United Republicans of Harris County Hear Timely Scoops from Congressman Culberson

U.S. Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) was the guest speaker for the March 9, 2015 general meeting of United Republicans of Harris County.  Despite some truly dreadful weather, a room full of interested citizens gathered to hear a Washington update from the congressman.  

No one left disappointed.

Congressman Culberson is an engaging, enthusiastic, humble, and knowledgeable politician.  He works a room, shaking every hand and speaking will all.  He is a happy warrior, as Ronald Reagan encouraged us all to be. He was prepared to speak about any topic and took lots of questions from the audience.

During his talk to the group, the congressman delivered two special tidbits.  He spoke about how he has figured out a very useful tactic to get desired results for conservatives in Congress, using the budgeting process.  As a member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, he has a strong voice in the allocation of budget dollars.  

He is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, or CJS. The CJS Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and other related agencies; Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee; and he serves on the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee.

Congressman Culberson told us about using his recently discovered process of working with government officials to promote common sense, conservative distribution of monies. How does he do it?  He talks to them and persuades them.  Imagine that.  For instance, today the congressman delivered on a tidbit he mentioned during the meeting - giving the group in attendance the first knowledge of the upcoming win for Second Amendment loyal supporters - when the ATF dropped moving ahead with banning some ammunition for firearms.  Culberson met with the necessary person at AFT and provided a "come to Jesus" moment for him. He told us that after the time allotted for public comment of the bill expired, he was certain an announcement would come.  And it did.

United Republicans and supporters were the first ones to have a behind the scene glimpse into making that happen, thanks to the leadership of John Culberson.

Here is the press release I received in an email today:

Washington, D.C.—Congressman John Culberson (TX-07) today released the following statement regarding a decision by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to drop a proposed ban on  the manufacture and sale of 5.56 mm/.223 caliber M855 “green tip” ammunition widely used by sportsman:

“The ATF made the right call today by reversing course on a misguided plan that would have trampled on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.“In the meeting I had with ATF officials last Thursday, I brought up the serious concerns I had  with the proposed framework – all things I had heard from my constituents.  By the end of our discussion, we had come to a consensus on how to best move forward. “This is an example of how regulators and Congress should work together.    “All of us in Texas love law enforcement and want to help ATF officers stop gun smugglers, drug smugglers and other criminals – not law-abiding American sportsman who use this ammo every day for target practice, shooting competitions and hunting.“The slippery slope of federal overreach impacts every aspect of our daily lives, and this issue is just another example of how we must be constantly vigilant in protecting the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.“I truly appreciate the ATF for hearing us out and commend the agency for making the right decision.”Congressman Culberson is the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science which oversees ATF funding.  In addition to meeting with ATF leadership, Culberson also signed a March 4 letter to ATF Director B. Todd Jones expressing serious concerns about the proposed ban, explaining that it would “establish an unduly restrictive standard, does not comport with the letter or spirit of the law, and will interfere with Second Amendment rights..."

The crowd was diverse in Republican political philosophy, as was shown during the reading of the presidential straw poll results.  The potential candidate who came in First Place was Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.  A more distant Second Place produced a tie between former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Ted Cruz.  

United Republicans of Harris County To Host Congressman Culberson

The March 9, 2015 general meeting of United Republicans of Harris County features guest speaker Congressman John Culberson.  Culberson represents the Seventh Congressional District of Texas.

Congressman Culberson was elected in 2000 to serve Texans living in the Seventh Congressional District and is now the Chairman, the former seat  of  President George H.W. Bush and Bill Archer.

He chairs the CJS Subcommittee, which oversees the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, and other related agencies.  As Chairman, John is committed to ensuring that the Attorney General respects the rule of law and providing America’s law enforcement officers with the resources they need to protect our lives and property. 

He serves on the all-important House Appropriations Committee, which funds the federal government.  He also serves on subcommittees - including the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, Homeland Security Subcommittee and the Transportation Housing & Urban Development Subcommittee.

The public is welcome and parking is free, as is attendance.  Come and hear the Washington Update from Congressman Culberson and bring your questions for him.

The meeting, held at the Sosa Center on Wirt Road, begins at 7:00 pm. Come at 6:30 pm for coffee and conversation before the meeting begins. Bring a friend.

Netanyahu Receives Strong Support In Congress For Speech

Some Democrats in Congress and all of the Obama administration, including the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, decided to politicize the speech that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu  delivered to Congress at the invitation of Speaker John Boehner. They did not attend as a means of showing disapproval. 

Alan Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the Democrats' decision to boycott the speech from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is a breech of protocal and an indecent way to act:

Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program. Indeed, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who probably knows more about this issue than any world leader, because it threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people.Congress has the right to disagree with the prime minister, but the idea that some members of Congress will not give him the courtesy of listening violates protocol and basic decency to a far greater extent than anything Mr. Netanyahu is accused of doing for having accepted an invitation from Congress.

He also reminds the reader that President Obama sent British Prime Minister Cameron to lobby members of Congress in dealing with the Iranian negotiations.  That move was clearly an intrusion into the separation of powers.  Separate but equal powers, according to the Constitution.  The man touted as a Constitutional Scholar conveniently ignores the document when it works to his advantage. It is the duty of both parties to listen to opposing views.

