Breaking News – VIDEO: Riot Police Protect Speakers from Mob at UNT in Denton, TX

Conservative speaker and Texas State Representative runoff candidate Jeff Younger and others had to be swept away by police as an angry mob swarmed the building and inside the room where Jeff Younger was speaking to the Young Conservatives of Texas.

Updated: video added below showing protestor assault Jeff Younger by spitting on him.

Rustin Wright was at the event and he described being escorted out and locked in a room surrounded by police protection, as the angry mob could be heard shouting outside.

Joseph Lowrey was at the event and described police, possibly snipers, on the rooftops and a line of a dozen more police cars arriving as they were lucky to get out of the building and away from the angry mob.

Jeff Morgan posted on Facebook asking for prayers as they were taken into police protection.

Below are some of the video clips showing the chaos as it unfolded:

The angry mob was not there to debate or discuss the issues, and they were not there to support the first amendment right to free speech. The mob of hundreds were there to create violence and disruption and to shout down Jeff Younger from being heard. It was as if this was not America and was instead a communist country where you can only have one opinion and differing opinions get you drug out to the street and executed.

I can respect different opinions and can respect people showing up to peacefully protest or express their free speech, and to engage in discussion or debating or speaking out about what they believe. I cannot respect what happened here and it is downright un-American. They did not like someone’s opinion so they took over the room and screamed and spit on the speakers in an attempt to completely silence opinions that differ from their own.

Jeff Younger was not there to oppose gay people. I don’t think he cares what people want to do with their own lives as adults. He was there to speak about something that even many gay people completely agree with him on. He was there to advocate against parents being able to physically or chemically castrate young boys, children, in an effort to do elective sex changes. That physical, irreversible, life changing procedure is something that the individual child should have the right to decide on their own when they become an adult if they want to have the procedure. No parent should make physical life altering elective medical procedures for a child, and no child is capable of making that decision themselves until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves and understand the decisions they are making. Kids can’t even vote or own guns or even smoke until a certain age, and they should certainly not be able to decide to cut off a part of their body in an elective procedure until they are an adult, and no adult should be able to make that decision for a child either as the decision belongs to that child once becoming an adult.

These child gender mutilation procedures are now declared to be child abuse as declared in a recent opinion by the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Texas AG Office OPPOSES Due Process and Constitutional Right to Attorney in SCOTX Case

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton does a great job of filing briefs and taking legal action in support of constitutional rights, and many on his staff are very good at defending the Constitution. Unfortunately, at least one attorney on his staff didn’t get the memo about supporting and defending the Constitution. In Supreme Court of Texas case 19-1101, Ken Paxton’s office is arguing AGAINST due process and AGAINST the constitutional right to an attorney in criminal proceedings. These are basic constitutional rights. These are rights that Republicans shouted from the rooftops that President Donald Trump was denied these rights in the impeachment proceedings against him in the US House of Representatives. They shouted from the rooftops that these are basic constitutional rights of any criminal proceeding. But yet when it comes to an actual criminal case in Texas with someone lower in status than the President, all of the sudden these basic rights don’t matter anymore? That is wrong. Ken Paxton should be alerted to this horrendous position that his staff has presented to the SCOTX. Ken Paxton likely does not even know about this situation with all the cases his office processes, but the Ken Paxton I have seen on Fox News defending the Constitution would not agree with his staff’s position to oppose the constitution. If Ken Paxton doesn’t reverse this position by his office, then it will be a black eye for his record of defending and protecting constitutional rights in Texas. This case, if it does not end in the Texas Supreme Court, has the potential to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Texas is better than this. Texas should stand up for basic constitutional rights, especially in criminal cases where someone’s life is on the line and they deserve to have an attorney and due process.

The Texas Supreme Court case number is 19-1101 IN RE JOSHUA LEROY JAROS. I wrote an article about this case and the #FreeJoshJaros situation not long ago when the petition first made its way to the Supreme Court of Texas. Now the Texas Attorney General’s office has filed their response, which to my surprise the staff attorney stuck to the story of rejecting the Constitutional right to an attorney and Due Process. This is something I do not believe Ken Paxton would agree with and I hope that he hears about this and takes action to ensure his office is upholding the Constitution and Due Process.

After the response from the Texas AG’s office, a response was made on behalf of #freeJoshJaros and a portion of this response to the state is below:

Comes now Joshua Jaros and would request that this Honorable Supreme Court order the temporary release of Joshua Jaros, as requested in the original Habeas Corpus petition to this Court, pending the final decision and judgement from this Court in this case. Now that the state has responded, it is clear that constitutional violations against Joshua Jaros have occurred which deprived him of Due Process. The state failed to even address the most serious constitutional issues in their response, and agreed or didn’t dispute many key facts and issues. For instance, it is agreed upon and undisputed by all parties that Joshua Jaros faced a criminal proceeding, he requested to be appointed an attorney because he cannot afford one, there was a previous undisputed affidavit of inability to pay by Joshua Jaros in the underlying case which Joshua pointed out, the court instead gave Joshua a form to fill out that did not allow for a listing of expenses, the request for indigency was never disputed by the state before the Judge determined Joshua is not indigent, the Judge never asked for more information nor allowed Joshua to provide any information to explain his expenses and his inability to afford an attorney other than the insufficient form he was given to fill out. The court found Joshua non indigent and denied him an attorney and immediately proceeded with the criminal trial against Joshua Jaros instead of giving Joshua Jaros adequate time to find an attorney now that the Judge had just denied Joshua a court appointed attorney.

None of the above facts are disputed by any party. The dispute is whether or not the Texas and US Constitution and Due Process requires that Joshua Jaros, who was facing a criminal trial with a state attorney against him, have an adequate review of his actual ability to afford an attorney which would include a review of his necessary expenses in order to be able to make a reasonable determination of ability to afford an attorney before being denied a court appointed attorney, and then given time to find an attorney after being denied a court appointed one. The State’s position is that yes Joshua was denied a review of his expenses and denied a review of his full situation regarding ability to afford an attorney, but its ok because he doesn’t need a full review because the law doesn’t require it. The State is wrong. The law does require it as the law does require an indigency determination and an indigency determination cannot reasonably be determined without having looked at both income and expenses. However, it is true that the law, although reasonably implied, does not specifically state the process or basic guidelines of determining indigency in this case must include reviewing expenses. The state relies on the idea that the law doesn’t say it must be done so it is ok if it isn’t done. What the state fails to consider or respond to is that the Constitution is above the law. The Constitution and Due Process require that Joshua Jaros have a full and reasonable examination of his actual ability to afford an attorney, which would include reviewing expenses, before being denied the fundamental constitutional right to a court appointed attorney, or given time to find an attorney if a reasonable and adequate determination has been made denying him an appointed attorney.

