Campus Gun Prohibition Prevented Mass Shooting

Did Texas's current gun prohibition on college campuses prevent a mass shooting?

The current evidence indicates that it did not. In fact, statements made by the shooter reported on Atlanta's WSB radio station state that Dylan Quick had long desired to commit a "mass stabbing".

Even if the prohibition of licensed concealed carry on the premises of all educational institutions, including colleges, were repealed last year, it would not have affect Quick.

Quick is only 20 years old. He is still a minor and not eligible for a concealed carry license. If Texas had constitutional open carry, he still wouldn't have been able to legally carry due to his age.

Quick's weapon of choice was a blade, not a firearm.

Quick put over 10 people in the hospital with serious wounds. Others were treated for injuries at the scene. A couple deemed their injuries superficial and refused medial care. In all, there were over 15 victims.

Dylan Quick could have killed several had his proficiency been better. Many of the injuries he inflicted were to faces and necks. Those could have been slashes to the carotid artery or jugular vein. Such injuries would have been immediately life threatening.

Anti-gun proponents may spin this incident. They may claim that the prohibition saved all those lives. They may claim that if Quick had used a gun, those people would be dead.

If HB 972 had been passed, that would not be the case, at all.

Several witnesses to Quick's stabbing rampage stated that allowing concealed firearms permit holders would have prevented many of the stabbings. One such licensee even stated that had he been allowed to carry his firearm, Quick's victims may have been limited to one or two instead of over 15.

HB 972 was left pending in committee as of March 14, 2013. The bill lifts the blanket prohibition of firearms on college campuses. That prohibition didn't prevent a mass shooting at Lone Star College January 23, 2013. Firearms are banned on college campuses.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education.
 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 411.2031.  CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON CERTAIN CAMPUSES. (a)  For purposes of this section: 
             (1)  "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education. 
             (2)  "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code. 
             (3)  "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code. 
       (b)  A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state. 
       (c)  Except as provided by Subsection (d) or (e), an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution. 
       (d)  An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution. 
       (e)  A private or independent institution of higher education in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on premises that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.
       (g)  This section does not permit a person to possess a concealed handgun, or go with a concealed handgun, on the premises of a preschool, elementary school, or secondary school that is located on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education if the
institution gives effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code.

SECTION 3.  Section 46.03, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (c) and adding Subsections (j) and (k) to read as follows: 
       (a)  A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a): 
             (1)  on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless: 
                   (A)  pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution; or 
                   (B)  the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section applies, on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education, on any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of the institution;
       (j)  Subsection (a)(1)(B) does not permit a person to possess a concealed handgun, or go with a concealed handgun, on the premises of a hospital maintained or operated by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education if the hospital gives effective notice under Section 30.06. In this subsection, "hospital" has the meaning assigned by Section 241.003, Health and Safety Code. 
       (k)  Subsection (a)(1)(B) does not permit a person to possess a concealed handgun, or go with a concealed handgun, on the premises of a preschool, elementary school, or secondary school that is located on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education if the institution gives effective notice under Section 30.06.

Meanwhile, students at select campuses in Georgia are staging a protest on April 10, 2013. The students favor amending Georgia law to allow permit holders to carry concealed on college campuses. This comes in the wake of several violent crimes at these Atlanta area colleges, including rape, armed robbery, attempted murder, and assault over the past three or more years. The students plan to openly wear their holsters, with no firearms. The stabbing incident at Lone Star College further bolsters their claims.

Adults over 21 should be allowed constitutional carry, as long as they have no judicial order or sentence prohibiting it. That constitutional right should extend to all public property. It should extend to private property unless the owner makes it explicitly clear that he or she prohibits them. That is an individual right. If a private college wishes to prohibit firearms, they should post signs. It's their right, as private property.

HB 972 is an important step towards restoring the constitutional protections of the Second Amendment.

Texas Bill -- Want Gov't Assistance? Pass a Drug Test

A bill on the Texas Senate's intent calender for an upcoming floor vote would mandate drug testing to receive welfare handouts.

Texas is not the first state to attempt to mandate drug testing as part of an application to receive government assistance ("welfare") funding. Florida is among the others to pass similar laws. So was Georgia. In both cases, federal appeals courts determined those state laws unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Texas bill, SB 11,  differs only slightly. It does not preclude access to federal funds, only to state managed funds.

The test results are not usable for criminal evidence except in instances where the applicant has previously been convicted of a felony drug crime, is still on probation or parole, and is still subject to mandatory testing anyway.

