Texas Bill To Outlaw Synthetic "Pot"

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 the Texas Senate passed a bill to outlaw synthetic "pot" and another regarding other drugs to the State House.

SB 263 will ban "Pot Pourri", "K-2", "Saliva" and other so-called synthetic marijuana substances. These items are currently legal for purchase in some tobacco shops. Many traditional cannabis users started using these synthetic substances in lieu of marijuana because of its legal status.

The bill lists 15 base compounds plus numerous variations of each. It reads like an advanced chemistry text with compound names such as Naphthoylindole, Naphthylindolecarboxamide, Naphthoylpyrrole, and Phenylacetylindole. The full bill text and complete list is available here.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the designation for criminal prosecution and other purposes of certain chemicals commonly referred to as synthetic cannabinoids as controlled substances and controlled substance analogues under the Texas Controlled Substances Act. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Subdivisions (5) and (6), Section 481.002, Health and Safety Code, are amended to read as follows: 
             (5)  "Controlled substance" means a substance, including a drug, an adulterant, and a dilutant, listed in Schedules I through V or Penalty Group [Groups] 1, 1-A, [or] 2, 2-A, 3, or [through] 4. The term includes the aggregate weight of any mixture, solution, or other substance containing a controlled substance. 
             (6)  "Controlled substance analogue" means: 
                   (A)  a substance with a chemical structure substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II or Penalty Group 1, 1-A, [or] 2, or 2-A; or 
                   (B)  a substance specifically designed to produce an effect substantially similar to, or greater than, the effect of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II or Penalty Group 1, 1-A, [or] 2, or 2-A. 
       SECTION 2.  Section 481.1031, Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       Sec. 481.1031.  PENALTY GROUP 2-A.  Penalty Group 2-A consists of any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of a synthetic chemical substance, including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, listed by name in this section or contained within the following structural classes defined in this section [compound that is a cannabinoid receptor agonist and mimics the pharmacological effect of naturally occurring cannabinoids, including]: 
                   WIN-55,212-2;
             Naphthoylindole: any compound

Senate Bill 264 places "Ecstasy", "DMA", "MDMA", "Bath Salts" and other related drugs into Class 1-A and Class 2 penalty scales. This appears to be an effort to crack down on the production, distribution, possession, and use of these dangerous drugs. The bill passed a Senate vote on April 18, 2013 and will likely pass a House vote in the near future.

As with SB 263, SB264's text reads like an inorganic chemistry text. The full bill and the affected controlled substances can be found here.

Here is a short excerpt:

SECTION 2.  Section 481.1021, Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       Sec. 481.1021.  PENALTY GROUP 1-A. (a)  Penalty Group 1-A consists of: 
             (1)  lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), including its salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; and 
             (2)  compounds structurally derived from 2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine by substitution at the 1-amino nitrogen atom with a benzyl substituent, including: 
                   (A)  compounds further modified by:
                         (i)  substitution in the phenethylamine ring at the 4- position to any extent (including alkyl, alkoxy, alkylenedioxy, haloalkyl, or halide substituents); or 
                         (ii)  substitution in the benzyl ring to any extent (including alkyl, alkoxy, alkylenedioxy, haloalkyl, or halide substituents); and 
                   (B)  by example, compounds such as:
                         4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) phenethylamine (trade or other names: 25B-NBOMe, 2C-B-NBOMe); 
                         4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) phenethylamine (trade or other names: 25C-NBOMe, 2C-C-NBOMe); 
                         2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methyl-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) phenethylamine (trade or other names: 25D-NBOMe, 2C-D-NBOMe); 
                         4-Ethyl-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) phenethylamine (trade or other names: 25E-NBOMe, 2C-E-NBOMe);

San Antonio Area Proposes New Schools

Judson Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas proposes a bond referendum to build two new schools.

The construction will cost taxpayers $83 million dollars.

One proposed school is Coppergate Elementary on an 18 acre lot near Anderson Loop (1604) and Thornton Lane. The new facility should decrease the student to teacher ratios at both Converse Elementary and Salinas Elementary. The starting enrollment is estimated near 560 students.

The second facility is a new high school near the intersection of Evans Road and Nacogdoches Road.  Upon opening, the school will enroll an estimated 850 students, freshmen and sophomores only. The second year of operation will extend to juniors as approximately 400 new freshmen enroll. The third year will expand to a four year high school, anticipating a freshmen class of 350 more.

New facilities with reduced teacher to student ratios should enhance student learning as long as parents still have input and oversight on transparent curricula.

Early voting on the bond referendum starts Monday April, 29, 2013 extending through May 7, 2013. The actual election day is May 11, 2013.

