Category Archives: Politics

Politic,s Government and opinions.

The Port of Houston Boondongle

What if they built a cruise terminal and no one came to play? In  the Port of Houston’s big field of dreams the Port of Houston  commissioners built the Terminal as part of a $387 million bond package. They didn’t even have to pay for the property because Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull’s stole the land for The Port of Houston.  Kevin Whited isn’t surprised at the failure.

Hard to believe, we know, that the mere thought of Pasadena, TX hasn’t attracted the eye (or several eyes, even) of the cruise-ship industry!

There isn’t much to offer near the terminal for vacationers except perhaps a view of the industrial vessels and tanks can be viewed on the way over.   The barbed wire fencing is what the Port of Houston has to offer for hospitality at the entrance. The port of Houston Commissioners now understand that to compete they need to compete with Galveston, where we have a very successful cruise terminal business.

More than 30 miles away from where those travelers gathered, the Port of Houston Authority’s $81 million cruise terminal is shuttered, with no cruise ship ever making regular stops there. And no cruise line has announced plans to call on the 2-year-old Bayport Cruise Terminal.

“I’m optimistic that we’ll end up with a cruise line,” Port of Houston Chairman James Edmonds said.

The port is offering to work with cruise lines to develop 40 acres of land near the terminal, hoping that will encourage one to base a ship at the Pasadena property. Restaurants, hotels and other attractions could be built on the land and turn the spot into a destination point, Edmonds said.

They might try, but Galveston is more than just a place to get on the boat, it’s a vacation destiny in itself, with many restaurants, hotels, resorts, beaches, fishing, and even a water park.  One thing is certain is Pasadena isn’t Galveston, and a little restaurant colony isn’t gonna make it Galveston.

Pelosi Calls for Investigation of Ground Zero Mosque Opposition

Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi wants to investigate those who oppose the Mosque at ground zero.

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.” (h/t Kristinn)

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”

I would be surprised if there were a money a trail to be found. The objections are pretty much  grass roots objections, and those on forefront don’t need money to make their voices heard.  Democrats and Pelosi in particular have demonstrated that they have hard time understanding grass roots though.

The real truth though is that these investigations are to be used as a weapon.

One has to ask, “Does the 1st amendment apply to some and not others?”

I guess that only the First Amendment rights of Muslims are sacred to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi — not the rights of the 65-70% of Americans who find placing a mosque on the site of a building rendered unoccupiable by debris from the 9/11 attacks to be insensitive and inappropriate.

Without Respect.

We in Texas understand that Obama really doesn’t like us. We cling to our guns, balance our budgets, and all kind of other reprehensible things.  Greg sums it up pretty well:

Gov. Rick Perry’s meeting at the Austin airport with President Barack Obama on border security lasted a mere 34 seconds, and Perry had to hand a letter on the issue to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett because Obama declined to personally accept it.

I do think this says everything that Barack Obama was more than willing to accept a book from the hands of banana republic dictator Hugo Chavez — but he won’t accept a letter from the hands of the governor of one of our own states.

President Obama has stopped pretending to care, and has attempted to hurt us in any way he can, by attacking the oil and gas industry, having us subsidize the the poorly run states, and letting the illegal aliens overrun us with their drugs and criminals.

Galveston Judge lay’s out a few F bombs.

Justice of the Peace Jim Schweitzer, in a speech before the school district laid it all out with on obscenity laced speech before the Galveston School district. His complaint being the reduction of security in the public schools.  Galveston Daily explains:

GALVESTON — A judge’s F-bomb outburst left Galveston Independent School District officials scratching their heads.

Justice of the Peace Jim Schweitzer, who also presides over Galveston’s municipal court, stunned members of the district’s board of trustees and senior officers when he used the obscenity during the public comments section of their budget-workshop meeting Wednesday.

Members of the board later told Interim Superintendent Ann Dixon they had differing ideas about the judge’s intent in making his speech.

Schweitzer said Friday his primary criticism was there was too few security personnel at Ball High and the district’s middle schools because of vacancies and he worried that Dixon wanted to cut the police department budget.

“Fewer officers and guards translate into less safety forstudents and teachers,” he said.

“If security is not high on the superintendent’s agenda, then let someone else judge the cases that make it through the system.”

Meanwhile, the team that records board meetings for the island’s public-service television channel had to work out how to show the whole program without breaking rules on foul language.

That language came just after Schweitzer began his several minutes long address, in which he told the board that, fromAug. 31, he would no longer accept cases involving GISD students in his court unless they were filed by police department personnel.

My Problem is that they will be editing out this foul language. The JP Jim Schweitzer is an elected official and Galvestonians deserve to hear his speech unadultrated.

Meanwhile, the district’s communications specialist, Johnston Farrow, said he thought the television service did not have the ability to “bleep out” bad language but airing the confrontation unedited could earn the district a fine from the Federal Communications Commission.

As a result, it took almost 48 hours to remove the sound track from the offending part of Schweitzer’s speech before the meeting video could go on air.

Someone needs to explain to Mr. Farrow, that the FCC doesn’t regulate content that doesn’t get transmitted over the air.

Michelle goes on Vacation.



Michelle Antoinette

Michelle seems to be enjoying her European vacation on the Mediterranean, and just because hubby has screwed up the economy doesn’t mean she can’t take a little time off.

