|
The Governor's property tax and revised business tax plan is on its way to enactment, but how did conservative and Texans do on them? TCR reviews its principles for reform and tells it like it is.
Pluses:
- School property tax cut to $1.00 per $100 valuation.
- All new taxes from HB 3, 4, and 5 dedicated to property tax relief until tax rates reach $1.00 per $100 valuation.
Minuses:
- Business gross receipts tax hits companies hardest that have little or no margins (i.e. profits).
- Runaway state spending is not curtailed and could be accelerated.
- Personal attacks on opposition by the Governor's people.
TCR Comment: Does all politics have to be personal?
Undecided:
- School districts can raise tax rates .04 per $100 valuation without a vote of the people.
TCR Comment: Not as good as it could have been.
- Special interest = special treatment = the Dallas Cowboys and other pro teams who don't want TV revenue to count in their gross income.
TCR Comment: If it's income there should be no special treatment. Isn't it enough that they get sport palaces subsidized by the taxpayers?
- Special treatment for doctors, this is more special interest pandering. If doctors, why not lawyers for their pro-bono legal work or community volunteers for any worthy cause?
Missing:
- No property tax cap reduction from 10%.
- No spending CAPS.
- No indexing of property tax rates due to inflation, no rise in the homestead exemption for increases in a valuation.
TCR Comment: Overall a disappointing session where some progress was made on property tax relief, but that could prove temporary due to rapid urban property appraisal increases.
6 Steps To America's Greatness
By Brian Ettinger
The following steps need to be instituted for America to become the great nation it once was.
- National Identification Card - We need to know who is in the country. All states already have driver's licenses and to get on an airplane or cash a check you have to show some form of picture identification. By having a national identification card with information collected in a national database, we will know who is in our country. We need to lay out a process for the 12-18 million illegal immigrants to register either through their employer or by contacting government agencies including the U.S. Postal Service and obtain a picture ID with their background information. Give them a grace period of up to 36 months to register after which time these illegal individuals will be subject to immediate deportation unless they have the proper identification. We do not need to subject these immigrants to criminal charges just because of their illegal entry into the U.S. We need a system under our laws to bring them into legal status and be properly accounted for. The national identification program will be set up under existing technologies which can account for all individuals in the U.S., not just singling out illegal immigrants.
- Secure the Borders - Build a fence, add electronic surveillance and beef up border security including use of the National Guard to secure the borders and stop the flow of illegal entry. Then, create a zone extending three miles inland into Mexico on the Southern Border, and give the Mexican government a chance to clean out the area of all drug dealers and human slave traffickers or else we will clean it out and these individuals caught in this zone will be subject to arrest or other legal consequences. This will also help our border towns and ranchers along the border who have had to deal with drug dealers, threats on their lives, and damage to their property because the U.S. Government will not address the problem.
- Citizenship - Citizenship is not automatically granted if just born in U.S.A territory. We need a system requiring legal documentation for the offspring to acquire U.S. citizenship after five years in the U.S. Offspring automatically becomes a U.S. citizen only if born in the U.S.A. and both parents are U.S. citizens. Citizenship is a right to be earned and there are privileges extended to U.S. citizenship.
- Common Language - English is the common language of the U.S., all laws, money, and government publications. The U.S. is a diverse culture that has a common language, common culture, and common goals. All Nations are based on this foundation and when they lose their identity and go in multiple directions, they lose their greatness starting with the fall of the Roman Empire. Each diverse culture and religion has the right to keep their culture, morals, and mores. These groups can retain keep their culture identities but need to assimilate into our common society. There would be no need for bilingual education. Schools need to teach English in order for our students to succeed in higher education and reach their full potential. The education system has wasted billions of dollars on a program that is faulty and does not benefit the students or give them the tools needed to succeed in society or better their situation. They can still learn their native language in their homes and keep their family traditions, but the schools should not be in place to promote these diverse languages or cultures. We would be better off using the public funds to teach English, Math and Science to the students. When the previous group of immigrants came to this country legally, they went to night school and learned English through programs that were available. My family members went to night school and learned to assimilate into U.S. society. We should have programs available sponsored by the government to learn English and not foster a continuation of Spanish or other languages by funding these programs. For example, there are certain communities in Miami called Little Havana where individuals have lived here 30 or 40 years and never learned to speak English or assimilate into our society. There is no need to have government sponsored driving tests, voting ballots or street signs in any other language but English. It creates confusion and does not foster the U.S. culture and interest. For instance, in the State of California, you can vote or get a driver's license in six different languages. The State of Texas also uses multiple languages on official documents.
