April 2013 Newsletter
P.O. Box 1845
McKinney, Texas 75070
We have faith in the men and women of our armed services that they will be
focused on their mission to protect the invaluable freedoms that we possess. Those
same men and women of our armed services must have faith in their fellow
Americans that we will provide them with the therapy, resources, and tools when
they return home. Let's all work together to make sure that we do everything we can
to make sure this happens.
Please come join us to hear Speakers from the group -
Fellow Americans Inspired by True Heroes
April 11th at 7:00 PM
Collin County GOP Headquarters
8416 Stacy Rd., McKinney, TX 75070
And they [his brothers]
Taking Liberty for Granted sold [Joseph] to the Ishmaelite's
for twenty pieces of silver:
D ick Cheney, the 46th Vice President of the United States, made the following
“It is easy to take liberty for granted when you have never had it
taken from you.”
**Patriots Prayer **
For a long time, Lord, I have relied on You. I desperately want to put You first in my life
and keep You there. And just as I don’t want to take for granted the freedoms I enjoy
as an American, let me also never take You for granted. Keep me mindful that You are
with me all the time. I give You praise and admiration today. Fill my heart with
anticipation for tomorrow.
**Patriots Promise **
Joseph lost his freedom when his brothers sold him into slavery. We can only imagine
what Joseph must have felt as he was bound and forced to join that caravan of
Ishmaelite's. Just days before, Joseph had been wandering around freely, attempting
to locate his brothers, and now he was being taken off into slavery. He had no idea
what was going to happen to him. Suddenly his freedom—his liberty—was snatched
from him. If you know the story of Joseph, you will recall that this was only the
beginning of his struggle for freedom. But God was with Joseph and blessed him
beyond what he could have ever thought or imagined. He trusted God even though his
situation was impossible. That’s the key: “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way.”
Devotional taken from “IN GOD WE STILL TRUST
By Dr. Richard G. Lee
Dear CCCR Members,
I would like to share two important initiatives that CCCR is working on right now.
First, CCCR is actively reviewing candidates in the upcoming municipal races all
across Collin County. If you have insight on any of the
candidates or elections for mayor, city council, or school board and would like to be
involved in our outreach and voter education efforts, please contact our Legislative
Chair Diann Jones (email@example.com). Diann and her legislative team will
also be giving a broad update on these races in this Thursday’s meeting.
Derek V. Baker
Second, as you may recall, we revised our bylaws recently. One of the major President
changes included the creation of new full and associate memberships
for high school and college students. CCCR is committed to engaging the youth in our area and in-
creasing our youth membership and Club participation.
If you know of local high school or college students that may be interested in becoming
more politically involved or even learning about the political process, please reach out to them and en-
courage them to attend one of the upcoming CCCR meetings. Better yet, pass their contact information
to me and I will personally follow up.
Sometimes, conservative activists do not engage youth because they don’t know “where they stand” on
the issues, or just aren’t sure if they are “conservative” enough. Please remember, part of our job as
conservatives is to educate and inform people on conservative
values, and that certainly includes young people that either have not fully formed their beliefs or even
hold some beliefs contrary to our own.
We must engage the youth (and all those around us) and be willing to articulate our
conservative principles with passion, but also with grace and patience. Please consider who you may be
able to reach out to this week in order to further the critical goal of
engaging and winning the youth for the cause of liberty!
Please feel free to contact me if you have ideas or suggestions on the items above, how to grow our
Club, promote conservative principles, or you have interested in a leadership position in CCCR.
Your fellow servant for freedom,
Derek V. Baker
Connect with CCCR! Follow us on FaceBook, Twitter, and Pinterest:
Thanks to all of you who have helped to recruit new members. We are happy
and excited to welcome all new members to our club.
Welcome to all of you! We look forward to getting to know you better and
working with you to keep the Conservative wing of the party growing in Collin
County. Please come out to the educational meetings and sponsored activities
which are outlined in the Newsletter. Help us continue to grow by bringing a
friend, family member or coworker.
Pledge of the United States Texas Pledge
Revised by the 80th Legislature—
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag effective June 15, 2007)
Of the United States of America “Honor the Texas flag;
And to the Republic for which it stands, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas,
One nation under God one state, under God,
Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” one and indivisible.”
Calendar of Events
April 8 - Frisco Tea Party
April 9 - McKinney Tea Party
April 10 - Frisco Area Republican Women
April 11 - Collin County Conservative Republicans
April 13 - Golden Corridor Republican Women Spring Luncheon
April 17 - TFRW Belles and Boots Ball, Austin
April 18 - TFRW Legislative Day
April 23 - Collin County Conservative Republicans - “SPECIAL MEETING”
April 23 - McKinney Tea Party
April 29 - 2013 First day of early voting
May 2 - Golden Corridor Republican Women
May 7 - 2013 Last day of early voting
May 9 - Collin County Conservative Republicans
May 11 - 2013 ELECTION DAY
Collin County Conservative
Republicans Board Members
President, Derek V. Baker Treasurer Chair,
214-551-4604 Brendan Keane
derekvbak firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
1st Vice President Legislative Chair,
Programs Chair, Diann Jones
Mona Roise firstname.lastname@example.org
Communications Chair, JohnAnn
Angel Fitzpatrick email@example.com
Membership Chair Kathy Hebert
Dalton Lytle firstname.lastname@example.org
Compiled by: Diann Jones, CCCR Legislative Chair
There are two really great bills passing through thru the Texas Legislature as I write this article.
