Let’s just hypothetically say you’re an elected official who is in some serious legal trouble, and you happen to be black…
What do you do to take advantage of the current situation with most of the country talking about race relations and whether or not police unfairly target black people?
You call a press conference, because you’re not in trouble because you habitually rip off your clients and health care companies. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
You’re not in trouble for forging checks and stealing money that was supposed to pay the medical bills for a woman and her child who were in a car accident and trusted you. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
You’re not in trouble because the FBI, Texas Rangers, and local law enforcement raided your law offices with a warrant and found evidence that was used to bring 10 felony indictments against you. You’re in trouble for the color of your skin.
Many of my black friends have been treated unfairly for no other reason than the color of their skin. I’ll be the first to tell you that racism is alive and well in America today. We have made progress, AND we still have progress to make…
But I’ve also known black folks who would probably say they got pulled over for “Driving While Black” even if they were really pulled over for driving drunk while passing a school bus, in a school zone, while going 90 mph with kids crossing the street and diving out of the way.
As Charles Barkley said, we need to have more serious conversations about race – and not only when something bad happens. Part of that conversation still needs to be about helping white folks realize that not all black people are criminals or on welfare or whatever other negative stereotypes are out there. But part of that conversation also needs to be about black “leaders” who manipulate and abuse the trust of the people they lead and represent.
I’d like to take this opportunity to thank President Obama for doing two things better than perhaps anybody in the history of America.
He has 1) sold guns and 2) motivated conservatives better than anybody I imagine.
Have you noticed that he hasn’t said much about gun control since his extremist plan to disarm law abiding citizens and put us at the mercy of armed criminals was crushed in Congress?
That’s because every time he mentioned his gun control agenda, he sold guns and motivated conservatives. If they didn’t disagree with about 95% of his policies, gun store owners and gun manufacturers probably would have sent him a bunch of large commission checks for being their best salesman!
What he did tonight is more of the same.
The most radical of radical open borders Democrats are happy tonight. Those few who still trust MSNBC & their ilk will believe that he is pro-immigrant and pro-minority in spite of the damage his actions will inflict on legal immigrants and U.S. citizens of all races, particularly struggling working class families, minorities, and single mothers.
The rest of us now realize more than ever that “we the people” don’t need a “savior” in the White House who makes promises he can’t keep; who has a government solution for every problem; and whose every solution is to treat hard-working taxpayers like an unlimited ATM at the expense of our children who will pay tomorrow for the reckless spending of today.
“We the people” need “we the people” to wake up, return to the values and principles of our Founding Fathers, get informed and get involved, and restore integrity at every level of government.
More people realize that today compared to six years ago, and we have President Obama to thank for that.
Democrats learned from the 2000 presidential election, when Al “The Lorax” Gore won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College and consequently the White House to George “Dubya” Bush.
Democrats learned the lesson they should have learned, and charted a course for crushing Electoral College victories in ’08 & ’12.
President Obama only won 52.93% of the popular vote in ’08, but cruised to victory with a very blue Electoral College map and 67.8% of EC votes!
He won re-election in 2012 with an even slimmer 51.06% of the popular vote and a still strong 61.7% of the Electoral College votes.
Democrats could have lost the popular vote by a decent chunk and still won the White House in both Obama elections due to their understanding of the map and their success in states they needed to swing.
Will Republicans learn the same lesson that 2000 taught the Democrats about the importance of the Electoral College?
2014 was a crushing GOP victory, but so was 2010. We know what happened in 2012 when many Republicans thought we would take the White House like we took the people’s House two years prior.
Shame on us if we let that happen again in 2016, but if we don’t understand the EC map it likely will.
Texas state Representative Ron Reynolds was re-elected last Tuesday, facing the voters in House District 27 the same day that he faced jurors for the first time in Montgomery County on six felony charges. Leading up to the trial, the Montgomery County District Attorney’s office was required to release all “evidence of prior convictions, extraneous offenses and other bad acts” they planned to bring up in the trial against Rep. Reynolds (Reynolds’ Prior Convictions Extraneous Offenses and Other Bad Acts). Reynolds was indicted by a Montgomery County grand jury last year on 10 felony counts and an 11th felony indictment was recently added, but the DA’s office agreed to try Reynolds on only six of the charges.
Misdemeanor Conviction and Mistrial
The jury in Montgomery County could not come to a unanimous verdict on the felony charges, and decided to convict Reynolds last Friday on the lesser misdemeanor charge of improper “solicitation of professional employment” on all six counts. Then on Monday, the judge declared a mistrial due to juror misconduct. Reynolds’ defense team is arguing that the jury found Reynolds not guilty on the felony charges before the juror misconduct took place as part of the misdemeanor convictions, and therefore double jeopardy precludes the Montgomery County DA from reintroducing the felony charges in the re-trial. Conversely, the Montgomery County DA’s office is arguing that the juror misconduct and mistrial wipe away both the misdemeanor convictions and the not guilty verdict on the felony charges.