- The U.S. Flag - The U.S. Flag is the only flag recognized by our government, federal, state, or municipal agencies - It is absurd to ban the U.S. flag at a school because it is offensive to other nations' flags. We need to have laws stating and no other nations' flags will be displayed on public property or at public demonstrations. Criminal action will be enforced as set out by the laws of the U.S. Federal Government and States.
- Federal or State Assistance - No illegal immigrant will be entitled to any federal or state assistance unless they comply with U.S. laws and follow the laws to document and grant them legal status. Employers outside of agriculture will be given three years to phase out the illegal workforce and bring them into legal status or the employers will face criminal action of a felony and a stiff penalty. For the agricultural industries, they will be given a 5 year window to fall into compliance. There will be no amnesty granted to the 12 to 18 million illegal immigrants already in the country, but they can take advantage and apply for legal status and ultimate citizenship if they comply with U.S. laws. The denial of benefits will include health care, or access to public medical facilities unless they pay for the services.
These six steps may seem demanding, but they address our current problems and unless they are implemented, we will create and continue to foster another generation of illegal immigrants. This number could someday total 40 to 50 million and we will still have no plan for these individuals to obtain legal status and live productive lives, which is ultimately their dream and that of others who have come before them. Time is of the essence. We cannot depend on our Southern or Northern neighbors to address these issues, but must act for our country, common culture, and common goals. It is a shame that private organizations such as the minute men need to take action into their own hands because the government will not act and is to busy debating immigration law changes that are chaotic, not wanted by the American public, and do not address fully the illegal immigration problems. I have been cautioned by my friends not to write this article as certain groups may find it offensive. It my intent to offend any groups who come to this country seeking a better life. I cannot sit silently as I feel this issue needs to be addressed even it is interpreted offensively to certain groups.
Brian is a practicing attorney, strong conservative and a concerned citizen about America's future.
Iran's Secret Plan If Attacked
By US Codenamed "Judgement Day"
By Ali Nouri Zadeh
TCR Comment: This nightmare is from a London media source - instructive as to what we are up against.
Eight fundamentalist Islamist organizations have received large sums of money in the last month from the Iranian intelligence services, as part of a project to strike U.S military and economic installations across the Middle East Asharq Al-Awsat has learned.
The plan, which also includes the carrying out of suicide operations targeting US and British interests in the region, as well as their Arab and Muslim allies, in case Iran is attacked, was drawn up by a number of experts guerilla warfare and terrorist operations, and was revealed by a senior source in the Iranian armed forces' joint chief of staff headed by the veterinary doctor Hassan Firouzabadi.
The source added that the forces of the Revolutionary Guards' al Quds Brigades, under Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani is responsible for coordinating and providing logistical support for the groups taking part in the execution of the plan, codenamed al Qiyamah the Islamic word for "Judgment Day".
The plan includes three steps, which Asharq al Awsat has examined in earlier reports. The source gave more details about how the plan will be implemented. He said, "Most of Iran's visitors in the last four months, including the leaders of revolutionary groups in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the heads of Hezbollah cells in the Persian Gulf and Europe and North America were asked, when they met with the Iranian intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei and his aides: are you ready to defend the Islamic revolution and vilayat e faqih? If you agree to take part in the great jihad, what would you need to be ready for the great fight?
Amongst the leaders who visited were the head of one of the Iraqi armed group who was very clear and honest. He said his men would transform Iraq into a hell for the Americans if Iran were attacked.
The source also said that the military training camps of the Guards were opened for the fighters of the Mehdi army in Iran to receive the necessary training. Iran had also increased its financial assistance to Moqtada al Sadr to more than 20 million dollars.
The same applied to Islamic Jihad in Palestine which has received large sums of money, large quantities of arms and military training for its cadres in Isfahan, including street fighting methods.
As for the Lebanese Hezbollah, several loads of arms have been sent to; they include rockets, explosives, and guided missiles. Hezbollah's arsenal includes more than 10 thousand rockets short-range rockets and missiles including Fajr, Nour, Arash, Hadid.
