MAY 25, 2012.

PRESS RELEASE

Parker County Sheriff Larry Fowler wants to send a warning to adults who intend to purchase or furnish alcohol to minors.

A man and woman were booked into the Parker County jail Thursday morning in connection with furnishing alcohol to minors at a prom party April 29, 2012, in Millsap.

“There is no excuse for contributing alcohol to minors at this time of the year or any time,” Fowler said.

Sheriff’s deputies responded to a disturbance call prom night from a concerned citizen who reported the incident in the 3100 block of Bennett Road, in Millsap, around 1 a.m.

Upon arrival, deputies observed numerous underage individuals drinking and running toward a wooded area with more than 20 vehicles on the property. Deputies reported more than 100 individuals were in attendance at the party.

Deputies reported finding evidence of numerous underage drinkers, ages 16 to 18, to be participating in a drinking game of “beer pong.” Sheriff’s deputies also found numerous plastic cups on three folding tables with ping-pong balls inside the cups filled with suspected beer, numerous liquor bottles and beer containers on the front porch, in coolers and on the ground of the residence.

Deputies stated the homeowners, Patricia Parrish Linn, 50, and Gregory Ray Wright, also 50, were on the steps and appeared to be watching the teens drink. No other parents were located at the residence. The couple was questioned as to why they the teens were at the residence and allowed to consume alcohol. Linn told deputies she was trying to provide a safe place for teens after the prom and believed it would be better for the teens to be out in the country on 200 acres rather than be in the city getting pulled over and receiving tickets.

Linn told investigators she “never bought beer for the kids. I only gave them a safe haven. They will go out and do this anyways [sic].”

Three teens were injured during the party. One male teen sustained a large gash on his left knee, while a female teen suffered two large knots on her head from falling off a ledge and a third male sustained a dislocated shoulder. Paramedics were called to the scene. Two injured teens left the scene without treatment while one teen was treated and later released by paramedics.

Linn was charged with purchase furnish alcohol to a minor. She was released upon posting a $1,500 bond Thursday afternoon.

Wright was also charged with purchase furnish alcohol to a minor. He was also released upon posting a $1,500 bond Thursday afternoon.

From gopusa.com, By Larry Elder, May 24, 2012 –

On the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s defenders attempt to make you feel insane. How could you bring up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?! It “injects race” into the contest! Obama supporters warn, “After four years, how dare you ‘re-litigate’ the matter!”

In fact, it was never “litigated” in the first place.

2008 Republican candidate John McCain feared being accused of playing the race card. But Wright is not about “race.” It is much, much bigger than that. Wright is about Obama’s character, beliefs and policies. The question remains the same one that should have been addressed four years ago: Do Obama and Wright share the same view of “social injustice,” a perspective that reveals Obama’s character and beliefs — and reflects his current and future policies?

Obama, in 2007, described the 20-year father/son-like relationship this way: “What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”

But Wright is off-limits.

Obama was probably the most surprised politician in America when McCain refused to jam Wright down Obama’s throat — as Obama would most assuredly have if the situation were reversed. Reluctant to “inject race”? Obama’s hand-picked chair of the Democratic National Committee routinely accuses the Republicans of wanting “to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.” People forget the bare-knuckled way Obama got every serious opponent kicked off the ballot in his first Illinois state Senate race — and was therefore elected with no serious opposition.

But Wright, who described himself as a “second father” to Obama, is off-limits.

Obama selected Trinity United. He selected the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright married Barack and Michelle. He blessed their home in Hyde Park. He baptized the Obamas’ daughters. Obama initially wanted Wright to deliver the invocation when Obama announced his run for the presidency.

Wright calls the criminal justice system racially biased against blacks. So does Obama. Wright, in 2006, falsely said, “We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college.” A year later, Obama repeated the Wright canard almost verbatim: “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.” Pre-emptively deciding Trayvon Martin’s death was a matter of racial profiling, Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Obama sided with the indignant black Harvard professor instead of the white cop who was properly responding to a call about possible burglary. “The Cambridge police,” Obama said, “acted stupidly.”

