OP/ED: How We Failed to Keep Our Republic

Kevin Tunstall is a frequent contributor to several fiscally conservative news sites. He has been a candidate for office and engaged in heated political discourse with neoconservatives and liberals at all levels of government. Currently he is serving as the vice-chairmen of the Libertarian Party of Texas. With his permission we are running this piece here on MCC.

---------------------------------------------------

How We Failed to Keep Our Republic
KD Tunstall

I must admit that since before Hurricane Ike, I had not watched corporate media for awhile. My reasoning was that they (corporate media) are not reliable and as a matter of routine they engage in propaganda and attempt to sway public opinion to fit their agenda. Likewise, I view silence on governmental malfeasance to be equally repugnant.

I suppose one can argue that silence is not collusion by consent. However, as witnessed in Texas, when the media fails to report on the government blatantly violating the election code, one can only be left with the impression that corporate media is engaging in purposefully misleading….no, let’s just call it lying, to the citizens of our state, and of our nation.

I wish to focus on two issues this week. The first issue is that of the State of Texas’ refusal to uphold the rule of law with respect to the election code. Secondly, I would like to discuss the nonsense we are witnessing with respect to ‘the bailout’ being rammed down our throat by the ruling elite. It has taken me awhile, considering recent events, to wrap my mind around these topics and today I intend to make my position very clear and very succinct. I will have to write on “the bailout” tomorrow as I lack the time to complete the article prior to performing my parental duties for the evening. Hopefully I will not bore you with the election code in the meantime.

A primer on mind numbing statutes

It is often stated that “we are a nation of laws, not of men.” This statement, originating from one of my ancestors John Adams, has been taught in every school of this nation. In contemporary context, it means nothing. I have stated previously that many people, I contend the majority of our citizens, believe that “the law” is meant for those outside their immediate peer group and is not applicable to their own. This is clearly evidenced by the recent mistakes made by both the RNC and DNC with respect to providing their list of “certified candidates” for the upcoming presidential election.

To understand the election code, you must understand the differences between the laws that govern political parties in Texas. There are three types of political parties recognized in the state of Texas. It breaks down as follows:

Primary Parties: those parties whose gubernatorial candidate in the last election who received > 20% of the popular vote in the last gubernatorial election. These parties (Republicans and Democrats) are required to operate under § 171 of the Election Code. They are required to elect their ‘state, county and congressional’ candidates as well as their ‘county party officers’ via the primary election.

§ 171 of the Election Code

Parties with State Organization: those parties who have a state “Executive Committee” and hold conventions to nominate their candidates at all levels. In this category, you have the Libertarian, Constitution, Reform and Green parties. All of these parties are governed under § 181 of the Election Code. If they are fortunate enough to receive > 5% of the popular vote in the General Election. Libertarians have done so as they receive double digit support in state-wide offices. However, the other parties in this category have failed to meet this requirement in recent history. Even though the Repucan and Democratic parties hold conventions, they are still governed under § 171 as required by law.

§ 181 of the Election Code

Parties without State Organization: These parties have no state Executive Committee. Though they may make nominations for county and precinct officers at convention, they must obtain petition signatures in order to get their candidates on the ballot. I am unsure if there are any parties that operate under this chapter. However, if there are, they are governed under § 182 of the Election Code.

§ 182 of the Election Code

Regardless of which section of the election code you fall under, if you qualify for state ballot access under § 171 or § 181, you are required to meet the conditions under § 192 in order to have your Presidential Nominee to be placed onto the ballot. To be specific, the law that governs the placement on the ballot of presidential nominees is § 192.031. It reads as follows:

§ 192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT.

A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:

the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law;

before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of:


the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and

the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and


the party is:


required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or

entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181.

§ 192.031 of the Election Code

All Things Considered

Let us break this down shall we?

Do all candidates “possess the qualification of those offices by federal law” as mandated under § 192.031 (1)? I have never questioned this. The governing “ruling authority” for this question would be the Federal Elections Commission. Therefore, should there be a discrepancy with respect to federal qualifications, we would have heard of such (hopefully).