An estimated 80 members underwent private training last year on how to carry out suicide operations from the air (through the use of kite planes) and undersea operations using submarines.
While denying that Hamas had joined the list of organizations ready to help Iran in its likely war with the U.S, the source indicated that the external success of the movement, which enjoys considerable Iranian support both financial and military, was strengthened following the latest visit by its leaders to Tehran. This was translated in the Palestinian masses' support for Iran, against Israel and the United States.
According to Iran, the latest military plan includes:
- A missile strike directly targeting the US bases in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, as soon as nuclear installations are hit.
- Suicide operations in a number of Arab and Muslim countries against US embassies and missions and US military bases and economic and oil installations related to US and British companies. The campaign might also target the economic and military installations of countries allied with the United States.
- Launch attacks by the Basij and the Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi fighters loyal to Iran against US and British forces in Iraq , from border regions in central and southern Iraq.
- Hezbollah to launch hundreds of rockets against military and economic targets in Israel.
According to the source, in case the US military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be targeted against Israel and the al Quads Brigades will give the go-ahead for more than 50 terrorists cells in Canada, the US and Europe to attack civil and industrial targets in these countries.
What about the last stage in the plan?
Here, the Iranian source hesitated before saying with worry; this stage might represent the beginning of a world war, given that extremists will seek to maximize civilian casualties by exploding germ and chemical bombs as well as dirty nuclear bombs across western and Arab cities.
Trouble Ahead
Guest Commentary By Edward Check
The President's recently released pandemic plan gives us a lot of food for thought.
We must take a lesson from history. Just like the Londoners during the WWII bombing raids, we must be ready and take some responsibility for our own safety. Whether an actual 9/11 style bombing of perhaps greater lethality or an "attack" from nature such as the pandemic flu or a hurricane, we know the possibility of a future event is highly likely. We must encourage our local elected officials to take precautions and hold them accountable, but we must also make preparations ourselves. These precautions are outlined on the federal government's site: www.pandemicflu.gov.
The effects of a terrorist mass casualty attack using a nuclear or biological weapon would be similar in many ways to the effects of a pandemic, though the pandemic would be a crisis that lasts months or years instead of days or weeks. So there is all the more reason to prepare. Whether it is nature or man that is the attacker, few doubt these massive attacks are coming. The difference between 1940 London and America today is that instead of a few dozen or few hundred dying each day or week with the incessant bombings of London in WWII, our bombings have been coming every few years up until now. From the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 to the first World Trade Center attack of 1993 to the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, the 9/11/01 attacks, and the coordinated terror attacks against our soldiers in Iraq since 2003, this terrorist war waged against us is both escalating and unrelenting. So instead of tens of thousands civilian deaths spread over a year like London in 1940, we will get our tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties all at once at periodic intervals in sudden nuclear, biological, and chemical "bursts".
The terrorist threat is expanding quantitatively (the jihadist ideology is spreading and gaining more recruits) as well as qualitatively (more WMD technology and expertise is inevitably seeping into the terrorists' hands). The progression towards ever more devastating strikes is demonstrable, unquestionable, and ultimately unstoppable.
The Londoners of 1940 weren't paranoid or defeatist, but realistic and defiant against an enemy that sought to exterminate them. But they endured and prevailed in the end.
Whatever one thinks of the recent report or the responsibilities/role of the federal government, the plan makes clear that in a worst-case scenario(and even some less-than-worst-case ones) the government will simply be unable to respond to the multiple crises and fully protect the American people from the numerous effects.
It is entirely plausible that in the same way that our military resources have been stretched which therefore resulted in the difficulty in initially securing New Orleans, the federal government may be incapable of fully protecting us when, as some government officials have remarked, a pandemic creates "a thousand Katrinas" going off simultaneously in a thousand communities.
In a major crisis of a pandemic or coordinated biological or nuclear attack, as the weeks progress, many of our cities and regions could lapse into a chaos so profound that the scenes in some communities will be indistinguishable from the scenes we have seen in other places around the world.
Let us be ready and take inspiration from the heroes of Flight 93. As President Bush observed recently, they indeed struck the first blow on our behalf in WWIII. We are all being called on to do our part.