Before the speech, Speaker John Boehner released a video about the occasion and the details. Despite what the Democrats would have us believe, interest in attending the event was huge:

  Prime Minister Netanyahu’s audience will include members of Congress from both parties, as well as guests in the gallery.  Speaker Boehner’s guests include former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Elie Wiesel, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Gold Medal.·       Given the ties between America and Israel, it’s no surprise that interest in attending the speech is high.  We’ve had 10 times the number of requests for tickets than there are seats available in the gallery.  In fact, demand is so overwhelming that both the House and Senate have set up separate viewing locations, which are also ticketed events.

A list of those declaring their boycott of the speech beforehand was released.  It included the usual suspects - far left Democrats, Muslim American politicians, Black Caucus members - who are not normally aligned with Israel anyway.  How embarrassing for them that it all turned out so well. The speech was well received - rivaling any State of the Union address for the number of standing ovations and cheers from the audience - and Prime Minister Netanyahu made his case against an Iranian nuke deal in the first five minutes.  The rest of the time he reinforced his conclusions and rallied support for Israel, which was his purpose in the first place.

President Obama was for a no nukes policy with Iran before he was against it.  As noted in this brief history, Obama is unable, or unwilling, to show leadership against an ever increasing threat to Israel:

In June 2010 the administration pushed, and the U.N. Security Council adopted, Resolution 1929, which “demands” that “Iran halt all enrichment activities.” But now the administration will endorse Iran’s “right” to an industrial-scale enrichment capability—a right, incidentally, that the administration denies to South Korea.Resolution 1929 also states that Iran is “prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles.” But Iran continues to manufacture and test ballistic missiles, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demands they be mass produced, and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator is adamant that “we are not ready to discuss this matter with any foreigner.” All of which gives the lie to weak State Department protestations that a deal will halt the ballistic missile program.In December 2013, Mr. Obama personally assured a pro-Israel audience in Washington that, when it came to diplomacy, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Now unnamed administration officials are selling the line that “the alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections, and an Iran ever-closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.” In other words, virtually any deal is better than no deal.In March 2012, Mr. Obama insisted “my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.” He has said as much on some 20 other occasions. But the deal being contemplated now, with a sunset provision that will ultimately give Iran the right to enrich in whatever quantities and to whatever levels it wants, is neither prevention nor containment.

Despite what the doubting Democrats proclaimed, the speech was not about politics for Netanyahu, it was to state his opposition to a bad deal reported to be crafted together by Secretary of State Kerry and the Obama administration with Iran. Netanyahu is protecting his country when challenged.

“I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention,” he said. “I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade. I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.” 

Overall, Netanyahu avoided making his controversial speech more controversial, demonstrated that most of Congress is on his side, and left town without giving his U.S. critics inside and outside the administration new ammunition. It was a speech devoid of real news, but that was the Israeli prime minister's plan.

Most of all, Netanyahu accomplished what Obama has been unable to do - explain in very plain terms the dangers of a nuclear Iran and the threats to the survival of Israel.  Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.

Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline XL Project

As promised in the run up to a Republican majority in Congress, the House and Senate passed a Keystone Pipeline XL bill to authorize its approval and sent the bill to the president.  Tuesday afternoon, he vetoed that bill.  He, too, lived up to his pledge.

"[B]ecause this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto," Obama wrote in his veto message to the Senate. 

It's not over, though.  

Mr. Obama’s veto did not reject the pipeline outright; rather, it allows the president to retain decisionmaking authority over the $8 billion project, which requires a green light from the State Department because it crosses the US-Canada border.

The studies have been made over and over again.  This decision making process has been ongoing for  six long years. The State Department has ok'd the project.  There is nothing else to be decided upon. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State enjoyed the postponements of the project to appease the ultra left environmentalists, as Obama does, but even she came around to saying she was inclined to say yes to its approval.  The longer Obama stalls on the final decision - as the State Department now does a "final" analysis, the closer the issue comes to Hillary's expected run for president in 2016, when she will once again be appeasing the far left electorate.

Gov Scott Walker Should Listen to Sen Rubio

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has managed to get himself into another public relations mess. The first one, you may recall, was his response to a question about his belief in evolution presented by an English interviewer in London.  He tried to duck the question when all he had to say was, "yes." It would have been over and done with. He didn't do that, however, and the story was cable news fodder for days.

George Will said on Fox News Sunday, "There are certain questions for which you answer "Yes!". "Do you believe in evolution? "Yep." "Do you think President Obama is patriotic? "Yes". No further explanation needed. These are simple questions asked of only Republican candidates by liberal media types who want to portray the Republican Party as the party of Neanderthals. We all know it. We all expect it. The candidates themselves should be the most aware of the questions that will come their way and be prepared.

"There are trap doors every day when you are running for President", said Robert Gibbs, former Obama spokesman on Meet the Press. We know that, too. We must be diligent and choose candidates who can maneuver around in the mind field of questioning from reporters. Candidates have to be on guard in even the most friendly of interviews and certainly should not weigh in on a subject if not asked about it. We have seen time and time again a Republican candidate vilified for an off the cuff answer while Democrats are consistently given a free pass. That is the reality of today's journalism.

This response from Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) when he was asked about the remark was perfectly delivered:

"I don’t feel like I’m in a position to have to answer for everyone in my party who makes a claim. Democrats aren’t asked to answer every time Joe Biden says something embarrassing. So I don’t know why I should answer every time a Republican does. I will suffice it to say, I believe the president loves America. His ideas are bad.”

