For clarification purposes:
All the articles I ever write are based either my opinion or my take on the facts involved. I am a member on the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) in Texas, and I am involved in the inner workings of the Republican Party of Texas and yet I am also an outsider because I am young and was just elected to the SREC with no ties to anyone in the State Party. I desire to keep people up to date with what is going on in the Republican Party of Texas. Heck, some people do not even know what the SREC is or what we do. Most people certainly do not know about the important issues that we vote on during our meetings. I actively stand up for Republican values and I want more people to be more informed and involved. I even filed a personal lawsiot against the Unconstitutional healthcare law! I want people to be involved and be heard and and I want people to be informed. For this reason, I send out email updates about what is going on. I routinely send out information and polls that request input from you, the Republican voters in Texas. I do not speak for the other members of the SREC and I am not the official Party Spokesman. I have NEVER declared that I was. I always thought it was pretty clear that I am just a member of the SREC who writes a blog to get information out so people can know what is going on. If anyone every wants to stop getting emails from me they just have to click a link at the bottom of one of the emails they get from me. The other members of the SREC might not always completely agree on everything I say or they might have a different take on thing. That is just fine with me. The entire SREC rarely ever completely agrees on things and there are many votes split right down the middle. I work with everyone regardless of whether not we agree on every issue. I am not going to stop sending out information though simply because someone else on the SREC does not like what I am sending out. If someone does not agree with me then they can write their own article about what is going on and post it online for people to read. The more information the better! At least I am trying to keep people informed. The way I see it is I will gladly be guilty of putting out too many articles about what is going on instead of being guilty for not informing people enough about what is going on or for not standing for Republican values enough.
Sincerely,
Michael “David” Bellow Jr.
State Republican Executive Committee SD3
http://hardincountyconservatives.blogspot.com/
http://texasgopvote.com/users/david-bellow/track
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republican. Show all posts
Monday, February 20, 2012
Friday, November 11, 2011
Will Rick Perry's Memory Gaffe in Debate take him from Collapse to Presidential Contender?
Some thought that Rick Perry's Presidential Campaign was over with after Perry, during a debate, could not remember the third Federal agency that he would shut down if he became President.
Perry's face was all over the news after that lapse in memory.
That was possibly the best thing that could have happened to Perry.
People had started to forget about Perry in the midst of the Cain Controversy and after Perry's less than stellar debate performances.
Well, Perry is no longer in the back of the news headlines. Now he is at the front of the news and everyone is hearing about Perry. Sure, they are hearing about Perry in a negative light at first, but they are hearing his name and that kind of publicity is an important first step. The next thing they will do is search his name and try to find out why everyone is talking about Perry messing up.
What they will find is that Perry is not the best debater, but while they are searching his name is when they will also see Perry's record of creating jobs and promoting business and standing for conservative, American values.
Next they will see him on all the morning shows talking about the mistake. They will see a human who, just like everyone else, makes simple mistakes. They will see a very likeable person. They will get to hear what Perry stands for and will get to hear about Perry's outstanding record and leadership.
At this point in the campaign, no one has become the frontrunner. It is all a big mess. At first, everyone wanted to find that superhero candidate. They quickly lost interest in anyone who made any simple mistake or anyone who did not perform well in the initial debates.
Well, now that no superhero has come forth and it is clear there are no "perfect" candidates, the voters are just going to have to start looking at the more important details like past decisions, voting records and the proven ability of candidates. Perry certainly has a strong proven record of leadership, understanding of smaller Federal Government, job creation and conservative principles.
This publicity, plus the millions of dollars in ads he will be unleashing, will bring him back into the Republican Presidential race. As the other candidates start dropping out, people will look to the “anybody but Romney Republican candidate” and Perry will certainly take many of those votes.
Here are some other articles dealing with this same topic:
Why Perry's Campaign Is Not Quite Dead Yet
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/10/why-perrys-campaign-is-not-quite-dead-yet/
Rick Perry's Collapse Is The Best Thing That Could Have Happened To Him
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perrys-collapse-is-the-best-thing-that-could-have-happened-to-him-2011-11?utm_source=The+Perry+Almanac&utm_campaign=0f7d262614-Email_19_15_2011&utm_medium=email
Friday, May 20, 2011
Mike Hamilton Kills Texas Gambling Bills
update: I have recently gotten an email with links to newspapers with quotes from Mike Hamilton. Mike Hamilton has told the papers that he is pushing to pass an expanded gambling and casino bill. I am upset that Hamilton lied to me and told me that he killed the bill for us when in fact he just did not get enough votes for the bill....
previous story:
Mike Hamilton Kills Gambling Bills
I previously sent out emails asking everyone to call State Representative Mike Hamilton and express their disappointment in him for supporting a bill that would expand gambling in Texas (something that goes against the Republican Party and the Governor would veto it)
I am happy to say that your calls and emails worked! Thanks for all of your hard work in teaming together and helping stop these bills. I talked to Mike Hamilton this week and he told me that he killed all the gambling bills in his licensing committee!