We should not be in denial about what we face. It is time for us as individuals, families, and communities to recognize that we are fighting a war for survival, not for a "way of life". It is time to revolutionize our political priorities in light of this largely dismissed reality. It is time we all began truly acting as if our survival is at stake, because it is.
Edward is a longtime grassroots activist with extensive political and governmental experience. He is a former Executive Director of the Harris County GOP and currently resides in Austin.
Bobby Eberle For RPT Vice Chairman
Guest Commentary By Bob Blackmer
Delegates and Alternates from around the great state of Texas will be gathering for the 2006 Republican State Convention to be held in San Antonio on Friday and Saturday, June 2-3. Part of our important responsibilities will be to elect a Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.
We have a need for effective, constant communication statewide between party leadership and the grassroots. We need to foster a partnership with the grassroots in moving our party forward. Not only do we need to work together to elect Republicans, but we must hold those Republicans accountable in making sure they fight for those issues that are important to the grassroots, the lifeblood of our party. Bobby Eberle is the right person at the right time to fill this very important leadership role.
Bobby has served in many capacities with the Young Republicans, providing dynamic leadership as he led the organization to record levels of membership and involvement, providing much needed assistance in many political campaigns. Bobby served as President of the Houston Young Republicans and served three terms as the State Chairman of the Texas Young Republican Federation.
Bobby has taken an idea, GOPUSA.com, and built it into a nationwide success for communication of Republican news, issues and ideas. He had the vision to use emerging technologies to build an effective forum for the grassroots. His daily newsletter now reaches over a half million subscribers nationwide, providing a priceless information source that was sorely needed. I'm excited and confident of the great things we will accomplish with Bobby as part of our leadership team for the Republican Party of Texas.
We are entering a critical juncture for our Republican Party and I believe Bobby Eberle to be a highly effective leader who can facilitate the right solutions we need for success. I ask all delegates to be a part of the grassroots leadership who will make his campaign a success for all of us and our party by visiting Bobby's website and adding your name in support: www.bobbyeberle.com.
TCR Comment: TCR knows Bobby and he is a conservative that will not roll over to the get along gang increasingly active in the Republican party.
Bob is a web developer and serves as a Precinct Chairman in Harris County.
Inform Voters; Reform 43
Guest Commentary By Robert X. Johnson and Mallory L. Miller
Before any discussion about a Political Party's rules one should know a little about enumerated rights of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's freedom of assembly. In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down provisions of the California Constitution which interfered with freedom of assembly and thus sent a powerful message about the true nature of political parties.
Some of the features of the right of assembly are summarized by the US Supreme Court in California Democratic Party, et al. v. Jones, et al., Decision No. 99-401, decided June 26, 2000 and found at 530 US 567:
"Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band together in promoting among the electorate candidates who espouse their political views. The formation of national political parties was almost concurrent with the formation of the Republic itself.
...Consistent with this tradition, the Court has recognized that the First Amended protects the freedom to join together in furtherance of common political beliefs, ... which necessarily presuppose the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people only, ... That is to say, a corollary of the right to associate is the right not to associate. Freedom of association would prove an empty guarantee if associations could not limit control over their decisions to those who share the interests and persuasions that underlie the association's being...
In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in the process of selecting its nominee. That process often determines the party's positions on the most significant public policy issues of the day, and even when those positions are predetermined it is the nominee who becomes the party's ambassador to the general electorate in winning it over to the party's views. … ("But a party's choice of a candidate is the most effective way in which that party can communicate to the voters what the party represents and, thereby, attract voter interest and support")...
Unsurprisingly, our cases vigorously affirm the special place the First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which a political party "select[s] a standard bearer who best represents the party's ideologies and preferences." … The moment of choosing the party's nominee, we have said, is "the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power in the community."
It should be clear that a political party does have the basic inviolate right to take steps (adopt rules) which seek to advance the party's goals, including steps that affect the process of selecting primary candidates. With that said:
Should the Texas GOP's primary candidates be required to disclose their positions on the Platform?
One would think this a rhetorical question, but since Rule 43 was adopted in 1998 (via minority report) it has been a hot bed of controversy pitting the Party HQ against the grass roots rank n file. The current Rule 43 states; "each candidate may indicate for each plank item whether the candidate agrees, disagrees, or is undecided, as to each plank item, with comments if desired" The key word being "may" making the rule voluntary, and predictably ignored by virtually all primary candidates.