The response is perfect because it stops the conversation and it is truthful. No one Republican has to respond or justify or explain in any way what another has to say.  The demands for response come from a media who do not want Republicans to win.  Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) is in an uncomfortable place again because he made the mistake of saying he didn't know if President Obama was a Christian or not.  This was an unforced error. Walker is doing well in early polls as a potential presidential candidate and it was just dumb of him to go there. He is the son of a preacher so maybe it was an honest mistake but it shows he still has a way to go before he is ready to be in a presidential race.  He has been a successful governor and a proven fighter so I hope he gets it together soon.

There are plenty of policy differences that Republicans can focus on against Democrats, especially Obama, who will not be running again, so our candidates must just stay out of the fringe nonsense.  We all have our opinions of President Obama. Some have read his own accounting of his life story. There is plenty to be concerned about but it is water under the bridge now.  The man is in his second and last term. We just have to get through two more years.

Let's make sure it is a Republican who replaces Barack Obama at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Houston Mayor Parker Attacks Guiliani on Twitter

Houston Mayor Annise Parker weighed in on the headline grabbing quote from former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani Saturday evening on Twitter.  Imagine that. The sitting mayor of the nation's fourth largest city decided to jump into political hack territory on social media against a private citizen, making a remark at a private gathering.

Guiliani stated that President Obama doesn't love America, due to his upbringing. This was in response to some less than reality based remarks made by Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast.  A potential presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, was at the private group dinner.

Republican Giuliani made the remarks late last night at a private group dinner that included Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is considering a 2016 presidential run."I do not believe -- and I know this is a horrible thing to say -- but I do not believe that the president loves America," Giuliani said at the New York dinner, according to Politico."He doesn't love you. And he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

Here is the Tweet:

Annise Parker @AnniseParker · 18 hours ago

There've been Presidents I've disliked. I've disagreed with each at times. But they all loved America. Giuliani's an embarrassment.-A

The "A" at the end of the Tweet is her way of saying the Tweet was made by her, not a staffer. Some elected officials Tweet themselves, some have a staffer do it. For example, Sen John Cornyn does his own tweets on his account @JohnCornyn. Parker does both - her own Tweets and those from a staffer. 

From the City of Houston website, here is a paragraph taken from her official description:

" Mayor Annise D. Parker serves as the Executive Officer of the City. As the City's chief administrator and official representative, the Mayor is responsible for the general management of the City and for seeing that all laws and ordinances are enforced. Administrative duties include the appointments, with Council approval, of department heads and persons serving on advisory boards."

She serves as the city's official representative. That responsibility includes serving all of the people of Houston, not just Democrats.

So, since the mayor follows me on Twitter, I responded:

Karen Townsend @penguinponders 12 hours ago

#Houston mayor tweets Rudy is "an embarrassment". I think Houston roads fit that description. Elected official vs private citizen.Disgusted.

Silly me. I think the mayor of Houston should be more embarrassed by the failures of her maintenance of our city than something said by a private citizen who doesn't even live in Houston. Funny, I don't remember any Tweets from her when former President Bush was being vilified - even when then candidate Barack Obama called Bush unpatriotic.

On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama said this:

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

This kerfuffle has become a multi-day story. Cable news outlets are talking about the remark with panels of pundits as though there is nothing else going on in the world. Guiliani is a private citizen. He was speaking to an audience at a private gathering. Period.

You may remember Mayor Parker signed on to a controversial campaign waged by former NYC Mayor Bloomberg against gun violence, calling for a ban on some types of guns. Parker joined in.

Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced in a New York Times article published today that he plans to spend at least $50 million this year to reduce gun violence through Everytown’s educational and advocacy efforts and through personal expenditures.The organization also announced today the formation of Everytown’s advisory board – a distinguished and diverse group of leaders and gun violence survivors: Art Acevedo, Tom Barrett, Stephen Barton, Michael Bloomberg, David Boren, Eli Broad, Warren Buffett, Gloria Chavez, David Chipman, Michael Coleman, Carlos Giménez, Roxanna Green, Nick Hanauer, Geoffrey Henry, Danny Jones, Ken Lerer, John Mack, Thomas Menino, Marc Morial, Mike Mullen, Michael Nutter, Annise Parker, Cleopatra Pendleton, Nathaniel Pendleton, Tom Ridge, Gilles Rousseau, Christy Salters Martin and Shannon Watts.“This is the beginning of a major new campaign to reduce the gun violence that plagues communities across the country,” said Michael R. Bloomberg, chair of Everytown for Gun Safety. “There is no question that more needs to be done to tackle this deadly problem, and that's why more than 1.5 million Americans, nearly 1000 mayors and moms in all 50 states have already come together to fight for common-sense reform that will respect rights and save lives. This new organization will bring more people into the fight against gun violence, which affects every town in America.”

I  think some Texas gun owners were "embarrassed" by that stance.  If banning guns eliminated gun violence, the former city of Barack Obama, Chicago, wouldn't have the most gun deaths in America.

From potholes to a broken pension system, I think the City of Houston has enough problems to keep Mayor Parker busy without her having to go on Twitter and weigh in on bashing a former Republican mayor, especially one who is a partner in a flourishing Houston business.

Mayor Parker is term limited and cannot run for another term as Houston's mayor. Perhaps she should use a bit more prudence in her remarks going forward if she wishes to continue on in politics, either state or national.

RPT Chairman Munisteri Announces Resignation, Speaks to Memorial West Republican Women 2/2/15

How timely is it that RPT Chairman Munisteri is the featured speaker for the Monday meeting of Memorial West Republican Women?  Very timely!  The public is welcome to come to the program and listen to what the Chairman has to say to us.