Obama, in “Dreams From My Father,” quotes Wright from the “Audacity to Hope” sermon: “White folks’ greed runs a world in need.”

What does Obama blame for the financial crisis? “Greed” and “fat cat bankers on Wall Street.” Obama’s greed-based view explains why he denounces “millionaires and billionaires” for failing to pay their “fair share” of taxes. It tells us why candidate Obama told an Ohio plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Wright’s relationship with Obama helps explain the president’s handling of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Wright said in a 2007 interview, “When (Obama’s) enemies find out that in 1984, I went to Tripoli (to visit Moammar Gadhafi) with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Wright also blamed “Zionists” for “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza. Does this not shed light on why Obama condemned the “reckless” building of Israeli “settlements” in east Jerusalem — causing an immediate chill in America’s relationship with Israel? Does Wright’s anti-Semitism tell us something about why Obama said “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people from this whole process”?

But Wright is off-limits.

For his new book, “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House,” reporter Ed Klein taped a lengthy interview with Wright. The reverend claims that Obama secretly met with him and tried to dissuade Wright from speaking out until the election. He says an Obama surrogate offered him $150K to stop giving speeches until after the 2008 election!

Even then-Sen. Obama thought Wright was fair game. “I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that (Wright) had made in the past,” said Obama in April 2008. “The fact that he’s my former pastor, I think, makes it a legitimate political issue.”

But Wright, four years later, is off-limits — unless you’re nuts.

—

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com.

Paid for by Lenny Leatherman

43rd District Judge Trey Loftin

Why is it that now only days before the election, individuals are coming out of the woodwork with slanderous claims of incompetency when only months ago, Judge Loftin was hailed across the nation for being a tough courageous Texas Judge?

What has changed? Certainly not Judge Loftin.

He is the same thoroughly qualified and experienced Christian conservative Republican father, husband and Judge that he was a year ago. He has not changed.

Judge Loftin’s opponent, Craig Towson claims to be a ‘hometown boy’.

Fact – Like Judge Loftin, Twoson came to Parker County as an adult!

Towson claims to practice law with Earl King and Phil King.

Fact – He does not! Next time you see Phil or Earl, ask them directly (no wiggle room) if Towson is their law partner. While you are at it, ask them if they endorsed Towson as he claims.

Towson claims to have jury trial experience.

Fact – He does not! Recently during a Candidate Forum at the Brock Community Center, Towson was asked, “When was the last time you represented a defendant in a jury trial, saw it through to the end and won? (or words to that effect)” The response from Towson was, “It depends on what you mean by won”. The question was then repeated, “When was the last time you represented a defendant in a jury trial, saw it through to the end and won? After a lengthy pause, he said it was last February. Again he was asked if he won that jury trial. He answered yes.

An independent review of every Parker County court case since 1996 revealed no jury trials of any nature with Craig Towson as attorney of record. (I, along with about fifty other people heard him say this.)

Why is all this important? I believe an individual seeking the office of District Judge must be a person of  impeccable character and integrity. Anyone who finds it necessary to lie in order to create the perception of one possessing the necessary qualifications WILL NOT get my vote, and I will work tirelessly to persuade others to cast an opposing vote! I find it highly offensive that a candidate would think I am so simple that I cannot discern the truth – especially, when verification is so easy.

Those who know me know that my character and my honor means everything to me, and that I have no hidden agenda. I will always seek the truth and speak the truth.

Stevie Wonder could see the truth here.

As for the slanderous “No Fraking Way” masterpiece released today -

Judge Loftin followed his political consultant, Craig Murphy’s advice precisely: “We were real careful in the mailings to make sure everything in there was appropriate,” he said. “What we’ve done is strictly reprint things that are in the public record.” – More to do about NOTHING.

Stay the course Judge Loftin! It is almost over!

