The Republican Club of Sun City

N E W S L E T T E R

March 2016                Everett Schmidt, Editor                        Sun City Texas

(Club Website: rcsctx.com)

(Subjects below: Precinct Conventions, The Awarding of Texas’ Delegates, The Legacy of Antonin Scalia, The Nomination of Robert Bork, Reach Across the aisle v. Defeating the Enemy, Obama Speaks at Mosque, Proposed New Debate Format)

REPRESENTATIVE FARNEY AND COMMISSIONER COVEY

TO ADDRESS CLUB IN MARCH

Representative Marsha Farney, who represents House District 20 in the State Legislature, and Commissioner Valerie Covey, who represents Precinct 3 on the Commissioners Court, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 10 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. Dr. Farney will discuss the recently-adopted Texas’ Open Carry gun law and other pertinent matters involving legislation of the past and coming legislative sessions. Commissioner Covey will discuss the ongoing Majestic Oaks issue plus other pertinent matters involving county government.

BEGINNING TIMES: Social Hour –6:00 PM; Dinner –6:30 PM; Program –7:00 PM (approx.)

MENU: Lady Bird salad containing spring mix with fresh sliced strawberries, blue cheese crumbles, candied pecans and maple vinaigrette dressing, assorted dinner rolls, Monterrey mushroom baked chicken with creamy wine sauce, lemon peppered cod, herb roasted new potatoes, steamed broccoli, glazed carrots, iced tea, coffee, wine and soda.

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, or left in a special drop box located on the front porch of the home of club treasurer, Bill Harron, at 125 Stetson Trail. For information, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.comThe deadline for payment or reservations is Friday, March 4.

VISITORS ARE WELCOME! (Non-members may attend a maximum of two meetings per year –as attendees for the dinner or as observers for the program –without having to pay membership dues.)

EXPERT ON ISLAM TO ADDRESS CLUB IN APRIL

Chuck Wilson, widely respected as an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, will address the club on that subject during its dinner meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 20 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. Given the present conflicting views on Islamic fundamentalism in government, the media and educational establishments and the potential risk of violence in the country, the program should be of extreme importance to members. (Club members are urged to mark their calendars now for this meeting which, it should be noted, is scheduled on a Wednesday night.)

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Club Directories to be Distributed. Club VP (for membership) Cathy Cody, the person responsible for collecting information for the Membership Directory and then publishing it, announces that the Directories will be distributed to club members (one per household) beginning with the March 10 meeting. These documents not only list club members and contact information, they also provide contact information of elected officials, club bylaws, and other information.

Website Demonstration. During the March 10 meeting, club webmaster Bill Harron will make a brief demonstration showing the various kinds of information available on the club website and how it can be accessed and utilized. (The website is rcsctx.com)

Statistics. Club VP Cody reports that current 2016 club membership stands at 320. Club treasurer Bill Harron reports that thenumber of attendees (club members and participants) at the February 4 meeting held at the Cowan Creek Amenity Center was 169.

LOCATIONS OF PRECINCT CONVENTIONS ANNOUNCED

The location of the precinct conventions of the three precincts in Sun City scheduled for Tuesday, March 1 beginning at 7:45 PM were announced. Those locations are:

Precinct 381 (Barbara Maybray, cl.) -Social Center (signs there will identity the room)

Precinct 394 (Cathy Cody, ch.) -Cowan Creek Amenity Center, Georgetown/Florencerooms

Precinct 396 (Terry Putnam, ch.) -Social Center (signs there will identify the room)

After electing a permanent chairman –which could be the precinct chairman, but doesn’t have to be –the convention proceeds to discharge its two main duties: (1) elect delegates and alternates to the county convention, and (2) receive and vote on proposed resolutions (planks to the state party platform) to be submitted to the county convention for consideration. To be eligible to vote, one must have voted in the Republican primary.

Each precinct is entitled to send to the county convention one delegate for every 25 votes cast during the most recent race for Governor.

One does not have to attend the precinct convention to be a delegate to the county convention;however, to be eligible to be a delegate or alternate, one must have voted as a Republican in the primaryandmust have been elected at the precinct convention (The County Convention is scheduled for Saturday, March 19)

Participants in the precinct convention may submit resolutions for consideration by those in attendance. The wording may simply be in the form of a statement as it may appear in the state party platform. Passed resolutions are submitted to a Resolutions Committee at the county convention for further consideration.