The meeting is at Ninfa's on Memorial.  Come for coffee at 10:30 am and stay for the program at 11:00 am.

Below is the statement released by the Republican Party of Texas and one from Chairman Munisteri.

Austin, TX - Republican Party of Texas State Chairman Steve Munisteri informed the State Republican Executive Committee today that he will resign as State Chairman effective Saturday, March 7^th at 1:00 PM.

At the last meeting of the SREC, the Chairman proposed a bylaw amendment which allowed for there to be a seamless transition from the current Chair to a new Chairman without the necessity of the Vice Chairman taking over temporarily. The amendment allows an outgoing Chairman to set a future day for resignation on which date the election for a new Chairman could be held. This bylaw requires the outgoing Chairman to give at least 30 days written and irrevocable notice of a date and time certain.

As a result of this new bylaw, Chairman Munisteri will chair the business portion of the first quarterly meeting of the SREC, scheduled for March 7^th in Austin. Other than the election of a new Chair, all business is expected to be concluded by 1:00 PM. At that time, an election for a new State Chairman will be held. Vice Chairwoman Amy Clark will preside over the election which will be conducted under Roberts Rules of Order. There will be as many rounds of voting as necessary until a candidate receives over 50% of the votes of the SREC. Candidates are not eliminated after each round unless they withdraw. There are 64 voting members of the SREC, including the Chairman and Vice Chairwoman. Once the Chairman steps down there will be 63, meaning 32 will constitute a majority.

There will be a candidate forum for SREC members sponsored by the RPT the night before the vote. This forum will be held in Austin at a site to be determined. There are currently four announced candidates running for Chairman. They include current RPT Treasurer Tom Mechler, current National Committeeman Dr. Robin Armstrong, current Dallas County GOP Chair Wade Emmert, and former Harris County GOP Chair Jared Woodfill.

Chairman Munisteri offered the following statement regarding his decision:

 “Today I informed the SREC that I will be stepping down on March 7^th. I have done so, in part, in order to accept the position of Senior Advisor to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Senator Paul shares my vision of promoting the conservative values of individual freedom, limited government, a strong national defense, and defense of the Constitution in each and every community in our country.

My top priority as Chairman these past five years has been to engage every Texas community. During my tenure, we established the position of African American Engagement, Asian American Engagement, and Hispanic Engagement. We undertook a robust grassroots engagement program throughout the state which included a large number of field staff and Victory offices, with some being located in nontraditional Republican areas.

Senator Paul also shares my belief that the Republican Party cannot expect to win a national race unless we attract younger voters and take our message aggressively to the Hispanic, African American, and Asian American communities. He shares my vision of doing so by actively engaging community leaders, traveling to nontraditional Republican communities, and making it clear that everyone that shares our beliefs are welcome in our party. Most importantly, he believes we can be effective in doing so without compromising our principles. I have known Senator Paul for well over 30 years and have found him to be one of the most intelligent, well-read, well-informed, and rational thinkers that I have ever encountered. I am honored to assist him in whatever his future endeavors may be.

It has been my honor to serve as RPT Chairman since June 2010 and oversee our party’s efforts during the last three election cycles. I am proud that by working together, we have had a net increase of 1,182 Republican officeholders during my time in office, representing an increase from 45% of all state officeholders to 67%. We have also set the all-time record for most number of elected Republican Texas State Representatives and Republican Texas Congressmen, as well as tying the record for most number of Republican State Senators.

At the same time, we paid off the party’s debt to $0 for the first time in 18 years and have remained debt free since November 2010 while bringing in over $22 million in revenue. This would not have been possible without the support of literally tens of thousands of grassroots activists and donors, for which I will be forever grateful. It has been the honor of my life to represent tens of millions of Texas Republicans and I wish our new Chairman well, whoever that may be, and plan to offer my support in whichever way I can help.”

Memorial West Republican Women has an open invitation to the public to come and hear the monthly speakers. If you want to stay informed on Republican politics in Harris County, a Republican Women's club meeting is a necessary stop.

Stay informed.  Be empowered.

Netanyahu Invited to Speak to Joint Session of Congress

Speaker John Boehner invited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress.  Consulting with The White House and the State Department was not a part of the process. Naturally, the White House felt the sting of the Speaker going rogue and called the invitation a break in protocol.

I know. I chuckled, too. President Obama and his White House take great pleasure in going around Congress at every opportunity yet Boehner is breaking protocol?  We have in our democratic republic three separate branches of government.  While unusual, the move is not usurping power from the Executive Branch.

Recently, British Prime Minister David Cameron told the White House press corps that he made phone calls to members of Congress to encourage them to not proceed on increasing sanctions against Iran as it could hinder ongoing nuclear power negotiations.  Ever heard of that kind of statement from a foreign leader? I suppose a break in protocol is in the eye of the beholder.

The reasoning from the House speaker is that members simply do not trust the president and stories in the press that the White House believes that the president doesn't need approval from Congress to sign a deal with Iran led the House to the invitation to Netanyahu.  

The relationship between Netanyahu and Obama has never warmed, to say the least.  Obama has already said he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit. "It's an ongoing soap opera", said Aaron David Miller, Vice President for New Initiatives and a Distinguished Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, as well as a former advisor to both Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

This White House has a real problem with transparency.  This has been called the most secretive, least transparent presidency since Richard M. Nixon. In keeping with this White House's behavior, the promise to keep the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the loop on the decision to end the embargo on Cuba was broken.  An apology was made to Senator Marco Rubio, who specifically asked the White House to keep the committee updated and was told they would during a hearing, once the President made his announcement.

