The Republican Club of Sun City NEWSLETTER

September 2013 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas CONGRESSMAN CARTER TO ADDRESS CLUB

Congressman John Carter, Representative of Congressional District 31, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 5, in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City.

First elected as Congressman in 2002, Carter currently serves as chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, and vice chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. In addition, he has served as a member of the House Appropriations Committee since 2004.

He is expected to address a number of “hot button” issues, including immigration policy.

The Social Period, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 PM. The dinner will begin at 6:30 PM and will be followed by the program. The dinner will consist of King Ranch Chicken, green beans, salad and tortilla chips.

Cost. Cost is $16 per person. Checks made out to The Republican Club of Sun City should be mailed to: The Republican Club of Sun City, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633. The deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, August 30.

Club treasurer John Congdon has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 610 Farm Hill Drive for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, provided delivery is made by the Friday deadline. For information about reservations, contact John at 686-1676 or johnsctx@gmail.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!
BARRY SMITHERMAN TO ADDRESS CLUB IN OCTOBER

Barry Smitherman, chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission and candidate for Texas Attorney General, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 30.

Details of the meeting will be provided in a subsequent newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

The Executive Committee urges club members to transmit to potential new club members a copy of the September newsletter along with a personal invitation to attend the September 5 meeting as a visitor. (But note there is a $16 dinner fee.) In addition, non-members can, themselves, arrange for a copy of the newsletter to be transmitted to them by contacting vice president Bill Chiles at wachiles@gmail.com

According to club bylaws, a Nominating Committee is to submit its recommendations for next year’s officers during the club’s October meeting. Any member wishing to make a suggestion for someone to serve as a officer or to make themselves available to serve should contact the club president.

NEWS OF THE COUNTY PARTY

County party chairman Bill Fairbrother reports that the location of the party’s major fund raiser, the Reagan Dinner, has been changed from the Round Rock Marriott hotel, where the dinner had been held for a number of years, to the Sun City Ballroom for the next dinner which is scheduled for February 17, 2014.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office reports that it has approved Williamson County’s application to participate in the Countywide Polling Place program especially for the November 5, 2013, Constitutional Amendment Election.

The Polling Places are all electronic so that voters can access any ballot at any of the Vote Center locations.

NEWS OF THE STATE PARTY

State party chairman Steve Munisteri reports that the Republican National Committee (RNC) plans to mimic the successful 50 state strategy of the Democrat National Committee (DNC) thereby to operate victory programs on a year-round basis. Specifically, “the RNC will spend millions of dollars on engagement and 200 field staff nationwide, including a commitment of resources that will supply Texas with 21 new staff members plus regional Victory Centers . . . “ Already, the state party has added staff for the following outreach programs: High School Republicans of Texas, Texas Federation of College Republicans, Texas Federation for Republican Outreach, and Federation of Hispanic Republicans.

Munisteri points to some significant historical facts justifying the increased effort by the RC: “Through the 2008 elections, Democrats actually held a majority of the elected offices statewide.” “Fortunately,” he continues, “we have been able to increase the percentage of votes our statewide candidates have received since 2008 and obtained overwhelming majorities in the Texas House and Senate. In addition, we now hold over 60% of all elected offices statewide as a result of Republican elected officials occupying 815 more offices statewide than we did in 2008. We have also won every statewide office since 1994.”

NEWS OF THE NATIONAL PARTY

The chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), Reince Priebus, has proposed changes in the way Republicans nominate their presidential candidates: sharply curtail the number of debates; hold the next nominating convention in June instead of August, thus to allow more time for the general-election phase; possibly revamp the state-by-state election calendar to include a series of regional primaries, making the process less drawn out.

The changes advocated by Priebus will be met by a divided party, but he did receive a boost at the RNC when he proposed to bar CNN and NBC from hosting any 2016 GOP primary debates if they proceed with plans to air programs devoted to Hillary Clinton. His proposal drew a standing ovation and some war whoops.

