Remembering the Alamo

Today marks the day of the siege on the Alamo, March 6, 1836, when a few dozen Texans held off 5000 Mexican military—long enough for General Sam Houston to gather troops and win the war for independence a month and a half later. It was a sacrifice, but it wasn’t a lost cause. The standoff lasted from February 23 to March 6, some thirteen days by the time the Mexican Army went ahead with the take-no-prisoners attack (there were survivors, about a dozen noncombatants, mainly women and children).

The Alamo (image from Wikipedia)

Texas is a great state for history. We’ve got colorful things worth remembering and retelling. My daughter-in-law (Mrs. Political Sphere) comes from a little town west of Houston that was started by Father of Texas Stephen F. Austin, laid out by Gail Borden (who invented Borden sweetened condensed milk, and also a surveying method he used to make a living). This little town, San Felipe (pronounced by those who live there as San Phillip, or sometimes by others as San Phillipee) was mostly abandoned in what was known as the Runaway Scrape, with citizens freeing before the Mexican Army. A brief battle took place there. They still tell their local stories, even though it wasn’t a major part of the Texas war for independence.

Stephen F. Austin
(image from Wikipedia)

Mexico had a constitution, a written law that guaranteed citizens certain rights. But Santa Anna had taken over as dictator, disregarding the limitations in the law. Stephen F. Austin had gone to Mexico’s capitol to talk through the issues, and form a new state where the laws would be respected. Rather than having the opportunity to voice his complaints, representing his people, and work toward solutions, Austin was labeled an insurrectionist, placed in a dungeon too small to stand or stretch out, where he was held for eight months, being released in August 1835. At this point he returned to find the colonists on the verge of rebellion, and he let them know he now believed they were beyond negotiating with the tyranny of Santa Anna. It was time to fight for their freedom from the tyranny of Mexico.

The bad treatment in the prison deteriorated his health, leading to his death following a bad cold, in December 1836, just a half a year after Texas won independence.

Back to the Alamo. During the rebellion, the war for independence, Presidente Santa Anna moved his troops from city to city to quell the insurrection. The Alamo was an old mission, outside San Antonio (it’s right in the middle of downtown San Antonio today, since the city has grown around it), that could be used as a fortress. Colonel William B. Travis, assigned to lead the troops there, knew he couldn’t hold off the huge Mexican Army. But he also knew that he needed to detain that army as long as possible.

Just four days earlier (March 2, 1836, at Washington-on-the-Brazos, a long two-day’s horse ride from the Alamo) Texas had signed its Declaration of Independence from Mexico. And General Sam Houston was moving through the settlers to build up an army from among the Texians (the settlers that had immigrated from the United States) and the Tejanos (the ethnic Mexicans living in that region). He needed as much time as he could get.

Texas Declaration of Independence
(image from Wikipedia)

A Facebook friend quoted today a historical retelling of the Alamo from Bill Bennett’s American Patriot's Almanac, that I’d like to re-post here:

Storm winds of tyranny blew across Texas in early 1836. In those days the region was a part of Mexico, where General Santa Anna had seized power and made himself dictator. Texans weren’t willing to submit to his rule, so Santa Anna marched north with an army.

In San Antonio a small band gathered to make their stand at the Alamo, an old Spanish mission turned into a fort. They were tough characters, men who had settled a wild frontier. With them was the famous Davy Crockett from Tennessee.

The Mexican army arrived and demanded the Alamo’s surrender. The Texans answered with a cannon shot. Santa Anna ordered a red flag raised, a signal meaning “We will take no prisoners.”

Colonel William Travis, commander of the Alamo, dispatched messengers bearing appeals for reinforcements. “Our flag still waves proudly from the walls,” he wrote. “I shall never surrender nor retreat . . . Victory or death!”

Only 32 men made their way through the enemy lines to join the Texans at the Alamo. That brought the number of defenders to about 189. The Mexican army, meanwhile, swelled to perhaps 5,000.

Legend says that Travis called his men together, drew a line in the dust with his sword, and announced that those who wanted to stay and fight should step over the line. Every man but one crossed over.

The attack came early the next morning, on March 6, 1836. For a while, the Texans managed to hold the Mexican army back, but soon Santa Anna’s soldiers swarmed over the walls. All of the Alamo’s defenders were killed.

The Texans weren’t finished. On April 21, troops commanded by Sam Houston attacked and broke Santa Anna’s army. “Remember the Alamo!” was their battle cry—a cry that still reminds Americans of unyielding courage and sacrifice for freedom.

 

That April 21^st defeat, at San Jacinto, just east of present-day Houston, took only 18 minutes. Houston comparatively small army took the Mexican troops by surprise. The tyrant Santa Ana was among the captives, dressed as just one of the men, trying to avoid notice, ignominious and cowardly. When discovered, he was forced by Sam Houston to officially declare Texas’s victory in its war for independence, and then he was allowed to return to Mexico to continue his cowardly tyranny there.

It takes bravery and sacrifice to secure liberty. And tyrants are generally found to be cowards and bullies when confronted with bravery. That’s something to remember in the never-ending battle between tyranny and freedom.

Platform Propositions

Tomorrow is the primary vote in Texas. That means it is also the day of precinct meetings; people go back to their precinct’s voting place after the polls close, and meet at the grassroots level. The people there choose delegates to attend the county/district convention. (Harris County is big enough to hold several state senatorial districts, so we hold district conventions.) The other matter of business is to propose content for the party platform.

Some version of this pattern happens in every state. So I thought it would be worth going over my suggestions for propositions to present at a precinct meeting.

The starting place is the existing platform, which you can probably find with an online search. The Texas GOP platform is not in bad shape right now. There have been past precinct meetings where I had plenty of input I wanted to see there. This time I’m fairly content with what’s there—with the addition of some specifics that haven’t been handled.

My son Political Sphere thinks platforms should be very short—principles only. Otherwise, holding candidates to agree is impossible and undoable. There’s too much to keep track of. And he’s probably right. But, dealing with the way things are, we can at least add our input to what’s going to be there.

