TIM MACY, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA

Don’t mess with Texas!

The Lone Star State is on the verge of electing a U.S. senator who may be as bright, conservative, and effective as any senator in memory.

And, were this not enough, Texas may be about to elect a House member who will send House do-nothings scurrying for the exits.

The ground-breaking Senate candidate is Ted Cruz, who, last night, forced Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst into a runoff. Dewhurst fell a few percent short of the votes needed to avoid the runoff.

The Cruz-Dewhurst mid-summer runoff election on July 31 — coming at a time when RINO Republicans won’t bother going to the polls — has been described by the mainstream press as Dewhurst’s “worst nightmare.”

Fighting to fill the seat vacated by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Cruz was endorsed by Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and the Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund.

While Dewhurst concentrated on buying the election with $13 million from his immense fortune, Cruz appealed to voters by standing up for the Second Amendment and a range of constitutional rights.

Cruz has also been an outspoken critic of Eric Holder’s Fast & Furious program.

And, just as important, Cruz has the momentum — almost overtaking Dewhurst in votes actually cast on Election Day, notwithstanding a heavily divided conservative field.

But that’s not all.

Former Congressman Steve Stockman — who was the preeminent proponent of Second Amendment rights during his tenure in the House in the 1990’s — is apparently headed for a July 31 runoff with a political novice to represent Texas CD-36 in a heavily Republican district.

Stockman’s opponent in this runoff has consistently refused to turn in his GOA survey, and this is usually an indication that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views.

As a Congressman in the mid-1990s, Stockman took the lead in the House in calling for the repeal of the Brady Law, the semi-automatic ban, and other anti-gun laws. He would often confound even conservative colleagues by using GOA-arguments in closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill.

There is no one — no one — on the political horizon that will be the pro-gun fire-breather that Stockman will be.

And there is no one who will stand up to the compromising leadership in the House — to oppose the sell-outs and “grand bargains” which will inevitably come, no matter who is elected president.

But here’s the bottom line: Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman need your help. Both of these races are very “doable.” It is a fact that the second place finisher often wins during a runoff election.

So please go to http://www.tedcruz.org to make a contribution to Ted Cruz.

And please visit http://congressmanstevestockman.com to make a contribution to his campaign.

One more word: Texas is a heavily Republican state, as is the 36th CD. Whoever wins these two July 31 runoffs will be well on his way to representing you and the Second Amendment in Washington. So please act now.

 

I couldn’t agree more. Ted Cruz has a proven record as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2008. Steve Stockman has a proven record as a Congressman from 1995-1997. Many talk the talk, but few walk the walk like these two. In addition to their 2nd amendment bona fides mentioned in the article, both are also strong proponents of Constitutional government, less taxation, less intervention and regulation, and less spending. Most importantly, both are strong believers that we must end the genocide of unborn babies that has been going on for decades.

From Ted Cruz’s website:

• Authored an amicus brief for 13 states, successfully defending the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The ban was upheld 5-4 before the U.S. Supreme Court;
• Authored an amicus brief for 18 states, successfully defending the New Hampshire parental notification law. The law was upheld 9-0 before the U.S. Supreme Court [note: this brief was awarded the Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General for U.S. Supreme Court briefs written in 2005-06];
• Successfully defended Texas’s Rider 8, which prohibits state funds for groups that provide abortions, winning unanimously before the Fifth Circuit court of appeals.

In Congress, Steve Stockman co-sponsored the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. He also introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 1995, which would have defined life at conception and effectively overturned Roe V. Wade, allowing the states to create anti-abortion laws immediately. The bill has since been introduced by Ron Paul several times, and as a side note I would ask everyone to contact their GOP representatives co- sponsor and vote for it while we still have a House majority.

