Archives by date

You are browsing the site archives by date.

ICE readies 2,400 beds for new spring surge of illegal immigrants through Texas

Photo: Washington Examiner’s website

The Obama administration is bracing for another surge of illegal immigrants next spring, bringing online a family detention center that will have 2,400 beds.

“We must be prepared for traditional, seasonal increases in illegal migration. The Dilley facility will provide invaluable surge capacity should apprehensions of adults with children once again surge this spring,” said Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas S. Winkowski.

In advance of the president’s new pro-immigrant announcement set for Thursday night, ICE is readying its strategy for next year when over 100,000 illegals are expected to flood over the U.S.-Mexico border.

The agency said in a statement that it hopes illegal immigrants look at what they are doing in building holding facilities like the 2,400 bed center in Dilley, Texas, and will decide the trip isn’t worth it.

“These facilities help ensure timely and effective removals that comply with our legal and international obligations, while deterring others from taking the dangerous journey and illegally crossing into the United States,” he said.

But the….read more here.



Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted

Executive Action On Immigration Should Trigger Secession Vote

Photo: TNM Website 

With the Obama administration poised to take executive action on illegal immigration in mere hours, the message from the Texas Nationalist Movement is loud and clear – “Texas Independence Now!”

But the message from the TNM is not directed at the Federal Government. Instead, it is the elected officials in Austin that are in the crosshairs.

Officials in Austin know that Texas has been at the receiving end of the Federal Government’s dysfunction on the border and immigration. Rather than take decisive action, Texas has had to bear the financial burden of securing the border and continues to deal with the problems created by unrestricted immigration.

TNM President Daniel Miller believes that the only real way for ….read more.

Written by TNM Admin

War of words over alleged racist comments made by HISD teacher

Photo: Screen Shot Click2Houston News story 

HOUSTON- The war of words between community activist Quanell X and an elementary school teacher is escalating after he accused of her of making racist and anti-Muslim remarks on a political YouTube show, “Tommy’s Garage.”

Angela Box, third-grade teacher at Daily Elementary School, fired back at Quanell X at a press conference Wednesday.

She displayed a press release sent out by the activist accusing her of using an expletive and racist remark to describe President Obama. Box said she never used the term.

“This is a lie. I demand that Quanell X apologize to me for his lies,” said Box. “This false and malicious quote has damaged my reputation and caused significant harm to me on a personal and a professional level.”

Quanell X told Local 2 that he never said that she used the term instead he tells Local 2 that he quoted Box as saying “)expletive) president.”

Tom Adkins, the host of “Tommy’s Garage,” offered $1,000 to Quanell X to prove that Box made the statement.

“If he does not … more on Click2Houston here.

Author: Ryan Korsgard, Reporter,

Camp Lone Star – Cruel and Unusual Punishments – Before Conviction

Photo: Outpost of Freedom – KC’s personal ankle bracelet

On Monday, November 10, 2014, K. C. Massey was released from the “Correctional Institution Willacy County”, “a contracted correctional institution, operated by a private corporation”, after 14 days of incarceration.

Massey’s bail had been set at $30,000, and his wife had raised the $3,000.00 necessary for the bond (not to be returned) through a bail bond agency. Fortunately, Ronald G. Morgan, U. S. Magistrate Judge, Southern District of Texas (Brownsville), saw that Massey had led an exemplary life, with contributions to community and even law enforcement, saw fit to release him on an “unsecured bond of $30,000″, which means that the bondsman will not make his $3,000 and that the Massey’s will not have to pay that penalty for him to remain on the streets until trial. However, the freedom that you and I enjoy is not to be his to enjoy.

Though Magistrate Morgan chose not to impose the secured bond, the conditions of Massey’s release are far from being able to live his life in a normal manner. Instead, they have placed conditions, which would be considered by most, to be just a prison door away from incarceration.