The bill would make those who fail the screening ineligible for state welfare payouts for one year. This is after a second, confirmation test, is also failed. Anyone denied financial assistance three consecutive times is made permanently ineligible.

Those tested also include parents applying on behalf of minor children.

SECTION 1.01.  Subchapter B, Chapter 31, Human Resources Code, is amended by adding Section 31.0321 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 31.0321.  DRUG SCREENING AND TESTING; ELIGIBILITY.
   (a)  In this section: 
             (1)  "Commission" means the Health and Human Services Commission. 
             (2)  "Controlled substance" has the meaning assigned by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code. 
   (b)  Except as provided in Subsections (f) and (g), each adult applicant for financial assistance benefits, including an applicant applying solely on behalf of a child, who initially applies for those benefits or who applies for the continuation of those benefits must submit to a controlled substance use screening assessment to establish the applicant's or the child's eligibility for the benefits.  In addition, each minor parent who is the head of household must submit to a controlled substance use screening assessment on the initial application for financial assistance benefits and on any application for the continuation of those benefits to establish the minor's eligibility for the benefits. 
       (c)  A person whose controlled substance use screening assessment conducted under this section indicates good cause to suspect the person of controlled substance use shall submit to a drug test to establish the eligibility of the person and the person's family for financial assistance benefits. 
       (d)  Except as provided in Subsection (e), a person whose drug test conducted under this section indicates the presence in the person's body of a controlled substance not prescribed for the person by a health care practitioner is ineligible for financial assistance benefits for the person and the person's family for a period of 12 months beginning on the first day of the month after the month in which the drug test was administered. 
       (e)  A person who is denied financial assistance benefits because of the results of a drug test conducted under this section may reapply for financial assistance benefits six months after the first day of the month after the month in which the drug test was administered if the person provides proof of the person's successful completion of or current enrollment in a substance abuse treatment program. A person reapplying for financial assistance benefits must submit to a drug test as required by Subsection (f), regardless of whether the person is continuing to receive substance abuse treatment. 
       (f)  A person who is denied financial assistance benefits because of the results of a drug test conducted under this section must submit to a drug test, without first submitting to a controlled substance use screening assessment, at the time of any reapplication for financial assistance benefits and on any application for the continuation of those benefits to establish the eligibility of the person and the person's family for the benefits. 
       (g)  A person who has been convicted of a felony drug offense must submit to a drug test, without first submitting to a controlled substance use screening assessment, at the time of an initial application for financial assistance benefits and on any application for the continuation of those benefits to establish the eligibility of the person's family for the benefits. 
       (h)  If a person is denied eligibility for financial assistance benefits three times because of the results of a drug test conducted under this section, the person and the person's family are permanently ineligible for those benefits.
       (i)  Before denying financial assistance benefits under this section, the commission must: 
             (1)  notify the person who submitted to a drug test of the results of the test and the commission's proposed determination of ineligibility; and 
             (2)  confirm the results of the drug test through a second drug test or other appropriate method. 
       (j)  The commission shall: 
             (1)  use the most efficient and cost-effective controlled substance use screening assessment tool that the commission and the Department of State Health Services can develop based on validated controlled substance use screening assessment tools; and 
             (2)  pay the cost of any controlled substance use screening assessment or drug test administered under this section out of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant funds. 
       (k)  The commission shall report to the Department of Family and Protective Services for use in an investigation conducted under Chapter 261, Family Code, if applicable, a person whose drug test conducted under this section indicates the presence in the person's body of a controlled substance not prescribed for the person by a health care practitioner. 
       (l)  The executive commissioner of the commission shall adopt rules implementing this section.

The bill also addresses other reforms to handout programs including explicitly stating items that EBT funds are restricted from purchasing. Looking at the list, it makes perfect sense. Moneys intended to help feed and house a family should not be used on entertainment, gambling, alcohol, or other vices.

ARTICLE 3. USE OF TANF BENEFITS
 
       SECTION 3.01.  Section 31.0355, Human Resources Code, is amended by adding Subsection (c-1) to read as follows: 
       (c-1)  A retailer who accepts payment for goods and services through the EBT system shall ensure that financial assistance benefits are not used to purchase goods and services the purchase of which is not authorized under this section or rules adopted under this section, including alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, lottery tickets, adult entertainment, firearms, ammunition, and bingo.

The bill also establishes a limit for the duration a person may receive the government assistance to a cumulative 36 months. Such a limit should motivate recipients to become self-sufficient rather than milking hard working tax payers.