On the important issues that count, Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman take principled stands. Please visit their websites and make a donation. If you live in Texas, vote Cruz for Senate. If you live in the 36th District, vote Stockman for House.

http://www.tedcruz.org

http://congressmanstevestockman.com

The first is the candidate for Senate, former Solicitor General Ted Cruz. Cruz is trying to force a runoff against the frontrunner, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Dewhurst is no conservative, he is a big government Republican in the mold of Charlie Crist, Richard Lugar, and George W. Bush. As Texas is a heavily red state, it can afford to elect a hard line conservative like Ted Cruz. And because the state is red, the person who gets elected in the Senate will likely be there as long as they choose, so Texas must choose wisely. Ted Cruz has a record of upholding the Constitution, defending gun rights ans state sovereignty. He understands issues that most beltway Republicans ignore, like the TSA, Agenda 21, NDAA, and SOPA. This lets me know that he is the real deal, and he is worth supporting. Cruz has been endorsed by Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, Pat Toomey, Ron Paul, David Barton, Sean Hannity, Justin Amash, Mark Levin….the list goes on and on. Ted Cruz can force a runoff, and he can win.

The second candidate is Steve Stockman, a former congressman who is trying to get elected again. He served briefly from 1995-1997, and worked with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey to shrink government. Steve is an ardent defender of gun rights, the rights of the unborn, lower taxes  and a controlled border. Most importantly, he makes the Constitution his number #1 priority, rather than special interests. Steve knows how to get things done and would immediately provide an impact in Washington. Stockman has been endorsed by Tom Tancredo, Gun Owners of America, the National Association for Gun Rights, National Right to Life, and Ted Nugent.

The third candidate is Richard Mack, a former sheriff from Arizona who is challenging the RINO Republican Lamar Smith. Some may remember him from the horrendous SOPA and America Invents legislation he introduced in 2011. Smith does not care about the Constitution, but Mack has spent his life fighting for it. Back in 1997, Mack and Jay Printz challenged the Brady Handgun bill’s constitutionality. In a landmark case, many of the provisions were struck down. Mack has founded the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, in order to hold officers of the law to their oath’s of office and encourage them to reject federal tyranny that may be taking place in their county. We need more lawmen for the Constitution in Washington D.C., and Mack should be one of the them.

Kurt Bills is 42 years old, has been married for 17 years, has 4 children, and owns a home daycare. While Kurt has been in the state legislature for little over a year, he has been a high school economics teacher for the past 15 years, ingraining free market virtues in students year after year.  Bills is anything but a career politician and understands the problems of average Americans.

Kurt Bills’ main platform is naturally promoting sound economic policies and fiscal responsibility. He supports a balanced budget, simplifying the tax code and lowering taxes, rolling back costly regulations, free trade, and stopping inflation and preventing credit bubbles. If elected, Kurt will be one of the leading economic experts in the Senate. Additionally, he will work to get government out of our healthcare market, and wants to reform Social Security. On social issues, Bills is strongly pro-life and supports marriage between a man and a woman. With regards to foreign policy, he supports Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” policy and understands that while we must have a strong national defense, we cannot intervene into every part of the world; Bills supports ending foreign aid.

This is going to be an important Senate race. Klobuchar voted for unpopular legislation such as the Affordable Care Act and the Protect IP Act. Bills will need funding, so I encourage that organizations such as FreedomWorks, the Club for Growth, and the Senate Conservatives Fund be contacted to pour money into this race.

http://kurtbills.com/

The bill was strongly supported by FreedomWorks and The Cato Institute.  It was defeated 83-16, with 1 not voting.

The few usual leaders for fiscal sanity supported this plan, among them Senators Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Tom Coburn, and Ron Johnson. Not surprisingly, establishment favorites and vice-presidential frontrunners Marco Rubio and Ron Portman voted against the bill. Of course, they were not the only Republicans to vote against it. This vote is a sign that we need more fiscal conservatives/libertarians in the Senate as soon as possible. Hopefully Ted Cruz, Deb Fischer, Kurt Bills, and others will be reinforcing the conservative core.

