From The Weatherford Telegram, By Lance Winter, Friday, Jan. 27, 2012 -

It appears that the relationship between Parker Paws and the Weatherford/Parker County Animal Shelter has taken another turn and this time for the worse.

An e-mail sent to the Weatherford Telegram on Thursday said the non-profit organization, which has provided volunteer services and other programs to benefit the Weatherford/Parker County Animal Shelter for four years, is “changing their focus.”

Barbara Pursley, president of Parker Paws and volunteer at the shelter for more than 14 years, attributes the change to recent clashes with management of the shelter.

“Parker Paws tried to ease the tension by relinquishing volunteer activities at the shelter,” Pursley said.

She added that she had hoped if volunteers reported directly to shelter supervision that Parker Paws could continue to support the shelter without impeding management’s direct operations of the shelter. However, other issues with the shelter remain unresolved, Pursley said.

“I finally decided that I could no longer support an organization which does not share my goals of promoting pet adoptions and improving the care of the pets at their facility,” she said. “It is my opinion that they are more concerned about the appearance rather than the substance of these goals.”

City Manager Jerry Blaisdell said he was “extremely sad” to see Pursley go.

“She has been a significant part of the shelter operation for many years and has our gratitude and thanks for all that she helped us accomplish,” Blaisdell said. “[Pursley] is an outstanding advocate for animals who has spent countless hours serving this community as a volunteer at the shelter and her presence will be greatly missed.

“It is our hope that we can continue to work with her in whatever way she chose to serve the citizens and animals of this community.”

He said the shelter will continue work with volunteers and strive to deliver the highest quality service to citizens and the animals under its care.

Pursley said Parker Paws is looking for a new location for its low-cost spay/neuter clinics.

“This is a key component to reducing the number of unwanted pets in our community and we look forward to continuing this valuable service,” Pursley said.

She added that Parker Paws also assists pet owners who need to “rehome” their pets but wish to avoid relinquishing them to a shelter.

Additionally, Pursley said she is excited about opportunities to increase cat adoptions — a personal interest of hers — and to work with education programs in local schools to promote responsible pet ownership.

“This has been a difficult decision and I am grateful for the help and guidance I have received,” she said. “I never wanted to direct my efforts away from this community.”

Blaisdell said the animal shelter has been a “great example” of how public and private partnerships can enhance and expand the service the shelter provides and that that philosophy will continue to be one of its primary objectives.

–

Lance Winter, 817-594-9902, ext. 102

lwinter@star-telegram.com

Gingrich a star on Reagan team: Romney “work product” as conservative at issue.

From The American Spectator, By Jeffrey Lord on 1.24.12 -

Mitt Romney has raised the issue of Newt Gingrich’s “work product.”

Wow.

Intended to prod the former Speaker on the issue of his work for Freddie Mac (Gingrich last night released his contract with Freddie), the question, as seems to be a Romney characteristic, has clumsily backfired. It raises an all-too obvious question that is becoming increasingly revealing.

What is Mitt Romney’s “work product” for the conservative cause?

The closest Mitt Romney ever got to the Reagan Revolution is apparently because he reads about it 30 years later. And he isn’t even reading everything he should. This is the man, remember, who proudly professed when running against Ted Kennedy in 1994:

“I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”

A peculiar stance considering Reagan carried Massachusetts twice in his two presidential landslides. Romney now assures that Newt Gingrich — who actually had a serious and considerably well-known role working with Reagan — had little role in it. (By the way, Reagan won over 1, 310, 936 votes and over 51 percent in Massachusetts in his 1984 re-election race, while Romney won his solitary gubernatorial victory in 2002 with 1,091,988 votes and 49.77 percent. Which is to say, Reagan outpolled Romney by over 200,000. In 1980, third party candidate John Anderson drew off 15 percent of Reagan’s vote, otherwise, one suspects, Reagan would have trumped Romney then as well.)

Why? Why is Romney going after Gingrich on his supposed lack of Reagan ties?

Because the former Governor apparently looked into the “G” section of the Reagan Diaries and found the then backbench congressman’s name but once.

The ignorance this shows about what was actually happening inside the Reagan Revolution — not to mention the positive change Ronald Reagan and his lieutenants like Newt Gingrich were bringing to Washington and America — is almost painful to watch. Romney flounders, giving the impression that he is learning conservatism as others learn painting by numbers. A splotch of free market economics here at Number 1, a dab of social issues over there at Number 2… or not…or, well, maybe… or… yes, kinda sort of maybe…ending with bright bold colorful strokes of national security war paint at Number 3.

And voila. Conservatism by Romney.

Why would one in the position Mitt Romney now finds himself — thoroughly defeated in South Carolina by a surge of support for Gingrich’s conservatism — ever even entertain the idea of going after Newt Gingrich on Reagan?

This utterly dumb line of attack for Romney is as bad if not worse than Gingrich’s flirtation with attacking Bain Capital. It raises exactly all the questions of Romney’s vulnerabilities. Why, for example, did Romney deliberately play the wimp when it comes to defending Ronald Reagan in Massachusetts? At precisely the time in the fall of 1994, it should be noted, when Newt Gingrich was leading Chapter 2 in the Reagan Revolution? Is Romney really trying to draw attention to the fact that while Gingrich and hundreds of Republicans were on the verge of a historic landslide retaking the House by attaching themselves to the Reagan legacy…Romney ran from Reagan… and got clobbered?

If even those simple political basics can’t be learned, which in Romney’s case now include not just the broader inability to defend either Reagan or free markets but the quite specific inability to use the general principle of free markets and capitalism to defend himself over the inevitable “Mr. 1%” accusations — this should be a red flag for conservatives.

Who knows why Romney gets tongue tied ? Or, as our friends at the Wall Street Journal note, “befuddled.”

But the very fact of this latest attack on Gingrich for what Romney tries to imply is Newt’s lack of ties to Reagan shows the “Massachusetts Moderate” (as Gingrich tags him) is unfamiliar with the details of Gingrich’s role. Worse, Romney indicates a considerable ignorance about why Gingrich and others — none of whom painted conservatism by the numbers — were there fighting in the first place. All working under Reagan’s leadership to begin to right a ship of state that was perilously close to the rocks in 1981 — economically, socially, and on issues of national security.

