Friday, August 30, 2013

Texas Law Forces College Students to get Loans to Pay for Other People's Tuition

Update: New Article "Stop Texas 20% Tax on College Students! Repeal Tuition Set Aside Law!" explains in detail how and when we got this tax.

You probably think I am kidding but I am not. In TEXAS of all places there is an Obama-Style share the wealth program that requires students going to college to pay thousands of dollars in extra tuition to pay for other people’s college tuition assistance. It does not matter if you are working double jobs to pay your way through school, you still get to pay for someone else. Even if a Texas college student is getting student loans to pay for school, they still have to pay extra for someone else. In other words, a Texas student getting student loans has to borrow money and pay interest on a loan in order to pay thousands of dollars in extra tuition so that someone else can go to college for free!

This tuition set aside program is required by Texas Education Code sections 56.011 and 56.012. The program must not be very old because I know when I went to Texas A&M University I did not pay extra tuition for someone else. In the 81st Texas Legislature, Senate Bill 1304 was passed that requires schools to inform students of the amount they paid in tuition that will be set aside to pay for someone else. Transparency is good, but students should not have to borrow money to pay for someone else’s tuition in the first place!

I would never have even known about this if it were not for a concerned parent who forwarded me an email that he got from his son who is attending the University of Houston and paying his tuition via student loans. This UH student was shocked to get an email from the University letting him know how much money he had paid in tuition to pay for someone else. Before he graduates he will have had to borrow over $6000 in loans in order to pay for someone else’s tuition assistance!

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for college access for everyone, even the poor. That is what student loans are for though. Even poor people can get a student loan with a low interest and not have to pay anything until after they graduate and get a job. Sure the state or federal government will incur some costs to pay for financial aid programs and to pay to run student loan programs (assuming the loan programs do not already pay for themselves from student loan interest), but this cost should not be passed down to the students simply because they decided to go to college. One student should not have to get a student loan and pay interest in order to pay for someone else to go to college for free.

Below is the email I got from this concerned parent. Also below is the email this concerned parent got from his son explaining how the school had charged him extra tuition to pay for someone else:

From: *****
David Bellow,
Have you ever heard of a program like this before? For a couple of years my youngest son **** who is in his third year of law school at U of H has been telling me about a state policy/law where a portion of every student loan he takes out goes to a fund for OTHER students. In other words when he’s borrowing money for his own education he is being mandated by the state of Texas to borrow a certain amount for someone else to get to go to school. Then he gets to pay it back with interest!  This is incredible to me. And from his message to me below it started in the 81st Legislature and was called Senate Bill 1304. The students who can least afford it (they have to borrow money to go to school in the first place) are having to pay for other students’ tuition! Talking about spreading the wealth – and from those who can least afford to have it taken away from them! This wasn’t passed by Democrats. It was a Republican led legislature and signed by a Republican governor. Unbelievable. This needs to be given the light of day to have this rescinded.
Have you ever heard of such?

Begin forwarded message:
From: *****
Subject: Fwd: University of Houston: Set Aside Notice
Hey Mom and Dad,
Below is the email I have told you about.  I just received it this evening and thought I'd forward it to you to see for yourself.  
By the time I graduate, I will have been forced to BORROW roughly $6,000 to pay for someone else's tuition.  The state of Texas is forcing me to borrow money which will take me years to pay back (with interest) to pay for someone else.  Completely outrageous.  
I don't see how this would hold up in court.  The State should cut me a check for $6,000 plus interest.

