Jason Moore Reveals why Eric Opiela should NOT be elected

The following letter was emailed to me to pass on. The letter is from Jason Moore and it reveals why Eric Opiela should not be elected:


EmpowerTexans

Mr. Opiela’s Opus

February 13, 2014 by Captain Watchdog

In the crazy campaign season where every nook and cranny of a person’s life and statements about the most obscure things are brought out in TV ads, mailers and social media posts, I find it incredible that the wreckage left behind by Eric Opiela is scarcely mentioned anywhere!

You may recall that Mr. Opiela served as the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Texas until terminated by interim party chair Cathie Adams. What most of the people outside the bubble of RPT party politics don’t know is that under Mr. Opiela’s directorship the party was virtually weeks from having to consider bankruptcy!

Yes in a red state like Texas the Republican Party was nearly ¾ of a million dollars in debt! When confronted at a closed door meeting by myself and a fellow SREC member that it appeared to us that the Party was going broke, Mr. Opiela looked us straight in the eye and said “If the Party was going broke I would tell you”. A couple of months later as the next administration started their term at the RPT the financial realities were revealed to be obvious and serious.

Most people ask “why does this matter” in Mr. Opiela’s current race for Ag Commissioner? With the 5 year anniversary coming up for the organic forming of the TEA Party it is interesting to recall the things that have most irritated the taxpaying public that was the initial core of the TEA Party movement. It was overreach, dishonesty, obfuscation and financial mismanagement.

As a member of the State Republican Executive Committee during the employment of Mr. Opiela I can attest to the similarities of Mr. Opiela’s management of the party and government in general.

In fact at one meeting I specifically warned the party that we had no moral authority to demand of government what we were not willing give ourselves; accountability, transparency & honesty. When I and a fellow member questioned some of the financial reports given by Mr. Opiela we were accosted by him later and told that we were making “the chairman look bad”.

As part of the governing body for the state party it is our job to make sure that we fulfill the mission we set out in our bylaws. It is also our responsibility to make sound financial decisions. Most party supporters were never aware that Mr. Opiela signed a 7 year “iron clad” lease that at one point was exponentially more dollars per square foot than the average Austin high rise was leasing for at the time. Another revelation during the Opiela term was ridiculous fundraising agreements signed by him that saw the party essentially raising large sums of money just to pay the firm raising the money!

Even worse when the finances got so bad that he needed additional credit security for this firm to continue doing business with us he put the 64 members of the Executive Committee at financial risk by REMOVING our individual liability from the bill collectors, though most of us were unaware of the agreements he was entering into on behalf of the party!

These are just a few of the financial disasters overseen by Mr. Opiela. At one point Mr. Opiela finally admits that he knew the party’s finances were in bad shape but he thought he could get it corrected “before anyone found out”.

Finally, as if these financial decisions alone would not disqualify ANYONE from public office, Mr. Opiela’s political connections should be equally disconcerting. As a reminder, who could forget this great little paragraph from conservative warrior Erick Erickson over at Redstate regarding Mr. Opiela:

When the state’s Republican Executive Committee expressed concerns about the maps drawn for the state’s board of education, Straus lawyer and failed legislative candidate Eric Opiela expressed disdain for committee chairman (and Tea Party activist) Jason Moore in an email to other Straus allies, sarcastically saying, “need I say more.” Straus’ legal counsel said he did not “really trust” Moore – presumably because — in the words of Mr. Johnson — Moore “gave us hell.”

Or from the same article this: Similarly, when Straus adviser Eric Opiela forwarded along information from a Tea Party activist, Straus consultant and close friend Gordon Johnson wrote that they were “doing battle with idiots.”

By now everyone knows just how cozy Eric Opiela is with Speaker Joe Straus even to the point of being paid by the Speaker for “legal work”. However, during the initial forming of the ad hoc committee for the RPT for redistricting most of us were not aware of his financial commitments to various people for particular outcomes related to redistricting.

As most Republican primary voters already know the redistricting process has been chaotic at best. Mr. Opiela has been a central figure in that chaos. When I proposed a resolution (as an SREC member) that the GOP members of the Texas legislature needed to caucus together to select their choice for Speaker of the House, Mr. Opiela fought vigorously against this resolution. Even when I reminded members that the other party has this caucus requirement as part of THEIR bylaws, Opiela was still determined to thwart the will of grassroots Republicans.

So, when an individual serves as an employee of a political organization and hides information, works to undermine its board of directors, makes bad financial decisions and encumbers that organization with those bad decisions far into the future then why would we want him as a state elected official? I realize this makes him great blue state congressional material, but NOT a Texas elected official. However he might just be that half step democrats need to turn Texas “blue”.

How Could Debra Medina Support Pro Abortion Joe Straus who used Democrats to Beat Republicans?

The Texas 2014 Republican Primary Election has more hotly contested races than I have ever seen. From the race for Lieutenant Governor to the race for Attorney General all the way down to County Judge Races. One big race seems to always go overlooked though. The Texas Comptroller Republican Primary Race never gets much publicity, but it is a very important statewide office.

I would not be a good voter or a good citizen if I did not look into who the candidates are in the Texas Comptroller race, and then try to find out who is the best candidate.

There are 4 candidates in the Texas Comptroller race, Glenn Hegar, Harvey Hilderbran, Debra Medina, and Raul Torres.