Have you seen the video of Rubio in his most recent questioning on the Cuban decision?



Sometimes turnabout is fair play, even if it is between Congress and the president.

‬

Republican Women and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

This is our message as Republicans. It comes from the State of the Union response delivered by newly elected Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. All issues are important and principles matter.  This, however, is the absolute core of Republican philosophy.

 "You don’t need to come from wealth or privilege to make a difference. You just need the freedom to dream big, and a whole lot of hard work."

Personal freedom to make the American Dream work for you and yours is our most basic message.  Why, then, do we continue to allow the male leadership of the party to torpedo our message when it is completely avoidable? 

Wednesday House Republican women took on the male leadership and it was a very good thing.  Instead of allowing the leadership to present a bill simply for the optics of the date, the bill was pulled without a vote allowed.  The bill is called  Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act and has been voted on in the affirmative in previous years.  Last year it was voted on and passed despite a last minute change that betrayed the Republican women enough that they told leadership that if it happened again, they would no longer vote for the bill.  What did the leadership do? Put the language into the bill again this year anyway.

This year leadership brought the bill forward to be passed Wednesday, with the optics playing out that the March For Life in D.C. was set for Thursday.

Taking the lead were Rep Renee Ellmers (R-NC) and Rep Jackie Walorski (R-IN). There was language in the bill that required women to report rape to the police in order to receive an exception to the law for an abortion after 20 weeks. This language was slipped in at the last minute the last time and Republican women objected, yet voted for it anyway.  This time it was different.  

The women were concerned that requiring a police report would discourage some women from reporting rape to medical officials.  The women were also concerned about the next election. This type of rigid language is what turns off Independent and more conservative Democrats from voting for Republicans in the presidential elections.  As responsible politicians, it is vital that they look at the long term gains of legislation, not just quick optics that contain potentially offensive language. 

About eleven Republican women stood up and insisted that passing a bill on the anniversary of Roe v Wade just for optics was not the way to go.  More thoughtful discussion was needed.

Do social issues matter? Yes. It is also imperative that Republican candidates and elected officials learn to talk to voters in a way that maintains personal principle while keeping conversations on the true focus of Republican philosophy.  Why give the ugly leftists fodder to lob against Republican candidates?  There is a better way.  It is perfectly reasonable to support the Pain Capable Anti-Abortion Bill, except for the one requirement.  Republican candidates in 2016 need all the millennial and women voters possible. 

As pointed out in this article, abortion is an issue that can be prominent in both parties, but the messages are different.   

 But, the key to politics -- or at least to winning in politics -- is emphasizing those issues where you have the support of a majority of the country and spending less time and energy on those where you don't. Abortion -- particularly when it comes to questions of women who have been raped or the victims of incest -- is an issue in which the majority of the country is not in line with the Republican base. Fifty-two percent of voters in the 2014 election said that abortion should be legal in the United States (23 percent said in all cases, 29 percent in "most" cases), while 44 percent said it should be illegal in all (17 percent) or most (27 percent) cases. And those raw numbers might not even tell the full story. Remember that the electorate in 2014 was strongly tilted toward Republicans, making it more likely that in a more neutral election with presidential-year turnout -- like, say 2016 -- the support for keeping abortion legal would be higher.

Message matters.  The Republican message of economic opportunity and the freedom to pursue it is the strongest of all messages from the party.   Sixteen House Republicans spoke in favor of the bill Wednesday night. Only one was a woman. It is time to move women forward as a voice of the Republican party, especially on an issue like this one.  This is a perfect example of why it is so necessary for women to run for and win elected office. Women bring a different perspective to issues.  

The language in this bill would not have brought a single new voter to vote Republican in the next election.  Banning abortions after 20 weeks is not unreasonable. I would say that eliminating any federal money in abortion is not unreasonable. Without the police report requirement, at least the battle from Democrats on that issue is eliminated. And conservative Republican principles remain in tact.

Obama Presents the State of the Union Address Minus Reality

It was the standard big speech delivered by a far left liberal intent on transforming America more in line with the Democratic Socialist governments in Europe.  President Obama used the State of the Union address to promote lots of goodies while presenting no plans for financing these new entitlements, except for the mention that "the rich" must pay with more taxation.

THIS is the transcript released by the White House. You will note that it was released before he delivered the address to the country.

THIS is a good fact check on some of the bigger claims made by Obama. His claims on energy production, Obamacare and jobs were inflated and not quite honest, to be sure.

It was as though President Obama could not bring himself to acknowledge the shellacking he and Democrats received in the November 2014 election results.  There was no mention of the new majorities in Congress in the hands of Republicans. One has to ask, if his policies and programs have been so successful - as he boasted - then why did voters respond by bringing in even more opposition to his agenda? He made attempts to say he wanted to work with Republicans but this is the same old story - when the opposition speaks up and challenges his agenda, he is quick to go into "I won" mode and threaten vetoes. He also enjoys going on the road with speeches laden with taunts and pokes to Republicans. His inflated ego does not allow him to not be blinded by raw ideology in his partisanship. Barack Obama has shown himself the most partisan, least mature president in my lifetime. He is simply not up to the job. He divides when he should unite.