I do like the first page of the 2012 platform. There’s a preamble and a list of principles. That single page probably does meet Political Sphere’s suggestion:

PREAMBLE

We STILL hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The embodiment of the conservative dream in America is Texas. Throughout the world people dare to dream of freedom and opportunity. The Republican Party of Texas unequivocally defends that dream. We strive to preserve the freedom given to us by God, implemented by our Founding Fathers, and embodied in the Constitution. We recognize that the traditional family is the strength of our nation. It is our solemn duty to protect life and develop responsible citizens. We understand that our economic success depends upon free market principles. If we fail to maintain our sovereignty, we risk losing the freedom to live these ideals.

PRINCIPLES

We, the 2012 Republican Part of Texas, believe in this platform and expect our elected leaders to uphold these truths through acknowledgement and action. We believe in:

1.      Strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

2.      The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

3.      Preserving American and Texas Sovereignty and Freedom.

4.      Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions.

5.      Personal Accountability and Responsibility.

6.      Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural woman.

7.      Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.

8.      Americans having the right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities, and the unalienable right to defend themselves.

9.      A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.

10.  Honoring all of those that serve and protect our freedom.

11.  “The laws of nature and nature’s God” as our Founding Fathers believed.

Then there are 21 more pages of specifics. Statements come under these headings:

·        PRESERVING AMERICAN FREEDOM—including 3 pages on limiting government, plus more on the judiciary, election integrity, and symbols of America’s heritage.

·        STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH—including a lot on protecting marriage and life.

·        EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN—emphasizing local control and choice.

·        PROMOTING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL SAFETY—emphasizing self-defense, religious liberties, and privacy issues.

·        STRENTHENING THE ECONOMY—Before subheadings is a restatement of the GOP platform of 1932, worth noting, because it still seems timely today:

Whereas, constructive plans for financial stabilization cannot be completely organized until our national State and municipal governments not only balance their budgets but curtail their current expenses as well to a level which ca be steadily and economically maintained for some years to come.

We urge prompt and drastic reduction of public expenditure and resistance to every appropriation not demonstrably necessary to the performance of government, national or local.

The Republican Party established and will continue to uphold the gold standard and will oppose any measure which will undermine the government’s credit or impair the integrity of our national currency Relief by currency inflation is unsound in principle and dishonest in results. The dollar is impregnable in the marts of the world today and must remain so. An ailing body cannot be cured by quack remedies. This is no time to experiment upon the body politic or financial.

·        DEFENDING SOVEREIGNTY AT HOME AND ABROAD—emphasizing Texas sovereignty, military strength, immigration, and foreign policy.

So, if you’re satisfied, great. If you see something that needs change, offer a suggestion. There’s a formal way this is done in a meeting—but don’t get too caught up in formalities. This is Texas, where the Texas Declaration of Independence (celebrated yesterday, March 2^nd) was signed in an uncomfortable wood cabin, where nobody wanted to stay longer than absolutely necessary. And Texans are still about getting it done, and worrying about cleaning up the formalities later.

The formal way is to bring four copies: one for yourself, one for the precinct chair’s files, one for the Resolution Committee for consideration at the district meeting if passed, and one for the meeting secretary to include in the minutes. You use formal wording: “Whereas…, and Whereas…, Therefore, it is proposed ….” The purpose is to give the reasons for the suggested change to the existing platform, and then present the proposed change.

But I’ve noticed a much more direct wording in the platform over the last decade. And you can offer the proposition with just the plain words you want the platform to say. In other words, direct is also acceptable. I’ve even seen small, relatively informal precinct meetings where the group discusses an issue and then someone writes out the suggestion on a piece of paper. And they edit from there until there’s wording the group agrees either to accept or reject. If accepted, by majority, it gets sent on to the district level platform committee; the district offers it’s suggestions to the state platform committee, and a final version gets voted on at the state convention.

I’ve had wording I’ve presented at my precinct end up in the district version. That feels empowering to a grassroots sort of worker.

So, below are some of my suggestions. Feel free to copy and use at your own precinct meeting, or be inspired to write your own. Do what you feel confident you can defend in a meeting. And expect alterations, either in your precinct meeting or at the next level up. In other words, don’t have to worry too much about legal wording.

My concerns this year are mainly 10^th Amendment prevention of federal usurpation of authority. 

Rejecting Obamacare

Whereas Texas rejects the federal government’s edict that free Texas citizens buy specific healthcare products through the so-called Affordable Care Act, and

Whereas Texans are forced to pay significantly higher federal taxes for this rejected edict,

Therefore it is proposed that Texans be given an exemption from paying the percentage of their federal taxes that would have gone to this rejected requirement. 

[Straightforward version: Texans should not be forced to pay, whether through taxes or other requirements, anything toward Obamacare, which is a program Texas rejects as beyond federal authority. So Texas will support Texas citizens in non-payment of that portion of federal taxes, and will pursue state solutions to protect Texans from federal coercion to pay.]

 

Rejecting Federal Department of Education

Whereas Texans believe strongly in local control of education, and

Whereas the US Constitution does not authorize federal interference in state and local education,

Therefore, it is proposed that Texas reject tax money going to a federal department of education, and supports non-payment of that portion of federal taxes that would go toward this rejected department. 

[Straightforward version: Texas supports the dissolution of the federal department of education, which has no basis in the US Constitution. Therefore, Texas will support Texas citizens in non-payment of that portion of federal taxes that would go to this rejected department, and Texas will pursue state solutions to protect Texans from federal coercion to pay.] 

Protecting Our Border

Whereas protecting international borders is a responsibility of the federal government, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to use funding provided by Congress for the purpose of protecting the Texas’s southern border, and

Whereas Texas will protect our international border, rather than allow the dangers of failure to protect, and

Whereas the cost of performing the US responsibilities of border protection are significant, and

Whereas getting costs reimbursed is difficult, inefficient, and unfair to Texas,

Therefore it is proposed that the cost of protecting the border be held in Texas, through withholding of that portion of federal tax payments, or other state solutions. 

[Straightforward version: Since the federal government has failed to protect Texas’s international border, and Texas must protect its own border, Texas can withhold payment for that portion of defense from being sent to the federal government.] 

