Showing posts with label Cypress Texas Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cypress Texas Tea Party. Show all posts

Monday, October 25, 2021

Redistricting Report

At our Tea Party meeting this past Saturday, we heard from local House Rep. Mike Schofield, who was on the Redistricting Committee, and also Tom Nobis, our SREC (State Republican Executive Committee) Chair, to talk about the outcome of the legislature’s redistricting process.

Rep. Mike Schofield at the Cypress Texas
Tea Party on October 23, 2021.
We meet at a BBQ place, and we work
around the stuff they store in that room.
Rep. Schofield is a good storyteller. He gets up to talk—he talks fast—and an hour and a half later he takes a breath. Before we get to redistricting, I’ll just share one of his stories, for anyone out there who thinks there’s no voter fraud. For background, during early voting, we can vote at any voting location. There were, I’m trying to recall, 40-60 voting locations. There were many more in 2020. He says, 

You may remember back in 2018 they actually beat me by 113 votes. Now, I’m sure I had more actual voters than my opponent did, but after they stuffed the ballot box in some places, we came up 113 short.

Now, by the way, they tried that again this time [2020]. There were 60 votes a day being cast in a precinct over here [SE Harris County] during my race. You may recall there was a pandemic. People were afraid to get out from under their bed. But somehow 60 people a day would drive from here [west end of Harris County] through the fourth largest city in America, out the other side, and vote in the same precinct in my race.

What was happening was, they were stuffing the ballot box. And they knew they had won by 113 votes last time, so they figured the 600-and-some votes they stole this time would be enough to win. What they didn’t know was that I was trying to beat my opponent so badly that, even with the 600 votes, we still beat her by 3500.

So, that kind of stuff goes on. And it goes on more now that the elections are being controlled by the Democratic Party. So, I figured, I’d better get on Redistricting and defend my district.

We didn't have literal ballot boxes to stuff. What he means, I think, is that someone got a list of names from his district and then voted for them. It would have to be someone with access to the machines. That's why it's important to have workers from both parties, as well as poll watchers.


House Districts and General Redistricting Info

I’m assuming similar discussions are going on across the country.

Rep. Schofield says he refers to redistricting as pushing the reset button. Populations move around. There’s growth in some places, not in others. He says,

Now, the very first principle of redistricting, no matter what part of the country you’re in, no matter what year it is, is population. That’s why we do it. People—they get so caught up in the partisan, and the racial and Voting Rights Act and all this, they forget what this is actually for.

The Constitution requires that we redistrict every 10 years to more or less make everything equal again. And the reason is, if you’re in a district like mine, we were the fourth largest district in Texas. And when they started, ten years ago, they were all roughly—we don’t require exact equality in Texas, but they were roughly equal. And then growth happens. Right? And some places shrink in population. Other places grow.

Of the 150 districts in Texas, in the House, the first largest growth and the fourth largest growth were both in Katy [west of Houston, west end of Harris County, and some in Ft. Bend County; Schofield’s was fourth] We’re supposed to have grown from about 167,000 people at the beginning of the decade to about 194,303. Exactly…. That’s supposed to be what we’re all supposed to get to: 194,303. My district had 282,000 people. So, if you lived in my district, your vote counted less, because you’re a lower percentage, than in someplace where they had 187,000 people in their district. Your vote counts on a proportional basis for less than theirs does.

Redistricting has to happen before primary elections, which happen early in the year of even-numbered years. Getting the numbers into the hands of legislators was delayed, so it couldn’t be done during the regular legislative session last January-through-May (in Texas, during odd-numbered years). It couldn’t even be handled during our first two 30-day special sessions.

We were concerned it wouldn’t get done in this third session either. The Dems had walked out of the first special session, saying they were preserving voting rights from the horrendous new legislation designed to make it easier to vote but harder to cheat. They ran out the clock while they were getting Covid and otherwise hanging out in DC. And they have fled the state before during redistricting legislation. This year, I guess they gauged, accurately, that people were already annoyed with them enough over their shenanigans, so they stayed in Austin during the third special session, which was dedicated to redistricting.

Even though the redistricting legislation has now passed, there’s always the possibility that someone will challenge it in court and delay our primary. But for now, we think our primary will happen on the first Tuesday of March, as scheduled.

Redistricting didn’t start from scratch at the beginning of this special session a month ago. Rep. Schofield, along with the committee, was working on map redrawing all through the legislative session, based on estimated numbers.