Texas Senator John Cornyn said, ‘Sadly, the President has doubled down on the same agenda, which in his own words was on the ballot this last fall and was soundly rejected. I think I speak for many Americans and many Texans when I say, Mr. President, enough is enough.’

What didn't the president mention in the 2015 State of the Union address?  al Quada.  Considering the state of the world today, that is an amazingly cynical omission. Taking shots at previous administrations, he referred to U.S. foreign policy as "bluster" and yet he is the one issuing red lines and then failing to act when countries like Syria ignore his own form of bluster. Perhaps bluster is in the eye of the beholder.  Today Yemen is on the verge of toppling into a completely failed state.  That vacuum has been quickly filled by those who plot to kill westerners, the most extreme of those practicing Islam.

This president refuses to use the term "extremist Islamists" when speaking about those terror cells in the headlines recently.  

My first duty as Commander-in-Chief is to defend the United States of America. In doing so, the question is not whether America leads in the world, but how. When we make rash decisions, reacting to the headlines instead of using our heads; when the first response to a challenge is to send in our military — then we risk getting drawn into unnecessary conflicts, and neglect the broader strategy we need for a safer, more prosperous world. That’s what our enemies want us to do.I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy; when we leverage our power with coalition building; when we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now — and around the globe, it is making a difference.

 First, we stand united with people around the world who’ve been targeted by terrorists — from a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris. We will continue to hunt down terrorists and dismantle their networks, and we reserve the right to act unilaterally, as we’ve done relentlessly since I took office to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to us and our allies.At the same time, we’ve learned some costly lessons over the last thirteen years.

Instead of Americans patrolling the valleys of Afghanistan, we’ve trained their security forces, who’ve now taken the lead, and we’ve honored our troops’ sacrifice by supporting that country’s first democratic transition. Instead of sending large ground forces overseas, we’re partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America. In Iraq and Syria, American leadership — including our military power — is stopping ISIL’s advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We’re also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism. This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed. And tonight, I call on this Congress to show the world that we are united in this mission by passing a resolution to authorize the use of force against ISIL.Second, we are demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy. We’re upholding the principle that bigger nations can’t bully the small — by opposing Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies. Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, some suggested that Mr. Putin’s aggression was a masterful display of strategy and strength. Well, today, it is America that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated, with its economy in tatters.That’s how America leads — not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve.

Unfortunately there is little evidence that the rest of the world trusts this president for support against terrorism.  He is so busy being the anti-war guy that he fails to acknowledge the real threats to national security at home and abroad. The recent terror attacks in Paris show clearly that his response is typically late, muddled, and insufficient.

Is the incessant use of drones to kill bad guys - along with innocents, too often - a better way of winning hearts and minds overseas versus capturing on the battlefield and using GITMO? Is it more efficient in the war on terror?

The first female combat veteran to be elected to U.S. Senate, Joni Ernst delivered the Republican response to the president's State of the Union address. She wore camouflage pumps, the pictures creating a social media buzz, and presented her delivery in a calm, concise and firm  as she delivered her  response. She is also the first woman elected to serve Iowa in Congress.

George Will said  a "semi star was born." "Helped put a fresh face on the Republican party." I agree.

World Leaders Marched In Paris As Obama Stayed Home

The world rallied for France Sunday while the Obama administration took a pass.  More than one million people marched in Paris in a show of solidarity with the country after the assassination of seventeen people by terrorists last week.  World leaders convened to join in.  Not one person was there to represent the American people by proxy through the Obama administration.  The only person of any kind of dignitary status was the U.S. American ambassador to France. That is all.

There was not a presence of President Obama, the First Lady, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, and on down the line of those in leadership who normally attend these international events.  The absence of American officials was particularly poignant as video emerged of the world leaders lined up to lead the march, linking arms and walking in unison as the crowd cheered.  It was another missed opportunity for this tone deaf and woefully incompetent Obama administration.

Even CNN noticed.  The on air talent anchoring the coverage noted the absence of the president and the others.  As one or two tried to make excuses, as they do, for the president and his administration, those were easily knocked down.  All of the other leaders present faced the same security and logistics concerns.  Yet, they attended and did the right thing.

World leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, joined the march.

They observed a minute’s silence before the march began.About 2,000 police officers and 1,350 soldiers – including elite marksmen on rooftops – were deployed to protect participants.The march was split into two routes for security purposes. Both rallies began at the Place de la Republique and finished at the Place de la Nation.

Attorney General Eric Holder was already in Paris for talks on terrorism and even appeared from the city on Sunday morning shows.  He was said to be attending the march, yet left town before it took place.

US Attorney General Eric Holder, already in Paris for anti-terrorism talks, was supposed to attend but was a no-show at the massive unity rally, which honored the 17 men and women killed there last week by terrorist gunmen, officials said.Holder attended meetings about militant extremism in Paris and even made the Sunday morning talk-show rounds but skipped town before what was billed as the largest rally in French history.Before the rally, he pledged US support.“On this day, we are all French citizens,” Holder said. “I am a citizen of France, and we stand in solidarity with the French people.”US officials gave no clear reason for Holder’s absence.

The rest of the world noticed the absence.  Remember after 9/11/01 here in America and the unity expressed from the world leaders to our nation?  France was one of the first to do so and President Chirac was the first world leader to visit the White House after that tragic day.

THIS SENTENCE sums up the problem quite nicely: "What is astonishing about Obama is how his White House continues to make rookie missteps nearly six years into its tenure on Pennsylvania Avenue." The author of that piece was writing about another misstep in foreign policy but the sentiment holds true in this case.