Immigration Reform

Whereas the federal government has failed repeatedly to secure the international southern border, and

Whereas the southern border is a risk for infiltration of such evils as drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism, and violent crime, in addition to the societal costs of non-violent illegal aliens, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to uphold current immigration laws, and

Whereas the federal government has failed to improve and streamline immigration processes,

Therefore it is proposed that no discussion of immigration reform can be considered until after the federal government has proved good faith by meeting its current obligations to secure the border and enforce existing immigration laws. 

[Straightforward version: The federal government has failed to show good faith in discussions related to border security and immigration, so until the border is secure and current laws are consistently enforced, Texas is against any further discussions on immigration reform.]

 Defense of Marriage

Whereas Texas has the right to define terms used in legal contracts recognized by the state, and

Whereas Texas has always had a specific definition for marriage requiring the contract be considered permanent and exclusive between a man and a woman, and

Whereas Texas has reinforced this longstanding definition through legislation and Constitutional Amendment, and

Whereas any other definition of marriage is likely to harm families and children, and also religious liberty,

Therefore Texas rejects the imposition of any other definition of marriage by federal entities or other states, and considers any attempt to impose any other definition a direct attack on Texas’s sovereignty, which will be rejected. 

[Straightforward version: Texas continues to assert its sovereign right to define marriage as between one man and one woman, and rejects imposition of any other definition by federal entities or other states.]

Being Anti-Slavery, Part II

I started Part I of this post yesterday talking about the need to defend religious freedom. And then discussed the Arizona bill to protect business owners from being forced to engage in services against their religious beliefs, which Governor Brewer had just vetoed. Not surprisingly, the Houston Chronicle headlined that story as, “Arizona governor vetoes anti-gay bill,” even though there was no mention of homosexuality, “same-sex marriage,” or anything related in the bill—only a strengthening of existing religious protections to include private business owners in private transactions.

And then, the top front page story was headlined, “Texas gay marriage ban struck down.” So much to cover, so little time. Texas never “banned” “gay marriage.” To ban something, it must first exist and then be discontinued. Texas law has always defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. With encroaching threats to that long-standing (forever) definition, the Texas legislature passed DOMA legislation in 2003, which was immediately made irrelevant by the badly worded Lawrence v. Texas ruling. So in 2005 (the next available opportunity), Texas passed, by an overwhelming three-quarters of voters, a state constitutional amendment reiterating the long-standing definition. That is what is being struck down—and in doing so, a single judge is telling the state of Texas it has no right to determine its own legal definitions. That is a serious infringement of state sovereignty.

I could do another whole post on that, but the judge is not changing what happens for now, pending this and similar cases being ruled on by the US Supreme Court. So, for now I’ll set that aside and get back to the attack on religious freedom we were already in the middle of.

Let’s do this as something of a game: “Who Decides?” We’ll look at various scenarios related to business exchanges, and you take each case and say who decides—the service provider or the service requester.

Lawyer

1)      There’s a lawyer, asked to represent an embezzler, who admits he did it but wants to get off. The lawyer doesn’t want to take the case, because, while everyone deserves good representation, an embezzler doesn’t deserve to avoid punishment, and it seems immoral to the lawyer to work toward that end. Should the lawyer be allowed to make that choice, or should he be forced to represent the embezzler simply because the request was made?

If you say the lawyer can choose, you’re in agreement with the law. In theory, a lawyer who knows his client is guilty can’t represent him as innocent; he would have to encourage the accused to plead guilty. If the accused client claims innocence, the lawyer can choose whether to take the case based on many personal decisions—unless he’s assigned by the courts to represent the client, because everyone is entitled to legal counsel. But even then, he can only represent the client as innocent if the client claims to be innocent (theoretically).

2)      What if the lawyer is asked to represent an environmentalist group that is working to keep a large area of farmland from being irrigated? What if the lawyer feels strongly (not religiously, but personal belief) that the environmentalists are wrong? Is he nevertheless required to represent their cause simply because they came into his law firm and made the request? Conversely, suppose a pro-environmentalist lawyer is asked to represent a clear-cutting logging company?

If you say the lawyer can choose, you’re in agreement with the law, again. A lawyer/client relationship is considered intimate enough that either party can choose not to work together.

3)      The Attorney General is required to represent the state (nation) and its laws, so if the law of the land defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman, a definition used in thousands of places in US laws and regulations, is the AG required to defend a law, even if he personally finds it objectionable?

If you said yes, you would be in agreement with the law. If you said no, you would be in agreement with our current law-defying AG, who also encourages state AGs to personally nullify any law they disagree with, in violation of their oaths of office. The difference between the AG and a private practice lawyer is that oath of office. The lawyer is a free citizen, who can enter into an agreement with a client or not. The AG takes on the specific job of representing a specific client—the federal government—and is breaking the contract already entered into when he refuses to keep his oath. He could, if there is a personal distaste, assign an individual working under him to do the job, rather than doing it himself where he doesn’t have the heart or mind to make a good defense. But he is required to give the country the best defense of the law possible.

 

Artist

1)      An artist paints landscapes and historical pieces, and often religious works. He also makes a living taking on commissioned works, including family portraits. Suppose someone requests that he paint the family portrait with the subjects all nude (it’s unclear whether the subjects would actually be nude during a sitting session)? If he finds this objectionable, whether for religious reasons or just distaste, is he required to take on the commission?

2)      Suppose an artist is ethnically black and feels strongly against diluting the race by intermarriage, and a client is a black man and Asian woman couple getting married? He feels angry, and sees only ugliness in the couple. So, since his motivation is racist, should he be forced to take on the commission regardless of his strongly held (but non-religious) beliefs?

3)      Suppose an artist is ethnically white but feels strong antipathy toward people of other races, and a client is a black man and woman and their two children. He sees only ugliness in the client family. So, since his motivation is racist, should he be forced to take on the commission regardless of his strongly held (but non-religious) beliefs?

4)      Suppose an artist is religious, and believes in the sanctity of the natural family—married mother and father raising their children. Suppose a married client comes in to commission a portrait of himself and his mistress? The artist feels a strong sense of indignation against the glorifying of an adulterous relationship, and sees only ugliness in the client couple. Since the artist is engaging in commerce, is he required to take on the commission, even when the client is asking him to go against his strongly held religious beliefs?

