Monday, November 28, 2011

Jasper, TX Officials Say Convict Activist “Bishop Guillory” Posed as a Department of Justice Agent in Election

Yesterday I was contacted by Bishop Guillory. He threatened that, unless I took this article down, he would sue me and call my job to try to get me fired and he said he would go to all the news stations and say I am a racist. He said he is a Republican and a good guy and that we all have it wrong about him.

I checked and double checked my article and there is nothing in my article that is factually incorrect. In fact, most of what I have in my article has already been reported in some form or fashion on other news sites. A lawsuit against me will not go anywhere because he is a public figure and therefore the law allows me to write about him as long as I do not knowingly lie about him and do it with malice. I certainly have not lied about him and if there is anything factually incorrect about anything I ever write I will always correct the article. The idea that he would try to say I am a racist is laughable. I have written numerous articles praising Black Conservatives like Commissioner Greg Parker, State Rep James White and Apostle Claver. In fact, I LOVE black conservatives getting involved and getting elected because in reality, the Republican Party is the party that holds the values of minority groups. You see, I never judge by the color of skin. I always judge people by their character and what they believe.

I want to be fair though. If you read my article you will see that I said that I think this guy has some good traits about him but his bad traits are holding back his good traits. He is pro life which is awesome and he has gone after corrupt Democrats officials. The problem is that he is inconsistent and that worries me like for instance he says he is Republican but wears a shirt with Obama on it. It is also completely wrong for him to have a badge that makes people think he is an official with the DOJ.

So this is what I will do.

Bishop Guillory, I would like you to send me your side of things. I will post your entire, uncut response. I really do want to believe that you are a good guy that is just misunderstood. Please explain to us your side of things so that we can understand.

previous story:

On November 8th, 2011, Jasper, TX held a recall election to oust 3 council members who the residents believe acted inappropriately.
The Justice Department announced that they would be sending agents to Jasper to monitor the election.

One man who showed up during the election week was a man named L.J. Guillory “Bishop Guillory.”

Guillory was wearing a badge around his neck with the United States Seal. His business card had the United Stated Seal. His military style shirt had 4 Military stars on it. He claimed to be the General Ombudsman for Ombudsman International, a Government Oversight Agency.

The City Attorney, Michael Ratcliff, has expressed that Guillory seemed to represent himself as a DOJ official.

The County Sheriff Mitchell Newman has also stated that Guillory approached him and told him that he was appointed to a committee.

Pictures of “Bishop” Guillory in Jasper, TX:

One local businesswoman that I talked to during the election believed that Guillory was an actual DOJ official. She stated that Guillory claimed to be monitoring the election on behalf of the taxpayer, and that after his investigation he would report to the Department of Justice any negative findings. He even told her that it would be illegal for a new city council to fire the Police Chief. That information of course is factually incorrect but this voter initially believed him because she believed him to be a DOJ official.

Over half a dozen other Jasper residents have signed affidavits claiming that Guillory represented himself as a DOJ official and that they felt intimidated as to why they were being singled out by the Justice Department (Bishop Guillory) in his questioning of them.
Pictures of Guillory’s “Ombudsman” Seal Compared to the United States Seal:

A simple internet search revealed that Guillory has been to different parts of the nation advocating for issues and making people believe that he is part of the DOJ. In Tyler, TX Guillory was the advocate for a black student who stabbed his white teacher to death. The Judge threw him out of the Courtroom and banned him from the property. The Tyler Paper wrote an article about the situation. Even the local media believed Guillory was a DOJ agent because the first sentence of this article starts with “An ombudsman for the U.S. Department of Justice heard testimony Tuesday...”

Something just did not add up with this guy though. Guillory’s business card had the US Seal on it but it also had a masionic symbol on it. This caused Vickie to get suspicious and she contacted me.

“Bishop” L.J. Guillory is Actually a Convicted Felon from California and not a DOJ Official

A background check reveals that Guillory spent 7 years and 7 months of a 15 year sentence in prison in California. His past criminal history includes charges of kidnapping, burglary, robbery, and even trying to prevent/dissuade a witness to testify.

Guillory is NOT an official with the Department of Justice or any other government agency, even though he incorporates the US Seal and mentions the DOJ in everything he does. His organization, Ombudsman International Inc., is a not for profit organization.

Guillory claims to be an ArchBishop. He is ordained by First United Unitarian Universalist Church, but to become ordained by this church only requires a person to send in an application.

On Guillory’s blog, you will find a video of Guillory showing off “his” mansion in California. At 1 minute 46 seconds into this video on Guillory’s blog, Guillory is seen hugging a black panther statue and he says that you have to always have a black panther. In this same video, Guillory has a shirt on with a picture of President Obama. Furthermore, his background check does not show this luxurious property seen in this video as being owned by Guillory.