Did the state party chairs sign and deliver to the Secretary of State a written certification of as mandated under § 192.031 (2)(A) the names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president and (B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominate by the party PRIOR TO the 70th day before the presidential election? This year, that deadline was August 26th. Let’s take a look. The Republican national convention was held September 1-4. Therefore they did not meet this qualification. The Democratic national convention was held August 25-28. Therefore, they too failed to meet this qualification. The Libertarian party held their convention May 22-26 and did provide a “certified list” of their nominees for president, vice president and electors to the Secretary of State prior to the deadline.

Do these parties meet the criteria under § 192.031 (3)(A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election or (B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181? Yes. The Republican and Democratic parties fall under § 192.031 (3)(A) and the Libertarian party falls under § 192.031 (3)(B).

On August 27, it was reported in the Ballot Access News that “Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division. The Executive Office of the Secretary of State refers all questions back to the Elections Division”

Ballot Access News

There you have it. The Republican and Democratic National Committees failed to abide by the laws of the State of Texas and hold their conventions prior to the filing deadline, much less turn over a “certified list” of their nominees and electors. However, do you think these failures would compel our Secretary of State (Hope Andrade) to uphold the law?

§ 192.033(a) states “the secretary of state shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the names of the candidates for president and vice-president who are entitled to have their names placed on the ballot.”

Laws, we don’t need no stinking laws

As we have proven above, beyond any reasonable doubt, neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are “entitled” to be on the ballot. Apparently, a little thing like THE LAW isn’t going to stop a public servant like Hope Andrade, who was appointed by Governor “Good Hair” Perry, from certifying these candidates. Indeed, she (Andrade) claimed, according to Fox News, that she “certified” the Republican and Democratic nominees on September 3. But wait! How can that be? How can she “certify” candidates that were not nominated until after the deadline? Short answer is that SHE CAN’T certify said candidates. She simply broke the law.

Fox News

As a result, and according to the same Fox News article, the Barr campaign filed a lawsuit on September 17. On September 23, the Supreme Court of the State of Texas issued a one sentence “order” without explanation, simply stating that “THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS IS DENIED:”

Texas Supreme Court

Could anyone have thought the outcome would have been different considering that ALL members of the Supreme Court are members of an organization that failed to abide by the law?

It is painfully clear that these individuals, who took an oath to uphold the laws of this state, are in violation of their oaths of office. The law is clear. They simply chose to ignore the law and as a result they themselves have become criminals.

At this moment in time, it would appear that Mr. Barr will not take this matter to Federal Court, as Mr. Bush did in 2000. Additionally, I doubt that the Libertarian Party of Texas will seek relief from the Federal Courts as well. However, there is always an option for Mr. Obama to seek relief from the courts. After all, he will lose Texas anyway and if successful, he could deny 34 electoral votes from McCain.

One thing is clear. The election, as it stands, is illegitimate. I often hear conservative worry about “voter fraud” where fictitious voters cast votes, or voters vote more than once. However, the occurrence of voter fraud is a very rare crime and utilizing such is pure hyperbole. There is another type of fraud. It is called “election fraud” This is where members of “the government” violate the law in order to manipulate the outcome. This type of fraud is so prevalent in our history that books have been dedicated to the subject.

Can you say “organized crime?”

As the electoral votes have been stolen from their rightful recipient, whoever that may have been, be that Barr, Baldwin, McKinney or Nader (the latter three qualified as “write-in candidates) the facts remain clear. What we have witnessed in Texas is by definition “election fraud” and as such those individuals involved should be charged and tried for their crimes.

Are we a nation of laws? Or, are we a nation of “parties?” Does the law exist for the benefit of “the people?” Or are “the people” simply subject to “the law” at the whim of the two ruling parties? Additionally, considering the obvious connection to all parties involved who have ignored the law, could this not be construed as “organized crime?” Now perhaps you can understand why I left the GOP in 2000. Why would I wish to be associated with such obvious criminal activity? One can only hope that an honest individual, who is rather philanthropic and interested in justice, to pick up on this judicial travesty and challenge this criminal ruling to a higher authority.