House Bill 14 and Senate Bill 14.
Please support them both. There will be a rally on the South steps of the Capitol in favor of these
two bills on April 18th (Legislative Day in Austin). Comptroller Susan Combs has laid out the need
for more transparency by local governments throughout the state. She has said that governmental
units should be forthcoming with disclosure of the full amount of debt in Texas. The following infor-
mation is current as of March 11, 2013. There may have been some amendments since that time,
but the core of the bills is outlined below. Please read through these and share them with your Legislative Chair,
family and friends across Texas. The amount of debt incurred on behalf of the citizens of Texas CCCR
should be easy to find and access. Let us be diligent or we could go the way of
California and the Federal Government.
According to the Comptroller's "Texas, It's Your Money" report series:
In the last decade, local governments more than doubled their debt load to more than $7,500
for every man, woman and child in the state.
Since 1993, the number of Texas special districts levying sales tax has increased by more
than 1,900 percent. The number levying property tax has risen by 45 percent.
Taxpayers have been asked to approve billions in debt without sufficient context.....often with
no idea of current debt load or annual debt service payments.
* In 40 Comptroller town halls across the state, not one person knew how much local debt they
owed when asked.
House Bill 14/Senate Bill 14 - Transparency for Texas Taxpayers
Who is affected?
These bills require cities, counties, school districts, community college districts, universities and
special districts that levy taxes or issue debt to provide more financial transparency to the public.
Special districts include water districts, transit authorities, hospital districts, etc.
These bills will ensure that voters will be more informed when they vote on new debt and limits the
ability of governments to issue debt without voter approval.
* These bills will ensure that special-purpose taxing entities demonstrate they serve the purposes for
which they were created.
What will these bills actually do?
Will put spending and debt information online: Under HB/SB 14, cities, counties, school districts,
community college districts, universities and special districts must post revenue and expenditure
information online annually to include details on long-term debt obligations.
They will give more detail on the ballot for debt decisions: Voters are often not made fully aware of
how new proposed debt fits into the total debt carried by their local government. HB/SB 14
requires ballots for new debt to include, at a minimum:
Amount of proposed debt;
How long the proposed debt will take to pay off;
Principal outstanding on current debt (before proposed bond issuance);
Maximum remaining interest on existing debt; and
Total debt service on existing debt. Limits debt issued without taxpayer approval: in Texas,
local governments can issue debt without voter approval through Certificates of Obligation
(CO's). CO's are now 16.6 percent of all debt issued by eligible entities.
HB/SB 14 would prevent governments from issuing a CO to pay for a purpose voters have
already rejected, and make it easier for voters to require a vote on a CO through a petition.
Also limits local governments' ability to issue COs without notice.
Ensures a review of special purpose taxing districts: the bill requires special districts to
conduct and publish a self-evaluation that demonstrates to local taxpayers that it is
accomplishing the purpose for which it was created.
Requires school facility inventories to inform taxpayer decisions on new debt:
Because most education debt is for school construction, HB/SB 14 would require school
districts and charter schools to post online inventories of their existing facilities, and report the
cost of facilities being built or renovated, to better inform voters when deciding on new debt.
Good News Out of Indiana...
Just last week, in a 5 to 0 ruling, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld Indiana's school voucher
program put in place two years ago by then Republican Governor Mitch Daniels. The State law
offers families up to $4,500 to attend schools outside of the public education system, coming into
conflict with claims against it made by the public schools' teacher-based unions. The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a similar Ohio program in 2002.
The Indiana program is a little different than most others, making all families eligible to apply for
vouchers, not just low-income families or those with children in failing schools. Middle-class Governor Mike Pence
families are eligible to apply for vouchers and vouchers are offered statewide, even to families liv-
ing in areas with adequate public schools. Thus, all Indiana parents are able to choose where their children go to
school, according to Republican Governor Mike Pence.
In my opinion, Texas needs to follow Indiana's voucher program and see if we can't improve our students test
Strange as it may be, the Supreme Court decision that held the Affordable Care Act to be Constitutional, may be the
very thing that holds the power to undo the monster.