The numbers come from a snapshot in time: April 1, 2020. However many people, and wherever they were living on that date, that’s what counts. Schofield’s district, HD 132, grew by 30,000 in just one year, and may have grown another 20,000 in the time since the census date. That meant he needed to lose about 88,000 out of his district based on growth since the last census. Controlling how that went was why he wanted to be on the committee that got to decide. He’s puzzled by representatives who called him the last couple of weeks, worried about what was happening to their district. They could have called him any time since February, rather than waiting until it was being voted on.

There are rules determining how redistricting must be done. The purpose is to make all districts approximately equal in size. When they work on US Congressional districts, that has to be literally equal, down to the individual voter, but things aren’t quite that exact in the state House and Senate. There is a rule for the House that they can’t cross county lines. On at least two sides of Schofield’s district, that’s a constraint. Then there are efforts to use natural boundaries, such as highways, waterways, reservoirs, etc.

When you see contorted, oddly shaped districts, the ones that people use to describe gerrymandering, those are shaped that way in order to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, to allow for minority representation. In Harris County, he pointed out one of these that is Hispanic, and another that is Black. The assumption, for those who set up those lines, is that they will vote Democrat, so it’s actually in the law that districts must be set up in a way to favor Democrats.

Oddly, the reason for the Voting Rights Act is to counter previous gerrymandering intent on preventing minority representation. That was done by Democrats. Every time. So, the Democrats gerrymandered to make districts the way they wanted them—based on race. And that caused a law to be put into place for the Democrats to make districts the way they want them—based on race. The solution? Somehow overcome the lie that the Republicans were the racists. It’s a slow process.

Anyway, while my House district , HD 138, shifted somewhat to the west, I’m still in the same district. I was moved in 2010, so I’m glad I don’t have to deal with another new House district.


Current and new House district maps
images available at District Viewer, here


Senate Districts

The Senate has 31 districts in the state. By comparison, there are about to be 38 congressional districts. So the state senators have more constituents than US Congressmen have.

Like the House, they start with the districts they had and make adjustments from there. They need to each have 940,178 more or less.  They don’t get to deviate as much as House districts do, because they don’t have a county line rule. But they can be off by a small handful.

Rep. Schofield gave us some behind-the-scenes play in the legislature. The Senate originates its own map and then sends it to the House, and vice versa. In most legislation, when a bill passes the originating chamber, it gets passed on to the other one, where it can undergo a fair amount of amending before getting back to the originators, who then can either concur with the amendments or get a reconciliation committee, made up of members of both chambers, to come to an agreement on what ought to be in the bill.

Redistricting bills, however, are expected to be left alone by the other chamber. As some Democrat House member once put it, “The Republicans are the opposition; the real enemy is the Senate.” If they don’t want they other chamber messing with their map, it behooves them both not to mess with the other chamber’s maps.

In order to avoid getting each other’s bills messed with, they have an arrangement where they will gavel down at exactly the same moment. If one chamber gaveled down (approved the other chamber’s map with a vote) first, the remaining chamber could then mess with its map at will, and there would be no leverage to stop it. So the two chambers, located at opposite ends of the building, open up all doors between the two, and coordinate so that both can gavel down at the exact same moment. Because, you know, trust is everything—but you can’t trust anybody.


Current and new Senate district maps
images available at District Viewer, here


Tom Nobis summarized for us the SD changes in Harris County and affecting Montgomery County, just to the north, with this graphic:



 

Congressional Districts

Congress is totally different in many ways. Mainly, they don’t draw their own districts. The state legislature does it. In Texas, that originates in the Senate, but it seemed to me they worked together on this map quite a lot.

Some people suggest putting together a non-partisan commission, to take politics out of redistricting. In theory that may sound good, but it’s not possible in reality. Rep. Schofield says,

No such thing as a non-partisan angel gonna drift down from heaven and make sure everything is fair.

He says, when the legislature goes through their process, everybody fights for their area. They tug and they pull, and they go, “I want these guys on the other side of the reservoir,” and so forth. There are a lot of complicated issues. You deal with the minority areas first—and that’s why they come out looking so oddly shaped. Then you deal with all the other things that the constituents and the representatives might care about.

But when you have these nonpartisan groups, say 7 of each of the two major parties, plus an impartial judge, what you get is, one side wins 8-7 and takes everything. That judge belongs to one of the parties, and may have been appointed by the governor. So that’s the tie breaker. There’s nothing non-partisan about it, except the label to fool the people.