The Constitution and Due Process requires this, Joshua Jaros was denied this, and therefore Joshua Jaros must be released as his rights were clearly violated. If the state’s argument is right that the law allows it, then the law must be struck down as unconstitutional because it is at odds with the constitution and due process. This is not just about Joshua Jaros. This case is about every Texan who might face a criminal prosecution and who cannot afford an attorney. There must be a more constitutional standard for which Judges must go by when determining who gets a court appointed attorney. It is unconstitutional for every judge to have a different standard, or no standard at all, which allows for them to just check a box of non-indigent and deny constitutional rights to attorneys without having been required to do a reasonable and thorough examination of the defendant’s expenses and actual ability to afford an attorney.

Texas Runoff Election TODAY - Vote PATRICK and PAXTON

Today is the 2014 Texas Republican Primary Runoff Election Day! VOTE from 7am to 7pm.

The people elected today will likely win against the Democrats in November, so this Republican Primary Runoff Election is very important.

There are many important races, but I have kind of taken a break and so I really have only gotten involved in 2 races, the Attorney General's Race and the Lieutenant Governor's race.

I SUPPORT DAN PATRICK for Texas Lieutenant Governor over David Dewhurst. You can search the many articles that I have written about him and you already have received several emails from me about Patrick.


I SUPPORT KEN PAXTON for Texas Attorney General over Dan Branch. I might have opposed Paxton in his race with Barry Smitherman because I believed that Smitherman was better in that race, but now the race is between just Paxton and Branch. Even though I initially supported Smitherman, I always declared that Paxton is a conservative and that I would hands down support him over the more moderate Dan Branch. For instance, I did not like that Paxton withdrew from the race vs Joe Straus, but at least Paxton had the guts to oppose Straus in the first place, and not only that, Branch was one of the guys who helped elect Joe Straus and Branch completely supports Straus. Texas needs Paxton for Attorney General and not Dan Branch!

Trusted Conservatives say Ken Paxton Backed Down vs. Straus WELL BEFORE the day of the vote

Last month I posted this article: http://www.texasconservativerepublicannews.com/2014/02/ken-paxton-joe-straus-ted-cruz-barry-smitherman.html 

I took a little bit of heat from some fellow conservatives who completely believe that Paxton had no choice to back down at the last minute even after promising the day before that he would take it to the floor. I can understand the perspective of these fellow conservatives because they are going off what what they saw.

They did not see some of the inside events that occurred before Paxton backed down from the Straus vote.

Several top, trusted conservatives who worked behind the scenes for Paxton to organize his run against Straus. These conservative have now come forward and explained that they were very hurt and betrayed when they were asked by Paxton to back start backing off of promoting the Straus vote well before the day of the vote. These conservatives say that Paxton made it clear to them that he was not going to push the vote all the way even though he was telling conservatives that he was going to take it to the floor.

But hey, don't bash me for saying all of this. I am simply repeating what several top, trusted conservatives have come forward and proclaimed.

Donna Garner sent out an email tonight with the information to go see these top conservatives expose the truth of the Paxton vs Straus vote from an inside perspective:

3.3.14 -- PUBLISHED TODAY ON HOUSE OF STRAUS –

VIDEO #1 – Rebecca Forest:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__oQ0GvMSkY&feature=youtu.be

VIDEO #2 – Rob Hurlburt:  https://vimeo.com/88106068

[The documentation in these videos and posted on HouseOfStraus.com seems to indicate that even before Jan. 11, 2011, Ken Paxton already had plans to cave by not allowing his name to go forward to challenge left-leaning Republican Joe Straus for the Speakership.

Did Ken Paxton get cold feet even before the Showdown on Jan. 11, 2011? 

Did Ken Paxton cave because he did not want his “buddies” in the House to get mad at him for forcing them into a roll call vote that voters could have taken into the voting booths in Nov. 2012 – a roll call list that would have made it plain to the public as to which House members were RINO’s and which were authentic conservatives?  

Did Paxton use the thousands of conservatives from across Texas, who rose up to participate in the Speaker Showdown, to further his own political career? 

Did he use the publicity of the Speaker Showdown to generate name recognition so that he could later run for the Texas Senate and then eventually run for the Texas Attorney General? 

Was this all a political gimmick on Ken Paxton’s part to launch his campaign for higher office? 

You decide.  Voting day is tomorrow. – Donna Garner]  

Published on Mar 3, 2014

http://www.houseofstraus.com

For documentation of info referenced in this video see:  http://www.houseofstraus.com/behind-s...  and/or  http://houseofstraus.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Behind-Scenes_Speaker_Showdown.pdf

========

2.17.14 – “TAG: Voting for Courage (Barry Smitherman) vs. Cowardice (Ken Paxton)” – by Donna Garner -- http://www.educationviews.org/ken-paxtons-cowardice-smithermans-courage-tag/

========

2.21.14 – “No – Not Rep. Dan Branch for TAG” – by Donna Garner -- http://www.educationviews.org/239322/

=======

2.18.14 – Episode #1 -- House of Straus.com:  http://houseofstraus.com/

2.20.14 -- Episode #2 of House of Straus:  The keen differences between a legislator and a prosecutor -- why it is so absolutely imperative to have the right person elected as the next Texas Attorney General -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMRO4LUtdLE&feature=youtu.be

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Ken Paxton Betrayed Conservatives – Backed Down vs. Straus – Ted Cruz would NOT Have Backed Down

Some people have asked me how I know that Ken Paxton is not the right man to be our next Texas Attorney General. There are many reasons. Do I think Ken Paxton is conservative? Of course I do, but I do not believe he is the best conservative and I do not believe he is the best leader. I believe Barry Smitherman is the better conservative and a far better leader who will not back down. Unfortunately, I know for sure that Ken Paxton will back down, even after promising not to back down. How do I know that Ken Paxton cannot be trusted when he says he will not back down? Because Paxton already broke that promise just 3 years ago. He betrayed conservatives and backed down from challenging Joe Straus even after he promised just the day before that he would not back down and would take it to the floor (see video below). We need more people like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz faced a losing Obamacare battle but he stood for nearly a day and took the fight all the way to the end. Cruz is the kind of conservative leader we need. Ken Paxton is no Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz would have never pulled out and betrayed conservatives right before the Joe Straus big vote. Cruz would have taken it to the floor. Ken Paxton did not do that and he will forever be known in my mind as someone who, although he is conservative, is not strong enough to follow through no matter what. He will back down. If he caved in to Straus, what do you think he will do when he faces Obama? Barry Smitherman on the other hand has already sued Obama 7 times and has not backed down.

Paxton PROMISED to Challenge Liberal Texas Speaker Joe Straus and Take It To The Floor. Paxton Had No Guts and Backed out the Day of the Vote, Leaving Conservatives Hanging and Betrayed

Texas has a liberal, pro-abortion Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Joe Straus. Straus got elected by teaming up with all the Democrats to rally against the Republicans to get him elected.

Conservatives demanded that Joe Straus be challenged. Conservatives even kicked out several moderate Republicans and replaced them with conservative ones who would vote against Straus.