Right away I am drawn to Texas Senator Glenn Hegar because I have seen him over the years and he has been a very strong conservative voice in the Texas Legislature.

But then I see Debra Medina's name in the Texas Comptroller race and I am intrigued. I remember when she ran against Rick Perry in 2010. Although I supported Perry in that race, I liked Medina because she took some good stances on conservative issues.

So I decided to look her up on Google and check out her campaign and see what she has been up to since 2010.

Boy was I VERY disappointed in what I found.

One of the first things I saw when I searched for Medina is an article from Empower Texans that said in 2011 Medina supported pro-abortion Joe Straus (Joe Straus teamed up with Democrats to stab Republicans in the back in order to gain control of the Texas Speaker of the House position)

I did not believe it. It must have just been a rumor about Medina. How could a strong conservative ever support Joe Straus? I liked Medina so I could not believe it. I did a little more digging and to my dismay, I discovered that it is true that Debra Medina supported Joe Straus. Not only did she support Joe Straus, she wrote a lengthy letter praising Joe Straus and bashing the conservatives who were trying to get a real conservative to replace Straus.

You can read the full letter from Medina here

My intent in writing about Medina supporting Joe Straus is not to try to attack Medina. At the same time, this is important information that people have a right to know about. I am dismayed and shocked and I would like to know how. How could she support someone like Joe Straus over real conservatives?

A few of the previous articles I have written about Joe Straus:

Straus Publicly Attacks Gov. Perry and Supports Pro-Abortion Wendy Davis

Joe Straus: Supports New Taxes & Obamacare, Opposes Gun Rights, Pro Abortion,Betrayed Republicans – Texas MUST Elect a New Speaker!

Profane Emails From Texas Speaker Joe Straus’s Office Reveal War Against Conservatives

TexasSpeaker Joe Straus Says Abortion is NOT a Serious Issue

AgendaWise Sues Joe Straus and Dewhurst for Denying 1st Amendment Press Rights to Texas Conservatives

Agendawise has sued Texas House Speaker Joe Straus and Texas Senate LT Governor David Dewhurst for denying them equal first amendment press rights. Specifically, the Texas Tribune was allowed server space to broadcast the live feed from the floor of the Texas Legislature’s Senate and House proceedings. 

AgendaWise is an online conservative news organization that has asked for, and been denied, the ability to also broadcast the live feed for the Texas Legislature proceedings.

I think I know why moderate RINO Republican Joe Straus does not like the thought of allowing this conservative group having equal access to the live feed. This particular conservative group has not been too kind in the articles they have written about Straus.

According to Courthouse News Service, AgendaWise claims that state Sen. Eltife and Rep. Geren rejected its request for space in the server closet at the Texas Capitol.
     It claims the defendants - all Republicans - violate the First Amendment by denying it access, and that they did so because AgendaWise reporters have "frequently criticized political stances held by defendants."
     Geren "has expressed his dissatisfaction with the reporting of AgendaWise online, accusing AgendaWise Executive Director Daniel Greer of telling lies and criticizing former AgendaWise board member Michael Quinn Sullivan," the complaint states.

Michael Quinn Sullivan is also the head of Empower Texans and Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Sullivan has hammered Joe Straus in recent years for his fiscal irresponsibility and for raising money, via guys like Rep. Charlie Geren, to go towards defeating conservatives in the Texas House of Representatives.

Agendawise wants the live feed in time to be able to broadcast the Texas House impeachment hearings that Joe Straus has been pushing against a University of Texas Regent Wallace Hall. This regent was investigating financial issues and kickbacks within the University of Texas. Straus is trying to stop this regent from uncovering the truth by calling for an investigation. Apparently Straus thinks it is an impeachable offense for the regent to, well, do his job and make sure the University is being run legally and ethically.

Michael Q. Sullivan Responds to Wendy Davis Announcing to run for Texas Governor

Good afternoon! 

Wanted to make sure you saw the press statement we issued a few minutes ago. 

-mq

______________________
Michael Quinn Sullivan
EmpowerTexans.com
1836Campaign.com
Direct: 512-850-4336 

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Morgan Williamson (TFR press)" <press@empowertexans.com> 
Subject: Statement on Wendy Davis candidacy
Date: October 3, 2013 15:28:27 CDT
To:

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility EmpowerTexans.com Update or unsubscribe.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 3, 2013 CONTACT: Morgan Williamson (512) 693-9553 mwilliamson@empowertexans.com or press@empowertexans.com

Statement on Wendy Davis’ Entrance To 2014 Gubernatorial Race

AUSTIN, Texas – As State Sen. Wendy Davis enters the 2014 gubernatorial race, the president of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility – Michael Quinn Sullivan – offered the following statement.

“On issue after issue, Wendy Davis has styled herself as a politician eager to please a narrow band of entrenched, liberal special interests. Her policy positions would put the state on a spending spree the likes of which we have never seen. Sen. Davis has refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, thereby putting the best economic interests of Texans behind bloated bureaucracies eager for more power and money.

“As an avid proponent of ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, Wendy Davis has established herself as someone willing to turn the Lone Star State into Texafornia.

“Wendy Davis wants to turn Texas blue by way of a sea of red-ink and a flood of high taxes.

“Finally, Davis’ professional interests have clearly been designed over the years to profit from the positions of public trust she has held. Whether illegal, unethical or just wrong, Texans are not well-served by an officeholder who stretches past breaking the relationship between their public life and private income.”

