Rep. Darby (R-72) is designating Nymphaea Texas Dawn as the official State Waterlily of Texas.

Go get’em, Rep. Darby.

Conservative leaning people that focus on social issues are certainly likely to be fiscally conservative in their personal lives, no question in my mind. I don’t have a study to cite, that is just an observation from being around them literally all of my life. Hey, Pop is a Southern Baptist preacher, what’d you expect? The difference between the two groups lies in how they would use YOUR money, not theirs. They don’t mind spending YOUR money at all if it is for something that THEY think will benefit society as a whole.

Here are two examples. One from Sen. John Carona and one from Sen. Dan Patrick. These two politicians, despite their fervent denials, are not small government fiscal conservatives. In fact, neither of them believe in small government at all if you base it solely upon their legislative records.

First up is Sen. Corona’s “Choose Life” license plate bill (SB 257) that he introduced yesterday. It sounds simple, right? Let Texas drivers choose a customized license plate with the slogan “Choose Life” on it. No problem. So why hasn’t it passed in previous legislative sessions? Because it is really about setting up a separate General Account, a seven member advisory council, and funding “certain eligible” groups. It really isn’t about a slogan at all.

In other words, it grows government. Don’t believe me? Read the bill.

I think this time it will pass because so-cons are going to have a great session. Any small government fiscal conservative would be against the government taking money, even voluntarily, and creating yet another state program.

Next up is Sen. Patrick’s SB 243 which will reestablish the Texas Bleeding Disorders Advisory Council. Seriously. Read the bill.

You thought I was kidding, didn’t you? C’mon, admit it. The most conservative politician in Texas really wouldn’t file a bill like this, would he? Yup.

What does it do, you ask? It creates a council of 10 voting members, 5 non-voting, plus the Commissioner of State Health Services. And what will this council do?

Sec. 103A.007.  DUTIES OF COUNCIL. The council shall

conduct studies and advise the department, the Health and Human Services Commission, and the Texas Department of Insurance on issues that affect the health and wellness of persons living with hemophilia or other bleeding or clotting disorders, including:

(1)  legislative or administrative changes to policies and programs that affect the health and wellness of persons with hemophilia or other bleeding or clotting disorders, including policies and programs regarding access to appropriate health insurance or similar health coverage;

(2)  legislative or administrative changes to policies and programs that affect product-specific reimbursement to providers, including policies and programs regarding new payment methods for:

(A)  anti-hemophilia factor that include various reimbursement methodologies for products dispensed under the Medicaid program; or

(B)  other appropriate treatment;

(3)  best practices in standards of care and treatment for persons with hemophilia or other bleeding or clotting disorders;

(4)  the establishment of community-based initiatives to disseminate information on services and related activities available for persons living with hemophilia or other bleeding or clotting disorders to the medical and health care community, the academic community, primary caregivers, advocacy associations, and the public; and

(5)  the coordination of public and private support networking systems for persons living with hemophilia or other bleeding or clotting disorders and primary caregivers.

Sec. 103A.008.  ANNUAL REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONER.

(a) Not later than December 1 of each even-numbered year, the council shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations           to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of representatives. The council’s report must be made public and is subject to public review and comment before adoption by the council.

(b)  Not later than six months after the date the council’s annual report is issued, the commissioner shall report on efforts to implement the recommendations in the report. The commissioner’s                 annual report must:

(1)  be made available to the public; and

(2)  include any related state or national activities in which the council participates.

I think that there are better, private sector ways to accomplish these goals.

Now, the reason Sen. Patrick has to reestablish this council is because the House did not approve his bill in 2009 to continue the council. He created the council in the 2007 session, SB 1566, but it included language that abolished it after two years. Like I said, he tried to continue it in 2009 via SB 1837 but the bill died and with it, the Bleeding Disorders Advisory Council.

