Perry Denies Pressure Tactic

Gov. Rick Perry, or Governor Good Hair as DISH likes to call him... claims he had absolutely nothing do with Texas Tech regent Mark Griffin's decision to resign from the university's governing board.

Griffin has mentioned that he was pressured to step down last month by a former Perry aide after he endorsed Perry's rival, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, in the Texas governor's race.

The Austin American-Statesman reported that Perry said he wasn't involved in the decision.

Perry told the newspaper that he didn't speak to anyone about Griffin resigning and that "we didn't have anything to do with it."

Guess we will just have to wait to see who talks next.

Paying for Governor

Yep, you read it right, if U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison resigns her seat to run against Gov. Rick Perry next year, it could cost Texas taxpayers up to $30 million to hold a special election to fill out her term, state election officials said Thursday.

Is this something that bothers you or are you willing to take the hit for something new?

Secretary of State Hope Andrade, a Perry appointee mind you, wrote a letter to a conservative advocacy group saying the cost of a special election would be $18 million to $20 million, with $10 million more in expenses needed if a runoff is required. Andrade is Texas' top election official and this letter could influence who runs. Could they tell Kay to step back and not run because of the state of the current economy feeling it would not be a move for which Texans would not be willing to pay?

Perry's campaign siezed on the estimate to accuse Hutchison of possibly wasting taxpayer dollars for personal gain.

“The senator's potential resignation to run for governor amounts to nothing more than another taxpayer-funded bailout, only this one benefits one person's political ambition, leaving Texas taxpayers holding the bill,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner.

Those are some pretty fierce words. Hutchison spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said Andrade's estimate was a “political ploy” by a Perry appointee designed to “bully” Hutchison out of the race. Baker noted that Perry's aides have asked several university regents to resign for supporting Hutchison, and that one from Texas Tech had complied. So it seems Perry is not above blackmale.

“Just because Rick Perry has successfully bullied some university regents into resigning doesn't mean he can bully Kay Bailey Hutchison out of this race,” Baker said.

Hutchison has said she will resign her Senate seat in October or November to concentrate on challenging Perry in the Republican primary next March. Perry has the power to name an interim senator until a special election is held to fill Hutchison's term through 2012.

If Hutchison resigns by Sept. 28, the election would have to be scheduled by Nov. 3, the same day as the Houston mayor's race. An election on that date is considered unlikely because it would benefit Democratic Houston Mayor Bill White, who is running for Hutchison's seat.

If she resigned after Sept. 28, the election would have to be held by May 8, 2010, although Perry could set an emergency special election for an earlier date. State law prohibits the governor from setting a special election on the same day as the March primaries.

If this does in fact happen, the Andrade camp says the cost estimate is based on Perry calling an emergency special election with no other elections involved. Since Hutchinson has yet to resign and still has time, it's concievable that this is all ado about nothing.

A Nov. 3 election would cost less because it would coincide with a statewide vote on constitutional amendments, and a May 2010 election would have reduced costs because of city and school board elections being held at the same time.

Besides White, other candidates eyeing Hutchison's Senate seat include former Democratic Comptroller John Sharp and Republicans former Secretary of State Roger Williams, state Sen. Florence Shapiro and Railroad Commissioners Elizabeth Ames Jones and Michael Williams.

New Rules of the Road

Here is a PARTIAL (READ PARTIAL) list of the new laws Texas drivers are facing.

Seatbelts:
HB 537 requires all occupants of a vehicle, no matter their age, to be secured by a safety belt, no matter where they are seated in the vehicle; changes the definition of a passenger vehicle to include a passenger van designed to transport 15 or fewer passengers including the driver; removes the current exemption for third-party Medicaid transportation provisions regarding the use of child passenger safety seats; and prohibits a motorcycle operator from carrying a passenger under the age of 5 unless the child is seated in a sidecar attached to the motorcycle.

SB 61amends the existing statute regarding child passenger safety seats. The bill requires that any child younger than 8 years of age be restrained in an approved child passenger safety seat unless the child is at least 4 feet, 9 inches in height. The fine is no more than $25 for a first offense and $250 for a second offense. The law also creates a new court cost for conviction of an offense under this section to be collected and used by TxDOT to buy safety seats for low income families. The law becomes effective on Sept. 1, 2009, but tickets for this offense cannot be issued until June 1, 2010. Police officers are allowed to issue a warning before that date.

Driving:
HB 55 makes it illegal to use a wireless communication device in a school zone unless the vehicle is stopped or a hands-free device is used. Cities or counties wanting to enforce this law must post a sign at the beginning of each school zone to inform drivers that using a wireless communications device is prohibited and the operator is subject to a fine. It is a defense to prosecution if the operator was making an emergency call.

