Texas Today

12-12-06

You asked us to tell you about the issues that concern us, I am not sure if this qualifies but it should because it is a prime example of how the backbone of Texas is stomped on by the government that has been elected to protect us. I was informed yesterday that I had lost my appeal at the Supreme Court in Washington DC. To have the motion for summary judgment overturned. This case would have benefited every one in the state of Texas who has timber on their property because it would have put a stop to the state governments intentional deceptive misleading willful and fraudulent timber appraisals. it would have forced them to do their job the right way. The law suite is against the texas forestry service and texas a&m university. The fact of the matter is, because of these two entities everyone in Texas who owns timber will be defrauded by them through the color of law. The question is when? The truth of the matter is the American way allows the state entities to lie cheat and steal your hard earned money from the sell of your trees with no questions asked because they have immunity from being helt accountable for their crimes. I lost my appeal because the attorney I hired to represent me took my money and then did nothing to benefit my case and me. I do not feel I should be held accountable for his incompetence when it was the state of Texas who gave him the license to practice, then advises me to hire a licensed attorney to represent me. I thought the constitution was written so the government would have to be helt accountable, but what do I know I’m just somebody who pays taxes, help put food in their mouths, clothes on there backs oh yah fuel in their jets. Where is my jet? If I am wrong then let it be proven in a court of law in front of 12 of my peers let the people decide if they want this kind of treatment for themselves and their love ones. Not a bunch of judges who do not have a clue to the meaning of standing for the people. My case has not been allowed to go to court period. I now must ask the texas forestry service why do you do your appraisal in a manor that only allows approximately $30.00 to $40.00 dollars per ton to the landowner when the logger is selling it to the mill for $65.00 to $85.00+ dollars per ton. Why want you do an investigation, pull the loggers contracts at the mills then most important now lesson up follow the paper trail known as mill tickets even when there is diversion. You do know how to investigate don’t you? Can you also ask yourself this question? Are you really doing the land owner a fair dollar value if you count stumps, miss no less than 35% of the total trees taken then slab the log (to make square so to speak) take the bark off cut it into board feet using the largest saw kerf then use the weight of 1000 feet of those boards to compare the weight of a tree to. (That’s 100 1X12X10’s, that’s a stack of boards approx. 8 feet high 12 inches wide and 10 feet long now go out side and look at your pine tree that’s 14 inches at the butt with 40 to 50 feet of log in it and you will see a tree that has less than 50 board feet you do the math.) Is that fair to the landowner. I do not think the state government should be allowed to get away with this. It appears to me the timber industry along with the texas forest service’s action hinges on organized crime. In addition, why do you condone timber theft through your actions of non-investigations only opinions of the value of the trees removed? Just my opinion but not all of the tools in your shed are very sharp when it comes to stopping timber thieves in Texas. I am going to aledge that the only thing that separates the timber thieves from the law enforcement division of the texas forest service, texas a&m university system is the immunity they have and that is it. Why dose the texas forest service have to be so chickenshit when it comes to a more accurate knowledge about appraising the true value of timber stolen either by deception or taking without the landowner’s knowledge. My issue is if I am a tax-paying citizen then why cant I have the same rights as the common criminal you know my day in court. A free lawyer would not be bad either.

What happen to our rights where did they go? Have we watered down the constitution so much that it no longer has validity over our life?

I do not understand, our constitution says we have a right to our day in court but the government says to hell with the constitution you will never get to court. What happen to my right to a jury trial? I pay my taxes, I am one of those fragments that make up the backbone of this great state and country, so why is it, rapist murders and so on get their day in court and free legal representation? This battle has cost me eight years of my life. Not to be vain but the last years of my youth and a moderate sum of money, where is my justice? Where was the judicial system when I need it? In addition, I am willing to pay to be there to prove my point. They to are on the side of the criminal under the color of law. I do not mind loosing if I am wrong just let me fight! do not tell me those sonsabitches win when they never stepped foot in the ring. Do not tell me I loose just because I showed up for the fight. It appears to me that the state of texas is a coward, a yellowbelly, chicken. want even fight a 5foot 2inch woman and that is wo-MAN to you tfs. Put a stop to timber theft and we the people will have money to send our children to collage with, money to pay our land taxes with, leave our children an inheritance, who knows maybe even retire. This dose not just effect me it also effects you to, if our government is allowed to get away with this, what else will it be allowed to get away with. The mentality of my thinking is if you are not going to do what I pay you to do then get the hell off my payroll and I will do it myself. No, I am not mad. I am pissed!!!!