The Affordable Care Act has another serious legal challenge on its hands that is currently making its way through the
court system. This is a challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation that contends that the Affordable Care Act is
unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the
Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act last June, but Chief Justice Roberts took care while writing the
majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, California
based foundation's attorneys decided they would file their case. The Supreme Court has explicitly said, "This is not a
law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax." The courts should not be creating new exceptions to the
The Obama Administration's Department of Justice has come up with two basic arguments in its effort to get the
Pacific Legal Foundation's Lawsuit dismissed: The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in
November, arguing that the High Court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and has
never invalidated an Act of Congress on that basis. In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the
bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After
passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced entirely with the
contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Department of Justice also argues that the taxes raised are "incidental to the bill's mission," a standard that has
allowed some creative stretching of the Origination Clause in the past. That seems rather difficult to square with the
absolutely vital nature of the ObamaCare "tax" designation to its continued survival - if it had not been ruled as a tax
by the Roberts Court, it would have gone down in flames.
If the Pacific Legal Foundation's Lawsuit is successful, it would get rid of the entire ObamaCare bill, unlike other
challenges that might be addressed by piling a few hundred more pages on top of the existing bill. For more
information on this article go to:
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/02/the-lawsuit-that-might-kill-obamacare/ Article written by John Hayward
Should the GOP be Concerned Over Recent PEW Poll Findings Regarding Hispanic Outreach??
Nearly half of Latinos in a recent PEW Research Center Poll said they trusted the federal government to do the right
thing "always" or "most of the time." Two-thirds of Latinos believed the federal government should ensure that
everyone has access to health insurance, a 2012 Latino Decisions survey found. The impression left by the L.A.
Times article reporting on the PEW Research Center Poll was that Hispanic resistance to Republican outreach might
be less a matter of culture than socio-economic status. A large portion of Hispanic voters fall into the income and
unemployment groups that see nothing but upside to Big Government programs. Team Obama was ruthlessly
efficient in milking this dependency for votes, even as Obama's policies expand the market for social welfare benefits.
The view of the Hispanic voting majority painted by the PEW Pole findings is pretty dismal. This leaves one
wondering what to attribute this to: either they are failing to receive a good education that would teach them that
government only has the money that it takes from its citizens and that money only stretches so far. It would be my
hope that an education process could start soon that teaches all potential citizens about capitalism and how it works
and why they should not sell their souls to the government because they will only wind up with the type of government
of which they were quick to flee if they are immigrants from another country. More information regarding the PEW Poll
and the article from the LA Times (written by John Hayward) can be found at the website listed below:
Representative Turner has been very busy since going to Austin. The following is just a small sampling of some of his work:
HB 607 - This is a full repeal of the franchise tax after a four-year phase out.
HB 260 - This would require a interlock device after the first DWI conviction (at the offender's expense).
HB 3497 - This is a school choice bill, giving parents a taxpayer's savings grant to send their child to private school (this would
save the state up to $20 billion over the next decade).
HB 3498 - In order to combat grade inflation in colleges and universities, this legislation calls for more transparency in reporting
by requiring a student's transcript to note the class average/median next to the student's individual grade.
*HB 14 - This bill calls for more transparency and accountability in government on all levels.
*HB 2301 - This bill requires state contractors and government entities to participate in E-Verify and authorizes the suspension of
certain licenses held by private employers who knowingly employ people in the state unlawfully.
The top four are bills that Rep. Turner authored and the two with the "*" next to them are bills he joint-authored.
We’ve already had some chatter about President Obama’s new “blow your mind” budget proposal. As Erika
pointed out, there’s still plenty of taxy goodness in it, but more details are beginning to emerge. The Hill has
latched on to one of the really insulting ones which, unlike in Obamacare, we may actually read and find out
about before we vote on it.
President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy
individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration
official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently
“accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is
needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
I don’t know about you, but I think this is simply fabulous. It’s got almost everything you could want in an example
of liberal tax theory. You see, some people will be able to stash away as much cash toward retirement as they
can manage, assuming they somehow still have a job. But not everyone. So how do you draw that line in the
sand as to who gets to plan for their golden years and how much you really need for retirement? Don’t worry your
pretty little head about it, sweetheart. Uncle Sam will make the call for you!
But what is the theory behind even trying a stunt like this in the first place? Apparently, the government will “save”
money by not letting certain unpopular individuals defer or avoid taxes on income in retirement savings. How
much? Go back and read the first quoted paragraph above. We’re talking about nine billion dollars over ten years.
That’s $900M each year toward paying our bills… or less than the amount we’ll probably spend to save the lesser
prairie chicken next year.
Bonus goodness: The budget will include more national taxes on tobacco. And we all know how well that works
The cigarette tax, the official said, would fund the universal pre-kindergarden
education program Obama proposed in the State of the Union. A White House
official on Friday declined to give details on the rate or extent of the new cigarette
tax ahead of the official budget release.
Well played again, Mayans.
By Jazz Shaw
Only Carry a Gun When You’re About To Be Murdered
Do you only buckle your seat belt if you think you’re going to be in an
accident? Of course not! You (should) buckle up every time you hop
in your car. You never know when you’re going to be in a deadly
accident. Once your car starts careening off a cliff is a little late to
buckle up, so you should always be prepared.
Buckle up, mate!
Is it any different when it comes to carrying a gun? Do you know
when you’re going to get robbed? Murdered? Only carry your gun on the days you know you’re going to get mur-
dered or there is going to be another Virginia Tech massacre. Nope, you better carry your gun every time you set
foot out your front door. You never know when a drug-crazed guy is gonna shoot you for a few bucks.