Anyway, so you’ve got growth. In Texas, we’ve had growth—and added congressional seats—every census since statehood, I think he said. Wherever those new districts go, it’s like dropping two giant boulders in the middle of existing districts. And they have to have exactly the same number of people in them as every other district, when everything is said and done. Around 875,000. If you can’t get it right, you have to split up precincts, or blocks, or maybe just cut a house or two, until you get it exactly right. That is, according to how it was on April 1, 2020; you could be off by thousands by the time redistricting goes into effect, but it’s the count on that date that matters.

There were various places around the state that were suggested for the new districts. The decision finally came down to Harris County, where Houston is, and the Austin area.

The splat of the Harris County boulder came down on my district. I was in District 2, with Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He got pushed further north (not sure he’s actually still living in that district). And I’m now in the new CD 38. Wesley Hunt has declared as a candidate; he ran against Lizzie Fletcher in CD 7 two years ago. I imagine others will run as well. But he’s former special forces, a friend of Crenshaw. He’s conservative.  And happens to be black, which makes him bulletproof against certain criticisms. I’m looking forward to learning more about him.

What I’ve heard is that both Crenshaw’s district and the new district are likely to go safely Republican, and CD 7 will be sacrificed to the Democrats for the foreseeable future.

Rep. Schofield talked about the philosophy behind safe versus competitive districts. He said people complain when they’re in a district where their representative doesn’t agree with them on various issues—likely because they’re in a different party. If you’re in a competitive district, 49% or so of the district is going to feel like that—dissatisfied, unrepresented. But in a “safe” district, a higher percentage of constituents will be satisfied with their representative. So he’s changed his opinion over the years and now favors safe districts when possible.

That’s great if you’re in agreement with your representative, but what if you’re not? We’ve had sympathy for conservatives in Sheila Jackson Lee’s area for ages (she wins with over 80% of the vote; it’s  too much to be attributable to voter fraud). Rep. Schofield says, it’s not that you’re without representation. It’s like, when you’re in a group and order out for pizza, who gets to decide what kind of pizza? The guy who wants only cheese so everyone is OK with it? The one who wants meat lovers? The vegetarian? Whoever wins, the others still get their slice of pizza (the representation); they just may have to pick things off or go without what they would have preferred.


Current and new US Congressional district maps
images available at District Viewer, here

 

Other Districts

We talked only briefly about SBOE (State Board of Education) districts. The legislature sets those up as well. There were 15 before redistricting; there are 15 after. These are the largest in the state. It’s an unpaid position, without a bunch of constituents financially supporting a candidate. So getting to visit every part of the district is practically impossible.

We also talked about the Harris County Commissioner Precinct redistricting. This isn’t a legislative issue; it’s being done at the county level. But it’s on our minds. Harris County is, I think, the second largest non-state government jurisdiction in the US. It’s run by someone on her first job out of college, since 2018. It’s run badly. And it’s run according to whatever “progressive” (i.e., Marxist) strategies of the pushiest commissioner (one Rodney Ellis) wants. There are five commissioners: 3 Dems, 2 Republicans. These two intrepid Republicans go up against this wall of hypocrisy and graft daily. (The list of their faults and failings is too long for this late in a post.)  The Dems don’t like the opposition, the calling to account, the occasional public calling them out so the public knows what they’re up to. What they want to do is get rid of one of the Republican commissioners. They’ve chosen Tom Ramsey (mine is Jack Cagle). The plan is to pile as many Republicans into Cagle’s district as they can manage—taking them out of Ramsey’s. The hope is that they can then oust Ramsey and wreak havoc with a 4-1 Commissioner’s Court, plus Hidalgo the County Judge (executive). That would be the setup for a decade.

They may handle the redistricting at their regular Commissioners’ Court Meeting tomorrow (October 26) at 10:00 AM, hoping to slide it in before anyone notices. If you live here and would like to take a stand against local tyranny, you need to sign up by 8:00 AM to speak virtually (sign up and info here). 

If not, they will have a public hearing on Thursday (October 28) of this week, 12:30 PM. The County GOP was sending out announcements today, calling for a large voice from the people.

 

So, in summary, statewide we’re doing OK as conservatives. Locally, in Harris County, some of us are OK and some not. By law, redistricting has to be done. I’m glad this decade it was done with conservatives in the driver’s seat.