Also on Guillory’s blog is this picture of Guillory, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

According to the Texas Secretary of State, Guillory registered Ombudsman International Inc. on June 24th 2011 as a not for profit corporation in the State of Texas. This organization is composed of only L.J. Guillory (Director) and Janet J Guillory (Director Secretary Treasurer and her address is a post Office Box: 8306 Wilshire Blvd, 1752 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 USA). The office address for this organization in Texas is listed as 808 Greer Street in Center, TX. According to the Shelby County Appraisal District, this property in Center is 5.5 acres, has $70,000 worth of improvements and is owned by Ombudsman International Inc. The address listed for the organization’s director (Guillory) is 111 North Oak Street in Henderson, TX.

On the filing papers that Guillory submitted to the State of Texas, he states that Ombudsman International is a Government Oversight Agency and that it does not have members but has over 1.7 million supporters.

Ombudsman International Inc. was started by Guillory in California. According to the California Secretary of State, Ombudsman International Inc. was formed as a California Not for Profit by Guillory on 7/9/2003. The address for the business is a post Office Box: 8306 Wilshire Blvd, 1752 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 USA. The address for the registered agent (Guillory) is 1425 W MANCHESTER AVE., SUITE C, Los Angeles, CA 90047. According to the California SOS, this Los Angeles address for Guillory is also the location of a different owner and business, a black bookstore called Milligan Books.

Guillory Ran for Congress as a Republican and Wrote a Book about Corrupt Black Politicians
He claims to be a Republican who is 100 percent pro-life. He ran as a Republican for United States Congress in California and got 1.1% of the vote. He says Democrats are holding back black people. Here is a quote from Guillory made to LBReport, “I’m not a Republican in the mold of [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas,” Bishop Guillory told “I’m a Republican in the tradition of [slavery abolitionist] Frederick Douglas, letting voters liberate themselves from Democrat politicians who’ve taken our votes for granted.”

He even recently endorsed white, Republican, Rusk County Attorney Michael Jimerson in the 2012 Republican Primary Election.

Guillory wrote a book about black, corrupt politicians in California titled “I KNOW WHY THE CAGED LION ROARS: What Happens When Black Corrupt Politicians Serve Themselves.”


Giollory is a very confusing person to me. On one hand he wears a shirt with Obama on is, he defends killers, and he is a convict who has pictures with black panthers, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. On the other hand he says he is a Republican, pro life and he wrote a book about corrupt black politicians.
He seems to have some good traits, but as of now, his bad traits outweigh any good ones.

He is deceptive in making people think he is part of the DOJ by using the US Seal and wearing a badge. He admits to running a million dollar not for profit organization, but I have not seen anything to show what he has done with the millions of dollars. He seems to be biased in his “investigations”. For instance, in Jasper, Guillory only interviewed one side of the issue.

Did Guillory really change his life around or is he just a con man trying to sell his book? He certainly is doing things the wrong way right now though, and his actions in Jasper, TX and other cities are very suspicious to say the least.

Mr. Guillory, I really do hope this article will show you the way people see you and how you are acting inappropriately. I also want this article to warn others about you so that they know that you are not a real official. I think there might be some good in you and I hope you can change your ways.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Will University of Texas AD’s Arrogance End 100+ Year Rivalry? Will Texas A&M Fire Football Coach Sherman?

Texas A&M University was founded in 1876 as the first public institution of higher education in Texas. It was called Texas AMC. The University of Texas followed and was founded in 1883. For nearly a century, Texas A&M University was a military school out in the middle of the Texas countryside. A&M did not allow women and focused on sending thousands of military officers into battle, including several who received the Congressional Medal of Honor (this is where the Aggies get the strong military traditions). The University of Texas, on the other hand, was placed in the Capitol of Texas, Austin, TX. The University of Texas was not a military school. It was in a big city, it was more modern, and so it became more popular.

The Aggies and the Longhorns first began playing each other in 1894. They met for the 118th time on the football field this past Thursday November 24th, 2011.

It might be the last time they meet.

In the early years of the rivalry, the Longhorns certainly had the upper hand against the less modern, military school rival and the Longhorns won most of the games. Texas A&M would still win some of the games and they built historic football traditions along the way (like the 12th Man, 1939 National Champions). The rivalry got bigger and better with every year that passed. The Aggies would build an annual bonfire to burn the week before the Texas game. The Longhorns would have a Hex rally in the week before the Aggie game. Both schools mention this rivalry in their fight song. This game was the most important game every year for Texas A&M and Texas.
In more modern times, Texas A&M became less of a military school as it transitioned into a regular university. A&M quickly became a big, modern University like the University of Texas. Add scholarship parity into the equation, and both schools became nearly even in everything from enrollment to academics and especially athletic program rankings. Today, both schools have around 50,000 students. Both schools have similar average SAT scores of new students. A&M has a top business school and UT has a top Law School. Both schools have multiple sports in the top 25 and both have sports with recent national championships. In the most recent Director’s Cup National Rankings of Overall Athletic Program Performance, A&M is ranked 8th and the Longhorns are ranked 12th.

In this modern era, from 1975 to 2011, the football rivalry is nearly even. Texas A&M University has won 19 games and UT has won 18 games out of these last 37 games played. 

