An Eminent Domain fix for Texas

I found this on a blog on the Houston Chronicle site.

Senate seeks to protect property owners with eminent domain fix
By Sen. Carlos Uresti

Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, plans to offer weekly reflections of the week. Here is his fifth update of life in the Texas Legislature:

The state Senate tackled the controversial issue of eminent domain this week, sending the House a bill that provides strong new protections for Texas property owners.

I joined my colleagues in a unanimous vote on SB 18, which prohibits the government or a private entity from taking property if it is not for public use.

The measure would also give property owners more rights regarding easements across their land and -- for the first time in Texas -- allow them to repurchase property if a project doesn't show any progress in 10 years. The issue of eminent domain has been simmering in Texas for years. The Legislature tried but failed on two previous occasions to mend loopholes in the law. Both times, critics said the effort did not go far enough. Despite the stated intent of the authors and the comprehensive nature of this bill, it has critics as well.

Some say that SB 18 could still allow the taking of private property for non-public purposes through the "commingling" of government and private entities, particularly in the area of toll road development. That is no small charge, given the widespread and passionate public opposition to the proposed Trans Texas Corridor, which is no longer on the drawing board.

Read it all here.

About that Texas School book Law

I've been waiting for someone to do the research for me and Ann Althouse has, so has Tim Maguire.  Each taking a different MSM to task.  Althouse is  first:

If you're going to criticize the new social studies curriculum adopted by the Texas Board of Education, you'd better quote it.

Or at least link to the text. And if you choose to paraphrase and not even link, and I have to look up the text myself, and your paraphrase is not accurate, it is my job to embarrass you by pointing that out.

Let me embarrass the Washington Post. Below, the material from the WaPo article, written by Michael Birnbaum, is indented. After the indented part, I've located the relevant quote from the Board of Education text, found here. (I'm searching 3 PDF documents: Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits Subchapter A. High School; Social Studies Subchapter B. Middle School; Social Studies Subchapter C. High School.)

The Washington Post writes:

The Texas state school board gave final approval Friday to controversial social studies standards....

The new standards say that the McCarthyism of the 1950s was later vindicated -- something most historians deny --...

The students are required to "describe how McCarthyism, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the arms race, and the space race increased Cold War tensions and how the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government..." The word "vindicated" is inflammatory and unfair. What is the Washington Post saying historians deny? One can be informed of the reality of what the Venona Papers revealed about communist infiltration into the U.S. government and still understand and deplore the excesses of "McCarthyism."

...draw an equivalency between Jefferson Davis's and Abraham Lincoln's inaugural addresses...

Students are required to "analyze the ideas contained in Jefferson Davis' inaugural address and Abraham Lincoln's ideas about liberty, equality, union, and government as contained in his first and second inaugural addresses and the Gettysburg Address." The word "equivalency" is uncalled for. The requirement is to analyze, not to be indoctrinated that the ideas are the same.

... say that international institutions such as the United Nations imperil American sovereignty...

What I'm seeing is "explain the significance of the League of Nations and the United Nations" and "analyze the human and physical factors that influence the power to control territory, create conflict/war, and impact international political relations such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), or the control of resources." Where is the language that can be paraphrased "imperil American sovereignty"?

.... and include a long list of Confederate officials about whom students must learn.

Students are required to "explain the roles played by significant individuals and heroes during the Civil War, including Jefferson Davis, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln, and congressional Medal of Honor recipients William Carney and Philip Bazaar." Only Davis and Lee were Confederate officials! There is also this: "describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo [in the Civil Rights Era]." That's obviously not from the Civil War, but I can see why it's annoying to Democrats.

They also removed references to capitalism and replaced them with the term "free-enterprise system."

The document on economics does use the term "free enterprise system" throughout, but students are required to "understand that the terms free enterprise, free market, and capitalism are synonymous terms to describe the U.S. economic system," so what is the problem?

Virtually everything cited in the article to make the curriculum seem controversial is misstated! Appalling!

Thank you Ann Althouse!
Now for Tim Maguire in Just One Minute:

Not In Front Of The Kids

First he links to Althouse column which is fisking the Washington Post and then wades into a New York Times article that is just as misleading:

Apparently Texas tilts right and lefties are troubled, so you know we can go barrel-fishing in the NY Times for similarly silly coverage.

