Rep. Simpson shared his views on its demise, “Politics has a lot in common with fairy tales, in both arenas you have to suspend rational faculties in order to comprehend what is going on. Rarely in the history of this Legislature has, to my knowledge, the state’s leadership so masterly worked against the will of its members and the people they represent. Leadership arranged it so that every member could cast a vote in support of a bill they would ensure would not pass.”

You can see Rep. Simpson’s most recent interview on this issue here.

And so it ends. Few in state leadership have yet to grasp the concepts of nullification and interposition and fewer still display any courage in the face of the federal Goliath. Where are our David’s? Perhaps they are living among us? Perhaps they will enter the battle in 2013? But, for now, it appears there are heroes in other states fighting the exact same fight we lost here in Texas. The following is an article about the TSA and States’ Rights from our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center.

The TSA Won’t Stop Itself. So The States Will
by Mike Maharrey

On Monday, TSA agents escorted Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from the security checkpoint at the Nashville airport when he refused to submit to an invasive pat-down, once again focusing attention on this out of control federal agency. But even as the TSA continues its heavy handed treatment of Americans,  a number of states around the country are currently considering legislation to put a stop to such actions.

Paul says he missed his flight, but later rebooked and passed through security without further incident.

The confrontation started after the Kentucky senator walked through a scanner and it alerted to an irregularity. Paul says he offered to walk back through the scanner again, but TSA agents insisted he must undergo a pat-down.

Paul refused. He says he showed them his leg, the area supposedly causing the problem, but that wasn’t good enough. When he tried to use his cell phone to call TSA headquarters in Washington D.C. to get clarification on the rules, he says agents told him that he would have to endure a full body pat-down.

“For an hour and a half, they said ‘absolutely, I would have to [accept a pat-down],’” Paul said in a phone interview with the Daily Caller. “And, because I used my cell phone, they told me I would have to do a full body pat down because you’re not allowed to use your cell phone when you’re being detained.”

Paul says agents detained him in a cubical area, actions TSA officials deny. They say local law enforcement officers simply escorted him away from the secure area and did not detain him.

“I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle!’ So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained,” Paul told the Daily Caller.

Paul’s father, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul reacted strongly to the incident.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe,” he said.

The White House defended the TSA’s actions.

“I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Rand Paul is not the first public official to endure harsh treatment at the hands of the TSA. One Alaska legislator’s experience led her to take up James Madison’s admonition and interpose for the people she represents.

In February 2011, Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna (D-Anchorage) was heading back to Juneau.

“The evening of the 20th of February 2011 started with relief, as I was anxious to get back to the important work of the Alaskan Legislature. Heading into security after time with the line of passengers, I felt upbeat.”

Her upbeat demeanor quickly turned into apprehension when TSA agents directed her into a full body scanner. She knew from experience what was coming.

“The horror began again. A female agent placed herself blocking my passage. Scan results would again display that my breast cancer and the resulting scars pointed a TSA finger of irregularity at my chest. I would require invasive, probing hands of a stranger over my body. Memories of violation would consume my thoughts again,” she wrote, chronicling her experience on her blog.

This time around, Cissna refused to comply.

“Being a public servant and elected representative momentarily disappeared. Facing the agent I began to remember what my husband and I’d decided after the previous intensive physical search. That I never had to submit to that horror again! It would be difficult, we agreed, but I had the choice to say no, this twisted policy did not have to be the price of flying to Juneau!” she wrote. “So last night, as more and more TSA, airline, airport and police gathered, I became stronger in remembering to fight the submission to a physical hand exam. I repeatedly said that I would not allow the feeling-up and I would not use the transportation mode that required it.”

Instead of undergoing the invasive pat-down, Cissna rented a car and then took a small private plane to Prince Rupert, B.C. From there, it was a two-day ferry trip up to Juneau.

“For nearly fifty years I’ve fought for the rights of assault victims, population in which my wonderful Alaska sadly ranks number one, both for men and women who have been abused. The very last thing an assault victim or molested person can deal with is yet more trauma and the groping of strangers, the hands of government ‘safety’ policy,” she said. “For these people, as well as myself, I refused to submit.”

Recognizing that the TSA wasn’t going to rein in itself, on Jan. 17, 2012, Cissna introduced HB 262 in the Alaska House, “An Act relating to the offense of interference with access to public buildings or transportation facilities.”

