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.
Democrat politicians and the Democrat media are out of touch with the rest of America, including a lot of Democrat voters, when it comes to abortion.
This is why the Democrat media does not want you to know about Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist who murdered babies by causing pregnant women to go into labor, delivering their babies, and then killing them in his “abortion clinic.” He also had a segregated clinic, and sent his black patients to a squalid, disgusting waiting area and operating area while his white patients had somewhat cleaner, nicer facilities. And, his negligence led to the overdose & death of a pregnant women when his unlicensed, untrained teenager “pharmacist” gave her the wrong amount of drugs to prepare for her abortion.
The abortion industry “pays the piper,” so to speak, in the Democratic Party, and Democrats will always oppose abortion regulations to help their favorite special interest industry operate in the shadows – and the abortion industry and their party reward the standouts.
Then-Illinois state Senator Obama was greatly rewarded and his political career boosted when he defended “aborting” born-alive babies in the Illinois legislature. The only reason Texas state Senator Wendy Davis ascended to the Democratic nomination for Texas governor is because she filibustered to defend late-term abortion and unregulated, Gosnell-type abortionists in Texas.
And now, Democrats are pandering to the abortion industry and the abortion lobby with the so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” that would more accurately be called the Gosnell Protection Act.
The abortion industry believes that women have some sort of Constitutional right to sex without a baby, even when they get pregnant. They also believe that abortion clinics have a right to perform abortions without any government oversight or regulations.
Through their partial ownership of the Democratic Party, the abortion industry’s view has become the official Democratic position on abortion: “pro-choice” no matter what, in any and all circumstances, up to and even beyond birth.
America, including even many Democratic voters, does not agree with these radical views, which is why the abortion industry & Democrats don’t want you to know about Kermit Gosnell or the Gosnell Protection Act.
In 1787 when William Wilberforce introduced his first bill to abolish the slave trade in Great Britain, it was said that the slave trade had 300 M.P’s (Members of Parliament) “in their pocket” and the abolitionists had only Wilberforce.
The slave trade accounted for a huge portion of the British economy, with British ships exporting British goods to Africa, African slaves to the Indies, and plantation produce back home on the triangular trade route.
If you could go back in time to 1787, and across the Atlantic to England, would you be willing to anger the ship builders, the seamstresses, the blacksmiths, the carpenters, etc. whose livelihoods depended on the slave trade by standing with Wilberforce and the abolitionists? Would you risk angering the financiers and plantation owners, and the people who enjoyed cheap plantation products?
Or would you be content to live your own life, focus on your own family, build your own career, sit in your own church pew, and avoid “upsetting the apple cart” over slaves who were out of sight and therefore easily kept out of mind?
- "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