5)      Suppose an artist is religious, and believes in the sanctity of the natural family. And suppose a client couple, two men (or two women), come in and ask for a painting of them in the act of kissing. The artist is uncomfortable with the request, sees only ugliness in the commission being requested. So, since his motivation is religious, but could be labeled homophobic, is he required to take the commission and create the artwork regardless of his strongly held beliefs?

If you said no, you’re in agreement with the law. Either side can decide whether to contract the commission. An artist spends a good amount of skill, time, and part of himself into a work of art. If, for any reason, he feels he can’t do the work in a way that would either please the client or make him feel proud to have the piece of art represented in his body of work, he can turn it down. Life is just too short for an artist to spend time on something he doesn’t have the heart to create. It would be very unlikely that anyone would sue an artist for refusing to take on a commission. Much more likely would be after-the-fact contract difficulties, based on whether the artist completed the work to the client’s satisfaction. Because of the time and money involved, almost everyone agrees the artist can’t be forced to create a work of art he doesn’t want to create and never contracted to create.

Photographer

1)      A professional photographer makes a living doing portraits, family groups, weddings, and other special events. Suppose a client requests semi-nude portraits, intended as a gift to a spouse. If the photographer finds this distasteful, whether for religious reasons or just discomfort, is she required to take on the commission?

2)      As with the artist, a black artist with strong anti-miscegenation beliefs is asked to photograph a black/Asian couple’s wedding. Since the motivation is racist, and the request is clearly for a legally sanctioned wedding, is the photographer required to take on the client?

3)      What about a photographer who simply hates people of other races? Is the photographer required to go against her strongly held racist beliefs and take on a portrait session with an ethnically different family?

4)      Is the photographer with strong religious convictions required to take as a client an adulterer and his mistress?

5)      Is the photographer with strong religious convictions required to take as a client a “same-sex marriage” celebration?

Is the photographer different from the artist? Why? Maybe because of the time involved. But photography also requires skill, equipment, time, and an artist’s sense. There’s a story I heard this week about a skilled photographer who was asked at one point to photograph President George W. Bush, and he refused because he so strongly disagreed with the president that he said he couldn’t do him justice, and they’d be better off getting a different photographer. His honesty most likely led to a better portrait outcome than that skilled photographer would have been able to create.

Is there a point at which you can say, “No, that photographer has gone too far; they’re beliefs are wrong, so they should be required to act against their beliefs”? If so, at what point, and how do you—or some entity—decide where that point is?

Restaurateur

1)      Suppose a restaurateur has an irrational sense of hatred toward redheaded women—because of a past unrequited love. Suppose this restaurateur sees every redheaded woman as the embodiment of evil, and he refuses to serve such a person. Is he required to serve redheaded women against his strongly held (albeit irrational) beliefs?

2)      Suppose a restaurateur has a room often rented out for special events, including wedding receptions. Photos are taken identifying the special location that is his restaurant. Food served represents the reputation of the restaurant. Is the restaurateur required to rent the room for a “same-sex marriage” celebration, even if such a celebration goes against his strongly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?

The concept of public access comes up here. Generally speaking, a restaurant open to the public is required to serve whoever walks in—unless the person’s behavior, dress, or something else is in violation of the stated requirements of the place (“no shoes, no shirt, no service” for example, or “men required to wear tie and jacket”). Usually public access includes requirements for wheelchair access. Discrimination on the basis of hair color would be very bad for business, whether or not it’s illegal to act on such an irrational belief. It might be best if other employees simply distract their crazy boss when redheads come in—no government intervention needed. Otherwise, word gets out, and the business closes from lack of patrons.

Use of a special room is an additional service, subject to scheduling and other decisions at the discretion of the restaurateur. It would be hard to say the restaurateur must provide this special service any more than requiring him to provide something off the menu, or purposely burnt. He might choose to oblige, or he might decide it wouldn’t be worth the risk to his reputation, or simply not worth the bother.

If this freedom should be removed when the motivation of the restaurateur is considered “anti-gay,” how is that different from other beliefs? Who decides what the motivation of the restaurateur is, and when it crosses a line that disallows him the freedom to serve or not serve?

Some confusion has arisen based on whether a business is “public.” A public business is a government owned entity, such as a public utility company or transportation company (subway line, bus line). A business that serves the public is still a private business; it depends on ownership, not on who is served. A public business pretty well must serve all the public, because the people own it. A private business is owned by private citizens, even in the form of a corporation. It provides goods or services in exchange for money, in free and open trade.

But some states have identified a difference based on location: a baker with a storefront must do what anyone walking in requests. While a baker working out of her home is not held to that requirement, because her cottage business is not “public.” What if there’s a little storefront at the house? Do you lose the right to decide what services you provide when you put out a sign?

Landlords

1)      Suppose a landlord owns a building renting out medical office space. Is this landlord required to rent space for an abortion clinic, even if the building owner has strongly held religious objections to abortion?

2)      Suppose a woman runs a boarding house, where she provides one or two meals a day, and roomers share bathroom facilities. Can she insist that boarders be either male or female and refuse whichever she’d rather not have?

3)      Suppose a man advertises for a man to share the rent in his two-bedroom apartment. A respondent to the ad is a homosexual male. Is the man required to accept this respondent, even if he’s uncomfortable living with someone who might view him sexually?

4)      In the above scenario, is a person required to rent to someone who has different moral standards—uses drugs or alcohol that the renter disapproves of, or is promiscuous (even if agreed to keep it outside the apartment)?

5)      Is a landlord or apartment complex manager allowed to discriminate against homosexual renters? How about discriminating based on other moral objections?

Laws related to property renting differ, mostly related to intimacy. A person has a lot of control over sharing their own living space. There are rental anti-discrimination laws on the books. But, depending on location and stated purpose of the place, some restrictions may be allowed. For example, renters can discriminate against families with children, if they’re set up to accommodate older couples and/or singles. Many renters discriminate against pet owners. 

So, here’s the simple answer: requiring someone to perform a service against their strongly held beliefs is slavery. If we’re against slavery, we’re against such coercion.

