The Republican Club of Sun City NEWSLETTER

March 2012 Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

CANDIDATES FOR STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND STATE SENATE TO PARTICIPATE IN CANDIDATE FORUMS

Candidates for the State Board of Education and the State Senate, District 5 will appear in the third “Candidates’ Forum” scheduled for Thursday, March 15 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City. Candidates for the State Board are Jeff Fleece, Tom Maynard and Rebecca Osborne. Candidates for the State Senate position are Charles Schwertner (the incumbent) and Ben Bius.

The usual format of forums calls for each candidate to make a statement about his or her qualifications, respond to questions submitted on index cards by members of the audience, and then make a concluding statement. Moderator for the event is club vice president Robert Fears.

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 be catered by Nemec Caterers which will serve bar-b-que brisket and sausage, potatoes, pinto beans, cole slaw and accoutrements.

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, Attention: Treasurer, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, Box 227, Georgetown, TX 78633 by no later than Friday, March 9. Treasurer Dorothy Carlyle has set up a special collection box on her front porch at 173 Whispering Wind for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, provided delivery is made by the Friday deadline. For information about reservations contact Dorothy at 864- 0353 or dcarlyle@suddenlink.net. Visitors- regardless of party affiliation – are welcome!

CLUB WILL NOT MEET IN APRIL

Because the ballroom was not available on a suitable night in April, the club will not meet during that month.

The next dinner meeting (after the March meeting) is scheduled for Wednesday, May 16. (Note: a Thursday night was not available) Details of that meeting will be provided in a subsequent newsletter.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Club treasurer Dorothy Carlyle reports that the number of paid attendees at the February 7 dinner meeting was about 210, that the number of non-paying visitors was about 30, and that the total number of attendees was around 240 – a record number.

218.

Vice president (for membership) Brenda Leisey reports that club membership for 2012 now stands at The club is still accepting membership dues for the year 2012. Contact Brenda for information.

PLANS FOR PRIMARY ELECTIONS

News concerning the 2012 primary election and related matters is not available at the time of the publication of this newsletter. For information, consult the county party web site: www.W illiamsonCountyGOP.org

OBAMACARE TO BE REVIEWED BY SUPREME COURT

The questions the Supreme Court has asked lawyers to argue when the Justices consider ObamaCare in March include the following:

• Does Congress have the power to mandate that Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty? The Department of Justice, acting on behalf of Congress, claims ObamaCare gets its authority to mandate individuals purchase health insurance from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which says Congress has the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the States.” Opponents claim that the mandate does not simply regulate an aspect of commerce, it compels it, and that, although Congress may regulate economic activity, it cannot “regulate” inactivity.
• If the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional, is the whole law unconstitutional? What other parts of the law, if any, could survive? One view is that only the unconstitutional provision – as the individual mandate – should be struck down. Another view is that, because the mandate is central to the law, if it is found unconstitutional, the whole law should be removed.
• Is Congress illegally coercing states to expand Medicaid, the subsidized health care for the poor and disabled people, by threatening to withhold funding from states that refuse? The Court will decide whether the 26 states who are challenging ObamaCare are correct in their assertion that ObamaCare is unduly coercive when, through the use of threats to discontinue Medicaid funding, it forces states to agree to provisions to which they otherwise would not have agreed. In refusing to adopt new Medicaid standards, states could lose all Medicaid funding, both old and new.
• Since the penalty for not buying health insurance doesn’t go into effect until federal income taxes are due in 2015, are legal arguments currently brought against the health care overhaul premature? The first item of business the Court must decide is whether the parties can even sue before the law takes full effect in 2014.

  Although the case will be heard in March, it is expected that the Court’s decision on this momentous case will not be announced until June.

  THE “SOCIAL ISSUES” NOW IN POLITICS

  The reader may recall that during one of the presidential debates, the moderator, George Stephanopoulis, asked Mitt Romney a question about birth control, a subject which, at that time, was not an issue. Romney referred to the question as “silly,” but the moderator, to the bewilderment of the audience, persisted two more times with his question. Romney, however, successfully deflected the question.