Resolutions are considered as additions, deletions and/or modifications to the 2014State Republican Party Platform. Individuals considering the submission of one or more resolutions should check in advanceof the convention a copy of the State Platform to see if the subject of a proposed resolution has already been addressed there –thus to avoid using precious time on a matter already determined. The state Platform can be viewed or obtained at the state party web site: www.TexasGOP.org

HOW TEXAS’ GOP DELEGATES ARE AWARDED

A news article in theAustin American-Statesmanby Sean Walsh explains how Texas’ 155 Republican delegates to the national convention will be awarded after the conclusion of voting on March1, “Super Tuesday:”

The Texas Republican Party’s hybrid system awards 47 delegates based on statewide results and 108 based on the tallies within each of the state’s 36 congressional districts. For both categories, candidates will likely have to receive at least 20 percent of the vote to win any delegates, which will squeeze out some low-polling candidates and shift the weight of their votes to the front-runners. If a candidates wins more than 50 percent of any congressional district, he takes all three of its delegates. The same goes for the 47 statewide delegates, although few expect Cruz to win a majority in such a crowded field.

A brokered convention, reports Walsh, comes about “if no candidate has won 50 percent or more of the delegates, forcing the party to pick a nominee in Cleveland. In that scenario, delegates are only pledged to their respective candidates for the first vote at the convention.”

THE LEGACY OF JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

Foreword. In the wake of hosts of accolades offered on the death of Antonin Scalia, by writers from both sides of the political aisle, recognizing the depth of thought by this jurist, the following report, based on some of his more famous comments, is presented. Readers will be able to see how Scalia has become a champion of citizens who wish to keep Washinton out of their affairs, as the Constitution prescribes.

THE ACADEMIC ARENA

Scalia, in 1997, wrote a book titled A Matter of Interpretationin which he explains how judges should interpret both statutory and constitutional law. Following are some excerpts from his book:

Interpreting the Constitution.

It is curious that most of those who insist that the drafter’s intent gives meaning to astatutereject the drafter’s intent as the criterion for interpretation of the Constitution. I reject it for both. I will consult the writings of some men who happened to be delegates to the Constitutional Convention –Hamilton’s and Madison’s writingsin The Federalist, for example. I do so, however, not because they were Framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be the law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood. Thus I give equal weight to Jay’s pieces in The Federalist, and to Jefferson’s writings, even though neither of them was a Framer. What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what Ilook for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended.

A “Living Constitution.” Progressives support the concept of a “living Constitution” on grounds that it can thereby provide the “flexibility” to meet the needs of a changing society. But Scalia contends otherwise:

This might be a persuasive argument if most of the “growing” that the proponents of this approach have brought upon us in the past, and are determined to bring upon us in the future, were the elimination of restrictions upon democratic government. But just the opposite is true. Historically, and particularly in the past thirty-five years, the“evolving” Constitution has imposed a vast array of new constraints –new inflexibilities –uponadministrative, judicial,and legislative action. As this now stand, the state and federal governments may either apply capital punishment or abolish it, permit suicide or forbid it – all as the changing times and the changing sentiments of society may demand. But when capital punishment is held to violate the Eighth Amendment, and suicide is held to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment all flexibility with regard to those matters will be gone.

Legislative Intent. Scalia’s views on this matter are provided by a law professor, Amy Gutman, who wrote the Preface to Scalia’s book, and who explains Scalia’s views on that matter as follows:

A government of laws, not of men, means that the unexpressed intent of legislators must not bind citizens. Laws mean what they actually say, not what legislators intended them to say but did not write into the law’s text for anyone (and everyone so moved) to read. This is the essence of the philosophy of law that Justice Scalia develops here in more detail. The philosophy is called “textualism” or “originalism,” since it is the original meaning of the text –applied to present circumstances -that should govern judicial interpretation of statutes and the Constitution.