Be that as it may, Romney has raised the question of Newt Gingrich’s real role in the Reagan era. So let’s take a look.

TO MORE FROM ART to sports, let’s use a baseball analogy, the New York Yankees of the 1920′s who were famously known as “Murderers’ Row.” They possessed in their line-up the man seen as the greatest baseball player of the day and –arguably — all time: Babe Ruth. But Babe Ruth alone did not a Murderers’ Row make. What made the New York Yankees of the 1920s such a legend — in particular in 1927 — was the collective power of the rest of the line-up. In particular the first six men at bat terrified opponents. One of them, Lou Gehrig, was later immortalized on film by Gary Cooper. The 1927 Yankees had a 110-44 win/loss record, won the pennant by 19 games, and swept the World Series.

If politics were sports, the period of the Reagan Revolution from 1981-1989 would be the 1927 Yankees. Without doubt, Ronald Reagan, would be the political version of Babe Ruth. As seen today by his fellow Americans, Reagan is viewed as America’s greatest president in poll after poll (as in this one last year from Gallup that puts him even above the revered Abraham Lincoln).

But just as Babe Ruth was the leader of the Yankees, the leader of the team — there was a team. Without which there would have been no Murderers’ Row. Not to mention, no pennant and no World Series.

Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution that he led had the political, intellectual, and governmental version of Murderers’ Row. There was vision, energy, and principle when they ran out onto the political playing field. As with the Yankees of 1927, the Reagan Revolution had a star line-up. Government having a larger starting line-up than the nine positions on a baseball team, the Reagan Revolution’s Murderers’ Row had a considerable number of stars, every one of whom was a key player in their own fashion. Names like Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Edwin Meese, James Baker, Drew Lewis, Lyn Nofziger, Edward Rollins, Lee Atwater… the list goes on and on. Many were true conservatives — some, like Baker and his deputy the late Richard Darman, were moderates. Yet all were brought together by Reagan to serve the conservative cause he had been outlining to the nation since that first famous speech he gave on behalf of Barry Goldwater in October, 1964 (seen here if you have never seen).

In 1985, as the second Reagan term began, an interesting book was published that captured the major players of the day. Not, as one might think, a biography or written record. The season of the Reagan Revolution was still very much ongoing. There was no time for the inevitable flood of memoirs. No, this book was something else — a book of photographs, titled People and Power: Portraits From the Federal Village.

Its author/photographer was Michael Evans, President Reagan’s personal photographer. Evans had the idea to make a list of the most influential people of the day in Washington, inveigle them to his studio, and take a quite personal black-and-white photo of each. Capturing for the record the men and women who made Washington what it was in the 1980s. The Reaganites and their opponents. Conservatives and liberals. Politicians and journalists. The famous and the unknown.

Dubbed “The Portrait Project,” it was a considerable project. Not least because Evans forced himself to sit down and sift through a literally endless list, sorting out those who were considered in the day to be the people of power in their own individual areas within the nation’s capital. Of all the thousands, he whittled his list down to over 600, in his words “from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Assistant Food Service Coordinator of the White House, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices, administrative aides, journalists,” and so on. From the thousands who became the 600-plus, Evans finally selected a mere 139. Say again, 139 men and women. Each pictured simply in black-and-white, identified only by their full, formal name (middle names included, no nicknames-thank-you-very-much) and title — all who were seen in the day as what might be called Washington’s movers and shakers in the time of the Reagan Revolution.

And of that list, on page 178, there he is:

Newton Leroy Gingrich (R-GEORGIA)

United States Representative

The famous mop of hair is only beginning to shade to its now-familiar white. There is a friendly, open smile and, yes, what appears to be several fewer pounds.

But the question is, considering the Romney implication that Gingrich was just another anonymous back-bencher congressman in the Reagan era — what was Newt Gingrich doing in the middle of this book in the first place?

Photographer Evans selected only 19 members of the 435-member House of Representatives for his book featuring 139 people. The photograph that opened the book was perhaps the most influential and famous conservative outside of Reagan himself: Arizona’s Senator Barry Goldwater. Like Goldwater in the Senate, most of those 19 House members were men of long tenure and vast power. They included the then-current Speaker of the House and the man who would succeed him as Speaker, Tip O’Neill. O’Neill’s opposite number, the Republican House Leader Bob Michel. The powerful old bulls of both parties in the House were there — men like Florida’s Claude Pepper, Virginia’s Dan Daniel, Illinois’ Dan Rostenkowski and Henry Hyde as well as Michigan’s Guy Vander Jagt.

But there, selected as one of the 19, was Newt Gingrich.

Why young Newt in this particular book recording the serious power players of Reagan’s Washington?

Newt Gingrich certainly was not Speaker or the House member pictured who already (and correctly) was thought to be the one who would follow O’Neill — Jim Wright. He wasn’t the Republican Leader or the Whip like the also-photographed Trent Lott or even a ranking member of a committee. By 1985 Newt Gingrich had been in the House of Representatives a sum total of six years, next to nothing against much older men like Speaker O’Neill (33 years in 1985) or Claude Pepper (23 years).

So why the young Congressman Newt in this book?

Answer: Newt Gingrich was part of the Reagan Revolution’s Murderers’ Row. And anybody who was in Washington in the day, much less in the Reagan White House or the 1984 Reagan re-election campaign (and I would make that particular cut of three), knew it.

WHAT, EXACTLY, DOES this mean? To use Mitt Romney’s words, what was Newt Gingrich’s “work product” for conservatism — for America — as part of Reagan’s Murderers’ Row?

Glad you asked. Here is an example of the kind of “work product” that made a young congressman from Georgia such a key player on Reagan’s Murderers Row.

1984. Dallas, Texas. A story.

In May, former Reagan Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis, now a senior adviser in the President’s re-election campaign, is asked by the Reagan White House to be the White House liaison to the Republican Platform Committee. A job scheduled to be done by presidential counsel Edwin Meese until Meese was nominated as attorney general.

