GOP Pushes Balanced Budget Amendment

There are currently two bills circulating the US House of Representatives calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution.

Given that Congress and the president have failed to produce a budget since Bush was still in office, it is apparent that more now than ever a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary. This is further aggravated by the unfathomable fact that the US National Debt is rapidly approaching $17 Trillion. Even with the so-called "sequester" budget cuts, the federal government still overspends its income by $974 Billion this fiscal year.

Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia can be an inviting target of ridicule, especially when he makes statements about the Earth being only 6,000 years old. However, once in a while he backs legislation that redeems his role in Congress. March 14, 2013, Rep. Broun proposed House Joint Resolution 35 (HJR 35) calling for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the US Constitution.

Here is the primary text of HJR 35:

Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a roll call vote.

`Section 3. Outlays for the total budget may not exceed the previous fiscal years' outlays plus population growth and inflation, unless two-thirds of the whole number of each House shall provide for such increase by a roll call vote.

`Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the House of Representatives shall develop a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`Section 5. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the whole number of each House by a roll call vote.

`Section 6. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect, with a vote of a majority of both houses.

`Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`Section 8. All outlays above revenues from the previous fiscal year must be accounted for in the outlays and budgets of the following fiscal year.

`Section 9. All surplus revenues at the end of a fiscal year shall be allocated to a fund to be returned to the taxpayers. The method of return to the taxpayers must be determined by legislation before the end of the subsequent fiscal year.

`Section 10. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government including those for debt service and other debt functions.

`Section 11. This article shall take effect beginning with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification.'.

Rep. Scott Perry, who represents Pennsylvania's 4th Congressional District also proposed a similar resolution, HJR 36. The most glaring difference between the two resolutions is HJR 36's Section 5. Section 5 requires each department of the government to submit justification for any proposed funding request. This particular stipulation may draw some resistance from supporters of the intelligence community. Many times, the justification of these funds would necessitate disclosure of classified information that is above the access level most members of congress do not have the security clearance to review.

Both resolutions contain a "safety valve" waiving the requirements in times of war or severe threat to national security.

Here is the main amendment proposed by HJR 36 for comparison:

Article--

`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote, but in no event shall total outlays for any fiscal year exceed the following: for the first fiscal year for which this article takes effect, 20 percent of the estimated gross domestic product of the United States for that year, and for each subsequent fiscal year, a percentage of the estimated gross domestic product equal to the applicable percentage for the preceding fiscal year reduced by .1 percentage point. Under this section, total spending for any fiscal year is not required to be less than 16 percent of the estimated gross domestic product of the United States.

`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

`Section 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a three-fifths majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.

`Section 5. Any budget plan for a fiscal year for the Government submitted by the President to the Congress shall include a justification by each department or agency of the Government for any funding proposed for that department or agency in that plan. The justification shall include a justification each line item in the budget of that department or agency based upon its effect on carrying out its mission and its effect, if any, on the gross domestic product of the United States and an additional funding level below the requested number that would allow that department or agency to complete all of its critical mission functions.

`Section 6. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

`Section 7. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

`Section 8. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict or after any event which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution or during which a natural disaster is declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a vote by two-thirds of each House, which becomes law.

`Section 9. This article shall take effect beginning with the earlier of the tenth fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after any fiscal year in which the budget of the United States is not in deficit.'.

In addition, Rep. Ron Desantis of Florida's 6th CD proposes further fiscal responsibility. HR 1181 is a bill that, if passed, would cut congressional salaries by 8.2%. The text of the bill is not yet available for public review. However, it would be monumental if this legislation were to pass.

SAVE Act an Important Step Towards Immigration Reform

Almost as though Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri took some cues from Arizona and Texas state level legislation, HR 830, "The SAVE act of 2013", proposes some initial steps towards immigration reform.

The first step in any immigration reform program is to increase border security and improve tracking and verification systems. Those tracking and verification systems are necessary to insuring that lawful immigrants, individuals with work visas, and resident aliens enjoy all the rights and freedoms they seek. They are going through the process the proper and legal way and deserve to not have their efforts infringed upon. Many proposed programs could potentially infringe on those and deter legal and proper immigration. Most Americans highly support proper and legal immigration of good people to our great country.

The SAVE Act suggest numerous reforms. It includes expanded resources, manning, and equipment for the US Border Patrol.

The act includes clearer, more defined crimes committed by illegal aliens. In doing so, it restructures the crimes, allowing more dangerous ones to result in harsher punishments. It defines acts of human trafficking that support terrorism. It addresses human trafficking for slavery purposes. It imposes clearer penalties for drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. It increases aggravated penalties for crimes that directly involve children.