In one stretch in the 1980’s and 1990’s, A&M won 11 of 12 games played between the two teams. This was the time of A&M’s Wrecking Crew and the dominance that A&M had at home (KYLE FIELD). Then Mack Brown became the coach at the University of Texas and things turned around for the Longhorns. The Longhorns started to get back into the national scene again and they even won a National Championship on the back of their star quarterback Vince Young.

This rivalry is heated, competitive and in this modern time, anyone can win the game in any given year. In modern times the rivalry is split nearly evenly down the middle in wins and losses. This year’s game is a perfect example. A&M lost the game in the way they have all season long. A&M had a second half meltdown filled with game costing mistakes. Even so, the game was neck and neck till a last-minute, questionable penalty gave UT a much needed first down that resulted in the game winning field goal for the longhorns.

Could that be a reason why UT’s Athletic Director DeLoss Dodds does not want the rivalry to continue? Dodds and Texas Coach Mack Brown have been in the hot seat with the last couple of seasons being considered as failures for the University of Texas. Big college teams typically want their non conference schedule to be as easy as possible with maybe one competitive game against a good non-conference team. With the Aggies heading to the SEC, the Longhorns would have to give up one of their easy non conference games to keep playing the Aggies. The Aggies are up for the challenge and they want to keep the rivalry alive. Texas Athletic Director on the other hand has made the silly statement that the Longhorn schedule is “booked” until 2018 and they cannot play the Aggies.

The Aggies are heading off to the SEC. They have every right to want to go to a conference that is looked upon as the best football conference in the nation. This could lead to many more perks than the Big 12 has to offer and more resources to build their football program back up. Texas A&M University is not going anywhere. It is still in Texas. Residents in Texas will now get to see some of the good SEC teams every year in College Station, TX. The Longhorns, on the other hand, are staying in the big 12 and are building their own television network. They have every right to do that too (within the NCAA guidelines of course). College football does not get money from tuition. It is its own business and has to keep building and creating sources of revenue. So the Aggies are going to a different conference and the Longhorns have their own network.

Regardless of the Longhorn Network and Regardless of the Aggies going to the SEC, the Rivalry can and should go on. There are several big name Universities that meet every year to play their in-state rivalry even though the two teams are in different conferences.

Make no question about it. The ball is in the Longhorn’s court right now. We can argue about how it all started and who did the most to hurt the rivalry, but right now, at the end of the day, most of the fans would still like to see the rivalry go on, there is big money in the game for the State of Texas, and the Aggie Athletic Director Bill Byrne says it can still be done. The only thing holding up the rivalry is the Longhorn Athletic Director who says he will not do it.
That is a shame and a horrible reason for this storied rivalry to end.

Will Texas A&M University Fire Coach Sherman?

The glory years of the 80’s and 90’s are gone, and for the last decade A&M football has been on a down-slide away from their dominance of the 80’s and 90’s. A&M hired Coach Fran (Dennis Franchione) hoping that he would turn things around, but he only drove the program into the ground, barely getting above .500 over 5 seasons. Fran did beat the Longhorns in his last two seasons as head coach but that was not good enough and he was shown the door. Coach Sherman, the great coach from the Green Bay packers, was ushered in to save the day.

It is four years later and Mike Sherman is in the Hot Seat.

Mike Sherman is now 25-25 in 4 seasons as the Head Football Coach at Texas A&M. This 2011 season will go down as one of the most disappointing seasons in Aggie History. The first two seasons in the Sherman era were not good, but he was a new coach so they gave him some time to get better. His third year, last year, was not good at first because of an injured quarterback that Sherman kept in the game. Sherman finally changed quarterbacks and A&M finished off the season in spectacular fashion. This year, Texas A&M was ranked in the top ten to begin the season. They had some of the best talent in college football and returned most of the players who were part of the Big 12 South Champion (tie) team that won 6 in a row last season against top teams like Oklahoma and Nebraska. Sherman, at most, could only lose a couple of games this season with the talent he had to work with. WRONG. Texas A&M lost 6 games. A&M would build up a large lead in the first half of these losses, but then they would lose the second half miserably. That would indicate bad second half adjustments. The quarterback did make un-timely interceptions in many of those losses, but still, the responsibility of winning games falls on the shoulders of the head coach who gets paid millions to win or to make whatever changes are necessary to win.

It is unreasonable to think that a college team will never lose any games. On the other hand, having a record of 25-25 after 4 seasons is completely unacceptable, especially given the talent that A&M has been able to round up.

There is controversy over whether Coach Sherman’s payout is around 2 million or closer to 9 million.
Depending on the payout and depending on the bowl game score, Sherman might not make it another season. Many people even believe he should be fired immediately no matter what the cost.
If A&M made the mistake of giving Sherman such a large buyout (9 million), and/or if Sherman wins this bowl game, then he will likely be back for another year.

It is also possible that A&M wants to give him another year to see how he does in the SEC.
Regardless of how things end up, this season will go down as one of the biggest failures given the amazing talent to work with.

If Sherman gets another year, I really hope he will be successful. I do not wish for him to be bad because if Sherman is bad then that means A&M is losing.

As for now, Sherman has been a failure and he is in the hot seat.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Survey: What Propositions Should Be on the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Ballot? Personhood Amendment?