Parents and district residents should take a closer look at the proposal pamphlets circulating around the district. The merits of the expansion are obvious. The means of budgeting and allocating funds, however, may seem misleading.



The proposal claims the $83 million dollars will not come from raising any tax rates on ad valorum or property taxes.

San Antonio already voted to raise sales tax rates as part of Mayor Fidel Julian Castro's Pre-KSA sales tax increase.

The funds come from refinancing the public debt the school district already owes. In essence, they are not raising any funds or revenues to pay for the projects. They are borrowing the money. They are increasing the per capita public debt burden upon the tax payers. In essence, this means taxpayers will pay much more in the long run.

The refinancing will be at a lower interest rate. The refinancing itself is a good idea. However, fiscal responsibility would lean towards using the amount saved on interest payments instead to pay down the principle.

Refinancing usually means paying off a current loan, including interest and penalties, with a new loan at a lower interest rate. Using this method to "pay for" new properties isn't really a refinance proposal. Instead, it turns into a second mortgage in order to pay for the expansion.

The bond proposal is worded to sound as though the money will magically appear at no cost to taxpayers. A logical examination makes it appear more to be a "buy now, pay (a lot) later" payment plan. Those plans always seem to slow individual prosperity when done by a single family. In fact, the federal Dodd-Frank housing loan Act that enabled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used a similar strategy that caused the housing market to collapse.

The bond proposal only covers the construction and maintenance of the new facilities. It does not cover payroll costs for educators, faculty, or administrative staff.

San Antonio is already one of the cities in America with the highest per capita public debt. It would seem that responsible, ethical, and reasonable politicians and citizens would look first to pay down that debt before borrowing money we have no real plan to repay.

That is the real question posed before taxpayers.It comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Each voter in the district needs to be asking "how much will this cost me, in aggregate, over the next ten years". Another way of phrasing that same question would be "What is my share of the mortgage?".

Politicizing A Tragic Terrorist Attack

News reports concerning the terrorist bombing of the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013 contain speculation, finger pointing, and other potentially misleading assessments.

What we know is that there were two improvised explosive devices constructed of pressure cookers, ball bearings, ans explosives of some sort.

We know that federal authorities detained a person of interest. That person of interest is a Saudi Arabian national. They executed a warrant on his residence and removed some items that may or may not be evidence. Current reports indicate that he may not have been involved at all, but just another victim.

We know that, at the time of writing this, 3 people were killed and over 150 wounded including 17 critically.

We do not know if there was a group involved.

We cannot logically assume that it was a TEA Party member. the evidence we have at this point doesn't support such an assumption at this time.

We also cannot logically assume that it was a left-wing domestic group such as many members of Anonymous or the so-called "Occupy Movement".

However, given what we do know now, we can make a tentative guess that it may possibly have been somebody affiliated with Al Qaeda or another such group. But we are not sure.

Yet left-wing propaganda spin doctors have alleged it was the work of somebody who opposes increased taxation.

The symbolism doesn't match. Yes, the attack was on "tax day". But it was not on some entity like the IRS. It was an attack on free Americans participating in a sporting event.

The symbolism of the attack taking place on Massachusetts' "Patriots Day" does merit left-wing symbolism. But it also meets criteria for Al Qaeda's symbolism.

However, in all the attempts to discover "who" was responsible, a few politicians have emphatically stated they will aggressively investigate "why" the attack took place.

"Why?"

It can be important to the motive behind the attack, which will assist in any prosecution.

However the question also seeks to "not let a good disaster go to waste" that leftist activists take political advantage of on a regular basis. It's one of Alinsky's tactics, after all. It is also one that blames the victim.

Questioning "why" the attack took place seeks to blame the dead, the injured, and the targets for being victims instead of placing full responsibility and blame upon the armed aggressor.

The runners and spectators were not actively engaged in hostilities against a foreign power. At the moment they were attacked, they were non-combatants. One of the dead was an 8 year old boy. It is highly doubtful that the boy conducted any form of aggressive action against any group.

Yet, Barack Obama and his cronies seek to blame that 8 year old boy for being attacked by a monster.

He blames the gun for the murders Adam Lanza committed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

He blames New York City for being in the path of Hurricane Sandy.

Now he blames the victims of a terrorist attack for being attacked.

That is why he wants us to find out "why" the attack occurred. It is so he can blame our culture for inviting the attack. Next he will demand a ban marathons so that marathons can no longer be bombed by a terrorist.

In the aftermath, when people demand to know why intelligence activities didn't prevent the attack, he will blame it on Congress and taxpaying conservatives. He will do so by blaming the "sequester" cuts that he proposed and supported int he bill that legislated them. The very bill he happily signed and executed.