So he is back at the trough, fighting to get the council reestablished. So what, you ask? It doesn’t cost much money, only expense reimbursements. Because it grows government, that is so what. If you read the duties above, you’ll note that it includes a requirement for a report of recommendations for treating bleeding disorders. And they filed one. Take a look at the very first recommendation on their list:

The Council recommends:

Re-establishing the Council beyond September 1, 2009 and appropriately fund the Council activities by providing staff and financial resources to the state department responsible for the Council, including the ability to reimburse travel expenses under state guidelines for the Council members.

Their first recommendation is to re-establish and fund the Council.

And that in a nutshell is the problem with so-cons – they grow government and fuel the never ending spiral of government growth. Just like….so-libs.

Which is why it is so frustrating for those of us that are small government fiscal conservatives to see Tea Party activists supporting this type of legislation. It makes no sense to us. There is a difference and it is not a false choice to prefer fiscal conservatives over social conservatives for those of us that claim to want smaller government. I’d also note that a fiscal conservative tends to be socially conservative in their personal lives – we just don’t try to force our beliefs on society as a whole.

Speaking of Felicia, you can now catch her on Pundit League. Click here to read her first entry. She promises that not everything she writes about will be political. Heh, we’ll see. We’ll see.

Now don’t go all ballistic thinking that I’m broad brushing all tea party leaders as being driven for profit because I’m not. If you fit the bill or if your “leader” fits the bill, then you know who I’m talking about. The majority, at least at this early stage in the development of the movement, are still in it for the right reasons. All I’m saying is that the media portrayal of Teapers as lemmings following Rush Limbaugh or anyone else without thinking for themselves is a gross distortion of Teapers. I trust Teapers to think for themselves and the best way to allow them to do that is to present the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

And that is why I’m not a political consultant. If I were, I’d tell Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to distribute the video below far and wide. Let the people decide for themselves instead of having to rely on Empower Texans employees channeling Tom Craddick via Tim Dunn’s money. Or Diane Nusbaum of the Collin County Tea Party channeling Empower Texans employees channeling Tom Craddick via Tim Dunn’s money.

I’m not sure why I haven’t seen this video before. I have to give a h/t to one Alice Linahan who is very much against Speaker Straus. She left a comment on Burkablog with a link to the video, hoping to persuade people to contact their reps and urge them to replace Speaker Straus. She is also connected in some way to North Texas Navigator News, a rightwing faux-news site run by the Resolute Media Group, which also happens to be the first place that announced Rep. Ken Paxton’s challenge to Straus. And which was written by none other than…Alice Linahan. Make of that what you will or won’t. 

Back to the video. It is an interview of newly minted Speaker Straus from 1/16/2009 by Evan Smith when he was still at Texas Monthly and wasn’t yet sporting his new, trendy glasses (see Cory at Harris County Almanac for that one). Despite the fun we poke at Evan, he is on his way to becoming the next Charlie Rose of interviewing. Here is the interview, in full, for you to watch:

{youtube}dTehIlCMMCE{/youtube}

A fascinating interview. You watch it, you decide. 

Here are some time points for those of you that will spend 30 seconds forwarding something negative about Speaker Straus but refuse to watch the whole 27 minutes. Shame on you if you do that but it is what it is.

First the biggie: Social issues. Evan does a very good job of pulling information out – remember, Speaker Straus is not a 40 year politician, this was the beginning of his third term, his first indepth interview as Speaker, and he is a conservative being interviewed by someone with a, let’s say, not so conservative reputation. He asks Speaker Straus about abortion, gay foster parents, and gambling. Here are your cue points:

• Abortion: 16:10 (short intro to the segment, then 2 minutes on abortion)
• Gay Foster Parents: 18:30
• Gambling: 19:57

You watch, you decide. For some, this will confirm your support. For some, this will confirm your opposition. For some, this may very well change your mind, either way. You watch, you decide.

Interestingly, Evan also brings up Voter ID. For those of you that think Speaker Straus is against Voter ID, this should put that to rest once and for all. He is for Voter ID. I dare you to watch, then decide. The cue point is 21:40. Pay special attention to Speaker Straus’ words and Evan’s pressing him on it – it is obvious that Evan is against it and Speaker Straus supports it. He even said something that would make Catherine Englebrecht’s (True the Vote) leg tingle: “Is it a priority? Well, I’m for fair elections, yeah.”. And he stuck to that even when it was clear that Evan wanted a different answer. You will hear Evan reference a vote in the 2007 session when Speaker Straus voted for Voter ID.