HB 2730 increases the penalties for driving while intoxicated with a child passenger by adding an automatic driver license suspension period for first-time offenders and an increased suspension period for repeat offenders. The driver license re-instatement fee for completing an education program will rise from $50 to $100. Closes a loophole so a person who commits an offense as a minor cannot circumvent the driver license penalty if the person turns 21 before their court date.

HB 2730 allows a new Texas resident to operate a vehicle without a Texas license for 90 days instead of the current 30. (This provision went into effect on June 19, 2009.)

HB 2012 creates two new punishment enhancements: a Class B misdemeanor if a person drives with a suspended license and without insurance; and a class A misdemeanor if the person driving without insurance or a valid driver license has an accident and someone is seriously injured or dies as a result of that accident.

SB 129 authorizes neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) to be operated on roads with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less. The bill authorizes driver license holders to operate NEVs without having a motorcycle endorsement, clarifies that drivers and passengers in such vehicles are not required to wear helmets and specifies that enclosed three-wheeled vehicles as described in the bill are authorized to operate in preferential lanes.

Concealed handgun:
HB 2730 amends numerous provisions regarding concealed handgun licenses (CHLs), including eliminating student loan defaults as a disqualifier, to clarify that DPS must suspend or revoke a license when the licensee becomes ineligible and mandating that a magistrate suspend a CHL held by the subject of an emergency protective order.

HB 2664 provides a defense to prosecution if a concealed handgun license holder carries a concealed handgun into an establishment that gets 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, but has failed to post the statutorily required notice that it derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages. (Under current law, a concealed handgun licensee can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for doing this.)

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and suspensions for the failure to display.

Driver license:
HB 2730 requires that all applicants under the age of 18 take the driving skills exam to receive a driver license. The law also requires that a provisional driver license (under 18) or instruction permit expire on an individual’s 18th birthday, removes the requirement that a provisional driver license or instruction permit be renewed annually and increases the fee for those licenses from $5 to $15. It also extends the current phase-two restrictions for holders of a graduated driver license from 6 months to 1 year. These restrictions include limited night driving, prohibited use of wireless communication devices and a limited number of passengers.

HB 339 increases the total hours of behind-the-wheel driving instruction a teen receives from 14 to 34 and creates an adult driver education requirement for applicants older than 18 and younger than 21.

SB 1317 creates a six-hour driver education course required for driver license applicants 18 years of age or older. It also mandates that applicants 25 or under must submit to an approved driver education course. (Goes into effect March 1, 2010.)

SB 328 gives DPS the power to suspend a minor’s driver license if they fail a breath or blood alcohol test while operating a watercraft. Chapter 524 of the Transportation Code also clearly defines the suspension period for an individual who was under the age of 21 at the time when the offense of boating under the influence or driving under the influence of alcohol occurred. The law also increases the reinstatement fee for a license suspended under sections 49.04-49.08, Penal Code from $50 to $100.

HB 2730 increases the driver license sanction from a one-year CDL license disqualification to a lifetime disqualification if a person uses a motor vehicle to transport, conceal or harbor an alien. If a child is engaged in conduct involving a severe form of trafficking persons, a judge at a juvenile hearing is required to order the juvenile’s driver license or permit to be suspended.

HB 2730 prohibits DPS from issuing a driver license or identification card to a person who has not established a domicile in Texas. The law specifies that an applicant may receive a driver license at a post office box only if the applicant’s residence address has also been provided, with some exceptions.

Crime:
HB 558 allows minors to be charged with public intoxication.

HB 2386 allows courts to immediately seal juvenile criminal records if the juvenile successfully completes a drug court program, or another special program ordered by the court.

HB 1282 makes it a Class B misdemeanor to steal a driver license, commercial driver license or personal identification.

SB 554 makes it illegal to own or possess dog-fighting equipment and establishes that such equipment and property where dogs are found to be engaged in dog fighting is contraband and is subject to forfeiture. The law also makes dog-fighting subject to the elevated penalties authorized in the Texas Penal Code, Section 71.02(a), in an effort to deter organized criminal activity.

HB 1813 makes it a third-degree felony to tamper with forensic, medical, chemical, toxicological and ballistic reports, as well as reports of certification, inspection or maintenance of instruments used to examine or test physical evidence. (Currently, someone who does this can only be charged with a state jail felony.)

HB 358 allows law enforcement authorities to store only a small part of gambling machines that have been seized, instead of storing the whole machine. They would be able to remove and store just the computer chips in gambling machines, which are the core of the machines and contain the information necessary for prosecutions to go forward.

Registered sex offenders:
SB 689 restricts Internet usage by certain registered sex offenders, and requires registered sex offenders to provide information about their e-mail addresses when they register.

