as the gospel, though. It just looks silly and unprofessional in the end. Tuesday night the liberal press and cable outlets were hanging on in vain to positive numbers for Tom Barrett in the recall election. Again, they just looked silly and unprofessional.

Public sector benefits have been reduced to 22% more than those workers in the private sector. When Gov Walker came into office that number was at 26%, so the cuts in place have hardly been the draconian measures taken that the rapidly dwindling union loyalists would have the voter believe. The voters in Wisconsin simply didn't fall for the nonsense being played out.

I heard Governor Walker speak in Austin last January during the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) annual policy orientation for the Texas legislature. I remember his clear devotion to his family coming through and the hardship they were enduring from personal attacks by Walker's opponents. It was ugly stuff for two teenage high school students to deal with as they attended public school. The attacks on Facebook and social media weren't coming from classmates, mind you, but from adults who opposed their father. Classy.

Here is a statement released by TPPF:

Statement by Brooke Rollins, President and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

"When the Texas Public Policy Foundation considered its options for keynote speaker at this year's 10th Annual Policy Orientation for the Texas Legislature, there was no question that Governor Scott Walker was at the top of our list. His fight for accountable government, genuine democracy, and fiscal responsibility in his own state directly reflects the signal national debate of our age. We were privileged to have him join us – and we are tremendously heartened by his victory this evening.

"Governor Walker's win isn't the vindication of a particular political party: it's a victory for the America established by our Founders, where opportunity flourished, the individual was paramount, and our government truly served the people. This battle in Wisconsin is won – but the fight goes on, in Texas and in every other state of our great nation.

"In congratulating Scott Walker and the people of Wisconsin, we do not congratulate them on a fine finish for themselves – but on a superb beginning for America."

Is the Walker victory a bellwether for victory in November for conservatives and Independents? It's too soon to make that call but the signs are looking good.

Onward.

Cruz Says The Numbers Don't Lie

The latest from the Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate is the chart shown above and entitled "The Numbers Don't Lie". Here is the core of the message:

Here are the numbers. Overall, Cruz has 22,190 donors for his campaign, compared to only 3,023 for David Dewhurst. Indeed, Ted has more donors from the Greater Houston area (3,149) than David Dewhurst has in the entire State of Texas (3,023).

And Cruz’s support is much broader: He has donors from 865 Texas cities, compared to only 235 for Dewhurst. Cruz also has the support of over 200 Texas Federation of Republican Women leaders, almost every single Tea Party leader in Texas, and has won more than 25 straw polls statewide by wide margins.

While the big money lobbyists may go to Dewhurst, ordinary voters from all over Texas are embracing the Cruz campaign. The average donation to Ted Cruz is $168. The average donation to Dewhurst is $1,654. Ted has 26,688 donations under $100. David Dewhurst has 11.

Both candidates live in Houston. Both candidates have wives who are Republican Women.

I don't like the negativity in this race and yet, it is to be expected in today's political climate. Dewhurst is the candidate of the Old Guard Republicans. He is a product, in this race, of "next in line" thought.

I support Ted Cruz because I look at the big picture, at the needs of the party down the road. I do not question the motives of either candidate yet I think Texas is better served with a candidate that will be able to make some noise and make a difference. A younger candidate, Cruz would likely be able to serve a second term or maybe more, if the voters so choose. That is just reality.

This is an interesting study in Old Guard and those benefiting from the system as it stands, and the next leaders within the Texas Republican Party.

It's going to be a long two months until the run-off date of July 31.

GOP Weekly Address on Jobs and Tax Reform

Texas Senator John Cornyn delivers the GOP weekly address on jobs and tax reform:

Cruz Accepts Invitation to Grassroots Debates

The Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate campaignaccepted an invitation to a series of debates by Grassroots Texans, a non-partisan network of conservative activists across the Lone Star State.Yesterday, the organization sent letters to both campaigns officially inviting Cruz and David Dewhurst to a series of five debates. The group, in a statement published online, said it would identify local hosts and venues across Texas.

“Lt. Governor Dewhurst promised Texans he would debate, and we take him at his word,” said James Bernsen, the Cruz campaign communications director. “Even though he skipped 35 debates during the primary period,Dewhurst stated on Wednesday that he would accept ‘any and all debates’ in the runoff, and so we assume this invitation will be acceptedby his campaign as well as ours.”

“This is a job interview with the people of Texas,” Bernsen added. “You wouldn’t skip a job interview with your employer, but in the primary period, David Dewhurst acted like a character from ‘Office Space’ and blew off the voters. We hope his campaign has heard the message and will abandon its strategy of ignoring the people.”

Asked at a press conference on Wednesday if he would agree to five debates, as Cruz had proposed Tuesday night, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst said,“Is he scared? I’m not going to limit the debates I do with Mr. Cruz to only five.”

Later that day, Cruz said he’d do as many as the Lt. Governor wanted, suggesting one a week for the next nine weeks. During the primary period, Cruz participated inover 40 debates.

Cruz has earned endorsements from many of the top conservative leaders in Texas and nationally, including Governor Sarah Palin, Former Senator Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Tea Party Express, Senators Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Mike Lee and Pat Toomey, as well as Mark Levin, Dr. James Dobson, Gun Owners of America, Family Research Council Action PAC, Concerned Women PAC, Cathie Adams, Texas Home School Coalition PAC, Kelly Shackelford, David Barton, Peggy Venable, Young Conservatives of Texas, over 200 Texas Republican women leaders, and more.

HERE is the aforementioned letter from The Grassroots Texans Network:

Gentlemen:
We write to you to follow up on our letter of last November offering our assistance in arranging a series of debates to be conducted in the classic Lincoln-Douglas style. We thank Mr. Cruz for formally
responding to our offer. Unfortunately, we did not receive a formal response from Mr. Dewhurst.

Accordingly, we are following up. With the primary behind us, we write to both of you, again, to offer to serve as a host of five debate events, and to provide our assistance in identifying local co-hosts, securing
venues, negotiating dates and times and actively promoting the events to the public.

We bring to this endeavor a number of assets, including a wealth of organizing experience and existing relationships with local grassroots organizations across the state. We are already in the process
of reaching out to local grassroots organizations across Texas in order to identify potential venues and dates for the debates.

As both of you have correctly expressed, the people of Texas are best served when they are provided with ample opportunities to get to know, full well, the candidates presented to them for election. We write to both of you today, in good faith, in the pursuit of that goal.

We look forward to working with both campaigns to make these debates a reality. Please contact us at your earliest convenience to discuss.

Thank you and best regards,
Kenneth Emanuelson
The Grassroots Texans Network