Does that mean we should even do away with anti-racial discrimination laws? I’m not ready to completely go there, because I didn’t live in a place where people actually oppressed based on race, while the idea was supported by the community. The real answer is changing people’s hearts.

But pretending that the coercion to celebrate whatever the homosexual agenda says we must is a particular threat to our freedom. They aren’t logically comparing themselves to former slaves and subjects of racial discrimination. They are insisting on the power to enslave free citizens to do their will. Homosexual activists (a small subset of homosexuals and their allies) are the pro-slavery lobby of our day.

Being Anti-Slavery among Willing Enslavers

Just for background, in 1995 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put out The Family: A Proclamation to the World (sometimes shortened to The Family Proclamation). It seemed straightforward, the same things we’d heard all our lives, beliefs practically everyone we ran into still held. Many of us wondered, why the proclamation? But within a year practically every line in it was challenged, in public discussion, in courts, in international organizations and UN non-governmental organizational treaty proposals. Now, two decades into the onslaught on family, we can see it was a prophetic document.

Recently the (less formal) proclamation I keep hearing from these Church leaders is that all believers need to stand up for religious liberty. (This speech at BYU-Idaho is one example.) Even if we don’t feel the attacks directly yet, my expectation based on experience with such prophetic proclamations leads me to believe this is an increasing real threat. We've dealt with it in part recently, as we watch the Supreme Court cases with Hobby Lobby and others.

So it is with that background that I am looking at the current issue. Specifically, what happened yesterday was Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a law spelling out the right of business owners to refuse to provide services that go against their religious beliefs. I haven’t read the law itself. What I understand is that Arizona already had a religious rights restoration law, patterned quite literally after the same federal law for that purpose signed by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, shortly prior, and has been in place without fuss since then. The addition was to clarify that private business owners had the protection even when there was no government entity involved in the case (suits brought by private citizens against private business owners).

The reason was based on a growing list of cases, mostly related to small business owners being asked to perform services related to same-sex “weddings,” including in states where laws do not recognize such “marriages” as lawful, which would be the case for Arizona. The list includes bakers, photographers, wedding planners, florists, and others you might turn to for services at a wedding. Another was a t-shirt printer who wouldn’t print t-shirts for a gay pride festival. In none of the cases were the plaintiffs refused all services; in each case, the small business owner suggested the limits of services they would provide, and offered alternative sources, including less expensive alternatives. Nevertheless, the “offended” plaintiffs, rather than going to someone willing to take their money and provide the services they requested, took the small business owners to court—to force them to provide the service against their will.

It is my assumption that the majority of these cases (and possibly every one) is a purposeful act to use courts to force the homosexual agenda on the portions of society that haven’t succumbed to their pressure already, with religious people in the crosshairs. Courts have been helping by going along with that agenda, rather than abiding by the law.

In what universe would we expect to see an American forced to do work he finds religiously objectionable? In the slave-owning antebellum South, maybe. But it has been a century and a half since we fought the Civil War to do away with that ugly injustice.

Yet we have judges now who say, “I don’t like your religious belief, so I say you have to do as I say, or your alterative is a fine that will have the effect of closing down your business.” The judge decides that the baker’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the way he chooses to make a livelihood and provide himself with property) are the judge’s to allow or disallow at whim. That is slavery.

As for yesterday’s ruling, I think Jan Brewer was wrong. She is generally conservative, but this was a political decision. It wasn’t based on the merits of the law; it was, as she claimed, because people were concerned about vagueness in the law (issues not brought up during the discussion in the legislature), and because this wasn’t a focus of her current agenda. Hmm. So, if the legislature varies from her agenda, she vetoes their work? Not usually. What followed the passage of the legislation was a hue and cry from some well-funded homosexual agenda promoters, and they threatened Arizona with a boycott, which frightened Arizona tourist industry businesses, including principally a threat from the NFL about taking away the Superbowl. And the governor caved to pressure from the bullies. She has my sympathy, but not my admiration. 

My non-expert legal opinion is that the law would have been useful, but would not have gone far enough. I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Every business exchange is an agreement between seller and buyer. It has to be coercion free.

I am not saying it’s a good idea to refuse service for stupid reasons—like racism, which is what comes to mind. I think, along with the overwhelming majority of civilized people, that racism is a stupid way of thinking—but I think business owners have the same right everyone has to be stupid. And you as a consumer have the choice to go to a service provider of your choice. You are free to avoid going to someone who declares himself to be a stupid bigot. The free market makes it naturally hard—without any government interference—for a known bigot to discriminate against customers without civilized people knowing about it and going elsewhere, affecting his profitability.

The Civil Rights movement—people changing people’s minds--makes sense to me. The Civil Rights legislation, not so much. Again, I didn’t grow up in a place that ever had Jim Crow laws. They were despicable. But the forgotten problem was that those laws often forced businesses to segregate. Change came when people stepped up and said, “That’s not right,” crossed lines and tested them. Change didn’t come from government suddenly getting noble and spreading noble ideas to the people.

The repeal of those laws could have said, “Government is getting out of your business; you can get back to free exchange with anyone you choose,” and let the movement of opinion lead naturally to free-choice interracial business. Instead, government stepped in and enforced desegregation, and probably lengthening continued resentment and prejudice.

Government can’t change people’s beliefs, or change their hearts from evil to good; government can only force. So if we don’t limit government, we simply get a change of target.

Some of the commentary yesterday, from the other side, said (paraphrased), “We can’t allow people to hide behind so-called religious beliefs to get away with offensive discrimination against gays.” [Good discussion from both sides here.] Really? So, some government entity, maybe a court, should have the power to examine a person’s religious beliefs, to determine whether they’re heartfelt, and also to determine whether those beliefs should be accepted, heartfelt or not, if someone else feels offended by them? And said government should have the power to coerce a free citizen business owner to offer a service or create a product he doesn’t want to create—for religious or any other reason?

People (including judges) who knee-jerk react based on their unwillingness to appear insensitive to the current loudest crying “victim” of being offended, ought to learn how to think through an issue. Saying, “I don’t like your reason for not baking a certain cake, so I’m not buying from you anymore” is a huge chasm away from “I don’t like your reason for not baking a certain cake, so I’m using the force of government to coerce you to do what I say or else lose your ability to do business at all.”