Montgomery County Judge Lisa Michalk is expected to decide whether the DA can reintroduce the felony charges before the start of the January 5th re-trial.
Harris County Civil Lawsuits
Rep. Reynolds recently finalized three civil lawsuits in Harris County, and has five pending Harris County civil lawsuits. All of the civil lawsuits stem from alleged misconduct in his personal injury law practice.
In Memorial MRI vs Reynolds, the Harris County judge ordered Reynolds to pay $172,000 to Memorial MRI for non-payment of his personal injury clients (Memorial MRI v Reynolds_Final Judgment). More than $165,000 is still owed, and the matter has been turned over to a special receiver (Memorial MRI turnover).
In Braulio vs Reynolds, Sara Braulio sued Reynolds on behalf of herself and her minor child, who hired Reynolds to represent them after being injured in an automobile accident. Braulio accused Reynolds of settling the lawsuit without her knowledge or consent, forging her signature on over $13,000 worth of checks that were intended to pay medical bills for herself and her child, and keeping the settlement money for himself (Braulio v Reynolds Original Petition). After Reynolds repeatedly failed to provide requested financial documents (Braulio v Reynolds signed order to compel), he agreed to pay $20,000 to settle the tort (Braulio v Reynolds Agreed Judgment).
In Johnson vs Reynolds, Tiffany Gooden Johnson sued Reynolds on behalf of herself and five family members, who hired Reynolds to represent them after being seriously injured in an automobile accident. Johnson accused Reynolds of settling the lawsuit without her knowledge or consent. This tort was settled earlier this year, and the settlement agreement is not disclosed (Johnson v Reynolds Original Petition).
Four of Reynolds pending civil lawsuits are similar to the Memorial MRI lawsuit. Fifteen Houston area health care companies are suing Reynolds for non-payment after they treated his personal injury clients, and Reynolds used their treatments and test results to win favorable settlements (Fomine v Reynolds Original Petition, US Imaging v Brown Brown and Reynolds Original Petition, H Ameri Health v Reynolds Original Petition, & Pacific Health v Reynolds Original Petition).
The other pending civil lawsuit against Reynolds is the Texas Bar Assocation’s tort that is related to the felony charges in Montgomery County. This lawsuit is set to go to trial in December, but will likely be pushed back since it is dependent upon the outcome of the Montgomery County trial (Commission for Lawyer Discipline v Reynolds Original Petition).
Is a Texas Lawmaker a Criminal Lawbreaker?
The State of Texas (via the Montgomery County DA’s Office), 15 Houston health care companies, and the Texas Bar Associaion believe that state Rep. Ron Reynolds is a criminal lawbreaker, but the voters of House District 27 just re-elected him as a Texas lawmaker. The major Houston media waited until after the election was over to cover the felony trial, in spite of the fact that juror selection began the day before the November 4th general election.
Disclosure: I was the Republican Nominee for Texas House District 27 state Rep, and challenged Rep. Reynolds (unsuccessfully) in last Tuesday’s general election.
An Open Letter from David Hamilton to Local Pastors
My name is David Hamilton, and I am the Republican nominee for Texas House District 27 State Representative in east Fort Bend County.
I am writing to you today because I believe that Christians now more than ever must be united against those who oppose our religious liberties, attack the Biblical worldview, and are intolerant of Christian values.
You are likely aware that the mayor of Houston recently tried to subpoena all of the speeches, writings, and sermons of five Houston area pastors that mention the mayor, her transgender bathroom ordinance, or homosexuality. In the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, pastors have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and their congregations have freedom of assembly. The subpoena is in response to a petition of grievances with the City of Houston government, which is another right protected in the 1st Amendment. In recent months, the mayor of Houston has violated 4/5ths of the 1st Amendment rights of Houston Christians and pastors.
We have seen similar stifling of our religious and Constitutional rights from schools, from the government, from the media, etc., etc., etc.
As you know, God made the universe (Gen. 1:1), He sustains the universe through His Son (Hebrews 1:3), and one day He will judge all mankind (Matthew 25:31-46). God is our Creator, our Sustainer, and our Judge.
That is bigger than any political party. As Christians, we must stand united.
I want you to know that if God grants us victory in my election on November 4th, I will fight for your religious liberty, and genuine tolerance of our Biblical worldview and our Christian values as a state representative in Austin.
Please encourage your congregations this Sunday to support candidates who are vocal about their support for religious liberty, for our Biblical worldview, for our Christian values, and for the sanctity of life and marriage.
Please also remind them that early voting in Texas runs from Monday October 20th through Friday October 31st, and Election Day is November 4th.
The mayor of Houston was elected by the people, because some Christians voted for her, some stayed home and others were not unified in voting for a candidate who would defend our religious liberty. Elections matter.
Thank you for your leadership as we stand together for religious liberty, and God bless you!
Click Here to view our new 30-second campaign video, “In the Community, For the Community!”