PRIMARY ELECTONS FOR 2014 FAST APPROACHING

Some of the events pertinent to the 2014 primaries dramatize the reality that certain aspects of those primaries are “just around the corner.” Note these dates:

November 9 – December 9, 2013 – Candidate Filing Period February 17 – 29, 2014 – Early Voting (unless lawsuit causes delay) March 4, 2014 – Primary Election Day (unless lawsuit causes delay)

The following listing of positions having incumbents whose terms of office expire in 2014 provides some indication of the listings which will appear on the Sun City primary ballot, although it should be noted that future resignations, retirements, etc. can increase the number of listings:

U. S Senate (Cornyn)

Governor (Perry)
Comptroller (Combs)
Railroad Commissioner (Smitherman)

Supreme Court
Chief Justice, Pl. 1 (Jefferson) Justice, Pl. 7 (Boyd)
Justice, Pl. 8 (Johnson)

County Judge (Gattis) County Clerk (Rister)

Judge, 277th Dist. (Anderson) County Court at Law #2 (Wright)

NATIONAL OFFICES:
U. S. Representative, Dist. 31 (Carter)

STATE OFFICES:
Lt. Governor (Dewhurst)
Land Commissioner (Patterson) State Senator, Dist. 5 (Schwertner)

STATE JUDICIAL POSITIONS: Court of Criminal Appeals Judge, Pl. 3 (Price)
Judge, Pl. 4 (Womack) Judge, Pl. 9 (Cochran)

COUNTY POSITIONS: Constable, Pct. 3 (Stofle) County Treasurer (Wood)

COUNTY JUDICIAL POSITIONS: Judge, 368th Dist. (Carnes) County Court at Law #3 (Arnold)

Attorney General (Abbott) Agriculture Commissioner (Staples) State Rep. Dist. 20 (Farney)

Third Court of Appeals Chief Justice, Pl. 1 (Jones)

District Clerk (David)
Justice of the Peace, Pct. 3 (Gravell)

County Court at Law #1 (Brooks) County Court at Law #4 (McMaster)

BLACK DEMOCRAT STATE SENATOR SWITCHES TO GOP

In June, black Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory made a public announcement that shook the Democrat party establishment: he announced he was switching his party allegiance from Democrat to Republican.

While the news of his switch, alone, was enough to bring about considerable reaction by the media and by representatives of both parties, it was Guillory’s oral statement as to why he made the switch shown on YouTube and widely circulated which caused even more of a sensation.

In contrast with the perception Democrats are attempting to portray regarding the role of their party in fighting racism, Guillory’s statement accurately reports on the positive role of the Republican Party and the negative role of the Democrat Party in ending slavery and promoting civil rights.

In addition, he accuses liberals (i.e., Democrats) of using programs such as welfare and food stamps which, ostensibly, are to lift black Americans out of poverty, but to actually provide a mechanism for Democrats to control the black community.

A transcript of his message – which will resonate with both black and white conservatives – follows:

Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a “bold decision” to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision – not only for me – but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.

You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what is best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.

Frederick Douglas called Republicans the ‘Party of freedom and progress,’ and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights and due process of law.

The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing – control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.

The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life is despicable. And even more important, this idea is a failure. Our communities are just as poor as they’ve always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers. Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers who control us by making us dependent on them.

Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché’.

The idea of freedom is complex and it is all-encompassing. It’s the idea that the economy must remain free of government persuasion. It’s the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion…

But most importantly, it is the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free is to be reliant on no one other than the author of our destiny. These are the ideas at the core of the Republican Party, and it is why I am a Republican.

So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government and the Party of the plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, ‘free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’

OBJECTIVE OF DEMOCRATS: CONTROL THE PEOPLE VIA HEALTHCARE

Motives of Democrats. The reader may recall that back in 2010, at the time when Democrats were attempting to hammer out the ObamaCare law, Representative John Dingle (D.-Mich.), while attempting to explain why many of the benefits of ObamaCare were to be delayed until 2014 while tax increases for that program were to begin in 2011, responded by saying: “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” (emphasis added) Later, he attempted to mitigate that response by saying he was fatigued in the wake of the protracted battle of the healthcare bill.

But gaining control of the people under the guise of health care is actually nothing new. In fact, author Matthew Spalding notes that, in this country, health care was first proposed in 1904 modeled on German social insurance. It was in the Progressive Party’s platform in 1912, and then came back under FDR and Truman, then Johnson, than Clinton, and now Obama. Then Spalding makes a stark assertion, one echoed by any number of conservatives: “And the goal all along has little to do with the quality of health care. The objective is rather to remove about a sixth of the economy from private control and bring it under the thumb of the state . . .”

And the “control of the people” – to use Rep. Dingle’s phrase – may well explain Democrats’ motives and bizarre behavior not only in regard to the passing of a health care – which was accomplished in the face of overwhelming public opposition and no Republican support – but also explains their behavior in regard to other legislative schemes.

