Tag Archives: Texas

Forget the Alamo…..

A friend who shares my concerns about Indiana’s governance for the next few years sent me a news link intended to cheer me up–sort of. His point was that it could be worse. We could live in Texas.

Over the years, when I have needed examples of truly bad policies as illustrations in my Law and Policy classes, Texas has often supplied those examples. I’d begun to think that the Texan fixation with secession may not be so misplaced; in fact, an amicable divorce was beginning to look pretty attractive. My friend’s link reinforced that  opinion.

Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party in Texas, suggests in his newsletter that the state should have an “amicable divorce” from the “maggots” who re-elected Obama.

Morrison posted on his Facebook page his post-election thoughts: “We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity.”

“Texas was once its own country, and many Texans already think in nationalist terms about their state,” Morrison continued. “We need to do everything possible to encourage a long-term shift in thinking on this issue. Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years.”

Reached for comment by Bud Kennedy at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Kent Batman, the chairman of the Hardin County Republican Party, said: “Wow.”

“OK, well — I guess I need to start taking a look at his newsletters,” Batman said.

This guy is an official of the Texas Republican Party. That’s bad enough. But even worse, the Chairman of the State Board of Education picked Morrison to screen the state’s public-school textbooks.

Explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Comments

Church and State in Texas

A friend recently sent me a copy of a Court Order approving a settlement in a hotly contested case from a small town in Texas. The Plaintiffs had complained that the school corporation engaged in pervasive and unconstitutional religious activities over a period of years–prayers over the loudspeakers, constant religious references by the Principal, prayers at athletic contests and graduation ceremonies and more. Students who complained were disciplined.

The judge’s opinion–especially the unusual “Personal Note” that he added–are worth reading in their entirety; the Personal Note appears below. His Appendix–which is not reproduced, but is also accessible on line–is a first-rate history of church/state relations through American history. I particularly appreciated the opening section of the Opinion, “What this case was NOT about,” in which he made a point not sufficiently emphasized: any child can pray in school at any time. The issue is whether public school officials–arms of the government–can promote or require that prayer.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State issued a press release detailing the major elements of the settlement:

* School district personnel will not display crosses, religious images, religious quotations, Bibles or religious texts, or other religious icons or artifacts on the walls, hallways, and other areas at the school.

* The district will not invite speakers, including government officials or community leaders, whom it has reason to believe will proselytize or promote religion during their remarks.

* The Medina Valley High School student handbook will contain a section on students’ rights to religious freedom, including the importance of respect for and tolerance of students from all backgrounds and the specific procedures for registering a complaint with district personnel about violations.

* The district will provide annual training to all district personnel who interact with students or parents or who supervise those who interact with students or parents. The training will cover a variety of topics related to students’ rights and church-state separation.

The release clarifies the terms of the agreement, but it’s only when you read the brief “Personal Statement” the Judge appended that you really appreciate the nastiness of the controversy, and the tenor of the “debate” conducted by the “religious” folk involved.

“A PERSONAL STATEMENT

During the course of this litigation,many have played a part:

To the United States Marshal Service and local police who have provided heightened security: Thank you.

To those Christians who have venomously and vomitously cursed the Court family and threatened bodily harm and assassination:In His name,I forgive you.

To those who have prayed for my death: Your prayers will some day be answered,as inevitability trumps probability.

To those in the executive and legislative branches of government who have demagogued this case for their own political goals:You should be ashamed of yourselves.

To the lawyers who have advocated professionally and respectfully for their clients’ respective positions:Bless you.”

Cato on Immigration

The Cato Institute has recently published an analysis of proposed Immigration Reform, and concluded that comprehensive reform is overdue. The entire report is worth reading (I don’t have it in electronic form, unfortunately), as it methodically disposes of a number of charges that are routinely leveled at undocumented workers.

One of the interesting studies cited in the report comes from Texas, of all places–a state rarely known for progressive policies, or for policies based on evidence of any kind, for that matter.

One of the arguments routinely made by those demanding that undocumented persons be deported is that they are an economic drain on the American economy. In December 2006, the Texas comptroller of public accounts looked at economic activity by illegal immigrants, and issued a report concluding that such individuals had “produced a positive effect on the Texas economy and state budget.” The Comptroller estimated that the loss of the approximately 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in the state would have translated into a loss of 17.7 billion dollars to the state in 2005.  The Comptroller further estimated that state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceeded what the state spent on services to that population by 424.7 million dollars.

This research seems consistent with estimates that undocumented workers leave something on the order of two billion dollars in Social Security each year–money withheld from paychecks under phony Social Security numbers that cannot ever be claimed by those from whom it was withheld.

Comments