Thank you Mike Hamilton for listening to the majority in your district who do not want expanded gambling in Texas! Like Rick Perry told me, if it was so great then Nevada would be doing great financially, but they aren’t!
I believe there are some other gambling related bills still in play that were not in Mike Hamilton's committee so keep up the good work everyone!
previous story:
Mike Hamilton Kills Gambling Bills
I previously sent out emails asking everyone to call State Representative Mike Hamilton and express their disappointment in him for supporting a bill that would expand gambling in Texas (something that goes against the Republican Party and the Governor would veto it)
I am happy to say that your calls and emails worked! Thanks for all of your hard work in teaming together and helping stop these bills. I talked to Mike Hamilton this week and he told me that he killed all the gambling bills in his licensing committee!
Thank you Mike Hamilton for listening to the majority in your district who do not want expanded gambling in Texas! Like Rick Perry told me, if it was so great then Nevada would be doing great financially, but they aren’t!
I believe there are some other gambling related bills still in play that were not in Mike Hamilton's committee so keep up the good work everyone!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Urgent Texas Redistricting Update: New Proposed Texas State Rep Map - It is MUCH Better for Republican State Reps in East and Southeast Texas: The Vote is Soon!
see article at http://www.texasgopvote.com/2011-legislative-session/urgent-texas-redistricting-update-new-proposed-texas-state-rep-map-it-better-rep-002771
The following is an email that I just received today from Conservative State Representative Wayne Christian. As you already know, the Texas House Redistricting Committee recently released their proposed map for The Texas House of Representatives[1]. This map is currently scheduled to be voted on this Tuesday April 26th, 2011 (maybe Wednesday).
While I applaud Rep. Burt Solomons for his hard work as Chair of the Redistricting Committee, I believe that his map unfairly puts too many Republicans in the same districts together where they will have to run against each other. (The voters just voted in over 100 Republicans in the Texas House. That is what the people of Texas wanted, so it is only fair that those Republicans do not get redistricted out)
A new map has just been introduced that will better serve the Super Majority of Republican Voters in Texas, and the Republicans in Southeast Texas. This map is PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL
The vote on these maps will be Tuesday April 26th, 2011 (maybe Wednesday). The State Legislative will be taking off for Easter so we have to call them now and ask them to vote for this new proposed map.
Personally, my hometown area of Southeast Texas will be better with Plan 155 because we would get to keep our Republicans instead of having them run against each other.
Please read the following email from State Representative Wayne Christian about the New Map
Urgent Texas Legislative Update: New House Map – from State Rep Wayne Christian
Advantages of PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL
The New map accomplishes the following:
- Is more reflective of the voting patterns of the state
- Is fair and legal
-Accurately reflects the voters intent
-Includes a minimal amount of pairings
-Consistently compact where possible
-Is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
-Elects 97 Republicans, compared to the committee map electing 92 Republicans
-Protects conservative House members
-Reelects the conservative freshman House members that the voters elected in an overwhelming mandate in 2010
To view the map go to http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us
Click on "select plans," and select "base plan."
Select "PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL"
The ask is that the grassroots call their State Representatives and ask them to not vote for the house map passed out of the redistricting committee and to vote for the new map as an amendment on the House floor on Tuesday.
Reference "Plan H155." As of today the vote will be on Tuesday April 26th. Plan H155 will be introduced as an amendment to HB 150, the map passed by the committee.
Time is of the essence here, the House will adjourn on Thursday afternoon and all of the Representatives will return home to their districts for Easter weekend.
**Note- The map you see live on the website today will be slightly different from the map that is introduced as an amendment, the lawyers are fine tuning the map as we speak.
Contact Representative Christian
If you have questions or comments about your state government, please feel free to contact my office or email me directly.
Email: RepWayne@yahoo.com
Furthermore, this new Map DOES NOT violate the Voting Rights Act:
Read this statement from an email sent by Conservative Donna Garner Wgarner1@hot.rr.com
We need to keep reminding members of the Senate and House Redistricting Committees that Section 5 of the U. S. Voting Rights Act (a.k.a., VRA) says that legislators are:
“not obligated to produce a redistricting map that yields a racial quota of elected officials mirroring exactly the state’s population. In fact, drawing districts to satisfy a racial quota is expressly prohibited…
The court does prohibit lawmakers from obliterating existing majority-minority districts. And courts may require the drawing of a majority-minority legislative district only if the population distribution meets the three factors in Gingles v. Thornburg: (1) geographically compact, (2) politically cohesive, and (3) a history of racially polarized voting…
The problem the Democrats are likely to run into in Texas is that the civil rights movement is finally beginning to achieve its stated goal – racial integration. Minorities are moving to the suburbs.” (Will Lutz, The Lone Star Report, 2.18.11)
The following is an email that I just received today from Conservative State Representative Wayne Christian. As you already know, the Texas House Redistricting Committee recently released their proposed map for The Texas House of Representatives[1]. This map is currently scheduled to be voted on this Tuesday April 26th, 2011 (maybe Wednesday).