Among one of the better provisions of the bill is the proposal to expand and better fund electronic and digital immigration, residency, and citizenship status databases currently called "E-Verify". The bill further proposes to mandate employers use the program, establishing criminal penalties for failure to do so.

 Here is an excerpt from that portion of the bill:

SEC. 201. MANDATORY EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION VERIFICATION.

(a) Making E-Verify Program Permanent- Section 401(b) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note) is amended by adding before the period at the end of the last sentence the following `, except that the E-Verify Program described in section 403(a) shall be a permanent program'.

(b) Mandatory Use of E-Verify System-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), every person or other entity that hires one or more individuals for employment in the United States shall verify through the E-Verify Program, established by section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 8 U.S.C. 1324a note), that each such individual is authorized to work in the United States. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that verification by means of a toll-free telephone line is an available option in complying with the preceding sentence.

(2) SELECT ENTITIES REQUIRED TO USE E-VERIFY PROGRAM IMMEDIATELY- The following entities must satisfy the requirement in paragraph (1) by not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act:

(A) FEDERAL AGENCIES- Each department and agency of the Federal Government.

(B) FEDERAL CONTRACTORS- A contractor that--

(i) has entered into a contract with the Federal Government to which section 2(b)(1) of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351(b)(1)) applies, and any subcontractor under such contract; or

(ii) has entered into a contract exempted from the application of such Act by section 6 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 356), and any subcontractor under such contract.

(C) LARGE EMPLOYERS- An employer that employs more than 250 individuals in the United States.

(3) PHASING-IN FOR OTHER EMPLOYERS-

(A) TWO YEARS FOR EMPLOYERS OF 100 OR MORE- Entities that employ 100 or more individuals in the United States must satisfy the requirement in paragraph (1) by not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(B) THREE YEARS FOR EMPLOYERS WITH 30 OR MORE EMPLOYEES- All entities that employ 30 or more individuals in the United States must satisfy the requirement in paragraph (1) by not later than three years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(C) FOUR YEARS FOR ALL EMPLOYERS- All entities that employ one or more individuals in the United States must satisfy the requirement in paragraph (1) by not later than four years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Hopefully this bill telegraphs a common sense plan to deal with the illegal aliens already in the US in the near future. Another key portion to immigration reform will be a plan to streamline the process of legally immigrating so that it is easier for good, law-abiding people to immigrate to our great nation. 

Alan Grayson Wants to Tax Donations

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL-9)
Photo Courtesy US House of Rep.
Public Domain

Alan Grayson introduced a bill proposing a 500% excise tax on contributions to Non-Profits that conduct political activism. 

This is the same Alan Grayson who slandered Rep. Paul Ryan by stating Ryan's proposed budget plan meant Ryan wants poor people to die.  This is the same Alan Grayson who supports violating the First Amendment by compelling religious institutions to violate their beliefs and provide abortions and birth control to employees.

The full bill text is not yet available. However, the title itself seems rather self-explanatory:  "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns."

This is most likely in reaction to the Supreme Court Decision regarding Citizens United. Grayson has also suggested other bills directed towards "restoring the rights the supreme court stole from citizens in the Citizens United decision". Ironically, that decision more insured citizens' rights than denying any.

The impact of this law, if passed and deemed constitutional, is that those donations may remain deductible from income taxes. However, they will be taxed at $5 for each dollar donated in the form of an excise tax. That would mean if a citizen donated to GOProud, for example, a $6 donation would grant $1 to the NPO and $6 to the IRS. The tax would not apply to donations given to Planned Parenthood, since they are allegedly an apolitical organization. Reality demonstrates, though, that Planned Parenthood engages in pro-abortion lobbying.

The bill, HR 1111, has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Texas Senate Approves Billing Fed Over Border

The Texas State Legislature approved SCR 6 on March 13, 2013.

The Senate Resolution proposes to send a bill to the US Federal Government to reimburse Texas for some of the costs incurred by the state in enforcing and securing the international border with Mexico.

If the resolution passes the state House of Representatives, the federal government will have to answer for the $221,600,000 that Texas had to spend in order to perform what, constitutionally, are federal responsibilities.

A Tale Of Two Texans -- Castro and Cruz

Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio
(Courtesy of James Gatz, Public Domain)

US Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
(Courtesy of US Senate, Public Domain)

Javier Manjarres of The Shark Tank and I have had a few interesting conversations since we met in North Carolina last May. Javier lives in Florida and covers some of the more exciting politicians on today's national stage including Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who is always a great source of comic relief. Javier also covers Marco Rubio quite extensively. 

Being a first generation American and a child of immigrants, Javier follows many other first generation Americans, especially those of Cuban and Mexican descent. 