Ken Paxton says he will challenge Straus. I supported Ken Paxton as the clearly better choice over Joe Straus. Ken Paxton PROMISED that he would take it to the floor and have an open vote for Speaker of the House. Paxton promised that he would never back out of the race no matter what. He promised he would take it to the floor. Conservatives were trusting him to actually challenge Straus and force a vote on the floor. Even if Paxton was not going to win, by taking it to the floor and forcing a vote, the conservatives in Texas could see which representatives supported the liberal Straus. By seeing which State Representatives voted for Straus, the conservatives in Texas could rally and defeat those State Reps and get conservatives elected who will vote against Straus and defeat him once and for all.

On the day of the election, Ken Paxton dropped out of the race. He allowed Straus to become the speaker again without a challenge and without a floor vote. No one even got to see which Reps would have voted for Straus.

Conservative State Reps got Punished for Supporting Paxton. Paxton refused to help them

There was no floor vote so no one got to see who the moderates were. No one got to see who would have supported Straus. On the other hand, everyone know who the State Representatives were who supported Paxton. There were several brave, conservative State Reps who publicly spoke out in favor of Paxton and in opposition to Straus. The voters never got to see who would have voted against Straus, but Straus got to see who openly opposed him. The state Representatives who openly opposed Straus were: Leo Berman (HD-6), Cindy Burkett (HD-101), Erwin Cain (HD-3), Wayne Christian (HD-9), Dan Flynn (HD-2), Jim Landtroop (HD-85) , Phil King (HD-61), Jodie Laubenberg (HD-89), Tan Parker (HD-63), Ken Paxton (HD-70), Charles Perry (HD-83), David Simpson (HD-7), Van Taylor (HD-66), James White (HD-12), Bill Zedler (HD-96)

This list of conservatives were targeted by Straus. Straus hurt them in redistricting. He botched their districts so that they would not win, or he put them in districts where they would have to run against his well-funded Chairmen. Most notably, Wayne Christian had 80 percent of his district moved to a completely different area. The change in his district was absolutely unneeded for redistricting and was clearly a way to push him out. Also, my current State Representative James White opposed Straus and, during redistricting, was put into the same district as Straus Chairman Mike Hamilton. Mike Hamilton had the money backing of friends of Straus so they thought White would lose easily to Hamilton. Also Conservative anti Straus Reps Charles Perry and Jim Landtroop were paired together in the same district so that one of them would lose for sure. All of these changes were not needed for redistricting. Wayne Christian made a youtube video that breaks down exactly how Straus was attacking anti-Straus conservatives in redistricting, and Bryan Hughes even accused a Straus leader of directly telling him that he would be hurt in redistricting if he supported Straus.

I spoke privately with one of these conservative state reps who supported Paxton and was attacked by Straus in redistricting. I asked the State Rep to give me the inside story and promised that I would not reveal his name so I am not. His information was true though after I checked into it so his points are valid. What happened was these conservative State Reps reached out to Paxton for help. They stood up for him and they were asking him to help them defend against the attacks from Straus.

Paxton was sitting on around $800,000. Paxton had no serious challenger and could have used the money to help out his fellow conservatives who were being attacked in the election by Straus. In the end, I can only find on the Texas Ethics website where Paxton only ended up giving money to one of the State Reps, Jim Landtroop. A small $2500 donation while he sat on nearly a million.

Bottom line, Paxton is not a liberal, he is a conservative. He is NOT the best man to be our next Texas Attorney General. He is no Ted Cruz. Paxton has proven that he WILL back down when the going gets tough, even after promising not to back down. Texas needs a guy like Barry Smitherman who will not back down and is super conservative.

Don’t Take My Word for It – Watch the Video Below and See Ken Paxton Himself Back Down From Challenging Straus After Promising to Take It To The Floor

Longer Recording Released of Ken Paxton’s Underwhelming Answer to Stopping Common Core and CSCOPE as Attorney General

At the end of November, I posted up an article, Shock Recording: Ken Paxton Not interested in Stopping Common Core or CSCOPE as Attorney General.

The article included a clip of a voice recording where Ken Paxton is asked about CSCOPE and Common Core. Ken Paxton responded by saying the Attorney General will probably won’t get involved in that.

In response to the article, I had some Paxton supporters contact me and say that the audio clip was cut short. They alleged that someone cut the recording short and that Ken Paxton did say he would not get involved, but then went on to say he will fight these things as Attorney General. This bothered me because I certainly would never post any audio that was altered, or that was cut short in a way to make it appear as though someone said one thing when in fact they go on to answer the question in further detail.

I think Paxton is a good guy and a conservative. I only oppose him now because I believe that Barry Smitherman is better than Paxton. I truly believe that Barry Smitherman is even more conservative and will be more of a fighter. It is the little things that no one sees that sets Smitherman apart from Paxton in my mind. Such as Paxton Missing Hundreds of Votes and Smitherman Missing None, or Smitherman rejecting budget increases for his office while Paxton voted to increase his office budget.

That being said, I would never post anything false against Paxton, so I went on a mission to find a longer version of the audio recording. If the audio I had was cut short then I wanted to make it right.

I did find a longer version of the recording. I uploaded this longer version to YouTube and posted at the end of this article for everyone to hear. This audio recording shows Paxton answering a question before the CSCOPE/COMMON CORE question, and then he answers the CSCOPE/COMMON CORE question, and then this longer version also shows him going on to answer a different question about redistricting. This longer version clearly shows that the original voice recording I posted a month ago was accurate and Paxton was not cut short in the recording.

Also in response to the article, I had some Paxton supporters contact me and tell me that Paxton stood against COMMON CORE and CSCOPE as a legislator. To this I replied that I never said he didn’t do that as a legislator, but he is not running for the Texas Legislature, he is running to be the Texas Attorney General. What he did as a Legislature is good but I want to know what he will do as the Attorney General. His response that as Attorney General he will probably not get involved was surprising to me. But since Paxton did not know he was being recorded, I believe his response to show his true intentions regarding the issue. Barry Smitherman has come out and stated that as Attorney General he will fight against Common Core and CSCOPE. Why wait for a lawsuit as Ken Paxton has said should happen before he gets involved? Attorney General Greg Abbot did not wait for a lawsuit. He sent a letter to CSCOPE and told them to comply with the law and they did. There was no lawsuit there but Abbott was being proactive and defending the laws of Texas. Smitherman will also be proactive in defending Texas from illegal use of CSCOPE and Common Core. Paxton clearly states that as Attorney General he would probably not get involved unless there was a lawsuit. That is not good enough for me.

I welcome Ken Paxton or his campaign to reply under this post any response to this recording and what Paxton said in the recording. I have not received any statement from Paxton regarding this recording or else I would have posted it here.