While I applaud Rep. Burt Solomons for his hard work as Chair of the Redistricting Committee, I believe that his map unfairly puts too many Republicans in the same districts together where they will have to run against each other. (The voters just voted in over 100 Republicans in the Texas House. That is what the people of Texas wanted, so it is only fair that those Republicans do not get redistricted out)
A new map has just been introduced that will better serve the Super Majority of Republican Voters in Texas, and the Republicans in Southeast Texas. This map is PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL
The vote on these maps will be Tuesday April 26th, 2011 (maybe Wednesday). The State Legislative will be taking off for Easter so we have to call them now and ask them to vote for this new proposed map.
Personally, my hometown area of Southeast Texas will be better with Plan 155 because we would get to keep our Republicans instead of having them run against each other.
Please read the following email from State Representative Wayne Christian about the New Map
Urgent Texas Legislative Update: New House Map – from State Rep Wayne Christian
Advantages of PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL
The New map accomplishes the following:
- Is more reflective of the voting patterns of the state
- Is fair and legal
-Accurately reflects the voters intent
-Includes a minimal amount of pairings
-Consistently compact where possible
-Is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
-Elects 97 Republicans, compared to the committee map electing 92 Republicans
-Protects conservative House members
-Reelects the conservative freshman House members that the voters elected in an overwhelming mandate in 2010
To view the map go to http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us
Click on "select plans," and select "base plan."
Select "PlanH155- NIXON STATEWIDE HOUSE PROPOSAL"
The ask is that the grassroots call their State Representatives and ask them to not vote for the house map passed out of the redistricting committee and to vote for the new map as an amendment on the House floor on Tuesday.
Reference "Plan H155." As of today the vote will be on Tuesday April 26th. Plan H155 will be introduced as an amendment to HB 150, the map passed by the committee.
Time is of the essence here, the House will adjourn on Thursday afternoon and all of the Representatives will return home to their districts for Easter weekend.
**Note- The map you see live on the website today will be slightly different from the map that is introduced as an amendment, the lawyers are fine tuning the map as we speak.
Contact Representative Christian
If you have questions or comments about your state government, please feel free to contact my office or email me directly.
Email: RepWayne@yahoo.com
Furthermore, this new Map DOES NOT violate the Voting Rights Act:
Read this statement from an email sent by Conservative Donna Garner Wgarner1@hot.rr.com
We need to keep reminding members of the Senate and House Redistricting Committees that Section 5 of the U. S. Voting Rights Act (a.k.a., VRA) says that legislators are:
“not obligated to produce a redistricting map that yields a racial quota of elected officials mirroring exactly the state’s population. In fact, drawing districts to satisfy a racial quota is expressly prohibited…
The court does prohibit lawmakers from obliterating existing majority-minority districts. And courts may require the drawing of a majority-minority legislative district only if the population distribution meets the three factors in Gingles v. Thornburg: (1) geographically compact, (2) politically cohesive, and (3) a history of racially polarized voting…
The problem the Democrats are likely to run into in Texas is that the civil rights movement is finally beginning to achieve its stated goal – racial integration. Minorities are moving to the suburbs.” (Will Lutz, The Lone Star Report, 2.18.11)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Texas House Redistricting Committee Releases Proposed Map for Texas House of Representatives – See New Map Here!
Southeast Texas Sees BIG changes in New Proposed State Rep Redistricting Map - See New Map Below
If the New proposed map were to be approved as is:
Hardin County would be put in a district with our northern Rural Texas Counties and would most likely be represented by Conservative Republican James White from Tyler County.
Orange County would be put in a district with Jefferson County and Conservative Republican Mike Hamilton would have to face off against Newly turned Moderate Republican Allan Ritter.
Jefferson County's Liberal to Moderate Democrat Joe Deshotel would have pretty much the same district with the exception that he will be gaining Beaumont's Conservative west end. I bet the conservative West Side of Beaumont will probably not be thrilled and will want to run someone against Joe Deshotel, but will have to go against the Democrat Stronghold in Port Arthur to do it.
see full story below and click on map below to see how your County is changed in the new proposed map:
Texas House Redistricting Committee Releases Proposed Map for Texas House of Representatives – See New Map Here!
State Rep. Burt Solomons, Chairman of the Texas House Redistricting Committee, has been working hard on drawing up the new lines for the Texas House of Representatives.
Well his committee’s new proposed map is finally out.
See for yourself how your district will be changed if this proposed map is approved:
Go to http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ then use the drop down menu in the upper left-hand side marked "Select Plans" to bring up a pop-up window titled "Select Base Plan". From that window, scroll down to see the proposed map titled "PLANH113 - Rep. Solomons Statewide House Proposal".