Arrogance of aiding and abetting

Last night, a friend of mine called to ask if I watched the VP debate. I stated that since the election was illegitimate I did not. He asked why I felt it was illegitimate and I informed him of the situation. He simply dismissed “the law” and utilized typical responses. “We have to have a Republican on the ballot.” “How can the (the RNC) obey the law when they haven’t had their convention yet?” “Why do you wish to disenfranchise 95% of the voters?”

My responses remained consistent. The law is the law. If it isn’t applied equitably, it violates both the state and federal constitutions (equality clause). Are we to suggest that the RNC and DNC are not accountable to the law? Does “the state” control “the law?” Or, do these “parties” dictate the law to the state? I don’t wish to “disenfranchise” anyone. I did not fail in this endeavor…that honor goes to the leadership of ruling parties. In the end, it didn’t matter because “the law” made no difference to my friend. Of course no legal or moral argument would change his mind. After all, his political party must not be hindered in achieving their goal no matter what “the law” requires.

As I previously stated, “the vast majority” of people believe that “the law” is for “those people” outside of their immediate peer group. Can you deny this? Ask yourself, should the law be upheld? Or, should the law be ignored simply because the candidates are members of one of the tax-subsidized ruling parties? Equality under the law? Pure sophistry. There is no such thing. If a DA really wished to make a name for themselves, I would say that the time is now. Indictments and charges for election fraud against the following individuals would be warranted.

Hope Andrade - R
Wallace B. Jefferson – R
Nathan L. Hecht – R
Harriet O'Neill – R
Dale Wainwright – R
Scott A. Brister – R
David M. Medina – R
Paul W. Green - R
Phil Johnson - R
Don R. Willett – R

Alas, I will not hold my breath. Why? Because every DA in this state is a member of one of the ruling parties and as I have stated, the law only applies to “those people.” The ruling parties are above the law.

Franklin stated, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, that we were given "a Republic, if you can keep it." Our ability to do so is demonstrated above. The Republic is dead. The tree of liberty deserves to be shaken.

Source:

http://kdtunstall.com/index.php?itemid=24

Guest Editorial: Politics, Families & Justice for the Holidays!

Recently MCC/CRD had the opportunity to speak with Prescott Small on his views of the coming elections and politics in general. Mr. Small is currently serving as a precinct chair in Stafford, TX, is a successful family man and businessman and ran for a county commissioner seat in 2006 pledging off all special interest funding (a rare move these days).

---------------------

I think there are several key issues that need to be addressed in politics regardless of party and on all levels of government whether it is local, county, state or federal elections.



The Voters:

There are two major players in what is wrong with elections, the “middle of the roader” and the person that refuses to vote. While the middle of the roader tends to be balanced in their opinions they are very seldom moved to take action and are just willing to “go with the flow” while the non voter doesn’t care about the flow at all. The only people that are typically active with elections and causes are the far right and the far left and combined we are a minority in this country, yet we get to decide how things will be.



Americans operate under a delusion where this is a majority rules country. This is not true at all. For example; let’s say we have a 60% voter turn out and the election is won by a 51/49 split. That means that roughly 30% of America just decided what is best for the country.



Being legal don’t make it right:

Then there are the Americans that are of a mind set that just because something is not illegal it is still just.



We all remember a certain representative from Sugar Land and how he took truckloads of money and gifts to pass legislation and that it was “legal at the time he did it.” That did not make it right.



The system is rigged:

Then there is the system, which is rigged. The real problem is how much it cost to get elected. You and I all want the best candidates and people that have a sense of responsibility and are willing to protect the real working men women in our country. The average person like you and I will find the campaign process a burden that is most difficult the bear. The average person can’t quit his or her job to run for office. Campaigning is essentially a full time job with a hell of a lot of overtime these days. The average person doesn’t have a spare quarter of a million dollars lying around. The average person is not willing to sacrifice their personal lives and their privacy not to bear the burden of the stress it takes to run for office.



