Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Win the Person not the Argument in the Current Race Riots

by

Win the person not the argument is a very old adage on how to conduct political affairs.  It may take the form of win hearts and minds or some other similar language.  That was a major prong in the Vietnam war strategy.  Republicans are the minority in Harris County.  We know this, but don’t adapt to our minority status.  The ongoing race riots show we are stuck in the past and do not accept present political reality.  The response to the ongoing race riots plays right into the hands of the violent extremists and allows the democrats to continue to win the person.

It’s easy to be critical of the race riots.  For that matter it’s easy to be critical of Acevedo’s actions in the riots.  Not only was he seen marching with the rioters, but when Ashton Woods was videoed attacking someone in the crowd he was not arrested and charged with assault or disorderly conduct.  We, as a civilized society have every reason to call of Acevedo’s resignation. We have reason to demand Woods arrest, booking, release and trial that would happen if you and I acted similarly.  However, that wins the argument and not the person.

It is to many of our minds wrongly, but Acevedo and Woods are seen as heroes among many in the county.  Simply winning the argument is not going to move the needle in our direction as it reinforces the prejudice/racist/whatever built in excuse that black lives matter and their supporters have to excuse their behavior.  This is a known problem – my first post here on Big Jolly was asking what’s the plan for civil unrest.

It appears the local elected official’s plan is largely to turn a blind eye to the lawlessness.  That’s a politically astute plan as it leaves them open to losing the argument and continue to win the person.  By accepting the invitation to criticize the lack of meaningful response to the riots republicans simply reinforce the preconceived notions of racism thereby continuing to lose the person. Winning the argument is what the democrats want us to do – it makes them heroes in the eyes of a significant portion of the population.  Winning the argument doesn’t turn enough of the center-left voters away from the democrats to be worth the harm inflicted.

Winning the person means changing tactics.  Winning the person means not pouncing on the red meat available.  It’s bait.  To win the person, republicans have to look beyond the win the day argumentation and return to our values aware of the realities of the current political climate.  The electorate in general is not fiscally conservative.  Although Houston’s finances are a mess the passage of the pension bond, flood bond, and firefighter’s proposition show that the electorate doesn’t accept a fiscally conservative message.  Winning that argument doesn’t win the person; worse, it may backfire and get the spending cap removed in an election.

Winning the person means going back to social conservative and personal responsibility messaging.  Just as the electorate isn’t open to a fiscal conservative message the electorate is open to a social conservative message.  The bathroom proposition went our way.   Crime is so out of control with activist judges that a tough on crime message would resonate.  Helping others and cracking down on crime will change hearts and minds, and that in turn, makes it easier to indirectly attack the privilege the race warriors enjoy.

Calling for Ashton Woods to be held accountable for his actions in this environment is a losing argument.  We have a weak district attorney who would possibly not accept charges.  We have activist judges who would go out of their way to help him.  We have a political environment against accountability.  That underlying culture needs to be combated first.  Only then, when we have judges who care about public safety and a district attorney who actually prosecutes crime, can we seek accountability for the protected troublemakers.

There’s a difference between fighting and winning.  Right now we are too willing fight to our own determent.  It doesn’t matter if we win the argument; we will lose the person.  This must change before the blue tide is stemmed.  Things will continue to get worse if we don’t accept our minority status and change tactics to reflect this new reality.

Democrats Suffering From PTSD ….. Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder That Is

by

During a January 8 press conference on the assassination of Qassem Soleimani held by members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said: “I feel ill a little bit because of everything that is taking place and I think every time I hear conversations around war, I find myself being stricken with PTSD.”

Republicans immediately blasted Omar for her “shameful behavior” towards veterans.  Oh, come on now, let’s give the wretched refugee from war-torn Somalia a break.  Fearing that we were about to go to war with Iran, Omar obviously meant Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Omar is not the only one to suffer from Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  224 House Democrats suffering from the same disorder approved a War Powers Act resolution on January 9 that will require President Trump to obtain congressional authorization before taking any kind of military action against Iran.

By passing that resolution, the Democrats hope to prevent the President from taking a preemptive strike against an enemy planning to attack us or our allies.

These are not the days of WW2.  Had President Roosevelt been able to retaliate against Japan for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, he most certainly would have done so without obtaining congressional authorization.  That was then and this is now.

Had 9/11 been carried out by a nation instead of by an elusive terrorist, President George W. Bush would probably have struck back quickly with overpowering military action and done so without obtaining congressional authorization.

This is the age of ballistic missiles and proxy armies that can strike our troops and assets at a great distance from the homeland of an enemy.  Prompt military action is needed to prevent a catastrophic attack against us and our allies.  The House resolution, if it were binding on the President, would be an impediment against preventing such attacks.

As it is, the Pre-TSD Democrats passed a resolution that is nonbinding on President Trump. And Trump administration officials insist the president already has the authority to take action against Iran under a 2002 war authorization act passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Our enemies must know with certainty that there will be swift preemptive retribution whenever they or their proxies plan to attack us, even it that gives the appeasement Democrats a good dose of Pre-TSD.