So what do you think about the new map? It is probably too soon to really understand the new map but as the days go by I am sure we will get lots of comments for and against the new map.
The proposed map has only been out for a few hours and we have already had some comments about it. Here is what some people are saying about the new proposed map:
One blogger says House redistricting map would carve new minority district out of southeast Arlington[1]
Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri supports the proposed map and, among other things, had this to say about the proposed map[2]:
“…the map pairs seven sets of Republicans. While this is not an ideal situation for either our party or the elected representatives who are paired, I am convinced that because of the changes in population that it is impossible to draw a new map that maintains a Republican majority and at the same time is legal and fair, without such pairings”
Friday, April 8, 2011
How Obama, Democrats are Supporting Planned Parenthood by Forcing Soldiers and Officers to Put Lives on the Line with No Pay in Possible Government Shutdown
Obama and the Democrats want to pay Planned Parenthood more than they want to pay our Soldiers
Active Army National Guard Soldiers protecting our bordersin Texas found out today (Friday April 8th, 2011) that they are not getting paid during the possible government shutdown, but they will still be putting their lives on the line protecting America during the government shutdown. Specifically, soldiers on the border have already had half of their salary cut out of their next paycheck scheduled for April 15th. Federal Officers guarding murders and rapists at Federal Prisons found out today will not be getting paid either, but they will still be showing up to work and putting their lives on the line. Emails have gone out today informing Army National Guard Soldiers that some military operations are being halted and monthly training this weekend has been cancelled. Families of soldiers who die fighting will not even get paid a death benefit during the government shutdown.[1]
Why? Because payments to Planned Parenthood are more important to Obama and the Democrats than military training and payments to our soldiers and officers.
Here is the situation:
The budget has to be cut. The current debt spending cannot be sustained and the people are demanding the government to scale back spending. The Republicans are doing just that. They are cutting the budget. They have come up with a temporary plan to cut the budget, while allowing important government functions (like the military) to continue to operate while they come up with the more complex, long term budget cuts. At least they are trying to cut spending which is an about face compared to what the Democrats have been doing. One area that needs to be cut is funding to the corrupt Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was recently exposed on Breitbart when a high ranking Planned Parenthood official was caught on tape advising a pimp on underage sex trafficking secret abortions for minors.[2] The Republicans have proposed cutting funding from Planned Parenthood in their current proposal that the House passed and sent to the Senate. The Democrats and Obama do not like it and so they are holding out. The Democrats are the ones responsible for the government shutdown and not the Republicans. The Republicans are not trying to sneak in an amendment to ban abortion in a budget deal. The Republicans are just trying to do what they were elected to do, which is cut spending, and that means cutting spending to Planned Parenthood. This type of budget cut, as part of a budget bill, is perfectly acceptable and is not just some political stunt by the Republicans. The Republicans simply want to cut spending and the Democrats do not like what is being cut and so the Democrats are going to not pay active duty soldiers and halt military training instead of not paying Planned Parenthood.
You can see what the priorities are for the Democrats. Regardless of whether or not an agreement is reached tonight, the Democrats already showed their true feelings about supporting Planned Parenthood over American Soldiers.
Democrats claim that Republicans are trying to defund health services for women but this is just not true. A spokesman for Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who authored the language to defund Planned Parenthood, said he would not blink from his position, especially because his amendment to defund one group did not reduce the total health care dollars available to women.[3]
On a side note, the Texas House of Representatives has already taken the positive step to ending taxpayer funding of a corrupt organization when it recently Voted to Defund Planned Parenthood as part of the budget Cuts in Texas.[4]
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Criminal Complaint Filed Against Lumberton Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings
State Republican Executive Committeeman, David Bellow, has filed a criminal complaint with the Secretary of State – Elections Division, and the Hardin County Attorney.
The Complaint is against Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings and the complaint alleges that Mr. Cummings violated several laws, mainly that he illegally coerced Channel 4 Weatherman Dana Melancon into dropping out of running against him and also for threatening others with physical harm.
Below is the full text of the complaint that was sent to the Hardin County Attorney:
July 6, 2010
TO: District/County Attorney of Hardin County
300 Monroe Street
Kountze, TX 77625
FROM: David Bellow
Texas State Republican Executive Committeeman SD
P.O. Box 8253, Lumberton, TX 77657
ATTENTION: David Sheffield District Attorney/Rebecca Walton County Attorney (whomever applicable)
SUBJECT: I initially sent this complaint to the Secretary of State’s office and they are investigating this election violation and will be sending their investigation to the Texas Attorney General for action to be taken in regards to the election. The Secretary of State’s office further instructed me to also send this complaint to the district/county attorney for prosecution of the violations of the law that have occurred.
VIOLATIONS: Criminal Conduct in Violation of Section 2.054 of the Texas Election Code by intimidating or coercing a potential candidate not to file an application for a place on the ballot or to withdraw as a candidate, and other violations of the Texas Penal Code listed below.