 
(A website dedicated to the questions about Wendy Davis’ ethical choices, www.WendyDavis.org, provides additional information.)

Update: Governor Perry has Vetoed Texas SB 346 - Justice Don Willett and Senator Dan Patrick Respond

Update: Governor Perry has Vetoed Texas SB 346

Statement from Texas Governor Rick Perry:


“Freedom of association and freedom of speech are two of our most important rights enshrined in the Constitution. My fear is that SB 346 would have a chilling effect on both of those rights in our democratic political process. While regulation is necessary in the administration of Texas political finance laws, no regulation is tolerable that puts anyone’s participation at risk or that can be used by any government, organization or individual to intimidate those who choose to participate in our process through financial means.”

“At a time when our federal government is assaulting the rights of Americans by using the tools of government to squelch dissent it is unconscionable to expose more Texans to the risk of such harassment, regardless of political, organizational or party affiliation. I therefore veto SB 346.”


the following is a facebook post from Texas Senator Dan Patrick:

Gov just vetoed SB 346 That is the bill I recalled from the House that they refused to send back. It would impact 501 C 4 organizations including many conservative & pro-life groups as well as moderate or liberal groups. It was a clearly unconstitutional, but would have required a lengthy @ expensive court fight

the following is tweet from Texas State Supreme Court Justice Don Willett:

Don Willett @JusticeWillett 8m

@GovernorPerry's #SB346 veto msg: “Freedom of association & ... speech are two of our most important rights enshrined in the Constitution."



previous articles:


ACTION ALERT! Ask Texas Governor Perry to VETO SB 346 - it attacks conservative groups and churches like Obama's IRS

Like IRS Scandal, Texas Speaker Straus Attacking Conservative Non-Profit Groups and even Churches!

ACTION ALERT! Ask Texas Governor Perry to VETO SB 346 - it attacks conservative groups and churches like Obama's IRS

Update: Governor Perry has Vetoed Texas SB 346 - Justice Don Willett and Senator Dan Patrick Respond

ACTION ALERT! GOVERNOR RICK PERRY MUST VETO THIS BILL SB 346! 512-463-2000

One of the top Chairmen for Joe Straus, Charlie Geren, has pushed a bill (SB 346) through the Texas House that, like the recent Obama IRS scandal, would attack Texas conservative non-profit groups by demanding the groups reveal who gives money to the non-profit groups. 

This bill would even attack churches and religious groups who do not get involved in partisan politics and only stand for issues like pro-life and pro marriage! 

Interestingly enough, labor unions are specifically named in the bill as exempt from these requirements! Heck, what about newspapers? They get involved in EVERY election and endorse candidates and bash Republicans in issues, but they would not have to reveal their finances under this bill. So Unions and Newspapers get a pass, but if someone gives 25,000 to a church to buy pro-life signs then the church has to reveal their finances! THIS IS WORSE THAT WHAT OBAMA'S IRS IS DOING!

Also, how would you feel about having to register as a lobbyist simply because you go to the Courthouse in Austin with a group of Christians from your church and hold pro-life signs on the side of the road?

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY MUST VETO THIS BILL SB 346! Call his office at 512-463-2000

Call the Texas Governor NOW and ask that he veto this bill. Spread the word about this outrageous shakedown and attack on the first amendment!

The State Senate voted to pass this bill first before the house, but they did so with good intentions not knowing the major flaws in the bill. They tried to have a re-vote to recall this bill after they found out the flaws in the bill and found out that it was being pushed by Straus, but it was too late. The House conservatives were able to reveal this trickery before the bill was voted on, but the House Democrats teamed up with the house moderate Republicans and the House Conservative Republicans were not able to stop this bill from passing. Since it passed the House and Senate, it now goes to the Governor to be signed.

Governor Rick Perry MUST veto this bill!

This is a direct attack on the First Amendment. Non-Profits, like Pro Life groups and fiscal responsibility groups, are non-partisan and these groups promote their issues and support anyone who supports their issue. Because they are non-partisan and they are created to support an issue, they are not required to reveal private information about the non-profit in campaign finance reports. This is like how a church works. A church is a non profit and, like other non-profits, is protected by the First Amendment and does not have to reveal financial info or pay taxes. A church can promote Christian issues and encourage people to vote in support of these Christian issues. Well, Joe Straus does not like that because Straus has received negative attention from some of these groups because he is not personally pro-life and has had other fiscal responsibility issues. So what does Straus do? Straus attacks the first amendment and calls for a shakedown of these non profit groups. These groups are not supporting him, so he is wants to unconstitutionally target these groups. Can someone tell me how that is ANY different from the IRS targeting conservative non profit and Tea Party groups because they stand for conservative values and go against the liberal values of President Obama?

Texans Should be Outraged at this attack against the First Amendment from Joe Straus!

read more about this bill here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130522-michael-quinn-sullivan-dark-money-bill-threatens-small-social-issue-groups.ece

http://pushjunction.com/l/Cn_

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/House-sends-donor-disclosure-bill-to-Gov-Perry-4513388.php

http://www.agendawise.com/2013/05/charlie-geren-with-obamas-irs/

http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/2013/05/22/governor-perry-the-texas-democrat-party-official-who-threatened-to-kill-nra-members-is-behind-sb-346/

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/13553-emergency-call-action-ask-texas-governor-rick-perry-veto-sb-346-now

http://www.texasaction.com/bill/83r/sb346

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15512-texas-conservatives-mobilize-ask-governor-to-veto-bill-expanding-the-definition-of-political-activity

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/21/governor-perry-please-veto-sb-346/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578489183521250950.html

http://wilcoconservative.blogspot.com/2013/05/wsj-conservatives-urge-veto-of-ill.html

Like IRS Scandal, Texas Speaker Straus Attacking Conservative Non-Profit Groups and even Churches!

