The San Antonio Tea Party's Board of Directors has granted me permission to post their recommendations for the November 8, 2011 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election. These results should be appearing at the SATP site soon.  The text of the proposals is from VOTEXAS.ORG:

Proposition Number 1 (SJR 14):  VOTING "YES" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 2 (SJR 4):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 3 (SJR 50):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 4 (HJR 63):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 5 (SJR 26):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 6 (HJR 109):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 7 (SJR 28):  VOTING "YES" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 8 (SJR 16):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 9 (SJR 9):  VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

Proposition Number 10 (SJR 37):  VOTING "YES" IS RECOMMENDED

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

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

So......

An easy way to remember these:  Vote YES on 1, 7, and 10. That's the first one, the last one, and the number of days in a week.

From Harleys, Cars, Girls & Guitars (via Instapundit).  Take a close look at the pumpkin....

UPDATE (21 Oct, so the post on the the TX Amendments stays on top):

Here's another pic, via Yahoo News, of some serious flag abuse "in Zuccotti Park near the financial district of New York October 13, 2011...."

The truth leaks through....

The latest from Joni, thefounder of the San Antonio Tea Party.  No idea where she got it.

Had a burger at Bobby J's this weekend (Yum!)  Got engaged in a short, friendly discussion about the rising costs of food with one of the gents.  Near the end of it, he said he wished that the people in Washington could just get together and come to a solution.

Unlike the burger, that's a horrible wish!

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explains why it's patriotic to love the gridlock:

I ask them, “Why do you think America is such a free country? What is it in out Constitution that makes us what we are?” And I guarantee you that the response I will get — and you will get this from almost any American *** the answer would be: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; no unreasonable searches and seizures; no quartering of troops in homes… those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But then I tell them, “If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.” Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

But then I tell them, “If you think a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.” Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every president for life has a bill of rights. The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it. Literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!

Of course, it’s just words on paper, what our Framers would have called a “parchment guarantee.” And the reason is that the real constitution of the Soviet Union — you think of the word “constitution” — it doesn’t mean “bill” it means “structure”: [when] you say a person has a good constitution you mean a sound structure. The real constitution of the Soviet Union *** that constitution did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over, the Bill of Rights is just what our Framers would call a “parchment guarantee.”

So, the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our govenment. One part of it, of course, is the independence of the judiciary, but there’s a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that have a bicameral legislature. England has a House of Lords, for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power; they can just make the [House of] Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a senate; it’s honorific. Italy has a senate; it’s honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature equally powerful. That’s a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know, to get the same language through two different bodies elected in a different fashion.

Very few countries in the world have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes, I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers, and when I get there I find that all I’m talking about is independence of the judiciary because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There’s never any disagreement between them and the prime minister, as there is sometimes between you and the president. When there’s a disagreement, they just kick him out! They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature.

The Europeans look at this system and say “It passes one house, it doesn’t pass the other house, sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. it passes both, and this president, who has a veto power, vetoes it,” and they look at this, and they say (adopting an accent) “Ach, it is gridlock.” I hear Americans saying this nowadays, and there’s a lot of it going around. They talk about a disfunctional government because there’s disagreement… and the Framers would have said, “Yes! That’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power because the main ill besetting us — as Hamilton said in The Federalist when he talked about a separate Senate: “Yes, it seems inconvenient, inasmuch as the main ill that besets us is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.” This is 1787; he didn’t know what an excess of legislation was.

Unless Americans can appreciate that and learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love the gridlock which the Framers believed would be the main protector of minorities, [we lose] the main protection. If a bill is about to pass that really comes down hard on some minority [and] they think it’s terribly unfair, it doesn’t take much to throw a monkey wrench into this complex system. Americans should appreciate that; they should learn to love the gridlock. It’s there so the legislation that does get out is good legislation.

America is VERY exceptional in that the minority is strongly protected. President Bush didn't like the (supposedly) anti-war protesters?  Tough--they have rights.  Obama didn't like Tea Parties?  Tough--we have rights.  One party just wants to jam through a bill in the Senate with 51 votes?  Tough--Senate rules allowed the minority party to block it if they could get 41 votes.

That's all something that Harry Reid and the Democrats cherished when they were the minority in the Senate.  Now?  Not so much:

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

Well, they'll be sure to get that appreciation back right after the 2012 election, when they get thrown out of power.  We should hope anyway. 

For now?  PRAY for gridlock!