Monday, March 29, 2021

Texit Is an Action Verb

I’m starting with a personal dental problem story. Bear with me. I’m going to use it as an analogy.

 

The Extraction Question

I had a tooth break last week. Three chunks fell off, one rather large, plus a couple of crumbles. So I went to the dentist. I was hoping for a repair, albeit a likely expensive one, where maybe they could do an inlay or crown.

There wasn’t much pain involved, which was a good sign. But, in examining the tooth, the dentist noticed a weak spot on another part of the tooth that was mighty sensitive to the touch of his tiny metal probe. Not good. He laid out the situation. This tooth has had a fair amount of damage; it’s next to a partial (a removable tooth that replaces a failed root canal from over two decades ago), and that means it’s more susceptible to bacteria and pressure. My hygiene is excellent, but some things are inevitable. And the additional weak spot, close to the nerve, is very concerning.

He could do a temporary fix to both areas, very carefully, and then give it a few months to see if it stabilizes or maybe turns into an abscess. If it goes well, he could follow up with a permanent fix. If that doesn’t work, I lose the tooth—and I'm out time, pain, and expense.

Or he could go ahead with an extraction. That could be followed up by a larger partial—however, that would connect to a further back tooth already under stress. Or we could try an implant—pending a retest of materials I react to, which has made this impossible in the past, but which my current good state of health might allow.

My first wish would be to keep my tooth. I like real. And I like the integrity of real. But I had him write up the various paths forward so I could go home and talk it over with Mr. Spherical Model.

Mr. Spherical Model, who has been through a few implants already, was saying, it’s just going to get worse. You might as well go ahead with the extraction and be done with it. In a few months, you have a new tooth there, and all is well (we hope).

I think that’s the final decision, although I haven’t set the appointment yet.

The thing I’m looking at is that decision point at which you realize a temporary patch job isn’t going to solve long-term issues. At some point you need to extract and rebuild.

 

To Texit or Not to Texit?

That brings us to the topic of the day: Texit. More formally, the Texas Nationalist Movement. But I learned you can use it, not just as a noun, but as a verb. To Texit, or not to Texit? That is our question.

We had an extraordinary Tea Party meeting this past Saturday, with two very good speakers. The room was packed, with a few people needing to stand in the doorway—on a perfect spring Saturday afternoon.


Alan’s Speech

Alan Vera, speaking at Cypress Texas Tea Party
on Saturday, March 27, 2021
Alan Vera was our first speaker, on election integrity, a subject on which he is a national treasure. I consider him and his wife, Colleen, to be friends in my local political circles. When we (the local Tea Party board) were looking for speakers, we hadn’t yet confirmed him, and I went ahead and asked the Texas Independence Movement whether they could send a speaker. (I had heard Daniel Miller in a Crossroads interview.) They said yes—the same day that Alan confirmed. I was concerned about fitting them both in, but it turned out to be serendipitous. They were old friends in this battle.

Alan went ahead and introduced our second speaker, Daniel Miller, by reading what Alan called “the best 90-second speech I ever gave.” It was from the 2016 Republican Party of Texas Convention—the world’s biggest political gathering.

I missed that convention (my only trip ever to London). I apparently missed a lot. There was an hour-long floor debate sparked by this speech, ending in a voice vote badly mismanaged by the chairman, squelching the issue against the obvious will of the body. The issue was on adding the plank on Texas Independence to the state party platform. This is Alan’s speech:

At the center of this motion is a simple idea: Let the people of Texas address the 10th Amendment elephant in the room.

The Republic of Texas became a state through a treaty, with the United States—a CONTRACT.

Embedded in every contract are terms, conditions and covenants, the frequent breach of which undermine the validity of the contract itself.

Many Texans believe that the United States has already grievously breached the agreement.

When this contract was signed, the United States was a constitutional federation of sovereign states—a Republic.

Many believe this is no longer true.

The government of the U.S. once respected states’ rights and the rule of law. Today it tramples states’ rights, and the rule of law is at the bottom of a landfill, covered by the tiny, torn bodies of 60 million murdered babies.

The citizens of the United States have the right to make one bad decision after another. The government of the U.S. apparently has the right to hurl itself toward a cliff of moral and financial ruin.

But the citizens of Texas have the God given right NOT to follow them over that cliff.

My fellow delegates, when the chair calls for the vote on this motion, don’t just vote “aye.” Vote HELL AYE! For our children and grandchildren. For this dream we call Texas.