The Grand Jury indicted Massey on four counts (subject of a future article), so he is, in accordance with the Constitution, accused, based upon “probable cause”, possibly guilty of the crimes alleged. The final determination as to innocence or guilt is, however, subject only to the determination of a jury of his peers. It is not the determination of the U. S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case, or the Magistrate. Therefore, he is “innocent until proven guilty”. This is, or was, the unequivocal foundation for the judicial system that our nation once so proudly hailed.

The release from detention was based upon a document styled “Appearance Bond” (includes all documents discussed herein). That would imply that it was to assure his appearance in court, when called to do so. This would be consistent with the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, and would allow him to continue his life, as he had before, without impediment by conditions that take away his freedom. Appearance for that determination of innocence or guilt, not for punishment prior to conviction.

So, let’s look at what has been imposed on Massey that most of us would consider “cruel and unusual punishments” (Eighth Amendment).

The “Appearance Bond, on its first page, says:

“This appearance bond may be forfeited if the defendant does not comply with the above agreement. The court may immediately order the amount of the bond surrendered to the United States, including the security for the bond, if the defendant does not comply with the agreement. At the request of the United States, the court may order a judgment of forfeiture against the defendant and each surety for the entire amount of the bond, including interest and costs.”

So, let’s look closely at what is above that written statement of forfeiture. The only items checked, or otherwise indicated, are:

(X) to appear for court proceedings;

(X) if convicted, to surrender to serve a sentence that the court may impose; or

(X) to comply with all conditions set forth in the Order Setting Conditions of Release.

(√) (2) This is an unsecured bond of $30,000.00

That, in itself, is sufficient to assure his appearance. If he fails to appear are otherwise comply with the three conditions, that is it, the court will take the $30,000.

So, now we will look at what is below the statement quoted above. First is a statement regarding the property used to secure the bond. Then, it has an:

Acceptance. I, the defendant — and each surety — have read this appearance bond and have either read all the conditions of release set by the court or had them explained to me. I agree to this Appearance Bond.

Interesting that the previously set condition on the first page, then the append those conditions to include “conditions of release” on the second (final) page of the “Appearance Bond”. And, now we will look at those conditions of release that have nothing, at all, to do with Massey’s agreement to appear in court, etc.

The “Order Setting Conditions of Release”, being a part of the “requirement” that goes beyond simply assuring appearance, begins to eat away at Massey’s freedoms, which we, not the court, must determine if they are consistent with the intent of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The pertinent parts of the Conditions (indented) and my comments thereto:

(1) The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release.

(2) The defendant must cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample if it is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14135a.

(3) The defendant must advise the court or the pretrial services office or supervising officer in writing before making any change of residence or telephone number.

(4) The defendant must appear in court as required and, if convicted, must surrender as directed to serve a sentence that the court may impose.

Nothing wrong with these, because they have to stay in touch with you, and you shouldn’t go committing crimes, even if you don’t know that they are crimes (Camp Lone Star – Massey & The Clash of Laws) — EXCEPT — they want DNA samples, even if you are arrested or facing charges (42 U.S.C. § 14135). Neither of these are convictions, so what gives? They want a database, so all they have to do is charge you with a crime, get the DNA sample, and then let you go. Neat trick! At the same time, people are fighting, and winning, cases against unjustified collection of DNA samples.

Next, we will go to the “Additional Conditions of Release” (included in the linked “Appearance Bond”). This will include all of the applicable ones, but there are some that stand out and might be considered “cruel and unusual”, at least in the original concept of the phrase. So, as we go through them put, yourself in the mindset of those who committed those sacred words to the Constitution, and consider, also, the concerns that led to the Declaration of Independence. The indented portions are from the document, my comments after those that warrant such comment. Bolded portions are typed into a standard form.

(x) (7) The defendant must (checked items only):

(x) (a) submit to supervision by and report for supervision to the U.S. Pretrial Services Agency telephone number 956-548-2667 , no later than [date left blank]

(x) (b) continue or actively seek employment and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (e) not obtain a passport or other international travel document.

