The Republican Club of Sun City N E W S L E T T E R

March 2015

Everett Schmidt, Editor Sun City Texas

rcsctx.com

(Subjects of Reports in This Issue: The  Shaping of the 2016 GOP Elections; The “ISIS” v. “ISIL” Terminology; Justice Thomas – An Influential Thinker; “Our Rights Come From Government?”)

 

AUTHOR TO EXPLAIN STAGGERING POLITICAL CHANGES IN TEXAS

The Implications of These Changes For The Future Are Momentous

Wayne Thorburn, author of Red State: An Insider’s Story of How the GOP Came to Dominate Texas Politics, will address the club during its dinner meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 12 in the ballroom of the Social Center in Sun City.

Elaborating on the subject of his book, he will analyze a wealth of data to show how changes in the state’s demographics – including an influx of new residents, the shift from rural to urban, and the growth of the Mexican-American population  –  have moved Texas through three stages of party competition, from two-tiered politics, to two-party competition between Democrats and Republicans, and then to the return to one-party dominance, this time by Republicans.

But his address will be more than a history lesson. It will include an exploration of the implications those changes have for the future or Texas and the entire nation. Texas, serving as a counterbalance to the liberalism of the northeast and California, will play a major role in the future of the country – especially during the coming presidential election.

Providing him with valuable insights about politics were his experiences as executive director of the Republican Party from 1977-1983 (during the first term of Gov. William Clements, Jr.), as a Reagan delegate to the 1976 Republican National Convention, and as chairman of the Travis County Republican Party.

Providing him with valuable insights about government were his appointments in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, as Regional Representative for the U. S. Department of Education and as a Special Assistant at the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. More recently, he was Administrator of the Texas Real Estate Commission from 1997-2007.

He will bring several copies of his book to sell for attendees who may wish to purchase an autographed copy. His speech to a group in the DC area is available on the C-SPAN web site. (Search THORBURN)

The Social Period, Dinner and Program. A social period will begin at 6:00 p.m. The dinner will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be followed by the program. The dinner will consist of fajita buffet, beef and/or chicken fajitas, tortillas, Spanish rice, refried beans, shredded lettuce, sauteed onions, sauteed bell peppers, diced tomatoes, guacamole, sour cream served with chips and salsa. Beverages are tea, coffee and lemonade.

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, March 6.

Bill Harron, treasurer, has set up a special collection box on his front porch at 125 Stetson Trail for individuals wishing to hand-deliver payments, with the provision that the Friday deadline has been met. For information about reservations, contact Bill at 512-864-0965 or Bharron@aol.com

VISITORS ARE WELCOME!

 

CLUB WILL NOT MEET IN APRIL

Because the ballroom was not available, the club will not meet during the month of April. The next meeting, after the March 12 meeting, is scheduled for Thursday, May 14. Details of that meeting will be provided in the May newsletter.

 

WEBMASTER FOR CLUB WEBSITE NEEDED

The late Bill Chiles established and maintained the club’s website which includes a variety of useful information, including news of coming meetings and events, membership roster, names and contact information of elected officials, current and past issues of the club newsletter, club bylaws and other pertinent information.

Because of the importance of the club continuing the work of Bill Chiles and having a viable website, the Executive Committee wishes to appoint a new webmaster. Consequently, club president Robert Fears asks that any club member wishing to volunteer for this vacancy to contact him. He also asks for names of anyone (member or non-member) who might be willing to consider assuming the responsibilities of this position. Someone with computer programming experience is preferred. Robert can be contacted at 512-868-9306 or iwrite@gmail.com. Refer to the website at rcsctx.com to gain a more complete understanding of responsibilities.

OTHER CLUB NEWS

Club vice president (for membership) John Congdon reports that current club membership stands at 222.

Club treasurer Bill Harron reports that the number of attendees for the February 5 dinner was 113 with an estimated 4-6 individuals attending as observers.

Membership applications for 2015 are still accepted. Consult the club’s website at rcsctx.com for information or contact John Congdon.

 

FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR TO ADDRESS G.A.R.W. MEETING

Vickie Hanak, a certified CHL and firearms instructor, will address the Georgetown Area Republican Women (GARW) during that group’s luncheon meeting scheduled for noon on Wednesday, March 18 at the Berry Creek Country Club, 30500 Berry Creek Drive. Her address will be on a very timely topic, “Firearm Safety and Personal Education.” Because she is a certified firearms instructor, she is able to comment on firearms licensing requirements.