Lewis jumped into the job, and I with him as his chief of staff in the campaign. The very first thing to be done was get a copy of the platform draft. It existed, drafted by a collection of staffers at work for the Platform Committee chair, then-Congressman Trent Lott of Mississippi.(The staff director’s, by the way, was a young John Bolton, future Ambassador to the United Nations.) Once read — line by line (my task) — Lewis began meeting with key members already elected to the Platform Committee.

One of the first? That would be young Congressman Newt Gingrich, already serving as a member of the Platform Committee’s executive committee. The meeting took place in Gingrich’s basement book-lined House office, a cramped affair reflecting precisely how junior in rank Gingrich actually was in the House pecking order. The three of us — Lewis, Gingrich, and myself — sat for over an hour talking about what Newt saw as the problems ahead.

The meeting was pure Newt Gingrich. Precisely the kind of talk that so struck the Republican voters of South Carolina the other day and has captured Gingrich such a following in the GOP debates. It was filled with polite if barely disguised disdain for the American Left in general, and what he would later refer to as “the old, passive and reactive Republican party.”

Specifically in focus was Gingrich’s fear that the Republican RINO/Establishment members on the Platform Committee — specifically this meant people like then-Kansas Senator Bob Dole (the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) Connecticut Senator Lowell Weicker, and Virginia Senator John Warner — would somehow try and moderate the Reagan Revolution with calls for tax increases or somehow lessening the Reagan demand for American military superiority over the Soviet Union.

To shorten the tale, once the executive committee arrived in Dallas in August for the week ahead of the actual convention and the traditional period in which the Platform Committee delegates assemble to do their task — Gingrich’s fears were realized in spades. All hell broke loose as Senator Dole — carrying the prestige of the chairmanship of the Senate’s tax writing committee — insisted on an open-ended plank on taxes that would accept a tax increase as a “last resort.”

BAM!

Newt struck back. Hard. In private session — and public. Working with his fellow Young Turks Rep. Jack Kemp and Tom Loeffler from Texas, Newt Gingrich raised holy hell. What Dole was proposing was a violation of the Reagan 1980 platform, a gross violation of Reaganomics, and just plain dumb. With Democratic nominee Walter Mondale already out there pledging to raise taxes, this was effectively caving in to Mondale. Bob Dole, Newt snapped at one point, was nothing other than the “tax collector for the welfare state.”

Ouch.

The media ate it up. Gingrich, Kemp, and the Young Turks taking on the Old Guard. The problem, of course, was that the liberal media of the day — remember there was no talk radio/Fox/Internet — presented this all as a battle between old extremists and younger ones who were even worse (that would be Newt). The press delighted in trying to humiliate Reagan, who spent the week at his ranch in California more or less inaccessible until arriving the following week to accept his re-nomination. Meanwhile, on the phone were all manner of people furious with Newt Gingrich. Dick Darman was calling me. And then Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan called Lewis. In that case I got to listen — and didn’t need an extension to do so. Notoriously short fused, sensitive to perceived slights and not the most politically skilled, Regan called from Washington threatening to come to Dallas personally and deal with Gingrich. Who was Newt Gingrich to be deciding on the tax prerogatives of the Treasury Secretary? The line practically melted, but Lewis soothed him and Regan stayed put.

The solution? A comma.

This sentence was the proximate cause of the fury:

We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans.

At the insistence of Gingrich and Kemp and in an amendment proposed by Loeffler, a sentence that kept the door open for tax increases had a comma added to it after the word “taxes.”

The sentence now read subtly but considerably different: “We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes, which would harm the recovery and reverse the trend to restoring control of the economy to individual Americans.”

The Gingrich work product? Making certain that Ronald Reagan was not put on record leaving the door open for any more ill-fated tax increases. Dole was furious with the young Newt — and, it might be noted, recently made a point of endorsing Mitt Romney. Hmmmmm.

THE OTHER EXAMPLE of the kind of “work product” from Newt Gingrich that week was his opposition to Senator Warner’s insistence that the word “superiority” be stricken from the national security section of the platform — a word the Reaganites had insisted be in the 1980 platform. Getting his way in his Subcommittee on National Security, Warner suddenly found himself confronting Gingrich and Kemp over this issue as well. Gingrich insisted on inserting language saying that the U.S. must be “stronger than any potential adversary.” He also insisted the full Platform Committee vote on the issue. The full committee sided with Gingrich and overruled Senator Warner.

Is it any wonder the Washington Republican Establishment can’t stand Newt Gingrich? Doubtless there is some sincere sentiment about his management capabilities, his verbal and intellectual wanderings, and other things that did in fact disappoint conservative leaders over the years of his speakership. Perhaps the WSJ captured the sentiment best when it described the ex-Speaker’s “penchant for over-the-top statements and sudden shifts of strategy or policy based on personal whim.”

That said, time after time after time in the Reagan years, a number of those times which I had the opportunity to see up close as a young Reagan staffer charged in my duties with being the White House liaison to Gingrich and Kemp’s Conservative Opportunity Society, Newt Gingrich was out there again and again and again for Ronald Reagan and conservative principles. In his own memoirs,The Politics of Diplomacy, James Baker noted of his days as Reagan White House Chief of Staff that he always “worked closely” with the people Baker described as “congressional leaders.” And who were those leaders? Baker runs off a string of names of the older leaders of both House and Senate in the formal positions of power — plus one. That’s right: young Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich repeatedly demonstrated a considerable ability to illustrate conservative principle, help Reagan using events of the day. Here were two notable examples.

• Was the House of Representatives being run as a liberal fiefdom after decades of unchallenged power? It was Newt Gingrich who came up with the idea in 1984 of using what were called “special orders” — a moment for House members at the end of the work day to stand in the well of the House and give speeches on the subject of their choice. With C-SPAN cameras newly present, Gingrich used these moments to launch a fusillade of attacks on liberals, enraging Speaker O’Neill and prompting the Speaker into a personal attack, violating House rules. The news was everywhere, and the Republican caucus of the day promptly gave Gingrich something South Carolinians did three times at the last two debates: a standing ovation.