(x) (f) abide by the following restrictions on personal association, residence, or travel: Travel is restricted to the Northern District of Texas with permission to travel to Brownsville, Texas for court appearances and attorney visits only. No travel into Mexico.

“(f)” imposes travel restrictions within the Northern District of Texas. It also includes permission to travel to Brownsville, this being to attend court, as required. The implication, then, is that he is free to travel within the prescribed area. We will address this, later on, in this section, and once, more, later on.

(x) (g) avoid all contact, directly or indirectly, with any person who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution, including: co-defendants and any member of “Rusty’s Rangers”, an armed citizen militia group.

“(k)” imposes a restriction on the right to speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and, perhaps the right to petition government (First Amendment). It also sets the prima facie representation of Rusty’s Rangers, a private group of concerned citizens, well within the laws of Texas, as “an armed citizen militia group”, regardless of the fact that both state and federal constitutions provide for who is militia, under their respective constitutions and statutes (See Liberty or Laws? Government Enforces Their Laws – Who Shall Enforce the Constitution?).

(x) (k) not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon; remove all weapons/firearms from residence prior to release and provide proof to Pretrial Services.

(x) (1) not use alcohol (x) at all ( ) excessively.

If alcohol was not a part of the alleged crime, why would they deny that freedom — to imbibe? And, they didn’t even give him the benefit of the qualifier “excessively”.

(x) (m) not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled substances defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802, unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner.

They had already said that the “defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release”, so, well, perhaps the one hand has no idea what the other hand is doing, or, there is an extreme deficiency in the intelligence of those who write these documents. It will also seem to suggest their inability to comprehend the Constitution.

(x) (p) participate in one of the following location restriction programs and comply with its requirements as directed.

(x) (ii) Home Detention. You are restricted to your residence at all times except for employment; education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities approved in advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer;

Back to the use of grammar in documents. The wording and punctuation here suggests that prior approval only applies to “other activities”. Suggesting that the intent was a degree of freedom, however, Massey has been instructed that if he leaves the house, not the yard, that it will set off an alarm and he would be in violation, as you will see, later.

(x) (q) submit to location monitoring as directed by the pretrial services office or supervising officer and comply with all of the program requirements and instructions provided.

(x) You must pay all or part of the cost of the program based on your ability to pay as determined by the pretrial services office or supervising officer.

So, the federal government, with all of the money that they waste, decides that someone under these constraints must also pay for what constitutes his imprisonment.

(x) (r) report as soon as possible, to the pretrial services office or supervising officer, every contact with law enforcement personnel, including arrests, questioning, or traffic stops.

The final page of this document explains the penalties for violation of the conditions given.

First, he has to contact the United States Pretrial Service Officer, Eric Zarate, in Dallas. Then, he has to submit to random “visits” to his home to assure that there are “No Firearms, Destructive Devices, or Dangerous Weapons” in the home. Darn, he has to agree to suspend the requirement for a warrant to search his home. Scratch the Fourth Amendment, but then we have already addressed that in “Camp Lone Star – Search Warrant or Fishing license?“. This simply broadens the government’s ability to remove rights that were protected by the Constitution, and supported, as explained in the linked article, by the fact that when Massey’s wife said, “no, you can’t search without a warrant”, they had no way to look inside of the Massey home.

Then, it states that Massey is to give “FIVE days notice… for approval of travel outside the restricted area.” Now, this implies that he is free to roam in the “Northern District of Texas”, but we will soon see that additional document will erode, further, the rights that were supposed to be protected, absent a conviction. A map of the “Northern District of Texas” is included in the documentation provided to Massey.