Now Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are shaking in their collective boots because the Trump-hating media is reporting he authorized the killing of Soleimani 18 months ago.  So what!  Soleimani was clearly a threat to the U.S.

Israel has a history of sending out Mossad hit squads to assassinate Palestinian terrorist leaders wherever they could find them.  Dspite condemnations by the Europeans and the U.N., Israelis are much safer now.  Likewise, Americans are much safer now that Soleimani has been dispatched to the Islamic paradise.

When Omar made her PTSD comment, she turned back to look at the AOC squad members who were there to support her.  And guess who was standing beside the squad … it was none other than Houston’s very own Sheila Jackson Lee.  And while Sheila was lamenting about the deaths of 4,400 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Omar and Rashida Tlaib were seen giggling.

Thank God we now have a president who will take decisive action against our enemies immediately when needed.  The appeasement policy of President Barack Obama and his Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry only emboldened our enemies.  And Obama’s appeasement is what the United States now has to deal with.

The Proposed Medical Review Changes to Social Security Disability Cases Are Beneficial

by

Many media sources have been harshly criticizing President Trump for proposed changes to the medical review process for individuals receiving Social Security benefits because of a disabling condition.  This is the primary area of law I practice, and the fears promoted by the media are entirely off base.  The comment period is ongoing through the end of January.  I commented as follows:

I am a representative who has made approximately 4,000 appearances before an ALJ to support claimant’s receiving disability benefits. The proposed MIL category might be helpful for encouraging claimants to seek medical treatment. However, the 5 month waiting period and additional 2 year wait before Medicare pendant benefits is a factor in claimants seeking medical treatment as it improves the availability of medical care. Rather than a 2 year review, a better timing mechanism may be 6 months after Medicare has come into effect.

Another possible consideration is having the ALJ declare in the decision what review category is being assessed. The intent of adding the MIL category is to promote medical treatment and lead to medical recovery. If the claimant is unaware of when the pending review will occur the new medical review category fails its purpose as the claimant does not feel the sense of urgency to receive medical treatment to achieve medical recovery.

Adding the review category in the decision is a de minimis burden on the Administration. It’s simply an additional sentence at the end of the decision stating Medical Review Category <INSERT CATEGORY> is recommended.

While the proposed timing and lack of notification in the process may erode the effectiveness of the change the actual change should be beneficial.  However, the change raises a bigger question – what is the appropriate public policy behind the awarding of disability benefits?

With the proposed change the review categories will be:

Diary category Current policy Proposed policy
MIE 6-18 months 6-18 months (unchanged).
MIL NA 2 years.
MIP 3 years 3 years (unchanged).
MINE 5 to 7 years 6 years.

 

MI is medical improvement, and the categories are Expected, Likely, Possible and Not Expected.  Once an individual is deemed disabled benefits continue until medical improvement has occurred.  Unless there’s a natural process that occurs (such as a bone mending) it’s possible for a person to not receive appropriate medical care until after the review period has passed.  This means that the individual would continue to receive benefits until the next review occurs.

The reason for lack of treatment can range from desire to stay on disability, to inability to afford treatment (Medicare does not attach until 29 months after the disability began), to inability to receive treatment (such as cardiac clearance is denied or a single parent’s inability to care for small children during a surgical recovery period.)  Right now the public policy is combination of determination of benefits (to help those in need) and possible medical improvement (to prevent benefit abuse.)  This policy helps provide assistance to those in need, but is not focused on returning the individual to the workforce.  Although some effort is made to assist individuals who want to return to the workforce (such as the Ticket to Work program) these efforts are directed to helping individuals who have an impairment find work they can do despite the impairment.

The proposed change, albeit coarse grained, is a different public policy.  The proposed change is geared towards restoring health.  A focus on restoring health opens up a wider range of vocational opportunities for the individual.  Helping those in need is an admirable goal.  However, the individual and society are both better served when the individual is able to return to the workforce.  The individual not only benefits from the inherent dignity of work, but they also have more disposable income which leads to more opportunity for a higher quality of life.  Society benefits from both the cessation of the economic outlay in paying benefits to the individual as well as from the economic activity generated by the individual.  This latter public policy consideration needs more exploration and should be a part of any plan to “save” the system from financial insolvency.

For more information see:

Current Rules

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-1590.htm

Proposed Rule Change

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/18/2019-24700/rules-regarding-the-frequency-and-notice-of-continuing-disability-reviews

Apostle Claver is running in HD138

by

From the InBox:

apostle claver

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 30, 2019

 

PRESS RELEASE – KAMAU-IMANI OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCES CANDIDACY FOR HD138

Apostle Claver T. Kamau-Imani is officially announcing his candidacy for the Texas House of Representatives, District 138.

A political activist for over 40 years, Kamau-Imani skyrocketed to national and Texas prominence during the rise of the Tea Party movement.  He quickly gained the reputation of being an exhilarating speaker, and an even harder worker. He has been called the state’s most powerful conservative voice.