Who is most harmed? The people who got their feelings hurt because they were pointed to some other bakery that would willingly provide the service they wanted; or the business owner who has his business shut down if he doesn’t use his skills in a celebration that goes against his beliefs? Isn’t it obvious that the business owner is the one being harmed?

There are so many related hypotheticals we can use to examine the question of slavery. I thought we’d get to such a list in a single post, but that will have to be a starting place for part II.

In the meantime, you might want to check out some additional commentary: blogger Matt Walsh spent two days this week dealing with this idea. (I’m regularly following his blog now. He’s insightful and logical, and as in this case writes what I was planning to cover before I get to it.) The two pieces are:

·         “Yes, of course a business owner should have theright to refuse service to gay people”

·         “Problem solved: let private businesses refuseservice to anyone anytime for any reason”

And it was while listening to the Hugh Hewitt show that I heard Governor Brewer’s announcement, followed by discussion. If you have access to his archive, I particularly liked the second half of the third hour on Wednesday, February 26.

Freedom Is a Universal Desire

It is my belief, here at the Spherical Model, that freedom from repression is interrelated with prosperity and civilization. It’s easy to see why people want civilization and prosperity. And since tyranny limits civilization and prosperity, while the freedom of small government limited to protecting God-given rights leads to flourishing, it is logical that anyone with understanding will also want freedom. People will yearn for it. They will recognize the unfairness, the corruption—the evil—of tyranny. They will want to move “northward” the way a swimmer moves up to the surface for air.

We can see evidence of this universal desire for freedom. This past week one example is Ukraine.

We haven’t been getting very much news out of Ukraine, but there have been protests in the streets for some months. If I have gathered accurately, the Ukrainian people have wanted to remain European, connected to the European Union, with increased capitalism, while their president, Yanukovich, has been leaning toward Putin’s Russia. There are ethnic differences. Within the country’s boundaries is a significant minority that are Russian rather than Ukrainian, and wouldn’t mind reconnecting with Russia.

But you have the Ukrainian people who lived under the repressive Soviet Union until just over two decades ago, who gained their freedom, who want to grow and live in freedom—these people have absolutely no incentive to submit to yet more tyranny.

Things reached a turning point this past few days. Police snipers, presumably on orders from the president, shot as many as 100 protesters in the streets. (Government reports claim the number of deaths is a mere 77; however, 577 were injured, and 369 hospitalized.) Then the president was deposed. I’m not sure exactly how the deposing too place. There is some discussion that Yulia Tymoshenko, prime minister recently released from prison, may be willing to step up. President Yanokovich has disappeared from his luxurious estate. Word this morning was that he hasn’t yet attempted to leave the country, so he may be in hiding somewhere. His home had been off limits to fellow countrymen for years. He used it for state dinners, one would suppose. But it was astoundingly opulent in a nation where average families get by on $500 a month.

We had neighbors some years ago who took their family on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to visit their relatives in Ukraine. They loved the people, who were so giving. But they were a little shocked at conditions. This was a relatively middle-class Ukrainian family, who were able to send their daughter to America to study abroad for her senior year. But in preparation for our friends’ visit, they upgraded their home by getting a new wooden toilet seat for the outhouse. It wouldn’t be surprising for people who have patiently waited as slow growth brings them prosperity to be very angry to learn of their president’s lifestyle.

Photos showed the estate this weekend, with people invading and looking around—in shock, because apparently his exorbitant lifestyle was kept hidden from the people. Yet, at least in the photos I saw, people looked around like tourists—no windows broken, no looting, no one even entering the house. There were however attempts to recover paperwork, some of which had been partially burned, and some which protestors were beginning to sort out.

Among some of the most effective word that got out was a YouTube video, uploaded 2-10-2014, called “I Am Ukrainian.” A young woman named Yulia makes an impassioned plea, in English, with video and photos backing up her words, asking for help getting the word out. I attempted to transcribe her words (sorry for any errors), which verify the basic belief that people everywhere yearn for freedom.

I am the Ukrainian, the native of Kiev. And now I am now in Maidan [??], in the central part of the city, to know why thousands of people all over my country are on the streets. There is only one reason: we want to be free from a dictatorship. We want to be free from the politicians, who work only for themselves, who are ready to shoot, to beat, to injure people just for saving their money [or “saying their minds” ??], just for saving their houses, just for saving their power. I want these people who are here, who have duty, who are brave—I want them to lead a normal life. We are civilized people, but our government are barbarians.

It’s not the Soviet Union. We want our courts not to be corrupted. We want to be free.

I know that maybe tomorrow we’ll have no phone, no internet connection, and we will be alone here. And maybe policemen will murder us one after another. Then it will be dark here. That’s why I ask you now to help us. We have this freedom held inside our hearts. We have this freedom in our minds. And now I ask you to build this freedom in our country. You can help us only by telling this story to your friends, only by sharing this video. Please, share it. Speak to your friends; speak to your family; speak to your government and show that you support us.

[written on screen]: Please contact your representatives and demand they support the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and democracy.    

Before it’s too late.

This video was made in early February 2014.

Hopefully, thanks to you and the strong people of Ukraine, things will get better.

Please take time to view the entire two-minute video:

 

 

Meanwhile riots and reprisals continue to worsen in Venezuela as well. Our friend who was living there has returned to her native Uganda, so I’m relieved for her. The people there have for some time been seem clamoring for goods, promised to them by their failing socialist government (I know, “failing socialist government” is redundant). The question there is whether the people know to ask for freedom in order to get prosperity and civilization, or whether they have been successfully turned into government dependents who are now simply throwing tantrums that they are not getting what they were led to expect. You can’t simply demand “better” socialist government and expect that will lead to better prosperity and thriving civilization. You have to start by living civilized lives (religious people, strong families), where honesty, self-reliance, hard work, and caring for others become natural. Then you get better prosperity—and you realize tyrannical government is in the way of the flourishing that’s building up pressure to happen.