For visuals of the budget impact had it been enacted, here is a graph:

Also, it is easy to visualize comparison that to the Ryan Budget, which would take till past 2040 to budget. Medicare will reach insolvency by 2024; Social Security will have solvency problems by 2033. Of course even before that, our credit rating will continue to drop. Foreign holders of debt will start to demand their money, and the debt purchasing by the Federal Reserve present its own set of problems. If the excuse of some Republicans is that they prefer to vote for the Ryan Budget, that is not a valid excuse.

Here is the vote breakdown: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00100#position

Contact your Senators and let the know that you demand a balanced budget!

Ryan is portrayed as the leading fiscal conservative in Congress. Somebody with bold plans for the future. Yet his budget doesn’t balance until 2040. This is unfathomable considering the current situation we are in. It is absurd and irresponsible, and I seriously doubt that Democrats intellectually oppose his proposal. On the other hand, Rep. Jim Jordan, leader of the Republican Study Committee, is the voice of reason. He has a plan that would balance the budget within five years. But Ryan is chairman of the Budget Committee, not Jordan, and that is because he will keep the status quo going for the Washington establishment. The political insurgency in 2010 sent the Republican party the message that massive debt, which would lead  wreckingly high taxes and hyperinflation, was simply not acceptable. It is also telling that the Wisconsin Congressman voted for the bank and auto bailouts(and CEO bonus taxes), No Child Left Behind, the 2008 Stimulus, Head Start ,Medicare Part D, and Sarbanes-Oxley. For any serious conservative, libertarian, or Constitutionalist, how are these votes acceptable? They cannot be forgiven as anomalies, no, they give a peak into Ryan’s ideological core(does he have one?). Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek would have called Ryan a socialist and a statist, and would have laughed at his proposals and records. The aforementioned Jim Jordan of Ohio is the perfect candidate to replace Ryan and Budget chairman, and become the new leader of entitlement and budget reform for the Republican Party.

Rubio is supposedly the next Reagan. The man who will save the Republican party from the growing Mexican-American voting block. I will admit, Rubio has voted pretty solidly on the fiscal side of things. I can tell that Rubio’s specialty is foreign policy. I have a serious problem with his views. While I agree with Rubio that America has a role in the world, I disagree that we should attempt to fight evil at every opportunity and spread democracy. Prepared speeches have the ability to make a utopia sound attainable, and it is convenient to leave out the consequences of those attempts. For example, Senator Rubio believes we should have taken a strong lead in Libya to oust Gaddafi and support the rebels. Yet we are broke, and we do not have vital national security interest in Libya. The rebels are led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the new regime is sure to be far worse than the previous. Perhaps Rubio would have suggested we create our own puppet state, but how could that be accomplished and to what benefit? Rubio takes a similar stand with Syria. I would argue that Iraq was a similar situation, and had he been in Congress Rubio would have pushed for that war as well. The simple fact of the Middle East is that while deplorable, the region is much more stable when in the hands of power hungry dictators. Besides, human reaction tells us that more enemies arise when we involve ourselves in Middle Eastern affairs due to anger and occupation and collateral damage.  I am not an isolationist, and there are times when intervention is reasonable, such as situations of nuclear ramifications, being Iran and North Korea, but fighting for the sake of fighting has always been the downfall of the great nations. I am afraid Rubio is too trigger happy. Had his bill to bring Georgia into NATO not been filibustered, who knows what could have happened with Russia. McCain, Graham, and Lieberman…and Rubio are simply dangerous. I will also point out that Rubio is already showing he is sympathetic to amnesty with his new DREAM Act being proposed.

Only analyzing the policies of these two men ignores the deeper issue: Do they interpret the Constitution of the United States as originally intended, as Justice Clarence Thomas does? Do they even care?  They took a sacred oath to uphold it. Ryan and Rubio have shown by their words and deeds that they are not upholding their oaths.

The leaders of our party must emphasize the Constitution with everything they do. There are few that do. This is not meant as a personal attack on Ryan and Rubio, but an attack on the status quo of Washington and the rejection of the Constitution and conservative/libertarian ideals in favor of partisan power games.