I am a victim of timber theft once, a victim of the judicial system multiple times to many times to count. If a criminal is allowed justice, then were is mine.

I did not capitalize certain things because they deserve no respect from me.

Yesterday I managed to get out to the movies and had the chance to see the movie Borat. It made me a bit curious about the actual habits of Kazahks. So I did a bit of surfing and found that Borat may not be so far off the mark, and, there are some folks in Texas that may have a lot more in common with them than they know.�

Yes, Khazaks eat Horses. So much so that amazingly the Kazakhstan National Cooking Web Page includes a recipe for cooked Horses Ass. Yep, it’s a documented national and cultural treasure called Karta.�

Now, a few of my Texas brethren believe it’s their God given right to mistreat these beautiful animals as they see fit, as it’s their personal property. And, anyone infringing on that right is a well, a “Commie”.� In my humble opinion there is a special place in hell for you, but in the meantime, here’s my little gift, and as the horse eating French say, Bon appetite!�

Karta (Horse Rectum) (Kazakh)
� � � � � � � � From the Kazakhstan National Cooking Web Page (www.kz/eng/cooking/cooking.html)
For making one karta:
� � � � � � � � 100 g of karta
� � � � � � � � salt
� � � � � � � � green pepper or dill to taste
� � � � � � � � The thick part of the rectum is washed without removing fat, then carefully turned inside out so that the fat should be inside, washed once more and tied up on both sides.
� � � � � � � � Karta can also be dried and smoked. To dry it karta is strewed
with fine salt and kept in a cool place for 1-2 days, then dried up.
Karta is smoked during 24 hours, then dried during 2-3 days. After
washing it well karta is boiled for 2 hours on slow fire. Before serving the table it is cut in rings and decorated with green pepper or dill.�

Homosexual Marriage vs. Heterosexual Marriage.

As a Christian Constitutionalist this, at first glance, may seem like quite a quagmire. The solution, as I see it, is actually quite simple. As a young Christian my reflexive response used to be the mantra of many people who call themselves Christians, “the sanctity of marriage, between a man and a woman, MUST be preserved as an institution of God.” Indeed, as a Christian, I know it is a sacred unity between a man and a woman instituted by God. However, under our great Constitution, this is NOT a behavior to be legislated and enforced by government. The Constitution and a number of historical facts, I believe, support my above determination.

The first problem we all have with marriage is that it requires a license, which by definition implies a privilege granted by the government to you to do what would otherwise be ILLEGAL, for nominal tax of course. http://dictionary.law.com defines license as “governmental permission to perform a particular act…” When anyone gives you anything (permission, for example), that person or entity has to have the authority to give that something to you. When did government acquire the authority to give permission for you to get married? It sure wasn’t our Constitution, which to my knowledge is the legal document that our government is granted any powers it has by us. Yes, We the People give government the privilege of it’s powers, not the other way around.

George Washington didn’t need permission from his government to marry, why do we? In fact, according to the law of the land during George Washington’s time the only legislative requirements to get married were that you acquired the consent of your future in-laws and that your marriage was posted publicly 5-15 days before the ceremony. From my internet research the government decided to usurp the powers of granting permission to marry during the mid-1800s when most states had laws outlawing marriage between blacks and whites, some states began allowing interracial marriages if you got a license. Eventually, in 1923, this became the status quo for all marriages when the federal government got involved and passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act. So the marriage license was born from bad fruit, the Bible says a tree that produces bad fruit cannot produce good fruit.

Adding injury to the insult of the government making yet another perfectly legal act into an illegal one, needing of course, a bureaucracy and taxes to support it, it seems that with this marriage license in some cases the government claims jurisdiction over your kids! Admittedly, I have not done the proper research on these reports, however, knowing how the government operates this does not surprise me a bit.

Although, as a Christian, I cannot endorse homosexual relationships, I also cannot, in good conscience, pervert the Constitution into denying certain American’s from the same freedom, to live their life as they see fit, that I try to enjoy, unless they have committed a criminal act (such as not allowing felons to vote). That said, laws regulating consensual relationships between adults, I believe, is an unconstitutional invasion of American’s privacy. Once that is done, as it has been in the past, you find yourself on a slippery slope sliding directly to tyranny, which cannot be allowed.