The Social Security System as a Scheme. How the now virtually bankrupt entitlement programs came into existence can be better understood by examining the beginnings of the Social Security system. In addition to social security being based upon a Ponzi-like scheme of one group of citizens having their wealth confiscated for the benefit of another group of citizens, and of reporting there is a “trust fund” when there is no such fund, comes the following report from The New American revealing possible sinister motives for establishing that system:

Not known at the time [when President Roosevelt sent a proposal for a Social Security program to Congress] was that FDR sought to emulate Germany’s Otto von Bismark, who had candidly admitted employing a welfare scheme to force the people into dependency on government. The Iron Chancellor actually boasted, “Whoever has a pension for his old age is . . .far easier to handle [and will become] a servant in the chancellery or at court. (emphasis added)

How did President Roosevelt turn around the initial rejection of the country to his Social Security plan? The answer is through tactics similar to those used by the Obama administration in regard to the health care bill: obfuscation and lying. With respect to Roosevelt’s success, it was largely through word obfuscation: (1) The new wage tax, said to be specifically marked to pay pension, wasn’t called a “tax” but a “contribution;” (2) the funds that came in from the wage tax were said to be “trust funds;” To further the illusion that workers have a contractual right to benefits, the SS Administration keeps records of each worker’s “contribution,” as if these tax payments establish a legal right to specific benefits, while, in practice, Congress can legally lower or raise benefits at will.

ObamaCare as a Scheme. The lies uttered by the current president and his selective enforcement (without legal challenge) of laws regarding ObamaCare are too well-known and too numerous of be mentioned here. But note that a complicit Congress relinquished its authority and empowered unelected bureaucrats to bring about controls so extensive as to create a new health care system – to the exclusion of Congress.

One illustration is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) – sometimes referred to as a “death panel” – which is authorized to control Medicare spending. But the law stipulates that there “shall be no administrative or judicial review” of its decisions. Its decisions can be overruled only by Congress, but then only through unprecedented and constitutionally dubious – and virtually unworkable – procedures, such as restricted debate and super majority votes. The law allows Congress to kill the board, itself, but only by a 3/5 super majority. The Wall Street Journal contends “Seniors and providers hit hardest . . .will have nowhere to turn for relief – not Congress, not the president, not the courts.” How’s that for control?

A LAWSUIT HAVING POTENTIAL OF BRINGING DOWN OBAMACARE

The American Spectator contends that the now-pending court case, Sissel v. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, is “the only remaining lawsuit that has any chance of bringing down the entire health care

law, “ known as ObamaCare.
Ironically, this remaining chance comes about because of two significant rulings by the Supreme Court

on the ObamaCare case. First, it ruled that the Commerce Clause, initially relied upon by the government to sustain the individual mandate, could not provide the needed cloak of constitutionality.

But second, in an effort to sustain the individual mandate by what Chief Justice Roberts called a “saving construction,” the court majority chose to “read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” That court-instigated maneuver thus saved ObamaCare – at least for the moment.

The deplorable and deceitful tactic employed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to have the ObamaCare law, when it was considered, to appear to have originated in the House is reported by the Pacific Legal Foundation which has filed the lawsuit:

But as it was drafting the Act in 2010, Congress used a procedural maneuver called a “shell bill,” in which the Senate took a bill that had already been passed by the House, and amended it to strike out
all of its language and replace it entirely with new language. The bill – H.B. 3590 – began as the
“Service Members Home Ownership Act of 2009,” introduced in September, 2009. That bill was passed by the House and sent to the Senate in October, 2009. But on November 19, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid submitted an “amendment” which struck out everything in the bill and replaced it
with what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That Act contains 17 separate revenue provisions, including a dozen new taxes estimated to increase federal revenue by $486 billion by 2019.

The lawsuit was dismissed by a district court in Washington, D. C. However, that lawsuit has now been appealed to the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Given the demonstrated propensity of the Supreme Court to save legislation via a “saving construction” philosophy, reversal of ObamaCare may not seem likely. But, on the other hand, in a 1990 case, U. S. v. Munoz- Flores, the Court indicated that it would not allow Congress simply to ignore the Origination Clause: “Although the House certainly can refuse to pass a bill because it violates the Origination Clause, that ability does not absolve this Court of its responsibility to consider constitutional challenges to congressional enactments.”

TRANSGENDER ISSUES CONTINUE TO SURFACE IN STATES

At least 3 states – Colorado, California and Massachusetts – are involved in issues which emanate from state laws pertaining to transgender status. Currently, these laws pertain to school age children, but there are indications that the homosexual community plans to make them applicable to all ages, and in additional states. In regard to a related matter, New Jersey has recently joined California in banning therapy that attempts to change the sexual orientation of children. Governor Chris Christi, who recently signed his state’s bill, is Catholic but claims homosexuality is not a sin.