Attendees at the luncheon gather beginning at 11:00 a.m. The meeting begins at 11:30 a.m.  Cost is $15 per person. Send checks made payable to “GARW-PAC” to GARW-PAC, 1530 Sun City Blvd., Suite 120, PMB 424, Georgetown, TX 78633. Make reservations by phone at 512-869-5685 or by e-mail at garwpac@yahoo.com

 

NEWS OF THE STATE G.O.P. PARTY

Chairman of the State Republican Party Steve Munisteri will resign his position effective March 7 in order to accept a position as Senior Advisor to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

At a meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) meeting on that date a replacement will be chosen to fill the unexpired term of the chairman until the state party elects a permanent chairman at  its state meeting in Dallas May 6-8, 2016. Announced candidates for the unexpired term are current RPT treasurer Tom Melcher, current National Committeeman Dr. Robin Armstrong, current Dallas County GOP chairman Wade Emmert, and former Harris County GOP chairmen Jared Woodfill.

At that meeting 108 delegates to the National Convention scheduled for July 18-21, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio will also be elected.

 

HOW THE 2016 G.O.P. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS SHAPING UP

As a result of recent action by the Republican National Committee (RNC), some major changes from the way of the 2012 GOP presidential election was conducted are now in place. With the caveat that there could be some revisions, the following report from Politico is presented:

The Presidential Candidate Debates. At least 9 presidential primary debates have been sanctioned. They start in August of this year in Ohio and continue through March of 2016, with the potential of adding 3 more. No state gets more than one sanctioned debate. Last time, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida each hosted four debates. Iowa hosted three.

The Order of Debates.

1. Fox News, August 2015, Ohio 5. CNN, December 2015, Nevada
2. CNN, September 2015, California 6.  Fox News, January 2016, Iowa
3. CNBC, October 2015, Colorado 7.  ABC News, Feb. 2016, New Hampshire
4. Fox Business, Nov. 2015, Wisconsin 8.  CBS News, Feb. 2016, South Carolina
5.  NBC/Telemundo, Feb 2016, Florida

The Nominating Process.  Reince Priebus, RNC chairman, has successfully pushed the 168-member national committee to take other steps to change the 2016 nominating process, including stiffer penalties for states that schedule primaries before the four designated early states. The Iowa caucuses should happen in early February 2016, for example, as opposed to early January in 2012.

Delegates. The delegate allocation rules have also been changed so that the nominating fight does not drag on the way it did earlier. Starting March 15, states can allocate all of their delegates to whoever wins the primary. The national convention will also take place in mid-July, as opposed to the last week of August in 2012.

Last time, the first debate was May 5, 2011, in South Carolina. The first debate this time is not until three months later in the cycle, when the composition of the field will be clearer.

The number and schedule of debates makes meetings 6-9 on the list above especially important. That ABC debate in New Hampshire in February will come after the Iowa caucuses and could give someone crucial momentum before the first primary. When there are more debates, supporters of the RNC plan argue, only mistakes get highlighted because voters do not have a chance to watch every debate.

SOME OBSERVATIONS BY CARL ROVE

In 2012, the field of candidates was among the weakest in memory; the 2016 field could be among the strongest. While Republicans usually have more senators than governors running, it’s the opposite this time.

The RNC has limited the number of debates to far fewer that the 26 held in the runup to the 2012 elections. This limits opportunities for candidates to carve each other up on national TV and for liberal moderators to focus on how exotic Republicans are.

Voting will start later. The RNC prohibited January primaries and authorized only Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to hold February contests.

The number of contests increases in the first half of March, potentially including a Southern “Super Tuesday” with Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee. Early March states must award delegates proportionally. So while one candidate may carry more states, there may be only a small difference in the delegate count.

States voting in the second half of March and beyond can award delegates winner-take-all. This could quickly end the contest or, some suggest, make it harder for any candidate to pull away as several candidates split big blocks of delegates, resulting in a long battle that could go until the convention.

By next January, candidates must have raised enough cast to fight all four February battles and enter March with money in the bank. Super PACS will play a much bigger role. Not subject to contribution limits, they can replenish their coffers faster that the candidates’ campaigns. A handful of wealthy backers can temporarily keep alive hopefuls who lack broad financial support.

 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE “ISIS” V. “ISIL” TERMINOLOGY

The Significance Is Not About An Acronym, But A Deadly Serious Matter!

Obama, almost entirely alone with other members of his administration, has been almost obsessively resolute in referring to what is generally termed “ISIS” as “ISIL.” Why does he take that position? Is his reason a serious matter? There is evidence his reason constitutes a deadly serious matter.