But what is happening now could bring to everyone’s awareness the innate need for freedom—for life and liberty. The government oppression of its people—usurping control over their words, their acts, and their very lives—may wake the people up to the disastrous choice it is to exchange material “security” for the freedom to work and prosper. I don’t know what the people will do there, but I hope they will seek freedom as if their lives depend on it, because they do.

Those of us who have some freedom (as long as we can keep hold of it), know to value it, and we want it for all peoples. We offer our support and prayers to any people reaching northward toward freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Primarily Speaking, Part III

We’re going through the long ballot for the Texas Primary, where we vote for judges, in addition to the more typical elected positions. In Part I, we got through the statewide races. In Part II, we covered the statewide judicial races and a few local races. I expect we’ll finish today, with district (Harris County) judicial races and whatever we’ve else is left (county party leadership). Today covers a few of the more interesting races I’ve been wanting to think through. We’ll go in order, however, rather than just most interesting first.

Gaahhh!!! This additional avalanche showed up
in the mail while I was writing Part III

 

District Judge 246^th Family Court:

This is an open bench (no incumbent) with two candidates, Angelina Gooden and Charley Prine. I heard both of them briefly. Gooden has 24+ years of experience in family law, appointed by the court to represent children. Prine has been an associate judge in the county, for Judge Sheri Dean. His work as a grassroots Republican go back to working for Phil Gramm, and campaigning for Reagan. Both candidates get 50% support from CCHC. Prine gets the nod from TCR, HRBC, DA, and PC. Considering his judicial experience, I’m going with Charley Prine.

 

District Judge 247^th Family Court:

This is also an open bench, and one of the most difficult to decide—because there are good choices. We’ve been hearing from the candidates for this position since last spring, and they’ve been coming faithfully, so that we feel like they’re part of us. I’m not going to endorse, because I want to be open to change my mind up until the last, but I’ll give you some info about each. Melanie Flowers and MLWalker are both African American women—not what you’re told you find at Tea Party meetings. (If I recall correctly, Angelina Gooden fits that demographic as well, as does Governor candidate Lisa Fritsch.) Walker has been functioning as associate judge in this court for some time. Flowers has a certification in family law (the only candidate with this credential, but it isn’t a requirement to do the job).  John Schmude is the third candidate (there used to be a fourth, who dropped out). When he came to our Tea Party to introduce himself, he gave one of the best 10-minute speeches on Constitutional philosophy that I had heard. It was impassioned and memorable. If I were going just by my first impressions based on those 10-minute talks, he would have earned my vote. But there is more. Walker is currently doing the job, for example. And she gets support from my DA friends, as well as one of our regular Tea Party members who has a family law practice. She also has continued to come to our meetings, to become one of us. Only Melanie Flowers has done that more. I see her everywhere—she hands out flowers to remind voters of her name, and I’ve gotten a bouquet-ful.  

I got a heads up to ask the question about long-term conservative principles. Only Schmude voted against Obama in 2008. He has always been conservative. I asked Walker about her vote at a Tea Party meeting, and she answered with considerable grace. Up until that point in her life, she wasn’t political, didn’t pay attention to politics. She voted for Obama, caught up in the hype about it being a historic moment. But shortly into 2009 she realized what a mistake that was, started paying attention, became a Republican and hasn’t looked back. Someone asked Melanie Flowers that question at a forum elsewhere. She admitted she voted for Obama in 2009 (not 2012), because it was historic. She was at that time a GOP precinct chair, which strikes me as unacceptable. Disqualifying? Maybe. But I didn’t get to talk with her about it, and I don’t know of anything else I disagree with her on. Of all the candidates, I think I’d feel most comfortable going to lunch for fun with her, and I think she’d probably do well as a judge. But in this close race, not realizing what a disaster Obama would be is a significant problem. 

Schmude gets 89% support from CCHC, my guess is because conservative philosophy is his native language. He also gets support from PC. Walker gets support from DA, TCR, and HRBC. I hope this is enough info to help you make a decision. Fortunately, it looks like you can’t really make a terrible choice.

 

District Judge 263^rd Criminal Court:

The candidates are Jim Wallace and Robert Summerlin. Wallace has been the sitting judge on this court since 1994. DA as well as TCR support him. But Summerlin gets 100% support from CCHC, plus HRBC and PC. Hmm. I don’t know if the challenge is just because he’s been there so long. It’s odd to challenge a sitting judge. It does appear the challenger has conservative bonafides. He has experience as both a felony prosecutor and defense attorney. I’m not sure which way I’ll go, but the CCHC recommendation has me leaning toward Robert Summerlin.

 

District Judge 269^th Civil Court:

Dan Hinde is the sitting judge on this bench. He was appointed by Governor Perry in 2008 and was a number 1 target of democrats in 2010, but stayed put. He has reduced his docket backlog by 27%. His opponent is John Wittenmyer. All my resources except TCR are behind Hinde (including 100% from CCHC), which means he’s perceived as doing well as the sitting judge. Dan Hinde suggests you remember, “Be kind, vote Hinde, for 269.”

 

District Judge 311^th Family Court:

This is an interesting if confusing race. As an outsider, I’m uncertain if I have all the facts. Denise Pratt is the sitting judge. She has four challengers from her own party. That suggests there’s a problem in that court. The Houston Chronicle agrees the court has problems. In December, hundreds of cases were dismissed without a ruling. Pratt explains that the lawyers had been detaining and then failing to follow up and reschedule—some for years. She insists that she considers the child individually in each and every case. When she spoke at our Tea Party meeting, she seemed sensible, although I wondered about the defensiveness about not being pressured to rule, because we’re all aware of how inefficiency is a huge failure for justice. She was impressive enough that she won our straw poll by a single vote (a snapshot opinion of those attending that day, including candidates and their helpers if they choose to vote). I saw later one of her supporters citing that victory as if it were an endorsement from us. Not true. And we do not, as a group, endorse any candidates. She did not win the next straw poll. Denise Pratt got 65% from CCHC, which is not an endorsement, but a response to specific questions, which relate to conservative principles, not to orderly running of the court. I can see how that could happen in the absence of additional information. 

