February 27, 2012

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

Hill Country Voter Forum

This site is designed to let voter’s in the Hill Country know who’s running for what offices that affect Llano & Burnet Counties. I will do my best to list all the current positions & candidates and what party they represent.

You can only vote once per poll, so if additional candidates enter a race and you have already voted, you won’t be able to change your vote. HOWEVER, once the primaries are over, the existing polls will be deleted and new ones will be added, except for those races with no opposing candidate. So please return to the site after the primaries and cast your vote once again.

Click Here to vote for Wes!

Freedom Talk Netcast

February 27, 2012

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

Freedom Talk Netcast

Click Here to listen to the interview of Wes with Marite!

Texas rides again! There is a tremendous upswelling of a strong Patriotic Constitutional movement in TX, and we are pleased to bring you 3 great candidates for office, Wes Riddle, Richard Mack and Glenn Addison. Bless them for taking on the tremendous challenge of running, and giving us hope that we can still turn around this sinking ship. Listen to their message, and please support them, even if you are not in TX or the US. If elected they will be in Washington DC, and will help all of us.

We the People with Cameron Cutrone

February 24, 2012

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

We the People with Cameron Cutrone

Cameron interviews District 25 Congressional Candidate Wes Riddle

Click Here To watch the video of Wes’ interview.
When you go to the link, you need to click “We The People: San Marcos”
On the drop down menu, you need to click on “We the People with Cameron Cutrone 2.9.12” to view the interview.

Dear Fellow Pro-Life Texan

February 24, 2012

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

Dear Fellow Pro-Life Texan

From the time it was first created in 1983, pro-life Texans in the 25th Congressional District have had the misfortune to be represented by a lackluster succession of pro-abortion Democrats including current Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, who earned a 100% Pro Abortion voting record (National Abortion Rights Action League, 2010.) I intend to change that by earning your vote in the coming election for Congress in District 25.

I am a life-long, native Texan, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who served in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm where I commanded a Patriot Missile batter. I am also a committed pro-life Texan, and I want to be your Congressman.

Naturally, I care about other issues, like getting the federal government out of our pockets and off the backs of small businesses, which create roughly 70% of all new jobs in America. I believe that traditional Judeo-Christian values have served our nation well over the past two-hundred years; and I will always strenuously oppose efforts to strike those values from our national consciousness — whether it be by liberal politicians, or black-robed bureaucrats posing as impartial judges in our courts.

I know as a former history professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point that the purpose of elections is to select representatives who will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, protect our citizens; secure our borders from all threats, including illegal entry by foreign nationals; and, that a Congressman is supposed to serve those who elect them — not the other way around!

To win this race, I need your personal support, your financial help to keep our campaign moving forward, and your vote in the Republican Primary when the federal courts finally set a date for the upcoming primary election.

No election in our lifetime will have greater consequences for America’s future than the one coming next November. The Republican Primary, however, is another important test for true conservative Texas voters. At question is whether we will demand and get fundamental change. This primary election will decide if voters are content with politics-as-usual and mere lip service for our issues.

I am the candidate who will fight: for constituents, for the Constitution, and to end Republican “compromise” with the governing elite which has demeaned our values and for decades, run Washington while running our nation’s economy into the ground.

I am serious about cleaning up the mess in Washington and fighting to defend the sanctity of every human life from conception to natural death.

I want and need your financial help, your volunteer assistance in your neighborhood and at the polls, and finally, your vote in the Republican primary.

The U.N. Attack on American Gun Rights

February 24, 2012

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

The U.N. Attack on American Gun Rights

If someone lies to you in order to manipulate you into changing your behavior, you should be very cautious and look for intent.

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) proponents have been lying from the outset to get States to jump on the ATT bandwagon.

Just as the push for an Arms Trade Treaty was getting started, a new organization, the Geneva Declaration Organization (GDO) was created in 2006. The group’s stated goal is the reduction of world violence. But its true goal is to examine, and then exaggerate, the level of global armed violence, and thereby frighten States and their civilian populations into demanding an ATT.

