Free Republic

He may be referring to rule 30 which gives the Convention Chairman almost dictatorial powers under the “US House of Representatives rules” that the Convention operates under. Some delegates want to change to “Roberts Rules of Order” which gives the delegates more power.

I think Cruz made his point poorly. Cruz has been criticizing Trump’s authoritarian streak and should have condemned both the Left’s shutting Trump down and Trump’s kind words for authoritarian regimes praising Putin and the Chinese for showing “strength” in the face of opposition to their dictatorial rule and his denunciation of Pamela Geller when she held draw Mohammed day in Texas and two Muslims showed up with guns to shoot Geller and others as well as Trump’s call to sue those who say unkind things about him. Cruz’s constant refrain is that Trump has a right to speak and not be interrupted and that the Left shows up at Trump’s and other Republican rallies with the purpose of provoking a confrontation and should be rejected. Trump knows how to “work” the media and a crowd. His support of “Progressive” agenda should turn off any Conservative. While the media eggs on the trash Trump should have taken the high road and didn’t. That was Cruz’s point not that he was taking the disrupters’ side.

Ted’s name is Rafael Edward Cruz he is not a junior. Since his father’s first name is also Rafael,Ted goes by Ted, a nickname for Edward as in Edward Kennedy being call Ted. I’ve met and spoken with Rafael Cruz several times. He is an outstanding public speaker, Ted gets it naturally. The Senator was the Keynote Speaker at my annual Breakfast this past January. He spoke for 45 minutes answering many questions without notes or a TelePrompTer. Truly brilliant.

Which Trial Lawyers would that be?

Republican Candidates who lost to a Democrat in 2010 or 2012 should file a lawsuit to overturn the election and have another after the Conservative orgs discriminated against are allowed to organize and raise funds. The fact the IRS can’t produce documents works against them and Plaintiffs could win a default or similar decision..

The Supreme Court’s Davis Decision in 1937 held SS to be a general tax scheme, not insurance or an annuity.

The SC’s Nestor Decision in 1960 held that SS was a simply
welfare scheme, and the welfare can be changed or eliminated at Congress’s will.

Over a mile of Gulf depth and 6 miles deep in the earth, pretty impressive.

Lampson did not defeat DeLay in 2006 he beat a write-in candidate, Shelly Sekula Gibbs

Media and Democrats are trying to change the narrative. Breitbart said that he posted the video to show the NAACP audience applauding a racist act. He never claimed he was trying to show Sherrod as a racist, although she admitted that she had been a racist.

Breitbart said that he was comparing the NAACP audience approval of a racist act to the caims by the NAACP that the Tea Party was racists.

The White House and NAACP are the ones who reacted to Sherrod’s incomplete statement and forced her out before finding out all of the facts and giving her a chance to explain, Breitbart had nothing to do what that action.

It appeared to me that, at the beginning of the debate, McCain was trying to portray himself as a consensus builder, someone who can work with both sides of the aisle, as opposed to Obama who consistently attacks Republicans. I don’t think that McCain wanted to come across as laying all of the blame on the Democrats for the financial mess, since he is still trying to work with all parties to craft a solution to the nation’s financial problem. It seemed to me that this was an attempt by McCain to appeal to the undecided moderates and independents, since he didn’t need to appease the Conservatives who are going to vote for him. I am not sure McCain succeeded.

I thought McCain did much better in the second half of the debate when he focused more on policy and his experience.

I thought Obama came across as someone who can be rattled. His facial expressions and head shaking when McCain jabbed him reminded me of Al Gore’s antics in the first debate with Bush - amateurish in a diplomatic setting.

I don’t know if anyone else noticed but, while McCain mentioned the need to protect Israel and Jews several times, Obama did not mention either even once unless I missed it. The debate was supposed to be about foreign policy and Obama doesn’t even mention the only true friend that America has in the Middle East? Will that go unnoticed by American Jews?

Although Obama was more eloquent, I thought that McCain got the better of the “quips” – “hard to reach across the aisle when you are that far left” – “so Iran says they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and we say no you’re not?”

As I anticipated, Obama won on style and McCain won on substance. The loser was the moderator.

I guess we will find out whether style or substance is more important to the majority of the American electorate on November 4th.

It appeared to me that, at the beginning of the debate, McCain was trying to portray himself as a consensus builder, someone who can work with both sides of the aisle, as opposed to Obama who consistently attacks Republicans. I don’t think that McCain wanted to come across as laying all of the blame on the Democrats for the financial mess, since he is still trying to work with all parties to craft a solution to the nation’s financial problem. It seemed to me that this was an attempt by McCain to appeal to the undecided moderates and independents, since he didn’t need to appease the Conservatives who are going to vote for him. I am not sure McCain succeeded.