ARTICLE 4. TANF TIME LIMITS 
    SECTION 4.02.  Section 31.0065, Human Resources Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       Sec. 31.0065.  TIME-LIMITED BENEFITS. (a)  Subject to the exemptions adopted under Section 31.0067, the Health and Human Services Commission [The department] may provide financial assistance under this chapter only in accordance with the time limits specified by this section. [The department by rule may provide for exceptions to these time limits if severe personal hardship or community economic factors prevent the recipient from obtaining employment or if the state is unable to provide support services.] 
       (b)  The Health and Human Services Commission [department] shall limit financial assistance provided to a person and the person's family to a cumulative total of 36 months of financial assistance benefits and 12 months of transitional benefits [and transitional benefits in accordance with the following schedule:

These reforms are a start towards prosperity. They place individual consequences on individual's choices thereby increasing individual responsibility and accountability. In addition, they maintain granting assistance to those who truly need it. If you can afford that $40 for weed, you can afford to spend the money on food instead.

Background Checks and National Registry

Several proposals to infringe upon Second Amendment protections face federal congressional consideration in the near future. Among them are three bills regarding "universal background checks".

Allegedly, these bills do not create a national gun registry. All three are sponsored by socialist ideologues. That fact should give way to suspicions based in history. Infamous socialists and communists did so in the past not long before starting firearm confiscations. Not long after, all of them committed epic atrocities. For a short list of these tyrants: Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. 

In our own history, King George attempted to impose firearms restrictions upon the colonists not long before our War for Independence. Georgie also forced people to house his military against their will, telling them they did not own their land.

Rep. McCarthy (D-NY-4) proposed HR 137. The bill requires any gun owner to go through a licensed firearms dealer to sell his private property to another. The licensed dealer must perform background checks on both parties. Allegedly, the data is not to be shared with the US Attorney General for database purposes. Yet, data on the weapon and the transfer must be reported to the USAG. The forms will include names, serial numbers, and the results of background checks. Common sense dictates that the USAG cannot insure these transfers are done in accordance with this law without keeping some form of database. While they may not be directly tracking the gun owners, they will be tracking the licensed dealers, to include auditing. Doing so means that private, individual gun ownership will still be databased and checked. Otherwise this unconstitutional laws wouldn't be enforceable.

Socialist Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) won his last election by allegedly being in favor of Second Amendment protections. Yet his bill, SB 649, doesn't even pretend to outlaw such a registration database. It does exempt familial transfers and inheritance from requiring a licensed dealer.

The one bill that may raise the eyebrows of most proponents of the Second Amendment is SB 374, sponsored by Socialist Senator Schumer (D-NY). In many aspects, Reid's bill mirrors Schumer's.

The part that may frighten citizens is that part that was struck from the bill:

[Struck out->] SEC. 2. FINDINGS. [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->] Congress makes the following findings: [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->] (1) Congress supports and respects the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->] (2) Congress supports the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry. [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->] (3) There are deficits in the background check system in effect before the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records. [<-Struck out]

[Struck out->] (4) If the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership criminals and the mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people. [<-Struck out]

 

Are they in favor of a national gun registry? Why? Well the answer is simple. They want to know who owns what and how much so they will know form whom to start confiscating in the future.

Are there deficits in the background check system? Perhaps. However, those perceived loopholes are part of other constitutional protections such as due process under law, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the equal protections guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Seeing a shrink should not be reported to the federal government. It is none of their business. If a judge has to issue a court order regarding mental competency, any restriction of constitutional rights needs to be carefully considered by that justice before restriction or suspension. Failing to do so undermines constitutional protections against tyranny.

HIPPA laws prohibit the sharing of medical information with the government without patient consent. The federal government demanding those medical records is a severe violation of individual privacy. It violates the Privacy Act of 1974 as well as the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant specifying the collection of specified items on a specified subject regarding a specified entity (person).

Citizens need to look at the facts and determine their own conclusions. However, the proposed legislation should be raising many, many questions.

You don't have to go through a car dealer to sell your car. You do not have a constitutional right to own and drive a vehicle. You do have a constitutional right to own and carry a firearm. You also have constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. You have constitutional rights against self-incrimination especially in regards to unconstitutional legislation. You have a right to due process within the courts.

First it will be your guns. Next it will be your bank accounts. Then your kids. Then your books. Then your pens. Then your vocal cords. Then your possessions. Then your thoughts. Then your entire identity. Then your life. If we keep negotiating where to redraw the line, we'll keep giving up those very foundational natural rights we all agree must be protected. 