Arms Trade Treaty proponents vigorously advocated, at every opportunity, the notion that if the instruments of armed violence could be controlled, or even eliminated — especially by a global Arms Trade Treaty — the people of the world would be safer.

As is usually the case with weapon-prohibitionist groups, the authors focus on the instrumentality of violence, and ignore the fundamental causes of violence. In order to accomplish this, they use the same tactics that have brought them success in the past. They deliberately confuse “association” — that is, guns are associated with violence, and “causation” — that is, guns cause violence.

Timor-Leste – Not Us, Blame the Guns

The young south-Pacific nation of Timor-Leste (TL), formerly East Timor, was used by the GDO and other ATT proponents, as one of the examples to try to link violence and weapons.

However, they have been lying about the significance of firearms in Timor-Leste, a former colony of Indonesia. In their own words, fear-mongering ATT proponents admit that guns are not a problem in TL. According to prolific firearm-prohibitionist authors Robert Muggah and Emile LeBrun, “Timor-Leste continues to enjoy a situation in which illicit small arms and munitions are very limited in number and generally pose little risk.”

One of the TL papers listed by the GDO notes: “But Timor-Leste is hardly awash with guns…. In street violence dominated by bladed weapons, there is often a tacit agreement not to employ guns….”

Anti-gun researcher Sarah Parker gave it away when she admitted:
“Anecdotal evidence suggests there are relatively low levels of firearms possession in Timor-Leste and that civil disturbance incidents in Dili have been decreasing since the disturbances in 2006.”

She then explained why the presence of firearms should be disturbing to all: “… there have been spikes of violence [in TL], and the incidents in which firearms were used are of ‘growing concern’.”

Security analyst Edward Rees also blamed the presence of weapons for violence — specifically for the violence occurring in 2006 — and the attempted coup. He stated: “…A few weapons can have a disproportionate impact in the context of political and criminal violence…in possession of little more than a few dozen police and military weapons rebel commander Major Alfredo Reinado held Timor-Leste’s government and population virtually to ransom….”

In other words, ATT proponents admit that there is a low level of firearm possession, and decreasing levels of violence. And yet they still persist in associating civilian weapons possession with the civil unrest of 2006. But the facts of that rebellion have been obscured by smoke and mirrors.

The Big Lie

The big lie is that the violence has been fostered — not by the presence of weapons, as we would be led to believe — but by the UN itself. It is a lie both by omission, and a lie by the deliberate confusion and misuse of statistical terminology and concepts.

The facts show that, upon achieving sovereignty on May 20, 2002, the country was built by the UN, complete with UN ideals, including, not surprisingly, a law banning the civilian possession of weapons.

Here’s how the UN created divisions and conflict in the new nation. In order to gain freedom from Indonesia, the people of TL delivered themselves into the “saving hands” of the UN with promises of a referendum for independence if their freedom fighters laid down their weapons. After the referendum, in retaliation for the Timorese’ overwhelmingly positive vote for sovereignty, and with UN protection delayed, Indonesian forces virtually flattened the country.

In an article entitled East Timor: A UN Failure, Max Lane summed up succinctly just after the country achieved sovereignty: “Of course, it is true that East Timor is now independent, which was what the East Timorese people wanted. But it was not a result of anything done by the UN. The UN has been nothing more than a midwife-and not a very good midwife at that.”

The UN then egotistically, ambitiously, experimentally, and selfishly exploited this opportunity to build a nation in the idealistic image of Western democracy.

UN agencies and regional experts took part in a Joint Assessment Mission (JAM). Tanja Hohe, who served in East Timor as a District Electoral Officer for the UN Mission in East Timor, described the situation: “The logic of the JAM was that the exit of the Indonesian system resulted in a power vacuum…. The assumption by the JAM of a ‘vacuum’ opened the doors for social engineering at the grassroots level. It appeared to be the right moment to introduce democratic structures to a situation where nothing seemed left.”

Hohe complained: “The discrepancy between the ‘modern’ way of selecting staff for the administration and the local ideas about legitimate leaders in these positions led local population to reject the personnel, so that the government was neither stable nor accepted by the people as legitimate.”