Homosexuality is a social issue, which like other social issues, government should not interfere with. If Christians want to oppose homosexuality, I believe the way to do it is through the churches and the market. For example, I don’t shop at Target because of their financial support for many homosexual organizations. Simple as that. There is no need for the ever reaching arm of government to dictate who my fellow citizens decided to fall in love with. One reason, in modern times, churches have not been effective in battling the problems Christians see with homosexuality is the fact that the majority of so called main-stream “Christian” leaders, one recent addition being Ted Haggard, are in fact homosexual along with the most leaders of the political party many so called Christians unfortunately align themselves with, Folly being a recent example. This kind of leadership along with equally polarizing leaders in the homosexual community, I believe, leads to the bitter emotional rampages that happen on both sides, purposefully creating illogical arguments where each opposing group get to race for who’s rights they can take away first. When in reality, it was government’s plan all along to eroded the people’s rights, but what better way to do this than have the people take their own rights away! Genius!

That said, as a Christian, I have dear friends of mine who are of the homosexual persuasion. I don’t approve of their behavior, and I know they don’t approve of some of my behavior. I highly regard their opinion on many issues, as they mine. However, like any average group of people, we have differing opinions on each others choices in life. This doesn’t mean we try to make the government tell the other how to live. We, instead, have rational discussions, exercising our right to free speech, as people should.

My solution for the couples that would like to be legally seen as a single entity in a similar way married couples are seen today, (insurance purposes and power of attorney, for example) is a voluntary signing of an affidavit in a local county courthouse. In this affidavit, basically a sworn oath, you can affirm that you have indeed joined into a union with your partner on a certain date and additionally signed by a witness to a ceremony (btw - being a witness was one of the original duties of the best man and maid of honor). Affidavits are punishable by purgery if you are not truthful, just like in court. This should more than satisfy any legal bindings of a union or marriage for any medical, tax or insurance needs. Politicians should also be required to sign affidavits regarding their campaign promises as well, like David Van Os willing did this past election when he ran for Texas State Attorney General.

Bottom line is that we should stop being tricked into trying to legislate each other’s life and supporting laws that either create precedents to invade everyone’s privacy or out right do invade everyone’s constitutional privacy. Government never keeps itself in check, it is up to us to ensure that it is held to the restrictions the Constitution sets forth.

What exactly can we do? I was standing in a line behind a guy when I made a sidewise mention about Al Gore’s position on Global Warming. The guy said he would not believe anything Al Gore said about anything. OK, now what? Gore is out there trying to convince the people who need convincing that we are on a collision course with the point of no return on the amount of destruction the planet will tolerate. Yet, the people who most need to get the message don’t trust the messenger.

I spent some time this past summer working as a researcher on the NOAA ship OREGON II. We were studying the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries. The Hypoxia in the Gulf is growing rapidly. The acidity of the world’s seas is increasing. There are undeniable implications and the overwhelming majority of reputable scientists are in agreement that we must act soon or it will be too late to recover.

Is this a subject we can get behind? is there something we can do now without waiting for another election cycle? Is this an issue that can resonate with Texas Today?

Make some suggestions, please?!

One of the biggest arguments against Van Taylor and his failed congressional attempt against Chet Edwards in Dist. 17, was the fact that Mr. Taylor had moved to the district only 12 months prior to filing to run for the position. He ended up losing to the 16 year veteran Chet Edwards by a sizable margin, but that’s way beside the point. My thought on this is, now that the elections are a month behind us, where is Van Taylor now? Did he move out of the district since it’s no longer convenient to live here since he’s not serving? Did he move back up to Manhattan? Or maybe his house in Highland Park in Dallas. I’m unable to find any such documentation as to his whereabouts… does anyone know?

My thought all along was that he was a sort of a neo-carpetbagger, even though he was born in Texas and has a lot of oil money in Texas. 90% of his campaign financing came from out of state.

Mr. Taylor, where are you?

From the Animal Law Coalition:

Tuesday, December 5 Is National Call In Day For The Horses: Urge the Senate to Bring The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act To A Vote And Pass This Landmark Legislation

December 4, 2006 : 12:00 AM

Call or write (faxes are best) U.S. Senators on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 and, in particular, the Senate leadership and let them know they must pass S. 1915, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act.