Our founding fathers drew that line in 1775. In 1787, they more clearly defined it. It is up to us to defend that line or lose everything we hold dear.

The Iron Lady Will Not Rust

This morning I sighed as I heard the news. My wife and daughter were getting ready for the day. I was making and packing their lunches. Hearing my sigh, my wife looked and asked what it was about.

"Margaret Thatcher died of a stroke this morning."

"That sucks. Isn't she that English woman we saw the movie about?"

My wife is a few years younger than I. In fact, she was just 5 years old when Thatcher left office in 1990. I was a senior in College.

I am currently writing a book about my "political awakening". It's more about my growth over the years and how certain incidents, events, and gold nuggets dug up while researching various things during the course of my life shaped my individual political ideology. Margaret Thatcher is surely one of the more influential people.

I was born the year Nixon was elected for his first term. I spent my younger years under Ford and Carter. Even at a young age, I was excited and relieved when Reagan was elected in 1980.

Thatcher took office as Prime Minister in 1979. There is little doubt her policies and early administration shaped the political landscape that led to Reagan's election in 1980.

In 1979, gasoline prices were well over $1 a gallon. "Stagflation" due to government interference in the market was prolonging one recession and setting the stage for a second. I was too young to recall the exact timeline. But I remember that recession hitting my family in 1980.

I remember the 5lb blocks of cheese-flavored wax that were good only for grilled cheese sandwiches, if you added tomato and Tabasco to them.

I remember the "generic food" craze.

I remember the hostage crisis. I remember Carter's defense budget being ultimately responsible for the failed Desert One mission to rescue them.

I remember Thatcher. I recall her statements regarding that hostage crisis. I remember her criticism of Carter's "don't do anything but talk" tactic.

I remember her statement "the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money to spend". 

I remember Thatcher's decision to fight over the Falklands.

I remember Thatcher uniting with Reagan's administration in seeking to win the Cold War. They did so economically but prepared to do so with military force. Neither sought to fire the first shots of such a war, but were determined to fire the last ones. 

She was a tough old bag, worthy of admiration.

My wife wasn't even born when most of those incidents occurred. Her experience of Thatcher is mostly from that movie, which starred a blatant and unapologetic socialist, Meryl Streep. Despite that ideological diametric opposition, Streep still portrayed Thatcher rather respectfully.

Thatcher was one of those women you point towards when your daughters look for great role models. You would be hard-pressed to find better. Thatcher was tough. She was smart. She was compassionate. She was successful. She was the first (and so far only) female British Prime Minister. She was a leader when the world needed leadership.

Even though she didn't live through most of Thatcher's accomplishments while in office, my wife does hold Thatcher in high regard. When my wife faces a conflict, she is not afraid to stand her ground and fight. Like Thatcher, she checks the facts, gets the data, makes a decision, and sticks with it.

Thatcher was somebody who lived by the creed of leaving a place better than she found it. She did so in Parliament. She did so as Prime Minister. Now, she has done so with the world. She leaves it better than she found it. Even the incursion of socialism since the days of Thatcher and Reagan has not yet undone their great efforts. Yes, the world is a better place because of Margaret Thatcher. Today, it's a worse place without her.

As we morn her passing, please, my friends, give Mrs. Thatcher the respect she earned. Do so by celebrating her achievements.  Though them, the Iron Lady will not rust, ever.

Texas Bill To Centrailze Charter School Governance

Texas State Senator Dan Patrick of Houston proposed a bill that seeks to centralize charter schools governance placing authority in a newly created state board.

SB 2 may face a floor vote in the near future. It is currently on the intent calendar for Monday April 8, 2013. The lengthy bill seeks several reforms to charter schools. Among those reforms is the establishment of a Charter School Authorizing Authority (CSAA).

The CSAA will assume responsibilities and authorities that were held by the State Board of Education (SBOE). The SBOE is a governing body of 15 elected offcials. The CSAA would be a 7 member board of appointees.

This raises some questions concerning the autonomy of charter schools and parental voices in the governing process. Appointees are not subject to the direct views of the voters or parents. While such a governing body may seek to lessen the whims of the political environment upon charter schools, it instead places them at the mercy of appointed bureaucrats.