On February 20th in Woodbridge, VA, Gregory Holley was walking his dog around 9:40pm when he was
approached by another man, Aric Smith. In the short encounter, Aric shot Gregory and robbed him. Gregory was
unarmed. He was completely unable to defend himself.
Responding police officers were able to quickly apprehend the shooter, due to witnesses seeing a man flee the
scene. Long story short, Aric Smith was booked for first degree murder, armed robbery and using a firearm in
commission of a felony.
It was later discovered that the firearm used in the murder had been reported stolen from a vehicle in Monclair
just 5 days earlier.
While it’s great the bad guy was quickly arrested, this doesn’t help Gregory Holly very much. I doubt he knew his
fate when he stepped out his front door for a walk in the icy-cold evening air. If he had known what awaited him
down the road, might he have grabbed a gun for protection?
Carrie Thompson is an avid 2nd amendment supporter who believes everyone should
protect themselves. Carrie is a regular contributor to AJGraves.com, an alternative
news source for Libertarians, Tea Party Activists, Ron Paul supporters and freedom
lovers. Follow Carrie on Google+.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said on Thursday that it’s too early to assign blame for the
murder of a district attorney in his state, commenting in response to
questions about his earlier suggestion that Mexican drug cartels could be involved and
a porous border at fault.
“My remarks were, it is very premature to be making any statements about who may or
may not have been involved with this,” the Republican governor said at a press
conference. “There was a report by the Department of Public Safety that said the
Gov. Rick Perry
greatest threat to Texans’ safety were the drug cartels.
Obviously that’s part of the investigation, those individuals involved with that. But to make any
conclusions, to try to read into any statements about who may or may not be involved with this is
a bit premature.”
Over the weekend, Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife were found shot to death at
their home, and reports indicated the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist group, could be responsible for the
murders. No one has yet been apprehended.
On Wednesday, Perry raised eyebrows when he said drug cartels and border security issues should be taken
(PHOTOS: 20 quotes on immigration reform)
“We know the drug cartels are very, very active in our country now,” he said on Fox News. “It goes back … to the
whole issue of border security and the failure of the federal government to put the men and women, whether they
are military or whether they’re border patrol or whether working with the local law enforcement, expend the
dollars necessary to secure the border with Mexico.”
On Thursday, Perry also pledged to leave “no stone unturned” in the investigation. His office is
offering a $100,000 reward in exchange for a substantive lead in the case.
“We know we have a porous border, we know that drug cartels, gangs, transnational and otherwise, in some
cases operating together,” he said. “And all of that obviously is open for interpretation and
investigation. We will leave no stone unturned. Any organization that is operating in the state of
Texas, outside the bounds of our laws, is going to be put on notice that were going to hunt you down, we’re going
to punish you, we’re going to do our best to remove that type of threat.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/rick-perry-border-security-texas-89637.html#ixzz2PiFIKghS
DE OPPRESSO LIBER
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Are You Breathing? You’re Probably A Terrorist
Aaron Graves posted this in Politics & Law, US
So, the FBI recently released 25 pamphlets for business owners, in hopes that those businesses might turn in
their customers for being “terrorists.”
Here are a couple of behaviors that might get you snitched on:
1. Beauty salons and drug stores are told to watch out for customers who don’t drive
themselves but are dropped off and picked up by someone else. (If you’re elderly
and need a ride, you might be a terrorist.)
2. Gas station attendants are told to look out for customers who put gas in gas cans. (If you run out of gas, you
might be a terrorist.)
3. Construction sites are advised to consider glued locks as evidence of terrorism. (Definitely not a prank pulled
by unruly teenagers.)
4. Dive boat shops are told to look out for customers who rent a boat for an “extended amount of time.” (If you
have too much fun on your rented boat, you might be a terrorist.)
5. Electronics stores are advised to look out for those who purchase an assortment of electronic supplies. (If
you frequent Radio Shack or Fry’s, you might be a terrorist.)
6. Banks should be on the lookout for customers who deposit multiple checks or money orders. (If you have
more than one stream of income, you might be a terrorist.)
7. Hobby shops are told to keep an eye out for those who have an “unusual” interest in remote-controlled
airplanes. (If you’re a hobbyist, you might be a terrorist.)
8. Home improvement stores are told to watch out for customers buying lots of watches or kitchen timers. (If
you’re a chef, you might be a terrorist.)
9 They’re also advised to be on the lookout for people buying pipe, particularly in short lengths, or camouflaged
clothing. (If you’re a plumber or someone who lives in the South, you might be a terrorist.)
10. Hotels and Motels are told to look out for guests who have lots of luggage and for those who don’t want
cleaning service. (If you’re a woman who values her privacy, you might be a terrorist.)
11. Internet cafes are told to watch out for patrons who have more than one cell phone or who are seen switching
out their SIM cards. (If you have a business phone and a personal phone, you might be a terrorist.)