COMMENTS OF SCALIA

Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court, in the Bowers v. Hardwick case of 1986, a case involving the issue of sodomy, cited the criterion of long standing by which the Supreme Court could approve state laws, including those dealing with moral issues: The court was able to concur with state laws on the basis that they were presumed to be correct (leaving the other side to prove otherwise), as long as there was a “rational basis” for them. This meant the people had a role in establishing standards (including moral ones) for their respective states.

Lawrence v. Texas. The Court, however, in the Lawrence v. Texas case of 2003, reversed itself on its holding in Bowers, and spawned a new precedent.. Now a “liberty interest” should be controlling, and what constitutes a “liberty interest” should -unbelievably -be left up to the individual. The basis of that holding was the following passage written by Justice Kennedy who said, “At the heart of liberty, is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, or meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Justice Scalia, with typical derision, referred to that passage as the “sweet-mystery-of-life” passage.

Demonstrating his rock-solid reasoning, Scalia said the following about the Lawrence holding:

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” . . .the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The court today reaches the opposite conclusion.

If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive “rational-basis” review. [Note that 12 years later, the court declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right.]

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Supreme Court, when it struck down certain aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 5-4 majority established certain legal viewpoints which surfaced in future cases involving homosexuals. For example, the writer of the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy, while not directly interfering with a state’s prerogative to regulate marriage, wrote in prejudicial terms that the only reason Congress had passed DOMA was to improperly “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean” and humiliate” gay and lesbian Americans.

Apparently believing such attacks were calculated to instigate states –not the federal courts –to permit same-sex marriage, Justice Scalia responded as follows to what will follow in the wake of Kennedy’s attacks:

As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe. By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition.

Obergefell v. Texas (re same-sex marriage). In his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia argued that under the Constitution, as correctly understood, the people could decide through their state governments to approve or not approve same-sex marriage. But the court had usurped that power and more. Said Scalia:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS

Scalia also made profound public comment about matters indirectly related to those of the courtroom:

Religion and Good Government.

Let me make clear that I am not saying that every good American must believe in God. What I am saying, however, is that it is contrary to our founding principles to insist that government be hostile to religion. Or even to insist, as my court, alas, has done, that government cannot favor religion over nonreligion. It is not a matter of believing that God exists, though personally I believe that. It is a matter of believing, as our founders did, that belief in God is very conducive to a successful republic.

Deficient Training About the Constitution in Law School.

Most students at elite law schools have never read The Federalist papers. It is truly appalling that they should have reached graduate school without having been exposed to that important element of their national patrimony, the work that best explains the reasons and objectives of the Constiitution.

Pronouncements Made Near His Death.

Following are some of the very last public comments made by Scalia. They were made on Saturday, January 2, 2016 –a little over one month before his death –at the Archbishop Rummel [Catholic] High School located in a suburb of New Orleans. His comments center around religious liberty, an especially important matter today because, one the one hand, religion was a key component in the founding of our nation as evidenced by the reference to “nature’s God” and a “Creator” in the Declaration –a document still in effect -and, on the other hand, the apparent hostility toward religion and the clearly discernible attempts to eradicate its influence in society. His comments have more weight because they come so near his death. Following are some of his comments as reported by writer Randy DeSoto:

To tell you the truth there is no place for [requiring neutrality regarding religion] in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from? To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but you can’t favor religion over non-religion? [a rhetorical question]

God has been very good to us. That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that did not even invoke his name we do Him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways.

[W]e ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself has ordained.

COMMENT FROM THE LEFT

While there has been much praise of Scalia’s ability as a jurist –from the left, center and right –there has also been criticism of him from apparently a large segment of the left. Because it can be instructive in the understanding of this segment, the following excerpts –believed to represent that segment -from an op-ed piece appearing in the February 18 issue of the Austin American-Statesman written by columnist John Young, an apparent socialist, are presented:

Whatever else can be said about Scalia, without question he was one of the most politically driven justices in history. If you shared his politics, that was fine with you. If you are black or brown, not so much. The problem with the rhetoric of justices like Scalia and Rehnquist is that they backed efforts to make democracy less representative of society. Democracy? They fought to keep this democracy a tool of the privileged and already empowered. And isn’t that what the founders intended?

THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT BORK TO THE SUPREME COURT

The nomination by President Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1987 ofRobert Bork reveals how much the nominating process and the jurisprudence of that court had then become politicized –and is likely to continue. It is instructive to note that as a result of Bork being rejected by the Senate and the withdrawal of a second nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew his name in part because of his admission to past marijuana use (!), came the approval of Anthony Kennedy who was the author of a number of controversial decisions, including those involving sodomy laws and same-sex marriage.

Back to the Bork nomination. Bork reports in his book, The Tempting of America, that within 45 minutes of President Reagan announcing his nomination of Bork, Senator Ted Kennedy delivered a televised speech from the Senate floor where he revealed himself to be the very epitome of a demagogue:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

The main obstacle was abortion; however, the composition of the Judiciary Committee should be noted along with the political developments then developing:

• Chairman of the JudiciaryCommittee was Democrat Joe Biden who, while chairman, was a leader attacking Bork in the Senate; he was an announced candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination; during the hearings his presidential campaign came to a sudden end as a result of the campaign staff of Michael Dukakis demonstrating that Biden had plagiarized speeches by other politicians, and had misrepresented his law school record.

• Senator Kennedy who, while sitting in judgment as a committee member, was leading the attack against Bork; his character was severely blemished because of his conduct during the death of a young girl.

• Senator Simon was an announced candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination; he mentioned that he had recently read Taney’s Dred Scott opinion, and said “It sounded an awful lot like Robert Bork.”

• Republican Senator Specter professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles of the actual Constitution; he voted against Bork.

THE MISSION OF CONSERVATIVES: REACH ACROSSTHE AISLE

OR DEFEAT THE ENEMY?

Foreword. On February 23, Rush Limbaugh, in response to a caller contending the nation needs to find someone to “bring us together,” engaged in a profound discussion about the GOP “reaching across the aisle” (as did John McCain, John Cornyn and others did in the past), “reaching out to others,” (in hope the number of voters will increase without losing the base) or, alternatively, engaging in a mission of destroying the enemies of conservatism. His discussion may reflect today’s discontent noted in the population.

Following are excerpts from his transcript reporting on the dialog between a caller and Rush. This report is based on a highly-edited version of the transcript.

RUSH: You said that we need to have somebody bringthe country together, and a lot of people talk about bringing the country together, unifying, making factions of people who disagree somehow come together. I don’t think that’s gonna happen. We’re too divided. And they are not interested in it, Pam. The people on the left, they don’t want to reach common ground with us.

These people have to be defeated. And then after they’re defeated they cannot be allowed to bully whoever wins into cowardice and caving in. It’s going to be tough. Winning an election is just a tiny first step. After we win the election, it’s gonna take perseverance to prevail over all the attempts to subvert the winners of the election and to corrupt what’s going on, knowing they still own a lot of the bureaucracy.

But if you believe in a certain cultural America, it’s under siege. There’s nothing to join with on the other side in preserving it. They want to tear it down, transform it, and rebuild it. The have to be defeated. This is why the Republican Party’s worthless. They don’t even think this way. The Republican Party’s thinking about showing they can work together, they can cooperate, make Washington work. Sorry; we’re so past that, we’re so far past that, it’s irrelevant. We’re talking about holding on the preserving the country as founded.

CALLER: I think there’s a way you can unify people. Well, we know there is, because his name was Ronald Reagan.

RUSH: You’re citing the eighties and Reagan, and you mean his landslide victories as bringing people together. Well, then why aren’t we still together? What the hell happened? Two landslides. We had the greatest economy the country’s known in our lifetimes. We had low unemployment. We had burgeoning job growth. We had individual and personal wealth that was going like crazy. We brought down the Soviet Union. Why are we still not unified? How did they left tear that down? ‘Cause they sure did.

Because even when Reagan was bringing everybody together, they [the left] didn’t stop. The Democrats in Congress were aligning with Soviet communist client states in central America and Grenada and wherever else they could find to undermine Ronald Reagan.

But it was just four short years later and here come Bill and Hillary Clinton. And why? Because the next president got rid of Reaganism. The next president started making deals with the Democrats to show that we can make deals, to show that we’re nice guys, to show that we can get along. My point is, we had the greatest economic circumstances in our lifetimes and the Democrats were not interested, Pam. They didn’t want to participate, because it left them out of power.

