Monday, February 16, 2015


I-dineout has several consecutive months of comments fighting against one local school bond issue or another in Liberty County or the surrounding area. As school district leaders in some districts that face, aging buildings, tight budgets, rapid advancements in technology, and the latest demands for excellence, negative comments by a few can make working to win support from voters a much tougher job than it should be. I have been asked to weigh in on these issues in the past but have declined assuming that since the school I have worked at for over a decade has a relationship to almost every area school, I would be falsely accused of having some bias. (Even though privately my family could tell you at least two school bond elections in Liberty County I was shocked ever even got on the ballot in the form they were presented to the public).

But any good analysis will reveal all districts don’t face the same situations and they are not all asking taxpayers to do the same thing. For those who listen to what Liberty ISD’s bond election is considering, I believe they will find this election one every voter should consider voting “for”. It wilset the stage for 15 to 20 years of great opportunity for our children, our grandchildren, teachers and community by refreshing our two oldest campuses.

If you are a conservative, I am sure you are not for pulling the taxpayer wallet out every time some one wants something new, but you probably don’t look at every school bond issue in terms of “pass” or “fail” either. Some schools like Dayton ISD may have to work extra hard to get a normally supportive community because of the amount of money they are borrowing. Some voters simply vote against spending money on anything. But informed voters that are willing to consider issuing of school bonds may pay close attention to each and every item that is on the list of what the bond is covering and, just as some voters viewed the election in the Dayton ISD bond issue, they may decide the district has extended their “need list” into a very expensive and extensive “want list”. Some of the voters in that election objected to the nearly $100 million rather than the idea of borrowing money to give the school a shot in the arm.  I don’t think anyone could find that in Liberty’s proposal.

Why do I say that? I am banking on two things. Trust and personal knowledge.

First “trust” is important and leadership from top to bottom is working to invite the public to be part of the process. Not only are they saying to come and hear and look and see how you believe after you get first hand information, they are also going out of their way to leave the decision up to as many voters as possibly can be enticed to the polls.
The committee that has endorses issuing these bonds is doing more than selling the community that this is needed, I am certain they will hold town meetings, publish community newsletters, and maybe even develop robust websites in order to get feedback and ultimately to make sure this community legacy is one we are all proud of.
School districts are also up against jaded public opinion, an offshoot of increasingly divisive politics at all levels of government. Unfortunately, public confidence in any publicly-funded institution, including our public schools, erodes more and more with each passing year. I have certainly been an outspoken voice at times that has screamed “hold on to your wallets” and at 57 years old I guess some would expect that of me here,  but I believe the public’s support for the amount of money the committee has recommended and for the needs should be considered favorably as we enter the process.
This is not the federal government in D.C. or the state government is Austin wanting more money from us, this is the “local control” and local decision making some of us believe should be used on many more of the important decisions in our lives.

But pass trusting the leadership, personal knowledge should increase voters to lean toward a “yes’ vote. Personal knowledge, including if you attended school in what is now known as the administration building, should help you realize we need to pass a school bond. Liberty’s maintenance crew and different projects in past years may have it looking like a pretty good building, but with all due respect to the power washing and excellent paints and patches and re-purposing that can be done now days, this building must be closing in on 100 years old. And it was not the greatest design (with its flat roof) when it had its ribbon cutting before most of us were born. Besides, most of the years that this building has stood it endured active vibrant teenagers, now it is subject to overcrowding with co-op, maintenance and transportation, the tax office and admin all housed there now.

This building is just one example, albeit an obvious one, of the need to make some changes. I chose it because my more libertarian friends fight almost any public expenditure by making the simple assertion that money should have been set back all along as this was planned for.

I have two comments about a statement that sounds good but does not meet the reality test. First comment: “In reality, it is a rare person or organization that sets back money and pays cash for a building. While it seems ideal, it has not happened and we need to go forward from here. Low interest rates make this a good time to go forward.