Motorcycles etc.:
Senate Bill 1967 requires that applicants for an original class M license or class A, B or C driver license (including commercial driver licenses and permits) with authorization to operate a motorcycle, provide evidence of completion of an approved motorcycle operator training course. The law also increases the penalty for failure to yield the right-of-way if there is a crash that results in injury to a person other than the motorcycle operator.

Vehicle inspection:
SB 589 requires that a vehicle equipment safety compliance label be placed on a windshield, side or rear window stating that the window tinting complies with the appropriate provisions of the Transportation Code. Failing to place the required label on the vehicle could lead to a $1,000 fine.

Miscellaneous:
HB 2730 increases the fine for a parking violation at the state Capitol from $10 to $25, and increases the late fee from $2 to $5.

SB 1188 authorizes a Texas resident to buy firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories in any other state, not just those contiguous to Texas, to reflect updated federal statutes.

* Please keep in mind that this is not a complete list of all laws passed in the past legislative session.

John McCain in Houston

Former presidential candidate Senator John McCain will be in Houston on Monday, May 4, 2009.

courtesy photos.igougo.com

He is receiving the Lyndon Baines Johnson Moral Courage Award from the Holocaust Museum Houston.

The HMH has given the award annually since 1994. Some of the former winnersinclude: television producer Norman Lear,movie producer and director Steven Speilberg, Ret. Gen. Colin Powell, and senator Lloyd Bentsen.

This year's event theme is "A Hero's Journey" and with more than 1500 in attendance last year, this year is expected to be a star spangled event!

For more information about the event at the Hilton Americas in downtown Houston you can call  (713)942-8000 .

Tea Parties!

Republican - Jackelyn Viera Iloff

Janet Napolitano Head of OHS Targets Tea Parties…Where is the Janet Napolitano Head of OHS Targets Tea Parties…Where is the Outrage!!!
Definition of Socialism: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
If you were not outraged by the bailout of the Banks, if you were not outraged by the TARP, if you looked the other way when the President bowed at the waist to the King of Saudi Arabia, if you were not holding protest signs at the Tea Parties, perhaps you have a high tolerance for this Administration's policies.
However, if you read the Office of Homeland Security Administrator Janet Napolitano’s report "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” then you should be outraged that she sent out a warning to State officials alleging that these Tea Parties and their organizers posed a threat to our civil liberties and safety. Really???. And who are these folks Ms. Napolitano was warning us against…?
The average person attending the Tea Parties appeared to be working men and women with an income of less than $250,000. Not Acorn style activities, not community organizers like Mr.Obama, just palin old citizens like you and me. If you are a fiscal conservative, if you believe that abortion is wrong, if you believe the constitution gives you the right to bear arms, then you may be on her target list and you should be outraged.
If you are a returning Veteran, then you are accused by the Napolitano report of potentially being terrorist, “going off” and randomly shooting people in the street.
We should all be outraged! This is just plain scare-mongering and an outlandish attempt to suppress and damp-down a grassroots movement that is embarrassing this Administration on the world stage.
The Administration and Ms. Napolitano are treading very close to the edge of suppressing our Constitutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly. If you think this hyperbole, then ignore it at your own peril…for make no mistake, good people ignored the threat of fascism in the 30’s and socialism in the 40’s, and it brought the world to war.
We are witnessing an insidious attempt to erode our rights, casting the Conservative movement of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater as right wing terrorists.
Winston Churchill, in an electoral broadcast prior to the British general election of 1945 said…” a socialist policy is abhorrent to the…ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go, and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police...”
So sound the call, be vigilant in all that the Congress proposes, and that the President disposes, for it is not in the Peoples interest, but in the interests of their own perverse view of political power.
Barack Obama, Rohm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, and Hilary Clinton --these folks are not just partisan political pros whose jabs we on the right counter with jabs. They have honed a sharp and extremely liberal agenda that they are now passing without fear of retribution. Congress is passing laws that will encumber our children’s children with taxes to pay off this debt. President Obama’s Administration is systematically dismantling 20 years of conservative regulations and legislation that have benefited small business growth and job creation; military readiness and homeland security; education, trade policies, and judicial restraint. They not only want to reverse these things and more, but they want to impose the socialist and communist rule of law embraced by Acorn, the NEA, the unions, and environmental extremists.
So what are we called to do? What is your best defense? Rise up and make your voices heard, in the social media, over the airwaves, and at the polls. Teach your children the differences between Socialist Democrats and Conservative Republicans. Our country does not need to apologize to anyone for all the good we have done in the world, nor for the mistakes we may have made in exercising that good will.
Be proud to be a conservative: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability; specifically, such a philosophy that calls for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investments, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (such as retirement income or health-care coverage). Rise up and fight for your Constitutional rights. Rise up and be counted!