Update: Governor Perry has Vetoed Texas SB 346 - Justice Don Willett and Senator Dan Patrick Respond


GOVERNOR RICK PERRY MUST VETO THIS BILL SB 346! 

One of the top Chairmen for Joe Straus, Charlie Geren, has pushed a bill (SB 346) through the Texas House that, like the recent Obama IRS scandal, would attack Texas conservative non-profit groups by demanding the groups reveal who gives money to the non-profit groups. 

This bill would even attack churches and religious groups who do not get involved in partisan politics and only stand for issues like pro-life and pro marriage! 

Interestingly enough, labor unions are specifically named in the bill as exempt from these requirements! Heck, what about newspapers? They get involved in EVERY election and endorse candidates and bash Republicans in issues, but they would not have to reveal their finances under this bill. So Unions and Newspapers get a pass, but if someone gives 25,000 to a church to buy pro-life signs then the church has to reveal their finances! THIS IS WORSE THAT WHAT OBAMA'S IRS IS DOING!

Also, how would you feel about having to register as a lobbyist simply because you go to the Courthouse in Austin with a group of Christians from your church and hold pro-life signs on the side of the road?

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY MUST VETO THIS BILL SB 346! call his office at 512-463-2000

Call the Texas Governor NOW and ask that he veto this bill. Spread the word about this outrageous shakedown and attack on the first amendment!

The State Senate voted to pass this bill first before the house, but they did so with good intentions not knowing the major flaws in the bill. They tried to have a re-vote to recall this bill after they found out the flaws in the bill and found out that it was being pushed by Straus, but it was too late. The House conservatives were able to reveal this trickery before the bill was voted on, but the House Democrats teamed up with the house moderate Republicans and the House Conservative Republicans were not able to stop this bill from passing. Since it passed the House and Senate, it now goes to the Governor to be signed.

Governor Rick Perry MUST veto this bill!

This is a direct attack on the First Amendment. Non-Profits, like Pro Life groups and fiscal responsibility groups, are non-partisan and these groups promote their issues and support anyone who supports their issue. Because they are non-partisan and they are created to support an issue, they are not required to reveal private information about the non-profit in campaign finance reports. This is like how a church works. A church is a non profit and, like other non-profits, is protected by the First Amendment and does not have to reveal financial info or pay taxes. A church can promote Christian issues and encourage people to vote in support of these Christian issues. Well, Joe Straus does not like that because Straus has received negative attention from some of these groups because he is not personally pro-life and has had other fiscal responsibility issues. So what does Straus do? Straus attacks the first amendment and calls for a shakedown of these non profit groups. These groups are not supporting him, so he is wants to unconstitutionally target these groups. Can someone tell me how that is ANY different from the IRS targeting conservative non profit and Tea Party groups because they stand for conservative values and go against the liberal values of President Obama?

Texans Should be Outraged at this attack against the First Amendment from Joe Straus!


read more about this bill here:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20130522-michael-quinn-sullivan-dark-money-bill-threatens-small-social-issue-groups.ece

http://pushjunction.com/l/Cn_

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/House-sends-donor-disclosure-bill-to-Gov-Perry-4513388.php

http://www.agendawise.com/2013/05/charlie-geren-with-obamas-irs/

http://www.bigjollypolitics.com/2013/05/22/governor-perry-the-texas-democrat-party-official-who-threatened-to-kill-nra-members-is-behind-sb-346/

http://www.conservativehq.com/article/13553-emergency-call-action-ask-texas-governor-rick-perry-veto-sb-346-now

http://www.texasaction.com/bill/83r/sb346

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15512-texas-conservatives-mobilize-ask-governor-to-veto-bill-expanding-the-definition-of-political-activity

http://www.redstate.com/2013/05/21/governor-perry-please-veto-sb-346/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578489183521250950.html

http://wilcoconservative.blogspot.com/2013/05/wsj-conservatives-urge-veto-of-ill.html

Straus Supporter Eppstein Pushes Anti Free Speech Bill that Protects Unions

Straus supporter Bryan Eppstein is pushing a bill to limit free speech in an unfair manner. Why is it unfair? It is unfair becaue it only forces some organizations to follow the regulations but others, including unions, would get a free pass. This bill is seen as an attack on Michael Q. Sullivan's non-profit organization Empower Texans (Texans for Fiscal Responsibility) because of the attacks that Sullivan has made against Joe Straus. Oh, and it is unconstitutional...