Second comment: There is only one constant involved in the school business and in Liberty ISD. It is not the school board or the Superintendent, we have had many of those. Long term planning is being done by the current board and administrators, for example a bus rotation plan that uses grants and a time schedule to keep the fleet current. This is good solid business planning, but the only consistent “controlling authority” has always been the taxpayer. And we need to examine the current proposal and see if we can catch up with what needs to be done to give our children and our community a school that has the best chance of success while at the same time holds our yearly tax bills down.

Richard Pegues

Thursday, February 12, 2015


For the rest our lives there is no doubt in my mind we will hear how Al Gore beat George W. Bush in Florida and should have been the 43rd President of the United States and how “Bush lied us into a war with Iraq”. Both things are not true and those who think they can prove otherwise might try to sell some everglade property in their sales pitch.

Please find below a short article that has an abbreviated rebuttal of such nonsense:

The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’
Reposted article by Laurence H. Silberman


Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country.

In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”
I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.
The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.

Saturday, February 7, 2015


The golf ball don’t lie, so just like bowling, our President has had six years with room for great improvement. He can no doubt climb the ladder in Presidential standings: No word on whether he is still the worst bowler (last known bowling score: 30) ever to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but he has definitely passed up Woodrow Wilson in the golf category:

1. John F. Kennedy Despite chronic back pain, averaged 80.
2 Dwight D. Eisenhower Had a green outside the Oval Office.
3 Gerald R. Ford Clumsy, but was a legitimate 80s-shooter.
4 Franklin D. Roosevelt At 39, polio robbed him of a powerful golf swing.
5 George H.W. Bush Once got his handicap down to 11.
6 George W. Bush prez is a capable 15-handicapper.
7 Bill Clinton Can break 90, especially using his "Billigans."
8 Barack Obama The lefty plays more hoops than golf.
9. Woodrow Wilson As bad at golf as he was at governing 100+

PLEASE NOTE: So far this President remains behind Wilson and all others as far as governing, but who knows, if he stays on the golf course night and day, he might pass Wilson, Jimmy Carter, James Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson.

Sunday, February 1, 2015


Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared February 2nd to be “Chris Kyle Day” to honor the Texan who became known the most lethal sniper in American history. Kyle was also recently immortalized in the blockbuster film movie, American Sniper.

Kyle was credited with 150 sniper kills during his four tours of duty in Iraq as a Navy Seal. He was tragically shot and killed on February 2, 2013, while trying to help a fellow veteran who was allegedly suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Thursday, January 29, 2015


Rand Paul's presidential campaign is for real and it will be interesting to see if the media gives him a fair shake. Why do I say that?  History!

Rand Paul's politics are not exactly the same as his famous father, Dr. Ron Paul. But if they treat him and his presidential run like they treated his father, it will be patently unfair. They not only ridiculed and marginalized Dr. Ron Paul, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, they gave their listeners very few opportunities to know what the man was selling.

What he was selling was not necessarily the same thing the media attacks. Many would say Dr. Paul was more conservative than his friend Ronald Reagan. But the fact of the matter is that some of what he was selling and the media was dogging are political positions that have become popular in the last few years.

Rather than report the news, they prevented their viewers from hearing it. Maybe they will do better with Rand. We will soon see.

Regardless, the following is an article to make sure those in my reach know Rand just scored big on his latest political play. Before I post it, let me say I am leaning toward Ted Cruz. But Paul has become a candidate I could easily get excited about if he were our nominee and we should be vigilante to help make sure all those who mistreat our candidates are identified and get their just rewards - Fox news included.

Here is the report:

The chairman of the Texas Republican Party is planning to join Rand Paul as an adviser for a potential presidential campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Steve Munisteri will join the Kentucky senator’s team in March after leaving his post as head of the Texas GOP, 
Snagging Munisteri is a victory for Paul over two other likely 2016 hopefuls from the Lone Star State — Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Rick Perry.
“I’ve known the senator for 33 years and what I’m most impressed with about him is his commitment to expand the party’s reach,” Munisteri told the Journal. “Our party cannot be successful, we cannot retake the White House if we do not do a better job of reaching out. Senator Paul has had that message since he’s been in office.”
Paul, who has made major overtures to young people and minorities, told an audience in Houston last year that Texas was at risk of becoming a Democratic state if the GOP didn’t become “a more welcoming party.”
Paul spent most of his childhood in Texas and attended Baylor University in Waco, where he was a member of the Young Conservatives of Texas group, founded by Munisteri. His father, Ron, represented Texas’s 22nd and 14th districts in Congress.
The senator announced earlier this month that he would be opening up an office in Austin in the spring or early summer.
Munisteri, 57, has served as chairman of the Texas GOP since 2010, during which time the state party has raised about $22 million. He has worked on presidential campaigns in several early nominating states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, according to the Texas GOP website.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015