Democratic - Unidentified (Rice Professor)

tiI was asked by our dear Disher to provide a few observations about the "Tea Parties" that occurred on April 15th, 2009. Here, in a few short paragraphs (replete with links to any data that I reference) is everything you need to know:

No one cared. Here is the best estimates of the total attendance (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html). Just over 260,000 people attended the tea party rallies across the country. That is a little over 5,000 people per state. There are 306,227,000 people in this country. Don't think that Fox News (more on them later) didn't try to inflate the numbers http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001168/index.html. No one showed up because the VAST majority in this country support President Obama and his policies http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/obama.economy/index.html. (I picked a CNN poll, but they all say the same thing, including Fox http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505174,00.html. Interestingly, I couldn't find a newer Fox poll looking at Obama's approval ratings. Wonder why that is?)

The "tea parties" were astroturf to the core. While our little local group screamed to the heavens that they were true grassroots and not being sponsored by anyone, their own website said otherwise:http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/19659.html. Here (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8334) is a good rundown of the corporate backing for the tea party movement. This was repeated all across the country, since...

...the "tea parties" were actively pushed, promoted and sponsored by Fox News. Don't believe me? From a Fox news anchor's mouth to your ears: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/fox-news-anchor-we-did-public-relations-for-tea-parties.php. And here (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/11/beck-tea-party-fundraiser/) is crackpot hero of the week Glenn Beck telling his audience that he is attending a $500 a plate fundraising dinner to defray the costs of the San Antonio tea party. Fox news actively sponsored and promoted the tea parties. This detracts from their legitimacy, to say the least.

The attendees didn't know what they were protesting: was it...

...higher taxes? The groups sponsoring these tea parties will pay more taxes, not you. Well, unless you make more than $250,000 a year. That is 5% of all taxpayers. Assuming the attendees of the tea parties are a representative cross section of America (I have my doubts, but that only strengthens my argument, because my guess is that most of the rich weren't out protesting), of the 260,000 that attended the tea parties, 247,000 of them would pay LESS taxes under Obama's plan. Why are you protesting a tax cut for yourself in order to protect the wealthy from paying 3.6% more which, by the way, is still less than the 50% top bracket under Reagan?

...too much spending? Maybe. But (and I'll say this in italics, so that you pay attention), Bush took a 260 billion dollar surplus and turned it into a more than 400 billion dollar deficit. Bush did this, not Obama. Got it? Where where the tea party protests between 2004 and 2008? This DOES NOT include the near trillion dollar cost (trillion, with a "T") of the Iraq war that was kept off the books by the Bush administration or the initial $700 billion bank bailout (discussed below). Where were the tea party protests against the Bush bank bailout and the lying about the actual budget? Your silence is complicity.

...bank bailouts? There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how to save our banking industry and our economy. But guess what (WARNING: ITALICS COMING): the first bank bailout ($700 billion) was passed by the Bush administration in 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008. Where were the tea parties when the Bush administration was adding 700 billion to our debt? Your silence is complicity.

...no clue? Probably the most likely scenario. Here (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-youve-done-nothing-wrong-you-have_15.html) is some nutcase calling Obama a fascist, but can't explain why Obama is a fascist. To paraphrase the greatest villain in modern history (well, until Dick Cheney), Darth Vader,The crazy is strong in this one. BTW, watch all the way to the end, when the crowd starts getting agitated and violent, and the interviewer has to leave. Even better, http://flprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dfh-blogger-speaks-at-pensacola-tea.html a liberal blogger gets up in front of a tea party in Pensacola and actually gets booed when he points out that the crowd would be paying lower taxes under Obama's plan.

...on the other hand, there was plenty of evidence of support for straight out racism, violence and hate against Obama and other democrats. Here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html) is a nice round-up of some of the signs supposedly god-fearing, pro-American (remember, Americans voted for Obama's leadership and policies over McCain's, lawfully and in full compliance with the laws and Constitution of our land) protesters held up on April 15th. If you don't approve of these signs, why don't you speak up? Your silence is complicity.

So, in summary, the only people who cared about the tea parties were the corporate masters of the Republican party who, in the interest of their own pocketbooks and rich friends, duped the fringiest rump of an ever-shrinking sliver of pathologically uninformed right-wingers into hysterically and hypocritically protesting against their own best interests.

(And before you get your bloomers in a bunch because I used a bunch of "lefty" websites as my sources, you will notice that each of the links has the actual words, screencaps, or data that I am referencing. You don't even have to read any of the other stuff there, just look at the original sources.)