Dunbar's latest

"Even if you question the accuracy of my constitutional interpretation as proof of the inappropriateness of a state-created, tax-payer supported school system, still the Scriptures bear witness to such an institution’s lack of proper authority in the life of the Christian family."

That's State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar, from page 102 of her book One Nation Under God. Want more from this Jesus freak?

Dunbar (on p. 100) calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.” She charges that the establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical” because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children (p. 103). Dunbar, who has home-schooled her children and sent them to private schools, bases that charge on her belief that “the underlying authority for our constitutional form of government stems directly from biblical precedents.” (p. xv)

I know. You gotta have more...

“This battle for our nation’s children and who will control their education and training is crucial to our success for reclaiming our nation,” Dunbar writes (p. 100), after earlier condemning what she calls a secular society that resembles Nazi Germany just before the Holocaust. Those at risk today are “the devout, Bible-believing Christians,” she writes (p. 2).

Dunbar argues that the Founders created “an emphatically Christian government” (p. 18) and believed government should be guided by a “biblical litmus test.” (p. 47) She also endorses a “belief system” that would “require that any person desiring to govern have a sincere knowledge and appreciation for the Word of God in order to rightly govern.” (p. 17)

Dunbar sees public schools as a threat to that belief system: “Our children are, after all, our best and greatest assets, and we are throwing them into the enemy’s flames even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.” (p. 101)

How is that a person can help govern a public education system she loathes? Because she intends -- sort of like Grover Norquist drowning government in a bathtub -- to destroy it.

Dunbar sits on the state board’s Committee on Instruction, which guides the SBOE’s policies on curriculum and textbook adoptions. Earlier this year Dunbar used her position on that committee to win approval for vague guidelines that some public schools have used to offer deeply flawed and blatantly sectarian Bible classes. Even worse, she then joined three other board members in endorsing a constitutionally suspect Bible course curriculum that Odessa public schools had been forced to remove from classrooms after being sued by local parents.

The SBOE is currently debating a revision of science curriculum standards for the state’s public schools. Dunbar is part of a bloc of creationists who want public schools to teach students that evolution is not established, mainstream science.

Texas Freedom Network today called for Dunbar to be removed from the Committee on Instruction. It can't happen fast enough.

The jockeying for political position in 2010 (and 09)

Texas Governor: The GOP primary between Incumbent Governor Mofo and Senator Perjury-is-a-Technicality is officially under way:

From the Wall Street bailout bill to helping the Gulf Coast recover from Hurricane Ike, it seems the federal government can do nothing right in the eyes of Gov. Rick Perry.

The latest shot came Tuesday, when Perry accused federal environmental protection officials of "actively working to do more economic harm" to the state through potential regulation of carbon emissions linked to climate change.

"Washington has Texas in its sights," he said.

Many political observers believe Perry's harsh rhetoric is designed to position the governor in his bid for an unprecedented, third four-year term in 2010. The target is his likely challenger in the Republican primary, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is more popular than Perry in some polls.

Hutchison in late September told her Senate colleagues that she wouldn't seek re-election to a leadership post and is planning to form an exploratory committee for the governor's race.

"I guess it's a pretty good shot to take on the federal government if you're running against someone who is an agent of the federal government," said Greg Thielemann, director of the Center for the Study of Texas Politics at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Let's not overlook Mayor Republican Lite.

Whatever plans (Bill White) declares, a perhaps more burning question still looms large over his intentions: Can he actually win statewide office?

Among the chattering classes in Austin and Houston, and even some White lieutenants at City Hall, no one is quite sure. But they do agree on at least one thing: Whether he runs to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison next year if she resigns to run for governor, or whether he seeks the state's top job himself in 2010, White may have an uphill battle ahead.

The chances for a Democratic governor in the next election "are more bleak than any Democrat honestly wants to admit," said Mark Sanders, a Republican consultant who ran Democrat Tony Sanchez's 2004 campaign against Gov. Rick Perry. "It's not going to happen in 2010. There are just too many factors working against that."

Chief among the challenges, according to Sanders and more than a dozen strategists from both parties, is a significant GOP advantage laid bare by the Nov. 4 election results, even in a contest that saw historic statewide turnout for Democrats. Political handicappers all over the state are still parsing reams of data, but many are putting the divide at between 8 and 10 percentage points, a daunting deficit in the near term. Some have even wondered whether 2014 would be a more optimal year.

"In a positive Democratic climate with a good candidate like White, you might bring that down to the mid-single digits," said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. "Whether you could bring it down to zero in 2010 — or in other words, win — is a tall order."

All of the above make me nauseous. SOS (as in "save our ship"). Won't a real Democrat consider running? I am NOT looking at you, Kinky Friedman.

Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, Land Commisioner: SOS (as in same old shit). With the clash of the titans at the top, the Republican incumbents Dewhurst, Abbott, Combs, and Patterson are cockblocked. Nobody on the Democratic side seems willing to take on another uphill fight for the moment. Lots of rumors, though; Barbara Radnofsky for AG is a persistent one.