12. Passengers and drivers on mass transportation are told to look out for people who have cameras, are
drawing pictures or writing things down. (If you write down your grocery list while you’re on the bus,
you might be a terrorist.)
13. Military surplus stores are told to look out for those who purchase a lot of meals ready-to-eat (MRE). (If you’re
planning a camping trip, you might be a terrorist.)
14. Rental truck facilities are told to look out for customers who ask about how big a particular truck is or how
much fuel it holds. (If you have to move a lot of stuff to your new house, you might be a terrorist.)
15. The general public is advised to be suspect of anyone who seems to be overdressed for the weather
(if you’re cold, you’re probably hiding something under your coat) or anyone who is critical of U.S. foreign
policy. (If you disagree with the current administration, that means that you want to blow up government
buildings and airplanes.)
Basically, if you’re breathing right now, you may be a dangerous terrorist.
Also, be cautious of: paying for goods or services in cash, losing fingers or hands, shaving your beard, changing
your hair color (or clothes), or having B.O.
Thanks to Godfather Politics and Shades of Thomas Paine.
Licenses For Undocumented Workers Is Good Public Policy for Texas Roads.
By Linda Vega & Alex Gonzalez
There is new Bill (HB-3206) in the Texas Legislature to allow undocumented workers in the state to obtain driver
licenses. As a Matter of Public Policy, the bill gives licenses to those who, with or without a license, must drive to work.
Texas has one of the largest rural areas in nation, and Latinos immigrants–legal and undocumented–are the largest
groups in construction, agriculture and restaurants. Therefore, the bill brings the much needed safety to Texas roads by
mandating driving courses and insurance; and therefore is good public policy that should be embraced by Republicans.
As a matter of Politics, two months ago we personally met with two Latino
legislators and sent the bill to them to encourage them to introduce it. As mat-
ter of politics, we argued that it was important for the only three Latino
Republicans to show they wanted to tackle issues important to Latino
community; and therefore, the bill must be
introduced by Latino GOP to revamp the ill-perceived image of Republicans
within Latino immigrant communities, and with the Spanish-Speaking Media.
The GOP has introduced good education policies that benefits Latinos but this
gets lost in media war for attention and Latino Republican never talk about
these positive education bills.
Thus, the problem with Latinos was more of an image or PR
problem. Moreover the contentious issue of redistricting will be on the agenda again this session; so Republicans
needed to have some legislation on record to counter any attacks by Democrats who tend to argue that the GOP
always antagonize Latino communities. We argue that An immigrant-friendly bill introduce by a Latino Republican
would soften any blow by the Democrat and would be good way to repair the GOP image and simultaneously give
room the Latino Republican to promote the other Republican bills within the Hispanic community.
Well, the bill was introduced by a Democrat and now possibly by “Anglo” Republicans, is now being considered, even
by Gov. Perry, and the Democrats will get all the credit.
Here is the text of the Draft we share with the Latino Republican Legislators, which includes the recommendations
needed to comply with the REAL ID Legislation used in other state like Washington, Utah, New Mexico and now Illinois.
The Non-Alien Driving Permit (NADP) Bill
Texas is large state with several rural counties who are in need of laborers many of whom have ineffective
transportation, eg. Public transportation. Therefore, a private automobile is the only means of transportation for
workers, both legal and without work authorization, to get to their worksite. However, an untrained driver without work
authorization cannot be required to take driving education courses, nor can they be certified to operate a motor vehicle
since by cannot provide a Security Number or an Alien Registration card that would allow them to enroll in such
courses. The Non-Alien Driving Permit or the NADP will offer a working Permit, not a driving license, to those
without an “alien” status and who are not able to apply for a regular driver’s license. The NADP will give them the
opportunity to submit to state DPS driving regulations, background check, and complete their training manual.
The requirements For The NADP are:
Those applying without a Social Security must submit to a background check to prevent any non-immigrant worker
with a criminal record from getting driving permits.
If you are not eligible for a social security number, the following are accepted by DPS as proof of identity:
Original or certified copy of a foreign birth certificate with a notarized English translation.
Matricula Consular or ID card issued by the Mexican Consulates in the state of Texas, or – Valid
passport issued by a country of citizenship.
government-issued documents from states labeled, by the State Department as “states sponsors
of terrorism” will NOT be admitted under the NADP.
Those applying without a Social Security MUST also submit proof of Texas residency. An a
Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The following are accepted by DPS as proof of Texas Residency (document must not be more than three
months old and have a current physical address) DPS agents may accept no more than one document
from each category below:
Insurance bill, we accept the following: Automobile insurance bill, Home Owner’s/Rental insurance bill,
Health insurance bill, Life Insurance bill.
Bank or Credit Union statement - Employment pay stub that contains the applicant’s name and address
A local property tax statement or mortgage document.
Proof of minor child enrolled in a Texas public, private, or tribal school, we accept the following: School
enrollment form, Letter signed by school official on school letterhead.