Below is a NEW survey. Every 2 years there is a Republican Primary Election in Texas. On the Republican Primary ballot are propositions that the ENTIRE State of Texas votes on when they vote in the Republican Primary. For instance, on the 2010 Primary election ballot there were propositions on the ballot regarding whether or not Texas should require voter id, and also whether or not Texas should require sonograms before abortions. The Republican voters in Texas approved both of those propositions and the Texas Legislature went on to pass laws similar to those propositions.
The State Republican Executive Committee will decide, on December 3rd, 2011, what propositions should be placed on the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Ballot.
What Propositions do you think should be on the 2012 Republican Primary Ballot? Take this Survey:
I want to know what YOU think should be on the ballot. Obviously there cannot be too many propositions on the ballot, so I will take all of your suggestions and take the top 1 or 2 propositions and present them to the SREC for consideration for the 2012 Texas Republican Primary Election Ballot. Other SREC members will submit propositions too and the entire SREC will pick the top ones that will go on the ballot.
Click Here or click the Survey Button below to take this New Survey and let me know what Propositions yuo think should be on the Ballot:

For instance, one proposition that I like and think should be on the ballot is a question about when someone is considered a person. This proposition I will propose would read something like this:
Should the term 'person' or 'persons' be defined in the State of Texas as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."
I think it is a great idea. You see, in Roe v. Wade, the opinion of the majority was that there was not enough information or a consensus about an unborn baby to know if it is a person. Therefore, the Court sided with an unborn baby not being a person until more science and consensus came out regarding what is inside a mother who is pregnant. Well, we now have the science and I would say we have the consensus. No one disagrees that a baby has a heartbeat and feelings and emotion at a very early stage in a pregnancy. No one disagrees that an unborn baby has its own DNA. It is a completely different entity from the mother. Is there really any difference if you kill the baby right before it comes out or if you wait 30 minutes when the baby is actually born? Dogs and cats have more rights from being tortured than unborn babies. It is time we define unborn babies as people instead of just defining them as something that can just be tossed in the trash.
By the way, I do not endorse cloning, but a baby is still a person even if, in the future, someone were to be cloned.
Below is a picture of my mother, Paula Bellow, questioning a Planned Parenthood Supporter at an Obama event in Arizona. My mother had 10 kids. She showed the Planned Parenthood supporter a picture of her 10 kids and my mother asked which kid the abortion supporter thinks my mom should have killed.

My mother passed away last year after a long battle with cancer, but she praised God through the entire struggle. You can see the video here

Texas Republican Legislative Priorities Report Survey Results

Below are the final results of the survey about whether or not the Republican Party of Texas should produce a Legislative Priorities Report.
Results of Legislative Priorities Report Survey:
A couple of months ago I created a Legislative Priorities Survey and posted it up online. The survey was in reference to whether or not the SREC and the Republican Party of Texas should release a Legislative Priorities Report. This report is something that the Republican delegates at the Texas 2010 Republican State Convention voted on. The delegates requested that the State Republican Executive Committee release a report that shows the voting record of all the Republican Elected Officials. This report has been stalled for various reasons. You can read more about this SREC Legislative Priorities controversy by clicking here

SURVEY RESULTS: Texas Republicans Overwhelmingly Support the Report

This survey was sent to all Republican Leaders in Texas (SREC members and County Chairman). It was also posted online and sent to many other republicans. Both sides of the issue had ample opportunity to express their view on the issue. 340 people from all over Texas took the survey, including State Representatives, Tea Party Leaders, Republican County Chairmen and SREC members.

Do You Believe that the Republican Party of Texas should Publish a Legislative Priorities Report called for in the Republican Platform?
Yes 324 
No 12

Do You Believe that a Legislative Priorities Report would Violate Republican Party/SREC Bylaws?
Yes 18
No 305

If it is Determined that a Legislative Priorities Report would violate the Bylaws, Do You Support Changing the Bylaws to allow for this Report?
Yes 320
No 14

There were also 195 individual responses provided to me via this survey, Some wrote just one sentence about what they think and others wrote a couple paragraphs. There are too many responses to put in this article so I have posted all 195 responses on my website.

Click Here to see Entire List of 195 Individual Responses

As you can see, the response was overwhelmingly in favor of publishing a report, even if that meant changing the SREC bylaws to clarify things.

Furthermore, several Texas County Republican/Conservative Organizations have passed resolutions urging the SREC to vote in favor of changing the bylaws to allow this report. These organizations include County Republican Executive Committees, County Tea Parties, and County Republican Clubs in various areas of Texas, including Travis County, Newton County and Denton County.

Texas Republican State Chairman Steve Munisteri Offers Compromise

State Chairman Steve Munisteri has expressed that he is in favor of publishing a report. He also has to get both sides of the issue to agree on something.

Munisteri recently offered a compromise. There is a program that will, for a price, create a database “report” of bills that were voted on in the last Texas Legislature. Republicans will be able to easily see how their Republican, or Democrat, representative voted for in any of the contested issues. It will be very easy to search for a main topic like “abortion” or “voter id.” This compromise addresses some of the concerns of both sides of the issue and it serves the purpose of allowing Republicans to see how their representative is voting.