I propose we find out "who". I propose we apply due process and prosecute the monster. If found guilty, I propose we carry out a fair and just punishment and publicly execute the monster on live television.

"Why" won't bring justice. It isn't our culture that needs to change.

Texas Voter Reform Extends PEVL to Military

A new voter reform bill passed a Senate floor vote and was received by the House in the Texas State Legislature will change PEVL timelines and extend early voting to military members stationed outside the state.

The Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) is maintained by the Texas Secretary of State's office. It lists registered voters qualified to vote early, by mail.

Military Service Members often retain voter registration in their Home of Record. A Home of Record is the residence the military member lived on the day they entered military service. Others change their state of residence later in their careers due to intentions to separate of retire to the new state once their service obligation is completed.

Many service members change their state of residence to Texas for a variety of reasons. One is that Texas has no state income tax. Others purchase land in Texas while stationed at one of the numerous military bases in the state such as Fort Hood, Fort Sam Houston, or Fort Bliss.

The new bill, if passed, would extend PEVL registration to military service members. In the past few elections, military absentee ballots have raised controversies in several states. Some states have encountered problems issuing the ballots in a timely manner. Others fail to tally the ballots before the election results are certified, leaving military absentee ballots essentially uncounted.

Changing military service members from an absentee ballot status to the PEVL will better insure their ballots are received in time and their choices are tallied in a given election.

SB 904 reduces many of the grace periods currently established for absentee and early ballots. This further decreases the opportunities for ballots to be altered or fraudulently cast. The time limits give unscrupulous individuals far less time to alter the ballots. This could assist in decreasing instances of fraudulent or altered ballots.

Here is an excerpt from the lengthy bill:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the adoption of certain voting procedures and the modification of certain election deadlines, including those necessary to implement the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Section 101.007, Election Code, is amended by adding Subsection (d) to read as follows: 
       (d)  The secretary of state shall make a checklist or similar guidelines available for optional use by early voting clerks in processing an application and providing balloting materials under this chapter. 
       SECTION 2.  Subsection (b), Section 101.107, Election Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       (b)  A voter who receives a ballot under this subchapter must return the ballot in the same manner as required under Section 101.057 except that a voter who completes a signature sheet is not required to complete a carrier envelope. Except [and, except] as provided by Chapter 105, the voter may not return the ballot by electronic transmission. 
       SECTION 3.  Subsection (a), Section 145.092, Election Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       (a)  Except as otherwise provided by this section, a candidate may not withdraw from an election after 5 p.m. of the fifth [third] day after the deadline for filing the candidate's application for a place on the ballot. 
       SECTION 4.  Subsections (a) and (b), Section 172.054, Election Code, are amended to read as follows: 
       (a)  The deadline for filing an application for a place on the general primary election ballot is extended as provided by this section if a candidate who has made an application that complies with the applicable requirements: 
             (1)  dies on or after the fifth day before the date of the regular filing deadline and on or before the first [79th] day after the date of the regular filing deadline [before general primary election day]; 
             (2)  holds the office for which the application was made and withdraws or is declared ineligible on [or after] the date of the regular filing deadline [and on] or [before] the first [79th] day after the date of the regular filing deadline [before general primary election day]; or 
             (3)  withdraws or is declared ineligible during the period prescribed by Subdivision (2), and at the time of the withdrawal or declaration of ineligibility no other candidate has made an application that complies with the applicable requirements for the office sought by the withdrawn or ineligible candidate.
       (b)  An application for an office sought by a withdrawn, deceased, or ineligible candidate must be filed not later than 6 p.m. of the fifth day after the date of the regular filing deadline [81st day before general primary election day].  An application filed by mail with the state chair is not timely if received later than 5 p.m. of the fifth day after the date of the regular filing deadline [81st day before general primary election day]. 
       SECTION 5.  Section 172.057, Election Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       Sec. 172.057.  WITHDRAWN, DECEASED, OR INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE'S NAME OMITTED FROM GENERAL PRIMARY BALLOT.  A candidate's name shall be omitted from the general primary election ballot if the candidate withdraws, dies, or is declared ineligible on or before the first [79th] day after the date of the regular filing deadline [before general primary election day].
       SECTION 6.  Subsection (a), Section 172.058, Election Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       (a)  If a candidate who has made an application for a place on the general primary election ballot that complies with the applicable requirements dies or is declared ineligible after the first [79th] day after the date of the regular filing deadline [before general primary election day], the candidate's name shall be placed on the ballot and the votes cast for the candidate shall be counted and entered on the official election returns in the same manner as for the other candidates. 
       SECTION 7.  Subsections (a) and (c), Section 202.004, Election Code, are amended to read as follows: 
       (a)  A political party's nominee for an unexpired term must be nominated by primary election if: 
             (1)  the political party is making nominations by primary election for the general election in which the vacancy is to be filled; and
             (2)  the vacancy occurs on or before the fifth [62nd] day before the date of the regular deadline for candidates to file applications for a place on the general primary ballot [general primary election day]. 
       (c)  If the vacancy occurs after the 10th day before the date of the regular filing deadline, an application for the unexpired term must be filed not later than 6 [5] p.m. of the fifth day after the date of the regular filing deadline [15th day after the date the vacancy occurs or 5 p.m. of the 60th day before general primary election day, whichever is earlier].