One of our recent conversations centered around 2014 and 2016 possibilities. Among them is a reasonable possibility of a showdown of some of these first generation Americans currently in the national spotlight.

It's no small secret that I backed TEA Party favorite Ted Cruz in his election to the US Senate representing the great state of Texas. I was living in Arizona when I first heard of Cruz's bid in the primary. In fact, I was unable to vote for him in either of his primaries or in the November general election since I was still a legal resident of Arizona at the time. Cruz overcame great odds in keeping Dewhurst from attaining the necessary majority to win the first primary. So the two ended up in a runoff primary. With odds stacked against him and little support in key areas of Texas, such as San Antonio, Cruz won. Then he won the general election.

Since officially taking office in January, Cruz has hit DC like a Texas-sized wildfire. He has been very vocal about fiscal reform and government transparency. He is the breath of fresh, conservative air the Senate needed. Among his more recent acts was his overt support of Rand Paul's filibuster during the Brennen confirmation hearings. As freshmen Senators go, he has many similarities to Florida's Marco Rubio. 

Cruz has openly and vocally supported cutting funding to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, since it is a taxation and appropriations bill, officially. 

At a Cuban-Democracy PAC luncheon in Miami, FL, Senator Cruz quite vocally stated that it would be great for both Cuba and the US if Fidel and Raul Castro were to collapse dead like Hugo Chavez recently did.  

Cruz has voted against confirming both Brennen and Hagel, something more "senior" GOP senators were too timid to do. During Brennen's confirmation hearing, Cruz was quite direct in asking about UAS/UAV strikes on US Citizens on US Soil. This same topic was later the cause for Rand Paul to filibuster.

There have been some discussions about a possible presidential race between Rubio and a Texas-based socialist who has also made national news recently. This could lead some to ponder a similar race between Ted Cruz and his fellow Texan, Julian Castro.

Julian Castro's twin brother, Joaquin, is a US Representative for Texxas' 20th Congressional District, which serves part of the city of San Antonio, TX. Julian is currently the mayor of San Antonio. They are of Cuban descent, though Julian reportedly has difficulty speaking Spanish. 

Castro and Cruz are diametric opposites on the political spectrum. Castro, like the tyrants currently oppressing his ancestral home, Cuba, is a diehard socialist. His proposals around the city have kept many in the area from feeling the full prosperity the rest of the state experiences. 

Recently, Castro won a popular victory in a referendum to raise city sales taxes in order to broaden the government schools' pre-K (daycare) program. His efforts are to make the government option so large that private businesses have difficulty competing. His very premises surrounding the proposal expressed this socialist desire for a government take-over of that industry. He claimed that a large number of potential "students" did not have the government option available and parents were unwilling to enroll because those few options were part-time. The reality is that many parents prefer the private options to what the government indoctrination centers can provide. 

This tax hike will now allegedly provide several new jobs for babysitters in government schools. The average starting salary for a public school teacher in San Antonio is roughly $30k a year plus a benefits package that costs tax payers $70k total (salary + benefits) a year for that entry level babysitter. The average teacher in San Antonio makes much more. To contrast, private "Headstart" pre-K providers pay an average of $10 an hour starting pay. That amounts to about $20k a year. In essence, the government program costs tax payers much more than the private options. 

Castro has also been pushing for an increased "light rail" or "streetcar" system in San Antonio. Numerous studies have been done on the cost-benefit analysis. They all have proven that this is a waste of tax dollars that will never be able to recoup, in transit fees, the amount it would take to build the system. When adding in the operating and maintenance costs, the project is nothing but a huge sinkhole of government waste. The failure of Atlanta, GA's T-SPLOST program should serve as an important lesson for Castro. However, it doesn't. 

Castro has allowed San Antonio to be a testing ground for socialist policies. The pre-K program is one example. That won the popular vote by a slim margin in November. In the State of the Union Address, Obama proposed a similar plan on a national scale. 

Castro also opposes several state-level immigration and border security bills. He opposes Sen. Rubio's proposed plan. In fact, Castro opposes anything short of an unsecured border and automatic citizenship. He pleas that San Antonio's education and employment ratings suffer under the current (yet not adequately enforced) immigration laws. Why? Because fear of deportation or prosecution for fraud and identity theft cause illegals to pull their kids out of schools they should not be attending in the first place. Because that same fear causes illegal workers to fail to show to work. New bills in the Texas Legislature will probably make Castro's head explode, since they mirror Arizona's SB-1070, which Castro rather vocally opposed.

This trend should come as no surprise when one recalls that Julian Castro was a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Obama for his second term. If one recalls an earlier DNC while Bush was still in office, a young Senator from the state of Illinois made the keynote address. The next presidential race, he was the leading candidate. This indicates that the socialist caucus of the DNC has big plans for Julian Castro.  