from AgendaWise: http://pushjunction.com/l/Cla

Eppstein’s anti-free speech crew
April 24, 2013 | Blog, Featured

It’s almost as if consultant and Texas Medical Association (TMA) lobbyist Bryan Eppstein runs the anti 1st Amendment caucus.
What else would you say about a consultant with so many clients aggressively on the wrong side of the 1st Amendment?
The latest example is SB 346, authored by an Eppstein client and pushed along by a bunch of other Eppstein clients. The bill would unconstitutionally apply reporting requirements to some groups and not others.
One of the armload of constitutional precedents this bill would violate says you cannot treat some corporate entities different than others. This bill carves some corporate entities out of its hefty, unconstitutional reporting requirements – the unions. This is a Republican-authored pro-union bill.
The bill’s author Kel Seliger, like many Republicans in the Eppstein stable, is the kind of Republican that might be a Democrat if Texas weren’t so conservative. A pro-union, anti-free speech bill isn’t such a stretch for this kind of Republican.
Another first amendment precedent SB346 tramples is the “significant purpose” test from the landmark U.S. Supreme Ct. decision in Buckley v Valeo. It established that heavy reporting requirements are only constitutional if the “major purpose” of an organization is the nomination and/or election of a candidate. Seliger’s SB 346 would apply these requirements to groups that aren’t even allowed to directly campaign. What’s his justification? If the group is connected to a PAC, well, it should be treated as part of it.
This is interesting corporate precedent. Maybe Obama could pick up on Seliger’s idea and decide that charities and money-losing businesses set up by people who own wealthy businesses should just be considered part of the business and taxed accordingly.
It’s Seliger’s own logic. If any of the same people are involved in two corporations, treat them both like they are the one with the higher governmental burden, be it taxes or reporting requirements.
Eppstein clients Bob Deuell, Charles Schwertner, and Tommy Williams all voted for this anti-first amendment, anti-corporate bill.

Texas Speaker Straus Wants Obamacare for Texas - Texas Reps Living Large on your Dime

the following blog post is from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility: Texans for Fiscal Responsibility EmpowerTexans.com March 10, 2013   Today: Legislators blast transparency... Straus sugarcoats Medicaid expansion... Hospitals want more...

QUOTING...  "Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money, they don't expect you to thank them for it." -- Walter Williams

When legislators denounce legislation bringing sunlight into government, one has to wonder what they’re hiding. And by the looks of a recent committee hearing, three legislators must have some really dirty closets.

Despite opposition from US Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Gov. Rick Perry, and the Texas House GOP caucus, Speaker Joe Straus said this week it was time for Texas to “move beyond the word ‘no’ to something the administration might entertain” on ObamaCare implementation.

Sugarcoated Expansion
The Obama Administration wants Texas to expand Medicaid, something that will bankrupt the state. Conservatives have uniformly opposed the policy as a bad idea, even while some Republicans here and around the country are caving in.

Speaker Straus told his hometown newspaper that Texas needs to “get our heads out of the sand” in order to find a “Texas solution” President Obama likes. Of course, you can safely assume any solution the Obama administration finds acceptable will be unacceptable to Texas.

Mr. Straus’ call for capitulation came just days after the Republican Party of Texas’ governing board – the State Republican Executive Committee – passed a resolution opposing Medicaid expansion. Party chairman Steve Munisteri wrote lawmakers expressing the GOP’s “unwavering opposition to the expansion of Medicaid in Texas.”

Unfortunately, we can expect a steady stream of grow-government liberals and moderates to keep trying to push sugarcoated poison pills down Texans’ throats. As our friends at AgendaWise noted on Friday, Texans should remember Nancy Reagan's catch-phrase regarding addictive, deadly substances: "Just say no."

Hospital Hubris
A new talking point for the Medicaid expanders/ObamaCare implementers – like Speaker Straus – is the heavy cost being borne by local hospital districts. The argument goes like this: Local taxpayers are paying a lot of money providing free health care for the local indigent and poor, therefore we need the state taxpayers to pick up the tab, or to get the money from the federal taxpayers.

You probably already get the joke: the taxpayers stay on the hook, the same taxpayers even. It’s just a question of which pocket you’re paying out of, and how transparent the bill is.

Let's start with the obvious: local officials willfully sold the public on creating hospitals districts to provide a service about which they are now complaining. Think about that. Local officials are using the cost of providing indigent care, which they strenuously advocated, as a pretext to expand ObamaCare.

We should treat suspiciously any claim of concern for the local taxpayer. In fact, given hospital districts' (and hospitals generally) insatiable desire for access to taxpayer dollars, you can expect to see those local hospital taxes going up anyway.

This is why the rent-seeking local public hospital districts are pushing so hard for Medicaid expansion. They will keep jacking up your local property taxes in the name of providing access to care, while pocketing more money from the federal government funneled through the state.

Of course, in the interest of intellectual honesty it bears noting that any money provided by the federal government comes from either higher income taxes or your grandchildren’s credit card.

Legislators Live Large
A rare defense of dishonesty was on display in the Texas House State Affairs Committee, when three ranking members viciously attacked government transparency and all-but defended legislators making big paydays through undisclosed deals with governmental agencies.

Legislation filed by freshman State Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Southlake) made good on one of his central campaign promises: to bring greater transparency to contracts lawmakers, their families and businesses have with government agencies.

That clearly doesn’t sit well with State Reps. Harvey Hilderbran, Patricia Harless and Dan Huberty. They were unsettled by the prospect of lawmakers reporting on business dealings with entities they oversee or governmental entities that rely on being in the good graces of their offices.

Rep. Harless expressed concern she might have to report on her husband’s contracts with local governments. Didn’t know he had any… until now. Similarly, Mr. Huberty – a former school board member – expressed shock and outrage that voters might need to know what deals he is making on the side.