Begin forwarded message:
From: "University of Houston Office of Student Financial Services"
Date: July 26, 2013, 5:05:05 PM CDT
To: ****
Subject: University of Houston: Set Aside Notice

Dear ****

Please note: This email is not a bill.  No action is required.
This message is for informational purposes only and complies with Senate Bill 1304, passed by the 81st Texas Legislature, which requires that Texas public universities report to each resident student the amount of his or her paid tuition that has been set aside to provide financial assistance programs for qualified students at that institution.  
The total amount of your paid resident tuition for the Summer 2013 term that was set aside by the University of Houston to provide financial assistance programs for qualified students was 452.93.
Office of Student Financial Services
University of Houston

The University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Road, Houston, Texas 77004

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Sidewalk to Nowhere - Lumberton TX Council Illegally Targeting Businessman, Killing Tax Revenue

Investigation article by David Bellow

A city can only enforce the laws, regulations and ordinances of the city right? Not according to the Lumberton, TX City Council. Corruption in East Texas runs deep. The City of Lumberton, in Hardin County, has a record of getting into trouble for doing the wrong things, and they are about to get into trouble yet again. Don’t get me wrong, there are a couple of good council members who speak up in meetings, but they are overruled by the majority of the board. The majority on the board, led by Andy Kelley and Don Burnett, does some crazy things. See end of article for a list of recent abuses by the city including losing a million dollar lawsuit because the city stole a man’s land.

Lumberton City Council’s “Sidewalk to Nowhere” Illegally Kills Business Center that will bring Jobs and Tax Revenue

The latest crazy thing the Lumberton City Council is trying to do is kill a planned business center in Lumberton by not allowing the business center to be built unless there is a sidewalk to nowhere included in the plan. The sidewalk would literally go nowhere and not connect to ANYTHING and would NEVER be used. Yep, the city is killing a multimillion dollar project that will bring in good businesses, jobs, and tax revenue to the city. They are killing the project over a sidewalk that is NOT required by law or ordinance to be built. The city has no authority to kill this project and in the end the city will lose, again, and the residents of Lumberton will have to foot the bill. This abuse of authority reminds me of the EPA not having a legal reason to stop oil drilling in Texas so they create new endangered animals to stop oil drilling in Texas. Why the hostility from the city? I don’t know, but I do know that David Gracedel supported an outsider candidate in a recent city council election. The councilman that Gracedel did not support in the election was quick to be the first councilman to make a motion to reject a variance for Gracedel.

I first heard about this issue in an article written by Kevin King in The Examiner. The city defended itself by saying businesses in the city are required to build sidewalks.  The city’s story sounded strange because the city has never required ANYONE to build a sidewalk in Lumberton so I wondered why the city was trying to force businessman David Gracedel to build one, and I wondered if the City even had the authority to force him to build one. I wanted to know more so I did a little research and I read the entire code of ordinances for the City of Lumberton. Well, it turns out that the city rules and regulations do NOT require Mr. David Gracedel to build sidewalks. Furthermore, this sidewalk would be a sidewalk connecting to nowhere because there are not sidewalks in front of most businesses in the city. Even more troubling is the city seems to be singling out Mr. Gracedel because the city has never tried to force any business, even recent ones, to build a sidewalk.

This situation is almost a repeat of when the city approved a subdivision a few years back for Mike Hawkins. The city then they tried to come back and force the man to build another road in the subdivision. The developer got a lawyer and the city was slapped down because, well, the city cannot approve a design and then come back and try to change the design