Donna Garner Endorses Barry Smitherman, Says Ken Paxton Never Publicly Helped Conservatives on SBOE and he Supported Moderates

also read this Statement from Barry Smitherman: Barry Smitherman takes Strong Stand against Common Core and CSCOPE as Attorney General

Donna Garner is one of the foremost education experts in Texas. She has been fighting against liberalism in our Texas Public education since probably before I was born. Every elected official in Texas and anyone in the Texas education world knows Donna Garner. She fought for conservative State Board of Education Members when they were attacked. She fought against Common Core and CSCOPE.

Donna Garner has endorsed Barry Smitherman for Texas Attorney General. Donna Garner sent out an email yesterday explaining in detail why she supports Barry Smitherman over Ken Paxton. Basically, the summary of what Donna Garner says is that she has been intricately involved in Texas Education and not once in the past decade has Paxton testified for or promoted any of the important conservative issues facing Texas education. Even when the conservative State Board of Education members were vilified by the media for standing for conservative values, Paxton was nowhere to be found and offered no help to the conservative SBOE members who were facing challengers in their elections. in fact, Paxton admitted to Donna Garner that he was supporting a moderate to the SBOE because she had given him large campaign donations.

Donna goes on to say that Paxton did finally do something this past session by co-authoring a bill against CSCOPE, but then a recent recording surfaced of Ken Paxton stating that as Texas Attorney General he will probably not get involved in Common Core or CSCOPE.... that lackadaisical attitude towards defending Texas from Common Core is not something she wants to see from a possible future Texas AG.

Donna Garner then goes on to explain what she supports Smitherman, who has clearly claimed that as Texas Attorney General he will fight Common Core from coming into Texas.

Below are a few paragraphs from Donna Garners Full article which can be found here:

WHAT ABOUT KEN PAXTON FOR TAG?

Then there is Ken Paxton.  I actually endorsed Ken for the TAG early-on when called by his campaign staffer.  At that time I knew many negatives about Dan Branch but almost nothing personal about Barry Smitherman, the Texas Railroad Commissioner.

I knew that Ken was a pro-life, pro-family-values conservative; and I had worked hard along with many other conservatives leading up to the 82^nd Legislative Session to help him to become the Speaker of the House instead of Joe Straus. Unfortunately, Ken took his name out of consideration at the very last minute, leaving us without a conservative champion to support.

I decided to endorse Ken for the TAG but in doing so I had to overlook the personal conversation in which I learned that he supported a moderate for the Texas State Board of Education simply because she had given his campaign large donations.

I also had to swallow my deep emotions over the fact that Ken along with the other Texas Legislators had passed HB 5 and HB 866 which basically gut the authentic education reform that we conservatives had fought for 15 years to establish in Texas.

As Ken came out yesterday with strong statements about what a stalwart he has been on education issues, I have done some reflecting on my own.  During the years 2005 – 2012 in which the Texas State Board of Education conservatives were fighting against all odds to adopt Type #1 curriculum standards (TEKS) for English/Language Arts/Reading, Science, Social Studies, and Math, I do not think I can remember a single time when Ken Paxton’s name was mentioned.  I cannot remember that he ever testified, wrote a public statement, came out with editorials in support of the SBOE’s efforts to put Texas on the path to authentic education reform with the 4 x 4 graduation requirements and Type #1 STAAR/EOC’s.  Nor can I remember his authoring or helping to pass legislation to try to rescue the SBOE conservatives from vilification by the media, Democrats, and the RINO’s.  In fact, so far as I can remember, Ken was nowhere around when the SBOE needed  his public  support during those very difficult years. 

It Ken was concerned enough to co-author HB 462 that supposedly banned Common Core Standards in Texas, how could he possibly have muddled his answer so badly on Nov. 18, 2013, when the question was asked him regarding Common Core Standards during the TAG campaign event?  (Please listen to either of the audio clip attachments.)  I do not think that Ken’s lackadaisical answer sounds like the type of response that the committed and impassioned people who signed his endorsement letter yesterday would have said. I believe that if any of them had been asked the same question Ken was asked about Common Core Standards, these people would have answered back with a diatribe of all that is wrong with CCSI. 

I have it on record that when Barbara Cargill was contacted by Ken’s campaign on 11.22.13 after my article had surfaced, she was driving home from an arduous four-day Texas State Board of Education meeting in Austin.  Barbara had not read my article at that time because she had been so inundated with chairing the SBOE sessions. I know that she and Ken have been friends for some time and that she had no idea what came out of his own mouth on Nov. 18, 2013, when asked about his position on Common Core Standards/CSCOPE if elected TAG. Whether that would have changed her endorsement of him, I cannot say.

BARRY SMITHERMAN FOR TAG 

In contrast to Ken’s weak answer on the Common Core/CSCOPE, how did Barry Smitherman answer questions about education issues and the positions he would take as the TAG? 

We have at least three strong indications:  (Exhibit A) Barry’s response to the article on global warming, (Exhibit B) his strong statement issued  on 11.23.13 about Texas HB 462/state sovereignty, and (Exhibit C) the letter he sent to his own daughter’s teacher regarding the Southern Poverty Law Center and its liberal-left dogma that had been inserted into his daughter’s curriculum lesson on “To Kill a Mockingbird.” 

Exhibit A

11.18.13  -- “TX RR Comm. Barry Smitherman Responds to Common Core Global Warming” -- http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/texas-railroad-commissioner-smitherman-responds-to-common-core

Exhibit B

11.23.13 -- “Ken Paxton Not Concerned About Common Core or CSCOPE” – http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ken-paxton-not-concerned-about-common-core-or-cscope-by-donna?xg_source=activity

Exhibit C

9.30.13 – “Letter to Daughter’s Teacher: Intolerance in American Study” -- http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/barry-smitherman-s-wife-interviewed-women-on-the-wall-9-30-13?xg_source=activity  -- (This article contains Barry Smitherman’s letter to his daughter’s teacher in which Smitherman explains his concerns over a worksheet provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center when the class was studying To Kill a Mockingbird.  The SPLC is the organization that continues to label tea party patriots, constitutionalists, Family Research Council, Texas Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, and many others as either a "hate" group or "right wing extremists.” Barry Smitherman makes it very clear that the SPLC worksheet has no place in Texas schools.

BARRY SMITHERMAN’S PERSONAL LIFE AND LEGAL BACKGROUND

Ken Paxton is a fine Christian fellow; and I applaud him and the other Legislators who fought for pro-life bills in the Legislature. However, Barry Smitherman is a strong conservative Christian also.  People who know him and his family well and who are respected conservatives themselves have testified to this. 

10.31.13 – “The Race for Texas Attorney General – Barry Smitherman’s Record” by Bob Price --http://texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/race-texas-attorney-general-barry-smithermans-record-006025

9.30.13 – “Texas Right To Life Endorses Barry Smitherman for Texas Attorney General” -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/172171261/PR-13-09-30 – contains this quote from Smitherman – “I always have and always will stand shoulder to shoulder with Texas Right to Life promoting Pro-Life policies; and as Attorney General, I will defend good Pro-Life pieces of legislation like HB-2 that are constantly under assault from radical pro-choice organizations.”

