Category Archives: Texas

Jonathan Yarbrough: Washington State Government Mistake 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Jonathan Yarbrough

Living in the state of Texas is a blessing. Sound conservative State government continues to make Texas the best place to live, work, run a business, and enjoy life. Even with the impacts of grossly poor Federal leadership in Biden’s first year, Texas continues to fight for its people. We are not insulated from BidenFlation of fuel price and near every other staple, but at least we do not have a liberal State government piling-on other burdens.

Citizens of other states are not as fortunate. Recently, Washington State acted to pass future extreme restrictions on their citizen’s choice of personal transportation. The law sets a near future requirement for all personal and commercial light duty vehicles to be electric. In order to purchase, register, or drive in Washington by 2030, you will forced to use an electric vehicle. They say this is absolutely required in order to demonstrate that the number one fear-mongering tactic of Democrats is real and serious. You know, global warming. No, it is not warming, so now they call it “Climate Change” and any storm, fire, or natural weather event is now blamed on “Climate Change.” Whether real or not, and how serious Climate Change may be, is a subject for another day. For today, mandates by government that restrict people to uneconomic and infeasible positions is wrong- regardless of any purpose. Typically, behind such poorly conceived mandates, there will be private sector winners and losers, and likely the winners are somehow funneling money into the elites in power.

Why is mandating electric cars in one State wrong? First, there is no science that says electric cars lower emissions. The electric power grid in the US is primarily served by fossil fuel power generation. Natural gas is the fastest growing form of electricity generation, coal is still over a third of power generation. But the cars run on wind and solar, right? No, wind and solar power are growing, only because of tax dollars funneled into subsides, but the small amount of wind and solar is not what makes the newly required electricity. The growth in electricity demand, if all transportation were electric, would out -pace the grow in wind/solar power ten-fold. So, Washington State’s cars will run on coal, with CO2 emissions similar to gasoline, just relocated away from the state by power lines.

The facts of power supply and demand make Washington State’s mandate meaningless for emissions, but how will the mandate hurt citizens? First, electric cars are about twice as expensive as the similar gasoline car. So, double the car note. Yes, but then it is “free” to drive. No, power to charge the batteries is at least as expensive as gasoline. How about the power distribution capability in your neighborhood? An electric car quick-charging home unit is typically 75 Amps of power draw; most normal homes have a total power supply of 100 Amps. So, if everyone on the same street gets a 75Amp car charger and plugs in at 7pm, the supply lines will overload and trip off. The government of Washington State does not have a newly designed power distribution network that is 175% expanded in their 5 year plan. So, the short-sighted mandate just might put the citizens of Washington State out in the dark.

If subject to the Democrat elites in Washington State, the best plan would be to leave the State and bring productivity and taxes elsewhere. Those who fail to grasp facts and fall for this political nonsense should make sure the bicycle is serviced and have a good supply of candles. Those that leave the dictates are most welcome in Texas, the land of the free and fearless. Just do NOT bring the liberal nonsense that has destroyed the Sate you are fleeing.

Jonathan Yarbrough is a 60 year old devoted Christian, a father and husband, a conservative thinker, proud American, retired executive, rancher, expiring to better horsemanship on a daily basis.

 

Bill Lockwood: Is Secession Constitutional? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

An Open Letter to Citizens of Texas: An Answer to Rep. James Frank (District 69)

Representative James Frank (TX-District 69) recently announced that he will not support the House Bill 1359, which calls for a secession referendum in the State of Texas. His reasons are three; (1) His Love for this Country, (2) The US and Texas Constitutions—there is no specific “provision” in either of these for secession; (3) The Profound Consequences for Texas.

What follows is not an open call to secede, but a challenge to consider the principles upon which secession is grounded. To dismiss the possibility of secession as “illegal and ill-advised,” as Frank does in his letter, is what I am challenging. At the same time, I will overlook his dismissive remarks that those who wish to “leave the Republic” are some “self-described patriots.” Patriotism is not the issue; it is liberty.

While acknowledging the “profound consequences” (Frank’s #3), such as pensions, social security, status of Texans serving in the military, etc. that a separation would bring, it should be remembered that the consequences for remaining attached to the United States might be profound as well—loss of free speech; indoctrination in halls of learning; excessive taxation; a wildly out-of-control unconstitutional welfare system; a ministry of Truth (propaganda) that is already being organized at the Federal level; the crushing of Texas jobs, cancellation of 2nd Amendment; the loss of free and fair elections, and more. The only issue here is if we will allow people to weigh the profound consequences for themselves.