Here are the facts about the illegal Sidewalk to Nowhere in Lumberton

·         David Gracedel applied for a commercial construction building permit to build a business center on 4 acres of land that he owns on Hwy 69 in Lumberton.
·         Gracedel’s plat and building design was submitted to the city. It was drawn by professional engineers and architects, it was in full compliance with city building regulations, it had handicap parking and sidewalks to the entrances of the business center, and the design was ADA APPROVED (Americans with Disabilities Act).
·         The city had 30 days to approve or deny the plat, otherwise the plat would be automatically approved. The city did NOT send Mr. Gracedel an approval or denial within 30 days so the plat was approved by default.
·         Well after 30 days had pased, after the plat was already automatically approved, the city contacted Gracedel and told him that the plat would not be approved because it did not include a sidewalk along Hwy 69 in front of the parking lot.
·         Gracedel pointed out that the design was in compliance with ALL city ordinances and also in compliance with all disability laws. The city cannot make you do something unless they have passed an ordinance requiring it.
·         The city countered and told Gracedel that the city was forcing him to build sidewalks under the subdivision ordinance.
·         Gracedel pointed out that the subdivision ordinance does not apply to him because he is not applying to build a subdivision nor is he applying to subdivide his property. He is only applying for a commercial construction building permit.
·         The city countered by saying that at one time the land was subdivided.
·         Gracedel pointed out that his land was subdivided over a decade ago before the subdivision ordinance was even on the books, and furthermore, the subdivision regulations only apply to someone who is applying for a new subdivision after the subdivision ordinance was passed.
·         Gracedel also pointed out that the subdivision ordinance has been on the books for several years but all the recent construction projects that the city has approved did not require sidewalks and his business was the ONLY one that the city was trying to force to build a sidewalk. Heck, the city did not even require the Lumberton school to build a sidewalk along Hwy 69 when the school just did a major construction project along Hwy 69 this year. Furthermore, his business is not near any other businesses or sidewalks. Even if he did build a sidewalk it would not connect to anything because it would dead end at a sewer lift station to the right of his property and it would dead end well before it reaches a private road to the left of his property.
·         The city said too bad, we want you to build a sidewalk. The city went further and said that even if the ordinance is not clear that sidewalks are required, the city council plans to make a new ordinance requiring sidewalks so Gracedel is forced to build a sidewalk now even before there is an ordinance requiring him to do so.

Does the City even Read their own Ordinances? Sidewalks NOT required!

First of all, Gracedel’s plat was already approved by default so the city cannot force him to change it and they cannot deny the permit. Second, I took a look at the code of ordinances for the city of Lumberton and I wonder if the members of the Lumberton City Council have ever read their own code of ordinances. It is clear that Mr. Gracedel does NOT have to build a sidewalk. The only mention in the ordinances of someone having to build a sidewalk is in the subdivision application rules, and the subdivision application rules do not apply to Gracedel.

But wait, there is more! Even if the city inaccurately tries to impose the subdivision ordinance on him, the subdivision ordinance is clear that sidewalks are ONLY required if the person applying for a subdivision is going to build a NEW road. In other words, according to the subdivision rules, only if Gracedel is building a NEW ROAD in a subdivision is he required to build a sidewalk with curbs along the new road. Mr. Gracedel’s business center will not have any new roads as customers will enter the parking lot directly from the Highway.

The City of Lumberton has been getting into lots of Trouble over Abuses of Power

Sometimes I wonder if the City Council in Lumberton, TX believes that they are above the law. They sure act like it. It seems like yesterday that I broke a story about the city losing a million dollar lawsuit after they stole a man’s land and tried to give the man nothing even close to what the land was worth. They thought they were above the law and could do what they wanted but the man had money to hire a lawyer and the city lost. They actually were able to keep the lawsuit a secret from the residents of Lumberton until I found out about it. Or how about the fact that the city council knowingly hired a man to be the city attorney and prosecutor even though the city prosecutor owed $40,000 for not paying local property taxes in over a decade. Yep, the city prosecutor would prosecute people who violate city laws even though the prosecutor himself was violating law and not paying his taxes. I broke that story as well and the city finally fired the attorney after the public found out. Even more recently, Councilmen Don Burnett and Andy Kelley saw the Political Action Committee they belong to fined by the Texas Ethics Commission after the committee illegally got a $25,000 donation from Walmart. These city councilmen then turned around and gave Walmart a variance that Walmart had wanted.

The City Gives Variances to Businesses like passing out candy in order get more Tax Revenue, so Why Kill this Multi-Million Dollar Business Center?