Background. ISIS was the original name of the al-Qaida offshoot. It’s an acronym that stands for Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But, months ago, ISIS changed its name to ISIL – the Islamic State in the Levant. More recently, ISIS chose to be known simply as Islamic State. Most news organizations, pundits and policymakers chose to stick with ISIS, perhaps to discourage the ISIS shell game of frequent changes. Obama, though, has stuck with ISIL.

One reason Obama may prefer ISIL is that the “L” refers to “Levant” which encompasses territory much larger than Syria and Iraq. Inasmuch as it embraces many more countries, it is, according to FoxNews Harris Faulkner the reason “why they [Obama and his personnel] want to embrace that name.” Former Rep. Allen
West is more precise: “First, if you choose to refer to this group as ISIL, you have basically rewritten the map of the Middle East and fallen into the trap of not recognizing the existence of Israel and also Lebanon . . .If you use ISIL, you are then validating the Islamic totalitarian and jihadist claim that the modern-day Jewish state of Israel is an occupation state and does not exist in the eyes of Muslims.”

Obama’s Attitude Toward Israel. What is Obama’s attitude Israel vis a vis the Muslims? The reader is aware that a growing number of Americans firmly believe Obama is a Muslim by faith. While that belief is also widely disputed, there is considerable agreement that at least his sympathies are with the Muslims – at the expense of Israel.

Illustrations of Obama’s bias against Israel are comments he made on certain fundamental issues concerning Israel’s very existence made during his widely-reported Cairo speech of 2009 when he compared the suffering of Palestinians with the Nazis’ murder of 6 million Jews during the holocaust, and when he advocated a contiguous Palestine state connecting the Gaza strip and the West Bank, an arrangement which can be accomplished only by cutting Israel in half.

Harry V. Jaffa, a scholar at the Clarement Institute, published an “Open Letter” addressed to President Obama in which he took issue with some of the purported historical facts stated in Obama’s Cairo speech. Following are excerpts from that letter which also contains Jaffa’s account of the history of that area which the reader may find helpful in sorting out the issues:

Dear Sir:

In your Cairo speech you referred to the West Bank as “occupied” by Israel. You implied that the Palestinian

Arabs were being denied the sovereign rights to their homeland. But the West Bank was never a sovereign state to

Palestinian Arabs. In the ancient world, Judea and Samaria belonged to what was then a sovereign Jewish state, a

state from which the Jews were repeatedly driven by foreign conquerors: among them Babylonians, Romans and

Christian crusaders. However often they were driven from their ancient homeland, Jews always returned.

The millennial claims of the Jews contrast with the fact that the Palestinian people of today have no such

historical claims. In fact, the Palestinians whose national identity you recognize did not exist before 1967. The West Bank

was conquered in 1948 by Jordan, which subsequently annexed it and then later de-annexed it. It was de-annexed when

the King of Jordan discovered he had added to his kingdom Palestinians who wanted to overthrow his monarchy.

Obama has on various occasions – including one now unfolding – shunned visits of Netanyahu with Obama. But the most stunning symbolic message – one which is considered an insulting act in the Middle East – took place after a telephone conversation with Netanyahu. Israelis were shocked to see that the only picture of Obama talking on the telephone released by the White House was one in which Obama was seen in the Oval Office with his feet propped up on the desk with his soles of his shoes in clear view. Such showing of soles is considered an insult in the Middle East.

Obama’s Beliefs About Islam: Realistic Or Not? It is important to be aware that the violence now taking place in the Middle East is by the Shiite Muslims about which Obama recently revealed the following beliefs: “We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam. Religion is not responsible for violence and terrorism. People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

However, that is not the belief of a great many scholars and others having expertise on Islam. Columnist Peggy Noonan, in a WSJ op-ed piece, quoted a representative of that group, Graeme Wood, as follows:

 

“The West has been misled by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious

nature . . . The reality is the the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure

seekers,” drawn largely from the disaffected. “But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from

coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.” Its actions reflect “a sincere, carefully considered commitment to

returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bring about the apocalypse.”

 

The “apocalypse” just mentioned refers to a belief by Shiite Muslims that a 12th Imam, now in hiding in Iran, will reemerge one day as the Mahdi, a religious leader who will lead the entire world to Islam. There is also a belief that his return can be hastened by a calamitous event, such as nuclear warfare.

How to Deal With the Iranians. Conceptualizing our dealings with Iran as being analogous to our nation dealing with a jobs program for its people, the sophisticates of the Obama administration now try to assure us that deterrence will work as effectively in U.S. – Iranian relations as it did with U.S.-Communist relations when the two factions came dangerously close to – but averted – an atomic war. But columnist Charles Krauthammer points out a major difference: “Godless communists anticipate no reward in heaven.”