Texas Law on Qualification to Instruct Armed Teachers

A Texas bill outlining the requirements to certify instructors and the minimum course requirements for arming teachers was passed by a Senate floor vote on April 15, 2013.

As reported earlier, SB 17 will face a floor vote some time this week. That bill dictates the requirement for education professionals and school employees to take a course approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

SB 1857 directs DPS on the minimum qualification a firearms instructor must meet in order to be certified to teach those courses. If further outlines the minimum skills and classes that are to be included in the course.

The qualifications include specialized training normally conducted at advanced levels in police academies and military training. Such topics include basic protection of students, increasing accuracy under duress, and means of denying as assailant from even entering a classroom.

The tactics and techniques direct reasonable escalations and measures to take first. They seem to emphasize the use of deadly force as an absolute last resort. Most armed law-abiding citizens as well as martial artists agree that the use of force should always be a last resort, when no other means available will reduce or mitigate the threat.

Per SB 17, the course will be free of charge to two school employees from any school that does not employ full-time armed security or police protection on site. Schools may send additional employees for certification. But the costs of the course will be the responsibility of the district, school, or individual. This law will also apply to open-enrollment charter schools.



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the certification of certain qualified handgun instructors to conduct school safety training. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.1901 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 411.1901.  SCHOOL SAFETY CERTIFICATION FOR QUALIFIED HANDGUN INSTRUCTORS.   
(a)  The department shall establish a process to enable qualified handgun instructors certified under Section 411.190 to obtain an additional certification in school safety.  The process must include a school safety certification course that provides training in the following: 
             (1)  the protection of students; 
             (2)  interaction of license holders with first responders; 
             (3)  tactics for denying an intruder entry into a classroom or school facility; and 
             (4)  methods for increasing a license holder's accuracy with a handgun while under duress. 
       (b)  The school safety certification course under Subsection (a) must include not less than 15 hours and not more than 20 hours of instruction. 
       (c)  A qualified handgun instructor certified in school safety under this section may provide school safety training, including instruction in the subjects listed under Subsection (a), to employees of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school who hold a license to carry a concealed handgun issued under this subchapter. 
       (d)  The department shall establish a fee in an amount that is sufficient to cover the costs of the school safety certification under this section. 
       (e)  The department may adopt rules to administer this section.

Texas 2nd Amendment Preservation Bill

In accordance with the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, The Texas House will to vote on a Second Amendment Preservation bill as early as Monday April 15, 2013.

With several other bills that would restore Second Amendment rights to Texas citizens left "pending" in committee, HB 928 will see its day on the House floor.

The Second Amendment Preservation bill essentially invokes the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. That amendment states that any authority or power not explicitly granted to the federal government by the US Constitution is reserved to the states or individuals. Such a bill is nicknamed a "nullification" bill. If a majority of the states enact similar legislation or amendments to their state constitutions, ideally, the federal law becomes unenforceable.

The language of the Second Amendment Preservation bill clearly states that no state, county, or local law enforcement employee or officer will be allowed to participate in or enforce any federal law that infringes upon the Second Amendment. That is, they cannot do so unless the state has similar restrictions, laws, or regulations in the state's government or penal codes. Specified restrictions include those on magazine capacity, accessories, and firearms themselves.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the enforcement of certain federal laws regulating firearms, firearm accessories, and firearm  ammunition within the State of Texas. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Chapter 1, Penal Code, is amended by adding 
Section 1.10 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 1.10.  ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING FIREARMS, FIREARM ACCESSORIES, AND FIREARM AMMUNITION. (a) In this section: 
             (1)  "Firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01. 
             (2)  "Firearm accessory" means an item that is used in conjunction with or mounted on a firearm but is not essential to the basic function of a firearm. The term includes a detachable firearm magazine. 
       (b)  An agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state, and a law enforcement officer or other person employed by an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state, may not contract with or in any other manner provide assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition that remains exclusively within the borders of this state if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration 
requirement, that does not exist under the laws of this state.