And here we go, as the Times braces for the approval of the new standards:

Texas School Board Set to Vote Textbook Revisions

By MICHAEL BRICK

AUSTIN, Tex. — After facing months of protest, conservative members of the Texas Board of Education were expected Thursday night to vote to teach schoolchildren a version of American history that emphasizes the roles of capitalist enterprise, the military, Christianity and modern Republican political figures.

Hmm - emphasizes "modern Republican political figures"? Let's stay with that; it is picked up a bit later (second paragraph):

While many of the changes to the science curriculum used coded language to advance conservative principles, some additions to the history standards were more overtly political. Board members planned to add language requiring high school students of the civil rights movement to “describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo.”

In another passage, the board would require students to explain the roles of “Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association.”

Dare we ask - the roles of Phyllis Schlafly et al in what context? From the high school standards linked by Prof. Althouse we see this (p. 5 of 42):

(10) History. The student understands the impact of political, economic, and social factors in the U.S. role in the world from the 1970s through 1990. The student is expected to:

(A) describe Richard M. Nixon's leadership in the normalization of relations with China and the policy of détente;

(B) describe Ronald Reagan's leadership in domestic and international policies, including Reaganomics and Peace Through Strength;

(C) compare the impact of energy on the American way of life over time;

(D) describe U.S. involvement in the Middle East such as support for Israel, the Camp David Accords, the Iran-Contra Affair, Marines in Lebanon, and the Iran Hostage Crisis;

(E) describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association; and

(F) describe significant societal issues of this time period.

Was there a conservative resurgence from 1970 to 1990? Maybe! I don't know how it could be discussed without noting the significant contributions of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter (who gets a Camp David nod), and I am sure Rush is fuming, but I am not sure how the Times would sustain its objection.

Just for contrast, in earlier standards we see this:

(9) History. The student understands the impact of the American civil rights movement. The student is expected to:

(A) trace the historical development of the civil rights movement in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, including the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments;

(B) describe the roles of political organizations that promoted civil rights, including ones from African American, Chicano, American Indian, women's, and other civil rights movements;

(C) identify the roles of significant leaders who supported various rights movements, including Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, and Betty Friedan;

(D) analyze the effectiveness of the approach taken by some civil rights groups such as the Black Panthers versus the philosophically persuasive tone of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech and his "Letter from the Birmingham Jail";

(E) describe presidential actions and congressional votes to address minority rights in the United States, including desegregation of the armed forces, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965;

(F) describe the role of individuals such as governors George Wallace, Orval Faubus, and Lester Maddox and groups, including the Congressional bloc of southern Democrats, that sought to maintain the status quo;

(G) evaluate changes and events in the United States that have resulted from the civil rights movement, including increased participation of minorities in the political process; and

(H) describe how litigation such as the landmark cases of Brown v. Board of Education, Mendez v. Westminster, Hernandez v. Texas, Edgewood I.S.D. v. Kirby, and Sweatt v. Painter played a role in protecting the rights of the minority during the civil rights movement.

No Malcolm X? Well, I would need a helpful lefty to tell me whether this passes muster. Apparently the Times would prefer a section on Civil Rights history in which Faubus, Maddax, and Wallace and other civil rights opponents never existed. That might be a better world but I doubt it would be better history.

And mysteriously unmentioned by the Times is more catnip for progressives:

(5) History. The student understands the effects of reform and third-party movements in the early 20th century. The student is expected to:

(A) evaluate the impact of Progressive Era reforms, including initiative, referendum, recall, and the passage of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th amendments;

(B) evaluate the impact of muckrakers and reform leaders such as Upton Sinclair, Susan B. Anthony, Ida B. Wells, and W. E. B. DuBois on American society; and

(C) evaluate the impact of third parties, including the Populist and Progressive parties.

I assume the Times wants a special section devoted to the Age of Barack, but maybe we can let Texas wait another year or two.

JEALOUS MUCH? The Times' Big Finish:

One opponent of the changes, Benjamin T. Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P., vowed to take the fight to other states.