SECTION 3.  Chapter 12, Education Code, is amended by adding Subchapter A-1 to read as follows: 
SUBCHAPTER A-1. CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZING AUTHORITY
       Sec. 12.007.  ESTABLISHMENT; POWERS AND DUTIES. (a) The Charter School Authorizing Authority is established to oversee the operations of charter schools in accordance with this chapter, including: 
             (1)  granting charters for: 
                   (A)  open-enrollment charter schools under 
Subchapter D; and 
                   (B)  college or university or junior college 
charter schools under Subchapter E; 
             (2)  revoking charters and imposing other sanctions in accordance with Subchapters B, D, and E; and 
             (3)  monitoring charter holders of open-enrollment charter schools under Subchapter D. 
       (b)  The authority shall adopt rules as required by this chapter and may adopt other rules as authorized by this chapter. 
       Sec. 12.0071.  COMPOSITION. The authority is composed of seven members appointed as follows: 
             (1)  four members appointed by the governor, one of whom must be appointed from a list of candidates submitted to the governor by the speaker of the house of representatives; 
             (2)  one member appointed by the lieutenant governor; 
             (3)  one member appointed by the chair of the State Board of Education; and 
             (4)  one member appointed by the commissioner. 
       Sec. 12.0072.  ELIGIBILITY FOR APPOINTMENT. To be eligible to be appointed as a member of the authority, a person must have demonstrated expertise in at least one of the following: 
             (1)  public or nonprofit governance; 
             (2)  management and finance; 
             (3)  public charter school leadership; 
             (4)  school assessment, curriculum, and instruction; or 
             (5)  public school law. 
       Sec. 12.0073.  TERMS; VACANCY. (a) The members of the authority serve staggered four-year terms, with the terms of either three or four members expiring February 1 of each odd-numbered year.
       (b)  A vacancy on the authority shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment for that position. 
       (c)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a), the initial members appointed shall determine by lot which three of the seven initial members will serve terms that expire February 1, 2015, and which four of the seven initial members will serve terms that expire February 1, 2017. This subsection expires January 1, 2018. 
       Sec. 12.0074.  PRESIDING OFFICER. The governor shall designate a member of the authority as the presiding officer of the authority to serve in that capacity at the pleasure of the governor. 
       Sec. 12.0075.  MEETINGS. The authority shall meet at the call of: 
             (1)  the presiding officer; or
             (2)  at least four members. 
       Sec. 12.0076.  REIMBURSEMENT. A member of the authority is not entitled to compensation for service as a member of the authority but is entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in performing functions as an authority member, as provided in the General Appropriations Act.

 
       Sec. 12.0077.  SEPARATION OF AUTHORITY AND AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES. The authority shall, in coordination with the agency, develop and implement policies that clearly separate the
policymaking responsibilities of the authority and the management responsibilities of the agency.

Patrick is one of the state's senators who is actively investigating CSCOPE, attempting to place the controversial program under government oversight. SBOE oversight of CSCOPE combined with transparency and parental choice is a needed reform. Patrick seems to favor placing CSCOPE under the auspices of the SBOE, an elected body. Program transparency would then enable parents a say in the program through petition and the ballot box at election time.

Dan Patrick's SB 1406 will, essentially, accomplish the above hopefully before CSCOPE can damage our children any further:

SECTION 1.  Subchapter B, Chapter 8, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 8.0531 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 8.0531.  STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OVERSIGHT OF CURRICULUM-RELATED SERVICES AND PRODUCTS. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter or Section 8.001(c), the State Board of Education shall maintain oversight and direction of the activities of a regional education service center, acting alone or in collaboration with one or more other regional education service centers, concerning: 
             (1)  any service or product related to student curriculum, or; 
             (2)  integration of instructional materials with curriculum management materials for delivery of instructional materials and related materials or aids to enable public access, including parental access, in accordance with Section 26.006.

Placing charter schools under a governing body separate from the SBOE could shield it from CSCOPE and other whims of the Texas Education Agency. However, the CSAA and the SBOE would both fall under the State Commissioner of Education.

However, too much government oversight in any industry is known to decrease productivity. In this case, the productivity is the educational development of our children. Parents should have a direct voice in how their children are being educated.

To counter this, the bill seeks to make it easier for areas to establish "home-rule" districts that should grant parents a more direct say in how their kids are educated at the local level.

SB 2 also enables charter schools to use educational facilities that are idle or under-used. The bill establishes a means for those publicly-owned facilities to be bought or leased by the charter schools within the district boundaries. Instead of sitting idle and sucking taxpayer dollars, they would be used to increase productivity. A facility being effectively utilized is much better than an underutilized (or unused) tax vacuum.