COMPARING BARRY AND KEN

Therefore, we have to consider the skill sets that are necessary for the Texas Attorney General’s office which is very different from a state legislator’s skill sets.  Even though Ken Paxton has made a good Texas Legislator, he may not have the natural leadership skills and background expertise to be the TAG.  As someone recently stated succinctly, this is the choice we have: 

Ken Paxton – probate lawyer; estate planning; real estate; corporate transactions; 2003 to current, Texas Legislator

OR

Barry Smitherman – former Harris County prosecutor (Assistant District Attorney), service on the Public Utilities Commission (PUCT) where he also served as Chairman, heading up two large state agencies (2004 – present) plus 17 years in the private sector working in public finance, has sued the EPA 7 times to protect Texas oil and gas. 

Quote from David Bellow:

As head of the Texas Public Utilities Commission, Smitherman sued Obama's EPA 5 times. Then, as the statewide, elected Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, Smitherman sued Obama's EPA 2 more times. Suing Obama 7 times is a huge statement and one that clearly shows that Smitherman is already ready to step into the position of Texas Attorney General and keep on suing Obama. (11.11.13)

Quote from David Bellow: 

As Chairman of Texas Public Utilities and the Railroad Commission, Barry Smitherman spent DOUBLE DIGIT percentages UNDER BUDGET and gave over 130 million dollars back to the State of Texas. (9.28.13 –http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/barry-smitherman-saved-texas-taxpayers-over-130-million-slashed-spending-cut-005906 )

TWO MORE POINTS

The usual talking points against Barry Smitherman are (#1) he has no voting record, and (#2) he supposedly brought Smart Meters into Texas.

On point (#1), what about our Texas Hero Ted Cruz?  He had no voting record, but we all know his strength of commitment which he carried right into the Senate and The Beltway.   

On Point (#2), if voting records are so important, then what about the voting records of Ken Paxton and Dan Branch? 

As best I can document, way back on 4.13.05, Dan Branch and Ken Paxton both voted for HB 2129 (79^th Legislative Session – R). This bill set up the original legislation for Smart Meters (i.e., the deployment of advanced electricity meters…advanced metering and metering information networks) – Section 7(b)(h); Section 8(b) -- http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/hjrnl/79r/pdf/79rday48final.pdf#page=12

Dan Branch co-authored Smart Meters legislation. Paxton actually voted twice for the implementation of Smart Meters and directed the Public Utilities Commission to allow the utilities to charge a fee for installation.  Paxton also supported a provision that required the PUC to report to the Legislature on the utilities progress in installing Smart Meters.

If both Dan Branch and Ken Paxton felt the Smart Meters were such an important issue, why did neither of them address it during the 83^rd Legislative Session?

To be honest, if the Texas Legislature had not passed the Smart Meters bills in the first place, we would not have them in our state. The PUC agency did not step outside its boundaries and make law; the PUC’s job is to implement whatever the Legislature passes. In fact, if Smitherman as chair of the PUC had “made” the Smart Meters laws, he most certainly would not have been re-appointed by the Texas Senate in 2007 and reconfirmed in 2009. That is the checks and balances process on the PUC by the TX Senate, and Ken Paxton was in the Senate when Smitherman was confirmed.

Now to be fair to all three men (Smitherman, Paxton, and Branch), back when Smart Meters were first introduced, the public did not widely know of any potential health hazards; and we did not know that Obama would be able to usurp state sovereignty and take complete control of our country. We did not have to fear the federal government as we now do under Obama. 

In fact, on June 27, 2012, Barry Smitherman shared his vision about the future of energy and electric cars [This piece was actually taped in 2009; the SwitchEnergyProject, begun in 2009, is under the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas/State of Texas and took three years to produce -- http://switchenergyproject.com/about/the-project].  Smitherman said he felt that gasoline-powered cars would prevail until at least 2050 but that people who chose to purchase electric cars could use their Smart Meters to save them money by figuring out what hours were the least expensive to charge the batteries on their cars:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd93yV1Fg98

Unfortunately, because of the newly released information about the NSA data collection, the IRS targeting of conservatives, and the total takeover by the federal government of our healthcare system through ObamaCare and our public school education system through ObamaCore, Americans now understand that Smart Meters could be used by the Obama administration to control our personal lives.  

*To clarify yet one more myth about Smitherman, he has told me that the only time he visited the White House was under President G. W. Bush and that Smitherman has never even met with Obama. 

Barry Smitherman takes STRONG Stand Against Common Core and CSCOPE - Texas Attorney General Race Update

Also see: Texas Conservative Education Hero Donna Garner Endorses Barry Smitherman, Says Ken Paxton Never Publicly Helped Conservatives on SBOE and he Supported Moderates

Texas Attorney General Candidate Barry Smitherman has taken a STRONG stand against CSCOPE and Common Core and Smitherman has vowed to fight it tooth and nail as Texas Attorney General.

Statement from Barry Smitherman regarding Defending Texas from Obama’s Common Core

“As the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, the Attorney General must ensure that the laws of Texas are obeyed and enforced.  

When the Texas legislature passes a bill, in this case HB 462, which forbids Common Core Standards in Texas Schools, then the Attorney General should ensure that Common Core Standards are not utilized by Texas schools.  

We cannot let the enticement of federal dollars cause our school districts to ignore state law.  I have personally reviewed CSCOPE curricula which is extremely biased against fossil fuels; describing, for example, only the “harmful effects” of oil, natural gas, and coal.  The State of Texas is the leading provider of fossil fuels in America, driving our economy forward, lowering energy costs, and eliminating our country’s dependence on fuel from countries that are hostile to America and her ideals.

I have stood strong for Texans by suing the Obama EPA 7 times to stop the implementation of poorly scienced, boneheaded environmental regulations. I will continue to fight for all Texans against an ever encroaching federal government, and as the next Attorney General, I will vigorously defend all of the laws of the state of Texas.” Barry Smitherman

Candidate Ken Paxton, on the other hand, has stated that he does not plan to fight Common Core or CSCOPE as Texas Attorney General

Attorney General Candidate Ken Paxton was asked recently how he, as the Texas Attorney General, would approach Common Core Standards and CSCOPE. Shockingly, Ken Paxton was caught on a recordingresponding, “the Attorney General probably won’t get involved in that.”

This is absurd! Texans have been fighting tooth and nail to stop CSCOPE and Common Core from getting into our public schools, and Ken Paxton, in his own words, says he probably won’t get involved in defending Texas law that bans common core?

Shock Recording: Ken Paxton NOT interested in Stopping Common Core or CSCOPE as Texas Attorney General

Texas Law bans Common Core in Texas Public Schools. The Texas Attorney General plays a very crucial role in defending Texas from Obama’s attempts to break Texas law by getting Common Core into our schools. Attorney General Candidate Ken Paxton was asked recently how he, as the Texas Attorney General, would approach Common Core Standards and CSCOPE. Shockingly, Ken Paxton was caught on a recording responding, “the Attorney General probably won’t get involved in that.”