Lenny Leatherman

If there were ever a time when Israel’s friends needed to speak out and be heard,

that time is now!

In the coming months, critical decisions are going to be made about Iran, Israel and the world. Finally, Washington is beginning to focus on the issue of a nuclear Iran. Many of our leaders want to confront this looming threat. But others want to keep kicking the can down the road. The debate is far from over.

• We know that when thousands of CUFI activists arrive in DC and on Capitol Hill, we can change the conversation.
• We can remind our leaders that a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but to the US as well. And we can demonstrate to our elected officials that their constituents care enough about this issue to show up at their DC offices.
• We know that we can create a sense of immediacy that’s otherwise lacking.
• We know that the more of us who show up and speak out — the louder our voice and the greater our impact.

We stand at a critical juncture in history. Don’t be silent! Don’t miss your chance to make a difference! Don’t pass up your opportunity to defend America and bless Israel!

Our leaders need to remember that we are watching them and we need to remember that God is watching us.

Join us in Washington from July 16-18, 2012 for our seventh annual Washington Summit.

Click here to register -

Message understood: graffiti depicting the euro symbol as a grenade about to be thrown, on a wall in Athens

From TheTelegraph.co/uk, By Janet Daley, May 19, 2012 -

Let’s say this again, just in case a single sentient being on the planet has missed it: Germany cannot simply decide to bail Greece (or Spain, or Italy, etc) out of its debts. OK? However much Angela Merkel is nagged, berated, bullied and patronised by Barack Obama, David Cameron, or the BBC/Guardian axis that regard the preservation of the euro project as critical to their own interests, she cannot just revoke, in a unilateral act, the rules of German government or of the Bundesbank.

Her persistent refusal to “take decisive action” of the kind that would suit the purposes of all those clamorous voices at the G8, is not “dithering”, as it is so often described. In fact, it is not (or not entirely) to be explained in any of the mildly contemptuous ways that her tormentors suggest. It does not arise from an unthinking, superstitious terror instilled in her by the Weimar nightmare of hyper-inflation. Nor is it a narrow-minded expression of the German hausfrau’s values of thrift and self-discipline. What Mrs Merkel is doing, quite appropriately, is defending the integrity of her national constitution, the economic principles on which her country’s economic success has been built, and the interests of her own electorate.

As the leader of a democratic state, what else should she be expected to do? Would Mr Cameron, who is busily assuring us that he will always put the needs of this country first, be chivvied into throwing over the interests of his own citizens for the sake of another national population that has come to grief largely as a consequence of its own misjudgments? Last week, he called for the “pooling [of] fiscal sovereignty” among the eurozone countries. Would he be willing to give up his Government’s right to determine its own tax and spending policy?

And would Mr Obama reverse the fundamental principles of the United States Constitution for the sake of a short-term solution to a global economic problem? (Well, actually, maybe he would. Given his egomaniacal tendency to regard the Supreme Court as a turbulent nuisance when it obstructs his plans, he might not be the best exemplar of constitutional probity.)

In truth, if Mrs Merkel’s reluctance to churn out euros on the Bundesbank printing presses is based on anything other than the straightforward illegality of such a step in German terms, it is probably rooted in more recent associations than Weimar. East Germany is the spectre that hovers over this debacle: the Soviet model of a phoney currency that is manufactured to meet political requirements and which – at the point of national collapse – may simply be exchanged, as the Ostmark was, at an arbitrary nonsense rate in order to avoid pauperising an entire people. That is where Mrs Merkel (and the rest of us) might well see the euro heading if the “decisive action” merchants get their way: not just toward dangerously inflationary levels, but to the status of a fictional currency that can be expanded at will to prop up an ideological delusion.

