Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

New Conservative Foundation Calls for Broad Defense of Liberty

by 4 Comments

This is a guest post by Luis LaRotta

Four years ago, conservatives across Texas were dealt a gut-wrenching blow as liberals gained
an unexpected advantage on the heels of Beto O’Rourke’s failed senate race. The aftermath left
an impressionable scar among conservative Texans as numerous down ballot seats were lost to
liberals in one fell swoop. Today, Americans are experiencing a similar wake-up call as liberal
politicians and their agendas expand across our country. For the GOP, a November victory
seems tantalizingly within grasp, however, dominant factions seeking to purge the party of
voters who aren’t in perfect theological or ideological alignment will continue to impede the
party’s ability to gain any substantial ground with independent voters beyond 2022.

As a former candidate for Texas House District 148, I campaigned door-to-door in the
community where my family lived in Houston. In many of these inner-city blue-collar
neighborhoods, I came face to face with the reality of how astonishingly disconnected the
Democratic Party had become and how starkly ineffective the Republican Party remained. What
I realized was that the American dream was still alive for the hardworking families I met, but for
many, the promises made by entrenched politicians to deal with surging crime, lack-luster
education and diminished economic opportunities had given them little to be optimistic about.

How could this have happened?

If you ask the Republican voters how our side has dealt with the endless barrage of cultural
warfare, few will say that we are winning. Between the mainstream media, social media, and our
educational system, conservative voices have primarily been reactionary to the headlines made
regularly by liberals that cast our views as insensitive, misogynistic, racist or worse. In many
cases our voices had been canceled with no justification, a threat that should have alerted free
speech advocates on both sides of the aisle. Yet, it’s the conservative values that have made
Texas a haven for freedom and opportunity.

In this author’s opinion, the GOP’s quest to refute every accusation that has been hurled at
conservatives, has laid a trap that we have fallen victim to repeatedly. The consequences have
been devastating and broad, as entire demographics that are not typically thought of as
Republican, yet voted for Donald Trump, have remained notably absent. Rather than finding
commonality among Republican and Independent voters, the narrative that’s been laid out
ahead of us turns these voters against one another in a regressive exercise to exclude potential
allies in the causes we care about.

In spite of these self-defeating efforts, conservatives of all types have found ways to support
one another from the vicious attacks coming from leftist cultural warriors seeking to stall our
movement.

Disenfranchised voters from all walks of life suddenly began to gravitate to conservative groups
and their organizers came to find that aside from a few differences, they were stronger together
against the left’s rhetoric. These groups, aligned by virtue of their steadfast beliefs about the

role and nature of government, led to even greater collaborative efforts that dismantled the
basis for the identity politics being touted. As an alliance forged between the Republican Liberty
Caucus of Texas, the Texas Young Republicans, and the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas, a
coalition of Freedom First Republicans formed into the strongest trifecta for liberty in the state.
The coalition was a formidable counterstrike to the radical Democratic agenda, and a beacon to
all liberty-minded Republicans and conservatives, be they in our inner cities, or in the most
remote rural areas of our state.

Although the Freedom First Republicans Coalition may be gone, the values and ideals that
brought these organizations together are now the immutable founding principles of the Texas
Conservative Liberty Forum, an organization led by Marco Roberts. He is joined by many
conservative leaders (including myself) who are intent on advancing the conservative cause for
ordered liberty through principled leadership, collaboration, and perseverance.

Some will ask if our group represents or is focused on the concerns of any particular
demographic? The answer is ‘no.’

In my view, the only affinity required is that members share the core beliefs that made the
coalition between all liberty-minded conservatives of every stripe stronger. The Texas
Conservative Liberty Forum will bring forth a new vision of the conservative movement, one that
is competitive, fearless, and effective in defeating the progressive Democratic agenda. One that
doesn’t answer to the left’s cultural wars – rather, one that reframes these constitutional issues
and posits new questions. One that brings all people together, under the common belief that
America is a place of freedom, opportunity and unity.

What happens next in Texas has implications beyond our state. Our elections reverberate
throughout the rest of the country and even the world; and as everyone watches how Texans
vote, we must demonstrate that the liberty movement has not retreated to the confines of
conservative sanctuary districts when our country needed us most.