Kamau-Imani’s focus has been growing the Republican Party through racial diversity, and pressing the party to advance the issues of life, liberty, and prosperity.

Kamau-Imani states, “The purpose of a primary election is for a party to select a nominee.  For the voters of House District 138, this will be their most important decision. Which candidate for this office has the track record of being on the offensive against tyranny and the Democrats?  Which candidate will beat the Democrat nominee in November of 2020?”

House District 138 is an open seat following the September 25 announcement by State Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston) that he would not seek another term.  Bohac won the 2018 general election by 47 votes.

“This is a 50-50, Caucasian versus color district with a large population growth.  Our party nominee must know how to reach these new voters and be wise enough to campaign in precincts where GOP candidates don’t normally tread,” said Kamau-Imani. “I will be the only candidate in this race that has the experience and track record of success to do just that.  Get votes where the GOP doesn’t usually get votes. This is how the GOP will hold this seat.”

Kamau-Imani’s impressive 46-member exploratory committee will be restructured as a steering committee.  Eric Zuleger of Spring, Texas has been appointed campaign treasurer.

“Democrats smell blood in the water of HD138.  This is not a time for neophytes, or those with insufficient battle scars to enter this fray.  To win in November it will take a candidate who is aggressive, unafraid, articulate, and has an unparalleled grasp of the issues most important to Texans.  Our candidate must have the depth of policy knowledge, and be able to explain those policies succinctly. That candidate is me,” said Kamau-Imani.

“When I win this election, the citizens of HD138 will have the representation they deserve. A public servant that put’s Texans first, and will never yield on the principles of life, liberty, and prosperity.”

Kamau-Imani is the founder, president, and CEO of RagingElephantsRadio.com.

###

Contact: [email protected]

I’ve known Claver for a long time. I’d definitely vote for him if I were in that district.

One Low-Level Criminal In Jail Is One Less Criminal On The Streets

by

In 2014, the voters of California approved Proposition 47 which reduced a number of felonies to misdemeanors.  As long as the total value of the stolen property is under $950, shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks are no longer classified as felonies.  A thief may now steal anything under $950 every day and his crimes will never rise to the level of a felony.

California Democrats and the ACLU touted Prop. 47 as a means of using the funds saved by reducing the prison population for the police to go after violent and serious offenders, and for school programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment.  Those behind Prop. 47 even mislead the public by titling it the “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.”

California law enforcement officials are blaming Proposition 47 for a significant rise in property crimes.  San Francisco, the mecca of uber-leftism, has become the nation’s leader in burglary, car break-ins, thefts and shoplifting since Prop. 47 went into effect.

There have been proposals to pass a law similar to Prop. 47 in the Texas legislature.  The Democrats, with the help of Republicans, succeeded in reducing car break-ins from a felony to a misdemeanor.  A former investigator with the Galveston County Auto Theft Task Force tells me the reduction to a misdemeanor has led to a huge increase in car break-ins.

The move to reduce property crime felonies to misdemeanors is spreading across the country.  Rachael Rollins, Boston’s district attorney, has pledged not to prosecute 15 crimes, among them trespassing, shoplifting, thefts under $250, and receiving stolen property.  But she went further than that by including charges of drug possession with intent to distribute. And worst of all, she refuses to prosecute resisting arrest charges where that was the sole charge and resisting arrest charges when the arrest was made for any of the 15 crimes on her list.

Dallas district attorney John Creuzot has ‘decriminalized poverty’ by refusing to prosecute theft of personal items worth less than $750 and other misdemeanors that he believes often stem from poverty.

San Antonio’s DA Joe Gonzales has gotten the Sheriff and police chiefs in Bexar County to agree with his ‘cite and release’ policy in which arrests are not made for marijuana possession, misdemeanor theft, driving with an invalid license, and criminal mischief.  Additionally Gonzales will not prosecute when the possession of Schedule 1 drugs is less than 0.25 grams.  Schedule 1 drugs include heroin and Ecstasy.

To her credit, liberal Harris County DA Kim Ogg has not up to now gone along with the move to decriminalize low-level crimes.

The soft-on-crime wolves in Texas have already reduced car break-ins to misdemeanors.  Harris County Republicans and the state Republican Party must be ever on guard to keep those wolves from getting their paws any further in the door, lest Texas becomes just one more San Francisco.

Liberals may refer to them as low-level crimes, but don’t tell that to the victims of these criminals.  I remember a liberal professor at College of the Mainland who ranted against how unjust the criminal justice system was.  That is until a thief stole his VW bug out of the college parking lot.  Then he screamed to high heaven that the thief of his car should be hanged … and he meant it.

I have coined the following phrase: One Low-Level Criminal In Jail Is One Less Criminal On The Streets.  That’s something the crime victims of San Francisco would most likely and wholeheartedly agree with.

And finally, here is a lesson from Criminology 101: Today’s low-level, non-violent criminal may be tomorrow’s murderous criminal.  That serial hot check writer you try to stop may whip out a pistol instead of a pen, and shoot you dead.