The “full employment” of the Warsaw Pact countries which was created by central committee fiat, along with the currency to pay for it, is now regarded as one of the more obviously risible facts of Eastern bloc life. But how different from that would it be to create euros to pay for the pensions of the Greeks (or of the French, whose retirement age of 60 François Hollande has promised to restore)? In fact, when will we confront the most fundamental dilemma of this European crisis: that in order to offer the comprehensive entitlement programme that is promised by European “social solidarity”, the EU would not only have to churn out endless mountains of progressively more meaningless currency, but would also be forced to institute forms of economic control that Eastern Europe might have recognised?

As I write, Greece is experiencing what is now called a “bank jog” – a fairly slow “run”. By the time you read this, it may have become a sprint. How long before the (unelected) Greek government imposes a freeze on all bank accounts? Or exchange controls to prevent anyone taking or sending more than very small amounts of money out of the country? When will we start to see prosecutions for “economic crimes” in which the survival of the political project takes precedence over the right to access and make free use of your own funds? Not to mention tanks in the streets to control social unrest. The West may have won the Cold War but its own brand of utopian solution – the great economic and political union that would put an end to war and social instability – is toying dangerously with mechanisms that are certainly anti-democratic and come close to being totalitarian.

This is not just a story of bureaucratic grandiosity, or of German insistence on domination. Certainly it is true that there is an irreconcilable cultural clash between the more puritanical North and the, shall we say, more indulgent South. It turns out that Marx was wrong about economic conditions determining political behaviour: a nation’s religion and geography are much more likely to affect its economic attitudes than the other way round. But it is not the dream of European co-operation that was doomed from the start: given the ancient hatreds and unforgivable sins of the past, that was difficult, but it was not impossible. What has made the project unworkable is the insistence that the EU be a vehicle for democratic socialism: the impossible dream was not European unity but universal “social solidarity” stretching across a continent, for which the single market was simply a milch cow to produce the funds.

Unfeasibly enormous social security and entitlement promises were made on the basis that the free market would always provide. Nobody bothered to ask what would happen when the market faltered or fluctuated (as genuinely free markets do) or when the sense of entitlement outgrew the wealth that could be created. The problem is not unique to Europe. They are facing the same question in the US, where benefits programmes – particularly social security (the US federal pensions system) and Medicare – have become as untouchable, and as financially unsustainable, as they are here.

How long will freedom survive in the face of mass rage at the loss of the economic security that has come to be seen as a basic human right? People were told that they could have lifelong protection from want without any restrictions on their liberty or their economic self-determination. So now the cake has been well and truly eaten and had. The EU is going to have to admit sooner or later that this fantasy has run its course.

In a photo made May 7, 2012, trader John Vaccarine, right, works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

From The DailyCaller.com, By Jamie Weinstein, 05/22/2012 - Formerly a left-wing activist who moved in the same circles as Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, Father Robert Sirico shifted rightward on economic policy decades ago after debating a friend who believed in free markets.

“Throughout my life, even when I have been terribly mistaken in my ideas, I have always been open-minded and honest in looking at opposing viewpoints,” Sirico said, recalling his ideological transformation.

“So when I met a friend of a friend who had completely different ideas about how the economy functions and how society flourishes under the rule of law and economic liberty, I engaged him in the debate. He gave me a ton of books to read, which I did, and over a six-month period of time I came to the conclusion that he had the better argument.”

“It was awkward initially, because most all my friends were on the left,” he continued. “But as you see some 35-40 years later, it all worked out in the end.”

Sirico, who co-founded the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in 1990, makes the moral case for the free market system in his new book, “Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy.”

“The system of profit and loss in a free economy can orient our behavioral compass toward activities that serve others, make good use of resources, and prepare us for the future,” Sirico explained. (RELATED: AEI president urges conservatives to make moral case for free enterprise)

“It doesn’t stop people from serving evil desires or eradicate original sin, but without the price signals in a free economy, our economic activities would be without order.”

Asked whether he thinks President Obama or presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney is closer to his economic worldview, Sirico said the president ”believes that a major expression of a nation’s moral and communal obligation is to be administered through governmental and political institutions.”