SUMMARY OF VIOLATION:
Here are the facts as gathered from multiple firsthand accounts of people directly involved in this situation, all of whom will testify that this information is true. These sources include audio tapes of some of the conversations that provide indisputable evidence that this criminal activity has occurred.
Dana Melancon is a weatherman for Channel 4 News in Beaumont, TX. He was also a candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
Butch Cummings is the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX. He was the incumbent candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for reelection as Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
On January 8, 2010, incumbent Butch Cummings called Dana Melancon’s Channel 4 bosses to have a private meeting at Mr. Cummings Justice of the Peace office. This meeting was initiated by Butch Cummings. Those in attendance were Mr. Cummings (incumbent JP), Angel San Juan (News Director of Channel 4, the local Fox News affiliate in Beaumont, TX), and Chris Pruitt (the interim General Manager of Channel 4). Mr. Melancon was not invited.
During this meeting, Mr. Cummings told Mr. Melancon’s bosses that if Mr. Melancon did not drop out of the race for Justice of the Peace, then Mr. Cummings would go public with information that Mr. Melancon had received more than one speeding ticket during the last several years and these speeding tickets had caused Dana Melancon to be issued a warrant for his arrest to pay some unpaid fines (which Mr. Melancon did go down and pay upon hearing that a warrant had been issued). It is not certain whether Mr. Cummings issued this warrant himself, and if he did issue them, it is unclear whether the warrant was issued in an appropriate manner or if he issued the warrant unjustly and brought it to Mr. Melancon’s bosses as an abuse of power.
After this initial meeting, there was a candidate forum at the Lumberton Texas High School. Over a dozen candidates were there from state and local races. Dana Melancon did not participate in the forum. Mr. Melancon simply showed up for a few minutes and sat in the back to watch the forum. Butch Cummings called Angel San Juan and was very irate about Mr. Melancon being at the forum. Mr. Cummings call was laced with profanity and threats. Mr. Cummings demanded that Channel 4 give him airtime on tv. Angel San Juan tried to calm Mr. Cummings down and did not bow to Mr. Cummings threats for airtime.
On February 2, 2010, another meeting took place at Mr. Cummings JP office between Mr. Cummings, Angel San Juan(channel 4), Chris Pruitt (channel 4), Butch Cumming’s son (backing Mr Cummings actions), Melissa Minton (backing Mr Cummings actions), and this time they called in Dana Melancon so he was there too. Again, Mr. Cummings reiterated that Dana Melancon must drop out of the race for JP or else Mr. Cummings would damage the image of the news station by spreading info to the public about Dana Melancon’s lead foot. Mr. Cummings had printed out flyers about Dana Melancon that he had personally started to spread around and would continue to unless Dana dropped out.
Dana Melancon dropped out of the race and Channel 4 made multiple announcements on their newscast that Dana Melancon would not be running anymore and would not accept any nomination for JP, even if he were to win the primary election. Mr. Melancon still got a large portion of the votes on election day.
Furthermore, the editor of the Silsbee Bee spoke to Mr. Cummings and Mr. Cummings stated that since Mr. Melancon went after “his job” as Justice of the Peace, then he was justified to go after Mr. Melancon’s job at Channel 4. In past dealings with the Silsbee Bee, It is standard that the Silsbee Bee records their conversations for future reference so this conversation would have been recorded, and/or the Editor and one or more of their reporters has firsthand knowledge of this conversation and would testify to the truth of this.
Furthermore, When I, David Bellow, approached Butch Cummings about his “blackmailing” Dana Melancon to drop out of the race, Butch Cummings responded with a threat of bodily harm by saying he would “kick my ass if I told anyone” and when asked if that was a threat Mr. Cummings replied “you mark it down.” This is a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (Assault by Verbal Threat of bodily injury of another person), and it is also a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 by using abusive/indecent/profane/vulgar language in a public place and in front of children.
There are several reliable witnesses who will testify to the truth of these allegations, including election judges and other officials in the Republican Party of Hardin County. Being that there is sufficient evidence to the claim that Butch Cummings coerced Dana Melancon into dropping out of running for office, it is requested that the District/County Attorney prosecute these charges.
Lastly, it is not my desire to defend any speeding tickets that Mr. Melancon had received. Instead, it is my wish, as the State Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 3, to ensure that the integrity of our democratic system is kept intact by allowing individuals to run and allowing the people to weigh their options (including the people being able to take into consideration any of the candidate’s past speeding tickets) and then decide who they want to be Justice of the Peace. Instead, the people did not have a chance to weigh their options and decide because of the criminal actions, and abuse of his public office of Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings by him meeting with Mr. Melancon’s bosses and trying to get him fired unless he dropped out of the race, which would ensure another term in office for Mr. Cummings.
Also, it does not seem that Channel 4 took any part in this coercion nor does it appear that they threatened to fire Mr. Melancon if he did not drop out. Instead it appears that Mr. Melancon stepped down from the coercion of Mr. Cummings and not coercion from his bosses.