• Was there a letter out there from ten House Democrats, including then-Majority Leader Jim Wright, playing up to the Nicaragua Sandinista Communist Daniel Ortega — even as Reagan worked to fund the Contras and their fight for democracy? It was Newt Gingrich who made a point of getting a debate on the House floor, flatly accusing Wright and the others in their sycophantic “Dear Comandante” letter of violating the Logan Act. The law that prohibited anyone other than the executive branch from conducting American diplomacy. “Jim Wright is corrupt,” Newt remarked at one COS meeting in my presence… a sign of things to come. It was Gingrich who boldly filed the ethics charges against the powerful Speaker Wright in 1988 — charges that eventually forced Wright to resign as Speaker in 1989. There are many who believe the ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich, charges Romney is now trying to use against Gingrich, were made up and sold to a Gingrich-hating media by livid congressional liberals as payback for both nailing Wright and humiliating O’Neill — not to mention Gingrich’s role in electing a GOP House for the first time in forty years. For Romney to be following this line gives the impression he can be easily taken in by both the liberal media and the anti-Newt Democrats and GOP Establishment.

And so on. And on. Newt Gingrich’s “work product” in the Reagan years was and remains highly visible and on the historical record. Unlike Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich was not busy defensively claiming his independence and running from Reagan.

He never failed Ronald Reagan or the cause both believed in so passionately. Newt never wavered, and he always led. “Ronald Reagan is the only coherent revolutionary in an administration of accommodationist advisers,” Gingrich is quoted as saying in Steven F. Hayward’s The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989.

Whatever the status of Newt Gingrich’s advisers, it is crystal clear that in the narrowing choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney, it is decidedly Gingrich whose “work product” as a card-carrying member of the Reagan Revolution is repeatedly marked with the contributions of the type that landed him in Michael Evans book of photographs of the most important players of the Reagan era.

The kind of contributions, the kind of vision and the kind of boldness that won him the respect and votes of South Carolina voters across the board.

Hayward also notes that in one instance towards the end of the administration, Gingrich discussed complaints about things left undone. Writes Hayward of the president Jack Kemp fondly nicknamed the “Oldest and Wisest”:

Reagan put his arm around the young Georgia Congressman and said in his typically gentle fashion, “Well, some things you’re just going to have to do after I’m gone.”

Ronald Reagan is now gone.

No one, and this is perhaps important to say, is expecting Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or anyone else to be Ronald Reagan. That is silly.

But to anyone who was present, awake, and paying attention in the 1980s — anyone who is listening to Newt Gingrich right now — it doesn’t take much to understand that some version of those gentle words from Ronald Reagan when he put his arm around a young Newt Gingrich is in fact driving the older Newt Gingrich in this campaign.

Ronald Reagan’s very last public appearance in 1994, coincidentally at the approach of Gingrich’s triumph later that year in winning a GOP House, was an evening in Washington with his old friend and fellow conservative the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In a dinner that re-united the Reagan team with their chief one last time, a small memento of the night was given to all of us. Underneath a picture of the two great conservatives Reagan and Thatcher strolling the grounds of Camp David, deep in conversation, was this reminder of conservatism from Reagan:

History comes and goes, but principles endure and inspire future generations to defend liberty, not as a gift from government, but a blessing from our Creator.

Why did Newt Gingrich win South Carolina?

Because he was one of Reagan’s Lieutenants. A member of Reagan’s Murderers Row of conservative stars.

It’s too soon to know whether the conservative Gingrich or the moderate Romney will win this nomination. Or, yes, Santorum. Or even, if all those panicked rumblings from the Washington Establishment are true, someone not yet in the race — a Daniels, Jindal, or Ryan.

But whatever happens, quite unlike the picture Romney is trying to paint of his prime opponent in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich was very much present and accounted for on the Reagan team. To borrow from Reagan’s farewell address to the nation and the men and women who served him, Newt Gingrich wasn’t just marking time. He made a difference. He helped make that City on a Shining Hill stronger. He helped make the City freer.

Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan’s Young Lieutenants.

One of the best.

–

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeffery Lord

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Hard-working, energetic grassroots leaders who have a consistent conservative compass, the courage to make the right decision, even when it’s hard, and who are so personally grounded by their faith so as to not be seduced by the appearances and trappings of power are the soul of our party.  Lynette meets this test in spades.  With great enthusiasm I wish her well and lend her my support in her campaign.  The folks of Parker County precinct 400 will be well served by her leadership.

_________________________________________________________________

Click here to learn more about Lynette

To support Michael Williams go to http://www.williamsfortexas.com/

E-mail: mlw@michaellwilliams.com

]]> http://parkercountyblog.com/2012/01/27/michael-williams-endorses-lynette-mccracken/feed/ 0 parkercountyblog Michael Williams-6 Michael Williams-sig http://parkercountyblog.com/2012/01/26/send-us-newt/ http://parkercountyblog.com/2012/01/26/send-us-newt/#comments Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:27:11 +0000 parkercountyblog http://parkercountyblog.com/?p=13998 ]]>

The arguments against Gingrich are not compelling.

From National Review Online, by By Melissa O’Sullivan, January 26, 2012 Last fall, people in Washington told me, “Get over it, Melissa. Newt’s not going to be the nominee.” Later, in New York City over Thanksgiving, I was told, “Get over it, Melissa. It’s going to be Romney. There’s still so much stuff out there on Newt that’s just waiting to drop.”

Well, here we are in the thick of the race, and I’m still not over it.

Many years ago, I spent a frustrating morning trying to ice skate when it hit me: I wasn’t trying to ice skate; I was trying not to fall. I submit that the Republican establishment is repeating my mistake. They are trying not to fall by endorsing — or at least accepting — the supposed safe bet. It is reminiscent of an encounter I had with some editorial types during another presidential-primary season.

I was in New York with my husband, John, a former editor and current editor-at-large of National Review. He had arranged to meet some friends from the Wall Street Journal for lunch. At the eleventh hour, John had a conflict, and I went in his place. As the meal developed into an election-strategy discussion, one distinguished woman writer declared firmly that obviously the most qualified person to carry the Republican banner into the election was John McCain. She said it was a pity that the Republican rhubarbs in the sticks would not be bright enough to choose him.