Those plans may include a run at Texas' other US Senate seat. They could also include a bid for the DNC nomination for the 2016 ballot.

 While The Shark Tank did an analysis of possible a possible Rubio versus Castro race, I'd like to explore possible races involving the two Texans. (Javier's analysis is wonderful and worth the time to read).

Cruz may have presidential aspirations in the future. Looking at his character and record thus far, he could make a good president. But Cruz would do better to stay active and vocal in the Senate for at least his full elected term, which would end in 2018, two years after the next presidential election cycle. Given his dedication to the job we hired him to do, he does not seem like a man who would shirk those responsibilities in order to run for president while still in his first term like our current president did. Cruz has more decorum than that. 

Still, if it were to happen, how well would Cruz do against Castro? It would be a tight race. Castro would capitalize on the Obama administration's severe encroachments of socialism. By that time, more Americans will have gotten used to the policies Obama enacted. Like Truman after FDR, Castro would have an edge, especially among those enslaved by government handouts. However, Castro's one failing point would be in confidently claiming the Hispanic/Latino demographic. The race at that point would come down to foundational ideologies and their abilities to sell them to the public. Both have done so in recent years. Cruz proved his grass-roots appeal in his Senate race, despite having the "establishment GOP" opposing him during the primary against Lt. Gov. Dewhurst. 

Cruz would have a better edge against either of the Castro Twins if they challenged him for his Senate seat in 2018. Again, it would be a close race. The Castros could feasibly lock up both Joaquim's 20th CD and Sheila Jackson-Lee's socialist stronghold down in Houston. But Cruz would have a stronger backing throughout the state, especially in Ron Paul's former congressional district. 

Where the races would become interesting is in the Vice Presidential arena. If Castro were the VP running mate to Hilary Clinton, he could do well riding her coat tails. Hilary does well in polling and exploratory surveys against many leading Republican hopefuls. But Hilary may not do as well against firebrand Rand Paul. Rand having either Cruz or Rubio for a running mate would cancel Hilary's claim to the Hispanic/Latino demographic. She would have to face scrutiny on many subjects to include her handling of the Benghazi attacks and her failed handling of the so-called "Arab Spring". So her foreign policy would stack against her. She and Rand could form a fight we have not seen since Bush v Gore or Lincoln v Douglas. 

In both those tickets, the VP choice would end up a major selling point. This is where Castro has little pull. The VP's primary job is to preside over the Senate. Both Rubio and Cruz have experience in the Senate that Castro lacks. Rubio and Castro have had experience with treaties and foreign policy, since major actions of that sort require Senate ratification in order to become adopted. Again, Castro has no real foreign relations or policy experience, except, maybe, sipping mojitos with tyrants such as Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, and Hugo Chavez.

Regardless, the 2016 presidential race and the 2018 mid-term election that would include Cruz's Senate seat are still quite a ways off. We need to keep our eyes on 2014 and watch what all of the above attempt to accomplish between now and then.

Proposed TX Laws Mirrors Parts of AZ-SB1070

Greg Bonnen of League City
(Courtesy of Texas House of Representatives,
Public Domain)

Matt Krause of Fort Worth
(Courtesy of Texas House of Representatives,
Public Domain)

 Fort Worth area representative Matt Krause introduced a bill to the Texas legislature that mirrors part of Arizona's controversial SB1070. The majority of SB1070 was upheld by the US Supreme Court this past summer. Texas, another state plagued with illegal immigrants, is joining Arizona in bolstering its enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Krause's proposed bill mandates that any state, county, or municipal law enforcement officer check the immigration status of anyone detained whose citizenship cannot be immediately determined. H.B. 2187 dictates that the arresting agency conduct checks through the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement's database that is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

If the detainee is found to be in violation of immigration law, the arresting agency must present that evidence to a judge before a bond or bail hearing takes place. In addition, the detainees are then to be transferred to ICE or the US Border Patrol for processing, per federal policy.

In another proposed bill, Greg Bonnen of Austin introduced H.B. 2301. H.B. 2301 will require all employers in Texas to use the E-Verify or similar system to determine the immigration status and employment eligibility of current employees and potential new hires. This law expands the E-Verify mandate to all government agencies and contractors operating within Texas, to include those contracting with the federal government and federal agencies.

Furthermore, this bill clarifies the status of so-labeled "independent contractors". It states that the employing company must still perform E-Verify checks on any contracted personnel performing services, be they "independent", "sub-contractors", or a contracted business. This includes any business performing interstate services, if they employ personnel or perform services within the state of Texas.