There is a great deal of talk about when one should stand his ground and fight. Louis Rose was known as a brave  soldier before he found himself in a situation where he thought it best to pack up his guns and hit the road. Below is a short bio on Rose without any commentary or specific point even attempted to be made. Instead, I will let the reader try to put himself in Rose’s position in 1836 and decide for themselves how this fits in their belief system.

Louis (Moses) Rose, a soldier of fortune who escaped from the Alamo and contributed to its legends, was born on May 11, 1785, in Laferée, Ardennes, France. He joined Napoleon's 101st Regiment in 1806 and eventually became a lieutenant. In 1814 he was named to the French Legion of Honor for his role as aide-de-camp to Gen. Jacques de Monfort. He served in campaigns in Naples, Portugal, and Spain as well as in the invasion of Russia. Though no one knows when or where he entered North America, he settled in Nacogdoches, Texas, about 1827. There he was employed as a log cutter and hauler at a sawmill owned by John Durst and Frost Thorn and served as a messenger between Nacogdoches and Natchitoches, Louisiana. He joined the Fredonian Rebellion in 1826 and took part in the battle of Nacogdoches in 1832. Rose was a friend of James Bowie and accompanied or followed him to the Alamo in the fall of 1835. He fought in the siege of Bexar that year.

Rose served the cause of Texas independence a fourth time during the siege of the Alamo. He fought for ten days, up to three days before the fall of the fort, and then escaped. He is the source of the story about William B. Travis's drawing a line in the dirt with his sword. Rose got the nickname Moses because of his age at the time, fifty-one. When asked, "Moses, why didn't you stay there in the Alamo with the others?" he invariably replied, "By God, I wasn't ready to die." He was not the only survivor of the battle of the Alamo. Bowie and Travis sent out numerous couriers, including Capt. Juan N. Seguín, to plead for reinforcements, and other men left during an armistice that Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna declared. In 1907 Enrique Esparza reported, "Rose left after this armistice had expired . . . [and] after Travis drew the line with his sword. He was the only man who did not cross the line. Up to then, he had fought as bravely as any man there . . . . Rose went out during the night. They opened a window for him and let him go. The others who left before went out the doors and in the daytime." William P. Zuber, whose parents took Rose in after he left the Alamo, wrote of the escape. Rose went through enemy lines west through San Antonio, then south down the San Antonio River about three miles, then east through open prairie to the Guadalupe River, avoiding roads. He arrived at the Zuber ranch in Grimes County and stayed there for a while before going on to Nacogdoches, where he operated a butcher shop and acted as a witness for numerous heirs of Alamo defenders trying to get land for their service. In 1842 he moved to Logansport, Louisiana, where he lived with Aaron Ferguson's family until his death. Rose, who never married, died in 1851. His brother Isaac had several sons; in 1927 one of Isaac's descendants, Arthur Rose, presented Moses Rose's gun to the Alamo museum.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015


Rumprs that one of the most famous rock stars in history recented his conversion and is no longer a follower of Jesus Christ appear untrue. It seems the media liked him more as a confused searching hippie popping pills and smoking dope than as a born again Christian, so we just don' hear much from those who use to cover him ad nauseum.

God bless you Bob! Here are the lyrics from one of his songs not long after he accepted Christ as his Lord:

"Gotta Serve Somebody"

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might be a rock'n' roll adict prancing on the stage
Might have money and drugs at your commands, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a state trooper, you might be an young turk
You may be the head of some big TV network
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame
You may be living in another country under another name.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a construction worker working on a home
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome
You might own guns and you might even own tanks
You might be somebody's landlord you might even own banks.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be working in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed.