  The question, coming from “out of the blue,” made no sense until, several days later, President Obama, through his Secretary of Health and Human Services, and acting under the authority of ObamaCare, directed that church-related entities such as hospitals and universities provide their employees with insurance which includes certain birth control items which are in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church and other religious groups.

  With that action of the White House, the behavior of the moderator made sense: it was calculated to bring about Democrat political advantage by placing the Republicans on the defensive about a sensitive social issue, and it was calculated to draw attention away from Obama’s failing policies. The collusion of the moderator and the White House seems undeniable.

  Evidence of how Democrats intend to exploit the divisive issue of birth control – what they term “health care” – is the fund raising letter sent nation-wide by Patty Murray, Democrat Senator from Washington. Behaving as a demagogue by omitting any reference to the the religious factor, Murray clearly attempts to demonize Republicans as is revealed by the following excerpts from her letter concerning a pending Republican bill:

  I can hardly believe this: Republican Senators are pushing legislation that will allow any employer to deny women coverage for birth control. Yes, you read that right. Birth Control.

What is wrong with these people? More that 98% of American women use or have used contraception. It saves money, and it saves lives, which is why President Obama wants to make sure every woman has access to this critically important part of health care. The Republicans have proved yet again that they are only interested in defeating President Obama and waging war on women.

But the media wasn’t through in its attempt to paint Republicans as bigots. In a subsequent presidential debate, another moderator attempted to inject the subject of birth control or a related matter, but the audience’s negative reaction caused him be back off. Gingrich, after asking to make a comment, went on the attack, asserting that Obama was an “extremist who supported ‘infanticide.’”

What Gingrich was referring to was not partial-birth abortion, but to infants who were born alive after a botched abortion. Author Jerome Corsi describes partial-birth or late-term abortions, and Obama’s attitude about botched abortions, when a baby, still alive, is allowed to die without medical intervention:

More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the Illinois Senate
Judicial Committee, relating the following story of an aborted Down syndrome baby who survived a
a late-term induced-labor abortion and was abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because
the baby’s parents did not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the Illinois Senate. “So, I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.”

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term labor-induced abortions . . . Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion
was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

This is an unpleasant issue to discuss. But should not the media, if it is going to probe Republicans about similar matters, also feel obliged to probe Obama about these subjects as matters which should be of interest to all Americans if not as a matter of fairness to Republicans?

THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Foreword. The State board of Education has myriad responsibilities, among the more significant of which are the management of the Permanent School Fund, the establishment of curricula and graduation requirements, and the establishment of performance on student assessment instruments.

But the responsibility which has received the most attention over the years in the press and by the public is one concerning the selection of textbooks which Texas children use free of charge at public expense. More recently, there has been considerable attention to standardized tests.

Historical Context. As of 1984, the State Board had 27 members, one from each congressional district. During a special session of that year, one called pursuant to a study by Dallas Billionaire Ross Perot, the membership dropped to 15 (the present number), with members being appointed by the Governor. There was, however, agreement that the appointment process should give way to an elective process 4 years hence. Consequently, Texas became somewhat unique in that the members of its state board are responsible to the people – not to a governor or a state agency, as is the case in many states.

Some legislators, led by Lt. Gov. Hobby, questioned the establishment of a board determined by popular vote when voters know little, if anything, about board members or potential board members. Consequently, to reconcile the approaches, a non-binding referendum was placed on the 1987 ballot asking voters to resolve the matter – which they did by voting 52.4% for the election option.

In 1995, after so-called “religious conservatives” became increasingly active, the Legislature (which was controlled by Democrats) became increasingly disgruntled about the divisiveness on the board; and, in regard to textbooks, “quietly reduced the Board’s powers . . . “ But what may have then appeared to the Legislature as “bickering” among Board members may actually have been the early stirrings of the clash of worldviews now so pervasive. (Source: Columnist Dave McNeely)

Constitutional Provisions. The Texas Constitution (Art. 7, Sec. 8) directs the Legislature to provide for a State Board of Education. With respect to textbook selection, the Constitution, in another section (Art. 7, Sec.

3) provides that “it shall be the duty of the State Board of Education to set aside a sufficient amount of available funds to provide free textbooks for the use of children attending the public free schools of the State.”