I just do not get it. The city of Lumberton has an ordinance that does not allow alcohol to be sold within 300 feet of a school or daycare. The city has recently allowed businesses to break the city rules and sell alcohol within 300 feet of schools and daycares. Why? Because the city says we need the tax revenue. What I do not understand is why the city is killing Gracedel’s good business project that will bring jobs and money to the city, but the same city is willing to allow other businesses to break the rules and sell alcohol by a school because the city says it will bring in more money for the city. It just does not make sense and it reeks of corruption, political games, and the good old boy system.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Michael Reagan: "The Butler" Movie LIES about Ronald Reagan and Civil Rights

from NewsMax by Michael Reagan:

The Butler from Another Planet

Tuesday, 27 Aug 2013 06:29 AM
By Michael Reagan
Image: The Butler from Another Planet
Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey attend The Los Angeles Premiere of "The Butler."
There you go again, Hollywood.

You’ve taken a great story about a real person and real events and twisted it into a bunch of lies.

You took the true story of Eugene Allen, the White House butler who served eight presidents from 1952 to 1986, and turned it into a clichéd “message movie.”

“Lee Daniels’ The Butler’” stars Forest Whitaker as Cecil Gaines, a fictional character supposedly based on Eugene Allen’s real life.

But let’s compare the two White House butlers.

Latest: The Real Ronald Reagan Revealed in This Movie

Guess which one grew up in segregated Virginia, got a job at the White House and rose to become maître d’hôtel, the highest position in White House service?

Guess which one had a happy, quiet life and was married to the same woman for 65 years? And who had one son who served honorably in Vietnam and never made a peep of protest through the pre- and post-civil rights era?

Now guess which butler grew up on a Georgia farm, watched the boss rape his mother and then, when his father protested the rape, watched the boss put a bullet through his father’s head?

Guess which butler feels the pain of America’s racial injustices so deeply that he quits his White House job and joins his son in a protest movement?

And guess which butler has a wife (Oprah Winfrey) who becomes an alcoholic and has a cheap affair with the guy next door? (I’m surprised it wasn’t the vice president.)

After comparing Hollywood’s absurd version of Eugene Allen’s life story with the truth, you wonder why the producers didn’t just call it “The Butler from Another Planet.”

Screenwriter Danny Strong says he was trying to present a “backstage kind of view of the White House” that portrayed presidents and first ladies as they really were in everyday life.

Well, I was backstage at the White House — a few hundred times. I met and knew the real butler, Mr. Allen, and I knew a little about my father.

Portraying Ronald Reagan as a racist because he was in favor of lifting economic sanctions against South Africa is simplistic and dishonest.

If you knew my father, you’d know he was the last person on Earth you would call a racist.

If Strong had gotten his “facts” from the Reagan biographies, he’d have learned that when my father was playing football at Eureka College one of his best friends was a black teammate.

Strong also would have learned that my father invited black players home for dinner and once, when two players were not allowed to stay in the local hotel, he invited them to stay overnight at his house.

Screenwriter Strong also might have found out that when my father was governor of California he appointed more blacks to positions of power than any of his predecessors — combined.

It’s appalling to me that someone is trying to imply my father was a racist. He and Nancy and the rest of the Reagan family treated Mr. Allen with the utmost respect.

It was Nancy Reagan who invited the butler to dinner — not to work but as guest. And it was my father who promoted Mr. Allen to maître d’hôtel.

The real story of the White House butler doesn’t imply racism at all. It’s simply Hollywood liberals wanting to believe something about my father that was never there.

My father’s position on lifting the South African sanctions in the ‘80s had nothing to do with the narrow issue of race. It had to do with the geopolitics of the Cold War.

But facts don’t matter to Hollywood’s creative propagandists. Truth is too complicated and not dramatic enough for scriptwriters, who think in minute terms, not the big picture, when it comes to a conservative.