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

You may call me Terry, you may call me Jimmy
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray
You may call me anything but no matter what you say.

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Monday, January 26, 2015


Why are RINO'S are pointing out other RINO'S?

I think accurate words can help communicate and describe people and where they are coming from. I am not one of those people who says they "hate labels". But an opportunity for explanation or rebuttal may be necessary by the person labeling or the person getting labeled.

Recently I have noticed a trend has developed by people that would choose to label themselves Libertarian over the label Republican. These political activists are freely labeling people in the Repblican party RINO's. RINO is a pejorative  term conservatives have used to label people they do not believe are committed enough to the principles of the Republican party. Sometimes the term has been used to describe party switchers that appear to be uncommitted and sometimes it has been used to opportunists who seem to have a commitment to themselves and no principles. But in all cases whatever the person labeling someone a RINO might intend ........ it has never been a good thing. In  the past this was not compliment.

A problem arises when people that do not identify themselves as Republicans (without reservations) chooses to use this label. Now we must wonder if  the person using this label means it as a positive thing. Anyone who does not want to commit to being a Republican or has reservations about their goals could easily be labeled a RINO if they associate themselves with the party as a candidate or as a member. Therefore, their use of the term RINO could easily mean something good.

It "could" mean something good,but it has been my experience that it is mix of two totally different things. They are identifying the same RINO's Republicans have tried to shun for decades or it is libertarians criticizing Republicans they do not want to hold office.

As a result, we Republicans have the strange situation where many times we agree and appreciate the help from these Libertarians, but we also realize they are not real Republicans. Libertarians have huge fundamental differences with the pro-life party that believes the best way to prevent war is to have a military budget that is more than enough to fulfill its Constitutional duty. Their labeling who RINO's  would be the same thing as a third party effecting who the Democrat party nominates by pushing labels on their candidates in a similar way.

The result is, the Republican party's candidates are sometimes being chosen by people who patently disagree with Republican goals. Sometimes they have a candidate that they want to elect so they spew out the RINO label. It is easy to do. Spending or enlarging government in any single area can be interpreted by them as RINO, even though reducing the size of government overall by weeding out the useless and reducing the waste does not necessarily mean voting against spending on every bill. ev.

Saturday, January 10, 2015


Years after all of the protest meetings and the secret gatherings to get a new county commissioner in Dayton, now one of the men who said he could fix the Dayton areas county road problems has served his time and has been retired by his opponent.

Former Commissioner Norman Brown faced tremendous problems as he came into office over eight years ago on the votes of an angry electorate. Whether the job was even something the public would have ever thought someone successfully fulfilled is debatable. Brown may or may not have had an impossible job. That kind of thing will be left up, as they say, to the eyes of the beholder".

But as Leon Wilson comes in to serve there is one thing Norman Brown did in his last days in office that is undebatable. Maybe he did it because as he was first elected as a Democrat, it was "old hat" for Democrats to do what Brown ended up doing after he lost in his re-election bid. What did Brown do? At best, he made decisions he should have left for his successor. At worst, he spat in the face of the voters.

What am I talking about? Among other things, I am talking about selling important equipment that belonged to Liberty County after he lost his primary to Leon Wilson. The equipment included a truck and trailers.

This is the kind of stuff that makes people hate politics. This behavior is the kind of thing that has made it difficult for Dayton to repair roads and other things they hoped their commissioner could do.

Regardless of how you thought Commissioner Brown did his job before losing, there is no doubt he did not have Dayton's best interest in mind in his waning days. And that is unfortunate.


In case you thought John Boehner always cried in the clinch, please take note: SPEAKER BOEHNER TAKES REVENGE.

Exactly what Representative Ted Poe wanted to avoid. Some, if not all of the 25 Republicans who did not vote for Boehner, may look back and realize their influence, and the influence of their district, in this Congress, was diminished as they lost plum committee posts.
Ted Poe knew what most of the Republicans knew going into the actual vote. He knew where his constituents stood on Boehner and he knew there were not enough votes to send the voting to another ballot. So Poe knew what his district wanted was not going to happen, regardless of how he voted.