This is absurd! Texans have been fighting tooth and nail to stop CSCOPE and Common Core from getting into our public schools, and Ken Paxton, in his own words, says he probably won’t get involved in defending Texas law that bans common core?

In comparison, Texas Attorney General Candidate Barry Smitherman has taken a STRONG stand against CSCOPE and Common Core and Smitherman has vowed to fight it tooth and nail as Texas Attorney General. See statement from Barry Smitherman below.

The rest of the article below is a more in depth information from Alice Linahan originally posted at Voices Empower:

Last session, the Texas Legislature passed HB 462 which bans Common Core in our Texas public schools.  The U. S. Dept. of Ed. under Obama has created a work-around in which Race to the Top funds are sent directly to Texas public school districts.  RTTT-D demands that schools implement the Common Core Standards Initiative. Last year Harmony and Idea Charters received the RTTT-D1 funds, and this year Houston ISD and Pasadena ISD are in the running for the RTTT-D2 funds. This puts these schools directly in opposition to Texas law under HB 462. 

Barry Smitherman has issued a strong commitment to uphold Texas laws, including HB 462: 

   

“As the chief law enforcement officer for the State of Texas, the Attorney General must ensure that the laws of Texas are obeyed and enforced.  

When the Texas legislature passes a bill, in this case HB 462, which forbids Common Core Standards in Texas Schools, then the Attorney General should ensure that Common Core Standards are not utilized by Texas schools.  

We cannot let the enticement of federal dollars cause our school districts to ignore state law.  I have personally reviewed CSCOPE curricula which is extremely biased against fossil fuels; describing, for example, only the “harmful effects” of oil, natural gas, and coal.  The State of Texas is the leading provider of fossil fuels in America, driving our economy forward, lowering energy costs, and eliminating our country’s dependence on fuel from countries that are hostile to America and her ideals.

I have stood strong for Texans by suing the Obama EPA 7 times to stop the implementation of poorly scienced, boneheaded environmental regulations. I will continue to fight for all Texans against an ever encroaching federal government, and as the next Attorney General, I will vigorously defend all of the laws of the state of Texas.” Barry Smitherman

 In Contrast AG candidate Ken Paxton states….

At a Q&A session Texas Attorney General candidate Ken Paxton was asked about how he would approach Common Core Standards and CSCOPE. 

“That’s more of a legislative function…The Attorney General probably won’t get too involved in that.”

Here is the recording of Ken Paxton saying this:

Then Paxton referenced “lawsuits” as a reason he would avoid taking action on Common Core Standards/CSCOPE issues.

TEX. ATTORNEY GEN. GREG ABBOTT AND CSCOPE

On May 6, 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott came to the assistance of Texas parents by sending an official letter to TESCCC, the corporate owner of CSCOPE, in which Abbott reminded them of Section 26.006(a) in the Texas Education Code which gives parents the right to review all teaching materials, lessons, etc. that are utilized in their children’s classrooms.  https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4394

As stated in the Dallas Morning News on 7.17.13, “Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott is a fierce critic of CSCOPE and has threatened to subpoena its records.”  –http://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/headlines/20130717-texas-criticized-cscope-curriculum-system-may-live-again.ece

COMMON CORE IS A TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUE – COMMON CORE BANNED BY TEXAS LEGISLATURE FROM TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS – HB 462

Following is a statement sent to Texas public school personnel on 11.7.13 by Texas Commissioner of Education Michael Williams in which he explains the ramifications of HB 462 recently passed by the Texas Legislature:  http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index4.aspx?id=25769808124

As you consider funding opportunities, especially those offered by the United States Department of Education, I want to remind you of the provisions in a new law prohibiting the adoption or use of the Common Core State Standards.

The 83rd Texas Legislature passed House Bill 462 (HB 462), which contains several important prohibitions relating to curriculum standards. The bill:

1.     prohibits the State Board of Education (SBOE) from adopting Common Core State Standards;

2.     prohibits school districts from using Common Core State Standards to meet the requirements to provide instruction in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS);

3.     prohibits a school district or open enrollment charter school from being required to offer the Common Core; and

4.     prohibits the Texas Education Agency from adopting or developing assessments based on Common Core State Standards.

You may read the full text of HB 462 at: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00462F.pdf#navpanes=0.

Barry Smitherman ONLY Texas AG Candidate w/ CHL - More Trusted on Gun Rights than Ken Paxton or Dan Branch

Barry Smitherman is the ONLY candidate in the Texas Attorney General race with a Concealed Handgun License (CHL). The fact that Barry Smitherman actually packs heat, on top of the fact that he got an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA), is why I believe that Barry Smitherman is clearly the best gun rights Texas AG candidate over Ken Paxton and Dan Branch. Anyone can talk a good talk about supporting gun rights, but Barry Smitherman actually practices his right to bear arms. Anyone can say they understand the importance of gun rights and anyone can say they defend the right to bear arms, but at the end of the day, if you have never even gotten a concealed handgun license then you DON'T really fully understand the importance and need to protect gun rights. If you did really understand the importance of guns and gun rights then you would ALREADY have a concealed gun license.

One of the biggest issues facing America right now is an unprecedented attack on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to strip away our gun rights in exchange for gun control. The Texas Attorney General will need to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of Texas. The Texas Attorney General will need to protect and defend the gun rights laws that the State of Texas has passed. It is not a matter of if. It is a matter of when. So the question is, when the time comes for Obama and the Democrats come after our guns, who do you want "behind the barrel of the gun" firing back at the liberals? I want Barry Smitherman.

When it comes to voting for the person who I can trust most to understand and defend gun rights, I pick the guy who actually packs heat instead of the guys who talk about the right to pack heat but have never felt it to be important enough to actually pack heat.

Furthermore, the State of Texas is actually NOT even the most gun friendly state in America. Texas does not even allow any open carry handgun laws even though MANY states DO have open carry laws. These laws to allow open carry in Texas have been pushed in recent years, but the Senators and State Representatives have blocked the laws. I would be willing to bet that most of those legislators do not have a concealed handgun license and therefore do not really understand the importance of gun right. They certainly do not understand that open carry is no more dangerous or alarming than concealed carry. Just look at the other states with open carry rights, no one is getting into shootouts in the middle of the streets or anything and I would be willing to bet that a criminal who sees someone with a gun is less likely to commit a crime in the first place knowing for sure someone has a gun and will fire at them.

Because Texas has a long way to go to be even more of a gun rights state, it is imperative that the next Texas Attorney General be someone who goes above and beyond just supporting the current Texas gun rights laws. The next attorney General for Texas should be someone who will push for even more gun rights than what we currently have in Texas.