Respectfully,
David Bellow
State Republican Executive Committeeman
The Complaint is against Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings and the complaint alleges that Mr. Cummings violated several laws, mainly that he illegally coerced Channel 4 Weatherman Dana Melancon into dropping out of running against him and also for threatening others with physical harm.
Below is the full text of the complaint that was sent to the Hardin County Attorney:
July 6, 2010
TO: District/County Attorney of Hardin County
300 Monroe Street
Kountze, TX 77625
FROM: David Bellow
Texas State Republican Executive Committeeman SD
P.O. Box 8253, Lumberton, TX 77657
ATTENTION: David Sheffield District Attorney/Rebecca Walton County Attorney (whomever applicable)
SUBJECT: I initially sent this complaint to the Secretary of State’s office and they are investigating this election violation and will be sending their investigation to the Texas Attorney General for action to be taken in regards to the election. The Secretary of State’s office further instructed me to also send this complaint to the district/county attorney for prosecution of the violations of the law that have occurred.
VIOLATIONS: Criminal Conduct in Violation of Section 2.054 of the Texas Election Code by intimidating or coercing a potential candidate not to file an application for a place on the ballot or to withdraw as a candidate, and other violations of the Texas Penal Code listed below.
SUMMARY OF VIOLATION:
Here are the facts as gathered from multiple firsthand accounts of people directly involved in this situation, all of whom will testify that this information is true. These sources include audio tapes of some of the conversations that provide indisputable evidence that this criminal activity has occurred.
Dana Melancon is a weatherman for Channel 4 News in Beaumont, TX. He was also a candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
Butch Cummings is the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX. He was the incumbent candidate in the March 2, 2010 Republican Primary and was running for reelection as Justice of the Peace Precinct 5 in Hardin County, TX.
On January 8, 2010, incumbent Butch Cummings called Dana Melancon’s Channel 4 bosses to have a private meeting at Mr. Cummings Justice of the Peace office. This meeting was initiated by Butch Cummings. Those in attendance were Mr. Cummings (incumbent JP), Angel San Juan (News Director of Channel 4, the local Fox News affiliate in Beaumont, TX), and Chris Pruitt (the interim General Manager of Channel 4). Mr. Melancon was not invited.
During this meeting, Mr. Cummings told Mr. Melancon’s bosses that if Mr. Melancon did not drop out of the race for Justice of the Peace, then Mr. Cummings would go public with information that Mr. Melancon had received more than one speeding ticket during the last several years and these speeding tickets had caused Dana Melancon to be issued a warrant for his arrest to pay some unpaid fines (which Mr. Melancon did go down and pay upon hearing that a warrant had been issued). It is not certain whether Mr. Cummings issued this warrant himself, and if he did issue them, it is unclear whether the warrant was issued in an appropriate manner or if he issued the warrant unjustly and brought it to Mr. Melancon’s bosses as an abuse of power.
After this initial meeting, there was a candidate forum at the Lumberton Texas High School. Over a dozen candidates were there from state and local races. Dana Melancon did not participate in the forum. Mr. Melancon simply showed up for a few minutes and sat in the back to watch the forum. Butch Cummings called Angel San Juan and was very irate about Mr. Melancon being at the forum. Mr. Cummings call was laced with profanity and threats. Mr. Cummings demanded that Channel 4 give him airtime on tv. Angel San Juan tried to calm Mr. Cummings down and did not bow to Mr. Cummings threats for airtime.
On February 2, 2010, another meeting took place at Mr. Cummings JP office between Mr. Cummings, Angel San Juan(channel 4), Chris Pruitt (channel 4), Butch Cumming’s son (backing Mr Cummings actions), Melissa Minton (backing Mr Cummings actions), and this time they called in Dana Melancon so he was there too. Again, Mr. Cummings reiterated that Dana Melancon must drop out of the race for JP or else Mr. Cummings would damage the image of the news station by spreading info to the public about Dana Melancon’s lead foot. Mr. Cummings had printed out flyers about Dana Melancon that he had personally started to spread around and would continue to unless Dana dropped out.
Dana Melancon dropped out of the race and Channel 4 made multiple announcements on their newscast that Dana Melancon would not be running anymore and would not accept any nomination for JP, even if he were to win the primary election. Mr. Melancon still got a large portion of the votes on election day.
Furthermore, the editor of the Silsbee Bee spoke to Mr. Cummings and Mr. Cummings stated that since Mr. Melancon went after “his job” as Justice of the Peace, then he was justified to go after Mr. Melancon’s job at Channel 4. In past dealings with the Silsbee Bee, It is standard that the Silsbee Bee records their conversations for future reference so this conversation would have been recorded, and/or the Editor and one or more of their reporters has firsthand knowledge of this conversation and would testify to the truth of this.