It’s time conservatives reframe the false narratives, redirect our focus and advance united in a
common cause in support of freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of conscience,
freedom of self-defense, freedom of self-determination, and all our other constitutionally
guaranteed rights which are in real peril.  Families have lost businesses they spent a lifetime
building for merely exercising their First Amendment rights.  Parents are being villified for daring
to question school officials’ policies on curriculum, sexual education and gender modification
without their parental knowledge or consent. Americans of all walks of life are being silenced in
public and private institutions in the name of a liberal political ideology that claims to be for
diversity, equity, and inclusion, but instead delivers division, envy, and intolerance.

It’s time we stand our ground with those who will stand with us. As Americans flee failed,
oppressive liberal states in hopes of a brighter future, let us show them that in Texas we stand
together for the true liberty, justice, and equality under the law for all promised in our US and
Texas constitutions.

Luis H LaRotta
Texas Conservative Liberty Forum
Vice Chairman

Pearl Harbor Day 80 Years Later

by

Eighty years ago the Imperial Japanese Navy initiated war by attacking Pearl Harbor. We need to stop and remember the horror of the date that will live in infamy and the struggle that followed.  Take time to pause the manufactured chaos and division and remember what binds us together as a nation is at risk by those who foment the divisions among us, largely for personal profit or power.
We also need to remember how we came together as a nation to face our enemy.
Today we stop and remember Pearl Harbor.  Tomorrow, we forget and carry on like normal.  Therein lies the danger.  Society isn’t too far removed from the mindset the Japanese had in 1941.  Media is, with a few exceptions, a propaganda outlet and no longer interested in seeking out the truth and serving the public good or bound by at least some semblance of journalistic integrity.  We are at a point where Dan Rather retiring sixteen years ago seems like an act of journalistic virtue.  Are we really at a point where Dan Rather’s thinly veiled propaganda and behavior is an example of virtue?  Sadly, yes.  That’s a sign of how far media ethics have eroded to the point of nonexistence.
Just as dangerously, elements of society believe they have the right to engage in violence as a form of protest.  This isn’t the Civil Rights era peaceful protest.  This is a fundamental belief that they have been systemically wronged and are justified to use violent protest as recourse.  Just as dangerous are those who explicitly or implicitly support the violence and call to defund the police.  We are now in a society where violence is allowed and defended, and as a result we see cascading consequences.
All but the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum have some common ground from which we can start to tackle the problems impacting society. We have areas of true and unreconcilable differences, but by working together on the areas where we agree we build the bonds of goodwill and inch by inch return society to a point where we can disagree without being disagreeable.  We need to remember Pearl Harbor, but we also need to remember who we are as a nation and return to sensibilities that do not tolerate threat to individual freedom.

Rittenhouse Verdict – We Were Never Going to Have Healing

by

In the Kyle Rittenhouse case three outcomes were possible, two of which served justice, and one of which did not.  The jury could have either returned a guilty verdict on at least one count, not guilty on all counts, or at least one guilty verdict followed by the judge granting the defense’s motion for a mistrial.  The first two outcomes serve justice, while the third would not have.  Kyle Rittenhouse has been found not guilty on all charges by a jury of his peers.  Already people are denying justice occurred.

Both a guilty and a not guilty verdict could have been supported by the evidence.  Beyond the fact pattern difficulty with the prosecution’s case they had self inflicted wounds, such as opening the door to allowing mental illness evidence that otherwise would have been excluded by the judge’s ruling.  This leads us to the a fundamental question. What is justice?

Justice is getting one’s due. Both the victims and the defendant deserve justice in a criminal proceeding.  The victims are the individuals who were shot no more, no less.  The only issue decided in a criminal proceeding is whether a crime occurred.  Had the judge declared a mistrial after a guilty verdict justice would not have occurred.  Having a trial and bringing the issue to the jury gives justice from a criminal law perspective.  That occurred, and the verdict isn’t unreasonable given the facts and the prosecution’s self inflicted wounds.  The victims in this case received justice.

Jacob Blake has absolutely nothing to do with the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  Rittenhouse was on trial for his actions; not anything to do with what happened to Jacob Blake.  To try and use this trial as a proxy for racial tensions is entirely inappropriate.  The overall environment in which the shootings at issue in this trial occurred is irrelevant to the issue the jury had to decide.  Defendants are not guilty until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just as importantly, all defendants are on trial for their actions.  To bring in Jacob Blake and use this trial as a proxy for race relations is to deny Kyle Rittenhouse justice.

The cries that justice did not occur are rooted in the cry for social justice.  Arguing social justice demands a conviction in a tangential matter is a threat to the criminal justice system and should be universally condemned in the strongest terms possible.    We cannot let our fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence fall to the cry for social justice.