This increases the P3 (Public-Private Partnership) relationship between charter schools and the local communities. In doing so, it generates better opportunities and options for parents and students.

SECTION 1.  Subchapter D, Chapter 11, Education Code, is amended by adding Sections 11.1542 and 11.1543 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 11.1542.  OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL OFFER FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY. (a) The commissioner shall by rule adopt a procedure and criteria for determining whether an independent school district facility or a portion of a district facility is unused or underutilized by the district. Each year, the commissioner shall, using the procedure and criteria adopted, identify for each district any district facility or any portion of a district facility that is unused or underutilized. Each year, the agency shall post on the agency's Internet website a list of each district's unused or underutilized facilities and portions of facilities. At the request of an open-enrollment charter school, a district shall provide to the charter school a list of unused and underutilized district facilities and portions of district facilities as identified by the commissioner.
       (b)  This subsection applies only to a school district facility or a portion of a district facility identified by the commissioner under Subsection (a) as being unused or underutilized by the district. If the charter holder of an open-enrollment charter school makes a written offer to a district to lease or purchase a district facility or a portion of a district facility identified as being unused or underutilized, the district shall enter into an agreement to lease or sell, as applicable, the facility or the portion of the facility to the charter holder for use by the open-enrollment charter school for classroom instruction. The price for the lease or sale must be $1.

What this bill does not do is increase parental rights for school choice. But it is a much needed step towards creating alternatives so those choices may be available in the future, should the state move to establish a school choice program.

March Numbers Indicate More Economic Trouble

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly report for March 2013. The report opens with the U3 unemployment rate, stating that the rate is unchanged at 7.6% with little change to long-term (over 27 weeks) figures still around 4.6 million.

The bad news is, yet again, in the workforce participation rate. The WPR declined from 63.5% to 63.3%. That mean almost half a million people (496,000) stopped bothering to even try to find a job.

That artificially makes the U3 and U6 unemployment rates appear higher. The number of unemployed versus the whole population of eligible workers has, in fact, jumped.

If the workforce were the same today that it was in December 2008, Bush's last full month in office, the U3 unemployment would be closer to 11.2%. The U6 would be 15.6% instead of the 12.5% reported.

The stagnant U3 unemployment rate taken into complete context with the declining participation rate and increasing consumer price index (CPI), an indicator of inflation, displays a dismal sight.

In addition the increased printing of fiat money and the recent jumps in the Dow Industrial Average, S&P 500 and NASDAQ figures indicate another economic "bubble burst" might be imminent. The US still has not yet recovered from the last recession.

Other federal executive policies revolving around interest rates, government housing subsidies, mortgage lending policies similar to the Dodd-Frank fiasco that caused the last housing market bust, and the increased participation in SNAP, TANF, and other government subsidies dim the picture even more.

Scriptures speak of seven fat years and seven lean years. We are in the seven lean years. They are about to get leaner. These policies may even prevent the seven fat years from returning on time.  

Texas May Suspend School Performance & Accountability Reports

A bill coming to a floor vote in the Texas Senate would suspend public schools' requirements to file school performance, progress, and accreditation reports for the 2012-13 school year.

SB 1109, if passed, will suspend accountability reporting, as well as other vital reports. In addition, it will suspend sanctions and interventions on schools that are improperly reporting information or failing to perform to state standards.

With allegations of corruptions and fraud resulting in indictments in places such as Fulton County, Georgia, Texas education accountability and reporting  bills bring some sighs of relief to parents and taxpayers. But, SB 1109 seems to cast a legislated smoke-screen to obfuscate important data regarding school performance.

SECTION 1.  Section 39.116, Education Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a), (b), (e), (f), and (g) and adding Subsection (e-1) to read as follows: 
       (a)  During the period of transition to the accreditation system established under H.B. No. 3, Acts of the 81st Legislature, Regular Session, 2009, to be implemented in August 2013, the commissioner shall [may] suspend assignment of accreditation statuses and performance ratings for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
school years [year]. 
       (b)  As soon as practicable following the 2012-2013 [2011-2012] school year, the commissioner shall report district and campus performance under the student achievement indicators under Sections 39.053(c)(1)(A) and (B). 
       (e)  During the 2011-2012, [and] 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 school years, the commissioner shall continue to implement interventions and sanctions for districts and campuses identified as having unacceptable performance in the 2010-2011 school year in accordance with the performance standards applicable during the 2010-2011 school year and may increase or decrease the level of interventions and sanctions based on an evaluation of the district's or campus's performance. 
       (e-1)  Subsection (e) does not apply to districts or campuses that would have improved performance ratings had the performance standards applicable during the 2012-2013 school year been in effect in the 2010-2011 school year. 
       (f)  For purposes of determining multiple years of unacceptable performance and required district and campus interventions and sanctions under this subchapter, the performance ratings and accreditation statuses issued in the 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 [2012-2013] school years shall be considered consecutive. 
       (g)  This section expires September 1, 2015 [2014]. 
       SECTION 2.  Subsection (c), Section 39.116, Education Code, is repealed.