While that statement may appear clear and direct, there is another statement in the Constitution which provides that the Board “shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law, a statement which has come to confuse the language of the Constitution because it raises the question about whether the legislature can diminish the authority of the Board in regard to those duties specifically enumerated in the state Constitution. Attorneys General have, through the years, found themselves overruling each other about that matter.

The Approval Process. The book adoption process begins with panels of citizens recommending to the Board the “essential elements” which should be included in given courses. After the elements are approved, writers can write their books to conform to the elements and then submit their books to the Board for approval. The following provision from the Education Code provides some guidelines regarding course content:

TEC 28.002(h): The State Board of Education and each school district shall foster the continuation of the tradition of teaching United States and Texas History and the free enterprise system in regular subject matter and in reading courses and in the adoption of textbooks. A primary purpose of the public school curriculum is to prepare thoughtful, active citizens who understand the importance of patriotism and can function productively in a free enterprise society with appreciation for the basic democratic values of our state and national heritage.” (emphasis added)

RELIGIOUS ISSUES NOW SURFACE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA

Foreword. Within the past few days, Rick Santorum reported that he had become sickened after reading John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech calling for a rigid separation of religion and politics. “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he said. “What kind of country do we live in that says only people of nonfaith can come to the public square to make their case?”

There is, however, clear evidence that there have been attempts made to establish a “rigid” or “absolute” separation of church and state – witness, for example, the removal of Christmas symbols from public places, the banning of prayer at schools events, even when student-initiated, the removal of crosses from veterans cemeteries, and a host of similar situations.

Columnist Dennis Prager reports that a judge in Rhode Island recently ruled that a banner containing a prayer written by a student and hanging on a school wall since 1963 must be removed. Some questions should be considered as the reader reads it below: (1) does that prayer constitute an “establishment of religion” as cited in the First Amendment? (2) would our founders have approved of its removal? and (3) given the huge problems with which our schools have to cope, is there not a benefit from it? That prayer:

Our Heavenly Father
Grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School west.

Are our courts properly using the language and spirits of our founding documents when they make their rulings? Inasmuch as, for good or ill, religion has been inserted in politics, it therefore behooves us – and especially Republicans – to be informed about such matter. Hence this report.

The Meaning of the First Amendment. The First Amendment contains two clauses addressing religious liberty:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

It is the meaning of the phrase “establishment of religion” which has proven to be so controversial. Arthur David Lowenthal contends that to understand the meaning of that phrase, one should be aware that at the time the Constitution was being drafted, several states actually had “religious establishment,” i. e., denominations. The states wanted to be sure that those state religious “establishments” would not be subject to modification or abolishment by the new Congress – hence the term “establishment.”

The most potentially consequential explanation of that phrase is made by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist who, in his dissent in the l985 case, Wallace v. Jaffree, stated the following about the Establishment

Clause:

it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word “establishment” as “the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining,” such as in “[the] episcopal form of religion, so called, in England.” . . . The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson . . .

Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities, 6 have with embarrassing candor conceded that the “wall of separation” is merely a “blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier” which “is not wholly accurate” and can only be “dimly perceived.” . . .

The “wall of separation between church and State” is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

Reasons for Judicial Inconsistency. To stimulate discussion, the reader is asked to read the following account of an event involving a decision by a board of education and then, based on his or her understanding of court decisions, speculate on whether or not the board was acting unconstitutionally:

a board of education authorized the reimbursement from public funds of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic Schools. The Catholic schools operated under the superintendency of a Catholic priest and, in addition to secular education, gave religious instruction in the Catholic Faith.

The answer to that question is that courts would rule the practice was constitutional, that being said because that was the ruling made in 1947 in a case involving the identical set of circumstances. That case is discussed in the next section.

Everson v. Board of Education. It was the decision in the Everson case of 1947 which not only established the “separation of church and state” doctrine in jurisprudence, but also, merely by edict, made that doctrine applicable, via the Fourteenth Amendment, to the states as well as Congress. (Note the Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law . . .) The circumstances, in pertinent part, are exactly those described in the question posed above.