As reported last week, Texas SCR 6 is making its way through the legislative process. It has been placed on the Senate's "Intent" calender for March 12, 2013 and may see a vote on Wednesday, March 13,2013. If passed, the resolution will forward a demand to the US Government to reimburse Texas for expenses it incurred enforcing immigration and securing the international border with Mexico.

Since Arizona passed AZ-SB1070, several states, including Texas, have adopted similar laws. The US Supreme Court's decision that upheld the majority of that law has bolstered many states, especially border states, to better enforce federal laws that the federal government seems ill-equipped or otherwise neglects to adequately enforce.

Texas and Arizona Want Refugees From Colorado

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, lawmakers in Colorado have sought measures directed at increasing public safety while decreasing gun-related violence in their state.

Second Amendment proponents and advocates of self-defense have been following the debate closely. The state's legislation's proposed bills include limiting magazine capacity, limiting what firearms can be legally owned, and limiting where firearms can be carried.

Included are proposals to repeal and further restrict concealed carry permit holders from exercising their Second Amendment protected Natural Right to self-defense in and around college campuses. This has brought quite a bit of rebuttal from rape victims around the state.

Some of the legislators have claimed that universities in Colorado have adequate measures to protect women from rape. In essence, the legislation proposes that law enforcement and security personnel on college campuses will do the duty of protecting all potential rape victims, despite several US Supreme Court decisions that state this is an individual responsibility. In fact, these decisions have stated that such duties are beyond those of police.

It appears that gun-grabbers in the Colorado Legislature are hell-bent on violating this natural right that is protected by the Second Amendment. It is becoming more and more obvious that the Colorado state legislature cares little for the general welfare of its citizens, especially female ones.

I offer this one piece of advice to women in Colorado:  MOVE!

The state of Arizona has a female governor. She listens. She understands. She supports the Second Amendment. She supports your right to defend yourself, your property, and your family. Arizona has constitutional carry. That means you can carry open or concealed. Arizona is working towards allowing concealed carry on college campuses. You still have mountains in Arizona as well as some of the most mild and enjoyable weather in the country. Arizona is also home to two great state universities:  University of  Arizona and Arizona State University. Arizona also doesn't subscribe to the demotivating and intrusive practice of changing your clock back and forth during the year. They chose a time zone and stuck with it.

The State of Texas still has "shall issue" laws for concealed carry. However, it is working towards allowing open-carry under the same permit requirements. Other proposed legislation may include constitutional open-carry in the near future. Texas is also looking to allow concealed carry on college campuses. There is no income tax in Texas. Texas has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, far below the national rate. For education, there are great universities including Texas A&M, Texas A&M-San Antonio, University of Texas, and Texas State University.Texas has a coast, mountains, and great music.

Both states respect individual rights, regardless of race or gender. You keep what you earn. Also, most Texans and Arizonans have something that other places seem to be starting to lack:  manners. They will hold the door to you. They will say "howdy". Both are "Right To Work" states, as well.

Since the Colorado Legislature doesn't seem to want you, come on down. We like law-abiding citizens who embrace the principles this great nation was founded upon.

Proposed Texas Law Mandates Labels On Firearms

A bill proposed in the Texas State House of Representatives would force all new firearms sold or transferred in or into the State of Texas to come with warning labels.

According to H.B. 1747, the labels would contain the maximum range and maximum effective range for new firearms and ammunition imported into the state or sold within the state.

Warning labels have become commonplace in our country, to the point that they often times state overtly obvious facts that should be determined by common sense.

For example, eggs now contain allergy warnings that they contain eggs. This warning appears on nutritional labels, also mandated on eggs.

In contrast, these warning labels on firearms do not infringe upon any Second Amendment protection. What they will do is provide responsible firearms owners with readily available facts they should use.

The proposed warning labels would include the maximum distance a bullet would travel should the shooter miss the intended target. This information is important in attempting to limit collateral damage and accidental or negligent injury to non-targets. That makes sense.

Furthermore, the labels could help combat an irresponsible and dangerous practice some engage in:  celebratory fire. The simple concept so many fail to recognize is that the laws of gravity apply to bullets. What goes up must eventually come down. With celebratory fire, those rounds can come down harming or killing innocents.

Here is the bill's text:

 H.B. No. 1747
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT   relating to a packaging notice for new firearms and firearm ammunition; imposing a criminal penalty.
 
       BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
 
       SECTION 1.  Title 6, Business & Commerce Code, is amended by adding Chapter 205 to read as follows:
 
CHAPTER 205. FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
 
       Sec. 205.001.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:
 
             (1)  "Firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.01, Penal Code.
 
             (2)  "Package" means a box or container holding a good or product for sale or sold to an end user.
 