Although not a reflection of western-style democracy, the people already had a stable, comfortable governing apparatus in place. Yet, Timorese traditional leaders were now excluded from the new model imposed by the UN, creating resistance and confusion among the populace.

Another error in judgment by the UN affected the stability of the security forces. Here again we see the arrogance of UN decisions. According to a US Congressional Report:
“Divisions between the military and the police can be traced to the recruitment process…. a U.N. decision led to over 300 individuals who had earlier served in the Indonesian police force in East Timor to be hired into the new police of East Timor.”

This UN decision to hire Indonesian-trained men, rather than resistance fighters, led to a great deal of friction and hostility, not only in the security forces, but among the populace.

The UN demonstrated more than just incompetence in the failure to achieve a viable state. One author described it thusly:
“…malevolence on the part of international officials. The unprecedented powers to be assumed by the UN attracted the very type of individual who would be intoxicated by that thought. The mission itself was corrupting, even for individuals who were not already pursuing power for its own sake. Put in a certain structure and context, foreign staff exhibited colonial-style behavior….Some officials even attempted methodically to prevent the participation of the Timorese in the transitional government of the country. They wanted to yield unfettered their newfound authority and spend the hundreds of millions of dollars committed by the world’s donors.” He summarized: “The UN has given birth to a failed state.”

Although the UN, on paper, transferred power back to the Timorese people in May 2002, the UN’s presence nevertheless persisted. By 2004, it was evident that “Administration at the local level…[was] still plagued by confusion caused by an unclear local governance structure that was left behind….” by the UN. So the existence of civil unrest should not have been a surprise, nor blamed on the presence of weapons.

Here’s why we believe that the UN was responsible for the rebellion. In 2006, the UN advised Defense Minister, Roque Rodriguez, to dismiss 591 angry soldiers who claimed that they were discriminated against. The dismissal of the soldiers in mid-March is widely believed to have been the event that triggered the violence in Dili, the capitol of TL.

Beginning April 24, 2006, a number of demonstrations by the soldiers and unemployed youth highlighted dangerous tensions. On April 28, army forces fired into the unarmed crowd of demonstrators, killing 5 people.

Soon after, Major Alfredo Reinado deserted from the army with about 20 members of his platoon, claiming that Prime Minister Alkatiri had given the order to shoot. On May 23, 2006, Reinado and 21 other men attacked the army near east Dili. On May 24, a civilian militia attacked the army on the west side of Dili.

The failed coup against the ruling faction by Reinado almost caused civil war to break out in Dili in 2006. Reinado “held the country to ransom” with firearms. But when the inevitable violence finally erupted, it was not blamed on poor political leadership, or on UN meddling, or on interference and annoyance on the part of Australia over its fair share of the oil that lay between it and TL.

It was blamed on the presence of weapons there, instead. So where’s the logic in that?

And how many firearms were in the hands of Reinado, one might reasonably ask? A grand total of less than 20 weapons! Yes, you read that right – no typo here. As usual, guns “took the bullet” for the ensuing violence.

Which Came First the Violence or the Guns

Here’s how they were able to switch the blame from themselves onto weapons.

Although many weapon-prohibitionists and their followers may be ignorant of the difference between association and causation, most of those in leadership positions are out rightly lying. For example, Lora Lumpe, who has been consistently a weapon-prohibitionist, and has written extensively on firearm-related matters, knows the facts from the fallacies. Lumpe admitted that scientific investigation has failed to confirm her beliefs.

“The relationship between gun ownership and gun death is complex, however, and subject to debate. As with any social policy issue, proving a causal relationship between widespread weapons availability and gun violence is impossible. Doing so is hampered by a lack of complete and reliable data and an inability to screen out mitigating factors, among other things.”

But Lumpe refuses to accept the truth, and shows how she can easily place the fault for violence on its instruments, rather than on the real causes. She continued:
“Moreover, even if a direct, causal relationship between the presence or quantity of firearms and firearm violence cannot be conclusively proven-or disproven-many government officials recognized the value of a public health approach to gun violence which includes isolating and controlling the vector of injury-in this case, small arms.”