“The biggest danger is we’ll end up with children who don’t understand history,” Mr. Jealous said in a telephone interview. “The school board members are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.”

Uh huh. Texas could end this whole controversy if they simply titled their project "The History of Liberal Virtue and Virtuous Liberals".

ERRATA: Phyllis Schlafly gets a second mention:

(24) Citizenship. The student understands the importance of effective leadership in a constitutional republic. The student is expected to:

(A) describe qualities of effective leadership; and

(B) evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Hector P. Garcia, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Phyllis Schlafly, and Hillary Clinton.

OK, who is her publicist?

And I will admit that Texas has me beaten down with one of these names - Hector P. Garcia is "A Texas Legend" and a great American.

Ann Althouse is a little more understandable but it may be better if you read the originals.  And we who live near Rockport know exactly who Dr. Garcia is.

The Houston Chronicle Doubts the Tea Party Influence

You do have to read the whole thing where they admit it did have some influence.  We are going to have to keep up the pressure to make our wishes known. Here's the story:

Lackluster showing puts damper on Tea Party
Faithful are left to wonder if Perry is worth their vote
By JOE HOLLEY and R.G. RATCLIFFE

Helena Brown of Houston is not pleased.

A lifelong Republican — and a precinct chair at that — she also identifies with the Tea Party movement and was a Debra Medina supporter. Now she and her fellow Tea Party Republicans must decide whether GOP candidate Gov. Rick Perry is worthy of their support or perhaps look for an independent write-in candidate. (Brown says she thinks actor Chuck Norris might be interested.)

Although Medina's 18 percent of the Republican primary vote was much more than most observers expected her to get when the campaign season got under way, the champion of the Tea Party/libertarian insurgents failed to force a runoff. Medina also failed to buoy up other Tea Party candidates across the state.

Anti-establishment voters simply didn't materialize at the polls on Tuesday, and most Republican incumbents cruised to victory over their Tea Party challengers.

They go on to talk about Ron Paul and actually say this

“After all the talk from the 9-12 groups and the Tea Party, it's surprising,” said John Gay, one of three Republicans who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside. “From what I was hearing, there were a lot of people saying they were going to vote for someone besides the incumbent this time.”

They didn't. Paul, considered by some to be the founder of the Tea Party movement, got 80.8 percent of the vote against insurgents on his right flank. U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Woodlands, got 79.2 percent of the vote against three Tea Party challengers who had maintained that the incumbent was too liberal.

It really makes me wonder why they think Ron Paul was a founder of the Tea Party's
Maybe they should talk to some others.

After this they go on to say this:

Work to do at grass root
There were some local Tea Party successes.

Read it all, see if it makes sense to you.

Rasmussen has a new report out on Texas races

Election 2010: Texas Governor
Texas Governor: Perry, Hutchison Still Lead White

It doesn't have as much change as I would have expected. Click on the above link to read it.

What the Opposition is Up to

We don't hear much of this candidate on the Democratic side so I found this very interesting.  It's from the Houston Chronicle.
Shami camp fights gaffes, image issues
By R.G. RATCLIFFE AUSTIN BUREAU

Businessmen Clayton Williams and Tony Sanchez bought instant credibility in their runs for governor through large investments of their personal fortunes, but hair-care millionaire Farouk Shami isn't finding it so easy.

Political professionals say he isn't being taken seriously because he has shown a naivete about state government (he did not know the names of the state comptroller or attorney general when asked who they were), has had a series of miscommunications and had his professional campaign staff turn over twice. He fired one staff after they'd been on the job for 10 days, and the second quit Wednesday.

Even Shami's gaffes have gotten little media attention.

“It's a campaign where the only thing serious about it is it involves serious money,” said Dave McNeely, a former political columnist who now lectures at the University of Texas.

McNeely said if it was not for the $5 million Shami personally has lent his campaign, the media would not take him any more seriously than the five other long-shot candidates who have filed to contest the party's nomination with former Houston Mayor Bill White.

Shami received little more than a media blip from his statements that there may have been a government conspiracy in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or that white people do not want to work or that Texas needs foreign workers because a day without Mexicans is “like a day without sunshine.”

“People aren't taking him seriously, and there's a bleed-over in the media,” said UT journalism professor Bill Minu­tagli.