“Governor Romney appears to go out of his way to look for society to express itself in non-political ways,” he added. “I am not a member of either political party.”

The Daily Caller’s full interview with Sirico is below.

Why did you write the book?

I wrote “Defending the Free Market“ because it is something that I have been doing, in fact, for many years. In the process of this I have seen several dangerous tendencies that result from either expecting too little of the free economy or expecting too much of it. It is difficult to find a moral case presently that identifies these mistakes and offers a coherent alternative.

When people think that there is no moral tutoring that goes on in a free economy or that profit is itself an indication of immorality, it is difficult to build a society that can confidently prosper and produce a superfluous amount of goods to supply human needs and the legitimate desire of one generation to leave the next better off that they were.

On the other hand, some people seem to have the idea that when confronting the horror of human desperation that one still encounters in the developing world, the only thing they think is required to enable people to live better is to remove controls and regulations and insure they have access to goods, services and jobs, as though culture and moral formation were not both an essential element and prerequisite for prosperity.

I wanted to bring both the practical and the moral into conversation and show how building not only a free society but a virtuous one is essential. We must have the piety of a moral vision and the practical technique of the business leader to build the kind of society worth of human beings.

The press for your book says you used to run in the same activist circles as Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. How is it that you shifted to free-market defender while they are still caught up with the left?

Throughout my life, even when I have been terribly mistaken in my ideas, I have always been open-minded and honest in looking at opposing viewpoints. I guess that is the debater in me. So when I met a friend of a friend who had completely different ideas about how the economy functions and how society flourishes under the rule of law and economic liberty, I engaged him in the debate.

He gave me a ton of books to read, which I did, and over a six-month period of time I came to the conclusion that he had the better argument. It was awkward initially, because most all my friends were on the left. But as you see some 35-40 years later, it all worked out in the end.

What is the moral case for capitalism?

The moral case for a free economy (I prefer this phrase over the word “capitalism” which is far too narrow and has Marxist roots) is to be found in human nature: the very reality that all people related to the natural world of scarce resources by the use of their minds to create things that were not in existence prior to human creativity. Men and women require freedom to express this productive creativity.

The sixteenth-century priest St. Francis de Sales, when called upon to give pastoral advice to Christians involved in trades and occupations, gave a different answer from what some might expect from a saint: “Have greater care than worldly men do to make your property profitable and fruitful . . . our possessions are not our own. God has given them to us to cultivate and he wants us to make them fruitful and profitable . . . therefore let us exercise this gracious care of preserving and even of increasing our temporal goods whenever just occasions present themselves.”

The system of profit and loss in a free economy can orient our behavioral compass toward activities that serve others, make good use of resources, and prepare us for the future. It doesn’t stop people from serving evil desires or eradicate original sin, but without the price signals in a free economy, our economic activities would be without order.

One of your chapters is called “Want to Help the Poor? Start a Business.” Sounds like you’re not a big fan of traditional charity? What do you think of people tithing to churches?

I’m actually a big fan of traditional charity; I just do not believe it is the normative way people rise out of poverty. In fact, another one of the chapters is titled, “Why Smart Charity Works — And Welfare Doesn’t.” I think charity is a crucial part of any morally based economic system, and would take on a much larger role if the government did not suck all the air out of the room. My understanding of charity is grounded in the idea of human dignity on the part of both giver and recipient, something that is neglected in the federal welfare process. Traditional charities, specifically religious ones, acknowledge the value of the human person and better enable benefactors to create a life that reflects an innate sense of dignity.

As for giving to the Church, I believe generosity to be an important virtue because it is a biblical one. I see creation as the all-encompassing gift of a benevolent Creator to his creation. Humans receive all of earth’s joys — nature, family, their imago Dei — from God. Offering something back seems only natural.

What do you think of President Obama? Do you think he values the free market like you? Do you think Mitt Romney does?