“Wow!” I thought, “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform? Our nominee?” I remember being truly stunned that she thought so highly of McCain. Well, she and the Republican establishment got their wish, and we rhubarbs in the sticks got the shaft.

I have been told that Romney is the inevitable nominee, that he is the only one who can beat Obama, and that polls back up both of these propositions. My frustration with such talk is that it is about where the needle points at present. It ignores the issue of who can move the needle.

For conservatives who have served on Republican committees at the county and state levels, have gone door to door for local candidates, and can remember when here in the South we couldn’t even field a candidate for most races, Newt is The Man. Back in the early Nineties he had, dare I say, a “grandiose” idea that we could be a majority party when most Republicans in the House were quite content with the leadership of the nice Mr. Robert Michel, minority leader. For that, I personally am forever indebted to Newt.

Right now, we are in a perilous state of affairs. We have a president who has put the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline at a time when Russia has just announced a new pipeline to provide energy to Western Europe, thereby increasing its influence in the region. China is building up its military while ours is shrinking. Our European partners’ defense spending is in even worse shape, with the U.K. and France having actually discussed a “time-share” arrangement for an aircraft carrier. To say nothing of the problems we face regarding Iran and Venezuela.

Now, Newt is a great debater. He has not failed to deliver in any debate I have seen. More important to me, however, is that as president he’ll hit the ground running on Day One. He is firmly grounded in the kind of knowledge someone acquires by spending the better part of 30 years studying and advocating various public policies. More than that, though, he possesses the contextual knowledge — the historian’s perspective — that enables someone to stand back and draw on past events to understand current crises. And that gives him a larger philosophical understanding of our past, present, and future role in world affairs. He’s not wandering in the dark; he knows where he wants this country to go and — just as important — where he doesn’t.

To those critics who say he’s reckless, I reply that a bold president will sometimes seem reckless to those trapped in the status quo. Can you imagine a President Romney ignoring the advice of his State Department and National Security Council and delivering an incendiary line like “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”?

And those ethics charges? What exactly were the offenses? A Rostenkowski-type scandal? Some sort of improper personal enrichment? Income from a Dominican Republic resort pad he “forgot” to report on his income-tax form? Nope. Nothing so obvious. The charges originated over the course he was teaching on American history; he supposedly violated some arcane IRS provision regarding the way the income is to be reported. Looked at from another angle, it was a kind of “ethics” charge that one party uses to tie up a dangerous opponent in a legal tangle. As Byron York wrote, at the end of the day, after the Dems had led a frontal assault against Newt, initiated by a candidate Newt had bested for a congressional seat and ginned up by the Dems as payback for their loss of the House majority, the conclusion of the three-year IRS investigation was:

Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws. There was no tax fraud scheme. Of course, by that time, Gingrich was out of office, widely presumed to be guilty of something, and his career in politics was (seemingly) over.

What about the money he received as a consultant from Fannie or Freddie? Sure, I wish that Newt hadn’t bedded down in that particular flophouse. However, it was standard behavior for Washington, and not remotely illegal. Actually, my first thought when I heard about that criticism was, Well, good for him! I’m glad to see someone on our team getting money out of that Sunnyvale Retirement Home for Old Democratic Hacks! At the very least, it’s less for the Dems.

Married three times? That’s not a recommendation either, but half of America has been through a divorce and the other half has experienced sticky patches in their marriages. There’s a lot more understanding of human frailty out there than there was previously. Americans recognize that we shouldn’t judge someone’s entire life on the basis of his worst moments. Besides, we’re not electing the president of the Baptist Sunday School Board.

It seems we all can relate to someone who has crashed and burned but then gotten up off the mat and rehabilitated himself. Americans are very forgiving people, and Newt is better than the other candidates at connecting with people.

Electability? The gender gap? Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart”!

Bad poll numbers? Being a change agent does not engender popularity (think cutting welfare rolls in half, cutting the capital-gains tax from 28 percent to 15 percent, balancing the budget for four years straight, etc.), but again, the current favorable/unfavorable poll numbers are a snapshot of one moment, not an indicator of where things will wind up — as Team Romney has been painfully reminded.

Speaking of electability, with big bank bailouts still fresh in voters’ minds, do you really think it’s going to be easy to sell Mr. Bain Capital to working-class voters, a demographic that has been written off by this White House, which means they are up for grabs? If you do, then explain to me why Republicans failed to effectively market their opposition to the Dodd-Frank financial-reform package to these same voters. The late, great Tony Blankley told to me at the time that Republicans felt they would not be able to stop the bill, even though it was named after two who should have done the perp walk in the whole mortgage meltdown mania. If we couldn’t go to the country and mount a successful opposition campaign explaining the difference between the big investment houses and community banks — the latter of which have been hit hard by the increased regulatory burden of the act — how can we hope to defend poor Cayman Islands Romney against the demagoguery to come from Team Obama?

Finally, the fact that Newt was ousted from his leadership role by his own party reminds me of someone else who had her own party turn on her — Margaret Thatcher. Enough said.

Actually, that isn’t enough said. The charge against him now is that he’s “reckless.” Yep. In 1990, as minority whip, Newt was reckless enough to stand up to his own president, George H. W. Read-My-Lips Bush, over the tax increase. In 1995, as Speaker, he was reckless enough to go for a government shutdown over spending, only to have his fellow Republican Bob Dole, the Senate majority leader, cut the legs out from under him with his “Enough is enough” edict (as I recall, just as public opinion was starting to turn in our favor on this issue, Dole pulled the plug, thereby ensuring that we got zero out of the exercise). Newt was reckless enough to be above the fray and do what he had to do, going against the hard-line reactionaries to get welfare reform and a balanced-budget compromise from President Clinton.

And when members of his own party ousted Newt from the leadership, with whom did they replace him? Dennis Hastert. NOW, enough said!