Other gun-related legislation that may soon see a floor vote includes SB 164. That bill will likely see a Senate floor vote this week. The bill establishes special provisions for honorably discharged military veterans. Veterans will be able to request a special code on their concealed carry licenses and other relevant identifications indicating they are a veteran. The identifier is meant to honor veterans and identify the higher level of weapons proficiency, safety, marksmanship, and use of force training veterans routinely receive as part of their military service.

Some opponents of the bill fear the identifier may later be used to justify a mass revocation of the licenses. There exist several segments of society who attempt to create fear of veterans, painting all vets as extremely psychologically disturbed and dangerous. The bill operates on the exact opposite premise, that most veterans have proven to be more responsible and safe with firearms.



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the issuance to veterans of specially marked licenses to carry a concealed handgun and specially marked personal identification certificates. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Section 411.174, Government Code, is amended by adding Subsection (b-1) to read as follows: 
       (b-1)  The application must provide space for the applicant to: 
             (1)  list any military service that may qualify the applicant to receive a license with a veteran's designation under Section 411.179(e); and
             (2)  include proof required by the department to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive that designation. 
       SECTION 2.  Section 411.179, Government Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: 
       (a)  The department by rule shall adopt the form of the license.  A license must include: 
             (1)  a number assigned to the license holder by the department;
             (2)  a statement of the period for which the license is effective; 
             (3)  a statement of the category or categories of handguns the license holder may carry as provided by Subsection (b); 
             (4)  a color photograph of the license holder; 
             (5)  the license holder's full name, date of birth, hair and eye color, height, weight, and signature; 
             (6)  the license holder's residence address or, as provided by Subsection (d), the street address of the courthouse in which the license holder or license holder's spouse serves as a federal judge or the license holder serves as a state judge; [and] 
             (7)  the number of a driver's license or an identification certificate issued to the license holder by the 
department; and 
             (8)  the designation "VETERAN" if required underSubsection (e). 
       (e)  In this subsection, "veteran" has the meaning assigned by Section 411.1951. The department shall include the designation "VETERAN" on the face of any original, duplicate, modified, or renewed license under this subchapter or on the reverse side of the license, as determined by the department, if the license is issued to a veteran who: 
             (1)  requests the designation; and 
             (2)  provides proof sufficient to the department of the veteran's military service and honorable discharge. 
       SECTION 3.  Section 521.101, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Subsection (l) to read as follows: 
       (l)  The application for the personal identification certificate must provide space for the applicant: 
             (1)  to voluntarily list any military service that may qualify the applicant to receive a personal identification certificate with a veteran's designation under Section 521.102; and 
             (2)  to include proof required by the department to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive that designation. 
       SECTION 4.  Subchapter E, Chapter 521, Transportation Code, is amended by adding Section 521.102 to read as follows: 
       Sec. 521.102.  DESIGNATOR ON PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO VETERAN. (a) In this section, "veteran" means a person who: 
             (1)  has served in: 
                   (A)  the army, navy, air force, coast guard, or marine corps of the United States; or 
                   (B)  the Texas National Guard as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code; and 
             (2)  has been honorably discharged from the branch of the service in which the person served. 
       (b)  The department shall include the designation "VETERAN" on a personal identification certificate issued to a veteran in an available space on the face of the personal identification certificate or on the reverse side of the personal identification certificate if: 
             (1)  the veteran requests the designation; and 
             (2)  the veteran provides proof sufficient to the department of the veteran's military service and honorable discharge.



Contact your district's Senator and Representative to express your support of both of these bills as soon as possible. There is very limited time before the floor votes will occur.

Texas Arming Teachers: Legislative Hurdles

Before Texas can start arming teachers, there are still some legislative hoops to jump through and hurdles to navigate.

On Monday April 15, 2013's Senate Intent calender is SB 17, which mandates special safety training for school employees in order for them to carry concealed firearms. The idea is districts, private schools, and open-enrollment charter schools will have the option to allow select teachers to do so.

The criteria to be among the select group is for the school employee (teacher, administrator, janitor, etc) to already have a current concealed carry license with a current favorable background screening. Most school employees have similar background screenings conducted regularly in order to allow them to teach in the first place. So, those with concealed handgun permits would have double the screening.

The bill then mandates that those selected would require special safety, escalation of force, and use of force training as well as additional marksmanship training. That training would be necessary for any uniformed security personnel as well.

