The Republican Club of Sun City NEWSLETTER

October 2013 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas CANDIDATES FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS TO ADDRESS CLUB

The announced candidates for the position of Texas Attorney General – Dan Branch, Ken Paxton, and Barry Smitherman – will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 30 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. (The reader should note that, because of scheduling complications, the meeting is scheduled for a Wednesday night.)

The Attorney General is the state’s chief law enforcement officer who sees that the state’s laws are enforced and are defended if attacked on legal grounds. In recent decades, this officer has had a primary role in the state resisting attempts by the federal government to interfere with state prerogatives and rights.

Following is a brief sketch of the political and professional backgrounds of each of the candidates:

•   Dan Branch served as a member of the Texas House since 2002 representing District 108. He is chairman of the House Committee on Higher Education, a member of the Legislative Budget Board, and a member of the Calendars and Pensions Committee. He currently is a corporate lawyer, and is a former judicial clerk to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Jack Pope and a former aide to the late U. S.Senator John Tower.
•   Ken Paxton currently is serving as State Representative for District 70. In the House he serves asmember of the House Land and Resource Management Committee, and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee which reviews any proposed revenue and tax changes. He currently is a partner in a law firm which specializes in estate planning, probate, real estate, corporate transactions and related matters.
•   Barry Smitherman, after having been appointed a member of the Railroad Commission of Texas by Governor Perry in 2011, was elected to that body in a state-wide election in 2012. He was selected chairman by his commission colleagues and currently serves in that capacity. He was appointed a member of the Public Utilities Commission by Governor Perry in 2004 and again in 2007 when he was appointed chairman. Previously he had a 16-year career in public finance during which he advised state and local government entities on ways to save money.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 meat loaf, buttered potatoes, mixed veggies and salad.

  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 Thursday, October 24.

  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 Thursday deadline. For

  information about reservations, contact John at 512-686-1676 or johnsctx@gmail.com VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

  REPRESENTATIVE FARNEY TO ADDRESS CLUB IN NOVEMBER

  State Representative Marsha Farney, who represents House district 20, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 14.

  Details concerning that meeting will be provided in a subsequent newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

The Nominations Committee – comprised of Julian Bucher (chairman), Robert Fears and Harlow Fisher – will, in accordance with bylaws, submit its recommended slate of club officers for 2014 at the club’s October meeting.

Voting will take place during the club’s November meeting. At that meeting, nominations from the floor can also be submitted, provided the prior consent of the nominee has been obtained, and provided written information about the nominee has been furnished to the president prior to the meeting.

Club treasurer John Congdon reports the number of attendees at the September 5 dinner meeting was 121.

Club vice president (for membership) Bill Chiles reports that current club membership is 233.

Traditionally, the club does not schedule meetings during the summer months; however, because 2014 is a critical election year, the club has scheduled meetings during two months of next summer, bringing the total number of meetings in 2014 to 10.

NEWS OF THE COUNTY PARTY

The reader wishing to visibly show support via signs and/or stickers for one or more candidates should be aware that more and more campaign materials are becoming available at the party headquarters. Also available there for a contribution of $1 or $2 are bumper stickers promoting the Republican Party.

The headquarters is located at 716 Rock Street, Georgetown, TX 78626. The telephone number there is 512-863-8481. The web address is: WilliamsonCountyGOP.org

Office hours are: Tuesdays – 10 AM to 2 PM; Thursdays – 10 AM to 7 PM; Fridays – 10 AM to 2 PM.

NEWS OF THE STATE PARTY

State party chairman Steve Munisteri reports news that Republicans, sometimes discouraged by current politics, will welcome. The news concerns the number of elected local and state-wide Democrat office holders who have switched to the Republican party. He notes that since the November 2008 elections the number of switches as of August 21st has totaled 209. He also notes that, statewide, at the end of the November 2008 elections, Republicans held 2,395 out of the approximately 5,200 elected officers in the state. As of August 21st of this year, there are 906 more elected Republicans than in 2008, bringing the total number of Republican elected officials statewide to 3,259.

Munisteri contends, “The fact that so many Democrats have switched parties in just two election cycles is further indication that the Republican Party of Texas is on the upswing and that the future looks bright.”