Lumpe ignores the distinction between “causation” and “association.” That deliberate confusion between the terms is how the weapon-prohibitionists and the media always manage to point to the instrumentality of violence, and avoid pointing to the cause. In other words, forget the real cause -in the case of TL, poor leadership- and get the gun away from civilians.

As a simple means of explaining this difference to your friends: higher sales of ice cream are associated with hot days, but this association does not prove that ice cream makes the weather hotter. In evaluating the relationship between an action and a particular outcome, it is a mistake to assume that one factor causes another. Factors may be related or “associated,” but “association” does not prove “causation.” With regard to firearms and other weapons, it is logical to assume that in areas of armed conflict, there are higher numbers of weapons than in non-conflict situations.

However, this does not prove that “weapons cause violence,” an assertion constantly made by the weapon-prohibitionists. It’s an easy trap to fall into, and anti-gun proponents know this. The misuse of this distinction, by showing photographs juxtaposed with the news, is one of their most-used tricks. And it works.

The UN knowingly misused this scientific principle, so that they could, in all dishonesty, bring Timor-Leste into the discussion of the need for an ATT. The Timor-Leste populace has been hurt by UN policies, just as we all will be hurt by the enactment of the UN’s ATT.

[UN’s Arms Trade Treaty – Perverting Logic While Banning Guns, by Paul Gallant, Alan Chwick, & Joanne D. Eisen, February 14, 2-12]

The UN strike against gun rights has hit the United States harder than most people even realize. Hillary Clinton recently announced that the Obama Administration will be working closely with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

We need strong conservative leaders in Washington, D.C. who are not afraid to stand up to Hillary Clinton and the UN and say “NO!” to stripping American citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

I am the candidate who will fight: for constituents, for the Constitution, and to end Republican “compromise” with the governing elite which has demeaned our values and for decades, run Washington while running our nation’s economy into the ground.

I am serious about cleaning up the mess in Washington and getting out of the U.N. I will not allow any international regime to displace or trump the Constitution of these sovoreign United States of America!

I want and need your financial help, your volunteer assistance in your neighborhood and at the polls, and finally, your vote in the Republican primary.

Wes Riddle is GOOOH Endorsed

December 14, 2011

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

Wes Riddle is GOOOH Endorsed

Wes Riddle is GOOOH Endorsed for U.S. Congress, TX-District 25!

Update: Tuesday's Redistricting Hearing in San Antonio

December 14, 2011

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

Update: Tuesday’s Redistricting Hearing in San Antonio

Important News Regarding Candidate Filing Deadlines and More

Dear Texas GOP leadership and candidates:

As we wrap up a very long day from today’s redistricting hearing in front of the federal panel in San Antonio, we wanted to again keep you informed of the latest news and where we anticipate going from here.

The majority of the issues that were addressed today related to the immediate and pressing issue of candidate filing. Tomorrow, we expect an order from the panel that will ratify the agreement between the two political parties to extend candidate filing through Monday, December 19th for all races and positions on the ballot. We are instructing candidates to file their applications using the intended district number and designation for the office they are seeking.

There is, of course, the difficulty of how to best proceed without finalized maps. We have asked that the panel provide an opportunity for candidates who have already filed to be able to amend or withdraw their filing, should the need arise.

Under this solution, if a candidate files to run in a State Representative district whose number changes from the current map to a different number on a finalized map – the candidate would be able to either amend the designation on their application or be afforded the option of withdrawing their application if they choose not to run. Importantly, we are asking the panel to order that candidates who choose to withdraw their application will also be entitled to a refund of the filing fee, if they choose not to run based on the new district lines. This will apply to all candidates at every level.

If the court ratifies the proposal, this will also provide the opportunity for new candidates to file for a position once its district lines are finalized. In other words, filing will be re-opened once all court redistricting is finalized. In many cases, this will give an opportunity to a candidate who was running for a different position that is no longer an option to them. In other cases, it may open the race up to a newcomer in the contest who was not previously eligible.

We know this solution is imperfect, but like all of you, we are working to come up with the best possible, workable and fair solutions so the panel can get them approved, and we can quickly get focused back on the administration of these important elections. These proposals, if ratified by the panel, will allow for the quickest and most fulfilling method of handling the vast majority of candidate filings now, instead of creating a bigger problem days or weeks closer to the date of the election.