       Sec. 205.002.  APPLICABILITY. This chapter applies only to a firearm or ammunition for a firearm manufactured on or after September 1, 2014.
 
       Sec. 205.003.  MANUFACTURER NOTICE: NEW FIREARM.  A manufacturer of a firearm may not sell in this state, or ship into this state for sale or resale or in connection with a sale, a new firearm unless the firearm's package includes, in bold font equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, a notice disclosing the maximum distance a projectile travels when fired from the firearm.
 
       Sec. 205.004.  MANUFACTURER NOTICE: FIREARM AMMUNITION. A manufacturer of firearm ammunition may not sell in this state, or ship into this state for sale or resale or in connection with a 
sale, ammunition for a firearm unless the ammunition's package includes, in bold font equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, a notice disclosing the maximum distance a projectile from the ammunition travels when fired from a firearm.
 
       Sec. 205.005.  CRIMINAL PENALTY.   
        (a)  A person who violates this chapter commits an offense.
 
       (b)  An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $250.
 
       SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

This is the sort of information responsible, law-abiding citizens can use. The only argument against this bill concerns the increased costs to manufacturers and dealers.

However, most people understand that eggs do contain egg. 

Texas Fight To Arm School Employees

On Thursday, March 7, 2013, the Texas State Legislature forwarded H.R. 1896 to committee for research and recommendation. The bill is designed to better allow school districts, municipalities, and counties in Texas the ability to arm educational professionals.

It is scheduled for public hearings on March 14, 2013. If the bill passes both houses with a 2/3 majority, it will go into immediate effect. If it passes by simple majority, it will not go into effect until September 1, 2013, after the 2014 School Year begins.

H.R. 1896 allows for educational professionals such as teachers, counselors, and administrators to carry concealed at public and open-enrollment charter schools. It places the responsibility for determining specific policies and regulations on the local governments.

It also mandates special training beyond that required for a concealed carry permit, to include escalation of force training. That training is not to exceed 20 hours, so it doesn't have a major impact on other responsibilities.

The license to carry in those school zones would be limited to two years at a time and require review of background checks and re-certification training in order to renew. Furthermore, the law keeps the identities of those who have these special permits confidential. However, their place and employment status must be reported to the appropriate authorities in order to insure that those holding the permits are, indeed, employed by the schools where the permit is authorized.

In short, the bill contains important, common-sense safeguards that not only allow the education professionals to be armed, but to make sure those who applicable are responsible, sane, and adequately trained. It is a good law.

Here is an excerpt:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to firearm training and the authority of certain employees of a school district or open-enrollment charter school to carry or possess a handgun on certain school premises; authorizing a fee.

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

         SECTION 1.  Sub-chapter C, Chapter 37, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 37.0811 to read as follows:        

Sec. 37.0811.  FIREARM TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES. 

(a) In this section, "premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.
          
(b)  The board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school may:
               (1)  authorize an employee of the district or charter school who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Sub-chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to attend a firearm training program established under Section 1701.260, Occupations Code; and

               (2)  adopt written regulations that authorize an employee who has successfully completed the training program described by Subdivision (1) to carry or possess a handgun on the physical premises of a school, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school.

         (c)  Except as provided by Section 1701.260(f), Occupations Code, the identity of an employee who is authorized to attend the training program described by Subsection (b)(1) is confidential and is not subject to disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.
 
       SECTION 2.  Sub-chapter F, Chapter 1701, Occupations Code, is amended by adding Section 1701.260 to read as follows:
 
       Sec. 1701.260.  FIREARM TRAINING FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES.  

 (a) The commission shall establish and maintain a training program for employees of a school district or open-enrollment charter school who hold a license to carry a concealed handgun issued under Sub-chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and who are authorized under Section 37.0811, Education Code, to attend the training program.  The training program may be conducted only by the commission staff or by other agencies and institutions the commission approves for that purpose.
 
       (b)  The training program must: 
             (1)  consist of not more than 20 hours of training; and 
             (2)  include instruction in: 
                   (A)  defensive techniques; and 
                   (B)  safely handling a firearm in a public setting.

With public hearing and committee meetings on the bill scheduled for March 14th, and a 2/3 majority vote needed to put this bill into immediate effect, Texas Citizens may wish to start making phone calls, writing letters and emails to their state-level legislators to voice their support for this bill. Those coming from current and soon-to-be-certified educational professionals may carry more weight than those of concerned citizens without school-aged children.