In 2002, grass roots frustrations with RINO candidate's inspired proposals to changes Rule 43's "may" to some form of "shall". Party Leadership took steps to kill these proposals either in committee or on the convention floor. In doing so, heavy handed tactics were employed further fueling grass roots frustrations that their party's candidates and leadership are just not listening.
In 2004, the Rules Committee again killed the proposal to change Rule 43, but the Platform Committee took up the topic and the Platform was amended to send a message to the Rules Committee and Party Leadership to bring this Rule 43 change to the floor of the State Convention. "Support of Platform - Any candidate running as a Republican for any public or Party office in the State of Texas should be required to complete and return to the county Republican Party a signed Republican Party Platform Questionnaire indicating whether the candidate agrees, disagrees, or is undecided on each plank of the current platform. We strongly encourage the Executive Campaign Committee to consider candidates' support of the Party platform when granting financial or other support. We urge the Party to modify its rules to be consistent with our Party platform."
Former RPT State Parliamentarian, Robert X. Johnson and Former RPT Assistant General Counsel on Rules & Conventions, Attorney Mallory L. Miller, Jr. have been proposing a change to Rule 43 which in effect adds the platform questionnaire to the content* of an application for a place on the ballot. An administrative rule which, if adopted, would "require" all primary candidates to comply or risk not being on the ballot for reason of incomplete application. The proposed Rule 43 change in relevant part:
"Section 2. Non-Judicial Candidate's application for a place on the ballot: (Not applicable to Presidential Candidates)
A. Additional requirements: In addition to the requirements of the Texas Election Code and concurrently with the candidate's application for a place on the general primary election ballot, any candidate seeking the nomination of the Republican Party of Texas for the offices of state and county government and the United States Congress shall indicate the candidate's position on the planks of the Platform.
B. Platform Position Form: A printed copy of the entire Platform shall be used to fulfill the requirements of Section 2.A, with the following notations:
1. headed by the statement: "I, __________, of __________ County, Texas, being a candidate for the office of __________, herein indicate my position concerning the Platform Planks of the Republican Party of Texas;
2. below or to either margin of each plank: "I, support", "I, oppose", "see attached comments", or "I am undecided"; and
3. at the end of the Platform, the candidate's signature.
C. Filing Platform Position Form: The Candidate's completed Platform Position Form containing the candidate's responses shall be a part of the content of the candidate's application for a place on the general primary election ballot which must be filed with: …"
*The term "content" tracks with and links to Texas Election Code (TEC)
§141.032. REVIEW OF APPLICATION; NOTICE TO CANDIDATE (a) On the filing of an application for a place on the ballot, the authority with whom the application is filed shall review the application to determine whether it complies with the requirements as to form, content, and procedure that it must satisfy for the candidate's name to be placed on the ballot.
That's it, adopt the Rule 43 change and it is a simple administrative task whether or not a candidates name will be placed on the ballot.
This rule is in complete compliance with Texas Laws and was designed to utilize the Texas Election Code's provisions which allow for a Political Party to write rules on electoral affairs. (See § 163.004. ADOPTING RULES) In fact, the TEC makes only one limitation on adding to the ballot application: §172.021. APPLICATION REQUIRED. (a) To be entitled to a place on the general primary election ballot, a candidate must make an application for a place on the ballot. (b) An application must, in addition to complying with Section 141.031, be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee or, instead of the filing fee, a petition that satisfies the requirements prescribed by Section 141.062. A political party may not require payment of a fee as a condition to applying for a place on the ballot as a candidate for county chair or precinct chair. (c)...
See the common sense of it. "§ 161.001. INHERENT POWERS. A political party retains all of its inherent powers except as limited by this code." The TEC only has one specific limitation, namely, no filing fee for county chair or precinct chair. Therefore, the party retains the right to do what is needed to advance the goals of the party.
Opponents to this change have argued that it violates the Texas Election Code by "unlawfully" adding to the ballot application contents specified in TEC § 141.031. That section requires the application to be in writing, signed under oath by the candidate, and,
"(4) include:
(A) the candidate's name,
(B) ...
- - - -
(L) ..."
By adding the platform disclosure statement to the ballot application, the revised Rule 43 adds a requirement not listed in the statute. The opponents argument is that the Party cannot add to this list.