As to determining that date – we want to inform you that all parties will be in mediation on Thursday to discuss how to proceed with the timing of the election beyond the filing period. But again, a note of caution – with the exception of the court’s announcement that they would sign an order on Wednesday which extends the deadlines, all other anticipated actions we have discussed are not a certainty until they are submitted to the court and signed. We do anticipate that occurring tomorrow afternoon. As always, we will keep you informed as soon as we have any news to pass along so that you can keep informed in your campaigns and in your community.

We cannot begin to express how grateful we are for your continued patience, and for the support you have shown in this process. If you have any questions that we have not answered or not considered, please let us know. We will be in contact again soon with more updates.

US House of Representatives (Dist. 25-Texas) Candidate Wes Riddle on Interstate Compacts, Immigration and the EPA

December 14, 2011

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

US House of Representatives (Dist. 25-Texas) Candidate Wes Riddle on Interstate Compacts, Immigration and the EPA

1. Interstate Compacts (objective: shield state regulatory autonomy from federal interference, e.g., ObamaCare, EPA environmental meddling, etc.) What is the candidate’s position on interstate compacts?

Interstate Compacts represent one [of six] important strategies available to Texas, in order to effectively redress the Federal Government’s overreach into areas properly reserved to the States. The strategies should enable us to reclaim the Constitution and to halt transformation now underway from a constitutional federal Republic to that of a consolidated national democratic welfare state.

Interstate compacts are an effective way to regulate areas of mutual concern among two or more states, such as health care reform. The Supreme Court has held that congressional consent to such compacts trumps prior federal law and may even subordinate federal agencies to the agencies created by the interstate compact. Congressional consent does not necessarily require presidential signature. The Supreme Court has also suggested that congressional consent may be inferred from acquiescence. Interstate compacts thus have enormous unexplored potential as a way of shielding areas of state authority from the concentration of power in Washington, and we ought to have an interstate compact to create an alternative state-based regulation of health care (to replace ObamaCare).

The other five strategies which the State must pursue are: 1) Constitutional amendment to balance the budget; 2) opting out of federal programs and federal funds that have strings attached; 3) federal lawsuits (especially aimed at ObamaCare and the EPA to seek relief from environmental actions); 4) federal legislation (amending the Administrative Procedures Act so the Supremacy Clause shall not apply to mere regulatory action against state law, as well as modifying rules of decision for federal courts to give the Tenth Amendment precedence and presumption), and, finally; selectively applied, 5) the doctrine of nullification or state interposition described by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves.

2. Border security and immigration (legal and illegal). There is a tremendous amount of concern and anxiety among Texas citizens concerning illegal immigration, border transgressions and violence to include the cost to legal citizens to maintain illegal immigrants in this country.

The federal government (Article One, Section 8; US Constitution) is tasked to defend the borders. In reality, the Texas DPS is expending tremendous effort (at tremendous cost) to do the job the federal government is formally tasked to do. Consequently, many have suggested Texas submit the bill for its self defense to the federal government.

What is your position on border security and immigration as well as the idea of Texas billing the federal government for services rendered?

The United States is a union comprised of equal sovereigns. Moreover, the federal government and individual states are dual sovereigns in their respective orbits, their rights and powers equally inviolable and distinct, albeit complementary. While it is true that defense of national borders is a quintessential federal responsibility, it is also true that state borders are every bit as inviolate as the nation’s, whether they are coincident or not. Long before the federal government took control of immigration issues and control of borders in this respect, states controlled their own borders and processed immigrants. They did so at Ellis Island (New York) and at Galveston Island (Texas). States, therefore, should revisit the notion that defense of borders, as well as immigration control, is a shared responsibility. Malfeasance or negligence on the part of the federal government may in fact necessitate aggressive action on the part of the states to compensate or to address emerging emergency situations. Nonetheless, Texas should definitely submit its bill for self defense to the federal government for activities reasonably attributed to it and/or claimed by the federal government for exclusive jurisdiction where it also fails to enforce its own laws or take charge of said jurisdiction. Better yet, Texas should withhold the total sum from the federal government and just call it “Payroll Deduction.”