After Boehner was assured of his third term as Speaker of the House f, Boehner moved swiftly to dismiss two of the insurgents from the influential Rules Committee. That could be just the start of payback in the months to come for the Speaker’s betrayers, who might never see subcommittee chairmanships and other perks as they might have.

Some of Boehner’s allies insulted the men that voted against him by calling them "insignificant" and "unheard of", as if they don't know what they are doing yet. But Boehner and his allies do know what they are doing. They are said to be eager to finally have persuaded Boehner to stop being too nice to people who are eager to stab him in the back, and go for their throats - mostly out of the sight of the public and the media. 

The removal of Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent from Rules was public however. It was meant to send a clear message that what Boehner and other party leaders accepted during the previous Congress is no longer acceptable, not with the House’s biggest GOP majority in decades.

GOP leadership thought seats on the Rules Committee were a plum that these two no longer deserved and it just took a little bit of one day for Webster and Nugent (and tehir districts) to find themselves on the outside of a power structure they were once very much a part of.

The House Republican leadership is carefully reviewing the list of members who voted against the speaker and those who opposed a procedural motion in December on the so-called “crominibus,” the $1.1 trillion spending package to keep the government open through to September. Top Republican sources suggested that the process could take months to unfold.

“This is one of those cases where the fire has only gotten more intense,” said a GOP lawmaker. “More attention has been brought to this now. It’s not going to go away.”

Tuesday’s tally brought “double the number” of anti-Boehner votes compared with 2013, noted Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), one of the most vocal thorns in Boehner’s side. Huelskamp said he was unhappy that “only three of the freshmen class” voted against Boehner.

Huelskamp said he was denied a chance to get back his seat on the Agriculture Committee because of his opposition to Boehner. The Kansas Republican was removed from the panel in 2012.
“I am already hearing from my colleagues, and myself, about retaliation against those who voted their conscience, their constituents, their principles, to change the status quo,” Huelskamp said. “My colleagues fully expect that. That’s what they expect out of this leadership team.”

In almost every sense, Boehner worked much harder for this reelection than he did in 2013. Two years ago, the Ohio Republican was caught off guard by a handful of rebels, one being Steve Stockman (infamous for leading "charges" only to find no one following - example, Stockman filed a bill to impeach Obama).

Poe saw how the vote was going to go and that it would be little more than symbolism for him to vote with the rebels. And he decided to vote in a way that gave his district as much clout for future votes and issues as possible.

“We don’t need these fringe guys as much as we did anymore,” said a GOP leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We can let them walk on certain bills, and it just won’t matter. That gives us breathing room.”


The "present" vote is in effect a "no" vote, but it is a "no" vote that sends a message. Hold on before you hear what I have to say and simply disagree. Keep an open mind and read the entire article. I have left those who want to continue their anger and disappointment an opportunity to agree with me and still interpret a “present” vote as “cowardly” if that is their impression of the person that cast it. Keep reading and you will see how, at least historically, a “present” vote has been interpreted to send any one of three possible messages.

Regardless of what the intent of the message, I must point out however that those needing a “yes” vote are frequently the ones most upset and they are also the one with unique powers to claim revenge. Even if there is only one vote of “present”, the one who cast that vote can be the recipient of retribution for the entire time they hold office.

Undoubtedly, the “present” vote has been a tool used in elections to interpret the one who cast it in as negative a terms as possible. It has been interpreted in all three ways we will discuss by those wanting to elect someone other than the one who cast it.

Let’s start our discussion with the infamous votes cast by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. How many did he casts? Was it 191 “present” votes? Republicans lost some of the insight they could have gained by exposing his “present” votes as simply those of a fence riding coward. That is one of the three choices for sure. And these 191 Obama votes surely deserve that characterization. Especially in retrospect. 191 votes! But let me present you an argument for why that analysis falls short of what should have been identified by voters when they heard it.

First let’s look at these votes when most of them were cast. Most of them were cast when Obama had no inkling of ever running for President. If you accept that as fact, then most of these votes, if not all of them, were cast when he could have never assumed that his votes and his character would ever be examined as closely as they have because of his candidacy and his win in the run for the Presidency.
So let me submit to you reason number two some vote “present”. The one his most artful and articulate admirers have used in his defense.