In writing the opinion of the 5-4 majority, Justice Hugo Black attempted to make his case by using history and Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. In announcing his ruling, Black stated: “The wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” But look what he said next:

Contrary to what might have been anticipated, the majority did not find any breach of the Establishment Clause! Stated Black: “New Jersey has not breached [the wall] here!” Noting the inconsistency of the conclusion with the text of the written opinion, Justice Jackson, one of the 4 dissenting Justices, observed: “. . . the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation of church and state, seem utterly discordant with its conclusion.”

The inconsistency produced an opinion of a dual and conflicting nature. Columnist Tony Blankley notes in this regard that, “Today Everson is remembered more for the easily understood “wall” metaphor than for the fact that state funds were used to reimburse the parents of parochial students.” At the time the Court’s opinion was published, the main concern among many citizens was over the precedent – which could be greatly expanded – of allowing public funds to be used to reimburse, via public funds, Catholic parents for expenses they incurred. Supporters of strict “separation” felt betrayed at that time.

In time, however, the decision “morphed” into an adherence to the “wall” metaphor.

Justice Jackson’s Motive. What motives could Black have had in writing an opinion whose dual nature was so obvious. Or did Black have in mind today’s prevailing result which is to attempt to purge all religion from the public square and the public schools?

One explanation is that Black, a former member of the KKK and a dedicated opponent of the Catholic Church, used the opinion to maneuver the “separation” doctrine to be the determining factor in deciding the outcome of various future trials about religion on the public square and in the public schools.

Another explanation has to do with the intense pressure Black was under at the time he wrote his opinion. That pressure came largely from protestants. Reacting to that aspect of the opinion which enabled Catholic parents to be reimbursed for expenses, one protestant minister, reflecting the views other supporters of total “separation” stated: “We consider this another encroaching step toward changing the Constitution in a

manner to give the Catholic Church a privileged position.”

Courts are now making rulings in both directions. Justice Thomas, echoing the comments of Justice Rehnquist, is critical of this situation, saying:

The Tenth Circuit’s opinion is one of the latest in a long line of “religious display” decisions
that, because of this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections.” . . .our jurisprudence has confounded the lower courts and rendered the constitutionality of displays of religious imagery on government property anyone’s guess.

It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.

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

th

B-52 Marks 60

Anniversary. From the March 5 issue of National Review: April 15 this year marks a

th

striking milestone in the history of U. S. military aviation: the 60
test flight: The B-52 did not enter service with the Air Force until February 1955. Astonishing to report, the B-52 is still in service. Grandchildren of the first B-52 flight crews may be flying B-52s today (much modified, of course). Still more astonishing, are current plans the mighty Stratofortress will remain in service until “at least 2020” – quite possibly into the 2040s, close to a century on from that first test flight. We record the B-52s upcoming diamond jubilee with pride and wonder, and offer heartfelt thanks to all who designed, built, and maintained this magnificent machine, and to all who have served, and all who still serve, in her.

The Left’s Acknowledgment of the Devil. Inasmuch as tactics are now being employed by the left to demonize Republicans about religious matters, should not the right engage in similar tactics with similar objectives in mind? For example, the left could be asked if they “support” the favorable acknowledgment of Lucifer made by Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals. Alinsky is a hero of some high profile leftists. Obama, while a community organizer in Chicago, employed some of the disruptive tactics advocated by Alinsky. Also, Hillary Clinton wrote her graduate thesis about Alinsky, basing much of her research on a personal interview with him.

Alinsky’s approving acknowledgment of Lucifer is found in the dedication section of his book. It is difficult to understand but is quoted below because of the insights it may possibly provide:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.

SAUL ALINSKY

Concern About the Nation’s Future. Reflective of the general concern – if not fear – about the future of the nation is the effort by the Wyoming House to study what that state should do in the event of a complete economic or political collapse in the United States. Included among the topics discussed are disruptions in food and energy supplies, raising its own standing army, and issuing its own currency. Reportedly, lawmakers in at least 6 states have already introduced legislation to create a state currency.

Normally, consideration of such extreme matters would be dismissed without merit. But, given the nation’s sorry economic condition, a dysfunctional government, a breakdown of morality, and a host of similar concerns, such considerations may be justified.