We are living in extraordinary times. The American people are truly afraid of what kind of future we are bequeathing to the next generation. This is not the time for a green-eyeshade managerial type who doesn’t seem capable of selling himself, let alone his vision of the path forward.

We are electing someone to go into that cesspool we call our nation’s capital, make some really tough decisions, and then sell those decisions to a cynical public while fighting a rear-guard action against a hostile press. Like Governor Chris Christie, Newt has endeared himself to the American people in dealing with his detractors in a head-on, unapologetic way. And the fact that Newt, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps coming back after every setback is a truly positive sign. He’s got the true grit that is one mark of a real leader.

As we have a late primary here in Alabama, we are out of the action until the middle of March. It is very frustrating to see early states pick nominees before we even get to weigh in. On behalf of the many Republicans in later states, I ask that early states (ahem, Florida) please send us someone we can enthusiastically rally behind. Send us one of Reagan’s lieutenants. Send us Newt!

–

Melissa O’Sullivan lives in Alabama and drives her daughters crazy with political stuff.

____________________________________________

CONSTABLE GLEN PRAYTOR is announcing his candidacy for re-election to a fourth term. Praytor has served for over 11 years as Constable for Precinct Three of Parker County and has been recognized by the State of Texas Attorney General’s Office for his work and commitment in collections of child support delinquencies.
When first elected, Praytor listed his goals as: upholding the integrity of the Constable’s office; establishing improved security for the court rooms; and improving service to the local citizens of Parker County.

Praytor began his law enforcement experience in 1981 as a Tarrant County Deputy Constable and shortly afterwards transferred into the U.S. Marshals service where he served as a Deputy U.S. Marshal for 16 years. In 1997 Praytor began serving as a Reserve Officer for the Parker County Sheriffs Office which led to him becoming a Transport Officer in 2000. It was in this same year that he ran for his first term for Constable of Precinct three.

Due to Praytor’s exemplary service and dedication throughout this past decade, he has assembled endorsements from 18 law enforcement peers, of which accumulatively represent over 500 years of law enforcement experience.

“We’ve accomplished a lot of good things over the last 11 years,” said Praytor, “But we can still get better. We have added a Deputy Constable in order to expand our services and help with official duties such as serving civil process and helping local agencies when they need it. We’ve never turned down another agencies call for help due to lack of manpower.” The Constable’s office also routinely provides additional security and assistance to local law enforcement for accident scene’s or during times of natural disasters.

“Thank you for allowing me to have served as your Constable for Precinct Three for the past 11 years and I look forward to continuing my service. I’m asking for your consideration, support and vote for the office of Constable Precinct Three of Parker County. I will continue to carry out the duties of Constable with integrity and respect to my fellow citizens.”

***

POLITICAL AD PAID FOR BY GLEN PRAYTOR, 543 LOONEY LN., WEATHERFORD, TX 76087

PARKER COUNTY — Some called it politics, a personal issue between Judge Mark Riley and Precinct 3 Commissioner John Roth — who frequently lock horns — but whatever the motive, Parker County Commissioners voted Monday to clip the wings of outgoing elected officials who seek reimbursement for out-of-county travel.

Separately, they also voted to reimburse officials for total fuel costs, instead of on a per mile basis. The new policy applies to those who receive a monthly vehicle allowance and for those provided with a county-owned vehicle.

Both motions were made by Riley and seconded by Precinct 1 Commissioner George Conley.

According to the 4-0-1 vote cast by commissioners, outgoing elected officials must now get permission from the court to receive reimbursement for any out-of-county travel once they declare they will not seek re-election.

Roth abstained from the vote because the new policy affects him. Last October, he announced on his blog, commish3, that he would not seek re-election to a third term. He has 11 months remaining in his current term, which expires Dec. 31, 2012.

In his announcement, Roth did not rule out a future bid for county judge.

Recently, he said, he submitted a purchase order to attend a TxDOT conference in San Antonio in February, to be paid for with funds in his Precinct 3 budget.

Riley opened the discussion on travel for outgoing officials by saying he recalled a motion made by the court in 2008 concerning former commissioner Danny Choate, but couldn’t find it.

“We need to discuss this again,” he said, “because Commissioner Roth is going out of office … ”

“I do believe, unless it’s absolutely required, that outgoing elected officials shouldn’t be traveling beyond a definitive responsibility to represent the court.”

Roth, who said he now has a conflict with the TxDOT conference, also recalled the 2008 motion, saying that Riley and commissioners Joe Brinkley and Jim Webster approved travel and reimbursement expenses for Choate — for an erosion control seminar and a TAC conference — after Choate decided not to seek re-election.

The reason was so Choate could complete continuing education requirements required by law, according to the minutes posted on Roth’s website. Choate was already attending the conference when the vote was taken.

Roth voted against the motion, according to the minutes.

“The whole reason you meet continuing education requirements,” he told the court, “is so you meet the requirements to stay in office.

“If you’re not going to stay in office, the jeopardy you face for not completing your education requirements is that you get kicked out of office. Well, how can you get kicked out of office if you’re already out of office?”

County Attorney John Forrest interjected that Roth should attend the conference if he is short on his required hours. If he doesn’t complete them, he said, he will not be in compliance with the law.

There are reasons for attending the TxDOT conference that go beyond the law’s requirements, Roth said.

He argued that, as an elected official with an approved budget, he should be able to decide how to spend his precinct’s funds.

He emphasized the value of maintaining relationships with the feds and TxDOT in light of recent transportation projects, especially for his precinct.

“We have the biggest project in the history of Parker County going on,” he said, referencing the Ric Williamson Memorial Highway, “and Precinct 3 has the biggest part.

“What is the difference, Mark, between Danny’s situation and this? Are you regretting your vote previously?”

“In looking back, it should not be unless there’s a specific reason,” Riley responded. “In my last year as a commissioner, I didn’t go anywhere. There’s no value to that $1,000 cost. The relationships are going to end. Someone else is going to come in.”

“That depends,” Roth replied.

Riley said he would attend the conference and, per usual, do 99 percent of the conversing with TxDOT.

Roth said he would send his foreman to the conference if commissioners approved the motion.