Mr. Hilderbran’s outrage is even more interesting. This is a fellow who has been quietly exploring a statewide run for comptroller, a position charged with expanding transparency, not curtailing it. (Late last year, it was discovered that Mr. Hilderbran – a committee chairman – was using legislative staff to peddle his “real estate” business to new legislators.)

Whether or not Reps. Harless, Huberty or Hilderbran are abusing their legislative offices to secure unethical contracts for themselves and their spouses is unknown – mostly because of the lack of transparency they were defending.

But the amount of smoke they were blowing against commonsense disclosures might rightly cause voters to suspect there are some ethical fires burning there.

Light Better Fires
Help make sure our fellow Texans are informed and engaged: share this e-mail with friends, “Like” us on Facebook, and make a donation through our 1836 Campaign. Together, we can shine the bright lights of liberty in the dark corners of the Capitol.

For Texas!
Michael Quinn Sullivan
& the EmpowerTexans.com Team

Dirty Harry Reid Attempted to Expand Gambling in Texas

article from Empower Texans:


Dirty Harry Reid Attempted to Expand Gambling in Texas

January 17, 2013 by Michele Samuelson

How’s this for obnoxious interference?  Nevada Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat majority leader and all-around annoying stooge, attempted to pass legislation in December to allow Native American tribes to open casinos in Texas.  Politico posted the story a couple of days ago.  The bill was mercifully killed by lack of action, but the audacity certainly stings.
Reid is a likely candidate for the title of “Gambling’s Best Friend,” though he’d certainly have competition if he came down to Texas for a bit.  This effort, while it ultimately went nowhere, does reinforce the idea that Washington’s increasing animosity towards Texans doesn’t stop at gun control and the Voting Rights Act.  Reid is the senior senator from a state in significantly worse financial shape than Texas, where last year the unemployment rate at one point was the worst in the nation, and the housing market was too terrible to allow citizens to flee easily.  The climate in Reid’s home state needs attention, and he was more interested in pursuing legalizing gambling in Texas.  The question to ask is, why?
It isn’t likely that Reid’s attempt was serious – it happened mostly under the radar and someone with Reid’s political power in Washington wouldn’t have a hard time passing something he was actually passionate about.  So what was it, then?  More than likely, a test balloon of sorts for expanding state-sponsored (in this case, tribe-sponsored) gambling where it is not already prevalent, and possibly a fundraising mechanism for gambling proponents here at home.  Certainly, had it gained traction, such legislation would come up against Texas law and create an interesting impasse.
We know state-sponsored gambling proponents are hard at work in Texas.  Just today, Let Texans Decide announced the support of several local chambers of commerce, in their effort to bring forward a constitutional amendment to approve gambling in Texas (Jan Shedd wrote about Let Texans Decide back in November).  Remember, a Texas constitutional amendment, while requiring a 2/3 majority in both legislative chambers, is not subject to gubernatorial veto and goes straight to Texans for a vote, and the pass rate of such amendments is quite high due in large part to voter apathy and lack of education.  Such an amendment is folly from the start, and the Legislature is the first line of defense.
It is definitely something fiscal conservatives should concern themselves with.  This is not about the freedom to gamble, and it isn’t about personal responsibility.  It’s about a fiscal boondoggle that could seriously harm local economies and ultimately lay a significant burden on several portions of the state’s budget (Health and Human Services, Department of Public Safety, and more).  Reid’s bill had the added bonus of laying those problems on Native American tribes (notwithstanding tribes’ stance on the issue, the problems with government-sponsored gambling remain).  Texans cannot let their attention be divided from this issue.
(P.S. – Contact Senator Reid and tell him “hands off” Texas.  Under no circumstances should this issue resurface in Washington)

Joe Straus Attacks Conservatives: Raising Money to Defeat Republican Incumbent James White



Republican State Representative
James White

 Joe Straus (Texas Speaker of House) is OPENLY launching an all out attack to oust one of our most conservative State Representatives, James White. Straus is holding a fundraiser in Austin this week to raise money to defeat Republican Incumbent James White.

Also, Joe Straus Endorses Mitt Romney after Poll Shows Santorum has Commanding Lead in Texas.

I do not support James White based on the fact that he is one of the few Black Republican state leaders. I do not vote based on race. I support James White because he is one of our most Conservative State Representatives! White was already hurt in redistricting (along with many other conservatives who Straus did not like) and now Straus is openly campaigning against him. WHY?? It might have something to do with James White beating long time Democrat Jim McReynolds (a Straus Chairman) in the 2010 election. Also, a new Texas Tribune poll shows that Rick Santorum is going to win Texas by a landslide. Straus responds by endorsing Mitt Romney.

Note: I have no ill-will towards Mike Hamilton. Hamilton has been my State Rep for some time now. I wish Hamilton would not have moved. I wish Hamilton would have stayed where he was at and he would have run against moderate State Rep. Allan Ritter. I would have supported Hamilton over Ritter. Instead, Hamilton decided to play politics with redistricting and move to another county to run against Super Conservative James White. I do not vote based on who my friends are or who has been my State Rep for the last decade. I vote based on who the best candidate is. Between Hamilton and White, White is more conservative hands down. White has my vote. Also, it is now clear to me that Hamilton is being supported by Straus because Hamilton tried to push a gambling bill for Straus in the last legislative session. This is very disappointing...
                                                                                 
the following is an article from Empower Texans about what is going on:

Straus Bets Big Against Conservatives

Posted on February 23, 2012 by Michael Quinn Sullivan

Texas House Speaker Joe Straus is once again campaigning against conservatives in 2012. In state, he is fundraising against the re-election of conservative State Rep. James White

Texas US Senate Debate Jan 12 w/ Cruz, Dewhurst, James, Addison & Leppert. Cruz #1 in Fundraising So Far

Finally! The top three Texas US Senate Candidates will be in the same room together for a candidate debate!

On Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 7 p.m., Empower Texans and the Texas Public Policy Foundation will co-host the first debate of the Texas Republican US Senate candidates of 2012! You can watch the debate live online by going to http://www.empowertexans.com/

Confirmed participants are: Glenn Addison, Ted Cruz, David Dewhurst, Craig James and Tom Leppert. They are trying to take over the Texas US Senate seat that will be open thanks to Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson retiring.

Thus far, the two candidates who seem to be in the lead (and getting all the attention) are Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst.

David Dewhurst is the Lieutenant Governor of Texas and is extremely wealthy. He is the leader of the Texas State Senate. He has name recognition and money to easily fuel his campaign. Ted Cruz is the former Solicitor General for Texas. He does not have much name recognition or money, but he is the Tea Party darling and has garnered impressive endorsements from big conservative Republicans and conservative organizations (such as Club for Growth, National Review, YCT, Red State, Dr. James Dobson, Senator Jim DeMint, Senator Rand Paul, George Will, David Barton, etc.) His big draw is that he is seen as a fresh face and he has actually argued for his conservative principles in front of the Supreme Court and won (defeating Obama in one case).

Cruz and Dewhurst have Drawn Most of the Attention in this Race

It is only logical that Texans want to see these two debate each other on the issues. Surprisingly, there have been no debates between the candidates so far. Ted Cruz has offered to have debates but so far David Dewhurst has not accepted. David Dewhurst probably has hoped that he could rely on his name recognition to keep him in the lead without having to debate Ted Cruz. I can’t say that I blame him because Cruz has debated in front of the Supreme Court and is a very good speaker. It probably was a good strategy on the part of Dewhurst, but it was a strategy that could only work as long as Ted Cruz was not a major threat. Surprisingly though (or not surprisingly), Ted Cruz has been rocketing up the polls, has been fundraising well, and has been getting big conservative endorsements every week. Now that Cruz is no longer a long shot and he is at the top of the Senate race with Dewhurst, people want to see a debate.

Bloggers from all over Texas have demanded to see the two top senate candidates in a debate with each other. Big conservative organizations like King Street Patriots and the Grassroots Texans Network have offered to put on the debate. David Dewhurst has even taken some heat from Texas newspapers like the San Antonio Express News for not scheduling a debate with Cruz.

Debate will be held at 7 p.m. on January 12, 2012, at the Downtown Austin Hilton

The people of Texas will finally get what they want. They get a debate between Cruz and Dewhurst.

That is not all they get though.

There are other candidates in this US Senate race too, even though Cruz and Dewhurst have stolen the spotlight.

I personally am voting for Ted Cruz, but I certainly want to be fair and list all the candidates in the race. It is also important to note that I am not voting against any candidate. For instance, just because I personally support Cruz over Dewhurst does not mean I dislike Dewhurst. I just think that, out of all the good guys, Cruz is the best conservative guy for the job, he has won in the US Supreme Court, and he is a fresh face.

The Other Texas US Senate Candidates:

Craig James (no website?) just recently joined the US Senate race. James has some name and face recognition because he has been working for ESPN and is seen on TV regularly by anyone who watches ESPN. James certainly makes the race more interesting but he has a lot of catching up to do.

Glenn Addison is from Magnolia, TX. He owns a funeral home business. He is a pretty nice guy but he has not gained much traction and does not have much money.

Lela Pittenger is a very nice, Christian conservative but she has not gained any traction and does not have much money.

Tom Leppert is a former mayor of Dallas. He certainly has great name recognition in that part of Texas. He also has lots of personal money to spend on his campaign. He certainly has the potential to be one of the top candidates but he has just not been able to get the attention like Cruz and Dewhurst.

April 3^rd, 2012 Republican Primary Election

The 2012 Republican Primary Election will decide who wins out of these 5 gentlemen and 1 woman. This Primary Election should will on April 3^rd, 2012. The Supreme Court could change that date though. It has already been pushed back to April from March because of a couple activist judges and a big Texas Redistricting mess. One of the Federal Judges in this Redistricting Battle is Brother in Law of Texas Democrat Senate Caucus Chairman. Is that crazy or what?

With half a dozen candidates in this US Senate race, it is unlikely that any one candidate will get a majority of the vote. There will likely be a runoff election between the two top vote getters.

    Ted Cruz is Leading in Fundraising/Individual Contributions and Social Media

Below are the fundraising totals for the top 3 candidates, as of the last Campaign Finance Reports that have been posted on the Federal Election Commission’s website. I have also posted some interesting social media info about Cruz and Dewhurst).

As you can see below, Cruz is the fundraising leader and has received the most individual contributions. Leppert and Dewhurst are close behind though. What is most interesting about these fundraising totals is that Cruz has raised all this money with very little money to start with. Dewhurst and Leppert each put 2 million dollars or more of their own money into their campaign in the form of candidate loans. Cruz has only put loaned his campaign $70,000 or his own money. This would indicate that Cruz has a significant amount of grassroots support and his name is really getting circulated around Texas.