SREC Will Vote to Change Bylaws at December 3rd, 2011 Meeting in Austin, TX

In order for ANY report to be approved, including the one that Munisteri suggested, the SREC must change the bylaws to specifically allow a report to be published by the Republican Party of Texas and the State Republican Executive Committee.

There have been at least 2 bylaw changes offered by fellow SREC members. These bylaw changes will be discussed and voted on by the SREC.

A Report will not be Published unless the SREC votes to Change the Bylaws on December 3rd, 2011

Monday, November 21, 2011

37 Republican Congressmen Object to Border Agent Jail Time for Pulling on Drug Dealer Handcuffs

This really just sickens me. How can we secure our border from violent drug cartels when the drug dealers have more rights than the officers. This drug dealer got a free pass and a border patrol agent got 2 years in Prison because he pulled down on the cuffs of this drug dealer. Crime will continue to win when law enforcement officers are afraid to do their jobs and when criminals have more rights than regular citizens.

Below is a great article from The Washington Times about 37 Republican Congressmen who signed a letter denouncing the prosecution and prison time of Agent Diaz and also about Fast and Furious:

Thirty-seven Republican House members are challenging the two-year prison sentence being served by a U.S. Border Patrol agent for his conduct in the arrest of a drug-smuggling suspect, while a dozen other lawmakers are pressing Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain his role in the botched “Fast and Furious” weapons investigation.

In a letter Thursday to President Obama, the 37 members — led by Rep. Duncan Hunter of California — described the prosecution of agent Jesus E. Diaz Jr. as “unfair and excessively disproportionate” and suggested it set a “dangerous precedent” that could place other agents and the public at risk.
“Border Patrol agents must be able to appropriately and effectively protect our nation´s border without the threat of federal prosecution hanging over their head,” the letter said. “We certainly do not condone the use of excessive or unreasonable force, however, the facts in this case do not indicate the drug smuggler was harmed during the arrest or that excessive force was used.

“The prosecution of Agent Diaz by the U.S. Attorney´s Office for the Western District of Texas, also responsible for putting other agents behind bars, is a disservice to the men and women of the Border Patrol and the mission they undertake,” it stated.

Diaz was sentenced last month to two years for violating the constitutional rights of a 15-year-old suspected drug smuggler. He was accused of lifting the teenager’s handcuffed hands above his head while placing his knee in his back. The prosecution was sought by the Mexican government.

During trial, defense attorneys argued there were no injuries or bruises on the teenager’s arms where the handcuffs had been placed nor any bruising resulting from a knee on his back. Evidence presented at trial showed only marks from the straps of his backpack, which authorities said contained the drugs.

Border Patrol agents found more than 150 pounds of marijuana at the arrest site.
In the letter, the lawmakers noted that Diaz had been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General and by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement´s Office of Professional Responsibility. It said “only a contradictory report” from the Internal Affairs Division at U.S. Customs and Border Protection provided the basis for prosecution, noting that that report came a year after the agent had been cleared.

The letter also questioned the credibility of the government’s main witness, the smuggling suspect, who testified under a grant of immunity. It asked the president to consider whether the two-year sentence was justified and how the case has an impact on an agent´s ability to do his or her job.
Meanwhile, a dozen congressional Republicans are demanding “accountability and transparency” from Mr. Holder in the Fast and Furious weapons investigation, several saying he should resign because of “evasive answers” he has given Congress about the failed operation.

The lawmakers, in a statement this week, said hundreds of weapons that were allowed to be “walked,” or transported, from Arizona gun shops to drug smugglers in Mexico have been linked to dozens of crime scenes, including the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

“Attorney General Holder´s refusal to take responsibility for the actions of his department is inexcusable,” said Rep. Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Republican. “The American people need answers to how this operation was authorized and assurances that nothing like this can or will ever happen again.”

Rep. Trent Franks, also of Arizona, said that to have allowed the weapons, including AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifles, to be walked to Mexico showed “an utter lack of regard for human safety, protocol or common sense.”

In calling on Mr. Holder to resign, Rep. Connie Mack of Florida said, “Holder should resign fast and furiously.”

An investigation by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, found that in excess of 2,000 weapons purchased in Arizona were walked to drug smugglers in Mexico — more than 1,400 of which are still unaccounted for.

Two AK-47s purchased at a gun shop in Glendale, Ariz., were discovered at the site of the fatal December 2010 shooting of Agent Brian Terry in a gunfight just north of the border near Nogales, Ariz.

Texas Secretary of State Says Republican County Chairmen Cannot be Removed from Office

In light of recent events in Upshur County in which the Upshur County Republican Executive Committee voted to remove the Upshur County Republican Chairman over alleged inappropriate behavior, the Republican Party of Texas requested a formal opinion from the Secretary of State Elections division to answer the question of whether or not there is a removal process in place for an elected county chair. Their answer is below. 
In short, there is no removal process in place and the parties may not create a rule for removal procedure. If a County Chairman is doing something wrong or doing something that Republicans do not like, the people of that county can just elect a new chairman at the next Primary Election. The SREC or the County Party can always pass a resolution stating that the actions of a county chairman are wrong, but they cannot remove an elected chairman. Please see the response from the Secretary of State below.