I am going to leave it to others to make political applications from the principles outlined in my book. I think it is clear, however, the president believes that a major expression of a nation’s moral and communal obligation is to be administered through governmental and political institutions. Governor Romney appears to go out of his way to look for society to express itself in non-political ways. I am not a member of either political party.

Why do you oppose universal health care?

I am in favor of universal health care in the same way that I favor “universal shoes” – I just fear that the political process is least capable of achieving either. It is not a good state of affairs when medical providers come to see the government or the insurance companies, rather than the patient, as their primary client. A socialized health care system also undermines technological innovation, just as a government takeover of any realm of the economy suffocates innovation — by severing the free relationship among buyers and sellers, crushing incentives for excellence, and bogging down potential innovators and providers in a thicket of regulation.

Why is equality overrated?

A moment’s reflection reveals that total equality, which is, sameness, is impossible and undesirable to achieve. Whenever it is sought after, the result is oppressive. Instead of a culture of wealth-taking, in which the government gives and takes as it sees fit, we need a culture of wealth-making, where the entrepreneurial spirit is rewarded and socially-minded business can thrive and prosper.

What three books most influenced your worldview?

Other than the Bible: ”Treatise on Law” by St. Thomas Aquinas, ”The Fatal Conceit” by Fredrick von Hayek and ”Richard III” by William Shakespeare.

From GOPUSA.com, by Walter E. Williams, May 23, 2012 -

The magnitude of this tragic mayhem can be viewed in another light. According to a Tuskegee Institute study, between the years 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites. Black fatalities during the Korean War (3,075), Vietnam War (7,243) and all wars since 1980 (8,197) come to 18,515, a number that pales in comparison with black loss of life at home. It’s a tragic commentary to be able to say that young black males have a greater chance of reaching maturity on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan than on the streets of Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Newark and other cities.

A much larger issue is how might we interpret the deafening silence about the day-to-day murder in black communities compared with the national uproar over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Such a response by politicians, civil rights organizations and the mainstream news media could easily be interpreted as “blacks killing other blacks is of little concern, but it’s unacceptable for a white to kill a black person.”

There are a few civil rights leaders with a different vision. When President Barack Obama commented about the Trayvon Martin case, T. Willard Fair, president of the Urban League of Greater Miami, told The Daily Caller that “the outrage should be about us killing each other, about black-on-black crime.” He asked rhetorically, “Wouldn’t you think to have 41 people shot (in Chicago) between Friday morning and Monday morning would be much more newsworthy and deserve much more outrage?” Former NAACP leader Pastor C.L. Bryant said the rallies organized by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men,” adding: “The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Not only is there silence about black-on-black crime; there’s silence and concealment about black racist attacks on whites — for example, the recent attacks on two Virginian-Pilot newspaper reporters set upon and beaten by a mob of young blacks. The story wasn’t even covered by their own newspaper. In March, a black mob assaulted, knocked unconscious, disrobed and robbed a white tourist in downtown Baltimore. Black mobs have roamed the streets of Denver, Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, Cleveland, Washington, Los Angeles and other cities, making unprovoked attacks on whites and running off with their belongings.

Racist attacks have been against not only whites but also Asians. Such attacks include the San Francisco beating death of an 83-year-old Chinese man, the pushing of a 57-year-old woman off a train platform and the knocking of a 59-year-old Chinese man to the ground, which killed him. For years, Asian school students in New York and Philadelphia have been beaten up by their black classmates and called racist epithets — for example, “Hey, Chinese!” and “Yo, dragon ball!” But that kind of bullying, unlike the bullying of homosexuals, goes unreported and unpunished.

Racial demagoguery from the president on down is not in our nation’s best interests, plus it’s dangerous. As my colleague Thomas Sowell recently put it, “if there is anything worse than a one-sided race war, it is a two-sided race war, especially when one of the races outnumbers the other several times over.”