In skirmish No. 2, commissioners voted 3-2 to reimburse county officials for travel expenses by paying for fuel costs instead of mileage. The policy applies to those who receive a monthly vehicle allowance and those provided with a county-owned vehicle.

Riley, Conley and Precinct 2 Commissioner Craig Peacock voted in favor of the motion. Commissioners Roth and Precinct 4 Commissioner Dusty Renfro voted against.

“I have a county-owned vehicle,” Riley said, “and if I choose to take my personal vehicle on county business just because the weather’s nice, and I want to ride with the top down, I don’t seek reimbursement of mileage. I seek actual fuel costs.

And I think that’s appropriate because I’m covered; everything else is paid for if I’m using a county vehicle. And I think if we provide an auto allowance, and it was based on the fact that that $1,000 covered all expenses, then I think that it ought to be the same way, that if I was getting a $1,000 a month allowance, that at most I should be reimbursed actual fuel costs, not the additional mileage.

I’m not opposed to reimbursing that fuel cost, but I do think the mileage reimbursement over and above the $1,000 is excessive. I think it’s double-dealing.”

As fuel costs go up, that may cost the county more, Renfro commented, then later said, “If I were driving a Hummer, it wouldn’t work out so well for the county. If we pay for the actual fuel costs, you see what I’m saying, it’s going to be higher than the mileage.

“There’s a lot of big pickup trucks driving around ,,, ”

When Roth said the discussion didn’t need to be about petty politics, Riley fired back, “You charged 600 miles to go to Possum Kingdom and check on your crew at fires. That’s outrageous, John.

“And going to Austin, I’ve looked and seen what it costs to go to Austin, and we’re just paying everybody too much, but that doesn’t come into play.”

“That’s misleading,” Roth countered, “because all I’m doing is following a policy that was adopted by a court. For you to say that is petty politics.”

“We give you a thousand dollars,” the judge replied, “and that should cover it, in my opinion.”

“Have you read the policy,” Roth asked. “It says that elected officials for out of county travel can get reimbursed for mileage.”

“Exactly,” the judge replied.

“That’s what I’ve done,” Roth said.

“I think you’ve looked for a loophole,” Riley replied.

Concealed Handgun License Class

When: Saturday, February 4th

Where: Lone Star Guns, 321 I-20, W’ford, for the shooting portion

Willow Park Baptist Church, 129 S. Ranch House Rd., Aledo

Time: 9:00 am – 3:00 pm

Please let me know by emailing dawnking5@aol.com if you want to attend.

We need to know how many to prepare for.

We will take the shooting test first at LONE STAR GUNS.

WE WILL MOVE TO WILLOW PARK BAPTIST CHURCH TO COMPLETE THE WRITTEN PORTION OF THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

***SHOOTING PORTION OF TEST: Meet at Lone Star at 9:00 am.

Requirements include:

1. Drivers License

2. Range Card Application, fill out there, takes 5 minutes.

3. $10.00 fee for shooting range paid to Lone Star.

4. Eye & Ear protection provided by Lone Star.

5. You can rent a gun from Lone Star for $9.00.

6. Range Test requires 50 rounds (may be purchased at Lone Star) with a minimum .32 calibre.

After completion of the Shooting Test we will move to Willow Park Baptist Church for the written portion of the test.

Hayward Bellah – DPS & NRA Certified Instuctor,

Command Sergeant Major, US Army (Ret)

COST: $25.00 at the door

YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS INVITATION SO WE CAN BE PREPARED.

Hayward is a PC TEA Party member and giving us this amazing price.

This usually runs $80.00+

In order to obtain a CHL License,

applicants must meet Texas licensing requirements:

1. Texas requires a minimum of 10-hours class-instruction time. Applicant must pass both a written test and a shooting-proficiency test. A .32 caliber or larger handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition is required. A semi-automatic is recommended, although you may use a revolver. IF YOU TEST WITH A REVOLVER YOU WILL BE LICENSED FOR A REVOLVER ONLY. IF YOU TEST WITH A SEMI YOU WILL BE LICENSED FOR A REVOLVER AND SEMI.

Information and forms for this are found at the Texas Department of Public Safety Concealed Handgun Bureau www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/genInfo.htm 1-800-224-5744 1-512-424-7293

The DPS forms may be completed and submitted online along with payment to the State for the license. Upon receipt and acceptance of all forms, the DPS will issue you a number which you need to complete the next step — getting your fingerprints taken.

2. As of March 21, 2011, all fingerprints are required to be digitally scanned by L-1 Fingerprinting Service. Prints are automatically sent to the Texas DPS. A reservation for fingerprinting is required and may be done online at www.l1enrollment.com or by calling toll-free (888) 467-2080. There is a charge for fingerprinting and cash is not accepted – check or money order only.

The closest location for L-1 is at 3000 Landers St, Fort Worth. (Directions: Take I-30 east to Montgomery St.. Turn right Montgomery, right on Lovell, right to 3000 Landers St.

YOU MUST SIGN UP FOR THIS CLASS – WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE TO EXPECT.

See you there!

Dawn

Please join the Parker County TEA Party the first Tuesday evening for our monthly meetings.

***************************

Dawn King

The TEA Party Patriots of Parker County

817-360-8702

dawnking5@aol.com

“…for such a time as this”

____________________________________________

About The TEA Party Patriots of Parker County

The Legitimate Parker County Tea Party of Texas is a grassroots group of Americans united to share our common value – that the Constitution of the United States should be the governance of our land. It should not be re-interpreted or revised in meaning to meet the needs to special interests or political favors. We’re concerned about reckless overspending, unfair and punitive taxation, and the increasing lack of government constraints. We are peaceful American citizens that organize protests and rallies in Parker County, Texas. We’re not contained by any particular ideology or party, but strive to be a pluralistic and populist movement committed to Liberty, especially economic liberty.