We never were going to have healing with this trial. The intentional marrying of this issue to an overall social justice cry ensured civil disquiet would become worse regardless of the verdict.  However, this isn’t just a national issue.  Here in Harris County we have an analogous disquiet brewing regarding defendants out on felony bail.  While we rightly condemn the number of individuals out on felony bond and the subsequent crimes they commit we must remember they, too, need to be held accountable solely for their specific actions and not fall to a cry for social justice against repeat offenders.  The use of social justice as a consideration in a criminal trial leaves us all worse off.

Justice Was Served in the Breonna Taylor Case

by

The grand jury returned one indictment in the Breonna Taylor case.  Two officers were not charged, and one was charged with wanton endangerment for firing blindly into the dwelling. Sadly predictably, BLM and other activists are crying that she did not receive justice.  People can reasonably disagree as to the merits of no knock warrants.  However, that’s a separate issue from did the officers involved follow the law.

It’s ironic that the grand jury indictment came on the same day as the Catholic National Prayer Breakfast.  Bishop Barron gave an excellent speech at the breakfast that was focused on a different issue, but has points that apply to help evaluate whether justice occurred in this case.  In his speech Bishop Barron noted that the concepts in the Declaration of Independence were a marked departure from previous political thought.  Before the Declaration of Independence political thought was people were unequal.

Political classes existed based on the inherent inequality in people.  Some are more intelligent, some are stronger, et cetera.   This difference in ability (and often lineage) left people in defined classes in society.  How, then, do we get to “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”? The Bishop reasoned that the answer is self evident in the text itself, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” – it is the endowment by their Creator that grants the rights and leaves all people created equal.

It is in this context, that we are all made equally dignified by the Creator with certain inalienable rights that we need to assess whether justice has occurred.  The fact pattern is well known: the officers were serving a no knock warrant.  Taylor’s significant other though they were being robbed and shot at the officers.  The officers returned fire killing Taylor in the process.  It’s a tragedy, but does justice demand they be punished?  The answer is no, and an attempt to do so is an injustice to the officers.

All men are created equal, and the officers’ right to bodily integrity is equal to Breonna’s right to bodily integrity.  Their right to bodily integrity was threatened when her significant other opened fire. They have the same right to defend themselves as her significant other did to defend himself.   The unindicted officers’ rights and Breonna’s rights  were both compromised in an identical manner.

So how do we resolve the conflict of rights?  It’s easy to say that none of the actors was at fault and this was a horrible tragedy.  However, taking that stand ignores the fact that she was killed and her right to bodily integrity was violated.  To address this concern we have to at least examine the events and see if any actual wrongdoing occurred as opposed to a series of tragic events. At its core justice demands giving someone their due.  This means giving her what she is due, but not at the expense of the rights of the officers.

The grand jury process has accomplished this goal.  The district attorney presented the case to the grand jury.  As a result of the presentation the grand jury came back with one indictment of wanton endangerment to the officer who fired blindly into the dwelling.  This result suggests the process was fair and seeks accountability for the officer who violated the use of force policy and endangered every one’s right to bodily integrity.

So why is there an outcry against the grand jury indictment?  Justice was served in the classical sense because everyone received their due.  The officers’ actions were examined to see if they were contrary to law. The grand jury gave a nuanced indictment pattern for the case.  It is easy to write this off as a case where those opposing the return simply want vengeance rather than justice.  This easy reconciliation likely is substantially correct for a significant number of the individual members who are unhappy with the result, but it also illustrates a different problem regarding justice.

Some who condemn the officers and the system in general will argue that restorative justice was not served.  However, that argument fails because it is contrary to one of the tenets of restorative justice. Restorative justice is founded on the three principles of:

  • Repair: injustice causes harm and justice requires the harm to be remedied
  • Collaboration: the best way to have the harm remedied is for the parties to decide together how to remedy the harm
  • Transformation: the remedy to harm ideally creates a change in the conditions that lead to the injustice

Restorative justice is a controversial concept.  Even if we are to accept it as meritorious the cry that restorative justice demands change does not support creating injustice.  Making the officers a scapegoat to the alleged systemic injustice is injustice to the officers.  Worse, insistence on punishment for the officers involved fails the collaboration principle of restorative justice.   If the cry for restorative justice is based on the premise that no knock warrants are improper then the goal should be to address the underlying issue of no knock warrants. Saying that justice was not served because restorative justice did not occur is to dictate rather than collaborate. It is to deny the very principles of restorative justice.