What's wrong with that argument? TEC § 141.031 (4) uses the word, "include". The party leadership reads that term as one of exclusion, i.e., nothing else may be added to the list. But that is wrong. The Texas Government Code provision on interpretation of statutes provides in Section 312.011, DEFINITIONS, subsection (19) the following:
"(19) "Includes" and "including" are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded."
Further, TEC § 161.001 says that, "A political party retains all of its inherent powers except as limited by this code." Then, TEC § 163.004 says that, "(a) A political party's rules ... governing or affecting its ... nominees may be adopted [as a permanent rule] only by (1) a state convention, ..." Such a rule is a rule on electoral affairs of the party. Go one step further. TEC § 163.007 says that, "A rule on electoral affairs is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the rule were a statute."
So, we have all our inherent powers as a political party. Our rules governing our nominees are enforceable as statutes. The ballot application statute is not a limitation on our inherent political powers. And, yet, opponents tell us we can't lawfully require our candidates to tell us whether or not they support our platform as a condition of getting on our primary election ballot! Look again at the quotation above from the U.S. Supreme Court case, California Democratic Party v. Jones. These opponents are just plain wrong!
The other scare tactic drummed up by opponents is that it would create a landslide of lawsuits from Republican primary candidates not wishing to disclose anything about their positions on the Republican Platform. Again, sounds a bit idiotic that persons wishing to represent the Republican Party in the general election not wanting to tell Republicans why they would best represent Republican goals. Since the Rule 43 change was written to be in total compliance with the Texas Election Code and since the law states: "§163.007. RULES ENFORCEABLE BY MANDAMUS A rule on electoral affairs is enforceable by writ of mandamus in the same manner as if the rule were a statute.", a Republican candidate would have to sue the State of Texas seeking to overturn freedom of assembly itself. There is no rational merit to the claims that lawsuits will arise all over the state. Someone might test the issue, but any Court will quickly recognize that the State Chair and County Chairs have zero authority over the matter, as their roll is purely administrative. This change is a State Party Rule adopted by the authority of the State Convention, and enforceable as State Law. The fact is that County Chairs and the State Chairman can only get in trouble if they don't adhere to the rule, because the rule is enforceable by writ of mandamus.
Back to our original question:
Should the GOP's primary candidates be required to disclose their positions on the Platform?
If you answer YES, then you will need to pressure your representative on the Rules Committee or plan to replace your representative. The opponents' tactic is basically to keep this Rule 43 Change proposal from ever reaching the State Convention floor so that you won't even be allowed to vote on it. In the words of Bill Borden, SD 17, he clearly explained on a videotape of the decision why he voted to remove the right of the Full Convention to consider and vote on this Rule 43 change: "I want to sustain the Chairman's Point of Order. I have been with this committee about this issue before [… indistinct???] About this issue that the delegates, at large, at this convention. I have a fear of any minority report coming out. I have a fear of the convention passing a minority report." Wow! At least Bill tells us straight up that he wanted to remove the right to consider and vote to make sure that you cannot vote.
First step is to get this Rule 43 Change out of committee and to the floor of the convention, and then you can vote to answer the question.
Robert is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian and former Republican Party of Texas Parliamentarian and Mallory is a practicing attorney in Texas.
COMING - (Friday, May 26 at 8 pm) to Channel 8 PBS in Houston, Texas - the connection - Red, White & Blue featuring TCR Editor Gary Polland and liberal commentator David Jones. The guest is Amy Myers Jaffe, Wilson Fellow in Energy Policy at the Baker Institute of Rice University. Named one of Esquire Magazine's Best and Brightest in December 2005.
COMING SOON - Senator John Cornyn, Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, Judge Robert Eckels, Former Representative Nick Lampson, Representative Al Green, and Representative Gene Green.
About Your Editor
Gary Polland is a long-time conservative and Republican spokesman, fund-raiser, and leader who recently completed three terms as the Harris County Republican Chairman. During his three terms, Gary was described as the most successful county Chairman in America by Human Events - The National Conservative Weekly. He is in his ninth year of editing a newsletter dealing with key conservative and Republican issues. The last four years he has edited Texas Conservative Review. Gary is a practicing attorney and strategic consultant and can be reached at (713) 621-6335.
|