THE REPUBLICAN “ESTABLISHMENT” V. THE GRASS ROOTS Reagan Commented On This Clash When It Previously Existed

Scott Rasmussen, arguably the most accurate pollster in the nation, contends what many observers are already noting: “The major division in this country is no longer between parties but between political elites [or the “establishment”] and the people.” There is also evidence now that this division may have surfaced within the Republican Party. His poll, taken 3 or so years ago, showed huge gaps between those two groups. “While 67% of the political class believes the U. S. is moving in the right direction, a full 84% of the mainstream voters believe the nation is moving the wrong direction.”

In 1975, several years before he was to become president, Ronald Reagan addressed Republicans of that day when they faced political considerations identical in many respects to those of today, particularly those which surfaced in the past year or so in the wake of the disappointing 2012 presidential election.

In the main, those considerations reflect the extent to which the defining principles of the Republican Party – limited government, individualism, free enterprise, the Constitution – should be observed. An opposing view is that by watering down the adherence to these principles, the base of the party will be broadened.

But even today, Reagan’s words, although uttered almost 40 years ago, have meaning and are powerful and brutally frank. Because they were stated by one of the nation’s most successful and revered presidents, they are worthy of consideration. His words follow:

We have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home…

I don’t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt. Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of people’s earnings government can take without their consent . . .Let us explore ways to ward of socialism.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is as the same time the very basis of conservatism.

It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

“RULE OF LAW” UNDERMINED BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

By now, the reader is aware that President Obama, by ignoring some laws and making unauthorized interpretations of others, has been flouting the Constitution, laws of Congress and court decisions to the detriment of the “rule of law” which is a doctrine deemed absolutely essential to our form of government.

How should “rule of law” be defined? Author Mark Cooray provides characteristics of the “rule of law” some of which are: the supremacy of law which means that all persons are subject to the law; a concept of justice which emphasizes law based on standards and the importance of procedures; restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power; and an underlying moral basis for all law.

Up to now, there has been in the public domain little, if any, cataloging or listing of specific instances documenting when the president failed to follow the “rule of law.” This may account why Republicans have not exposed this problem, held hearings, or initiated legal proceedings. The question is raised: Does anyone care?

Happily, in August there were at least two widely circulated disclosures which publicly cited president Obama for his failure to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” and will to the best of his ability, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Two were in the form of op-ed pieces written by Senator John Cornyn and Columnist Charles Krauthammer. They report specific instances when Obama acted without legal authority, some of which follow:

•   Unilaterally delaying the requirement of ObamaCare that large employers provide health insurance for their workers, while individuals received no such relief.
•   Via presidential directive and without legal authority intervened to provide health care benefits received by members of Congress and their staffs, thereby providing up to 70-plus percent subsides to those individuals, while providing no relief for ordinary citizens.
•   Had the IRS announce that it will issue health insurance subsides through federal exchanges, even though the law specifically states that those subsides can be issued only through state exchanges.
•   During the 2009 government-run Chrysler bankruptcy process, had the company’s secured bondholders receive much less for their losses than did the United Auto Workers pension fund.
•   Through his Attorney General, ordered U. S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang- related drug defendants with crimes that carry mandatory sentences.
•   In violation of the law’s explicit language, unilaterally carved out (“repealed”) the “work” (or training for

work) requirement for persons receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

•   Provided unauthorized waivers from the No Child Left Behind law to more that half of the states.
•   Via regulation, in defiance of law, allowed millions of aliens to stay and work illegally in the U. S.ERIC HOLDER HELD IN “CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS” Congress, Republicans, Press Remain Indifferent to Charge

  Hundred of firearms were lost in the “Fast and furious” operation in which the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed illegal purchasers to buy firearms in the U. S. in hopes of tracing them to Mexican cartel leaders. The operation was seriously flawed in several respects, one being that it resulted in the illegal purchase of guns being used to murder at least one U. S. Border Patrol agent in 2010, and over 100 Mexicans in their own country.

  And more recently, a semi-automatic rifle purchased in Arizona was used to kill the police chief and one of his body guards in a Mexican town.

  Because the operation had resulted in a loss of lives and may have been an illegal operation, a U. S. House committee conducted hearings on that matter. One of the primary witnesses was Attorney General Eric Holder; however, he was not cooperative. Because of this lack of cooperation he was held in Contempt of Congress in 2012 for stonewalling an investigation, but he has thus far escaped punishment.