The list of Texas Concealed Handgun License holders is not a public list. So how do I know that Barry Smitherman is the only candidate with a concealed handgun license? It is simple. Barry Smitherman has talked about having a CHL in public with the other candidates around and the other candidates have not chimed in about them having a CHL. Furthermore, Barry Smitherman has actually come out and said that he believes he is the only candidate in the race with a CHL and neither Ken Paxton nor Dan Branch have disputed this statement from Smitherman. You don't allow someone to say they are the only candidate with a CHL unless they actually are the only candidate with a CHL.

Ken Paxton Supporters Revert to Name Calling When Shown Paxton’s Vote to Mandate Smart Meter Fee for ALL Texans

Ken Paxton supporters in denial about exact wording of law that Ken Paxton passed:  "The Commission (PUCT) SHALL establish a nonbypassable surcharge for an electric utility or transmission and distribution utility to use to recover reasonable and necessary costs incurred in deploying advanced metering.” And it is the intent of the legislature that net metering and advanced meter information networks be deployed as rapidly as possible to allow customers to better manage energy use and control costs, and to facilitate demand response initiatives."

The bottom line is that Ken Paxton voted to mandate a Smart Meter fee that all Texans must pay regardless of if they get or even want a Smart Meter. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me that Paxton did not vote to create a “nonbypassable” Smart Meter surcharge.

Supporters of Ken Paxton like to point out that Barry Smitherman was the head of the PUC when the PUC was in charge of implementing smart meters. They conveniently ignore that Paxton’s role in Smart Meters, so I wrote an article showing that it was actually the Texas Legislature and Ken Paxton who voted to create and promote smart meters and even to mandate a fee that all Texans must pay for the meters. This law told the PUC and Smitherman to implement Smart Meters. Smitherman did not create Smart Meters, he was just following the law and implementing them because the law that Paxton voted for instructed Smitherman to implement them. Only Obama decides what laws he is going to follow or toss out. After I revealed that information, all Hell broke loose with Paxton supporters calling me names and saying I am a liar. They say that Paxton and the legislature never intended for the meters to be mandatory, but they conveniently ignore the actual wording of the law that Paxton supported. At least I don’t call names and am actually trying to show evidence about Paxton’s vote for Smart Meters. For the record, I do not think Ken Paxton is a bad guy and I know he is conservative. I just also know he is not as perfect as his supporters say he is and I believe 100% that Barry Smitherman is more conservative and a better leader and the best man to be the next Texas Attorney General

Let’s say that they are right and Paxton and the legislature did not intend for Smart Meters to be mandatory. That only makes what Paxton voted for EVEN WORSE because the law that Paxton voted for, HB 2129, Clearly and Indisputably states "The Commission (PUCT) SHALL establish a nonbypassable surcharge for an electric utility or transmission and distribution utility to use to recover reasonable and necessary costs incurred in deploying advanced metering.” So it is an indisputable fact that Paxton voted to mandate a Smart Meter fee that all Texans must pay. If Paxton and his supporters are denying that Smart Meters were never intended to be mandatory, then Paxton is admitting that he voted to force all Texans to pay for Smart Meters even if they do not want one and do not get one. Voting to force someone to pay for something they do not want and will not get is not a good thing and it is interesting to see the Paxton supporters act like there is nothing wrong with that.

Smitherman Implemented Smart Meters that Paxton and Legislature voted to create, at least Smitherman tried to add an opt out in the law

The Texas legislature told the PUC to implement the meters and to find ways to deploy them as rapidly as possible because the advanced technology is good for Texas and consumers. So yes, Barry Smitherman did his job and he implemented smart meters and promoted them. Only in Obamaland can someone ignore a law. Smart meters were the law passed by the legislature and the law required the PUC to implement them. So that is what Barry Smitherman did. Smart meters are actually not all that bad and many people love them because they do have many advantages. The issue that arose is that not everyone likes them or wants them because there are many questions surrounding the meters including privacy and health. Instead of ignoring the voice of the people, Smitherman actually realized the flaw and requested the Texas Legislature to amend the law to include an opt-out so that people who do not want one do not have to get one. Ken Paxton, who voted on the law, never once made a statement supporting opt outs and never once tried to amend the law or support any bills to amend the law.

Debate over whether or not Smart Meters are Mandatory

I admit, there certainly can be a difference of opinion over whether or not the law that Paxton passed actually mandated that everyone has to get a smart meter. The problem is that the law does not specifically say whether or not people can opt out of it. If you look at the wording of the law that requires everyone pay a mandatory fee for smart meters and also the part in the law where the legislature calls for the meters to be deployed as rapidly as possible, it sure would seem as though the law intended for all old meters to be replaced with this new smart meter technology. That I admit can be debated.

NO Debate over the FACT that law Paxton voted for FORCES ALL Texans to pay a nonbypassable fee to pay for Smart Meters and called for the meters to be deployed as rapidly as possible.

We can debate whether or not Paxton and the legislature intended Smart Meters to be mandatory. People can try to say Smart Meters were all the fault of the PUC who was only just following the law and implementing the meters. We CANNOT debate the fact the Paxton and the legislature passed a law that promotes Smart Meters as good, calls for them to be rapidly deployed, and requires everyone to pay for Smart Meters. So do ahead, you can reasonable deny that Paxton intended Smart Meters to be mandatory, but that does not make what he voted for any better. Read the law yourself below. Paxton had to have wanted to promote Smart Meters based on the wording of the law the voted to approve. Does what you read below look like something that someone would vote to approve if they did not want to push Smart Meters?

Exact Wording of Law that Paxton Supporters Cannot Deny even if the Deny that Paxton intended Smart Meters to be Mandatory:

In 2005 Ken Paxton and Dan Branch voted to approve HB 2129. Section 7(h) of HB 2129 states: "The Commission (PUCT) SHALL establish a nonbypassable surcharge for an electric utility or transmission and distribution utility to use to recover reasonable and necessary costs incurred in deploying advanced metering and meter information networks to residential customers…"

Section 8(a) of HB 2129 states: “In recognition that advances in digital and communications equipment and technologies, including new metering and meter information technologies, have the potential to increase the reliability of the regional electrical network, encourage dynamic pricing and demand response, make better use of generation assets and transmission and generation assets, and provide more choice for consumers, the legislature encourages the adoption of these technologies by electric utilities in this state."

Section 8(b) of HB 2129 states: “The Public Utility Commission of Texas shall study the efforts of electric utilities to benefit from the use of advanced metering and metering information networks. The commission SHALL present to the legislature on or before September 30 of each even--‐numbered year a report detailing those efforts and identifying changes in the state’s policies that may be necessary to remove barriers to the use of advanced metering and metering information networks or of other advanced transmission and distribution technologies.”

In 2007, the Texas Legislature passed HB 3693, again making clear its intention that smart meters be deployed as rapidly as possible. Again, Ken Paxton and Dan Branch voted for this legislation. Section 20(i) of HB 3693 states: “Subject to the restrictions in Subsection (h), it is the intent of the legislature that net metering and advanced meter information networks be deployed as rapidly as possible to allow customers to better manage energy use and control costs, and to facilitate demand response initiatives."