Current valid motor vehicle registration - Original documents from a Texas community organization, or from
a city, county, state, tribal or federal government organization, attesting to the fact that the applicant is a
Texas resident - Texas medical assistance card or public assistance card.
If you are under 18 years of age, the following additional documents are accepted by DMV as proof of resi-
dency (document must not be more than three months old):- Proof of enrollment in a Texas public, private
or tribal school- Documents from membership in a Texas religious organization.
Any full implementation of the Real I.D. federal legislation–still pending for implementation, will not
interfere with the NADP since Texas will NOT issue state ID, or regular driver licenses that can be used to
board planes, and thus in compliance with any federal regulation.
Any fees accrued for criminal background check will be paid by applicants at beginning of application
Fingerprints Must be obtained and placed into a sealed envelope at a criminal state agency and submitted
DEMOCRATS STARTING TO WORRY ABOUT OBAMACARE
The recently announced delay of an important component of ObamaCare is raising anxiety among Democrats,
according to The Hill. HHS recently announced that it was delaying for one year a provision that would allow
small businesses to choose from an array of insurance plans for their employees. Most small businesses,
however, won't have that option until 2015, at the earliest, and will have only one plan option to provide their
employees. As a result, it will be more expensive for the businesses to comply with the law.
In 2012, ObamaCare never rose to be a major issue in the Presidential campaign, as many expected. While
Romney criticized the law extensively on the campaign trail, his arguments were muddled because, as Governor,
he had supported that most unpopular feature of ObamaCare -- the individual mandate.
A larger problem, however, was that for most voters the law hadn't taken effect. The aftermath of the drama
surrounding passage of OBamaCare was anticlimactic because, for most people, nothing changed. The
Democrats, smartly, put full implementation of the law far beyond Obama's reelection effort.
The implementation date, though, is fast approaching. By the midterm elections in 2014, the full impact of
ObamaCare will be felt. The consequences could lead to another Democrat bloodbath, similar to the 2010
midterm elections. Democrat anxiety is likely to increase in the coming months.
Overhauling a sector as massive as health care is extraordinarily complicated, even with the most well-crafted
plans. ObamaCare was not well-crafted. Two broad assumptions underlying the law have already proved flawed.
First, drafters of the law assumed that every state would set up its own health insurance exchange. Only a
handful have done so, leaving the federal government in charge of managing insurance exchanges across the
country. These exchanges are supposed to be up and running in just 6 months. HHS is unlikely to meet
ObamaCare also required states to expand their Medicaid programs, extending coverage to low-income adults
without children. It was a key provision to get to universal coverage. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that
states could choose whether or not to expand their programs. Around half the states have opted not to expand
Medicaid, worried that their costs would increase dramatically in future years.
Taken by themselves, these two complications might be manageable. Combined with the onerous individual
mandate, which takes effect January 1st, however, and the lack of plan options for small businesses,
these setbacks could set in motion a tidal wave of unintended consequences.
Small businesses, who might otherwise have provided insurance coverage for their employees, may find the cost
prohibitive. The may also take steps to change their business operations, to get below the threshold where
coverage is mandated. Such moves will have a dramatic, negative impact on the economy.
Millions of workers will then be pushed to have to purchase coverage on the insurance exchanges. A provision in
the law allowing states to negotiate with insurance carriers to offer basic, affordable health plans has also been
delayed by the Obama Administration. As a result, policies offered in the exchanges, if they are even working,
could be too expensive of millions of Americans.
Democrats put off ObamaCare's day of reckoning until well after the 2012 elections. That day, however, is
coming. Senate Democrats were already in a vulnerable position going into the 2014 midterms. The full
consequences of ObamaCare, which will be felt by every American before the November elections, may make
the Democrats' position completely untenable.
An ObamaCare perfect storm for Democrats is building.
Follow Mike Flynn on twitter: @Flynn1776
Senate Judiciary Republicans call for immigration
reform transparency from ‘Gang of 8′ Republicans
Senate Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Mike Lee and
Ted Cruz called on Republican members of the “Gang of Eight” senators currently
shaping immigration reform legislation to bring additional transparency to their
negotiations, in a letter released Friday.
“As members of the Judiciary Committee, we believe it is critical that the public and the entire Senate body be given
adequate time to read and analyze the contents of any immigration bill put forth by the Majority,” Senate Judiciary
ranking member Grassley and three of his Republican colleagues wrote in a letter to the four GOP “gang” members.
“Our Committee has had only three hearings in recent months, barely touching on issues involving enforcement,
border security or the creation of a temporary worker program.”
In the letter to Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, John McCain and Lindsey Graham dated April 4, the four
Senate Judiciary members pointed out that the committee’s chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy has indicated that he might
only hold a single hearing on the legislation before marking up the bill.