Despite what Hollywood’s liberal hacks believe, my father didn’t see people in colors. He saw them as individual Americans. If the liberals in Hollywood — and Washington — ever start looking at people the way he did, the country will be a lot better off.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan. He is president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation and Chairman of the League of American Voters. Mike is a in-demand speaker with Premiere. Read more reports from Michael Reagan — Click Here Now.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Greg Abbott Statement Opposing San Antonio, TX Ban on Christians

August 26, 2013
Statement by Greg Abbott on Proposed San Antonio Ordinance

AUSTIN – Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott joins with the Hispanic Action Network in opposing a proposed non-discrimination ordinance in San Antonio. An action alert from the Hispanic Action Network can be found here.
Abbott today released the following statement:
“I oppose the proposed ordinance because it would not prevent discrimination, but impose it: stifling speech, repressing religious liberty, and imposing burdens on those who hold a traditional view on human relations. The proposed ordinance runs contrary to the Texas Constitution, which prohibits religious tests, and also defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Religious expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and this ordinance is also contrary to the clearly expressed will of the Texas Legislature in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Civil Practices and Remedies Code Ch. 110), which provides that ‘a government agency may not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion.’ The proposed ordinance sows confusion, where clarity is in order.
“Although the proposal has been couched in terms of liberty and equality, it would have the effect of inhibiting the liberty of expression and equality of opportunity for San Antonians.”

San Antonio’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance Discriminates Against People Of Faith

from Texas GOP Vote by Sonja Harris:

Anti-Christian events in San Antonio are not new. The very perverted Corpus Christi Play at the San Antonio Playhouse opened in 2011 depicting Christ as a homosexual. Very few San Antonio residents voiced their opposition to the play to the city council. Deacon Pat Rogers from the SA Archdiocese did tell me that he and other faith leaders had indeed stood before the city council in opposition and their message fell on deaf ears.As Catholics we have to understand the underlying agenda of Mayor Julian Castro as he is aligned with Obama in bringing same sex marriage to our cities. In San Antonio the anti discrimination ordinance is not about discrimination towards the homosexual but about same sex marriage becoming a reality.In June of 2011 I wrote an article on the Corpus Christi Play and below is an excerpt:Corpus Christi, the play by Terrence McNally, will open on June 17 and run until July 10 at the San Pedro Playhouse in San Antonio, Texas. Freedom of expression is being used to hide behind this ‘teachable moment’ of tolerance by depicting Christ as a queer. Plain and simple, it is a play that wants to continue perverting our mental image of homosexual life. Mixing religion and homosexuality makes for an appalling partnership. It is the people in a community who decide what is acceptable or not. But it seems that in San Antonio there is not enough interest by the ordinary citizen in protesting this supposedly ‘great, successful’ play.Fast forward to 2013 where now Castro’s message is expanding. If the Catholics in San Antonio do not stand against this ‘new’ proposed non discrimination ordinance, ‘so called’ Catholic Mayor Julian Castro will undoubtly pull the rug from under Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller's feet. His eminence must come out and denounce this ordinance or the people of San Antonio will lose their Right of Conscience if it is approved. This power play must end in retreat by the City Council members.There are many warriors fighting the battle and Phil Sevilla of the Texas Leadership Coalition has been in the front lines. I spoke to Sevilla and this is what he had to say.I asked him what he thought about Pastor Hagee’s statement found on the front page of the SA Express N News that he ‘now agrees with the ordinance’ since the clause that would allow candidates for city boards and commissions that discriminated against gay and transgender people in ‘word or deed’ has been removed. His answer was emphatic.NO, NO, the whole ordinance needs to be defeated. The whole premise of the ordinance is wrong. Sexual orientation is wrong because on the face of it, ultimately it will result in reverse discrimination against individuals or organizations or businesses. Even if this clause is removed, it does not change the underlying purpose of the ordinance. They are aligned with the National Homosexual agenda which is to include in the municipal statutes, the anti discrimination statutes, sexual orientation and gender identity. This will lead in the future for marriage equality. It is a national agenda for marriage equality and nothing about discrimination. When we met with Diego Bernal, SA City Councilman District 1, with Pastor Flowers and Pastor Ripley a few months ago I asked, “Diego is there any evidence that there is discrimination against the homosexuals in San Antonio”? Diego answered, No, we don’t have discrimination here in San Antonio but we need to put this in the books. There is no evidence of any discrimination so why is this necessary to impose this on the citizens on San Antonio and the stress to hang over the businesses to accommodate the public that they can be sued and complaints filed against them.As Catholics we must affirm these persons who have every right to our respect, because they are made in the image and likeness of God but they are also made a male and female. And to confirm them in their sexual orientation disorder is wrong. There is ample evidence that many have come out of that lifestyle by embracing their Christian faith or through therapy, but this is being silenced by the homosexual activists. They want to shut down any kind of therapy that offers hope to those who are afflicted by the ‘same sex attraction disorder’. That is the clinical term used by therapists who work with homosexuals who are unhappy about their condition. So why would we as church and state affirm persons who are unhappy or who have this disorder. Why should we affirm this as natural when it is not natural? We have to speak the truth in love. And in this case it needs to be said as ‘tough love’. It is very important that we as Catholics understand what is underneath it all.While not too clear when the Archbishop will comment on the ordinance, Deacon Pat Rogers did state that he will.Senator Ted Cruz on the ordinance, “Any attempt to bar an individual from public service based on a personal religious conviction is contrary to the liberties guaranteed us under our constitution and should be emphatically opposed. It is encouraging to see so many Texans standing up to defend their religious freedoms in light of the misguided proposal put forth by the local city council.”The latest version of the city ordinance is still in rough draft and will be addressed later this month (August). As you can see, some items have been red lined. You can still have your voice heard on Wednesdays at the SA City Council meetings. The entire ordinance should be defeated for the purposes outlined above.ADOPTING A CONSOLIDATED NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY WITH EXPANDED PROTECTIONS; ESTABLISHING AND AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE CITY CODE; ADOPTING A NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT AS REQUIRED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND RELATED STATUTES; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND DIRECTING PUBLICATION. Rally to ‘Celebrate Life, Marriage, Family & Our Precious Freedoms’ at Milam Park on August 3 took a turn when rowdy, instigators interrupted a peaceful and prayerful Catholic/Christian gathering. Is this what we should look forward to if this anti discrimination ordinance discriminates against people of faith? RED SONJA 2013© FIND YOUR SA CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE -

See more at:

Where the Border Wall Ends: South East Texas/Mexico Border Wide Open (Video)

from by Brandon Darby:

Both Democrat and Republican leaders continue to espouse that the U.S. border with Mexico is secure, but I found the exact opposite to be true when I went to the border on assignment for Breitbart News. 

These videos expose the ease at which illegal crossings occur in the southeast Texas area known as the Valley, one of the most heavy areas for illegal crossing into the United States.
The first video I took revealed a gaping hole in the border fence that resulted from a massive gate never having been installed. The opening was slightly more than 100 yards from the Rio Grande, the river that separates the U.S. from Mexico in Texas. I walked to the river, then walked through the open gate into a U.S. neighborhood. I did not see any security or border patrols for 30-35 minutes.
Approximately one mile from this gaping hole, I found the end of the border fence. The end of the border fence sits between another U.S. neighborhood and the river. A "wildlife management area" extends less than a mile between the fence and the river.
Here is the exclusive video:

see the rest of the article and the videos here:

Video: Breitbart News' Brandon Darby Exposes Unsecured Border

from by Brandon Darby:

Video: Breitbart News' Brandon Darby Exposes Unsecured Border

Breitbart News’ Brandon Darby walks viewers from the Rio Grande River into a U.S. neighborhood, revealing just how unsecured the U.S./Mexico border really is. Darby walks viewers through the unfinished “Border Fence,” which had no gate or security of any kind. The location was west of Penitas, Texas.

Darby, who is on assignment along the U.S./Mexico border investigating cartels and public corruption, stated by telephone:
"The southeastern stretch of the Rio Grande river is where most of Texas' illegal immigration occurs. The area has many desolate regions and there simply aren't enough resources being applied to the issue.
"Cartels and street gangs control the human smuggling. The region where I took the video is currently heavily disputed between the Mexican Gulf cartel and the Los Zetas cartel, which is actually an armed insurgency," said Darby.
"Transnational crime syndicates usually have a stash house just on the other side of the wall. People cross the river and go to these houses. Then they are taken up various highways and let out just before the known immigration check points. They walk miles and miles from that point to the next stash house."
Darby was referencing a 2012 report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in his assertions about human smuggling.
"Breitbart News has just begun to open the taps on the human stories and issues of public corruption occurring on our southern border. We will continue to surprise our readers and the American public with the information we are uncovering," said Darby.