Related articles:

Barry Smitherman saved Texas Taxpayers OVER $130 MILLION – Slashed Spending, Cut Budgets – Attorney General Race Update

Texas Right to Life Endorses Barry Smitherman for Attorney General

Smitherman REJECTS Budget Increase - Paxton, Branch APPROVE Increases - Texas Attorney General Race

Paxton and Branch Missed Hundreds of Votes in Legislature – Texas Needs a Full Time Attorney General

Statement by Barry Smitherman in response to USDOJ Challenge to Texas Voter ID Law

The Race for Texas Attorney General - Barry Smitherman's Record

AG Candidate Dan Branch Joined House Democrats Seeking to Expand 3rd Trimester Abortions

Smart Meters FORCED onto Texans by Ken Paxton and Dan Branch – TRUTH REVEALED - Votes Don't Lie

see updated article with more information here: 

Ken Paxton Supporters Revert to Name Calling When Shown Paxton’s Vote to Mandate Smart Meter Fee for ALL Texans

Fact: Texas Attorney General Candidates Ken Paxton and Dan Branch voted in 2005 to FORCE Texans to get a Smart Meter and FORCED Texans to pay for them. The laws they voted to approve reveal the shocking truth that even they cannot deny. They passed laws that specifically forced the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) to implement Smart Meters and to create a fee for Texans to pay for them. Texas Attorney General Candidate Barry Smitherman is the only candidate in the race who has listened to the outcry from conservatives and in response has teamed up with conservatives in the Texas Legislature, like State Rep. David Simpson, to try to amend the law and make Smart Meters optional instead of mandatory. Legislators Ken Paxton and Dan Branch have done NOTHING to try to introduce or promote any bills to stop the mandatory Smart Meters.

It is time people heard the truth. I am tired of Texas Legislators passing the blame. I am tired of fellow conservative groups believing the lies about who actually created and mandated Smart Meters. Voting records do not lie. In this article I will show you the exact laws that Paxton and Branch voted on to mandate Smart Meters. The Legislature and the yes votes that Paxton and Branch made are why Texans were forced to get and pay for Smart Meters. No one else is responsible.

Smart Meter outrage took the Texas scene by storm within the last few years. Texas Conservative groups were rightfully mad about these intrusive, big brother, potentially health hazardous Smart Meters. Some conservatives mistakenly got upset at the PUCT. The truth is that it was the Texas Legislature that passed the law to force Smart Meters onto Texans. It was the Texas Legislature that passed the law to force Texans to pay for the Smart Meters, not the PUCT.

In 2005, the Texas Legislature passed HB 2129, mandating a fee for the implementation of smart meters and encouraging the adoption of smart meters. Both Ken Paxton and Dan Branch voted aye on this bill.

Section 7(h) of HB 2129 states: “The Commission (PUCT) SHALL establish a nonbypassable surcharge for an electric utility or transmission and distribution utility to use to recover reasonable and necessary costs incurred in deploying advanced metering and meter information networks to residential customers…

Section 8(a) of HB 2129 states: “In recognition that advances in digital and communications equipment and technologies, including new metering and meter information technologies, have the potential to increase the reliability of the regional electrical network, encourage dynamic pricing and demand response, make better use of generation assets and transmission and generation assets, and provide more choice for consumers, the legislature encourages the adoption of these technologies by electric utilities in this state.

Section 8(b) of HB 2129 states: “The Public Utility Commission of Texas shall study the efforts of electric utilities to benefit from the use of advanced metering and metering information networks. The commission SHALL present to the legislature on or before September 30 of each even--‐numbered year a report detailing those efforts and identifying changes in the state’s policies that may be necessary to remove barriers to the use of advanced metering and metering information networks or of other advanced transmission and distribution technologies.”

In 2007, the Texas Legislature passed HB 3693, again making clear its intention that smart meters be deployed as rapidly as possible. Again, Ken Paxton and Dan Branch voted for this legislation.

Section 20(i) of HB 3693 states: “Subject to the restrictions in Subsection (h), it is the intent of the legislature that net metering and advanced meter information networks be deployed as rapidly as possible to allow customers to better manage energy use and control costs, and to facilitate demand response initiatives.

Conclusion:

If you notice in the above laws that were passed and approved by Ken Paxton and Dan Branch, the word SHALL was used. The word SHALL means it must be done and is NOT optional. The Texas Legislature mandated the PUCT to implement smart meters by passing a law stating that the PUCT SHALL do it. The Texas Legislature also used the word NONBYPASSABLE in reference to the fee that Texans must pay to implement the Smart Meters. Like shall, nonbypassable means it is mandatory and not optional. So before anyone starts to say that the Legislature did not intend for Smart Meters to be mandatory or that the PUCT should have just not implemented smart meters, you need to check your facts. We Texans do not live in Obamaland. We do not just decide which laws to enforce or not enforce like Obama does. The Texas Legislature passed laws creating and mandating Smart Meters and instructing the PUCT to make it happen. The PUCT followed the law that was passed by the Texas Elected officials. Obama thinks he can just ignore laws passed by Congress, but here in Texas we hold ourselves to a higher standard and the PUCT did the only thing they could and they followed the law passed by Paxton and Branch.

The Legislature is to blame for Smart Meters, not the PUCT. The Texas Legislature even went as far as to pass a bill in 2007 encouraging the RAPID deployment of Smart Meters. So they wanted to force them on us and then they wanted to make it happen as soon as possible. After reading the wording of the laws passed by Paxton ad Branch, no one can deny that Smart Meters were created and pushed by the Legislature. Furthermore, the only authority that can stop smart meters, besides a Judge, is the Texas Legislature. If people are mad about Smart Meters, which they should be, then it is up to Texas Legislators like Ken Paxton and Dan Branch to take a stand and amend the law that they wrongfully voted for. The PUCT and Barry Smitherman have taken a stand with conservatives and asked the Texas Legislature to change the law, but so far the legislature has done NOTHING, including Ken Paxton and Dan Branch doing nothing.

Mandatory Smart Meters are a big problem. Maybe no one in the Texas Legislature knew about the problems that would arise when Smart Meters first came out. But hey, now you know! So what are you going to do to fix the problem? You change the law. At least Barry Smitherman is actually trying to fix the problem. The legislature and the laws they passed are to blame. Since the negatives of Smart Meters have been made know, Smitherman has listened to conservatives and he has tried to get the Legislature to change the law. The legislature, including Paxton and Branch, has not responded.

So Thanks alot Ken Paxton and Dan Branch for passing Smart Meters and thanks alot for not trying to change the law to correct what you previously approved. Smitherman is the only Texas Attorney General Candidate brave enough to listen to conservatives and respond by trying to correct the problem and by trying to get the legislature to change the law and not make smart meters mandatory.

So that is the truth about who created, Pushed, Mandated, and is still allowing Smart Meters to be forced onto Texans who also are forced to pay for them.