I have had mixed feelings about Texas independence for a while. I was asking, Should we have some kind of trigger that, if the federal government crosses a line, we automatically put Texas Independence on the ballot? But I couldn’t come up with such a trigger—because it’s easily arguable that any line we could come up with, the federal government has already crossed.

But I love America. I love our Constitution. How could we consider leaving?

Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement, gave us plenty to think about.

He started with a story about going to the border, to Laredo, the day before. There was supposed to be a rally for people, as he described it, whose message was, “The federal government should fix it, and we should shake our fists at them until they they do.” No one showed. Our turnout in one room in a restaurant on Saturday was half again bigger than that crowd. That is not a message people in Texas want to get behind. Their main speaker, he said, (a speaker from New Zealand now living in Florida and has no say in the matter) spent 20 of his 25 minutes railing against Texit. Then Daniel spoke, and turned them all.


Daniel Miller, President of the Texas Nationalist Movement,
speaking at the Cypress Texas Tea Party, March 27, 2021

The Question to Focus On

There’s one question that brings it all into focus. It is this:

As it stands right now today, if Texas was a free and independent nation, that we had our right of self-government, we had control of our own immigration system and our own borders, we had our own army, we had our own currency, we had our own passports, we had our own embassies overseas, we had our own Olympic team—wouldn’t that be great?—if we were a nation in every single sense of the word, free, independent, self-governing, and the question was put to us on the ballot that we were asked, “Do you want to join the union?”

The room, filled with US Constitution-loving citizens like me, shouted “No!” I didn’t really know to expect that.

Miller was there to persuade anyone not yet persuaded. So he added the “benefits” of joining the union, if we were to do that today:

So let’s just lay out the benefits. I don’t want you to make a snap decision, right? So, let’s talk about near $30 trillion worth of debt that we would inherit overnight. Let’s talk about being crushed under the weight of 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations that turns every single one of us pretty much into a federal felon every single day—not a joke [someone said “I know”]. It’s legit. I mean, that’s a benefit, right? Would you want to live under that?

What about the fact that, if you print up all those 180,000 pages of federal laws, rules, and regulations, it’d be taller than the San Jacinto Monument? You want to live under that weight, don’t you?

Or what about the fact that federal regulatory accumulation costs you about 85% of your take-home pay? Or, what about the things that Alan Vera mentioned—about 60 million dead children?

What about the fact that your money is going to be devalued every time that they fire up the printing press?

What about the fact that they’re going to send our sons and daughters overseas to fight in the wars of self-determination for other people but will deny it to us at the drop of a hat? How does that sound? Does that sound like a winning strategy for you guys? Sound like benefits? I don’t think so.

What about this? What about the fact that, as Texans, no matter what decisions we make here on how we want to govern ourselves, they can be overridden at the stroke of a pen by 2 ½ million unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats? How does that sound? I didn’t think so.

This doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me. So, again, I ask you the question: If you had to vote today, would you vote to join the union? [the crowd shouted, “No, no, NO” and “Hell no!”] Well, I think I might have turned some of you guys.

If we, like America’s founders, were to write up a list of usurpations and tyrannies, it would be longer and more egregious than those British monarchy wrongs listed in the US Declaration of Independence—and at least on par with those that led Texas to declare independence from Mexico back in 1836. If you were just to list the executive orders of Joe Biden, each and every one is a breach of contract with the people of Texas—and every other state.

 

It’s Inevitable

Daniel Miller's 2018 book on Texit
Miller has been working on this issue since 1996. It has been a long, hard road. But he says Texas Independence is now an inevitability. The trend has been moving toward it for a while. And with the current occupant of the White House, it’s likely to take a leap.

In 2018 Miller wrote a book, Texit: Why and How Texas will Leave the Union (which I bought a copy of and have started reading—and the intro includes that story of Alan’s speech at the 2016 convention). A lot of the details and difficulties are laid out in there—and on the website TexitNow.org (which redirects to the Texas Nationalist Movement). He mentioned some polling that surprised me, and it’s in the book:

Support for Texas leaving the Union grew from single-digit polling under Clinton to 35 percent during Barack Obama’s first term. The most recent polling in Texas shows that a majority of Republicans, approximately half of independent voters, and around one-third of Democrats support independence (p. 18).

He broke that down a few pages later:

The Research 2000 poll was a question about perceived benefit. The Reuters/IPSOS question was a question of political will. The results again broken down by political affiliation, showed 54 percent of Republicans, 49 percent of independence voters, and 35 percent of Democrats favored an independent Texas….