3. EPA transgressions upon Texas state sovereignty. In your opinion, should the federal Environmental Protection Agency have: (a) sole legal jurisdiction over Texas environmental management issues, or; (b) should this responsibility lie with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, or; (c) should this be a shared jurisdiction? Explain.

Federal real property in Texas amounts to less than two percent, and we are fortunate in that respect compared to the many “Western” states where the Federal Government owns much larger percentages of total land area. Since Texas owns almost all of its land and what lies beneath that land in terms of energy and mineral wealth, the EPA has very little legal jurisdiction over Texas environmental management issues. Certainly none of it can be considered as “sole” jurisdiction. The preponderance of environmental management issues in the State of Texas belong to the property owners, private sector and regulatory agencies of the State of Texas, albeit in routine communication and coordination with respective federal agencies where the jurisdiction overlaps.

PEARL HARBOR 70 YEARS LATER AND THE CITIZEN’S FIGHT TODAY

December 7, 2011

Posted by:

Category: Media

Tags:

PEARL HARBOR 70 YEARS LATER AND THE CITIZEN’S FIGHT TODAY

PEARL HARBOR 70 YEARS LATER AND THE CITIZEN’S FIGHT TODAY

BELTON, TEXAS – December 7, 1941 is a date which lives in infamy since the second largest military attack on United States soil took the lives of 2,402 servicemen and 57 civilians at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Seventy years later, Americans honor the memory and sacrifice of all who died at the Pearl Harbor attack. As a combat veteran, Wes Riddle understands the importance of such sacrifice and honor. He graduated from West Point and served 20 years in the Army. He also obtained his M. Phil. degree in Modern History from Oxford University, instructed at college, and is widely published.

Running now for U.S. Congress in the new congressional District 25, Wes Riddle commented on the significance of Pearl Harbor and the importance of peace through strength: “Freedom isn’t free. It is one of the most expensive commodities on earth, in terms of blood and treasure. Moreover, it depends on and often barely survives based upon the individual efforts of a relatively few, brave young men and women, who willingly accept physical risk and dedicate a portion of their lives to serving in the United States Armed Forces. To preserve freedom from violent aggressors and subversives, they meet force with force when necessary, and their doing so has made all the difference! The World War II Generation preserved freedom from the awful specter of fascist takeover, and they held the line against communism after the Cold War began. They passed the torch to others, who likewise did their duty, and who handed it off to the latest generation of marvelous young men and women, who continue to preserve freedom from the terrorists and from radical Islamist jihadists.”

Asked what the significance of the next election is and why veterans and their families should care enough to vote on March 6th, 2012 in the Republican Primary, Riddle stated: “Sadly the most ominous specter we face today is not abroad from either fascism or communism. Rather it is from the implementation of Socialism right here at home and a concomitant loss of our cherished freedom. Today therefore it is not a military mission that is of gravest concern. It is instead a nearly overwhelming but critical political mission—one for the voting citizenry of this great country to face to squarely. The People simply must elect more men and women of real character and competence to the U.S. Congress. They also must elect a president in 2012, who actually values our Constitution and all the sacrifices made to defend this land thus far from tyranny.”

Wes Riddle has never held elective office and has pledged himself to a self-imposed term-limit of no more than ten years in office. He is Founder of the Central Texas Tea Party and also state director of the Republican Freedom Coalition (RFC). Riddle says he has always voted as a lifelong conservative Republican and considers Ronald Reagan to be the best political example by reason of his statesmanship and statecraft, as well as his unequalled ability to communicate and explain complicated things to the people. “We need fewer politicians these days and more statesmen like him,” concludes Riddle, who as a teenager before he went to West Point, served as Ronald Reagan’s Youth Advisor for the State of Texas.

Riddle was recently endorsed by Get Out Of Our House (GOOOH), after a rigorous policy vetting and screening process. They named him “best citizen candidate” for District 25 in the hotly contested Republican Primary race.

Faith and Freedom!

Garrett Smith
Office (254) 939-5597
Fax (254) 939-5523
garrett@wesriddle.com
www.WesRiddle.com