With it seems a continuous flow of complaints over CSCOPE curricula and other course-ware that seems aligned with the International Baccalaureate scholastic program sponsored by the UN, the bill arouses some suspicions.

School choice programs work only with school transparency. All steps proposed or taken by the state of Texas that lead towards education reform or school choice hinge upon the reporting and publication of this data. So, why would some legislators seek to halt school performance and accountability reports?

As Lou Ann Anderson and others reported, Texas officials have an ongoing inquiry into CSCOPE. That inquiry is concurrent with a bill that proposes to place CSCOPE directly under the oversight of the State Board of Education.

The controversial program seems to lack oversight. The program also lacks transparency. Until recently, parents were denied visibility of its curricula. That curricula has included forcing children to dress in burqas or pledge allegiance to foreign nations. The math curricula also include word problems championing socialism with exercises in the confiscation and redistribution of private property. The recent changes have allowed only limited parental scrutiny. This is an overt denial of parental rights.

SB 1109 appears to be an attempt to stall these inquiries and limit the publication of data that would demonstrate the impact of the CSCOPE course-ware. If CSCOPE is the wonderful program its proponents claim, then why hide its results? 

Texas Legislative Two-Step On Gun Rights

The Texas state legislature is doing a two-step around the issue of Gun Rights and Second Amendment protections.

A bill, SB 299,  facing an imminent floor vote in the state Senate seeks to make Section H concealed carry laws more in line with common sense. Currently, under the law, if a concealed carry license holder is in public and their handgun "pines", they could face criminal penalty.

"Pining" is when clothing is slightly tight or, through routine movements catches on the weapon or holster presenting an outline of the weapon. It also includes if the bearer should move and a portion of the weapon shows.

The bill would change the law making that offense valid only if the bearer intentionally displays the weapon in a threatening manner. That would include pointing to the weapon, intentionally pulling concealment away to reveal the weapon, or any other act that intentionally draws attention to the weapon in a threatening manner.

The bill further clarifies that the act of exposing the weapon is an offense only if not in response to a situation that does not warrant an armed response or use of deadly force for protection.

In other words, it would no longer be a crime if the weapon should accidentally become exposed, revealed, or pines. That is just plain common sense.

Below is the applicable portion of the bill:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

 
       Sec. 46.035.  UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9. 
       (b)  A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person.

The Senate is also poised for a floor vote on SB 1467 which entices gun, ammunition, and gun accessory manufacturers to move from states with greater infringements upon second amendment protections to Texas.

However, bills that would enforce second amendment protections such as allowing open carry (with permit), allowing constitutional open carry (no permit necessary), and others remain stuck in committees despite overwhelming testimony and data supporting the bills.

This sends an unclear and mixed message to taxpaying citizens who want nothing less than to be allowed to live in the United States with full enjoyment of the natural rights the US Constitution guarantees.

Texas Education Reform Not Quite School Choice

Between the Texas state House and Senate, there are several bills concerning education reform with imminent floor votes. One of these bills appears to be a half-step towards school choice.

HB 222 returns some amount of authority back to parents. It grants the parents the ability to choose another government school in the same district if the child's current school isn't performing satisfactorily. The metrics used to determine the schools' performance still revolve around standardized tests.

H.B. No. 222
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

  relating to a public school student's eligibility for a public education grant to attend another public school.

 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

       SECTION 1.  Section 29.202(a), Education Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       (a)  A student is eligible to receive a public education grant or to attend another public school in the district in which the student resides under this subchapter if the student is assigned to attend a public school campus: 
             (1)  at which 50 percent or more of the students did not perform satisfactorily on an assessment instrument administered under Section 39.023(a) or (c) in any two of the preceding three years; or 
             (2)  that[, at any time] in either of the preceding two years, was assigned a rating of unacceptable performance [three years, failed to satisfy any standard] under Section 39.054 [39.054(e)].

 
       SECTION 2.  This Act applies beginning with the 2013-2014 school year.