Any school that does not have full-time armed security or police officers guarding the school will be allowed to send two employees to the Department of Public Safety's training program at state expense. Any additional personnel will be at the cost of the district, school, or individual. There is no limit to the maximum number of trained personnel who can work at the school. This, of course, is still restricted by the employees' ability to meet the eligibility criteria.

The requirements for advanced situational and marksmanship training are common-sense measures. Adding the criteria that those eligible must already have concealed carry licenses is as well. There are many education and indoctrination professionals who oppose Second Amendment protections. Most of them have little to no experience in firearms or firearms safety. Furthermore, most of them have phobias concerning firearms. It is prudent to not arm a school worker who is more likely to shoot their own foot off in a crisis, or worse, instead of stopping an attacker.


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to the training in school safety of certain employees of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school authorized to carry a concealed handgun on school premises. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Chapter 37, Education Code, is amended by adding 
Subchapter J to read as follows: 
SUBCHAPTER J. SAFETY TRAINING FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES 
       Sec. 37.314  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING PROGRAM FOR DISTRICT OR OPEN-ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL EMPLOYEES LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN. 
(a) The Department of Public Safety shall establish and maintain a training program in school safety and the protection of students for employees of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school who hold a license to carry a concealed handgun issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who are authorized to carry a concealed handgun under Section 46.03(a)(1), Penal Code, and selected by the board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school to attend the training program. 
       (b)  Each school year, the Department of Public Safety shall provide the training program under Subsection (a) at no charge for two employees at a school campus that does not have security personnel or a commissioned peace officer assigned full-time to the school campus. 
       (c)  The Department of Public Safety may provide the training program under Subsection (a) to school employees in addition to those attending the training under Subsection (b) on payment of a fee by the school district or open-enrollment charter school employing the employee. 
       (d)  This subchapter does not waive any liability or immunity of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school or The Department of Public Safety or of an officer or employee of the district or charter school or the Department of Public Safety. This section does not create any liability for or a cause of action against a school district or an open-enrollment charter school or The Department of Public Safety or an officer or employee of the district or charter school or The Department of Public Safety. 
       SECTION 2.  The Department of Public Safety is required to implement Section 37.314, Education Code, as added by this Act, only if the legislature appropriates money specifically for that purpose. If the legislature does not appropriate money specifically for that purpose, The Department of Public Safety may, but is not required to, implement Section 37.314, Education Code, as added by this Act, using other appropriations available for that purpose.



A similar, more detailed bill was introduced to the State House. As of March 14, 2013, HB 1896 is left "pending" in committee. That means the committee has no intent to bring it to a floor vote, even if the bill would likely pass. Other key legislation that would restore Second Amendment protections also remain pending, unless petitions and constituent contact pushes the committee and House to act.

SB 17, however, will likely come to a Senate floor vote sometime this week. The bill is rather popular among conservative parents who wish to see their children protected. Many believe that had one of the slain teachers or the school janitor at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed, Adam Lanza would not have harmed or killed as many people as he did.

Gosnell It Isn't Abortion, It's Murder

Not many are aware of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his associates. However, this case deserves national attention. Gosnell and his associates are accused of killing far more children than Adam Lanza did in the Sandy Hook shooting.

Gosnell stands accused of running an abortion clinic that performed late-term abortions including those well past the legal maximum age. Some were so far past that maximum development date that the children were born and alive. He killed them outside the womb. These were not so-called "partial birth" abortions. The acts described by witnesses were nothing short of the slaughter of innocents.

One witness even described how one child was born, was laying on a table breathing, and moving. The "doctor" performing the surgery snapped the child's neck. The child still moved and breathed. So the "doctor" decapitated the baby.

Another witness describes how O'Neill and Gosnell would tell her to use terms other than child, infant, or baby in efforts to dehumanize the born-alive children.

Kermit Gosnell ran a clinic. At the clinic, he performed abortions. He employed another doctor, O'Neill, who lost her license. Yet Gosnell kept her working. Kermit was originally being investigated for allegedly giving out fraudulent prescriptions for controlled substances (such as Oxycodone). The investigation sparked a raid. During that raid, the authorities discovered  the horrors of  possible "late term abortions" that were allegedly so late in the term that the children were born alive, then decapitated or asphyxiated. many of these procedures (read: murders) were allegedly performed by O'Neill who was practicing medicine without a license. Workers at the clinic included a 22 year old woman that started there at age 15. Some of her testimony, so far, claims she was administering medicine and assisting in late-term abortions since she started working at the clinic. Other claims allege some of the live-born children were bludgeoned to death or even thrown into medical waste bins while still alive.

There are even suspicions of patients dying of overdoses while undergoing these procedures.