The bill would make it a class A misdemeanor for any agent to require a person seeking access to a public building or transportation facility to “consent or otherwise submit to (1) physical contact by any person touching directly or through clothing the genitals, buttocks, or female breast of the person seeking access; or (2) any electronic process that produces an electronic image of the genitals, anus, or female breast or otherwise creates an electronic image of the person seeking access that exposes or reveals a physical characteristic that is normally hidden by clothing and is not normally visible to the public.”

After her experience, Cissna explained why stopping overreaching TSA searches means so much to Alaskans.

“The TSA threat of ‘Do you want to fly?’ means something very different to Alaskans, she said. “Flying in Alaska is not a choice, but a necessity. The freedom to travel should never come at the price of basic human dignity and pride.”

Alaska joins four other states considering legislation to halt invasive TSA searches within their borders. Lawmakers in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan will also consider bills designed to rein in unwarranted TSA searches without probable cause.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill earlier this month that would require state and local law enforcement officials to document complaints from citizens who feel TSA searches cross the line and then place the report in a public data base. It would also allow citizens to videotape encounters with the TSA and require police officers to take the citizens’ side against any TSA officer trying to stop them. The legislation includes TSA searches conducted at bus stations or along the state’s roadways. The state Senate will now take up the bill.

The Tenth Amendment Center expects as many as 12 states to introduce legislation aimed at the TSA in 2012, and with recent events once again putting the agency in the spotlight, even more could follow suit.

To track freedom to travel legislation across the U.S., click HERE.

For model freedom to travel legislation you can encourage your legislators to file in your home state, click HERE.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

First, some background. When attempting to acquire a person’s land, there are two ways to do it.  You can negotiate with the landowner to buy it from them directly or the power of eminent domain (government force) can be exercised to take ownership and evict the property owner. Texas bestows the power of eminent domain to pipelines [Texas Natural Resources Code - §111.019] if the pipeline meets the prescribed common carrier definitions.  In filing an “Application for Permit to Operate a Pipeline in Texas” with the Texas Railroad Commission, companies indicate, by checking a box, whether they intend to operate a private pipeline or whether they are a common carrier.

However, the Railroad Commission claims no authority to verify or certify that the pipeline operator is in fact a common carrier. So who does?  The short answer is: no one.  As it stands now in Texas, when pipeline companies come with eminent domain power in hand to claim your land, your only option is to lawyer up and fight them in the courts at your own expense.  This is how tenuous your property rights are in this state!

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a case (Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. And Mike Latta V. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC) addressing this exact issue.

In the opinion, Justice Willett writes:

The Texas Constitution safeguards private property by declaring that eminent domain can only be exercised for “public use.” Even when the Legislature grants certain private entities “the right and power of eminent domain,” the overarching constitutional rule controls: no taking of property for private use.  Accordingly, the Natural Resources Code requires so-called “common carrier” pipeline companies to transport carbon dioxide “to or for the public for hire.”  In other words, a CO2 pipeline company cannot wield eminent domain to build a private pipeline. [Emphasis Added]

Now, the opinion in this case specifies a CO2 carrier because the respondent, in this case was specifically claiming common carrier status as a CO2  pipeline but, the ruling affects all pipelines in the State of Texas.  But had Texas Rice Land Partners and Mike Latta not pursued this issue all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, they would have lost their property (or an easement on their property) to the pipeline.  Is it not the duty of government to insure that the law is followed?  But in this case, enforcement of law and justice fell on the shoulders of the victim.

Yet, there is still more to consider.  If the company that claims the awesome power of eminent domain is, in fact, just a private line, one that does not meet the criteria of “common carrier” are they guilty of both fraud and theft?  In other words, hasn’t there been a concerted effort on the part of the company to defraud landowners?  What if the company has already taken people’s land?  Are they not guilty of theft by fraud? Aren’t we all aware of cases where individuals have been charged with impersonating an government official and have been punished by fine and/or imprisonment?  Have these companies not done the same thing? Have they not impersonated a common carrier in an attempt to defraud an individual out of their land by coercion and force?  These are questions that demand an answer if Texans are to be secure in their property.

Consider whether an individual victim of theft by fraud is expected to go out and hire a private investigator to track down the perpetrator, garner enough evidence to then hire an attorney to prosecute the offender?  Of course not, they simply report the issue to the police and the state takes over.  Law enforcement is the state’s job.  The Denbury Green case demonstrates that the state of Texas has failed to enforce our own law.