A Conflict Not of This World? There is clearly growing anti-semitism throughout the world. Why is that? Conflicts about the possession of land and envy of wealthy Jews may explain much of the animosity and hatred – but do they explain a goal of genocide?

Writer Joseph Farah offers some explanation by first contending, “You can’t begin to understand the Middle East conflict in the natural world. It’s a spiritual war involving principalities and powers unseen in the natural world.”

Contending there are parallels between Islamists and today’s “progressives” or “leftists” in their hostility toward Jews – and now toward Christians! –  Farah states:

 

I think the answer is the same as it is for the Islamists. It’s not so much Israel or the Jews that bothers the left.

It’s what the Jews stand for as the children of promise. The left is not just waging war on Jews and Israel. It, too, is

waging a war on God – specifically the God of the Bible.

Is it not the inescapable fact that a nation called Israel came back  from the dead after 2,000 years – something

no other nation in the history of the world has done, and it did it just the  way Ezekiel and other Hebrew prophets

predicted it would happen?

 

Author Jamie Glazon, still speaking of the spiritual world, offers this explanation of the belief system of the Islamists:

The goal of life is to lose it in the very act of eradicating the enemy. This is why the idea of America, and its

sacred principle of “the pursuit of happiness” – embedded in the Declaration of Independence – is anathema to Islam,

just as it is anathema to Nazism and communism (as well as to the radical left). The pursuit of happiness implies that the

individual and his will matter.

This psychotic mindset explains why Jew-hatred is such an important component of jihad, as of most death

cults. Two of the most outstanding Jewish characteristics are the love of life and the enduring struggle to survive.

For jihadists, as for Nazis and communists, this is an egregious transgression against their faith.

 

JUSTICE THOMAS ACCLAIMED AS

“AMERICA’S MOST INFLUENTIAL THINKER ON RACE”

Obama and the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, have, by direct statement or inference, established and maintained the notion that the nation is racist. The media have not provided a contrarian view. But Sylvia Thompson, a conservative black, takes issue with the lack of professionalism of those two individuals stating, “The power that they wield over American citizens is tremendous. They set the tone for legality or illegality, and they have chosen the latter. They set the tone for racial harmony or disharmony, and they have chosen the latter.” Obama’s continuing practice of consulting with race baiter Al Sharpton about racial matters is but one illustration of this tone.

While there is a growing number of blacks – including, for example, Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell, and Jason Riley – who project a view at variance from the Obama/Holder view, the most influential thinker on race issues is, according to columnist/FoxNews analyst Juan Williams, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The justification for this nomination is found in an op-ed piece titled “America’s Most Influential Thinker on Race” appearing in the February 21-22 issue of the Wall Street Journal which, it should be noted, is one of the most widely-circulated newspapers in the nation.

Williams’ justification not only stands in stark contrast to the the tone projected by Obama and Holder, it is well-reasoned, and will likely be welcomed by Americans of all races because, having been written by a black (and a liberal) about a black, it can provide at last a voice to counter the unrelenting demagoguery which is responsible for fomenting violence in the land. It might even assuage some of the fear individuals have had  in challenging Obama if charges of racism might then ensue.

Williams explains the positions of Justice Thomas on various racial matters in the following excerpts from that op-ed piece:

Justice Thomas, who has been on the court nearly a quarter-century, remains a polarizing figure – loved by conservatives and loathed by liberals. But his “free”-thinking legal opinions are opening new roads for the American political debate on racial justice.

His opinions are rooted in the premise that the 14th Amendment – guaranteeing equal rights for all – cannot mean different things for different people. As he wrote in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013),he is opposed to “perpetual racial tinkering” by judges to fix racial imbalance and inequality at schools and the workplace. [The Fisher case involved the denial of admission of a white UT applicant on grounds of “diversity” considerations.]

Justice Thomas . . .is reshaping the law and government policy on race by virtue of the power of his opinions on the bench. Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the Supreme Court, stood up as a voice insisting or rights for black people. Justice Thomas, the second black man on the court, takes a different tack. He stands up for individual rights as a sure blanket of legal protection for everyone, including minorities.

In his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger, a case that preserved the affirmative-action policies of the University of Michigan Law School, he quoted an 1865 speech by Frederick Douglas: “’What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice’. . . Like Douglas, I believe blacks can achieve in every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators.”

The principal point Justice Thomas has made in a variety of cases is that black people deserve to be treated as independent, competent, self-sufficient citizens. He rejects the idea that 21st century government and the courts should continue to view blacks as victims of a history of slavery and racism.