Pertaining to love of country (Frank’s #1), it must be stated that all of us love this country. The issue is not whether we love this country, but whether we love the gifts of God such as life and liberty more than the United States of America. The main issue I wish to address is his second objection, pertaining to the Constitution.

No Specific Provision for Secession?

Rep. Frank fails to understand the very essence, the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, explains the entire principle.

There is no position which depends upon clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority [federal government] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy [federal government] is greater than his principal [the people which created the deputy]; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

Hamilton was arguing for the interposition of the Courts to protect people, but the principle is the same. That principle is that the people delegated only so much authority to the federal government; that the federal government is merely the deputy created by the principal, the people; that the master is the people and the federal government is the servant. The Federal government is the creation of the people, and it is “we the people” that give to the government its right to exist.

Why was it thus created? Not an instrument to grant rights to people, but a creation of the people to protect what God gave us; namely, life, liberty and property. Authority flows upward from the people, which is why the Constitution begins, “We the People.” Rights to life, liberty, property, and self-government preceded the creation of government.

This is the basic fundamental premise upon which all of our statecraft was built and explains why the Founders would sign a document that reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …” They did not look for permission for secession from England in English statutes. This same concept is built right into our own Constitution, for the 10th Amendments provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The right of self-government is one of these.

The argument for secession therefore has never been that one can find its justification in a specific statute which provides for it, but is man’s appeal to Almighty God for the right of self-government, an argument based upon natural law. Ignoring this basic fact throws our entire system into wild confusion, a confusion represented by Frank’s reasoning of the “illegality” of secession on the basis that “there is no provision” in the Constitution that grants this right. The Constitution never did grant us rights—those come from God.

Rep. Frank turns the entire nature of our Constitution on its head. Such reversal of authority is a common error, but a fatal one. American governing is such that it is the people who grant to the Federal Government its rights, not the other way around. To accept the alternative revokes Hamilton’s main point and asserts that the “deputy” is indeed greater that the “principal,” that the “servant” is greater than “the master,” for the servant does not give us a provision to withdraw!

When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 1787 to draw up a new constitution, they were not creating a national system to “grant rights” — they already owned these rights from God. What was done in Philadelphia was to create a central government by granting to it certain specified powers that had previously belonged to their several states. The right of secession therefore, is based upon the presupposition of an inalienable right of free people to consent to the form of government under which we must live.

William Rawle, in one of the first commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1825 and used for many years at West Point Military Academy, stated, “The secession of a free state from the Union depends upon the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” Again, “The United States were formed into a federal body, with an express reservation to each state of its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”

If Rep. Frank is correct, that secession is “illegal” and “ill-advised” then never is there an escape from a government that works to usurp the will of the people, for that is a dictum that admits of no recourse.  This cuts the legs out from beneath the Founders themselves. He takes the position that he does not favor a proposed referendum vote (HB 1359), which is only to allow the people to voice their opinions in the ballot box as to whether they would favor secession. Rather than withholding a vehicle whereby the people can speak, the earnest invitation is to give the people voice. Vote HB 1359 and liberate the will of the people. 

Kathleen Marquardt: SOCIAL ENGINEERING, CRONY CAPITALISM, REGIONALISM, URBANISM… 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Social Engineering, Crony Capitalism, Regionalism, Urbanism are all happening in every state – “…Let’s look at Texas…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Let’s look at Texas; these issues are not limited to Texas, but Texas’s population growth is higher than the U.S. as a whole and twice as fast sine the 1990s, so perhaps we can see some things better there.

A DEEPER LOOK AT THE PHONY “TEXAS MIRACLE”
“Moving a business to Texas also turns out to have tax consequences that are inconsistent with the conservative narrative of the Texas Miracle.

Yes, some businesses manage to strike lucrative tax breaks in Texas. As part of an industrial policy that dares not speak its name, the state government, for example, maintains the Texas Enterprise Fund (known to some as a slush fund and to others as a “deal-closing” fund), which the governor uses to lure favored businesses with special subsidies and incentives.