Agriculture Commissioner: Expect a rematch between Todd Staples and Hank Gilbert, the shining Democratic star for 2010.

Houston Mayor, 2009: Eugene Locke has apparently bumped Bill King out of the contest; Annise Parker will make the race, likely to do so as well is Peter Brown. Somebody mentioned the name of Roy Morales, the great GOP hope in a non-partisan affair. It is to laugh.

Political fortunes still to be determined: Rick Noriega, Nick Lampson, and a number of other Democrats who narrowly lost last month. Noriega and Lampson could lift their profiles with a stint in the Obama administration.

Whose names are you hearing bandied about?

Whither Speaker Craddick again

Charlie Kuffner has the numbers and Paul Burka has the gossip regarding Tom Craddick's tide seemingly going out again. Let's sample a bit from each; first Kuff:

I point all this out, apparently just as the arm-twisting efforts on Craddick's behalf are being ramped up, so that the next time you hear a Craddick acolyte, like Rep. Will Hartnett or Burnet County Republican Linda Rogers, president of Texas Republican county chairmen, claim that opposition to Craddick is all about "liberals", you ask them to explain those good, solid Republicans in Midland and the rest of HD82 who voted to oust him from the House. Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to be a Republican and to think Tom Craddick is bad for Texas, too.

And then Burka:

The problem for Craddick is that things have gotten to the point where every time he acts like, well, Craddick, he reminds GOP members why they wish he would just go away. Many members are still fuming about Craddick’s iron-fisted control of members’ races. Candidates had to come to Austin and appear before Christi Craddick, the speaker’s daughter; operative John Colyandro; and consultant Dave Carney. They were told what they had to do in their campaigns in order to get money that the speaker controlled. They had to bring their campaign plans and subject them to Christi Craddick’s scrutiny. She could overrule the members and insist on their using speaker-approved campaign materials that had already been prepared by consultants. Many members were furious; they felt that they knew their districts better than Carney, who is from New Hampshire, or Ms. Craddick. These hard feelings have not subsided. ...

I think Republicans in the House are finally beginning to realize the damage that Craddick has done to the GOP majority. Does it mean that the GOP rank and file will turn against him? The discontent with Craddick is far greater than I thought it was. But at the moment, it appears that fear still outweighs outrage.

I've seen this little melodrama before, and I suspect it's going to end the same way it did two years ago: with that weasel Aaron Pena escorting Craddick to the dais and introducing him as the Speaker of the Texas House. Phillip Martin has a compelling set of reasons for enthusiasm, but I'm going to remain "skeptimistic". Some of the members of the choir may change, but the song remains the same.

Show me otherwise, House Republicans. Prove yourselves capable of carrying a different tune.

I dare you.

Bush defends wiretapping Americans in federal court today

The Bush administration on Tuesday will try to convince a federal judge to let stand a law granting retroactive legal immunity to the nation's telecoms, which are accused of transmitting Americans' private communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.

At issue in the high-stakes showdown — set to begin at 10:00 a.m. PST — are the nearly four dozen lawsuits filed by civil liberties groups and class action attorneys against AT&T, Verizon, MCI, Sprint and other carriers who allegedly cooperated with the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program in the years following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The lawsuits claim the cooperation violated federal wiretapping laws and the Constitution.

In July, as part of a wider domestic spying bill, Congress voted to kill the lawsuits and grant retroactive amnesty to any phone companies that helped with the surveillance; President-elect Barack Obama was among those who voted for the law in the Senate. On Tuesday, lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation are set to urge the federal judge overseeing those lawsuits to reject immunity as unconstitutional. At stake, they say, is the very principle of the rule of law in America.

"I think it does set a very frightening precedent that it's okay for people to break the law because they can just have Congress bail them out later," says EFF legal director Cindy Cohn. "It's very troubling."

Since Bush will likely evade prosecution for his Iraq war crimes, it would certainly be an acceptable consolation prize to see this particular piece of legislation unwound. Let the courts do what the Congress didn't have the stones to.

The judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, announced late Monday he wanted to discuss 11 questions (.pdf) at Tuesday's hearing, one of which goes directly to the heart of the immunity legislation.

Is there any precedent for this type of enactment that is analogous in all of these respects: retroactivity; immunity for constitutional violations; and delegation of broad discretion to the executive branch to determine whether to invoke the provision?

Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, says the immunity legislation, if upheld, "makes it possible to extend immunity to other areas of the law." ...

The EFF is now challenging the immunity legislation on the grounds that it seeks to circumvent the Constitution's separation of powers clause, as well as Americans' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"The legislation is an attempt to give the president the authority to terminate claims that the president has violated the people's Fourth Amendment rights," the EFF's Cohn says. "You can't do that."

God damn right. I'll bet the judge agrees. The SCOTUS, however ...