Support for Texit, on average, polls anywhere from 6 to 10 percentage points higher than those who want to stay in the Union (p. 28).

He told us that the Texas Nationalist Movement is the third largest and most influential political advocacy organization in the state—smaller only than the two main political parties. This is not just a fringe idea.

We talk here at the Spherical Model about the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres, so I noted when Miller said this:

Texit is, at this moment, an inevitability. Not just because we can win a vote, but because there is no way that Texas and Texans can stay in a political, economic, and cultural union with a federal system that believes the way they do.

He colorfully added,

They literally just elected a head of state that went around promoting policies that make Joseph Stalin look like Jimmy Carter.

 

The Process

There’s a pretty complicated process to go through—as Britain experienced in Brexit. But the first step is simply to gauge the will of the people. Put it on the ballot for them to vote on.

The first step toward that was to put it in the Republican Party platform. That was finally accomplished in 2020 (an online convention with no floor debate—but the committees put it in and kept it).

The next step is to put a bill before the legislature. Rep. Kyle Biedermann has filed HB 1359. This simply says the question should be put before the people of Texas. (Ask your representative to sign on as a co-author.)

And the people's yes vote would not suddenly accomplish it; as with Brexit, it would require the legislature to lay out a plan to accomplish it in a given length of time, so all the details can be worked out. The question placed on the ballot would be:

"Should the legislature of the State of Texas submit a plan for leaving the United States of America and establishing an independent republic?"

 

The Battle of San Jacinto, where Texas first won its independence,
painting by Henry McArdle, found here

What About War?

We did have some serious questions—in that room, and that will need to be dealt with to educate the people of Texas between the legislation (and passing a bill its first session is a huge challenge) and the November election. So let’s deal with a couple.

One was, pointing out that the last time Texas tried to leave the union it didn’t go well: If it comes down to it, are we willing to fight our neighbors over this?

Good question. Miller had a pretty good—although not a yes or no—answer: We’re not in the 19th Century anymore. He said,

We have literally seen an explosion of self-governing independent nation states around the world over the last 75 to 80 years. As a matter of fact, in most instances in recent history, independence has been the solution to years of civil war. Sudan is a perfect example. I think it’s one and a half million lives lost in the Sudanese civil war, and it was not until they decided to separate that the bloodshed ended. So, what we have seen here is a process that has developed over the last 75 to 80 years. And for us, it ultimately needs to get in a referendum.

He added that just over half the US military would side with us. They’re not going to bomb our local Walmart because we—what? We voted the wrong way? They’re going to behave like Khaddafi or North Korea while the world is watching?

They’ll be practical. Economically too. War would interfere with infrastructure and cause misery.

While some people would be happy to see us go, in general they would be against it (I’m thinking because we could set a chain reaction such as the USSR saw at the fall of the Berlin Wall). But there’s not much they could do to stop us.

 

Will We Have Freedom on the Other Side?

A question I got to ask related to whether we could keep our freedom after regaining independence. Our governor, who had certainly convinced me before taking office that he revered our US Constitution, had no qualms about locking us down and ordering us to wear facemasks this year, and then expecting us to praise him for finally setting us free a couple of weeks ago. And we have our cities the way they are now—Democrat-run. And Austin, our capital, Republican leaning but nowhere near as pro-freedom as we ought to have, based on both the US Constitution and our Texas Constitution. How do we know we can preserve our freedoms? Miller answered frankly:

How will government be any better? I’m going to tell you right now, post-Texit is not a utopia. It’s not. There is no guarantee that it’s a utopia. They’re not going to come out here, and suddenly there will never be a pothole again. You may not get your trash picked up one day.

It’s not a utopia. Nor is it a promise of that. But it is a promise that we can have the ability to make it better.

And here’s why. Part of the reason that our state and local officials are allowed to skate by with so much is because the attention of the people is distracted by the federal circus that goes on.

If you want proof, go out into this restaurant, grab a random person, and ask them who the speaker of the House is. They will probably tell you Nancy Pelosi. They probably will not tell you Dade Phelan [Speaker of the Texas House]. And therein lies the problem.

With the attention being drawn to Washington, DC—and rightfully so, because they’re the ones that keep their thumb on us so much. But it allows these folks to skate by. It allows our elected officials to treat elective office in Texas like a triple-A ball club, like tryouts for federal office.