The final document dealing with Massey’s release is the “Home Confinement Program Participant Agreement”. (Indent is from the pertinent parts, comments are mine):

1.  I, [K. Massey], have been Placed in the Home Confinement Program. I agree to comply with all program rules set forth in this agreement and the instructions of my probation or pretrial services Failure to comply with this agreement or the instructions of my officer will be considered a violation of my supervision and may result in an adverse action. I agree to call my officer immediately if I have any questions about these rules or if I experience any problems with the monitoring equipment.

3. I will remain at my approved residence at all times, except for activities approved in advance by my probation or pretrial services officer. Regularly occurring activities will be provided for in a written weekly schedule which will remain in effect until modified by my officer. I must obtain my officer’s advance permission for any absences away from home that are not included in my written schedule.

Does this remind you of being “grounded”, when you were a kid? Except that violation could land Massey in prison.

  1. I understand that my officer will use telephone calls and personal visits to monitor my compliance. When I am at home, I agree to promptly answer my telephone or door. If I fail to answer my telephone or door when I should be at home, my officer will conclude that I am absent and in violation of my home confinement restrictions.

So, guilt (conclude) without trial. It wouldn’t take much for a pissed off officer to “violate” him and send him back to prison.

  1. I understand that my officer must be able to locate me at all times when I am away from home. If I do not have a job with a fixed location, my officer must be able to locate me by calling my employer. I also understand that jobs that do not meet these requirements are not permitted while I am in the Home Confinement Program. I understand that all job changes require advance approval from my officer.
  2. I will not deviate from my approved schedule except in an emergency. I first will try to get the permission of my officer. If this is not possible, I will call my officer as soon as I am able to do so. If I call during non-business hours, I will leave a message, including my name, the date, the time, a brief description of the emergency, and my location or destination. I agree to provide proof of the emergency as requested by my officer.


  1. While in the Home Confinement Program, I agree to wear a non-removable transmitter that my officer will attach either to my wrist or ankle.

These transmitter cuffs were, at once only used for those convicted of crimes. I guess the manufacturer of them has convinced the government to buy more. Not much different than the ankle shackles of the past, except you only need one ankle, not two.

10. I understand that I …….more here.

By Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

Colony Meadows Elementary ranks first in Texas Math Contest

Photo: Ft Bend

CME Math Team (from left to right: Tonito Morales, Andrew Cai, Ashmit Bhatnagar, Mark Wang, Kishlaya Rastogi, Sreeja Thipireddy, Akaash Kolluri, Pratyushram Jayaramakrishna, Aditya Janan, Sidharth Rajesh, Poorva Phatak, Sriram Padmanabhan) The Colony Meadows (CME) math team competed in Texas Math and Science Coaches Association (TMSCA) Math Contest at Klein Collin on November 1, 2014.

The CME team won the overall FIRST PLACE Sweepstakes and the TOP GUN Best Individual Award. Four TMSCA tests were included, consisting of Number Sense (mental math), Calculator, Mathematics, and Science. In addition to winning the overall sweepstakes, the team also ranked #1 in Number Sense, General Math, and Science. The following students ranked… of the list here. 

Bill King Seeks the Political Center in Houston

Photo: Bill King’s Book Cover 

It’s been hard going for moderates lately. The 2014 election cycle was the latest in a long series of culls, as hardline Republicans pushed their more conciliatory colleagues out of office and solidified their ideological hold on Congress. State governments haven’t necessarily fared any better: Texas now finds itself saddled with both national Sen. Ted Cruz (who recently derided net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet”—a statement so cynical it transcends mere idiocy) and Lt. Gov.-elect Dan Patrick, a man publicly pushing the idea that ISIS insurgents are sneaking across the Mexican border. The inmates have been running the asylum for a while; it was only a matter of time before they went off their meds.

Bill King argues that this situation is politically untenable and, more to the point, isn’t what people want. His new book,Unapologetically Moderate: My Search for a Rational Center in American Politics, collects a series of columns King wrote during an ongoing stint at the Houston Chronicle. In sections on immigration reform, health care and gun control, King hammers home a few central themes: Our nation is fundamentally centrist; our politics don’t reflect that truth; as a result, policy suffers and voters disengage.