Candidates still have bills to pay and families to feed. So the only people that are really able to run are those that can raise a ton of cash or have a ton of cash.



The candidates have to be willing to sacrifice any personal life they have or had. They also have to make the greatest sacrifice of all; that is to sacrifice time with their families.



In my opinion the effort to run for office and the sacrifice that it demands should be enough of an incentive to keep people honest and re-enforce their spine. However, when we are presented with the evidence this appears to not be the case.



Corruption:

Based on all that we have seen of the corruption of both parties, one would have to assume the burden of maintaining that status of “Elected Official” must be too great to bear for too long; for that re-enforced spine appears to collapse with time.



I believe that people that do business with the county. When companies that make millions in revenue from government contracts while contributing money to elected officials that grant the contracts is just questionable at best. In my gut I would feel wrong accepting such monies because I would perceive it as a conflict of interest. My personal integrity would make me feel uncomfortable.



Lobbyist making contributions and “sponsoring” fund raisers for elected officials is also a huge conflict of interest. When you seek specific legislation passed that benefits your organization and those you represent directly, it is immoral to give money to those same people.



Both parties are plagued by these corrupting influences. All parties have got to take a stand and change these practices.



Religion, meet State:

Religion and politics need to stay separated. Many of the candidates we see today are wearing their religion on their sleeves. They are in essence flying in the face of the constitution by endorsing a non-formalized process in which a politician not only has to have a profound sense of faith, but also be of a particular faith. For Example: Although I would never endorse Mitt Romney as a candidate I find it despicable that there are people in his party that refuse to vote for him solely because they believe his brand of faith is a cult.



The United States Constitution states in Article VI, section 3 that“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”



What has happened is a minority of Americans, about 23%, have hijacked one party and made faith a requirement to hold political office. They are very clear in this goal and their influence has spread so that no candidate in any party has a chance of getting elected unless they talk about their faith and express a profound belief in God.



This requirement is un-American as can clearly be seen by taking the time to read your constitution. And yes, I am aware that the Texas State Constitution has a religious requirement for a belief in a higher being to hold office; however that is trumped by the U.S. Constitution.



Religion and Government are a poisonous combination; one need only read a history book to know this. And if you want more proof, just turn on any news station and what is happening in the Middle East and around world where people live in theocracies today. Our founding fathers had a pretty damn good idea and they were well aware of the dangers of mixing religion and politics. That is why they have the No Religion test and the 1st Amendment.



Ok, it’s time to leave:

All elected offices should have term limits. While the people that get elected most often have a sense of civic duty and purpose, far too many fall to the dark side of campaign contributions and the trap of getting re-elected. They stop taking chances and aren’t will to stick out their political necks to do what really needs to be done for fear of loosing their chances at re-election. Many of them consider a large part of their job to be getting re-elected. So much of their time is spent campaigning that they are no longer able to perform the jobs they were sent there to do.



To summarize what is wrong with elections:



1) Apathy

2) Corruption

3) Religion

4) Term Limits


Prescott Small
Stafford, TX


---------------
MCC: To get more on the context of this piece please visit the title link above from FBN.

Can Electronic Voting In Fort Bend County Be Fixed? Yes Says This Study! -- Click title link for full FB Herald Story --

Are voting machines vulnerable?

By Stephen Palkot
August 6, 2007 1:09 PM CDT


The voting machines used for elections in Fort Bend County were found recently to be vulnerable to various attacks.

A team of researchers from the University of California at Davis conducted security tests on three electronic voting machines, including the Hart InterCivic eSlate machine used by Fort Bend County, for a study commissioned by the California Secretary of State's office.

Its report, a "Top-to-Bottom Review" of the systems, concludes the eSlate voting machines do not have ample safeguards to prevent the possibility of a voter or poll worker manipulating elections results through a "direct attack" at a voting location. . .