  The nation now (apparently) not only has to cope with a president unwilling to follow the “rule of law,” it also has to cope with its chief law enforcement officer defying a congressional committee investigation so that he too is unwilling to follow the “rule of law.”

  SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES CASES IT WILL REVIEW

  The Supreme Court began its 2013-2014 term in October and will, during that term, review a variety of cases. A writer from Forbes said that about 100 lawsuits have been filed against ObamaCare alone, that of this number dozens are pending, and that several have the “potential to significantly disrupt implementation of the law.” In addition, there is a variety of other issues which will reach the Supreme Court. Following are some of the more significant cases which will be heard:

•   Sissel v. U. S. Department of HHS. This case, reported in some detail in the September newsletter, contains the claim that the tax ostensibly authorized by ObamaCare is illegal because the taxing provision was introduced in the Senate rather than the House as required by the Constitution. The manipulation of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in passing this legislation, and the manipulation of Chief Justice Roberts in approving it should be noted.
•   Liberty University v. Lew. Liberty University, a Christian educational institution, argues that ObamaCare’s employer mandate violates Liberty’s religious beliefs that are protected by the First Amendment.
•   Pruitt v. Sebelius. The state of Oklahoma argues that the Internal Revenue Service does not have the legal authority to extend tax credits and subsides for the purchase of health insurance in federal exchanges. The contention is that subsides are available only through state-run exchanges. The American Enterprise Institute contends that if the court rules against ObamaCare in this case – which now involves only Oklahoma – it would not only “cripple the federal exchange operations in Oklahoma, [it would also] encourage dozens of other states to mount similar challenges . . .”
•   Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sibelius. The Catholic Church argues that the contraception mandate in ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion.
•   Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice. This case involves RU-486, a two-part abortion drug in pill form, utilizing Mifeprex (to abort the baby) and Misoprostat (to simulate labor and expel the baby). While Mifeprex is FDA approved and contains FDA warnings and restrictions, those kinds of warnings are not enforced by the FDA. Consequently, to fill the vacuum, the state of Oklahoma has chosen to become an enforcer, but more recently, in the wake of the lawsuit, a defendant.World states Leslie Walpert, a user of RU-486, after her first ingestion of that drug, reports in an affidavit to the Supreme Court, that she was “bleeding like I never knew possible.” But 3 days after taking a second pill, in the midst of taking a hot shower, she began losing blood again, then to notice the

drain was clogged. Then she realized: “It was my baby that was clogging the drain of the shower . . . I flushed it down the toilet . . .It was even more horrifying that it sounds.”

This case is the first major abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since 2007, and represents the first time the court has taken a case on chemical abortions.

•   Town of Greece v. Galloway. This is a case on whether or not public officials can open public meetings with prayer. A local resident said the prayer amounted to establishment of religion, and a federal appeals court agreed. The Supreme Court will hear the case November 6.
•   National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. This case will clarify the president’s recess appointment power which Obama has regularly used. At issue in this case are Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which the D. C. Circuit Court ruled unconstituitional at the beginning of the year. (A major issue is what constitutes a “recess” of Congress)
•   Other Religious Liberty Cases. One involves an Albuquerque photographer who declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. Another involves a bakery owner who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.REPUBLCIAN CANDIDATE PUNCHES BACK USING TACTICS OF DEMS

  The race for a Virginia Senate position between Terry McAuliffe, Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, Republican, is garnering quite a bit of interest in the media, not only because it is a highly contentious race, but also because the Republican is using an “attack” strategy normally associated with Democrats. Republicans who believe their candidates are mere punching bags when responding to attacks may welcome this change.

  Columnist Robert McCain contends McAuliff’s strategy, one typically used by Democrats, is to charge, without supporting evidence, that Cuccinelli hates women and gays, and is “ideological,” “radical” and “extremist.” McCain describes some of McAuliff’s allegations:

  •   We cannot be putting walls up around Virginia by attacking woman’s rights, scientists or gays.
  •   Cuccinelli has shown that he will spend his time fighting social, divisive ideological battles, andthose battles have defined his career.
  •   Cuccinelli has ties to a “radical group” that allegedly “fought against adequate child supportbecause they think it is ‘punitive’ to men.”