WWll Obama Respond After Black Kids Beat WWII Veteran to Death?

Obama created a racial divide in America when he took the side of Trayvon Martin and made it clear that he believed Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black and that it happens all the time.
Oh really Obama, you do realize that black on white Crime and black on black crime is much worse that white on black crime? Why do you not speak out about it?

from Fox News:

Police arrest one suspect, seek another after World War II veteran dies following parking lot beating

A suspect in the brutal beating of a World War II veteran who later died from his injuries has been arrested, as police in Spokane, Washington continue to search for a second attacker.
Police confirmed that a 16-year-old had been charged with first degree robbery and first degree murder in the Wednesday parking lot attack.
They said they were still looking for a second 16-year-old suspect, Kenan Adams-Kinard.
The Spokane Police Department said in a press release officers responded to reports of an assault Wednesday and found the victim, 88-year-old Delbert Belton, in his car with serious head injuries. He died Thursday in the hospital.
Friends identified Belton, and say he was sitting outside a lodge for the Fraternal Order of the Eagles when he was attacked.

Read rest of article here:

Monday, August 26, 2013

Holder Sues Texas over Voter ID: Barry Smitherman Responds to USDOJ Challenge

AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, Railroad Commission Chairman and conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”

- See more at:
AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at:
AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at:
AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at:
AUSTIN – Barry Smitherman, conservative Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General issued the following statement in response to United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement that he will challenge Texas Voter ID law:
“Eric Holder and the Obama Justice Department continue their unrelenting attacks on the State of Texas, ignoring the facts and the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision (Shelby County, AL vs Holder USAG) that there is presently no evidence of minority voter suppression in Texas. We must stand up against the Obama Justice Department and its politicized attempt to subvert the Texas Voter ID law. Eric Holder's actions fly in the face of the highest court in the land and the laws of the Great State of Texas, and will not be allowed to stand.”
- See more at:

Holder Sues Louisiana over School Choice Vouchers. Holders Wants to Keep Blacks in Failing Schools


The U.S. Justice Department is suing Louisiana in New Orleans federal court to block 2014-15 vouchers for students in public school systems that are under federal desegregation orders. The first year of private school vouchers "impeded the desegregation process," the federal government says.
Thirty-four school systems could be affected, including those of Jefferson, Plaquemines, St. John the Baptist and St. Tammany parishes. Under the lawsuit, the state would be barred from assigning students in those systems  to private schools unless a federal judge agreed to it. A court hearing is tentatively set for Sept. 19.
The statewide voucher program, officially called the Louisiana Scholarship Program, lets low-income students in public schools graded C, D or F attend private schools at taxpayer expense. This year, 22 of the 34 systems under desegregation orders are sending some students to private schools on vouchers.
Last year, at least 570 students were affected; the program has expanded since then. The federal petition would require the state to analyze this year's vouchers to see how they affected school desegregation. (Read the petition.)
The Justice Department's primary argument is that letting students leave for vouchered private schools can disrupt the racial balance in public school systems that desegregation orders are meant to protect. Those orders almost  always set rules for student transfers with the school system.
Federal analysis found that last year's Louisiana vouchers increased racial imbalance in 34 historically segregated public schools in 13 systems. The Justice Department goes so far as to charge that in some of those schools, "the loss of students through the voucher program reversed much of the progress made toward integration."
In Tangipahoa Parish, for instance, Independence Elementary School lost five white students to voucher schools, the petition states. The consequent change in the percent of enrolled white students "reinforc(ed) the racial identity of the school as a black school."
While the federal petition would let courts approve vouchers in those school systems next year, Brian Blackwell, attorney for the Louisiana Association of Educators, said it likely would take a lot of time, effort and evidence to persuade the judges.
State Education Superintendent John White took issue with the suit's primary argument and its characterization of the program. Almost all the students using vouchers are black, he said. Given that framework, "it's a little ridiculous" to argue that students' departure to voucher schools makes their home school systems less white, he said. He also thought it ironic that rules set up to combat racism were being called on to keep black students in failing schools.