“But most Texas businesses, especially small ones, don’t get such treatment. Instead, they face total effective tax rates that are, by bottom-line measures, greater than those in even the People’s Republic of California.” [Read more]

BREAKING NEWS! JANUARY 23, 2017

“The people of Texas have a vital interest in water.  Yet, the Texas Water Development Board is, in essence, holding a secret meeting—what they call a “unique opportunity” available only to their invited presenters and those who pay $525 to attend–to set their course on water allocation issues.”  [Read more]

AUSTIN’S ‘COMPLETE STREETS’ POLICY A COMPLETE CONGESTION NIGHTMARE

If Austin planners have their way, they’ll impose a California-style ‘complete streets’ congestion-inducing nightmare. Complete streets policies seek to elevate non-auto modes of travel by using already scarce road funds to construct bike, bus, and pedestrian facilities while reducing capacity and access for autos. Voters in San Francisco just passed Proposition A, a $500 million bond measure, last November to impose a variety of traffic calming measures, which actually do anything but calm traffic. Rather they induce traffic.

The measure includes speed bumps, road diets, traffic circles, intersection islands, train upgrades, expanding bus stops, special boarding islands or ‘bulbs’ for buses (which undoubtedly take up road space needed for efficient auto travel), and transit-only lanes. [Read more]

The water issue is not specific to Texas, but be assured wherever you live, you are in the same metaphorical boat.

The Trans-Texas Corridor, aka the NAFTA Highway, was an early piece of social engineering. In 2006, Ron Paul said, “Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside. … The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.”

“By design, the corridor had few access ramps and bisected communities in order to shorten travel distances.  No additional border security was planned at the Mexico-Texas border.  Chinese-owned ports on the Mexican coast were to be offloaded in sealed containers, not to be opened until they reached their final destination.  The first upgraded security check was to take place at the corridor hub in Kansas City, Kansas where a “Smart Port” was to be installed that would allow the cargo to be scanned while moving through the facility.  Efficiency and expediency of goods was the stated mission of the NAFTA Superhighway.

“The corridor itself was to hold six passenger lanes for commuter travel, four truck lanes for long hauls, freight rail and high speed rail. The right-of-way that would be condemned for the project was a quarter-of-a-mile wide, taking 146 acres per mile from Americans. The right-of-way was to be wide enough to not only house the transportation facilities, but also the hotels, gas stations and restaurants so that travelers would not need to leave the corridor.

“The corridor was backed by international investors. They were to design and build the corridor and in return collect toll fees for the next 50 years.  In return, American’s land would be confiscated, their community and emergency services bisected, all for the privilege of paying a toll to drive their children to school.

“In order to avoid national opposition to the facility, the corridor was not put forward as a project of the federal government; rather it was split into state segments, built by each state transportation department. The first critical leg of the corridor was the I-35 Trans-Texas Corridor which connected the Mexican border to Oklahoma.

In 2002, Governor Rick Perry unveiled the Trans-Texas Corridor concept as the new model for transportation in the state.  In 2003, his hand-picked House Transportation Chairman Mike Krusee held every transportation bill in committee until the final hour when he then unveiled a massive Omnibus Transportation package. The bill was voted on and passed without the time to closely examine its contents.  Included in this package was a 100-plus page Trans-Texas Corridor bill that gave Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) the green light to develop three separate TTC corridors in Texas.” [Read more]

The TransTexas Corridor was shot down in 2009, but it didn’t die. “In 2009, Perry scrapped the TTC plan after a series of combative town hall meetings throughout the state showed TxDOT it faced massive taxpayer resistance. “But now, the plan apparently is being implemented in small chunks, without the fanfare of divulging a statewide blueprint Perry and TxDOT may still have tucked away in their back pockets.” 
[Read more]

PUSH TO CONTINUE THE CROOKED RICK PERRY TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR QUIETLY

“Gridzilla, aka the California Water Model — is the ugly baby of State Rep. Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio) who is now the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who chairs the Senate Agricultural, Water and Rural Affairs Committee. This picture of his “water grid” from the 2015 session tells you exactly where Lyle’s head is — the IH-35 growth corridor. That’s where he wants to send massive supplies of groundwater for hyper-development. Though some movement of groundwater is necessary, this is the California Water Model that took only 50 years to cause a water crisis of historic proportion.” [Read more]

The Independent League of Texas has a list of bills that need to be voted against. Texans can go to their website to find those. For Texans to find their legislators they can go here. For others, search state name, then legislature and there will be a link to a list where you can find your city, county, and state representatives.

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Tribunal in Dallas & First Corinthians 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Tribunal in Dallas & First Corinthians

by Bill Lockwood

The distinction that Texas is the first state in the Union to have an Islamic Tribunal is not something for which we should be proud. Actually, a Sharia Court pre-dated the current one in Richardson, but the onus is still on Texas. One of the “judges,” Dr. Taher El-badawi, says that participation is only voluntary. Nevertheless, the new Sharia Tribunal is operating in Irving, which ought to be of no little concern to all Americans because there is no school of Islamic jurisprudence among either Sunnis or Shi’ites that does not mandate stoning for adultery or the subjugation of women.