It is also interesting to see that Cruz has really dominated the social media. He has significantly more friends and followers on Facebook and Twitter than any other candidate so far.

Ted Cruz

Individual Contributions: $2,753,833

Candidates Loans: $70,000

Unique Donors/Contributors: 2,217

Facebook Friends/Fans: 68,740

Twitter Followers: 18,048

David Dewhurst

Individual Contributions: $2,456,934

Candidates Loans: $2,000,000

Unique Donors/Contributors: 1,157

Facebook Friends/Fans: 25,393

Twitter Followers: 5,702

Tom Leppert

Individual Contributions: $2,462,297

Candidates Loans: $2,600,000

Unique Donors/Contributors: 1,681

VOTE OR DIE! Early Voting Starts TODAY for Texas Constitutional Amendment Election: Ballot Propositions and Recommendations

You know I never understood why rapper Sean “P Diddy” Combs started up a movement called “Vote or Die.” Was he going to kill you if you didn’t vote, or were you just going to die spontaneously?

Anyways, you are not going to “Die” if you do not vote in the upcoming Texas Constitutional Amendment Election, but it is still important for you to vote.

Texas Constitutional Elections do not get much publicity. No one is on the ballot. We are not voting for President or a Congressman. Who cares right?

Constitutional Amendment Elections are actually VERY important. We are CHANGING the Texas Constitution!

This year’s Constitutional Amendment Election is on Tuesday November 8^th, 2011. Early voting starts today Monday October 24^th, 2011 and early voting ends November 4^th, 2011.

There are 10 propositions on the ballot this year.

Below is a list and explanation (from the Texas Secretary of State website) of the propositions that you will see on the ballot when you go to your polling location to vote.

Also, below you will find an awesome graph from Parker County Blog.

This graph shows the Voting Recommendations from Conservative Organizations in Texas

click on the graph to see the full size graph in a new window

As you can see from the graph, the conservative organizations in Texas are AGAINST most of the propositions on the ballot. Proposition 1 is the only proposition that most conservative organizations are in favor of. Proposition 10 has a pretty neutral recommendation so that one is a tossup. The rest of the propositions are generally seen as bad propositions by the majority of the conservative organizations. 

Everyone of course should investigate the propositions and make their own determinations of how they should vote. This is just a guide

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

EMPOWER TEXANS’ ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 TEXAS EAGLE FORUM ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 LIBERTY INSTITUTE VOTERS GUIDE

 VOTERS GUIDE FROM TEXAS LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS

Explanatory Statements for the November 8, 2011 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election

---

Proposition Number 1 (SJR 14)

SJR 14 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to provide the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran with an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the surviving spouse’s residence homestead as long as the surviving spouse has not remarried, the property was the residence homestead of the surviving spouse when the qualifying veteran died, and the property remains the residence homestead of the surviving spouse.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran."

Proposition Number 2 (SJR 4)

SJR 4 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Water Development Board to issue additional general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for one or more accounts of the Texas Water Development Fund II, with the restriction that the total amount of bonds outstanding at any time does not exceed $6 billion.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  “The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.”

Proposition Number 3 (SJR 50)

SJR 50 would amend the constitution to authorize the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board or its successors to issue and sell general obligation bonds on a continuing basis for the purpose of financing educational loans for students, subject to certain constitutional restrictions, including a restriction as to the maximum principal amount of bonds outstanding at any one time.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.”

Proposition Number 4 (HJR 63)

HJR 63 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area within the county, and to pledge increases in ad valorem tax revenues imposed on property in the area by the county for repayment of such bonds or notes.  The amendment does not provide independent authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases in ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area.  The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem tax rates."

Proposition Number 5 (SJR 26)

SJR 26 would amend the constitution to authorize the legislature to allow cities and counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities and counties without having to assess an ad valorem tax and set aside a specified amount of funds for the payment of costs under the interlocal contract.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or the provision of a sinking fund."

Proposition Number 6 (HJR 109)

HJR 109 would amend the constitution to increase the amount of principal that is available for withdrawal from the permanent school fund each year and would also clarify certain references to that fund in the constitution.  Increased access to the principal of the state public education trust fund would be based upon HJR 109 granting the authority to consider alternative market calculations when determining the amount of principal that is available for distribution to the available school fund.  HJR 109 would also provide authority to distribute to the available school fund annual revenue from school fund land or other properties up to $300 million per year.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distribute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding for public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund."

Proposition Number 7 (SJR 28)

SJR 28 would amend the constitution by adding El Paso County to the list of counties authorized to create conservation and reclamation districts to develop parks and recreational facilities financed by taxes.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

Proposition Number 8 (SJR 16)

SJR 16 would amend the constitution by requiring the legislature to provide for taxation of open space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water-stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity."

Proposition Number 9 (SJR 9)

SJR 9 would amend the constitution to authorize the governor, on the written recommendation and advice of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, to grant a pardon, reprieve, or commutation of punishment to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows:  "The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision."

Proposition Number 10 (SJR 37)

SJR 37 would amend the constitution by extending the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain local elected officeholders if they announce candidacy or become candidates for another office from one year to one year and 30 days.

The proposed amendment would appear on the ballot as follows: "The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.