    McCain evaluates McAuliff’s tactics: “Was this a fair, accurate, or honest description of Cuccinelli’s record? Of course not. But Terry McAuliffe doesn’t give a damn about fairness, accuracy, or honesty. He’s a Democrat trying to win an election.”

    Columnist Kimberley Strassel describes how Democrats do some “groundwork” during a campaign so that the attacks made by Democrats are better received: “A Democratic candidate, assisted by unions and outside partisan groups, floods the zone with attack ads, painting the GOP opponent as a tea-party nut who is too ‘extreme’ for the state.” The media fail to challenge these accusations.

    But, now, thanks to a new conservative super PAC in Virginia, Cuccinelli is beginning to strike back in a manner not typical of Republicans. Strassel explains how this new approach is used in Cuccinelli’s ads: “The primary focus to not only take on the Democratic bare-knuckle strategy, but to throw it back at them.” One technique is to use in the ad emotionally-charged words and phrases, such as: “gang” supporting McAuliffe; and “elitist” media; Wall Street “liberals;” “outside” partisan groups; “Hollywood.”

    The ad finishes with these hard-hitting lines: “Tell these McAuliffe puppeteers, this is Virginia. We won’t let you Detroit us with taxes and debt. You will not California Virginia with regulations that kill jobs, or Hollywood our families and schools. You will not bring District of Columbia tax and spend to our state. Tell them: You can’t have Virginia.”

    This ad technique is too new to provide at this time an indication as to whether or not it will help the chances of Cuccinelli who, as of this writing, is behind in the polls. However, a focus group test produced some encouraging results: 27 or 28 Virginians who watched the spot moved away from supporting McAuliff.

NOTES ON THE PASSING SCENE
(Some Observations On This Crazy World In Which We Live)

Student Transgender Law Challenged. The reader may recall reading in the September newsletter a report that several states have adopted laws that permit students in kindergarten to 12th grade to use bathroom facilities and join sex-segregated teams and activities “consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.” This meant, for example, that a boy could go into a girl’s restroom if he felt his gender was female.

But opponents of that law are attempting to collect more that 500,000 signatures (reportedly, the minimum) on a petition drive to let state voters decide next year whether the law should go into effect on January 1. If successful, the campaign will block the student transgender law from going into effect January 1, and place it on the November 2014 ballot for voters to approve or reject.

Distribution of Money and Wealth. A recent issue of the Austin paper revealed in a”PolitiFact” column a significant partisan divide on a question posed by the Gallup polling organization as to whether the current distribution of wealth of money and wealth is fair. Gallup reported that 80% of Democrats said money and wealth need to be more evenly distributed, compared with 28% of Republicans.

It is likely that a sizable percentage of those wanting more distribution of wealth come from the 47% who pay no federal income taxes. While there are many individuals who would like more distribution, there are some individuals who are questioning our present tax policies.

One such individual is columnist Walter Williams who claims that taxation, when not authorized by the Constitution, is a form of slavery because one person is being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person.

Income Taxes as a Moral Issue. “The very notion of an income tax is morally debatable. On what moral ground can the state force a citizen essentially at gun point to give away his legally and morally earned money? It is too bad that conservatives rarely take on the left on moral grounds because the left’s moral foundations are as weak as their economic foundation,” asserts columnist Dennis Prager who lists some of the problems which should be addressed:

•   Having some people give at a greater percentage rate than others, a Marxist concept.
•   Allowing those who pay no tax to vote on how much others will be forced to pay.
•   At a certain level of taxation, virtually every honest person is reduced to cheating.
•   The higher the tax fate, the lower the charity rate.
•   The higher the taxes, the less people are inclined to work hard. (Why should they?)
  Share the Wealth or Share the Income? Columnist Richard Rahn contends that when politicians inject morality by asserting the phrase “share the wealth,” they really mean “share the income.” That situation may explain why those Congressmen and Senators who have substantial amounts of wealth – the Feinsteins, Kerrys, Pelosies, etc. – don’t mind voting for higher income taxes. Their wealth remains virtually untouched while familieswho must live on income are soaked.

  Monitoring the U. S. Debt. The reader who needs some help in understanding the dimensions of the debt may well be advised to refer to the “debt counter” where the increases in debt are revealed by the mini- second. The counter can be viewed online at: USDebtClock.org