Furthermore, When I, David Bellow, approached Butch Cummings about his “blackmailing” Dana Melancon to drop out of the race, Butch Cummings responded with a threat of bodily harm by saying he would “kick my ass if I told anyone” and when asked if that was a threat Mr. Cummings replied “you mark it down.” This is a violation of Texas Penal Code 22.01 (Assault by Verbal Threat of bodily injury of another person), and it is also a violation of Texas Penal Code Section 42.01 by using abusive/indecent/profane/vulgar language in a public place and in front of children.
There are several reliable witnesses who will testify to the truth of these allegations, including election judges and other officials in the Republican Party of Hardin County. Being that there is sufficient evidence to the claim that Butch Cummings coerced Dana Melancon into dropping out of running for office, it is requested that the District/County Attorney prosecute these charges.
Lastly, it is not my desire to defend any speeding tickets that Mr. Melancon had received. Instead, it is my wish, as the State Republican Executive Committeeman for Senate District 3, to ensure that the integrity of our democratic system is kept intact by allowing individuals to run and allowing the people to weigh their options (including the people being able to take into consideration any of the candidate’s past speeding tickets) and then decide who they want to be Justice of the Peace. Instead, the people did not have a chance to weigh their options and decide because of the criminal actions, and abuse of his public office of Justice of the Peace Butch Cummings by him meeting with Mr. Melancon’s bosses and trying to get him fired unless he dropped out of the race, which would ensure another term in office for Mr. Cummings.
Also, it does not seem that Channel 4 took any part in this coercion nor does it appear that they threatened to fire Mr. Melancon if he did not drop out. Instead it appears that Mr. Melancon stepped down from the coercion of Mr. Cummings and not coercion from his bosses.
Respectfully,
David Bellow
State Republican Executive Committeeman
Monday, June 14, 2010
Hardin County Republican, David Bellow, has been Elected to serve on the board that Governs and Manages the Republican Party of Texas
This past weekend at the Texas Republican State Convention in Dallas, Hardin County’s own, David Bellow, was elected to serve as a member on the State Republican Executive Committee. The 62 members of the SREC act as the governing body of the Republican Party of Texas. Over the next 2 years, David Bellow and the other 61 SREC members from around the State of Texas will establish policy for the Party (including placing propositions on the Republican Party Statewide ballot), be responsible for the supervision and management of the Party, and to foster growth in the Party.
On top of the general statewide duties of and SREC member, David Bellow, and his fellow Committeewoman, will serve directly over the 16 counties of State Senate District 3. This area covers from Hardin County up to Tyler and back down to Conroe. Bellow will serve as the liaison between the Republican Party of Texas and the County Chairman of these 16 counties.
Bellow is the youngest Member on the SREC.
From State Senator Robert Nichols:
“Congratulations on your election! You handled yourself very well in your presentation and had everyone excited with your comments. I look forward to working with you in the District as you go about your work. We have a lot of opportunities in SD 3 to convert the remaining primarily Democratic counties to Republican.”
From SREC Member David Bellow:
“I am truly honored to have been elected to serve on the SREC by my fellow Republicans of Senate District 3. I am very excited about this opportunity to re-energize the Texas Republican base in the wake of the election of Liberal President Obama. I will faithfully manage the 16 counties I serve over and will work with the County Republican Chairmen to ensure they have the strategy and resources needed to build the Party within their county and to elect Republicans within their county. Thank You!”
Any Republicans interested helping to build and promote the Republican Party of Texas are welcome to contact David Bellow for further information. You can Be part of the new Republican Revolution as we take back America and restore her to the Christian conservative values she was founded upon!
David Bellow contact info:
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
www.DavidBellow.com
On top of the general statewide duties of and SREC member, David Bellow, and his fellow Committeewoman, will serve directly over the 16 counties of State Senate District 3. This area covers from Hardin County up to Tyler and back down to Conroe. Bellow will serve as the liaison between the Republican Party of Texas and the County Chairman of these 16 counties.
Bellow is the youngest Member on the SREC.
From State Senator Robert Nichols:
“Congratulations on your election! You handled yourself very well in your presentation and had everyone excited with your comments. I look forward to working with you in the District as you go about your work. We have a lot of opportunities in SD 3 to convert the remaining primarily Democratic counties to Republican.”
From SREC Member David Bellow:
“I am truly honored to have been elected to serve on the SREC by my fellow Republicans of Senate District 3. I am very excited about this opportunity to re-energize the Texas Republican base in the wake of the election of Liberal President Obama. I will faithfully manage the 16 counties I serve over and will work with the County Republican Chairmen to ensure they have the strategy and resources needed to build the Party within their county and to elect Republicans within their county. Thank You!”
Any Republicans interested helping to build and promote the Republican Party of Texas are welcome to contact David Bellow for further information. You can Be part of the new Republican Revolution as we take back America and restore her to the Christian conservative values she was founded upon!