Michelle Obama today faced a fresh wave of attacks over her lavish break in Spain with 40 friends, which could easily cost U.S. taxpayers a staggering £50,000 a day.

The First Lady has been lambasted for her extravagance at a time when the economy is still struggling. One blogger went so far as to brand her a modern-day Marie Antoinette.

And her critics will be further annoyed when they learn that the president’s wife had a Spanish beach closed off today so that she, her daughter and their entourage could go for a swim.

Spanish police cleared off a stretch of beach at the Villa Padierna Hotel in Marbella after the Obamas had finished a busy day of sightseeing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1300852/Spanish-police-close-public-beach-Michelle-Obamas-250k-Spanish-holiday.html#ixzz0vwYeWPad

Court Strikes California Prop. 8

Judge Vaughn Walker, the openly gay chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker based his ruling on the following:

An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters’ determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives. He concluded that religious perceptions are not constitutionally significant and that “religious leaders may determineindependently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce” but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law. In addition, “marital status affects immigration and citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules and social benefit programs.” However, individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation and “marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals.”

Although I don’t have a problem with who marries who, It seems odd that a case like this gets decided, by an openly gay judge. We all know that this will go to the Supreme Court and proposition 8 will ultimately approved by a 5-4 vote. What ever happened to deciding a case on what the constitution says. Is there a clause there, about gay rights? Over at Rhymes with Right, Greg thinks the judges opinion is tainted.

The judge in the case had an actual conflict of interest. After all, as a gay man in a long-term relationship living in California, striking down Prop 8 benefits him personally, as it allows him to marry that partner if he chooses and thereby accrue the benefits of marriage otherwise unavailable to him. In short, he had a personal interest in the outcome of this case that went beyond the mere question of “do I agree or disagree with Prop 8?” The equivalent would be a black judge with school-aged kids living in Topeka deciding Brown v. Board of Education. Even if his reasoning in the decision were unassailable, his personal situation would be loaded down with personal interests at odds with those of one side of the case — and the appearance would be so improper as to argue against his presiding in the case even if he were a paragon of judicial impartiality capable of setting aside those personal interests.

It would be nice if our courts actually started ruling on actual law rather than just personal morality opinion.

Tea Party Poll

Pajamas Media did a survey, on peoples opinion of the Tea Party.  While the leftist are trying to paint the Tea Partyers as Racist extremist, It looks as though most people aren’t buying it.

Given your current knowledge of the Tea Party Movement and their positions on the issues, would you say that you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the Tea Party Movement?

  • 27% Strongly support
  • 27% Somewhat support
  • 13% Somewhat oppose
  • 28% Strongly oppose
  • 5% Not sure

This Question shows that there is a lot of support for the Tea Party at 54% of the polled. Could it be that those who are calling the Tea Party gfolks extremist are themselves the ones who are out of touch and have the extreme views.

Do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party Movement or do have any close friends or family members who are part of the Tea Party Movement?

  • 9% You are a Member of Tea Party
  • 21% You are not member of the Tea Party but have friends or family who are
  • 66% You no ties to the Tea Party
  • 4% Not sure

Interesting, but I don’t know what it all means. Afterall there really isn’t much of a formal organization called the Tea Party.   I think the question might have been better phrased, “Have you attended a Tea Party event?”

How strongly do you agree with the statement “The Tea Party Movement is racist?

  • 16% Strongly agree
  • 19% Somewhat agree
  • 16% Somewhat disagree
  • 36% Strongly disagree
  • 13% Not sure

What is disturbing is the 35% that actually believe that the movement is racist. The Teapartyers, don’t have a social agenda. They are about limited government and spending.  While the Tea Party may attract peoples who are socially conservative the movement itself does not put forth a united front on issues such as immigration, and equal rights. If the Leftist want to be taken seriously they are going to have bring the debate to the real issues. The problem is that know they will lose, when the discussion to real issues and solving problems.


They don’t Understand Us

Sometimes it seems like the law makers and elected ones just don’t read the people.Maybe they don’t just don’t understand. Powerline posts, CITIZENS VS. THE POLITICAL CLASS ;

The most fundamental divide in American politics today is between mainstream citizens, a large majority of whom hold traditional, largely conservative views, and our political class, which tirelessly seeks to impose a very different regime on the rest of us.

This divide comes into sharp focus when Americans are asked whether more government spending is good for the economy.

This is a response to a new Rasmussan poll.

In official Washington, there appears to be a belief that policy makers must choose between helping the economy or reducing spending and deficits. A number of polling companies have even asked questions on the trade-off.

However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters believe increased government spending is good for the economy. Fifty-two percent (52%) believe increased government spending is bad for the economy, while 12% say it has no impact. Eight percent (8%) are not sure.

This suggests that for 72% of voters, asking about a trade-off between cutting spending and helping the economy doesn’t make sense. A look at the demographics shows that the trade-off makes sense for only one group– the Political Class. Among that group, 67% believe increased government spending would be good for the economy.

Among other things, this data highlights a challenge in framing polling questions. If a question is asked in a way that doesn’t makes sense to most voters, it’s hard to put much value on the resulting data. It’s even more challenging when most in the Political Class don’t recognize the problem.

It’s class warfare, this is about two sides squaring off,  Perhaps the November elections will help the political class understand what citizenry is upset about.  A democracy can not ignore 72% of the people.