This president has a weak record on foreign policy and wishing away terrorism isn't a viable strategy.  As he continues to work diligently to release those held in GITMO and close the facility, it is not lost on those interested in world events that this president has once again lost an opportunity to lead.  He is dangerously naive and his rigid ideology persists despite the growing levels of danger in the world. Let's remember how important foreign policy and national defense is as we begin the process of nominating the Republican candidate for President in 2016.

U.S.House Passes Keystone Pipeline XL Authorization Bill

The Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Keystone Pipeline XL could move forward, thus removing the final reason President Obama had for postponing his decision. Unfortunately for those of us supporting the pipeline, he has signaled he plans to veto the legislation, should it come to his desk.

The ruling from Nebraska was far from a profile in courage - the project can move forward only by default.

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday approved the route for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, reversing a lower court that had blocked the proposal and clearing the way for a U.S. State Department ruling on the plan.The court said it was divided and could not reach a substantive decision, leaving in place legislation that favored TransCanadaCorp (TRP.TO) and its claim to build a crude oil pipeline across the state."(B)ecause there are not five judges of this court voting on the constitutionality of (the legislation), the legislation must stand by default," the court said in its ruling.

President Obama chose to start the year 2015 by issuing three (3) veto threats and ushering in 300 new regulations.  One of the veto threats pertained to the announcement that the House would take a vote on the authorization of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline as the first order of business for the new Congress.  As promised, the House voted Friday on this authorization.  It passed, thanks to a new, energized Republican majority and twenty-eight (28) "moderate" Democrats. 

HERE is a list of the Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing construction of Keystone XL:

Twenty-eight Democrats voted with 238 Republicans to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline during a House vote on Friday.The legislation, sponsored by Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, passed the House 266-153. The Senate is expected to begin debate on an identical measure early next week, despite a White House veto threat.Keystone XL, a pipeline that would ship crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast, has driven a wedge into the Democratic caucus. Two major constituencies that traditionally support Democrats are at odds over the project. Environmentalists oppose Keystone XL, saying that its construction will worsen the problem of climate change. Labor unions, on the other hand, back the pipeline, contending that it will spur job creation.Several Democrats who backed Keystone XL Friday are members of the House Blue Dog coalition, a group of Democratic moderates. Coalition Cochairmen Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Jim Cooper of Tennessee, and Jim Costa of California sent a letter to the White House on Thursday urging swift approval of the project.

If President Obama was truly looking to get off to a fresh start with Republicans and work to sign into law bipartisan bills, this would be a good way to begin.  He won't as his words rarely match his actions.  Some of those Democrats on the list who voted in favor of the bill are normally the first to spew ugly against Republicans.  

Is Gov Scott Walker Running for President?

Is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker running for President?  Some recent developments would point to that logical conclusion:
He isn't scared off by rivalry for the nomination by Jeb Bush.

"Jeb Bush is a friend of mine, and a good guy," Walker said, although he said he will base his decision on family considerations and the state's needs.

He went to kiss the ring of Las Vegas billionaiare Sheldon Adelson last December.

Adelson has been a key financial backer for Walker in his last two runs for governor and, if persuaded, could be a source of even greater funds for a White House bid. 

Recently Gov Walker hired Rick Wiley, former Republican National Committee political director. Wiley is reported to be "aggressively" reaching out to potential staffers.

Wiley, a national political strategist, has left his position at the consulting firm Mercury LLC, a source confirmed with The Hill. He worked there since March 2013, along with Michael DuHaime, chief political strategist for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), a likely presidential rival to Walker should both enter the race. Last year, Wiley advised several successful Republican gubernatorial campaigns, including those of Walker, Bruce Rauner in Illinois and Greg Abbott in Texas. He also worked in the same role for Sen. Joni Ernst in Iowa for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Before joining the RNC for two years, he worked on Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign and President George W. Bush's reelection in 2004. He also served as executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party in 2005. 

Wednesday it is reported that Scott Walker is going to Iowa.

Walker will attend a major conservative gathering organized by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Citizens United on Jan. 24.The event will feature a number of Walker's potential primary rivals, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), outgoing Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R).

The next step would be for Walker to announce an exploratory committee or the formation of a PAC for a presidential run.

He's young at age 47; he's a successful two term governor who has gone up against heavy opposition in Wisconsin, including teacher unions and raucous recalls; and he has already gotten the story out of the way that he did not graduate from Marquette University, his alma mater. He is articulate and engaging with his audience, though I wouldn't characterize him as charismatic.  I heard him speak during a Texas Public Policy Foundation Legislative Orientation session several years ago. I have kept an eye on his career since, as I knew he would likely become a potential future presidential candidate.

Speaker Boehner Re-Elected As Opponents Learn A Hard Lesson

Like many Republicans, I have been on the lookout for up and coming politicians who will step forward and lead with statesmanship, not bombastic bromides and perpetual outrage.  Happy warriors win over uncertain voters, just as those who came before us instructed, like Ronald Reagan.  There is no substitute for a well reasoned, articulate response to those who oppose us.

All this leads to the spectacle that presented itself Tuesday as the House of Representatives re-elected Speaker John Boehner. Facing a less potent threat to his re-election this year than two years ago, Boehner was nominated in November by the Republican caucus to continue on as Speaker of the House. No one moved to challenge him for that spot.

