You can't be too cynical
No matter how cynical you are, you're
not nearly cynical enough!
Isaiah 5:20 -- Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
(Woe to us, folks,
for we have a nation have done that!)
Looking for the San Antonio Tea Party
? Just hit that link. This is no longer The San Antonio Tea Party's home (it was once, and then it wasn't,
and then once again it was, and now once again it's not). This is now just the blog of little old me. Robin Juhl,
). That's ALL. I'm no longer on the board of SATP and have no say in the policy thereof. But God
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Recommendations on Texas Constitutional Amendments
Thu, October 20, 2011 | link
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
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."
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"
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.
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."
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.
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
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
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
Proposition Number 8 (SJR 16): VOTING "NO" IS RECOMMENDED
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"
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.
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.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy Wall Street Flag Desecration
Sun, October 16, 2011 | link
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):
pic, via Yahoo News, of some serious flag abuse "in Zuccotti Park near the financial district of New York October 13, 2011...."
Occupy Portland Protesters Sing "F*ck the USA"
Sun, October 16, 2011 | link
The FLEA Party!
Sun, October 16, 2011 | link
The latest from Joni, thefounder of the San Antonio Tea Party. No idea where she got it.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Learn to love the gridlock
Wed, October 12, 2011 | link
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.
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!
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.
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!
Monday, October 10, 2011
Mon, October 10, 2011 | link
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!
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Captain Jack Sparrow vs. a stupid cow
Sat, October 8, 2011 | link
You all know Capt Sparrow, right?
The second contestant in this fight is the cow. You may remember her from a show that was unaccountably
popular a few years ago. It's that unforgettable mangler of our national anthem, Roseanne Barr:
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
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
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.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Choose a side
Mon, October 3, 2011 | link
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
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
May God have mercy upon our souls (because our country is headed for Hell on Earth.)
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Alabama gets it right
Sat, October 1, 2011 | link
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!
(SiteLock really works! They've notified me twice of Malware links.)
Our "masters" in government really do believe you're stupid!