I thought McCain did much better in the second half of the debate when he focused more on policy and his experience.

I thought Obama came across as someone who can be rattled. His facial expressions and head shaking when McCain jabbed him reminded me of Al Gore’s antics in the first debate with Bush - amateurish in a diplomatic setting.

I don’t know if anyone else noticed but, while McCain mentioned the need to protect Israel and Jews several times, Obama did not mention either even once unless I missed it. The debate was supposed to be about foreign policy and Obama doesn’t even mention the only true friend that America has in the Middle East? Will that go unnoticed by American Jews?

Although Obama was more eloquent, I thought that McCain got the better of the “quips” – “hard to reach across the aisle when you are that far left” – “so Iran says they are going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and we say no you’re not?”

As I anticipated, Obama won on style and McCain won on substance. The loser was the moderator.

I guess we will find out whether style or substance is more important to the majority of the American electorate on November 4th.

I am convinced that DeLay will never get a fair trial in Austin, Texas.

Remember, he did not get a fair hearing from a Travis County (Austin) Grand Jury.

D.A. Earle is on record as a rabid partisan Democrat.

Find at least one resident in Travis County who will file a removal petition against Earle under Local Government Code Sec. 87.

I have been friends with Tom and Christine DeLay for 25 years, before he ran for Congress. I still consider him a friend and believe he is the victim of a political assassination.

Tom may not have done everything I would have liked, but we did not elect him dictator, he had to work with others, including moderate Republicans in order to get anything done in Congress.

If Tom’s case goes to trial, does anyone really believe that he will get a fair trial from a jury in Austin, Texas, by far the most liberal city in Texas?

Does anyone remember that the Grand Jury that indicted Tom, (Texas Grand Juries have a six month term) brought the indicted within 3 hours of being empanelled?

Does anyone here really believe that Scooter Libby got a fair trial from the D.C. jury, which was made up of a newspaper reporter, who intends to write a book to make money from his jury service, several retired federal government workers, etc.? Did they really put their personal politics aside in a political case?

Trials like Libby’s and Tom’s occur in major cities, with most jurors drawn from the city. Look at how the great majority of voters in our major cities vote – Democrat.

Does anyone remember when one of the “Law & Order” shows slurred DeLay?

The media and Democrats, but I repeat myself, were after Tom because he was effective in pushing at least some of the Conservative Agenda.

The media and Democrats were furious that DeLay was able to help elect a Republican Majority in the Texas House, which enabled the Republicans to correct the outrageous gerrymandering by the Democrats that had resulted in 60% Democrat representation in the US House, when Texas voters were voting almost 60% Republican.

It did not help that the Republicans in Congress drifted away from their core values, but the real damage was done by the relentless drumbeat by the media for several years that the Republicans were corrupt, inept, stupid, etc. Other than talk radio, which mainly diehard Conservatives listen to, Republicans have no effective means of combating the liberal propaganda from the Democrats and media.

The media and Democrats are sending a clear message – any other Conservative Republican who is bold enough to speak out will end up like DeLay. Notice that no Republican is sticking his head up these days. Can anyone blame them? Who will dare come to their defense if they do?

I have more comments but am getting tired of typing, so I will close with this observation.

Travis County D.A. Ronnie Earl brought an indictment against DeLay for DeLay violating a Texas law that does not exist. A Texas Appeals Court has so ruled. Such action by the D.A. is thought to be “official misconduct” by several attorneys I know. Under Texas Local Government Code Sec. 87 a D.A. can be removed from office for “Official Misconduct”. Such action would begin with at least one resident of Travis County (Austin) filing a “petition” to remove Earle from office for “official misconduct”, which would be indicting someone for violating a Texas law that does not exist.

I know three people who have/were on statins for 15 years, my wife, my brother-in-law (a doctor) and my niece's husband (a doctor).

My bother-in-law and my niece's husband developed Parkinson's, diagnosed about three years ago. My niece's husband died of a very aggressive Parkinson's/brain disease in January.

My sister, who used to be a Registered Nurse, is telling everyone she knows to get off of statins and go to Niacin, fish oil, aspirin and CoQ10, until a study is done to see if there is a connection between statins and Parkinson's, which she and my brother-in-law believe to be the case.

Note to all Conservatives.

If questioned by the FBI or CIA immediately lawyerup and shutup.

Take the Fifth even when asked your name.

After the Libby show trial, any Conservative who answers any questions from the FBI or CIA deserves what he/she gets. Simply refuse to answer any questions on the grounds anything you say may incriminate you.

Just remember, you don't have to actually do anything wrong - there was no crime underlying the Plame/Wilson fiasco - to be indicted and, if judged in any major city where the overwhelming majority of potential jurors are liberals, you will be convicted should your recollection be different than another witness'.