A couple of challengers emerged in the days before the vote Tuesday on the Speaker's race.  Louie Gohmert and Ted Yolo both decided to run for the job.  The problem is, neither offered a reason nor a path to victory. Both clearly were spur of the moment candidates and neither, frankly, are up to the task.  As written about HERE, if a politician wants to topple the sitting top guy, then there had better be some ground work completed in advance.  In other words, ducks need to be in a row.  Think back to the days of Newt Gingrich and the historic Republican takeover of Congress in the early 90's. There needs to be a large enough group of supporters to make it happen.

Gingrich began working with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) in 1979 as part of an effort to take the majority, and later took over GOPAC. Both organizations were focused on helping elect new Members to Congress. This means that newly-elected Republicans would be indebted (and thus loyal) to Gingrich. Aside from his brilliance as a visionary thinker, Gingrich spent years assiduously cultivating support and planning for a majority.

Now, about that statesman...  

As you can imagine, the supporters of the challengers were a bit upset (sarcasm noted) about a rather easy victory for Boehner.  Some really hideous temper tantrums played out in social media, both on Twitter and Facebook, from the purists.  Frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves.  No one likes to lose but there is such as thing as losing gracefully and moving on to fight another day.

Rep Mick Mulvaney, from South Carolina, hardly a hotbed of liberalism, went into statesman mode after observing the level of crazy exhibited and posted this on his Facebook page:

There was an attempt to oust John Boehner as Speaker of the House today. I didn’t participate in it. That may make some people back home angry. I understand that, but I’ve got some experience with coup attempts against the Speaker, and what I learned two years ago factored heavily in my decision today not to join the mutiny.First, I learned two years ago that people lie about how they are going to vote. And you cannot go into this kind of fight with people you do not trust. We walked onto the floor two years ago with signed pledges – handwritten promises – from more than enough people to deny Boehner his job. But when it came time to vote, almost half of those people changed their minds – including some of those who voted against Boehner today. Fool me once, shame on you… Today was even worse: there were never enough votes to oust Boehner to begin with. On top of that, some people who had publicly said in the past that they wouldn’t vote for Boehner did just that. This was an effort driven as much by talk radio as by a thoughtful and principled effort to make a change. It was poorly considered and poorly executed, and I learned first-hand that is no way to fight a battle. This coup today was bound to fail. And in fact, it failed worse than I expected, falling 11 votes short of deposing the Speaker. At least two years ago we only failed by six.I also learned that the Floor of the House is the wrong place to have this battle. The hard truth is that we had an election for Speaker in November – just among Republicans. THAT was the time to fight. But not a single person ran against Boehner. Not one. If they had, we could’ve had a secret ballot to find out what the true level of opposition to John Boehner was. In fact, we could’ve done that as late as Monday night, on a vote of “no confidence” in the Speaker. But that didn’t happen…and at least one of the supposed challengers to Boehner today didn’t even go to the meeting last night. That told me a lot.Some people wrote me encouraging me to vote for Louie Gohmert. I like Louie, but let’s be clear: Louie Gohmert was – is – never ever going to be Speaker of the House. I respect his passion, but he isn’t a credible candidate. That was proved today by the fact that he got three votes, despite all the national media attention he managed to grab. My colleague who got the most anti-Boehner votes was Daniel Webster of Florida who got 12 votes. I like Daniel. He is a nice guy, and a good thinker…but his lifetime Heritage Action score is 60% (by comparison, mine is 91%). And this was supposed to be the savior of the conservative movement? Would the House really have been more conservative if he had won?The truth is, there was no conservative who could beat John Boehner. Period. People can ignore that, or they can wish it away, but that is reality.Some people tried to argue that voting against Boehner would give conservatives leverage, or somehow force him to lead in a more conservative fashion, even if the coup attempt failed. All I can say to that is that the exact opposite happened two years ago: conservatives were marginalized, and Boehner was even freer to work with moderates and Democrats. My guess is that the exact same thing will happen again now. And I fail to see how that helps anything that conservatives know needs to be done in Washington.I understand people’s frustration and anger over what is happening in Washington. And I also acknowledge that John Boehner may be partly to blame. But this was a fool’s errand. I am all for fighting, but I am more interested in fighting and winning than I am fighting an unwinnable battle.Finally, the most troubling accusation I have heard regarding the Boehner vote is that I have “sold out” my conservative principles. All I can say is this: take a look at my voting record. It is one of the most conservative in Congress. And I was joined today by the likes of Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, Trey Gowdy, Mark Sanford, Trent Franks, Tom McClintock, Matt Salmon, Tom Price, Sam Johnson, and Jeb Hensarling. If I “sold out” then I did so joined by some of the most tried and tested conservative voices in Washington.I can say with 100% confidence that I have done exactly what I said I would do when I came to Washington: fight to cut spending, stop bad legislation, work to repeal Obamacare, and hold the President accountable for his actions. That will never change, and neither will I.

Makes it pretty clear, right? 

Opposition needs a plan, a willingness to do the ground work and earn the position.  How silly of these two men, in particular, to feel entitled when they have not earned it.  No politician is entitled to his/her office without accountability, that is true. However, one thing is certain about John Boehner - he knows about strategy and he knows how to work the process in the House.  He's not perfect but so far, no one else stepping forward to complain has proven to be anything better.

And those few who voted against Boehner? The ones with somewhat plum committee assignments no longer have them. That's the real world.  Apparently that consequence wasn't thought about in advance, either.  If your elected representative behaves in this manner, now is the time to demand better.