—

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

A 14-year-old girl was in her bedroom when she heard someone else in the house. She left her bedroom and went to the kitchen where she discovered a naked man stealing a bottle of rum. The girl ran to take refuge in her bedroom and listened as the man, 47-year-old Kennan Kluesener, made a phone call before leaving the house. A neighbor saw Kluesener in the front yard of the home and retrieved his gun. He was then able to detain Kluesener at gunpoint until police arrived. (Naples Daily News, Naples, FL, 2/23/12)

Four armed intruders began to kick down the door of a two-story apartment, so the three inhabitants locked themselves in an upstairs bedroom and exited onto the balcony where they had no escape. One of the occupants grabbed a rifle kept in the bedroom. One of the home invaders, dressed in camouflage with a black cloth covering his face, managed to kick open the bedroom door. The occupant raised the rifle and shot one round at the intruder, causing the home invaders to flee. Derrick Timmons, 20, was pronounced dead when his body was later found. The other offenders are still being sought by police. (The Courier Herald, Dublin, GA, 3/15/12)

Dale Vigliarolo and his wife were walking into Holiday Market when they spotted 43-year-old David Shuten in the parking lot wielding a large hunting knife. After a failed attempt to break into a vehicle, Shuten turned his attention to a nearby couple with an infant child. As Shuten approached the family, Vigliarolo drew his .38 Special and demanded he drop his weapon. Shuten dropped the knife and sat on the ground until police arrived. He was then transported to a nearby hospital for psychiatric evaluation. (Royal Oak Review, Royal Oak, MI, 3/14/12)

People fled in terror when a gunman entered a medical building and took several people hostage. A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, retrieved his gun and guarded an exit allowing an estimated 50 people to escape down a stairwell, warning them, “If this guy opens this door, I’m going to have to shoot him.” Ferguson said after the ordeal, “I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes.” Despite negotiators’ best efforts to get 28-year-old Dominic Oliver to surrender peacefully, he was later shot during a confrontation with police. He died at a local hospital hours later. (FOX News, Colorado Springs, CO, 2/28/12)

Armando Martinez Jr., 31, trekked through the snow-covered neighborhood, checking as many as 20 homes for unlocked doors. He was finally able to disable a child lock on the back door of a home before entering and helping himself to a change of dry clothes and a snack. He then made his way upstairs to the master bedroom where he awakened the sleeping homeowners. He told the couple he had a gun and threatened them. He demanded they retrieve their wallets and keys and drive him to the nearest ATM. One homeowner went to the closet under false pretenses; he claimed to be getting his wallet and clothes so that they could leave. Instead, he produced a 9 mm handgun and shot Martinez in the chest. The homeowners were uninjured. (Deseret News, Springville, UT, 3/01/12)

When a resident returned home one evening, he was confronted in his driveway by a man with a gun. The victim was ordered inside the residence where his family was being held hostage. Once inside, the victim was shot in the back. Wounded, he still managed to get a firearm and return fire. The alleged assailant fled on foot and was later located at a nearby residence. Both men were taken to the hospital for treatment and the victim’s family was reportedly unharmed. (The Jeffersonian, Cambridge, OH, 2/29/2012)

Click image to enlarge

By now everyone has heard. It’s been all over the news and even on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that the Environmental Protection Agency “is ‘guilty of fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling of this case’…”

The EPA, using falsified evidence provided by a liberal activist environmental consultant, accused and fined a local gas driller of contaminating wells. And this after our own State agencies insisted the company had done nothing wrong.

Obama’s EPA backed down only after Judge Trey Loftin ruled that the evidence was “deceptive…calculated to alarm…” (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Feb 24th, 2012)

If the Obama Administration uses Washington , D.C. bureaucracies to force an agenda on hard working Texans, Texans like our own Judge Trey Loftin will stand up to defend the Constitution. Judge Loftin makes us proud. He respects the Constitution.

Early voting from May 14 – May 25

More about Judge Loftin –

]]> http://parkercountyblog.com/2012/05/22/why-limbaugh-congratulates-judge-loftin/feed/ 0 parkercountyblog Trey_Limbaugh(1000-1)