In his concurring opinion in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995), he made the case against government set-asides for minority businesses by arguing that “racial  paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination.”

The Constitution, he said, bans discrimination by “those who wish to oppress a race or by those who have a sincere desire to help.”

In the same vein he contends that people who insist on racial diversity as a worthy principle are hiding assumptions of black inferiority. “After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about blacks,” he wrote in his concurring opinion in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995). “Under this theory, segregation injures blacks because blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based upon a theory of black inferiority.”

Justice Thomas holds that quality education should be the focus of educators for children all races and argues there is no proof that integration necessarily improves education. Black leaders, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Thurgood Marshall, he has noted, were educated at black schools.

 

He also makes the case that diversity in school admissions has never been proven to raise black achievement to the level of people admitted with no special consideration. “Racial imbalance is not segregation,” he wrote in a 2007 case ending Seattle and Louisville plans to reverse racial segregation in schools, “and the mere incantation of terms like re-segregation and remediation cannot make up the difference.” Federal judges, he said, are “not social engineers” charged with creating plans to achieve racial equality.

As he wrote in his concurring opinion in Fisher, even if schools have the best intentions and justify lower standards for blacks seeking college admission in the name of reparations for past injury, “racial discrimination is never benign . . .There can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race.”

 

CHRIS CUOMO: “OUR RIGHTS COME FROM GOVERNMENT, NOT GOD”

Recently, during a morning TV show, CNN’s anchor Chris Cuomo did a 25-minute interview with the Alabama chief Justice Roy Moore about Moore’s refusal to adhere to a federal appellate judge’s order to ignore the state constitution and begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While gay marriage was to be the central issue, the discussion quickly morphed into a heated discussion about a more important but more abstract topic: the origin of rights. Do our rights come from God or from man? Why is that important?

The debate was revealing in that it exposed Cuomo’s and the left’s concept of government, and their ignorance of and/or disregard – if not contempt – for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and role the Judeo-Christian tenets had in the formation of the nation’s government.

Rush Limbaugh provides the following account of the verbal exchange, including some of his comments:

Judge Moore said, “I believe that’s a matter of law because our rights contained in the Bill of Rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from God.” Rush said: Well, that set Cuomo off. As it would any liberal. You mention God, you mention rights, and the liberal is gonna be set off and set out of control in outrage and anger, predictably so. Cuomo then replied, “Our laws do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man.”

Moore said,”Let me ask you one question. Chris. Is the Declaration of Independence law?” Cuomo said, “You would call it organic law as a basis for future laws off of it?” Moore said, “I would call it the organic law because the United States code calls it organic law. It is organic law because the law of this country calls it the organic law of the country means where our rights come from. And if they come from there, men can’t take it away.” Rush: “That’s the point!”

Moore said, “It’s not a matter of faith, sir. It’s a matter of organic law, which states, ‘We hold these truths to be held equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ And the only role of government is stated in the next sentence is to secure those rights for us. The government starts taking those rights away from us, then it’s not securing and it is defiling the whole purpose of government.”

Author Mark Alexander contends, “To better understand what is meant by ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ recall that our Declaration’s signers were not of one mind on matters of theology and doctrine. They were Christians, Deists and Agnostics, but they did, however, uniformly declare that the Rights of all people were, are and forever will be innate and unalienable, as established by ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.’”

Columnist Cal Thomas said, “The framers of the Constitution clearly understood that in order to put certain rights out of the reach of government, whose power they wished to limit, those rights had to come from a place government could not reach.  . . The only way to preserve them for ourselves and our posterity is to acknowledge they come from a higher place.”

A certain segment of the population is resistant to any influence of religion in government. But that is a dangerous position to take as is illustrated by the following comments from columnist Jeffrey Kuhner:

 

From its inception, Marxism has been in a life-death struggle with Christianity. “Religion is the opiate of the

masses,” Karl Marx said. For Marx, secular enlightenment and personal liberation could only be achieved if the “primitive

superstitions” of Christian dogma were swept into the dustbin of history.

Capitalism, private property, the nation-state and the traditional family – all rest upon the Judeo-Christian moral

order. Marxists have understood one seminal truth: destroy a religion and you destroy the culture and civilization it

spawned.

This is why modern liberals relentlessly advance the sexual revolution characterized by individual gratification,

abortion on demand and birth control. Sexual permissiveness – the Godless libertine society – and not the international

proletariat is the true agent of radical change.

In fact, the founder of the Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, deliberately promoted open marriage, abortion,

birth control and militant secularism as a means of social engineering. For Lenin, religion was the enemy.