That vote was on HB-218 authored by Betty Brown, Leo Berman, Dwayne Bohac, and Debbie Riddle. You can find the journal vote referenced by Evan here (Record Vote 621). But if you understand the way the House works, third votes aren’t where the real action is, it is the second vote that matters. Here is the second record vote (Record Vote 618). Speaker Straus voted “Yes” on both. He also voted “Yes” on the first vote, if that matters to you (Record Vote 604). Fascinating reading in those journal records.

So if Voter ID is your main goal this year, have no fear, it will pass in this 99-51 session. But you watch, you read, you decide. 

The last cue I want to point you to is at the end of the Voter ID segment. It starts at 23:17 and Evan transitions from his frustrating attempt to get Speaker Straus to cave on Voter ID to his view of the Speakership itself. Refreshing, especially after watching Tom Craddick bang the gavel in the face of Rep. Robert Talton in the 2007 session. If you don’t know Rep. Talton, just think of the most conservative person you know and up it a notch. That is Rep. Talton. And Craddick continually banged the gavel to shut him up because, unlike Speaker Straus, Speaker Craddick thinks the House was HIS, not YOURS through your representative.

I very much like Speaker Straus’ answer. But you watch, you decide.

Some of you will watch and decide opposite of me. And that’s okay because at least you are getting the information first hand. I trust you. I don’t trust some of your “leaders”. Cheers.

No, it isn’t. Not even remotely. And yet, that is what we have in this case. Earlier today, I commented on a bogus “poll” (maybe more on that nonsense later) put out by a group called the “Heritage Alliance” and mass emailed by Diane Nusbaum, one of the founders of the Collin County Tea Party and a campaign worker on the failed campaign of Wayne Richard.

A friend, Kimmon Johnson, who used to blog at Lonestartimes.com as Texpat, found a very disturbing article about the founder of Heritage Alliance at the Dallas Observer dating back to 2005. In the article, the founder, Richard Ford, admits to lying about Republican officeholders and says that he would do it again. 

“Here’s a guy who co-authored the bill to outlaw gay marriages,” Wentworth says, referring to himself, “yet they put two men in tuxedos cutting a wedding cake on a mailer and said, ‘This is the kind of stuff this guy will do.’ It was the absolute reverse of my actual record, but they didn’t care. Facts never get in Richard’s way.”…..

“I think we were probably a little ahead of the curve,” Ford says now. “Quite frankly, if we had it to do over again, I would try to do it a little more tastefully, because I think it would have been more effective, but the message, I think, was correct.

No.

The “message” was a lie. By definition it cannot be “correct”. And it made me think of the recent email exchange and interview with SREC member John Cook. In his attempt to defeat Speaker Straus, Mr. Cook said:

“I want to make sure that a person I’m supporting is going to have my values. It’s not anything about Jews and whether I think their religion is right or Muslims and whether I think their religion is right. … I got into politics to put Christian conservatives into office. They’re the people that do the best jobs over all.”

Is lying one of Mr. Cook’s values, I wonder? I sincerely doubt it. What is lying anyway? Harper’s Bible Dictionary says this:

Lying

lying, the act of telling falsehoods as truth. Israel is exhorted against using God’s name for false oaths and lying on the witness stand in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:7, 16; Deut. 5:11, 20). Witnesses who testify falsely will receive the punishment that would have been meted out to their accused (Deut. 19:15-21). Indeed, all falsehoods are prohibited by the Torah (Exod. 23:7; Lev. 19:11). Persons who lie, and thereby defraud their neighbor, must pay restitution for the property loss plus a fine to the owner as well as bring a sacrificial offering before they are forgiven by God (Lev. 6:1-7). Lying is thus an abomination to God and his faithful (Prov. 12:22; Ps. 119:163), for God never lies (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29). 