The district attorney presented the case to a grand jury, and the grand jury returned an indictment in a nuanced manner.  That gives Breonna what she is due – an accounting of the officers’ actions.  You cannot create justice by engaging in injustice against others.  To do so is to violate the very reasons we were founded – the proposition that all men are created equal with inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

Rest in Peace Justice Ginsburg

by

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died.  May she rest in peace.  Her open judicial activism and conduct were antithetical to what we should expect form a Justice regardless of level, but that does not remove her basic human dignity.  Do not celebrate her passing.  We rightly held in disdain those who celebrated Justice Scalia’s passing, and if we openly celebrate her passing we are no better.

I’ll repeat what I said after Straus was censured.  We hold ourselves out as holding the moral high ground and as the party who values human dignity.  Statesmanship is like chivalry, a noble concept that enriches all who follow the discipline… and is a faint vestige of times past. As we follow the democrats in losing statesmanship we erode one buttress in the warrant that we hold the moral high ground.

Victory tests a person’s character just as much as defeat, and while this is not a victory in a classic sense it is a victory for conservative ideals.  If we openly rejoice this turn of events we not only show we are no better than our opponents, but we also validate their concerns for what the future holds.  We become what we profess to disdain.

Even absent this turn of events we are in the throes of a serious crisis as a country.  An element of the progressive wing of the democrat party had descended into anarchy with the mentality that they are justified in imposing their will upon others by any means. Now they have a cohesive point they can invoke as a rallying cry that is not divisive by nature.  They will use her passing as their rallying cry and justification to continue their crusade.

This is the seminal event for the next generation of the Supreme Court.  The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing was bad what comes next is going to be far worse.  The democrats don’t need to win, all they need to do is to run out the clock.  In their attempt to do so the Senate Democrats empower every Antifa sympathizer to run rampant.

Be that as it may, we still must rise above. By succumbing to the darkness that looms and invites us to follow we simply further societal decline.  Rather than accept the invitation we must firmly reject the temptation to celebrate and act like the progressives; and in doing so set the example for what is to follow. We cannot escape the upcoming chaos; we must choose to show the way forward is one of peace and charity.  After the near term reaction society will remember how we conducted ourselves and that in turn shapes our credibility for the foreseeable future.

More than that, though, virtue is its own reward.  That alone calls us to act as we profess to believe.  John Donne is correct, every person’s passing makes us lesser. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

Hope Springs Eternal on this Solemn Day

by

Nineteen years ago we suffered a horrifying attack on our soil by terrorists whose goal was to target civilians and harm the economy.  Make no mistake, this was pure terrorism; it was an attack against civilians and the economy.  While the Pentagon was hit the goal was not to cause military casualties.  The goal was to inflict psychological harm on the population.

The horror of that day lives on, but for many they never knew or have forgotten what occurred.  We now see mobs in the streets rioting in the name of social justice. Criminals who assault law enforcement officers and who resist arrest on sexual assault charges are honored by the Democrat party and professional sports.  Just like on that fateful day nineteen years ago we see a small minority who is willing to use any means necessary to impose their views on others without care for the harm they impose.

While the mentality of the terrorist from that fateful day is now firmly enrooted in the Black Lives Matter supporters and Antifa denizens, we also see that the opposite holds true.  A small number of individuals who are dedicated to the proposition that people deserve to live in peace are achieving spectacular results.

It is fitting that today, of all days, a second peace agreement between Israel and a Middle East nation is announced.  The people of Israel deserve to live in peace just as much as the people of Portland, Seattle, and Kenosha.  Just like the terrorists nineteen years ago, terrorists routinely target the civilian population in Israel to achieve their political goals.  However, in the midst of all the turmoil that is the Middle East, peace is taking root. In the past month the United Arab Eremites and now Bahrain have normalized relations with Israel.  While neither country was an actual threat to Israel the peace deals with Israel show that goodness still exists, and that a small contingent willing to do good are capable of achieving results.

When we remember the horrible attack nineteen years ago, and see the same mindset instilled in the mobs rioting and celebrating criminals it’s easy to become angry and despondent.   Remember, though, just as those of ill will are bent on causing chaos and harm we have the opportunity to achieve peace and goodness.  Let us choose to reject those who celebrate lawlessness and foment hatred along the lines of class and race. If Kamala Harris is proud of Jacob Blake let us be equally proud of those who stand against the proposition that race and class divide us.  Let us see the accomplishment of today, rather than the harm nineteen years ago, and choose to be the ones who unite seeking peace and the greater good for all.