The slaughterhouses will have their lobbyists at the Capitol today urging Senators to kill this bill. We need you, the advocates for the animals, to call in and tell Senators they must pass the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. The horses have no one else.

It is time for this bill to become law. It is time to end the brutal slaughter of American horses for their meat which is considered a “delicacy” abroad.

It is almost the end of this Congressional session. There are only a few days left. There is little time for the U.S. Senate to consider and pass this important bill. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, S. 1915, will die if it does not pass before the end of this session. This is likely the last call in day for this bill.

This bill, so important for the horses, has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 263-146. Prior to the recess for the November 7 mid-term elections, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is reported to have invoked an anonymous legislative hold. The hold delayed consideration of the bill by the Senate.

To contact members of the Senate and urge them to support this bill, click here. Senators

To contact the Senate Majority leader and other leaders in the Senate, click here for their names and contact information. U.S. Senate leaders

Let them know it is time to bring S. 1915, the American Horse Slaughter Act to a vote. Calls and faxes are best, but you can also send them an email.

Read the entire article here.

I was listening to The Chris Duel Show on KTSA a while ago, and he had on The National General Counsel for LULAC, Luis Vera. They were talking about early voting complaints in the Dist. 23 runoff election. 17 out of 19 counties couldn’t get early voting going this weekend despite a court order allowing it. Election laws require minimum voting hours to be equal to the hours of operation of the county’s election office. Many polls in Dist. 23 are only open from 8am-5pm and closed during lunch hours. A few counties are only open until 4:30pm and also closed during lunch hours. Another interesting fact is that Governor Perry and the SoS, Roger Williams allowed the runoff in Dist. 29 to run until Dec. 19th and the Dist. 23 runoff only until Dec. 12th.

If this concerns you, contact the U.S. Dept. of Justice at 202-514-2000, and ask for the Voting Rights Division.

Ok, I’ve had it with this gay marriage debate.

Today, it seems, a Maryland court is hearing the latest argument for gay marriage—not that anything new’s being said. Well, that’s fine, and to be expected. What ticks me off in this case (as in all cases) is the language that the two sides use.

On the one hand: “‘Why shouldn’t you have the same rights?’”

On the other: “‘Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.’”

The question is not about “rights.” Nobody has the right to a civil marriage. That’s ridiculous. Nobody has the right to tax breaks and all those other lovely things that go along with it. What the government chooses to bestow on certain unions is a question different from rights. It’s a question of benefits. Nobody has the right to benefits. But what they do have a right to are equal benefits.

If the government feels the need to grant certain benefits to one group of people, it must not withhold those benefits from other groups that fall under the same category. That’s why we have Brown v. Board and other cases concerning setups that are “inherently unequal.” Because they aren’t equal.

I’m going with the recent New Jersey ruling on this: you don’t have to call it “marriage,” but if you’re going to grant benefits to one group, they’d better be available for all groups in equivalent situations.

Of course, now New Jersey has the predictable “Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage” reaction, and all the other stuff. Well, I really don’t see what the fuss is over one word. I’m in favor of calling it marriage, simply because so many groups seem to hold on to the word as a tool of oppression: “if we don’t call it marriage, then they’re really not equal, right?” seems to be the prevalent self-reassuring attitude in NJ right now (hmm…sounds a little much like “separate-but-equal,” now, doesn’t it?). It’s a shame, but let’s worry about the legal discrimination before we get to the cultural discrimination. Fix one, the other will be fixed down the road.

And going back to the language: no, courts cannot create rights. Neither can Congress. Congress can confer benefits, and the courts can make sure that rights are not being violated. In the case of the sex-based inequalities currently in place, rights are being violated. The details of the benefits are up to Congress, but the rights belong in the courts.

House Bill 265, introduced by TX Rep. Rafael Anchia, would make same day voter registration possible. According to the exact wording:

VOTER REGISTRARS MUST BE PRESENT. Two voter registrars must be present at each polling place while the polls are open.

The registrars would also be allowed to register voters on election day in the primary and general elections with proper documentation. The bill also makes these newly registered voters valid voters capable of voting on election day.

Another bill, HB 123, introduced by Rep. Aaron Pena, would require a paper trail for electronic voting machines.