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (his real name) is one heck of a nice man. How do I know this? He's been here for more than one San Antonio Tea Party event, so I've had a chance to talk with him several times.  Herehe is with SATP's founder, Joni Schmidt, at SATP's 1st anniversary celebration:

Before that, he was at our Independence Day event.  Here he is with some nameless idiot...:

Seriously:  Joe showed us what a good man he is that day.  He drove to the event and stopped in Austin to pick up the Austin Tea Party's Judy Holloway (plus a bunch of books for us to sell).  He was friendly to everyone, ALL DAY, despite the fact that this guy from Ohio was spending the day outside in Texas when it was 103!

Now, he's filed to run for Congress!

I don't necessarily agree with him 100%.  But he's a good and decent man who wants to move the country in a better direction.  I hope he does well.  We need more like him!

Wait.  Did I call her a cow?  Maybe pig is a better term....

Now that our cast is set, what shall we have them fight over?  Money, of course!  We'll let the  Belarus Black Pied Ms Barr take the first shot:

'I do say that I am in favour of the return of the guillotine and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty.

'I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million.

'And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the re-education camps and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded.'

Capt Sparrow responds with this:

Johnny Depp says he's overpaid to star in Pirates of the Caribbean, for which he's reportedly earned more than $300 million.

"Basically, if they're going to pay me the stupid money right now, I'm going to take it," Depp tells the November issue of Vanity Fair. "I have to. I mean, it's not for me. Do you know what I mean? At this point, it's for my kids. It's ridiculous, yeah, yeah. But ultimately is it for me? No. No. It's for the kids."

Depp, 48, has two children, Lilly-Rose, 12 and Jack, 9, with partner Vanessa Paradis, 38. 

One can hope that if they ever meet for real, Capt Sparrow places a killing thrust of his sword through heart of the porcine beast.

OK, enough fun.  Seriously:  Who does this bitch think she is, talking about beheadings and re-education camps.  The world has seen more than enough of those killing fields.  Someone should introduce this idiot to a country run the way she wants things.

Anybody who spends money on entertainment that ends up in her pocket should think again.  She's not only a cow and a pig, she's a devoted Marxist who HATES America and is intent on destroying it.

NOTE:  THIS IS ME TALKING, JUST AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN.  These remarks should not be construed as the position of the Sna Antonio Tea Party nor of any other organization.  (Well, maybe the association of concerened citizens who don't have their heads up their asses!)

We killed Anwar al Awlaki.

The President of the United States has now taken upon himself the authority to kill whack assassinate an American citizen.  The justification apparently being that this citizen is a leader in an enemy organization located in a place where he cannot be apprehended via the usual legal means.

The exact logic is secret, by the way.  You are not allowed to know the reasoning.

THIS IS ALL BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The big thing here is the precedent, not who or where this creep was.  The President can now issue a finding based on [secret] reasoning that a US citizen should get whacked, without any review by the courts or courts martial.  No finding of guilt by any court needed, civilian or military,not even "in absenctia."

As an enemy of the country, racist whacko terrorist (i.e., a Tea Party guy) that scares the bejeebus out of me.

Justify for me, please, just where WE THE PEOPLE granted the executive that authority.  Answer:  We didn't!

All those who think this was a good thing because we killed a bad guy are very, very wrong.  A precedent that is much worse than anything Anwar al A-wack-job could ever do has been set.  To the cheers of the otherwise conservative/Republican subjects of Emperor Obama.

May God have mercy upon our souls (because our country is headed for Hell on Earth.)

The headline just screams it:  Hispanic students vanish from Alabama schools

What is it doing this awful thing?  The law:  Tough new immigration law on books in Alabama.

Is this tough on the illegal's kids?  Let's be honest:  Yes it is.  They will not have all the advantages of the 100% free, US education that taxpayers fund for US kids.

But that's the point--under our "social contract," we the taxpayers pay for the education of "OUR" kids.  These people bring their kids here in order to take advantage of that.  They break the law to do it.  And every one of THEIR kids takes something away from OUR kids.

Crowded schools?  Wonder why, when the world is crashing in to get their kids into our classrooms.  Crime?  Oh, yeah, that goes up.  Funds are taken from other things for remidial English or for "bi-lingual" classes.  More counselors are needed.

Illegal aliens who bring their kids here to take advantage of our public schools are effectively just parasites.  Specifically, they are Brood Parasites, like the cuckoo or the cowbird.  And what happens to the legitimate chicks in the same nest?  They get crowded out!  Meanwhile, these people are also shipping home the fruits of their labor:  "Mexicans living in the United States send home more than $8 billion annually."

Alabama appears to have it right and Rick Perry has got it wrong!