False prophets are singled out for particular condemnation (Isa. 9:15; Jer. 23:9-32; Ezek. 13) since their lies may influence the people to oppose God’s will. The penalty for false prophecy is death (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 28). 

In the NT, the ‘father of lies’ is the devil (John 8:44), and Paul condemns those who worship idols because they have exchanged the truth about God for a lie (Rom. 1:25). See also Perjury.

Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper’s Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (586). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

As noted, John 8:44, Jesus says this about lies:

8:44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.

Jesus says that liars are from the devil himself.

I agree.

Lying about Joe Straus, or anyone else, is evil. It doesn’t matter who does it, be it the Heritage Alliance or Diane Nusbaum or Tea Partiers or anyone else. Including me.

Lying is evil.

Lying is from Satan.

The ends DO NOT justify the means.

Lying doesn’t come from “True Christians”. 

For good measure, let’s look at something from the “Judeo/Christian” heritage:

Exodus 20:16 – You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Remember that one? Sometimes we call it the 9th Commandment. 

Some “True Christians” ignore it. 

These lies truly sadden me because they are being broadcast and put forth under the so-called “Tea Party” brand, of which I am a proud member. Less proud these days but a member nonetheless.

I think of the beautiful prayers I’ve heard Robin Lennon of the Kingwood Tea Party give before their meetings. Of the prayers lifted up by Catherine Englebrecht of King Street Patriots before theirs. Of John Bentley’s prayers before the Clear Lake Tea Party meetings. Of Greg Holloway of the Austin Tea Party reciting the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray. And countless others.

And I can’t help but wonder, where did it all go wrong? Under Which God do we stand?

So, I get this email from the Dallas Tea Party group that is coordinating the Craddick crony campaign with the subject line:

POLL : 89{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of GOP Primary Voters Want a Conservative House Speaker

Right away, you know something is awry. You can’t get 9 out of 10 people off the street to agree on anything. Here is the body of the email:

Heritage Alliance Press Release

DALLAS, Dec. 8, 2010 – In the first round of an ongoing, informal telephone poll, Heritage Alliance found more than 89 percent of registered Republican primary voters in favor of a more conservative Texas House Speaker to lead next year’s session.

In polling that began one week after the November elections, Heritage Alliance surveyed 8,238 “1R” voters—those who had participated in at least one recent GOP primary— in 43 of 99 GOP-held State House districts. (Voters were not polled in 21 districts where the State Representative had already called for a new State House Speaker.)

When asked, “If you want your State Representative to support a true conservative Republican for House Speaker, instead of a moderate Republican, press 1,” more than 89 percent indicated they wanted a more conservative Speaker….

FULL PRESS RELEASE HERE

Okay, these weren’t off the street voters, these were 1R primary voters. Fair enough, much easier to get mass agreement from that group. But they don’t give us a clue as to how many people responded to the automated (robo) call, so that takes away some credibility. And then you see the question they posed and whoops, there goes the credibility of Heritage Alliance and the Dallas Tea Party group.

“If you want your State Representative to support a true conservative Republican for House Speaker, instead of a moderate Republican, press 1,”

Well, color me surprised! What a shocker that Republican primary voters would prefer a conservative over a moderate! Heck, I could have told you that without bothering to send out 9,000 robocalls. Good grief.

Let’s reword the question:

“If you want your State Representative to support the current conservative Republican Speaker, press 1. If you prefer that he be replaced with a “True” Christian who will grow government, press 2”.

Or, how about:

“If you want your State Representative to support the current conservative Republican Speaker, press 1. If you prefer that he be replaced by a whack job that thinks evolution science is based on Rabbinic writings in the mystic “holy book” Kabbala dating back at least two millennia, press 2.”

Or,

“If you want your State Representative to support the current conservative Republican Speaker, press 1. If you prefer that he be replaced by a truther and/or a birther, press 2.”

A completely, utterly bogus poll.

Maybe it is better that these guys are focusing on Joe Straus instead of “helping” their representatives write legislation. Can you imagine what they would come up with?