From Elizabeth Winn, Texas Secretary of State Elections Division:
Thank you for your e-mail. You ask whether there is a method under which a county party chair may be removed by the state executive committee or by a county executive committee. We do not believe so. The Secretary of State's long standing position has been that there is no means provided in the Texas Election Code (the "Code") to remove a county chair, as most recently expressed in the attached letter to State Representative Joe Farias concerning a similar issue with the Bexar County Democratic Party chair.
This office may in past correspondence have acknowledged the role party rules generally play in political party affairs, but the Secretary of State has not to our knowledge stated that a county chair may be removed from office by party rule. Chapter 171 of the Code provides procedures for party organization including the process of filling county chair vacancies, while Chapter 172 provides the primary election procedures.
As noted above, both chapters are silent as to removal of a county chair once the chair has been elected by party members of the county voting at the primary election. We note that there are no cases or Attorney General opinions directly on point on this subject. We suggest state law has in effect preempted the election process for the primary-holding parties, while the parties retain authority over the elements of their required rules as set out in Section 163.002 of the Code. A more recent example of this state authority is provided in Section 171.0251, which created a process by which a member of the executive committee called to active military service may appoint a replacement to serve on the committee during his or her time in active service.  It is this office's position that in the absence of express authority under the Code, the party may not by rule create a removal procedure for county chairs.
We hope that this information answers your questions. If you need additional assistance, please e-mail or contact the elections division toll-free at 1-800-252-VOTE(8683).

Thank you very much.
Elizabeth Winn

Friday, November 18, 2011

East Texas: Upshur County Kicks Out Republican Chairman Over Inappropriate Behavior

update: I am not stating that what Upshur County Republican Party did was entirely legal. That is a question that the SREC is going to take at the next meeting.... but they did do it and it is news worthy even if their vote to kick him out might not stand.

In March 2011, I wrote an article about the Corruption in Upshur County, and about how the Republican Chairman was actually a RINO trying to rid the County Party of Conservative Republicans. Some may not wish to believe it, but the truth is that not everyone who runs Republican believes in Republican Values. Sure, not every Republican will agree with each other all the time and that is ok, but some Republicans do not care about Republican values at all and they just simply want to win re-election so they put an R behind their name. That certainly does not mean that everyone who switches from Democrat to Republican is bad. There are many conservative Democrats who are finally seeing that the Democrat Party left them and that is great and we want them to switch to Republican! Many East Texas counties have had conservative Dems switch over to the Republican Party recently and this article is not to discredit that. This article is meant to show that we have to always keep our guard up and stand for our values and protect out Party from those few who want to destroy it from the inside. You can read the previous article about Upshur County Corruption here: Texas Republican Party Under Attack – Indictments on Criminal Charges, Court ordered Injunction, Attorney General Investigation

Upshur County Republican Executive Committee Voted to Remove their County Chairman Ken Ambrose on November 9th, 2011

The Republican Party of Upshur County finally had it with their Chairman, who even took money from the party for personal expenses. The Republican Party Upshur CEC voted on November 9th, 2011 to remove Ken Ambrose from his Chairman Position.

The following is a Letter from the Upshur County Republican Party. This letter was sent to the Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri. This following letter details the actions that have been taken by the County Party to remove the Chairman, and the reasons behind removing the Chairman. The State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) will be discussing this issue at the next meeting at the Party Headquarters in Austin on December 3rd, 2011.