“As members of this Committee who apparently will soon have to vote on this legislation, we need to be consulted,”
The four went on to lay out their concerns with not only the process but the other instance in the immigration debate
which have served to “erode” the faith the American people have in their government’s commitment to enforce the
“In the last four years, we have received very little cooperation in fulfilling our duty to conduct oversight. The policies
of the Obama Administration, including the recent revelation that the administration refuses to establish a border
security metric for fear that it would interfere with a legalization program, leave little doubt that this administration has
no intention of cooperating with Congress,” they wrote. “These actions have further eroded the American people’s
confidence that the government will carry out its duty to enforce the laws. We should not further test the faith of the
American people by implementing a major overhaul of the immigration system that prioritizes legalizing law breakers
over the long-term needs of the country.”
They added that in that same vein, recent comments from Gang of Eight member Charles Schumer — that they
group has “come to a basic agreement, which is that first, people will be legalized. In other words, not citizens, but
they’ll be allowed to work, come out of the shadows, travel. Then, we will make sure the border is secure” — has
caused them further concern.
“Going forward, we expect to hear from experts on each of the proposals being put forth, including but not limited to
a new temporary worker program, border security, interior and worksite enforcement, and the impact of a large-scale
legalization on American workers and taxpayers,” they added in their letter. “We hope you will stand with us to en-
sure that all viewpoints are heard before the Committee considers any immigration legislation.”
“The time for transparency has come,” they declared. “Given the Majority’s rushed timetable, we believe it is time for
you to discuss the status of your negotiations, disclose what concessions have been made, and provide details to
members of the Judiciary Committee as well as the entire Republican Caucus.”
Grassley, Sessions, Lee and Cruz went on to request that the GOP gang member’s staff brief Republican committee
staff about the negotiations no later than Monday close of business.
“We also request that you personally discuss your group’s proposal with the entire caucus early next week so that all
members can raise concerns and questions before the deal is finalized,” they concluded their missive. “Finally, we
hope you will pledge your commitment to protecting the rights of the minority in the Senate by demanding a full, or-
derly and open debate process during Committee consideration and when the bill is sent to the full Senate.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley Sen. Mike Lee Sen. Jeff Sessions Sen. Ted Cruz
Sen. Chuck Schumer Sen. Chuck Schumer Sen. John McCain Sen. Lindsay Graham
Update, 7:05 p.m.: Sen. Rubio’s office today sent the following response letter to the Senate Republicans who
inquired about the comprehensive bill’s transparency.
April 5, 2013
I have received your timely letter regarding recent immigration reform efforts. I appreciate your
interest in this important issue and I share your position about the need for a robust and public
debate. As you know, I have been forceful and clear in my position that the Judiciary Sen. Marco Rubio
Committee hold multiple hearings on the topic and be given ample time to consider any immigration proposal. This is
a position I reiterated last weekend in a letter to Chairman Patrick Leahy, which I have attached for your reference.
It has always been my view that any proposal crafted by the bipartisan group working on immigration serve as a
starting point, not a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I can assure you that the work we have done to date has been no
different – and therefore no more or less secretive – than any other process intended to develop legislation as a
starting point for debate.
As you know, at the very beginning of this process, my office issued a standing invitation for the entire Republican
conference to send me input and ideas on immigration reform. In fact, I specifically asked for proposals on border
security, workplace enforcement and a process to handle the millions of people currently in this country who are in
violation of our immigration laws. To date, we have received no response from any of your offices. Nevertheless, as I
have shared with several of you personally, I have used previous immigration-related bills you and others have filed
in the past to ensure your views were reflected in the legislation. That includes a conversation I had with Senator
Sessions during the budget votes, where I personally informed him that his amendment to prevent government
benefits to undocumented immigrants was consistent with the proposal being worked on by the bipartisan group.
Nonetheless, I have been clear in stressing, both in the bipartisan group and publicly, that the most important part of
the process is what comes after the legislation is introduced. I believe strongly that all other 92 senators should be
given ample time not just to review the legislation, but to offer ways to improve it. Earlier this week, I requested and
received permission to brief the entire Republican conference during our policy lunch next week. I look forward to
briefing you at that meeting. In addition, I have asked my staff to brief the staff of every Republican member of your
committee once the details of our starting point proposal are finalized. Rest assured I continue to welcome, value
and encourage any input you may have. In the meantime, if you or your staff has any specific ideas on immigration
reform, please contact us as soon as possible.
My hope is that the work of the bipartisan group is drawing to a close, and we will soon have a specific proposal
drafted and ready for review by the entire Senate. Like all legislation of this magnitude, it should be reviewed and
scrutinized thoroughly by numerous interested parties well before the first vote is taken.
Let me reiterate, this proposal will be a starting point. Assuming the majority follows regular order, as members of
the committee of jurisdiction, I expect you to have ample opportunity to review, comment and amend as you see fit.
If the majority does not follow regular order, you can expect that I will continue to defend the rights of every senator,
myself included, to conduct this process in an open and detailed manner.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/05/senate-judiciary-republicans-call-for-immigration-reform-transparency-
Yes, we need transparency Senator Rubio, what we really need is for all legislation to
be hashed out among Representatives of all the people and stop appointing these little
gangs of 6 or 8 which I feel is truly not Constitutional. If this is the way things are going
to be done in Washington then we need to let some federal employees go! Think of
the money we could save!