(HT: Discover the Networks, at http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2143 )
President Obama was recently poised to grant amnesty to “5 or 6 million” illegal immigrants residing in our country. He decided to delay doing so, but promised an executive order granting amnesty will happen after the election.
Why did he decide not to issue the executive order now?
And why did he promise to do so after the election?
Americans are very motivated by issues regarding border security and immigration, and most oppose amnesty. This was a major factor in the highest ranking member of the House of Representatives ever to lose in his own party’s primary election earlier this year.
Republican Rep. Eric Cantor was seen as pro-amnesty, and as caring more for special interests and the political establishment than for his constituents. This led to his ouster by a political newcomer who was outspent and taken for granted.
There are a lot of national factors working for Republicans and against Democrats right now, so the political climate makes it seem pretty clear that President Obama decided to postpone his executive order until after the election because he believes granting amnesty now would help Republicans in November.
However, the far left in American politics – including the media, politicians, activists, etc. – desperately wants amnesty; and they want it now. That makes it seem pretty clear that President Obama decided to promise his executive order *will happen* after the election because he believes promising amnesty later will help Democrats in November.
What does this tell us?
President Obama believes that Republicans who would be motivated to vote in November by amnesty now will not be motivated by a promise of amnesty later. Democrats who would be de-motivated by not granting amnesty now will be motivated to vote in November by a promise of amnesty later.
So Republican voters who support border security and enforcement of our immigration laws who would be highly motivated by an executive order granting amnesty need to prove President Obama wrong and go vote for Republicans this November!
I don’t know if you have seen recent efforts by the federal government to force government contractors, including Christian entities, to be “tolerant” in their hiring practices. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/july-web-only/obama-executive-orders-sexual-orientation-discrimination.html
President Obama recently signed an executive order prohibiting government contractors from discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and so far has rejected pleas from religious leaders across the political spectrum to include a religious exemption.
This means that groups like Catholic Charities and other charitable organizations that receive government grants will be forced to hire people who are gay, lesbian, transgender, etc. if they want to continue receiving those grants.
A likely future step would be all tax-exempt groups (including but not limited to churches) must meet similar demands. Hire a lesbian, a “transgender” person, someone who is “tolerant” about “a woman’s right to choose” and/or “marriage equality,” or lose your tax-exempt status.
If/when it comes to that, many churches will simply give up their tax-exempt status, but the battle lines will be redrawn and the fight will continue.
This is a huge deal and will happen if we don’t get active and fight for our religious liberty. It will be much easier to defend the rights we currently have than it will be to try and get them back after they’re lost.
We need Christian involvement to defend our religious liberty, as well as to fight efforts like the Houston bathroom ordinance, and the obvious need for Christian involvement in discussions and decisions on abortion, marriage, etc.
The Democratic Party has become the anti-war party, and national Democrats simply do not take our national security seriously.
The ’08 Democratic primary became a contest to see who could be the most anti-war candidate, and President Obama won that contest.
How’s that working out for us?
The national media has been dishonest about many factors that directly impact our national security & public safety, most notably when it comes to Islamic terrorism & our border insecurity.
That dishonesty directly influenced the ’08 election, and with an assist from the power of incumbency carried over to the ’12 election.
The last 5 and 1/2 years have made it very, very clear. If you care about your own safety and the safety of your family, then you should understand that Islamic terrorism and our open borders are our biggest threats.
And Democrats’ failures to take Islamic terrorism or border security seriously is dangerous.
If you are a Republican, get active & help your friends, neighbors, & coworkers understand that only the Republican Party takes their safety seriously, because only the Republican Party takes Islamic terrorism & border security seriously.
If you are an independent/other, then you should vote Republican until & unless the Democratic Party puts up candidates who take national security, Islamic terrorism, & border security seriously.
If you are a Democrat, then you should demand that your party restore seriousness about these issues, or consider leaving the Democratic Party.
- "The Dawkins Letters"
- "The God Delusion"
- 2 Samuel 20
- 2008 Presidential election
- Acts 17:24-31
- Anglican Church
- Anthony Flew
- Australian Christian music
- Ayn Rand
- Charles Darwin
- child of God
- Christ crucified
- Chuck Norris
- Church History
- David Robertson
- Desiring God
- Doers of the Word
- Dr. Jim Hamilton
- expository preaching
- Gene Robinson
- glory of God
- I Was There
- Intelligent Design
- James Hamilton
- Jesus Christ
- Joel Osteen
- John Piper
- justification by faith
- King David
- Lee Strobel
- Mark Driscoll
- Mars Hill Church
- Mike Huckabee
- Nathan Tasker
- preach the Word
- Psalm 1
- Richard Dawkins
- roe v. wade
- seminary professor
- Sermon on Mars Hill
- Sex and the Supremacy of Christ
- the apostle Paul
- the Bible
- The Case for Faith
- The Law of the Lord
- the rebellion of Sheba
- The Resurrection
- the Word of God
- William Tyndale