It’s not about a great country to them. It’s not about the American people doing the best they can for themselves. That’s actually bad news for the Democrat Party, because all that means is people don’t need government. People don’t need Democrats, people don’t want them, they’re not dependent . . .Why do you think Ted Kennedy decided to reinstitute amnesty and illegal immigration during Reagan’s second term? And we went along with it because we accepted a promise that we would secure the border and those three million in 1986 would be “it.” And here we are talking 12 million . .

This is a world governed by the aggressive use of power, the aggressive use of force, and if you want to maintain both, you have to fight for it each and every day. It’s never permanently won. You never permanently convert people.

And in 1994 we actually balanced a budget for the first time in my lifetime. All that’s gone, because we have not had a Republican Party that accepts conservatism and fights for it and preserves victories when we get them!

Do you ever notice what we talk about? We talk about stopping things. Every Republican think tank, every conservative media whatever organization –including this show –every day is devoted to how to do we stop them?

We don’t have time to get around to what we want to advance. We’re too busy stopping. They’re not talking about stopping anything. They’re on the march! They’re on the march and succeeding with things that ten years ago you would have never thought would ever happen. Gay marriage? Today in a lot of cities, you can walk into any bathroom you want claiming you’re “transgender” and you decide to present female that day, so you walk into the ladies’ restroom. That’s becoming a matter of law.

Everything I just said is what a majority of conservative-oriented, cultural Americans believe. They’re

scared to death over this! They’re frustrated; they’re ticked off; they’re angry. They want to do more than just stop something every day. They’re tired of being overrun. They’re tired of not having allies in the centers of power where this stuff can be stopped.

OBAMA SPEAKS AT MOSQUE MAKES STRANGE CLAIMS ABOUT MUSLIMS

President Obama spoke at a mosque in Baltimore a month or so ago when he made several claims about Muslims which are so removed from reality as to appear delusional or a manifestation of a pathological liar, which he is.

Following is a sampling of those claims. Following each claim is a comment made by columnist Dennis Prager or by Islamic scholar Robert Spencer:

OBAMA: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam –peace.”

PRAGER: “Even Muslims websites acknowledge that “Islam” means “submission” [to Allah]. ‘Muslim’ means ‘One who submits,’ not one who is peaceful.”

OBAMA: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran.”

PRAGER: “The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and Adams: ‘It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.’”

OBAMA: “These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths.”

PRAGER: “Islam has no such tradition. Islam has always demanded that Jews and Christians be treated as humiliated second-class citizens –when not forced to choose between conversion or death.”

OBAMA: “Islam has always been part of America.”

SPENCER: “Really? There were Muslims in Jamestown? In the Massachusetts Bay Colony?

NEW FORMAT FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES PROPOSED

Writing in the February issue of the Wall Street Journal,two writers have proposed a new format, one termed an Oxford-style debate, for future presidential debates. The writers comment on the present format:

These debates tell voters almost nothing that can’t be gathered from 30-second campaign ads. There is no time for depth, no payoff for nuance, no serious discussion of policy. It isn’t surprising that the average percentage of the voting-age population tuning in has dropped steadily to 25% in 2012, from more than 58% when debates began in 1960. Even so, more than 60 million Americans in 2012 watched debates.

The writers then explain how an Oxford-style debate would work:

A sharply framed resolution –for instance, “bigger government won’t solve our problems” -is devised for one side to support and the other to oppose.

The Democrat and Republican each start witha seven-minute opening statement. Then the contenders address and rebut the best arguments their opponent has made. The moderator’s role is simple, but vital: to ensure that the candidates actuallydebate each other –that they respect the process, respond to points made, refute or concede as necessary, and honor time limits.

The writers then cite some of the advantages of that format: “Oxford-style debate would force the candidates to respond to intense questions, marshal relevant facts, and expose weaknesses in their opponents’ arguments. Memorized talking points could not be disguised as answers. This format would quickly reveal how well the candidates think on their feet, how deeply they know the subject, how well they understand the trade-offs, and how persuasive they are without teleprompters.”