CCCR Legislative Chair
Ten Q&A on Same-Sex Marriage
Canards and Evasion
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered
questions about the consequences. Let's explore some of them.
1. What's love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a
foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing "affection" as a factor in
defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dy-
namics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state's interest in marriage?
First, to recognize the union that produces the state's citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citi-
zens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That's all, folks. Proponents of genderless marriage often answer
this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and "love
and stability" (not a function of state involvement).
3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?
It's thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or
health. Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the "fallacy of composition": inferring
that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Citizens of the state can
exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs -- whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri
dish. That's the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.
4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?
We just don't have the right to deliberately deprive children of knowing their biological mothers or fathers. But gender-
less marriage ultimately requires us to do this. It requires society to sanction the refashioning of familial bonds in alien-
ating and experimental ways. Use of surrogates and egg or sperm markets put children at ever-increasing risk of being
treated more as commodities than as human beings. Laws supporting genderless marriage cannot help but ramp up
these trends to newer and crueler levels.
5. Won't biological parents continue to have a default legal right to rear the children they sire and
See Question 4. The rights of biological parents to raise their own children will necessarily diminish in the wake of
legalization of same-sex marriage, because changing the definition of marriage results in changing presumptions about
who the legal parents are. Recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the only sustainable basis
upon which a biological mother and father are legally and by default recognized as the primary caregivers of their
children. But today there's a new push for the state to require special licensing of all family
configurations as "care-giving units."
6. How can legalization of same sex marriage affect my own marriage?
It is the vehicle by which all civil marriages may soon be abolished, including yours. When children are no longer con-
sidered central to state purpose, marriage becomes nothing more than a contract between any two (or more) people. A
reversal of DOMA could give force to an emerging movement called "singlism," which argues that the state should
cease recognition of marriage because it is discriminatory against those who do not have partners.
Furthermore, the un-defining of marriage is only one part of a package deal that includes the transgender push for the
un-defining of gender. This is already happening under the radar through laws that define gender identity only on self-
perception: seeing yourself on any given day as male, female, both, or neither. If that goal is achieved, the reduction of
your "marriage" to social and legal gibberish will be complete. And as we become more
isolated from family bonds in the eyes of the state, the state becomes freer to define our humanity.
7. How about we just "get the state out of the marriage business" altogether?
This is a silly slogan that actually invites the government to regulate our personal associations on a scale we've never
before witnessed. Libertarians like to discuss "privatizing" marriage, but we should smell a big fat government trap here.
State recognition of marriage serves to ensure the autonomy of the family, which in turn serves as the greatest buffer
zone between the individual and the power of the state. If civil marriage is abolished, all families instead become
partnerships subject to contract law, with the state ever more aggressively defining and regulating those contracts. And
how can we expect the government to respect family autonomy if we no longer require the government to recognize it?
8. Isn't it relevant that public opinion is shifting in favor of same sex marriage?
No. Poll numbers reflect only what people are willing to
say. People consistently falsify their preferences when
confronted with the likelihood of being smeared, isolated, and
punished if they express "incorrect" views. The echo
chambers of media, academia, and Hollywood serve as
enforcers. Constant repetition of views, no matter how
implausible they may seem at first, combined with the
suppression of dissent, often results in an availability cascade
that leads to shifts in public opinion.
9. What about all those conservative politicians and pundits now reversing course and supporting same sex
See #8. Politics as usual. The self-reinforcing opinion cascade is having its intended effect on them. None offer sub-
stantive arguments. The fear of losing turf, power, and connections leaves them more susceptible than most to the forc-
es of preference falsification and the suppression of dissent.
10. What about equal rights for gays? Doesn't restricting marriage to union of a man and woman infringe on
their civil rights?
Civil societies recognize and respect the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. But marriage is what it is,
rooted in sexual complementarity and biology. This fact makes some people sad. And angry. So in the interests of
fairness, public officials are changing the meaning on paper to make the emotionally afflicted feel better.
The reality is that this disrespectful hijacking of the civil rights movement in order to co-opt the definition of marriage re-
duces everybody's civil rights.
It violates the rights of children by serving to deprive them deliberately of biological parents. It violates everybody's civil
right to religious freedom by setting up a collision course in which conscience protections will be trumped by a nonsensi-
cal legal definition of marriage. It violates our freedom of association by removing the buffer zone of family (and all me-
diating institutions) that insulate all individuals in society from abuses of state power. It violates freedom of expression
by requiring Orwellian Newspeak of everyone, especially those accused of hate for objecting to same-sex marriage.
In the end, the primary beneficiary of this social experiment is a tyrannical minority hell-bent on controlling every aspect
of our lives and eventually dictating all of our personal relationships.
Stella Morabito has published several op-eds on same-sex marriage in The Washington Examiner.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/ten_qa_on_same -
s e x _ m a r r i a g e _ c a n a r d s _ a n d _ e v a s i o n s . h t m l # i x z z 2 P i 7 O 1 A X D
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Remember, always hire a Vet!!!
Thanks so much to our Sponsors