431 Wood Duck Lane
Gilmer, TX  75645
Phone:  (903) 734-1840
November 14, 2011
Attn: Steve Munisteri, Chairman
Republican Party of Texas
1108 Lavaca Street
Austin, TX 78701
Dear Chairman Munisteri:
This letter is to inform you, as RPT’s leading officer and spokesperson for the Republican Party of Texas, that the Republican Party Upshur County Executive Committee voted to remove Chairman Kenneth Ambrose, under the procedures outlined in Section 62 of RRONR, the Party’s adopted rules, per Texas Election Code  Section 163.002, applicable from the precinct level to the state level.
As you will see in the enclosed Minutes of the November 9, 2011, meeting, (verbally approved by the Minutes Committee) the first reason for his removal includes his common use of vulgar and profane language that is particularly demeaning toward women.  Since assuming his duties as Chairman, Mr. Ambrose has continually exhibited this type of embarrassing behavior toward the citizens of Upshur County, while publicly making un-factual accusations and misleading statements toward members of the CEC and other Party members and leaders.  His disregard for public decorum, Party rules and election laws has been publicized in the local press to such a flagrant degree, that speculation is being raised about the security of the Party’s recently gained majority over the generational Democrat control of our county.  This speculation has only grown since our own Republican District Attorney inexplicably decided to drop the misappropriation of funds charges against Chairman Ambrose, on his agreement to repay the money he wrongfully used for his own personal attorney’s legal fees.
During the Re-Count for the 2010 Primary, Mr. Ambrose publicly stated his intent to replace all the elected Precinct Chairs who had not supported his campaign. He effectively carried out his threat by having the County Judge (a former Democrat, re-elected in 2010 as a Republican) administer public official oaths of office to his appointed replacements.  He then filed those oaths in Commissioner Court records, along with filing them in the County Clerk’s office as statutorily required documents, purportedly listing the elected Precinct Chairs, but omitted the names of those eleven (11) Precinct Chairs.
Because (as you have personally re-iterated), CEC’s are private entities and not subject to tribunal oversight by the RPT, costly Civil Court action was necessary to prohibit Mr. Ambrose’s arbitrary attempt (unsupported by even a simple majority of the CEC) to add the requirement of a sworn oath to the Election Code’s criteria for holding a Party office.  Nonetheless, Mr. Ambrose continues to swear oaths to his supposed “appointed Vice Chairs”, and has created a shadow party by publicly presenting them as members of the CEC.  As recently as September 29, he counted their presence to declare an illegal quorum, and attempted to elect a Secretary, when no vacancy existed.
A Texas Ethics Commission complaint against Mr. Ambrose is in the process of being filed over his now second bad faith attempt to use the Commission to disqualify Madaline Barber’s election as CEC Secretary.  His campaign to discredit Ms. Barber as Secretary began almost immediately after the District Court Judge ordered him to recognize her, among all the Precinct Chairs elected March 2, 2010, as comprising the CEC; and, when Bylaws authorizing the Secretary to call and send notice of CEC meetings were attached to the court’s directive to Mr. Ambrose to refrain from conducting meetings without providing proper notice to them.
Steve Munisteri, RPT Chairman
Page 2

With filing deadlines for applications for the 2012 Primary ballot rapidly approaching, Mr. Ambrose has stepped up efforts to again disqualify applications from these same eleven (11) Precinct Chairs, (and by implication, any others from candidates who have not indicated their support for his 2012 re-election), by publicly stating that only HE can accept applications, while accusing Ms. Barber of disenfranchising voters by accepting them, although she is clearly allowed to do so under RPT and Election Code Sec. 172.02; and, by accusing the duly elected CEC of operating a shadow party (because the CEC has conducted business at meetings called by her)!
Given the potential expense of litigation believed likely to ensue from applications filed directly with Mr. Ambrose, many prospective candidates have expressed reluctance to file and pay their fees to him. Accordingly, at its Third Quarterly meeting, the RPUC EC adopted a Resolution to create a Primary Committee per TEC Sec. 172.081 (a), (b), and (c), with Chairman Ambrose as its Chairman.  However, Mr. Ambrose has failed to fulfill his duties as Chairman of the Committee, and refuses to attend meetings called by Ms. Barber, or to acknowledge any actions taken by the CEC at meetings she calls.  He refuses to post notices for her to accept applications and continually asserts that she is not the Party Secretary. An opinion from the DA authorizing the County Clerk to accept applications filed with Ms. Barber and certified by the CEC, has been requested, but to date has not been forthcoming.
Furthermore, a quandary exists regarding the Party’s new Primary Bank Account, which was established according to the adoption of a resolution of the CEC at its Third Quarterly meeting, to fulfill the CEC’s responsibility under TEC Sec. 173.034 (a), and while the Party Bank Accounts were frozen, then subsequently closed, during the chairman’s criminal investigation. Ms. Barber has registered this account with the SOS for Direct Deposit of Primary 2012 Election funds.  As members of the Primary Committee, Ms. Barber, as Secretary, and myself as Vice-Chairman, are the approved signatories on the account.  Recently, Mr. Ambrose has stated that I am not the Party Vice-Chairman because HE did not appoint me, apparently believing the Party Bylaws reserve his privileged appointment of all Party officers.  Also, the Primary Contracting Officer, elected by the CEC at its Third Quarter meeting, has been prevented from obtaining the information necessary to negotiate contracts relating to the conduct of the Primary Election, in that the password required to obtain this information is provided only to the Party Chairman. Furthermore, Mr. Ambrose has failed to supply any financial report to the elected CEC since he assumed office.
The District Court Judge, during the conduct of all three (3) Civil Court hearings, in finding for the Plaintiffs, stated his agreement with your understanding that CEC’s are private entities, thus precluding the court’s interference with how we conduct Party business, or how we adopt our rules and procedures, including Bylaws which prescribe the election of officers.
 During his conduct of the contentious 2010 Organizational Meeting, Mr. Ambrose left the meeting for a swearing of oaths ceremony by the County Judge across the street. (It might interest you to note, that during his tenure as a Democrat County Judge, the same judge had initiated a proposal in Commissioner’s Court that would have transferred to the Commissioner’s Court, the CEC’s statutory authority to appoint Primary Election Judges.)  Although his (un-adopted) Agenda failed to identify the ceremony as a recess item, he refused to allow a vote to recess, and “declared” the meeting “temporarily adjourned”.
Realizing that a CEC quorum remained in the room, the business of electing a Secretary and adopting Bylaws was continued.  However, upon returning to the meeting, Chairman Ambrose declared his intention to carry forward un-amended Bylaws from the previous biennium, by his own “directive”. Despite validation from two recognized Registered Parliamentarians that Ms. Barber’s election as
Secretary, and the adoption of Bylaws during his absence was valid, and despite the inclusion of those Bylaws in the Court’s injunction against Chairman Ambrose, in his most recent public statements, Mr. Ambrose acknowledges that he is and has been operating the Party under the EXPIRED Bylaws.  Further, he audaciously brags that the criminal charges against him have actually elevated his status to that of a self described “folk hero.”
Steve Munisteri, RPT Chairman
Page 3