King himself has a background in politics as a two-term mayor of Kemah, and he’s considered a possible contender in the 2015 Houston mayoral election. He’s also something of a wonk, with experience in business (he was president of Southwest Airport Services) and public policy (including a position with the task force that rewrote Houston’s hurricane evacuation plan in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita in 2005).

Reasonableness seems to be King’s guiding principle, and the columns collected in Unapologetically Moderate seldom find him especially fired up on any particular topic. He seems….read more here.

by Asher Elbein

National Guard troops to stay on border through March

 File photo DPS

Nov. 19–AUSTIN — Texas National Guard troops will remain on the southern border until next spring and extra Department of Public Safety officers will stay until next summer under a deal struck this week by top state officials.

The agreement set to be formally approved Dec. 1 would shift $86.1 million from an account used to pay off transportation bonds and other parts of the state budget to continue the deployment started last June as unaccompanied Central American children flooded over the border, overwhelming authorities.

Illegal border crossings since have fallen dramatically, but Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state House Speaker Joe Straus said in a joint news release Tuesday that the added manpower still was needed to fight crime fueled by Mexican drug cartels.

“In the absence of sufficient action from the federal government, the state of Texas has proven it is possible to secure the border, reduce crime, and combat the impacts of illegal immigration,” Dewhurst said. “This agreement proves Texas is serious about border security.”

The trio framed the deal as a full extension of the so-called border surge that would continue deployments into next August, as well as fund new shallow-water boats and other technologies to broaden operations from their current focus in the Rio Grande Valley.

A source familiar with the agreement, however, said it only would fund the guardsmen through next March.

That would represent a compromise between Perry and Dewhurst, two longtime but outgoing officials who pushed for a full extension, and Straus, who wanted to give a say to the new leaders who will take office in January.

“This approach provides an important bridge to the 2015 legislative session,” Straus said in the Tuesday release, adding it would “allow members of the next Legislature to evaluate the state’s border security strategy during the session and make adjustments, if necessary.”

Gov.-elect Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov.-elect Dan Patrick have emphasized the importance of ensuring border security, but offered few details about how to do it. Abbott spokeswoman Amelia Chasse said Tuesday he “supports the continued border surge operation.” A Patrick spokesman did not return calls seeking comment.

The concept of the surge has been supported by state Republican leaders, including Straus, but the expensive deployment of the National Guard, in particular, has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and local officials of cities and counties on the border since it was announced.

The state has spent more than $50 million on operations — including $4 million per week on the guardsmen and $1.3 million per week on the Department of Public Safety officers.

The number of illegal immigrants apprehended in the surge area has fallen from 6,606 during the first week of operations to 1,521 in the week that ended Nov. 1, according to state data, but opponents say the drop is due to seasonal patterns and an aggressive public campaign against illegal immigration.

Regardless, critics say, the reduction is an argument that the effort should be ended.

Col. Steve McCraw of the Department of Public Safety officials had set 2,000 weekly apprehensions as a target for when it may be time to wind down the surge.

On Tuesday, opponents of the surge repeated their concerns.

“The numbers of people crossing the border are……more here. 

By Houston Chronicle via The Minute Project 

Op-Ed: Well Fed Liberals


 You know, solutions to complex problems are really quite simple when you step back and look at them objectively. It’s only when you inject legalese, or liberal thought do you get multi-layered psycho-babble that leaves the thinking person with exasperation. I am going to offer some of my solutions to complex problems, and please, bear in mind, I’m from Texas. (Save your fork, folks. This is gonna be good!)