Facebook: parkercountyteaparty

Website: http://www.parkercountyteaparty.com/

Laffer Center: Buffett’s call for higher taxes would “worsen the federal budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy”

_______________________________________________________

Proposed “Buffett Rule” would confiscate income from entrepreneurs while exempting Buffett’s main sources of income from taxation

Contact  Joshua Treviño, (512) 472-2700, jtrevino@texaspolicy.com

AUSTIN – Billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s public call for the government to raise taxes on him and other “mega-rich” citizens is counterproductive and harmful to the economy, according to an article by internationally renowned economist Dr. Arthur Laffer that was published today by the Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics.

Warren Buffett’s “effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this ‘Buffett Rule’ were applied,” Dr. Laffer wrote. “What’s worse, raising tax rates on the highest income earners would most likely worsen the federal budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy, which would penalize everyone across the income distribution.”

Last August, Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times noting that his 2010 federal tax bill amounted to 17.4 percent of his taxable income—the lowest effective tax rate of any of the people working in his office—and arguing that wealthy Americans such as himself should pay higher taxes. Since then, President Barack Obama has regularly used Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, as a rhetorical tool to make his argument for higher taxes, even hosting her in the First Lady’s box during last night’s State of the Union address.

According to Forbes magazine, Buffett’s net worth increased by $10 billion in 2010, even after a $1.6 billion donation to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The net worth increase is an unrealized capital gain that is part of his total income. Adding these tax-exempt items to his taxable income increases his total income from $40 million to roughly $11.6 billion, which drops his true effective tax rate from 17.4 percent to 0.06 percent.

“Buffett’s proposal to raise taxes on the rich would not tax the vast majority of his shielded income, including either his unrealized capital gains, which are currently taxed at zero percent, or charitable contributions, which are tax deductible,” Laffer wrote.

Laffer also notes that Buffett’s donation to the Gates Foundation is contingent on “continu[ing] to satisfy the legal requirements qualifying Warren’s gift as charitable, exempt from gift or other taxes.”

“Buffett quite consciously shields almost the entirety of his true income from federal income taxation, and makes no bones about his belief that he can do more good with his wealth than Uncle Sam,” Laffer wrote. “Buffett’s call for higher tax rates is dangerous because doing so would stifle economic growth and, depending on the severity of the hikes, could actually reduce federal revenue relative to what it otherwise would have been.”

The paper, “Warren Buffett’s Call for Higher Taxes on the Rich,” is available for free download from the Laffer Center’s website, www.LafferCenter.com.

Dr. Arthur Laffer is founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an institutional economic research and consulting firm. Laffer was a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of his terms.

The Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics is a partnership with the Texas Public Policy Foundation dedicated to preserving and promoting the core tenets of supply-side economics.

Laffer Center website: http://www.laffercenter.com/

______________________________________

David Guenthner

Senior Communications Director

Texas Public Policy Foundation

900 Congress Ave., Suite 400

Austin, TX  78701

(512) 472-2700 office

(512) 925-3512 cell

(512) 472-2728 fax

dguenthner@texaspolicy.com e-mail

@DavidGuenthner Twitter

The latest update on the Remuda Ranch Estates Association vs Johnnie and Clara Russell lawsuit:

January 5th the Russells were back in court where the Judge overruled the previous court decision, ruling instead in favor of the Russells, which eliminated the bond payment requirement and opened the door for the Russells to appeal the original decision against them in District court. A court date has not yet been set, but it is anticipated to be done in the next week or two.

Along with this victory, other interesting issues have occurred: Click here to see the rest of this story - 

John Stossel

From RasmussenReports.com, A Commentary By John Stossel, January 25, 2012 - 

Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised “a blueprint for an economy.” But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can’t even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief.

Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like “blueprint” would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society.

But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That’s it.

Obama — and most Republicans are no different — doesn’t understand the real liberal revolution that transformed civilization. The crux of that revolution is that law should define general visible rules of just conduct, applicable to all, with no eye to particular outcomes. In other words, as Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek taught, the only “purpose” of law is to enable us all to pursue our individual purposes in peace.

If Obama really wanted, as he says, a society in which “everybody gets a fair shot,” he would work to shrink government so that the sphere of freedom could expand. Instead, he expands government and raises taxes on wealthier people, as though giving politicians more money were a way to make society better. Instead, the interventionist state rigs the game on behalf of special interests.

What should Obama have said in his speech? Here’s what I wish he’d said:

Our debt has passed $15 trillion. It will reach Greek levels in just 10 years.

But if we make reasonable cuts to what government spends, our economy can grow us out of our debt. Cutting doesn’t just make economic sense, it is also the moral thing to do. Government is best which governs least.

We’ll start by closing the Department of Education, which saves $100 billion a year. It’s insane to take money from states only to launder it through Washington and then return it to states.

Next, we’ll close the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That saves $41 billion. We had plenty of housing in America before a department was created.

Then we eliminate the Commerce Department: $9 billion. A government that can’t count votes accurately should not try to negotiate trade. We will eliminate all corporate welfare and all subsidies. That means agriculture subsidies, green energy subsidies, ethanol subsidies and so on. None of it is needed.

I propose selling Amtrak. Why is government in the transportation business? Let private companies compete to run the trains.

And we must finally stop one of the biggest assaults on freedom and our pocketbook: the war on drugs. I used drugs. It’s immoral to imprison people who do what I did and now laugh about.

Still, all these cuts combined will only dent our deficit. We must cut Medicare, Social Security and the military.

I know. Medicare and Social Security are popular. But they are unsustainable. The only way to cut costs and still have medical innovation is to free the market. So I propose that we repeal Obamacare immediately. My proposal was a mistake. We should repeal all government interference in the medical and insurance industries, including licensing. It all impedes competition.

We must shrink the military’s mission to true national defense. That means pulling our troops out of Germany, Japan, Italy and dozens of other countries. America cannot and should not try to police the world.

Those cuts will put America on the road to solvency. But that’s not enough. We also need economic growth.

Our growth has stalled because millions of pages of regulations make businesses too fearful to invest. Entrepreneurs don’t know what the rules — or taxes — will be tomorrow.

All destructive laws must go. I endorse the Stossel Rule: For every new law passed, we must repeal two old ones.

OK, Obama will never say that.

But I can dream, can’t I?

–

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.”