The moment that Texas becomes free and independent again, that stops. There is no higher office than that which they can get in Austin. There is no greater service that they can give than to serve the people of Texas. And without that distraction of Washington, DC, who here would keep a much closer eye on what’s going on in Austin or right here in our own cities?

That’s the benefit of Texit.

 

We Need to Texit

I found Daniel Miller’s presentation of the Texit idea persuasive. As much as I would prefer a whole, intact United States abiding by the US Constitution, I think it’s time we recognize we can’t recover that. All we can do is patch up that cracked tooth to postpone the inevitable.

Extract. Heal. Rebuild. According to the principles that bring us freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

I haven’t been fully ready to say it before. But I’ve now come to the conclusion: We need to Texit.

Friday, February 8, 2019

Informing and Persuading


Back in early January I wrote a how-to piece for citizen lobbying. This was what I’d been thinking about, because I’d done a presentation on the topic at our first-of-the-year local Cypress Texas Tea Party meeting.

Every two years, during the legislative session, we get together and visit the local offices of our state representatives and senators.
Rep. Tom Oliverson (left), me (right),
and most of the rest of our team today

Today was our first visit of this session. We had a good turnout--enough that we had trouble squeezing into the office. We visited Representative Tom Oliverson, or Texas House District 130. Fortunately, he happened to be back in town from Austin, and available to meet with us in person. Usually we meet with a district director or other staff.

Rep. Oliverson mentioned that the definition of lobbying is informing and persuading—which I thought was a good description of what we try to do as citizen (unpaid) lobbyists.

He’s one of the good guys, so it’s more about informing than persuading. And he’s so good that on most issues he was already aware. So it was just about giving him further information to back up our positions.

I’ve been busy since that January presentation building our bill list—the list of actual bills we’re either supporting or opposing, so we can keep track of them. There are about 40 on the list so far. And last night, after I printed the list to hand out today, I found several that had been recommended to me that I’d missed, and one that was just filed yesterday and hadn’t known about until late at night.

The general categories aren’t really different from last session, but the specifics change. At our state convention, we came up with five legislative priorities, so we covered all of those, plus additional issues, many of which are mentioned in the party platform.

If you’re in Texas, you might be interested in the bill numbers; you can look them up to follow them at the Texas Legislature Online website. Anyway, here are several we’re looking at. Note: SB = senate bill; HB = house bill; R = resolution; JR = joint resolution; CR = continuing resolution; companion = the same bill filed in both house and senate at the same time:

·         Hardening the electric grid: SB 76, HB 400 (companion bills)
·         Lobbying reform: HB 498, SB 490 (similar companion bills)—no lobbying by former legislators; HB 281—no public (taxpayer) money spent for lobbying
·         Constitutional carry: HB 357—open carry by person not otherwise prohibited
·         No unfunded mandates: HJR 30, SJR 10 (companion bills)
·         Property tax reform SB2, HB 2 (companion bills)
·         “Free to Believe Act” protecting freedom of conscience from government discrimination: HB 1035
·         Public prayers and religious displays: HCR 17; HB 307; SB 227
·         Conscience protection: SB 85 (and more to come)
·         SOGI laws we’re AGAINST (sexual orientation and gender issues): HB 244, SB 151, HB 254; HB 850; HB 188; HB 517, HB 1190; SB 154
·         Schools distributing contraceptives--AGAINST: HB 513
·         Dual-credit expansion (more junior college/school district courses offered jointly): SB 251
·         UIL participation for private/homeschoolers: no bill yet
·         Data on college costs and outcomes: HB 277
·         Amend constitution to define life at conception: SJR 3
·         Defund all abortion providers: SB 389
·         Abolish abortion: HB 1500
·         Verification of citizenship for voting: HB 378, SB 482 (companion bills)
·         Closed primary: HB 377
There are several more issues we’re interested in that either don’t have bills yet, or I haven’t become aware of them yet. It’s a work in progress, and I often feel a bit like a student behind in her studies. But with the help of others, I think we’re doing some good informing and persuading. And that feels a lot more empowering than feeling frustration or outrage but taking no positive action. Those of us who seriously take on the responsibility of citizenship are doing what we can.

I don’t show myself here very often, but the Tea Party posts videos of our speakers now, and that included me. I’m not happy in front of a camera, but I think I’m not embarrassed by the presentation and discussion, which is about how to be a citizen lobbyist, from January 5th.