Even more disconcerting is the reaction of liberals to this court as well as the complete misuse of Bible passages to support it. When measures were introduced into the Texas House several years ago to forbid Sharia Courts in Texas, liberal bloggers went wild accusing conservatives of seeing ghosts that weren’t there. Now that the Sharia Court is operating, liberals chirp, ‘Well, at least they are not cutting off hands,” blah blah blah. But it is Rodger Jones of the Dallas Morning News (2-3-15) who writes in defense of the Islamic Court, “Don’t mainstream Jewish and Christian congregations offer those kinds of services? Consider, too, that the New Testament includes an injunction against taking a Christian brother to court. The church is a better place to solve disputes, according to some interpretations. From 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (pretty snappy for a Catholic guy, eh?).”

The snappy Catholic guy demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge of not only the Bible, but also of Islamic law.
Context of 1 Corinthians 6: Paul addresses the church at Corinth regarding a number of problematic areas, including sin in the church (chap. 5) which the community of faith was to judge (5:13). This judgment was to expel the wicked man—not physically, but that he was to be considered outside of the realm of the faithful. Withdrawal of fellowship—yet “count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15) is the disposition of Christians toward an offending member.

The entire paragraph of 6:1-11 turns to a kind of “judgment” that was to occur within the church, namely matters of everyday life where one member has a grievance against another. But instead of settling disputes within the church Christian was litigating Christian before tribunals of the unbelieving at Corinth (v. 2) and soiling the church’s name. Paul is filled with indignation and alternates between statements of horror (v. 1, 6), rhetorical questions (v. 2-4, 5b) and sarcasm (v. 5). He warns that their misconduct would forfeit their inheritance of the kingdom of God (v. 9-11). What can we conclude?

Confusion with Sharia Law

First, Sharia is a Codified System of Jurisprudence Taken from the Koran and Sunna. The Sunna includes the biography of Muhammad plus the Hadiths (what Muhammad said). Sharia is nothing more than a condensation and extrapolation of these two Islamic texts. Sharia covers everything, from how Muhammad cleaned his teeth, which shoe he first put on, or what were his toilet habits. These are patterns for Muslims to follow including specified punishments for failure in any particular. It includes such wide topics as political control of non-Muslims, prayer, jihad, punishments, land use, etc.

What has this to do with 1 Corinthians 6? The inspired apostle certainly never did set forward an Alternate System of Jurisprudence or Specified Legal Code determining how cases were to be judged and what penalties were to be enacted.  Instead, he admonished, have a brother assist in settling the dispute before it goes to public trial. To suggest a comparison between the inspired text of the Bible and Islamic law is a case of gross and willful ignorance.

Second, Paul encourages a completely different attitude than being “litigious.”  “Why not rather take wrong?” “Why not rather be defrauded?” To “defraud” specifically has reference to property loss (cf. James 5:4). The primary point: Guard the reputation of the church! Quit airing dirty laundry before the community! What comparison is there here with a Sharia Court? Paul nowhere advocates an official “tribunal” with an alternate system of laws that come into conflict with legal jurisprudence of the nation. He is advocating settling disputes by brotherly agreements within the church. For the “snappy Catholic guy” to use this text to somehow equate to an official Islamic legal system that supplants the American legal system, complete with civic and criminal courts called Sharia is not snappy at all. It is an abuse.

Third, the only penalty enacted by the Corinthian texts, and any NT  text, is simple expulsion from the community of faith. Withdrawing fellowship (2 Thess. 3) is how it is worded elsewhere, including “to have no company with” (3:14). This is a recognition that the offender is not living as the New Testament teaches. Yet, even those “put away” from the church are to be loved and admonished as brethren (v.15). What in the world has this to do with “legal physical punishments” enacted by Sharia Courts around the world which includes beating a rebellious wife because “men are superior to women” (Koran 4:34); female genitalia mutilation (Bukhari 7,72,779); stoning and honor killing?

Even the Dallas Court already uses Islamic denigration of women, for according to El-badawi, “The husband can request a divorce directly from the tribunal” BUT the “wife must go to an Imam who will request a divorce for her.” She herself cannot even apply in the Court! What has this to do with the New Testament? Nothing at all.  Hatred of the Bible apparently drives the liberal media. How else can one explain a Rodger Jones’ efforts to equate the brutality of Islam with the message of Jesus Christ?

Back to Homepage