World reports on an issue involving children in Colorado. To be noted is the fact that a unit of state government, the Civil Rights Division, has issued a ruling which potentially can establish state-wide precedents. Says World:

A Colorado school district discriminated against a 6-year-old boy because it wouldn’t allow him to use the girls’ bathroom: So says a report by the state’s civil rights division released by the family’s attorney. Coy Mathis “has identified as a female since an early age,” according to Reuters, and has “attended Eagleside Elementary School, south of Colorado Springs, as a girl since kindergarten.” He used the girls’ restroom until late 2012, when the principal informed the parents that Coy would have to use the boys’ restroom or a gender-neutral staff lavatory. Coy’s parents withdrew Coy from the school and filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

Point of View reports on a new law in California, one also pertaining to children, which has been passed by the state’s House and Senate and which was recently signed by the governor:

Legislation sometimes referred to as the School Bathroom Bill, allows a child to use a restroom, locker room, and play on the sports team of their gender choice . . .If a 17-year-old boy is confused about his gender, he is now allowed to use the girls’ restroom alongside a freshman, 14-year-old girl.

And if a parent or child complains about this . . .they will be treated as if they have complained about sharing facilities with someone of a different race and used a racial slur in their complaint.

(emphasis added)

The Wall Street Journal reports on a law affecting students of Massachusetts which went into effect on July 1, 2012. That law, titled “An Act Relative to Gender Identity,” is described by the following excerpts from that publication:

Transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex doesn’t match their “internalized sense
of their gender,” the directive says, and they “range in the ways in which they identify as male, female, some combination of both, or neither.” Therefore, “the responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student.”

Under the order of the guidelines, a 16-year old high-school junior who says he believes he is a girl has the right to use the girls bathroom and locker room . .If a female student feels uncomfortable and objects to the boy’s presence when she is in the bathroom, the rules say, the complaint “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

What is providing the impetus for the emergence of these issues which most citizens will find repulsive? Point of View suggests it is coming from the homosexual community: “Because the homosexual lobby is very powerful and will use these laws as a model. They will hop one by one through the most liberal states in our union and then leverage their success to try to pass this at the federal level.” (emphasis added)

This lobby has been successful because of a complicit media and because these issues have been given little exposure in the media. Contends Point of View:

They won in Massachusetts because they caught the public off guard. They won in California because they kept it under the radar until the bill was already passed.

Have you heard anything about this on any of the major news networks? Even most conservative talk shows won’t take on this issue. As long as the homosexual lobby is the only one putting pressure on legislators, they will continue to win. And as long as the media is silent, no one will know they need to be contacting their legislators.

Think of the impact it will have on our culture if it becomes the norm for boys and girls to share locker rooms and bathrooms at school . . .and for men, women, boys and girls to share facilities everywhere. Think of the possibilities for abuse. (emphasis added)

NOTES ON THE PASSING SCENE
(Some random observations on this crazy world in which we live.)

Invocations Before Governmental Bodies. In May, the U. S. Supreme Court said it would clarify the rules for invocations, those prayers that are offered before public meetings of various governmental bodies.

A small municipality, Town of Greece, N.Y., begins its town-board meetings with a prayer. But in 2008, two local residents – one Jewish and the other atheist – sued the town, alleging that the prayers were an establishment of religion in violation of the way the Supreme Court had been interpreting the First Amendment.

Historically, legislative prayer has been allowed. American legislatures have always had prayers, the Supreme Court has noted, and this “unambiguous and unbroken history “was decisive. After all, at the same time as the Framers were hammering out the First Amendment, legislators were regularly bowing in prayer.”

But, given the current hostility toward religion, the Supreme Court may reverse itself. Already, the Second Court of Appeals has upheld the challenge.

Four Federal Agencies Harass Citizen. Texas resident, Catherine Engelbrecht, in connection with efforts to obtain tax-exempt status for two organizations she formed to combat voter fraud, had to undergo the following:

In December 2010, the FBI asked her about a person who attended a King Street Patriots function. In January 2011, the FBI came back with more questions. That same month, the IRS audited her business tax returns. In May 2011, the FBI called again about the King Street Patriots. In June 2011, her personal tax returns were audited and the FBI called again. The next month, the FBI had more questions. The same month the ATF did an unscheduled audit of her business. In July 2012, OSHA

did an unscheduled audit. In November 2012, there were more questions, this time on True the Vote. In April 2012, there was a second ATF audit.