As more and more testimony and evidence is presented, the case becomes more and more disgusting and disturbing.

The evidence is still being presented. It is an ongoing trial. These allegations are suspicions. The jury will decide if the claims are true and adequately supported by the evidence.

Some who may defend the actions Gosnell and O'Neill stand accused of may call these actions "late-term abortions".

Let's call them what they were:  infanticide.

Even those who support the Roe v Wade decision that allows for abortions within the first 23 weeks of development have to take pause at the disgusting crimes.

Obama stated, in the past, that he supports late-term and partial birth abortions. These cases of infanticide are common practice by clinics who perform late-term abortions. They do so to cover-up the live births of these children. If born alive, they cannot, legally, be aborted. Why? It's no longer abortion. It's infanticide, the murder of innocent children.

However, there hasn't been a peep out of the administration about these horrible acts. That is probably because Obama is a busy man. He has your constitutional protections of natural rights to undermine, an economy to topple, and property to steal.

The mainstream national media (warning, link contains graphic content including pictures of murdered babies)  has been largely silent as well. One of the reporters who covered Sandra Fluke's outrage that a church wouldn't buy her 11 condoms a day was deemed a story about "federal policy". However, the federal government's stance on infanticide somehow isn't as important as Fluke's right to be promiscuous, and demand taxpayers support her sex addiction. When asked why she wasn't covering the story, Washington Post reporter Sarah Kliff replied that infanticide and federal abortion laws are somehow not federal health policy issues.

@mzhemingway Hi Molly - I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.
— Sarah Kliff (@sarahkliff) April 11, 2013

It matters little what your views on abortion, infanticide, late-term abortions, and partial birth abortions may be. This story does include and affect federal policy. Unlike Kimmy and Khloe Kardashian's current butt-cheek measurements, this deserves discussion and dialogue. It deserves national attention.

Texas Bill To Expand Parents' Voice in Education

A bill entered on the Texas Senate's intent calender may expand parents' voice in education at the local and district level.

Senator Patrick, who is spearheading the fight to reign in CSCOPE, sponsored SB 1236. The bill should see a floor vote soon.

If passed, the bill seems to increase parental rights, particularly parents' voice in the disposition of schools that are not operating to established standards.

The bill does not fully enact any form of school choice legislation such as a voucher program. It does not increase any amenities offered to home-schooled students.

What it does, however, is force local school boards, commissioners, and district superintendents to act in accordance with the desires of their bosses, the parents of the students.

If a school or district performs unsatisfactorily or below acceptable standards, parents of the students can file a petition. That petition must include a form of solution, not just a redress of grievances. If the parents of the majority of the students of the affected campus sign the petition, the commissioner shall take the actions outlined by the petition.

For example, say the social studies program in the school uses Howard Zinn's revisionist history text books in its curriculum. Let's say that the school fails to achieve satisfactory performance in history and social studies. So the parents draft a petition to change to more accurate texts, taking Zinn's works out of the curriculum as their plan. If the petition then garners enough signatures, the commissioner shall find more appropriate texts, moving Zinn's books to the library for reference purposes only.

The bill expands to include closing the schools, changing the management plan, changing personnel, and other legal options for the institutions.

At least, that is how most people should understand SB 1236, as seen below:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED  AN ACT  relating to allowing parents to petition for repurposing, alternative management, or closure of certain public school campuses. 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: 
       SECTION 1.  Section 39.107(e-2), Education Code, is amended to read as follows: 
       (e-2)  For purposes of this subsection, "parent" has the meaning assigned by Section 12.051. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, if [If] the commissioner is presented, in the time and manner specified by commissioner rule, a written petition signed by the parents of a majority of the students enrolled at a campus that is assigned an unacceptable performance rating under Section 39.054 for two consecutive school years [to which Subsection (e) applies], specifying the action described by Subsection (e)(1), (2), or (3) that the parents request the commissioner to order, the commissioner shall, except as otherwise authorized by this subsection, order the specific action requested.  The commissioner shall verify that a petition received under this subsection contains the required number of signatures.  If the board of trustees of the school district in which the campus is located presents to the commissioner, in the time and manner specified by commissioner rule, a written request that the commissioner order specific action authorized under Subsection (e) other than the specific action requested in the parents' petition and a written explanation of the basis for the board's request, the commissioner may order the action requested by the board of trustees.

Inch by inch, Texas is dancing around School Choice. With Common Core State Standards Initiative knocking at the state's door and the controversy over the management and implementation of CSCOPE curricula awakening increased parental involvement in their children's education, each step closer is a step in the right direction for proponents of education reform.