     Freedom of speech. This means you can say anything you want to say so long as you don’t threaten someone’s safety or life. You can get on a soapbox, in front of the White House and expound any cock-eyed theory of foreign policy you want so long as you don’t tell people to fire a pistol through the White House door. If you are stupid then only stupid people will listen to you. Come to think of it, you’d probably draw quite a crowd up there. There is no such thing as “free speech zones!” Right now we have the silliest set up the world has ever seen. Texas Patriots cannot talk about Texas independence outside a “free speech zone” at San Jacinto while some nut jobs can put a reward on the Internet for a police officer’s head. Am I the only one laughing here? Oh darn! My bad. The nut jobs were black. That explains it.

    Right to bear arms. Did you ever stop to think how many hours have been spent trying to get around this one line amendment? It is simple. Translated into Texan it simply states, “Y’all can have guns.” The Constitution puts limits on the Federal government. In the so called Wild Wild West the local sheriff controlled guns quite well. And people don’t have to be told not to carry a gun to church. Now that’s CHURCH, boys and girls, not Mosques! You should carry a gun there. Bad people will always get guns. Good people need guns to shoot bad people. You’ll never run out of bad people with guns. Every now and then I say something profound. It happens. I sit here on this porch with a cigarette and a glass of Jim Beam and the spirit comes upon me. Once the spirit told me, “When you’re hiding under your desk as some nut is shooting everybody in your office, you won’t be worried about commas in the second amendment, you’ll be worried about your ASS!”

     Presidents don’t make laws, they formulate policy. Now, work with me here, ok? Some guy gets elected based on ideas he has about how do direct the nation. He has goals. He takes these ideas to Congress. You know, that bunch of wine heads you pay a lot for nothing? He says, “I want some kind of affordable health care so folks can see a doctor without selling their first born. You guys work it out and send it over to my house and I’ll sign it for you.” Then the Congress draws something up. It can be as simple as the sudden realization that you can’t control doctors, and you shouldn’t, but you can put a leash on insurance companies. You see, there’s your problem. Some doctor comes up with a treatment and puts an astronomical price on it,  the insurance companies say, “Heck we’ll pay that,” and they pass the cost right on down to Suzie Sweetcheeks working as a waitress down at Mel’s Diner. Just tell the insurance companies they can pay all they want, but they can’t gouge the public for their extravagance. The Congress does all the work, the President signs it, and he looks like a great innovator while hanging out at the golf course and kissing a few babies.

     To have a country you almost must have borders. I think the rules to enter the country should at least be as stringent as the ones governing admission to a biker bar, ok? I mean, you set up a country, draw a circle around it and say, “We be here!” Then you put people in charge of that and tell them, “Shoot anybody who climbs over that there fence.” Now, there will be a little bit of an outcry from the climbers for a few days, but eventually they’ll figure it out. I am not unfeeling. When they start throwing their kids over the fence, spank their asses and throw them BACK! Shoot the parents. And drug smugglers? No problem! When you catch them just make them eat their fill of whatever they are bringing into the country and burn the rest. Uh, don’t burn marijuana. That doesn’t work. Send that to Austin. Them boys will take it from there.

     Welfare. Wow! Where do I start? Ok, don’t have it. In all my years I’ve never seen a skeleton lying in a ditch by the side of the road. Know why you have riots in Ferguson? Them people have too much energy and too much time on their hands. They don’t have to work and dinner is always on the table. Michael Brown stole cigars, not Little Debbie cakes, although from his picture I know he’s seen a few Little Debbies in his time. Hey, news flash. Necessity is the mother of invention. Hunger does away with a lot of tootie fruity ideas. I used to have a lot of pie in the sky theories. Then I went to Nashville and them fellers simplified all that nonsense. Pie in the sky got reduced to pie in one lesson.