 
       SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

In light of the recent indictment of educators and administrators in Fulton County, GA, SB 122 amends Texas law to allow district judges to remove members of an independent school district's board of trustees, presumably for allegations of misconduct or negligence. Hopefully, if passed, this bill will lead to greater transparency between educators and parents.

SB 123 grants investigators and auditors subpoena powers in regards to public and charter schools. This includes financial records, attendance records, test controls, and any other reportable data. The newest change to the state code is this power is extended in cases of any allegation of inaccurate reporting of accountability or accreditation.  

SB 124 makes reporting inaccurate or falsified data by a public or charter school a criminal offense. This includes changing standardized test scores, falsifying attendance records, and inflating grades. It would be a third degree felony unless done to intentionally defraud taxpayers of the government. Such an instance would be a second degree felony, a higher charge.

Such measures seem a step towards education reform and school choice. They however do not go the extent of establishing vouchers or scholarships that true school choice would include. Most likely, the measures are taken as a compromise between school choice advocates and organizations who oppose school choice and parental rights such as Texas Schools First.

On Texas Schools First's website, they attempt to argue counter to school choice and a voucher program. They act as if tax money belongs to the government. In reality, taxes are citizens' means of paying for good and services provided by the governments. Should schools be failing to meet their customers' satisfaction, those customers should be entitled to a refund and the ability to take their business, and money, elsewhere.

That would mean that should a public school or district fail to meet the parents' standards, parents should have the choice to get that tax money back to use at another educational facility. That facility could be home schooling, charter schools, parochial schools, or private schools.

Using such a system does not "steal" money from public schools. If those schools are not performing but taking tax dollars, they are defrauding the taxpayers. It is they who are conducting the theft, not the parochial or private schools who would benefit from the vouchers.

The voucher system and school choice measures increase teacher and student productivity. They do so by inspiring competition. If public schools are forced to perform or face losing their customers, their performance will increase. Everybody wins. Only die-hard socialists and tyrants would seek to quash such competition.

Georgia Teacher Indictment Justifies School Choice

35 Atlanta, Georgia area education professionals were indicted on charges of theft, racketeering, perjury, and fraud among other charges. The indictment is the result of a 2011 probe into allegations of cheating on federal and state level standardized tests.

Allegedly, teachers, possibly under the direction of administrators, principals, and the superintendent, held "erasure parties". At these parties, according to several renditions of the story, the teachers erased incorrect scores, changing them to correct answers.

The purpose behind the altering the tests was to inflate the student's progress. It was meant to cover up the system of grade inflation being done by the teachers. In addition, it was done to make the teachers and administrators look more effective.

This was not done because the tests were too difficult for the kids. This was not done to protect standardized testing or common core curricula. It was done for money.

Progress is rewarded with grants and bonuses. Part of the funding goes to better equipment. Most of it, however, goes to raises and bonuses for educators.

In other words, this was done to soak taxpayers through fraud.

Who is hurt? The taxpayers lose money that could have been put to better use elsewhere. But it is the students who are hurt. The assessments of their abilities and achievements are left in question. The areas where they need the most attention are hidden. They are hamstrung in pursuing future higher education. They are hamstrung in employment opportunities.

However, if their parents spend the time to fill in those gaps, the damage could be mitigated.

This whole fiasco is a screaming argument in favor of school choice.

Recently, advertisements for Texas Schools First have popped up in and around San Antonio. They oppose school choice. They attempt to argue that the tax money parents pay belongs to the schools and not the students. Point towards the Fulton County Georgia indictments and tell Texas Schools First to take a long hike.

The organization claims that vouchers are theft by charter and private schools. No. That is money taxpaying parents spend on their kids' education. If the local school is failing, then they are not providing the product we paid for. Does that mean they should be paid more? No. It means they should be fired. Parents should be free to take their business, and tax money, elsewhere.

Parents need to be vigilant. The teachers and administrators need to know you are watching. They need to see you visit the classrooms. They need to hear you questioning your kids about what they are learning. If something sounds fishy, it's probably rotting cod. Investigate it. Call your teachers on it. Gather your data and evidence, and challenge the principals with it. Remind them who their real employers are:  YOU!

And do not be afraid to look for other options. You can apply to charter schools. You can tighten your budget and look at private or parochial schools. You can home school (which you should be doing regardless of your child's attendance in a charter or public school). Write your local and state representatives and tell them to back parental rights and school choice, or to start getting their resumes ready.

Those are your kids. That tax money is your money. The choice is yours. Period.