David Bellow contact info:
409 656 5128
mdbellow@gmail.com
www.DavidBellow.com
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Voter Guide for Tuesday Nov. 3rd Texas Election
www.WallBuilders.com voting Recommendations
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Proposition 1: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the financing, including through tax increment financing, of the acquisition by municipalities and counties of buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation for the prevention of encroachment or for the construction of roadways, utilities, or other infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: The language of this amendment is so vague that it will allow cities and counties to enlarge infrastructure, increase the use of eminent domain, and thus elevate property taxes under the laudable excuse of helping military bases. Municipalities already have the right to use eminent domain, but this amendment would authorize them to finance an expanded use of that power. While the stated purpose of this amendment is laudable, the potential for abuse and misuse is too great.
Proposition 2: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the ad valorem taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: Currently, residential property is taxed on its "highest and best use," thus allowing excessive property taxation by taxing residential property as if it were commercial property. According to the Texas House Select Committee on Property Tax Relief and Appraisal Reform, "appraisal values increased from 200-400% in one year as a result of the 'highest and best use' standard." This amendment helps provide a limit on property tax appraisal hikes by ensuring that residential homes are appraised at a residential rather than a commercial value.
Proposition 3: "The constitutional amendment providing for uniform standards and procedures for the appraisal of property for ad valorem tax purposes."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment provides for equal treatment among Texans, ensuring that property tax appraisals will be calculated by uniform standards and methods, thus reducing bias and manipulation in appraisals. Local decision-making on this tax issue will be eliminated by this amendment, but on this issue, equal treatment of all citizens under the law is a more fundamental and compelling principle than that of local controls.
Proposition 4: "The constitutional amendment establishing the national research university fund to enable emerging research universities in this state to achieve national prominence as major research universities and transferring the balance of the higher education fund to the national research university fund."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: This amendment will increase spending on non-essential government services at a time when the economy is poor and there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming legislative session. This is the wrong time for increased spending on non-essential governmental services; current educational resources should be focused on student education rather than research expansion. Furthermore, free enterprise already provides extensive and productive private research whereas government funded research often results in questionable projects and endeavors that would never withstand free-market scrutiny or competition.
Proposition 5: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: This amendment will help reduce government duplication and redundancy. Since rural counties with small populations often have a limited pool of qualified persons to serve on appraisal review boards, this consolidation will make it more likely that review boards will be staffed with competent and qualified personnel.
Proposition 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized."
Recommended Vote: No strong recommendation; weak NO
Reasoning: The Veterans' Land Board (composed of both elected and appointed officials) has been one government agency with a record of efficient operation. Currently, the Board must seek legislative approval every two years in order to issue low risk bonds, but this amendment will eliminate that bi-annual requirement. Based on the positive record of this Board, this amendment might possibly increase government operating efficiency. But on the other hand, for a board to seek a bi-annual legislative approval helps ensure accountability and maintains checks and balances, therefore remaining a sound principle of governance.
Proposition 7: "The constitutional amendment to allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: From the time of the Founding Fathers, state elected officials have been allowed to serve in state militaries (e.g., Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry). While this practice is not permitted on the federal level (the Constitution separates the civil authority from the military authority, and federal law reinforces that separation of power), it has been traditional at the state level. This amendment will permit Texas civil officials who wish to do so to also serve in the Texas State Guard.
Proposition 8: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veterans hospitals in this state."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Veterans hospitals and veterans benefits are services provided by the national military and are under the direct supervision of the national Congress (a fact made clear by George Washington in his letter resigning from the Continental Army at the end of the American Revolution). While there is currently a proper resistance to federal intrusion into state powers, the issue of veterans is one that constitutionally should be maintained at the federal rather than the state level. Veterans do need excellent services and facilities, but it is the responsibility of the federal and not the state governments to provide the necessary excellence in this area. Opposing this amendment preserves the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and the state levels.
Proposition 9: "The constitutional amendment to protect the right of the public, individually and collectively, to access and use the public beaches bordering the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Constitutionally requiring that there must be public access to these beaches infringes the private property rights of those owning property along those beaches. The Open Beaches Act of 1959 already provides protections for easements along those beaches. This is an expansion of government power that infringes on private property rights.
Proposition 10: "The constitutional amendment to provide that elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years."
Recommended Vote: No
Reasoning: Currently, Emergency Service Districts have great powers, including the power to levy taxes, and board members serve two year terms. Lengthening these terms would reduce public oversight over these board members and their extensive powers. These board members should be as accountable to voters as are members of the Texas and the U. S. House of Representatives and therefore should face elections every two rather than every four years.
Proposition 11: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
Recommended Vote: Yes
Reasoning: In 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision wrongly allowed cities to depart from the tradition exercise of eminent domain for "public use" (i.e., to obtain private property for the construction of schools, bridges, roads, etc.) and instead to apply an expansive "public purpose" measurement whereby cities could seize private property and turn it over to economic developers who would generate increased tax revenue for cities. However, the Supreme Court did note that state legislatures could limit this power by defining "public use"; this amendment properly narrows the definition, thereby better protecting private property rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)