     Separation of church and state. I love this. Three kids get reprimanded for praying in the corner of a school yard while some Imam prays over Congress. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. Here’s the Congress of the United States sitting there blinking while some raghead babbles on and on about Allah. And not one of them, even got up to go to the restroom. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I said “Raghead,” get over it! I told you they were wine heads. Hey, it’s not just up in Washington, we got a few of these idiots running loose in Austin. A few years ago a congressman down here introduced a resolution acknowledging Albert DeSalvo’s contribution to birth control and the Texas congress overwhelmingly approved it. He let the resolution be all printed up with a pretty bow around it before he told the voice of the people that Albert was the Boston strangler. Like I said, you can’t make this stuff up! You cannot separate moral teachings from government, or maybe that’s the problem here, hmmmmm? After years and years of trying to sterilize the human soul we have a congress full of, well, wine heads.

     And last but not least, Gay Marriage. (May I have a drum roll please!) This all stems from licensing. Let’s look at marriage license. Billy Joe Jim Bob falls in love with Suzie Sweetcheeks. “Gee, Suzie, I sho’ Nuff would like to jump in your drawers.” “But, Billy Joe, you know we’s got to go down to the court house and gets us one of them marriage licenses afore we can do that. And they’s rules!” Billy Joe scratches his head, “Rules?” Suzie continues, “Why yeah. First I gotta be a girl, and you gotta be a boy” Now, Billy Joe already had already figured that part out so there was no problem there. “Then, Billy Joe, we gots to go to the doctor so’s you don’t give me the Clap like your cousin gave Miss Elderberry the school teacher.” Billy Joe agrees to that. “Then, we’s gotta find twenty dollars, cause that’s what the government charges so we can say the words over to the church.” Well, Suzie and Billy Joe do tie the knot and live happily ever after. Billy Joe even becomes a pillar of the community, he and Suzie get a mortgage on a double wide and raise their boy to be a great leader. Suzie, and Billy Joe Abbott were very proud of him. Now, that was a pretty good poke at Texas white trash, and I am qualified to do that because I’M Texas white trash. Kinda like some black folks using that word we crackers can’t even write in a letter to mama, but we all know how that goes, now don’t we? Ok, now remove marriage license from the equation. See how that works? Then people so inclined can just trot down to the church of the Pink Flamingo and get hitched. Oh, and by the way, if we have this “separation of church and state” how’d a marriage license get through the church doors in the first place. I’m confused. And tax credits for fellers marrying fellers? Just add a square to the tax forms. Shouldn’t take much time or ink to do that. They printed up ObamaCare, didn’t they? One added feature. If you have to license something then just license it! All licenses must be renewed from time to time. Say after two years, things just aren’t working out you just don’t renew and go your merry ways. No more divorces!

     Life’s most difficult challenges become so simple when you just step back and look at them. And while you’re laughing consider this. All my suggestions would work. Well, they’d work until the liberals got involved. But they’re too well fed and just have too much time on their hands. Good day!

By Wilbur Witt


Op-Ed: Is The Republican Delegation of the State of Texas For Sale?


“You were bought with a price.” 1 Corinthians 6:20

We all were, if you are a Christian.  Jesus paid the ransom for our sin with his own blood so that we could have eternal life.  Pretty hefty price, if you ask me.

One could say that our delegation of Texas State Representatives have been bought with a price, too.   Not one as noble as the price that Christ paid for our sins.  What I’m talking about here is their vote for the Texas Speaker of the House, bought and paid for by current Speaker of the House, Joe Straus. Follow the money, especially all the lobbyist money Straus distributes with strong strings attached.  See the article just written by a contributor to Raging Elephants Radio with a complete list of state reps who have received contributions from Speaker Straus.

Now, you might accuse me of being extreme here with the parallel I’ve drawn, but I don’t think so.  See, the state of Texas and it’s future rests squarely in the hands of the Speaker of the House, which is a position that needs to be held by a true conservative member of the house.  My choice?  Scott Turner, that’s who.