The question that should be surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline is whether the company is a common carrier under Texas law or whether it is merely a private company building a pipeline for their own private use.  We can not compromise freedom for security, not job security or economic security or energy independence. Many are saying, “Well, this pipeline means jobs!”  Yes it does.  Or “This pipeline means energy independence.” and that it might.  But, is that a comforting thought when any company can come and take your property for its own profit?

As Texas steps up to meet the call for energy independence, let’s make sure we remember the importance of fair and just law – law that applies equally to everyone.  We must demand state and local governments that enforce those laws rather than turn a blind eye to abuse.

“Rather than providing solutions to the water needs facing Texas, the additional debt imposed on Texans by Prop 2 compounds the problem,” warned Debra Medina, Founder, We Texans. “InfrastructureTexas.org put out information playing on voters’ fears about the drought and wildfires. Many Texans believed this money was going to fund needed water projects with no cost to them. H204Texas PAC put out an email saying Prop 2 would cost the taxpayers NOTHING. But we know better and we’ll be watching TWDB’s every move to ensure taxpayers and Texans’ water rights are protected.”

Politifact.com concluded H2O4Texas’ claim was a half truth.

It states: “The group’s claim sidesteps the fact that taxpayers of jurisdictions benefiting from the bonds will face bond-related costs. And while the additional bond authority sought in the proposition would not cost state taxpayers–up front–state lawmakers could still exploit their standing authority, as before, to spend state revenue on related debt.”

“We’re encouraged by the near defeat of Prop 2 — a big giveaway to Rick Perry’s water boys on the Texas Water Development Board.  Citizens are wising up to the fix between large-scale developer friends of the Governor,  and Republican and Democratic politicians who are in on these deals,” notes Linda Curtis, Founder of Independent Texans. “Democratic State Senator Kirk Watson got a taste of what is to come last week, when he faced suspicions of otherwise supportive citizens in Bastrop when he was pushing Prop 2 at a water forum.  When politicians on both sides come together, so must we citizens.  The Texas water war — a transpartisan phenomenon like the fight to stop the TTC –  is now officially on.”

Texas voters said a resounding ‘NO’ to expanding Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Transportation Reinvestment Zone (or TRZ) authority to counties by defeating Prop 4 November 8. The Constitutional Amendment HJR 63 authored by Rep. Joe Pickett (D – El Paso) would have allowed counties to use property taxes and sales taxes collected in a TRZ to build toll roads. So the defeat of Prop 4 is also a defeat of Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature’s plan to slap tolls on virtually all new lanes to Texas roads.

“Using gas taxes to build toll roads is bad enough, but trying to nab property taxes to build toll roads is beyond the pale,” says Terri Hall, TURF Founder. “It’s refreshing to see the voters reject this anti-taxpayer and anti-property rights amendment. Let’s see if lawmakers in Austin listen — Texans don’t want their tax money used to build roads and then have to pay again, through tolls, to drive on them.”

The defeat of Prop 4 also signals a rejection of government abuse of property rights for Kelo-style economic development. Prop 4 would have given the government more power to decide whose private property it wishes to “redevelop.” The ballot wording was vague and misleading. It failed to even mention tax increment financing, transportation reinvestment zone, or even the word ‘transportation.’ TURF launched a statewide campaign to educate voters about the amendment. We Texans, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and Independent Texans also opposed the measure.

Cities already have TIF and TRZ authority. TRZs are as much about “economic development” as it is financing transportation projects, and means those who live in a zone will have their property taxes go up due to higher property values from the government-encouraged development. Property taxes aren’t going to go down once a county sells bonds dependent on ever increasing property tax appraisals.

The amendment was also linked to HB 563, authored by Pickett, which would have granted counties broad new authority, even to grant tax breaks to special interests in the zone and to use surpluses as a slush fund for virtually anything.

STATE OUTSOURCING TAX INCREASES
TRZs are a way for STATE legislators to punt on their responsibility to build and maintain STATE highways and their responsibility to end diversions of the gas tax to non-road uses. It allows them to outsource tax increases for roads by passing it down to the LOCAL level. By using appraisal increases to pay for transportation projects, it takes that revenue away from what cities and counties usually use that money to fund. So it would likely necessitate further property tax increases in order to make up for the shortfall in city and county services that will be diverted to transportation.
TURF is a non-partisan, grassroots, all-volunteer group defending citizens’ concerns with Agenda 21, toll road policy, public private partnerships, and eminent domain abuse. TURF promotes pro-taxpayer, pro-freedom, & non-toll transportation solutions. For more information or to support the work of TURF, please visit www.TexasTURF.org