Of course, if he were a Republican or Conservative making gaffes we might hear more about it.  The highlighting and emphasis are from Rockport Conservative.

It's Not Just Medina

From the Houston Chronicle:

GOP governor hopeful denies conspiracy, but Democratic candidate Shami not so sure
By JOE HOLLEY

...About the time Medina was trying to clarify her position, her Democratic counterpart, Houston hair-products magnate Farouk Shami, offered up the same kind of remarks she was trying to disavow.

In an interview during a taping of Inside Texas Politics on Dallas' WFAA-TV, Shami refused to discount so-called “truther” theories that suggest the U.S. government played a role in the terrorist attacks.

“I'm not sure,” said Shami, who was born in Palestine and has lived in the United States since 1965. “I am not going to really judge or answer about something I'm not really sure about. But the rumors are there that there was a conspiracy. True or not? It's hard to believe, you know, what happened. It's really hard to comprehend what happened. Maybe. I'm not sure.”

Shami also said during the interview that he cannot find many white people willing to work, so he hires Hispanics and African Americans instead.

I'm pretty sure he is not one of those "ultra conservatives" referred to in the last post.

To read the whole article go here.

Republican primary ballot propositions

From the Corpus Christi Caller Times, to see their commentary on the "ultra conservative" such as this:

The five initiatives are longtime projects of the ultraconservative arm of the GOP, political scientists said.

Read it all, in the meantime here are the propositions:

Ballot Proposition 1:

Photo ID

The Texas Legislature should make it a priority to protect the integrity of our election process by enacting legislation that requires voters to provide valid photo identification in order to cast a ballot in any and all elections conducted in the state of Texas.

Ballot Proposition 2:

Controlling government growth

Every government body in Texas should be required to limit any annual increase in its budget and spending to the combined increase of population and inflation unless it first gets voter approval to exceed the allowed annual growth or in the case of an official emergency.

Ballot Proposition 3:

Cutting federal income taxes

In addition to aggressively eliminating irresponsible federal spending, Congress should empower American citizens to stimulate the economy by Congress cutting federal income taxes for all federal taxpayers, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on so-called “federal economic stimulus.”

Ballot Proposition 4:

Public acknowledgment of God

The use of the word “God,” in prayers and the 10 commandments, should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

Ballot Proposition 5:

Sonograms

The Texas Legislature should enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion.

Texas as seen by National Review Online

The Next Big Primary Matches Two Big Stars in the Lone Star State
With Illinois’s primaries settled — well, sort of — the next big one on the calendar is less than a month away, March 2, in Texas.

Oh, how I dread covering this primary, and how I look forward to its completion. For the better part of a year now, I’ve gotten daily e-mails from the campaigns of Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, each one laying out some new outrage perpetrated by the other. Everything is bigger in Texas, including the amount of hyperbole used in press releases....

....Kay Bailey Hutchison earned quite a bit of Republican respect during her years in the Senate, and her bid for the governor’s mansion is endorsed by a slew of big GOP names: former president George H. W. Bush, former vice president Dick Cheney, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, and former House majority leader Dick Armey. But the mood in the state, mirroring that in many other parts of the nation, has forced her to run a different campaign than planned. ...

....Finally, there’s a third candidate on the Republican side, Debra Medina, former Wharton County Republican party chair. She’s emphasizing that she’s not a politician, not rich, and that the state needs a governor who will ensure “the average Texan is represented.”

There hasn’t been a ton of polling of this race, but in the polls that have been conducted, Perry leads fairly comfortably, but not by enough so that we could say he’s got this race in the bag. Intriguingly, in a race with two of the biggest names in Texas politics, Medina is inching up to the low to mid teens....

....The winner will almost certainly take on Houston mayor Bill White on the Democratic side. Democrats think that if the GOP primary is bloody enough, they have a shot at winning a governorship that has eluded them since some obscure baseball-team owner beat Ann Richards in 1994. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed both Hutchison and Perry defeating White; Perry led 50 percent to White's 40 percent; Hutchison led 52 percent to 37 percent.

Read it all here.