Number two reason goes goes like this:”The "present" vote is used by lawmakers in situations where they agree with a bill in spirit, however the current version of the bill is not good enough to vote "yes;" either it is too expensive, it is inadequately planned or funded, or it has riders or earmarks attached that are entirely inappropriate.

This is classic Obama. Nothing is as good as he could have done it. The man with a “messiah complex” had 191 bills come through that simply were not good enough. This my friends was a huge hint into the kind of person the American people elected twice to be the Commander and Chief. Obama, we now know for certain, is a coward who tries to avoid taking a stance; AND he is an arrogant men with few things to recommend him as a leader.

The third reason? Obviously, the one I believe affected our Congressman. Someone who can not be characterized as a coward or someone who thinks they sit at the right hand of God, could conceivably cast a “present” vote. Those not willing to consider this because they already planned on giving a politician grief for their entire time in office because they wanted someone else elected, or those who interpret every single issue, even a vote in a losing cause, as a matter of principle – brace yourself. Your temperature may spike! If voting on filling a position, the third reason could be that you wanted to vote “no” on the candidate, but also wanted to preserve your vote “for’ someone (until you knew who they were a little better or until a new candidate emerged).

On the matter at hand, I have known Brian Babin for almost twenty years. I feel sorry for anyone that has judged themselves to be a better Christian than Brian. I feel the same way about someone who either openly or silently has judged him to be a coward. All I can say is you must not know him or you are a poor judge of character and perhaps you should leave that area to someone else.

For thise that simply disagree with his voting “present”….. this is politics. I love it. Now let’s do what we can to help Brian as our Congressman to vote the way we believe he should from here forward. Let’s not waste any more time or energy and help marginalize our own Representative. Two years will be here before you know it and if you don’t want to re-elect him, that is your time for unending, unfiltered criticism

Thursday, January 8, 2015


WASHINGTON — For people that like a Representative in the House that is fearless, I present to you Brian Babin, representing southeast Texas. As Freshman Rep. Brian Babin of Woodville prepared for his first vote as a U.S. Congressman by taking a detour towards where timid people would never travel on the House floor. He looked up Speaker John Boehner. He wasn’t searching the Speaker out for advice on the vote; he was informing the Speaker that his district’s vote would be cast to indicate the voters in the district were not “for” him having another term as Speaker.  Like Representative Babin’s predecessor Steve Stockman two years earlier, Babin said he wanted to register unhappiness with current management. But unlike his predecessor, he also delivered that message in person.

Babin, a dentist and military veteran, said he didn’t talk to Stockman before casting his vote. He said he voted “present” to reflect constituents’ dissatisfaction with party leadership in the wake of the “Cromnibus” bill, a $1.1 trillion government funding measure. The bill’s eleventh-hour passage in December averted a government shutdown, but some of its provisions rankled Republicans and Democrats alike.

“Since the pass of this last omnibus bill, our district and constituency believes that we need to start seriously looking at possibly getting some new leadership. And I heard them. I heard that call. That’s the reason I did what I did,” Babin said Thursday.

Babin was one of four Texas Republicans and 0ne of only twenty-five Republicans in the House not to vote for Speaker John Boehner in his bid for a third term leading the House. The race brought intraparty tensions to bear.

Babin said he voted present rather than casting his ballot for one of Boehner’s challengers because he would have preferred to see Boehner denied reelection on the first ballot, forcing a closed-door GOP caucus meeting at which a replacement might emerge. Two challengers had almost no support and Babin was unfamiliar with the third.

For those wondering where our Representative goes from here after being seen as a challenger to the lost powerful man in the House, we must hope his assignments to committees is not effected by this first vote. Babin has always put forth the idea that what we have needed in a Congressman is one that builds coalitions and picks battles that actually make a difference, not a statement. He is there to help build a more conservative House.

When Babin says, “I definitely can work with this leadership.  I could work with anyone that they had up there.” He is talking about having a seat at the table to represent a district in southeast Texas that is conservative.