Scott Turner understands the responsibility he has as a legislator and where our priorities should be.  From a fellow blogger, Adam Cahnman’s most recent blog post he relays some of Scott’s legislative priorities:

“…As a candidate for the Office of Speaker of the House, I have spent the last several months traveling across our great state and have heard the voice of the people calling for their representatives to help promote and protect our shared values of faith, family, and free enterprise. It is important that we focus on the future of Texas and not rest on the perceived victories of the past.

As the next Speaker of the House, I want us to focus on securing our borders, fully implementing E-verify, and completely ending the practice of sanctuary cites. Moreover, we can no longer put off giving parents and families a choice to provide the best educational environment for their children. Additionally, we must provide a solid financial environment for our state by repealing the Gross Margins Tax and implementing a fiscally conservative budget that exemplifies responsible stewardship of the taxpayers’ money.

I look forward to working with my fellow members to seize the opportunities set before us, work on the passage of the critical legislation the people are calling for, and move forward in a bipartisan effort to ensure true freedom and prosperity for Texas.”

As someone who’s been working with the Scott Turner team, I’ve been privileged to hear him speak more than a few times.  One of the quotes I gathered from him that I found rather inspiring myself was this one, “Status quo and complacency rob you.”  This quote can definitely be applied to the upcoming legislative session.

Sadly, as I mentioned earlier, it seems that the Straus camp has already sent out their talking points to his delegation, and their little army of ‘lemmings’ has all but regurgitated the information on all of their Facebook walls and at speeches around the state.  Lots of them reflect Scott’s perceived inexperience as a legislator.  Another quote from Scott that refutes that claim, “I’m no stranger to scrutiny and accountability.”

I believe it is that same scrutiny and accountability that he speaks of that will make him a great speaker.  Win or lose, Scott will take the vote to the floor, because in his own words, once again, “It’s time.”

By Kelly Horsley

Kelly Horsely - Thumbnail

Judge Refuses to Toss Perry Case on Technicalities

Photo: Travis Co Sheriff’s Office via Getty Images

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas judge refused on Tuesday to quash on technicalities two criminal felony indictments for abuse of power against Gov. Rick Perry, ruling that the potentially embarrassing case against the possible 2016 presidential hopeful should proceed.

The governor’s defense team had sought to have the matter thrown out, arguing that the special prosecutor, Michael McCrum, wasn’t properly sworn in and some paperwork wasn’t correctly filed. But a written ruling from District Judge Bert Richardson, who like Perry is a Republican, sided with McCrum.

“This court concludes that Mr. McCrum’s authority was not voided by procedural irregularities,” Richardson wrote.

An Austin grand jury indicted Perry in August on charges of abuse of official power and coercion of a public servant. He’s accused of publicly threatening, then carrying out, a veto of state funding for public corruption prosecutors after the unit’s Democratic district attorney refused to resign following a drunken driving conviction.

Perry made his first court appearance Nov. 6. He calls the case a political witch hunt and says he’d issue the veto again.

His attorneys have also sought to have the charges against Perry dismissed on constitutional grounds, but Richardson has yet to have a hearing on that challenge and isn’t expected to rule on it for weeks.

The day before Richardson’s ruling, Perry’s defense team filed a 28-page brief asserting that the case shouldn’t continue because Perry’s actions were protected by the constitutional powers of his office. They also bristled at McCrum’s past suggestions that the governor wasn’t above the law in arguing that his fate should be decided by a jury — just like any criminal defendant.

“This invalid prosecution cannot go to trial — not because Governor Perry is above the law, but because everything he is accused of this case is absolutely protected,” the attorneys wrote Monday.

Perry didn’t seek re-election but is seriously considering a second White House run after his 2012 bid flamed out in a series of memorable gaffes. He said he may announce a decision by May or June.

Top national Republicans initially lined up to praise Perry and decry the criminal case against him, but they’ve been less vocal about their support as the case drags on.

In arguing that it should be tossed out because of technicalities, Perry’s lead attorney, Houston-based Tony Buzbee, had …….. more here.