I had heard about this court previously, but I didn’t immediately make the connection, since there are so many courts, and we’ve met so many candidates, in pretty random order. But what we hear from people dealing with this court is that it’s a huge problem. They say the judge comes in late, leaves early, and simply fails to make rulings. Some have speculated either unadmitted health issues or mental issues, although I don’t see evidence of that from Judge Pratt in person. But there’s enough rumbling that I think it’s fair to say she isn’t doing a good job of managing her court. The challengers have gone as far as to say, “I don’t even care which one of us you vote for; we just have to get someone who will do the job.” Wow!  

So the challengers are Donna Detamore, Alicia Franklin, Philip Placzek, and Anthony Magdaleno. I tend to lean toward whomever I’ve heard from lately. Donna Detamore is supported by PC. Alicia Franklin is supported by DA (which might sway me) and TCR. Anthony Magdaleno is also supported by PC. In straw polls I’ve voted once for Detamore and once for Magdaleno. And there’s a good chance I’d support Franklin as well. Without additional info or support for Placzek, I guess I’ll eliminate him. But otherwise I think the choice is anyone but Pratt.

 

Judge County Criminal Court 10:

There are four candidates for this open bench. Dan Spjut brings experience from 27 years at the Houston Police Department with 14 years as an attorney. (He doesn’t seem old enough, so I’m not sure if the attorney years are included in the other.) Mary Heafner has been a private detective, and worked for the FBI, and in real estate, plus 30 years as a defense attorney. (I’m often amazed at the impossibly long careers of judicial candidates, and wonder if I’ve gotten numbers wrong. Similarly, I fail to understand billable hours.) Tonya Rolland McLaughlin has been a Harris County prosecutor and defense attorney. She points out that she has been through hundreds of trials, while her opponents combined have tried less than 10 cases. The other candidate, Ken Wenzel, I have not met. Spjut gets support from TCR and HRBC. But McLaughlin gets 60% (less than an endorsement) from CCHC, plus DA and PC. I think I’ll go with Tonya Rolland McLaughlin. She suggests you remember, “Tonya for the 10^th.”

 

Justice First Court of Criminal Appeals, Place 3:

The candidates for this bench are Dan Linebaugh, Chad Bridges, and Russell Lloyd. Lloyd has been an assistant DA and has 31 years of civil practice before becoming a civil district judge. He was first vetted by Phil Gram for appointment by Governor George Bush (not approved by the then-liberal legislature, however). David Linebaugh is appeals board certified, and was name a Texas Superlawyer every year since 2008. He has spent 15 years on the jury charge committee, training judges on how to give jury charges. He did litigation for 18 years. Chad Bridges spent 11 years as a prosecutor, and has experience in both small and large counties, covering a large variety of cases.  CCHC gave 90% support to Lloyd, and NRBC, DA, and PC also support him. Linebaugh got support from TCR. I think I’ll go with Russell Lloyd.

 

Justice of the Peace, Precinct 4, Place 2:

A justice of the peace does not have to have a law degree, but it helps. This bench just came open after 30 or so years, so this opening is a great opportunity. The candidates are Lena Engelage, Layssa Korduba, Nasir Malik, Dean Combs, and Louis Guthrie. The first three have come to our Tea Party to introduce themselves. Both Engelage and Korduba have returned and made themselves at home. Korduba also showed up at the King Street Patriots judicial candidate forum.  She has ten years of practice, and 5 years as a judge—in the City of Tomball since 2008, the first woman judge there. She seems to understand the way this court is run, and has ideas for improved efficiency. Nasir Malik is running as an outsider, claiming the other candidates are party insiders. He’s a businessman. I’m unconvinced about his claims of conservatism. I liked Louis Guthrie when he ran for Sheriff last time around, but I don’t think he has any judicial experience, and he hasn’t campaigned anywhere I’ve seen him. Lena Engelage teaches criminal justice at a high school. She has 5 years’ experience with the FBI and 18 years’ experience as an attorney (and doesn’t look old enough). Her background is diverse, which helps with the variety that comes up before a justice of the peace. All of my sources go with Laryssa Korduba (CCHC gives 90% support), and I will too.

 

Justice of the Peace Precinct 5, Place 2:

The two candidates are Jeff Williams and Erik Hassan. Williams is the incumbent. He has 28 years’ experience as a practicing attorney, plus three years as a judge. His opponent doesn’t have a law degree. Again, a law degree isn’t required, but it helps. He handles a staff of 40, with 9,000 new cases a month. It’s not a good place for on-the-job learning. All of my resources support Jeff Williams, and so do I.

 

Harris County Republican Party Chair:

Jared Woodfill is the six-term (12-year) incumbent for this unpaid position. He is being challenged by Paul Simpson. His challenger complains that he’s a corrupt trial attorney, but I’ve hunted and there’s surprisingly little evidence of corruption, so I’m unconvinced. Simpson, by the way, is also an attorney, just not a trial lawyer. Simpson is claiming that things have gone downhill with Woodfill there. Actually, that’s debatable as well. Precinct chairs need to be filled. Both candidates agree on that; I’ve seen Woodfill acting on it; maybe there should be more action, though. Simpson says he will do something about it; but I didn’t catch exactly what he would do. There’s a third person on the ballot, but if she can’t even make herself known to people like me, she doesn’t know how to spread the conservative message for the party in this key county, so I’m not even giving her a mention. 

Simpson claims to be both a longtime Republican grassroots activist, and a party outsider. I’ve also heard that Simpson is part of a group working to move out the most conservative elements of the party. Seriously, I don’t know what to believe. But at our Tea Party, while Simpson was impressive enough, when he said the reason we have Obama is because “Mitt Romney wasn’t the best candidate to talk about conservatism,” he lost me. He was listening to the enemies of Romney and believing them, instead of vetting the candidate himself. Truly I understand how difficult that is—for someone like me. But I found it pretty easy to find the truth about Romney and always wondered why so many ON OUR SIDE failed to see, and failed to support the best candidate in my lifetime as a result. We simply can’t have someone that obtuse running the party for the county. I don’t actually know Woodfill’s personal opinions about Romney, but when it counted all I saw coming from him was appropriate support. 

Woodfill got 78% support from CCHC. Other sources went for Simpson. I’m open to hear more, but for now I’m staying with Jared Woodfill.