As you are aware, the Democrat Party in Bexar County has recently used the RRONR procedure to remove their County Chairman for similar charges to those brought against Chairman Ambrose. Their action was supported by the Democrat Party of Texas, and accordingly recognized by the SOS for the conduct of the 2012 Primary.  In light of your own recently expressed concerns regarding the injection of ACORN style operative’s focused intentions to take back Texas for the Democrats, it is absolutely imperative that our rank and file Republican members know they can trust our own party leaders to stand firm on the party’s principles to support personal accountability and responsibility, and to recognize the strength of the nuclear family, for which Mr. Ambrose’s behavior and language expresses disdain.
Enclosed is a 1994 Texas SOS Opinion, along with a well documented opinion from National Registered Parliamentarian, Kirk Overbey.  I might add that the President of the United States can be removed by impeachment proceedings.  A member of Congress, (House or Senate) can be expelled from office under the U.S. Constitution with a two-thirds vote.  A judge can be suspended or removed by the Judicial Commission.  A lawyer’s license can be revoked by the State Bar.  A County official can be removed from office under Local Government Code, Chapter 87.  Surely, it is only reasonable to assume that a political party official, including a County Chair, can be removed from office under RRONR, and State Republican Party rules.
If you have any questions, or need supporting documentation of the propriety of procedures followed for the removal of Chairman Kenneth Ambrose, please contact me.

Thank you,

Cynthia Ridgeway. Vice-Chairman
Republican Party Upshur County

Monday, November 14, 2011

Ted Cruz for Senate gets Big Endorsement from Dr. James Dobson, Founder of National Pro Life and Pro Family Group "Focus on the Family"

National pro-life, family values leader Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is endorsing Ted Cruz for Senate.

In his endorsement announcement, Dr. Dobson said: “I’m pleased to endorse Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate because he’s exactly the kind of candidate we need to turn this country around. Religious freedom is under assault every day. We need leaders with the courage to stand strong for conservative values in this battle. Ted Cruz is such a leader—one who will not only vote his convictions in the Senate, but will also lead the fight to defend life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty."
Dr. Dobson added: “Ted Cruz stands out among conservative leaders across the country today. He has a consistent record of standing up for faith, family, and freedom, and winning values battles on a national level....I urge all Texans who love life, family, faith, and freedom to not only vote for Ted Cruz, but to work hard for his campaign."

Supreme Court to Hear Texas Challenge to Constitutionality of Health Care Law (Obamacare)

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott fights hard for Texans and for Conservative Principles. After the passage of Obama’s Health Care Law, including the Individual Mandate, Abbott joined 26 other states in filing a lawsuit against the new law arguing that it is unconstitutional.
I was one of the few people to file an individual lawsuit against the Federal Government arguing that the new law infringed upon my constitutional rights. I filed the lawsuit pro se and did not really expect it to go anywhere. But that was not the point. The point was that I was going to make a stand and actually try to do something. I figured that if there were several lawsuits filed against the new law then that would mean a greater chance for at least one of them to make it through. My lawsuit kept going for over a year while the government and I argued over whether or not I have standing to file the lawsuit because I could not prove damage to me until the law goes into effect yet. In the end my case was dismissed, at least until I could show the damage once the law goes into effect.
Other challenges were successful however, including the challenge that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed.
Texas won a huge victory in court when Florida Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the Individual Mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, and because it is not severable from the law, the entire law was struck down.
That set up a future showdown in the United States Supreme Court.

On Monday November 14th, 2011, the Supreme Court Accepted to Hear the Case!
From Fox News:
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.
The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance. 
Which way will each judge go in deciding if law is unconstitutional?
The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care. 
The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.
The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.
Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product.  Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.
If the mandate is wiped off the map but the law itself isn't, the president would be able to promote aspects that most Americans say they accept, including leaving 26 year olds on their parents insurance and not allowing insurers to reject clients with pre-existing conditions. 
"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 1 million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
The 11th Circuit Court, where the case comes from, has ruled in favor of the opponents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said the high court brings the challenge one step closer to elimination.
"Given the substantial implementation costs associated with this 2,700-page law--and the unconstitutional mandate that it will impose on all Americans -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has moved quickly and agreed to hear this very important case," he said.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate who has made repeal and replacement of the law the first plank of his economic plan, tweeted that he is "pleased" the court has agreed to hear the case.