Ideology, Pedagogy, Indoctrination & Education

Over the past few years I have tossed around the notion of being a teacher. It's a noble profession that can be fulfilling. It is also a profession I am not unfamiliar with. I have taken numerous courses on education and was a certified instructor for the US Army. I am adept at leading panel discussions and open discussions, managing them and directing them in order to enable advanced learning and thought. This is part of the "Adult Learning Model" and several of its related pedagogies. I have a deep working knowledge of Bloom's Taxonomy and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. I can write rubrics, lesson plans, and teaching plans for days. I am adept at test development, and insuring a test is directed at the appropriate level of Bloom's Taxonomy, as well as sticking to a rubric that rewards higher functioning within the Taxonomy.

I excelled in Socratic Method. I am adept at small group instruction as well as large group lecturing. Hands-on practical application exercises are no problem, either. In fact, they tend to push learning further along than lectures.

I have taught collegiate level courses at the undergraduate level. I have taught graduate-level courses as well. While my experience has all been post-secondary education, I predict I could do well teaching grammar school or high school also.

My wife has started working for her teachers' certification through an "alternate process". She is about to graduate with her Masters Degree in Counseling, well on her way to becoming a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC). She had an epiphany of sorts, which we discussed. She has decided she prefers to work with children. So, we did the research on her becoming a school counselor. School counselors are not LPCs, though they require much of the same graduate-level academics. They do not require the amount of internship hours of direct contact. They do, however, get paid more. The curricula differ by one class. But those classes are offered as acceptable electives for both courses of study. What the law requires for a school counselor, though, is two years as a teacher. So, my wife is looking to do that two years in order to legally qualify for a job she is probably already overqualified for.

The above is stated so many will understand that the following thoughts are not just random rantings from somebody ignorant of the topics.

On a national scale, there is a problem with our school system. The biggest problem is that we don't own it anymore. We have allowed federal and state bureaucrats and politicians to take it over. In doing so, we are giving them our kids.

Read the Tenth Amendment. Our kids are our responsibility, not the government's. Nobody cares more about our kids than we do. In reality, the only way to fix the system on a national or state level is to get them out of the equation. If we do that, we also remove the influence of union organizers who buy politicians that pass laws that favor the unions and their socialist ideologies.

There is a concept gaining popularity in academia. It is a philosophy founded in existentialism, nihilism, and socialism. Its goal is to destroy critical thought. Bloom's Taxonomy counts on students first learning and understanding definitions and facts before moving into conceptual thought and creative "out of the box" thought. This movement seeks to skip those foundational steps and move straight into those higher levels. In doing so, they seek to teach kids that there are no facts, only opinions. They seek to teach kids that definitions do not matter, that you can make up your own. These tear down the common denominators that enable communication. These concepts also tear at the basic moral and ethical foundations parents should desire in their kids.

This is the very concept that lead people to believe that murdering a baby still in the womb is somehow more acceptable than executing a mass murderer and serial rapist. This is the same concept that leads people to believe it more of a crime to worship one's deities than to vandalize a church. This same ideology makes it a crime to be loyal to the United States and its founding principles while rewarding the "cultural diversity" of pledging allegiance to a foreign government.

In Texas, there is a program called CSCOPE that has been pushing that dangerous ideology. To make things worse, CSCOPE has provisions that make it illegal for teachers to show their employers the lesson plans. Some may argue that the lesson plans are available for school administrators and education boards to review. However, the employers are the parents of those students, not the politicians or bureaucrats.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) pushes similar concepts and seeks to keep all schools tied  to the same pace of progress. It does so under the guise of "leading to increased common standards that apply uniformly state to state". It is a back-door effort to enact a national standard, or, at least, get local school districts warmed-up to the idea so the federal government can infringe upon the Tenth Amendment easier in the near future. Texas refused to accept CCSSI. CSCOPE is a means to back-door CCSSI into Texas schools.

They don't teach History anymore. Now they teach "Social Studies" and "Cultural Diversity". Those are fine subjects, once a student learns basic history. They skip the foundational history, though.

They fail to teach civics. Kids are no longer taught the founding principles of our government and the basic tenets of the US Constitution. Instead, they are taught that the Constitution is a list of guidelines. The document itself is a contract between the government and the governed that contains a clause that makes it the supreme law of the land. Yet it is dismissed as just "a concept".

The emphasis on grammar has fallen. Kids are taught to express their ideas in writing. But grammar is no longer graded as heavily. This allows for too much miscommunication and reinterpretation of the messages written. To further inflame this trend, they no longer teach hard vocabulary that encourages knowing actual definitions of terms. Instead they push kids to make up their own definitions that may or may not come close in concept to the actual definitions.  In addition, schools no longer teach cursive writing.

We have a higher percentage of students graduating from NY government high schools who are illiterate than ever before.