I have never recommended a movie before but will STRONGLY recommend Amazing Grace.

In fact, I am going to see it again and take more family members and some friends.

Very will acted and directed. I don't understand why it is PG, since there is no sex, violence or bad language (except the "N" word used by one of the "Lords"). The period recreation is very convincing, even if much was computer generated.

It is a very emotional film.

I particularly liked Cumberbatch's William Pitt, Wilberforce's good friend.

I can't believe there is not more talk about this film. When I saw it most of the theater was full and everyone clapped at the end and no one left until all of the credits were compete.

The Texas legislature will not enact a cap on annual increases in property values because that takes a Constitutional Amendment, which requires 2/3 vote in both houses and the votes are not there.

Most likely to be enacted is a reduction in the cap on property tax revenue from the current 8% to 5% and making it a “hard cap” requiring an affirmative vote of the majority of voters to go above the 5% cap. The cap on property tax revenue requires only a majority vote in both houses.

In most cases, the majority of a Texas city’s revenue comes from sales taxes and fees, with about 25-30% coming from property taxes.

In addition to their 1-cent sales tax for operating purposes, Texas cities have a ½-cent sales tax for “economic development” that could be used for roads and rail but is usually used for parks, convention centers and the like.

Texas cities also are able to implement a “limited purpose” annexation whereby the city enters into an agreement with a Municipal Utility District (MUD - quasi-governmental entity that provides water, sewer, drainage for a real estate development) that contains only retail establishments in the unincorporated area of a county but within the city’s Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to levy its 1 cent sales tax. Neither the city nor the MUD provides any services to the residents in the unincorporated area who pay the 1 cent sales tax (codifying taxation without representation in Texas statute).

As subdivisions of the state, Texas counties are subject more to unfunded mandates, required spending, and directed spending than are Texas cities.

About 75% of a Texas county’s revenue comes from property taxes.

Over 60% of a Texas county’s spending is dictated by state unfunded mandates, required spending or directed spending.

Over the last 5 years the annual increases in discretionary spending that my county, Fort Bend County – a suburban county to Houston – controls was about 2% over population growth, while the annual increases in spending related to state unfunded mandates, etc. was about 12% over population growth. The growth in unfunded mandate spending has been accelerating over the last 8 years.

State legislators continue to vote for unfunded mandates while telling their constituents that they have not voted for any tax increases.

A vote for an unfunded mandate is a vote to increase local property taxes.

I too want to reduce property taxes. I know of only two ways to do that, 1. Control and reduce spending, 2. Broaden the tax base through population growth and economic development faster than the increase in demand for and cost of services.

I have taken the position that I will support a state restriction on increases in county property taxes if the state provides relief on unfunded mandates. We have reduced our county’s tax rate about 20% over the last 9 years.

With state unfunded mandates and directed spending on Texas counties increasing at 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation, it will not be too many years before the increases in spending that a county cannot control overwhelms the increases in its revenue.

None of the Texas legislators who have submitted bills for the upcoming 2007 legislative session to cap property values or property tax revenue have submitted a bill to fully fund the state’s unfunded mandates.

A filibuster in the Senate of a Presidential nominee for Ambassador or to the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution provides for an up or down vote by the Senate and for a simple majority of Senators voting needed for confirmation of the President’s nominee. Article II Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

“Article II Clause 2: He (President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court…”

The Constitution is clear that the President needs two thirds of the Senators present voting for a treaty that the President has made. It is stated clearly in Article II Clause 2. However, there is no two thirds requirement for the Senate confirming Ambassadors or Supreme Court Judges. The two thirds language is absent with regard to Ambassadors and Supreme Court Judges. Had the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution intended to require more than a simple majority for the Senate to confirm Ambassador and Supreme Court nominees of the President they would have provided for such as they did for treaties. Absent such provision, the President is entitled to an up or down vote on his nominees and a Senate rule (60 votes to stop a filibuster) can not override the U.S. Constitution.

Does anyone really believe that the Roosevelt Administration did not know about the forced genocide? FDR gushingly referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe", as "someone we can do business with".

England and France declared war on Germany to comply with its treaties with and to protect Poland from being taken over by a Dictator, Hitler. After a World War and some sixty million dead Poland was able to remain a free country - Oh wait, I forgot FDR gave Poland and all of Eastern Europe to a Dictator, Stalin, just a different collectivist/statist dictator.

Is it possible that the left can not condemn the USSR for its genocide because of FDR's fondness and his defense of that benevolent country and to criticize the USSR would be to criticize the left's biggest hero in the US?

Response to Democrats' labeling signs as "racist", "criminal", "obscene".