To give you a taste of what the magazine wants people to know of the man and the cronyism he has thrived on here in Texas, here are a few highlights:

• “On the human level he is a nonpersonality, an almost perfect cipher – a man whose only discernible passion is his extreme willingness to be whatever someone will pay him to be, or vote for him to be.”
•  “Rick Perry brings shallow to a new level. He is very gifted in that regard. He could be the Adolf Hitler of shallow.”
• “Rick Perry has managed to set a scary new low in the annals of opportunism, turning Texas into a swamp of political incest and backroom dealing on a scale not often seen this side of the Congo or Sierra Leone.”
• “Favors are the one consistent thread running through Perry’s political career. Throughout his time as governor, whenever his ideology or his religion comes into conflict with the need to give a handout to a major campaign donor, ideology and religion lose every single time.”

With fair warning the graphic language of this article may be offensive, however, it remains an accurate and an educational read.

We Texans wants voters to have this insider’s look at the man and the office he has controlled for the past decade. However, more importantly, as you read, we remind you that the Governor cannot be crooked all on his own. We have only been able to arrive at this level of corruption in our state government this past decade at the complicit hands of our state legislature. The Governor cannot sign any legislation that hasn’t passed the house and senate first.

We will continue to turn the spotlight on crony capitalism in Texas not only in the office of the Governor but also in the halls the Capitol. And we will continue to work for the return to a just rule of law because “All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges…”

Read “Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore in Texas”

Numerous sources are now pointing out that the Texas Forest Service budget was reduced by 30% in the 2012-2013 budget.

Salon is reporting, “The Forest Service was appropriated $117.7 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. That is not enough to cover the expense of fighting the fires currently burning across the state. For the 2012-2013 fiscal year, which began this month, the agency was appropriated $83 million.The state has already approved supplemental spending to pay for firefighting that has already taken place, which is also $61 million short of what is needed. So, in other words, the budget intentionally appropriates less money than everyone knows the Forest Service will actually need in order to maintain the illusion of fiscal responsibility. And the Republicans will demand more federal money to make up the gap while decrying federal spending.”

The question could be, what role should the state play in natural disaster relief? But surely another, even more pointed question, is: should we be preserving discretionary and corporate welfare funds in Texas at the expense of funding essential emergency response?

Sen. Kirk Watson D-Austin, highlighted the importance of substantive policy debate, “During the session, budget decisions are presented as little more than math problems. They’re presented as raw numbers, and the discussion ends as soon as those numbers balance – or even just appear to balance, by any means necessary,” Watson said. “Events such as these fires show these kinds of debates aren’t just about numbers. They’re about specific impacts on very real people and their lives. And I fear that even after these fires are extinguished, the impacts of this session will continue to resurface in tragic ways.”

Certainly balancing the budget in our state is of utmost importance, but it is just as important to balance the priorities as well. Unfortunately, few in our state house were willing to force that debate.  Our representatives of the 82^nd legislative session chose to keep gifts, favors, luxuries and “economic incentives” wholly intact at the expense of essential state services. Much of what happened in the most recent session boiled down to voting a Perry-Dewhurst- Straus prescribed agenda with few demonstrating the courage to discuss “specific impacts on very real people.”

Thomas Jefferson even apparently doubted the people’s ability to choose leaders capable of legislating.  Heresy, you say?  Take a look at Jefferson’s letter to Madison dated Dec. 20, 1787 letter  in the aftermath of the Constitutional Convention, ” For tho’ I think a house chosen by them [the people] will be very illy qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations, etc”

Jefferson goes on in this letter to list the things he does not like about the proposed U.S. Constitution.  First, he doesn’t like that it does not have a bill of rights (which concern was later, of course remedied).  But secondly, and generally overlooked, he said, “The second feature I dislike, and greatly dislike, is the abandonment in every instance of the necessity of rotation in office…”

Read the letter and let’s hope we have the courage to prove him wrong in this.  We’ve seen new energy in holding elected officials accountable but perhaps we better start holding our neighbors accountable as well.  There’s a difference between forgiveness and excuse-making.  Our willingness to make excuses for bad behavior has wrought us a government by the elite political royal class.  Want a government of the people, by the people? Let’s hold one another accountable as voters.  Quit making excuses for non-repentant, poorly performing elected officials – in the world of social media and in the voting booth.