. . . Fort Bend County Elections Administrator J.R. Perez said Fort Bend County residents can be secure in their votes, since the process must be monitored by election judges and county election workers.

"You have to remember on election day there are election judges whose duty is to watch and maintain order and make sure that doesn't happen," he said.

-------------
MCC comment: The last two paragraphs above, IMO, are just not that reassuring given the history, ethics and investigations that have occurred in this county over the recent past.

FB Chronicle Front-page: Update on CABRLE Victory (Contested Hearing Allowed)--

Get this FB Chronicle front-page update on the CABRLE victory and upcoming contested hearing by clicking the title link above.


Background at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/fortbend/news/4998528.html

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/3170/blue-ridge-landfill-opponents-will-get-their-day-in-court#c016385



Stay informed and keep in touch as MCC/CRD will continue to follow this local effort to stop this expansion!

Florida Company Linked To Campaign Finance Scandals And Our County Commissioners Gets an Update From KMBBB.com

Susan over at KMBBB.com broke this story over a year ago from a newspaper in Florida. It seems to point the finger at many of our local county commissioners. Click the title link above for the full piece and follow the ones below for background:

http://salcostello.blogspot.com/2007/02/breaking-news-pbs-overcharged-states-by.html

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=11ABCAD69421D6D0&p_docnum=3

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/1963/fort-bend-county-could-get-money-back-in-wake-of-pbsj-scandal

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/1905/commissioners-say-they-didnt-receive-contributions-troubled-firm-said-it-made

http://www.fortbendnow.com/news/1911/engineering-firm-sponsored-fundraisers-never-paid-contributions-officials-say

KMBBB.com also posts for free the campaign finance reports and disclosures of this same local politcal clique, if you want copies before voting.

Stay informed and keep in touch!

Get the latest on consumer/taxpayer risks and related information (follow our judges as they run the dash for cash)--

Click the title link above to follow this consumer link which keeps an eye on the co-optation of our political and judicial systems here in Texas and how they are subverted for special corporate interests and detrimental to families/taxpayers here in our county & state. Is public confidence at risk with this "cashing in"?

Other excellent consumer and homeowner sites:

http://www.hobb.org

http://www.hadd.com/

http://www.ahrc.com



Stay informed and keep in touch as the "at large" and mayoral races approach in '08 for Missouri City, TX!

Under Much Pressure, TCEQ Grants Another Hearing on Blue Ridge Landfill Expansion!

A recent communication from the TCEQ stated that another public hearing has been granted and scheduled on permit number msw-1505A (Blue Ridge Landfill Proposed Expansion) for July 25th 2007 in Austin. This, after much pressure from a coalition of local homeowners from numerous East Fort Bend County, Harris County and West Brazoria County neighborhoods, several Houston T.V. stations and Brazoria municipal and county officials was applied starting in 2006 when the Blue Ridge Landfill near Fresno & Missouri City, TX applied for a permit to go well beyond the current allowable 55 foot limit to nearly 170+ feet.

This controversy has been followed extensively in the local and regional media with the most recent reports of causing potential harm to several counties weather watch system (doplar radar) if the project is allowed to continue. Fort Bend County commissioners and Missouri City officials/city council agreed, through contract with Allied Waste, the second largest waste management company in the U.S., to not oppose the expansion due to substantial tipping fees to both entities. Some have criticized this agreement and the elected officials allowing it. Additionally a significant Barium release, a highly toxic water soluble chemical, was reported released at the site in 2005, which complicated the matter for many local residents still on well water in the immediate area.

Stay tuned as MCC/CRD will continue to follow this ongoing story.

Additional Note: If you live in the Sienna Plantation community (SP Master MUD #1) you may want to check the most recent water reports on flouride levels (still in violation of TCEQ standards) which may pose a health risk to children, elderly and others in the community (Confirm this via TCEQ reports).


Get more on the contested hearing at:

http://cabrle.spaces.live.com/





(c) c.calvin 2007