read more here:

Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now'

from News Busters:

Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members' heads spin.
During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Are you saying college admissions should be based on diversity?
ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Yeah, I mean, I think lots of factors go into diversity. I think race can be one of them, and I think the Supreme Court so far agrees with that.
MCLAUGHLIN: 67 percent opposed it, 28, you’re in the minority. Only 28 percent are in favor of it.
PAT BUCHANAN: It should be based on excellence, John.
CLIFT: As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I’m fine.
BUCHANAN: It should be like the NFL: whoever’s the best player plays, and whoever does best academically should be advanced. What is wrong with that?
MICHELLE BERNARD: Here’s a question I have. One of the things I always say because I think you can measure diversity in a lot of ways, but I think there’s an argument to be said that the greatest Affirmative Action program that there is in the country is being born white. There is a natural assumption when you are applying to institutions of higher education that you are excellent or you are more superb than others.
BUCHANAN: With due respect, whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now.
It may be a shocking thing to say on television, but is Buchanan right?
Please also see ‘We’ve Gone From Martin Luther King to Al Sharpton…It’s Very Dispiriting’ and MSNBC's Bernard: ‘Country Has Become More Race Conscious’ Since Obama Elected.

Read more:

Anti-Christian Terrorists Detonate Bomb at Cross Memorial in Oregon Park

from Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio:

Someone ignited an improvised explosive device next to a war memorial cross that a prominent atheist group wanted removed from a public park in Coos Bay, Ore., an attorney for the city told Fox News.
An official statement on the city’s website called it an act of “criminal mischief” and stated that an ”unknown person(s) vandalized the memorial with an improvised explosive device.”
“We unfortunately are now to the point where explosive devices are being placed next to crosses,” said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation at the Liberty Institute.
Photo by Thomas Moriarty, The World
Photo by Thomas Moriarty, The World
The Texas-based Liberty Institute was hired by the city to determine the constitutionality of the Mingo Park Vietnam War Memorial cross.
The cross is still standing, but did sustain superficial damage, Coos Bay City Manager Roger Craddock told Fox News.
“Other than some charred marks on the cement structure there was no real damage to the memorial,” he said.
The blast startled local residents as well as dispatchers at the local police station, according to local news reports.
The cross had been donated to the city in 1972 but had become the center of controversy recently when the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent city officials a letter demanding they remove the cross.
“We have no objection to the veterans’ memorials,” FFRF attorney Rebecca Markert wrote to the city. “Our objection is to the message of endorsement of Christianity over other religions and non-religions.”
The FFRF is a Wisconsin-based group of freethinkers, atheists and agnostics that has a history of targeting small towns and communities on issues regarding public displays of the Christian faith.
“These people will stop at nothing to intimidate communities to tear down their veterans memorials,” Sasser told Fox News. “Now the crazies are trying to blow one up.”
Police are working with explosives specialists from the Oregon State Police but so far they do not have any suspects.
Sasser said it’s fortunate no one was hurt by the blast.
“This memorial is right next to the area where many children play,” Sasser told Fox News. “A child could have been killed or wounded by the IED exploding.”
In May the cross was vandalized. Someone wrote the word “Remove” in the middle of the cross along with a dotted line and arrow to indicate where to “cut.”
Sasser called on the FFRF to stop “fanning the flames of hostility toward veterans memorials.”
“There are consequences for fomenting hatred for what were once obscure veterans memorials,” he said. “The FFRF should immediately condemn this dangerous criminal act.”