We have teachers in Arizona who cannot read or write at an eighth-grade level. These teachers cannot pass a sixth-grade level grammar and vocabulary proficiency exam. This exam is actually mandated by federal law and further enforced by state-level legislation. The teachers and their unions/associations file continuous suits against the state for attempting to make sure the teachers are qualified to teach. 

In the wake of the terrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT, schools across the country are committing the ridiculous actions of suspending kids for being kids. Activism and socialist-indoctrination in the classroom seems and halls is replacing education. This is disgraceful to the education profession. Yet, it is becoming more and more the "accepted practice".

Why are they suspending kids for eating a toaster pastry? He bit it until it looked like a gun. So what? Did he start to shoot warm fruit filling at fellow students?

 Why are they suspending kids for using their imagination while at play (and playing at defending innocents against evil people)? The kid was using his imagination to fight off evil terrorists. He was defending. The "grenades" were not even real rocks. They were air! No real person was targeted. This was healthy, imaginative play.

We played "WWII" and "cops & robbers" when I was a kid. Today, your kid would be suspended for that.

Now they are confiscating little plastic model soldiers, the same ones I used to play with as a kid. If you  put them on cupcakes that you intend for your kid to hand out on his birthday, he will be suspended or expelled.

School counselors and administrators are interrogating students to find out if their parents own firearms or are active with the TEA Party.


The system has gone from teaching to indoctrination.Too many teachers and administrators believe they have the right to decide the moral and ethical foundations for our kids. Parents who are involved with their kids and attempt to instill morals and ethics onto the children that in any way contrast those indoctrinated by schools are vilified by those teachers and administrators. Kids will openly challenge their parents, accusing them of hypocrisy or "bad thoughts", but won't challenge those teachers. Teachers have, too often, disrupted the hierarchy of authority, placing themselves above the parents in the pecking order. 

I do know many teachers who are not complicit in any of this. I know almost as many who are not complacent, either, and work to not be part of that problem.  But their jobs get more and more difficult each year. CSCOPE and CCSSI come in and tells them they cannot inform parents what they intend to teach the kids.


Parents need to randomly pop-in and inspect how their kids are being taught. If you don't, shame on you. they have yet to outlaw the action, at least in Texas and Arizona.

Tell your teachers "shut up and teach". If you have an issue with political activism in the classroom, then make an appointment for that conference. Sit down with the teacher and discuss things. In some cases, the students may be missing a point and misunderstanding what the teacher is trying to teach. You owe it to the student and to the teacher to find out before you start screaming. However, if it does turn out to be the case, then write letters to your local school board, your local city councilman, and your state-level representatives expressing your concerns. Make them remember that we hired them to do a job, they work for use. We are not their subjects, serfs, or slaves.

Demand access to lesson plans, curricula, and teaching plans. Demand to see copies of evaluation rubrics to make sure that Johnny isn't getting a "A" just because he can chant a song about Obama and can tell you that Benjamin Franklin is the "bald dude on the $100 bill". We need History back in the classrooms (and not Howard Zinn's revisionist fiction, either).

Be active in your kids' education. Have them do "free reading" for pleasure instead of video games, television, or internet searches in the evenings. An idea is to rotate whose turn it is to pick a book. Then each person takes a turn reading a page. This makes it fun, educational, and a family participation event.

Talk to your kids. Ask them about what they learned in school. If they are excited about a certain topic, encourage that topic. If some things they bring up seem more directed at indoctrination than education, then take the chance to get the kids to see the other side of the topic. Give them facts to consider, not just opinions. The facts are more important, anyway. Discuss with the kids. Ask them their assessments and thoughts. 

We need to support the teachers who want to teach and do not wish to bend to indoctrination. There are many who do not like the way activism and indoctrination are invading. But they need their jobs. So they worry about tipping the boat. Give them your support. Let them know you appreciate what they do and that you understand that this is probably the majority demographic in the school system.

Applaud those who still manage to teach and refuse to indoctrinate. They are fighting to maintain that ethical divide and do the right thing. The right thing is seldom the easy thing, especially in the short term. It just happens to the be more rewarding thing in the long-term.

Fire those who blatantly indoctrinate. Call them out and expose them. Do so civilly. Do so through proper channels. Don't be afraid to write letters, make phone calls, and to then do interviews with local citizen-journalists. Those journalists will give your side of the story a mouthpiece while giving the educators a platform to clarify their side. It also forces transparency and lets the public servants know we are watching.

We need to start firing administrators if they more support socialist ideology over proper education. It's not their place to dictate right and wrong to our kids. That is our job. It is theirs to enforce and support the morality and ethics the parents wish to impress upon the kids.

Now, can anybody tell me where I can find gummy-guns? I'm looking for fruit snacks that are like gummy bears only shaped like AR-15s, M-2s, Glock-19s, etc.