The Houston Chronicle is Recognizing the Medina Phenomenon

Neophyte Medina may not be widely known, but she's starting to be heard
By Joe Holley

By 11 o'clock on a recent Saturday morning, Ron McLain had the “Texans for Liberty” hot dogs boiling in a pot, and John Wheeler was helping haul folding chairs out to the parking lot of the Medina for Texas Governor headquarters in suburban Corpus Christi.

It was the grand opening of the South Texas campaign headquarters, a nondescript brick building next door to the Nueces County Republican Party office. About 40 supporters and potential supporters waited outside for the candidate, among them Mike Purdy, who, with his wife, watched her in the Jan. 14 Republican gubernatorial debate.

“We were very impressed,” said Purdy, a retired prison warden. “We had seen her at a gun show in Robstown. She seems like the real conservative of the group.”....

...Only lately has the Republican Party establishment — and her two opponents — begun to listen.

It's a nice article on a new face in politics, read it all.

Riddle me This

From Alamo City Pundit:
Texas Republicans Make Ham-Handed Mis-Step Before 2010 Elections

January 5, 2010 by Johnny Alamo

Republican Party of Texas Welcomes
New Executive Director
January 5, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Austin - The Republican Party of Texas starts the New Year off with a new leader. Chairman Cathie Adams has selected Jesse Lewis to become the Party’s next Executive Director. Mr. Lewis comes to the Party having served here before, as a Field Representative, a Statewide Field Director and its Deputy Political Director from 1999 to 2003. His extensive background includes everything from grassroots work training thousands of candidates, campaign managers and volunteers, to serving on the executive staff of a large state agency, overseeing 90 employees. He also served as Chief of Staff to Texas House Members Arlene Wohlgemuth and Sid Miller.

“Jesse is a remarkable Texan, a remarkable Republican and he’ll be a remarkable leader for our Party,” said Chairman Adams. “Having him at the helm as we enter the crucial 2010 election means that we will have a sure hand who has steadily led many winning campaigns, and whose experience covers every aspect of state politics. We’re excited to have him bring his knowledge and enthusiasm to the Republican Party of Texas.”

“Selected”? What is this “Selected” Crap?!?This is Texas here. We were an Republic before we were even a state, and good men died at the Alam and at Goliad so that free Texans could be free to vote for their representatives....

....Assuming this is the same Jesse Lewis (and Cathie Adams’ statement is deliberately vague in this regard, isn’t it?), it means Jesse Lewis works for the state government in Austin as essentially a PR shill for the Perry Administration.

If you are a Republican or a conservative in Texas, you will want to read the whole article.

State Legislators: Oppose ObamaCare

Yesterday, 35 members of the Texas Conservative Coalition (the conservative caucus of the Texas Legislature) urged the Texas Congressional delegation to oppose the Obama Administration’s plans for a massively-expensive, government-run health scheme.

The letter reads, in part:

While the central claim of H.R. 3200 is to expand health care coverage for uninsured Americans, the likely outcomes, if passed, include health care rationing, higher taxes, massive increases in federal spending, increased bureaucracy and even more imposition of federal rules on state management of Medicaid and CHIP.

Please feel free to circulate and re-post the attached letter. The letter is also posted online at www.txcc.org, and I have posted the letter to the TCC Twitter page: www.twitter.com/txcc.
Sincerely,
Brent Connett
Texas Conservative Coalition
512-474-1798 (office)
512-799-8360 (cell)

Hutchinson Stumbles

The Houston Chronicle has an article on Senator Hutchinson's differing announcements. The article says she has lost focus, stumbled, and all in all lost her lead to Governor Perry. Read it all here.

Hutchinson VS Perry

The Dallas News has this headline, Hutchinson Slams Perrry on Stimulus Decision. This is the gist of it:

"Kay Bailey Hutchison slammed Rick Perry's decision four months ago to reject $555 million in economic stimulus money to help the unemployed, saying Friday that it was "reckless" and showed a lack of both leadership and judgment..."

The article went on to give a statement from Perry's spokesman:

Perry spokesman Mark Miner said the senator has not been clear on where she
stands.
"She's playing a game of Washington politics, and that's not going to
play here in Texas. She's taken several positions on the same issue," Miner said.

You will have to read the whole thing and then make up your mind where you stand on this.