Korea Situation Shakes Off Complacency

Alaskabased Interceptor Missile, Designed to stop North Korean Taepo Dongs, among other threats
Photo Courtesy of the US Dept. of Defense

Those following world events over the past few weeks may have noticed the Korea situation that's been developing.

Kurt Schlichter, in his weekly Town Hall column, published his fictitious future-history account of how he saw the Korean War ending if hostilities rekindled into all-out war. Most people forget that the Korean War never ended. We are currently in the middle of a very long cease-fire. 

This is not anything new. This cycle started with Kim Jong Un's grandfather, Kim Il-Song. His father, Kim Jong-Il continued the tradition. Now, Un is just following in their footsteps.

Looking back over the past 15 years, there is a noticeable trend. The North Koreans conduct a test or two in the early spring. Next, as the spring thaws make it bearable, they begin some military exercises near the DMZ. Meanwhile, the current Kim Jong Tyrant utters threats. Sometimes the oligarchy does some form of socio-economic rain dance complete with banging drums to represent thunder.

Recent eyebrow-raising tests have included when, under Il, North Korea test-fired No Dong and Taepo Dong missiles. One such test, in 1998, sent the missile over Japan and into the ocean. It demonstrated a potential capability to range Alaska. 

Usually, the allied forces in South Korea counter with their own exercises.

Sometimes, North Korea infiltrates some of their special operations and reconnaissance personnel. Sometimes those people get caught like in 1996 when their submarine was compromised.

The dance goes on for a couple of months. Then the rhetoric quells. The North Korean leader gains some face-points with his subjects and the world stage. The rest of the world sighs in relief. Nothing of real substance is gained or lost on either side.

Eventually, summer comes. Summer and winter are not overly favorable to North Korea. The winters bring harsh conditions to the mountains. Those conditions can cause mechanical issues for military equipment. They also tend to bring down the morale of any poor infantry slob that North Korea would force to fight in them.

Spring thaws out the mountains. The rice paddies thaw creating an almost natural obstacle. This allegedly may slow the advance or counter-attack by allied forces. The reality has not been tested in modern times. However, in the 1950s, it was a fact of life.

US Forces Korea, Allied Forces Korea, and a few US Based military units conduct a large joint exercise each spring as well. We have been doing so for years and years. 

During summer, those paddies dry significantly. Historically, North Korea and the Kim Jong Tyrants have been thoughtful of this. Just as the paddies are thought to slow any potential counter-attack, summer enables them.

So what makes this year any different?

North Korea tested a nuclear explosive device. The device may or may not be ready for weaponizing in the near future.

North Korea evicted all South Korean workers from the Kaesong Industrial Plant. The plant, just north of the DMZ, was meant to be a partnership. It was meant as a commercial opportunity for peace. But Un ordered it closed off to the South. South Korea cut funding. Now the plant is closed, or will be shortly.

Most likely, Un will use his state-run propaganda "media" to tell people it was closed to protect the North Koreans who worked there from being taken advantage of from the evil capitalists. You see, though the workers probably earned better wages and worked under better conditions, they were being taken advantage of.

Then there is the ultimate wildcard. Kim Jong Un is young. His education is much different than his father's.

We knew quite a bit about Il. At one time, there were even some unverified but believable rumors. For instance, Il supposedly had a doctorates in classical music. Allegedly his favorite band was the Bee Gees. Even more outrageous, but believable, was that Il supposedly composed a symphony based upon the band's hits. For this, some began referring to Kim Jong Il as "Disco Stu".

We just do not seem to have that sort of grasp on Un, yet. It may be years before we do.

Un seems more impetuous. He seems less predictable. He is the next generation, and all that comes with it. The generation gap seems to cause some concern among North Korea's military leadership. Yet, they seem poised to blindly follow his orders, regardless.

This lack of predictability does beget an air of caution. We cannot gamble on whether or not North Korea would Nuke the South, or Japan, or Guam, or Russia, or India, or the US. We have to assume Jong-Un would. 

We have to take the stance of "Fear not the country with 100 nukes aimed at the US with the leader stamping his feet and making threats. Fear the one madman with one nuke who will strike without warning."

Taking the above into consideration presents a giant warning sign. More than likely, this is just the same old springtime dance to new music. But the beat has changed. It's a warning against the complacency that built during Kim Jong Il's later years. We must stay ever vigilant.

We cannot flinch. That could give North Korea the excuse to act. We cannot ignore it, either. That would leave us vulnerable should they attack. We have to maintain that zen balance, ready to act when appropriate.

From that perspective, it is just the same old stuff remixed, reheated, and served up again on a different day.