[FoRK] Texas State Republican Party Platform - Texas Taliban

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Sat Jun 26 22:22:07 PDT 2010

Noted on another list. I was curious, so:
> Texas GOP comes out against oral sex, the UN, and the Supreme Court 
> <http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/26/texas-gop-comes-out.html>
> Cory Doctorow <http://www.boingboing.net/author/cory-doctorow-1/> at 
> 7:30 PM Saturday, Jun 26, 2010
> The Texas Republican Party has passed its new election platform, 
> including a ban on pornography, oral sex, gay marriage, sodomy, strip 
> clubs -- they also want to ditch the Federal Reserve, "withhold 
> Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious 
> freedom, and the Bill of Rights," "oppose the implementation of one 
> world currency" (why was I not informed of this One World Currency? It 
> would sure make travel simpler!), and get the US out of the UN.
> Ah yes, the "no blowjobs party" -- that'll bring out the vote! 
 From a mailing list ("[chat]") followup:
> the texas taliban


> Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We 
> demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. 
> Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from 
> cases involving sodomy.
And what would those authorities be exactly? How does Congress override 
a SCOTUS ruling on a whole type of law without changing the constitution??

> Pornography – We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws 
> regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation 
> to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and 
> operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not 
> Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors.
Good luck with that.

> Age of Consent – We support raising the age of consent for consensual 
> sex to 18 years.
It is 18 in some places. Hard to see how this really helps change 
anything positively.

> Health Care Choice - We urge passage of health care reform which 
> results in more affordable healthcare through a market-based, 
> competitive, open and transparent health care system, including tort 
> reform, interstate competition and genuine accountability and 
> oversight, where American’s families chose their own doctor and health 
> care plans. We support private sector initiatives to improve the 
> portability, quality and affordability of healthcare. We support 
> reducing the number of mandated benefits that insurers are required to 
> cover in order to empower consumers to choose which benefits they 
> need. We encourage immediate expansion of medical savings accounts. We 
> recommend that the State of Texas make available to all citizens 
> through the Internet, the exact price paid for specific health care 
> items covered by Medicaid and paid for by the Texas taxpayer. Any new 
> health care reform must protect taxpayers from compulsory funding of 
> abortion. Those who are unlawfully present in the United States should 
> not receive expanded health care benefits. We oppose any legislation 
> that adds to the national debt, promotes political favoritism, imposes 
> any government control over our health care, increases government 
> mandates or price controls, or creates new government programs. To 
> eliminate much of the bureaucracy in today’s burdensome Medicaid 
> system, we support reallocating the majority of Medicaid spending into 
> simple vouchers for lower income individuals to purchase their own 
> insurance.
> ObamaCare – We urge the Congress to defund, repeal, and reject the 
> national healthcare takeover, also known as “ObamaCare” or any similar 
> legislation.
Are lower income individuals actually going to be able to get healthcare 
for anything like what Medicaid vouchers would be? And could they 
actually make that choice?
And what "mandated benefits" are there really, besides birth control? I 
bet if insurance companies dropped pregnancy coverage more aggressively 
they'd change their tune.

> Immunizations - All adult citizens should have the legal right to 
> conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves 
> or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We 
> oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any 
> medical database that would contain personal records of citizens 
> without their consent.
Oh, that's bright.

> Judeo-Christian Nation – As America is a nation under God founded on 
> Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all 
> individuals to worship in the religion of their choice.
"Worship in the religion of your choice, but just remember, we're a 
Judeo-Christian Nation. Hint hint."

> We Believe in:
> 1. Strict adherence to the Declaration of Independence and U.S. and 
> Texas Constitutions.
They mean "our interpretation of ...".
> 2. Preserving American Freedom and Texas Sovereignty. 
They mean "our freedom to impose our ideas and interpretation on others".

> 3. Limiting the expanse of Government Power. 

> 4. The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which 
> should be protected from fertilization to
> natural death. 
Oh grow up. Good thing they don't believe in cloning, or every cell you 
discard would be the intentional death of a potential human life.

> 5. Personal Accountability and Responsibility. 
> 6. Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a 
> natural man and a natural woman. 
Never mind that 1% of humans are somewhere between male and female. [1]

> 7. Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of 
> choice for the education of their
> children. 
If you mean "well educated with modern knowledge", that turns out to be 
contradictory too much of the time.

> 8. Americans having the right to be safe in their homes, on their 
> streets, and in their communities, and the
> unalienable right to defend themselves. 

> 9. A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference 
> or subsidies. 
How about freedom from abusive monopoly or profit directly at the 
expense of health, safety, or fair business?

> 10. Restoring American sovereignty and leadership, and we honor all of 
> those that serve and protect our
> freedom with peace through strength.
We've lost our sovereignty and leadership? Oh, you mean Texas leadership.

> Child Abuse – We recognize the family as a sovereign authority over 
> which the state has no right to intervene, unless a parent or legal 
> guardian has committed criminal abuse. Child abusers should be 
> severely prosecuted. However, we oppose actions of social agencies to 
> classify traditional methods of discipline as child abuse. We support 
> enactment of a homicide-by-abuse statute that provides punishment for 
> abusing a child to death without intent of killing. We support 
> requiring compliance by publicly funded private agencies with laws 
> requiring reporting of instances of any kind of abuse as a condition 
> of receiving such funding.

What the heck? We need a special form of homicide so that a parent 
torturer who is so dumb that they kill their child is sure to be able to 
plead that they didn't intend to kill them? I do think parents need 
reasonable latitude in dealing with children, spanking is hardly ever 
life threatening although it should be avoided except as a last resort, 
but anything life threatening or PTSD inducing is way down the wrong path.

> Addictive Behaviors – We encourage state and federal governments to 
> severely prosecute illegal dealers and manufacturers of addictive 
> substances and pornography. We urge Congress to discourage export of 
> such substances into our country. Faith based rehabilitation programs 
> should be emphasized. We oppose legalization of illegal drugs. We 
> support an effective abstinence-based educational program for 
> children. We oppose any “needle exchange” program. We urge vigorous 
> enforcement of our DUI laws.

I posit religion as an addictive behavior and organized religion as 
manufacturers of addictive substances. Go to town!
Pornography is an addictive behavior? Do these people know anything 
about human sexuality? I guess not the kind that isn't mangled by 

> Law Enforcement –
> • We support limitation of criminal jurisdiction of federal 
> law-enforcement agencies in accordance with Article 1, Section 8 of 
> the United States Constitution.
> • We understand most crime is local, and the states, reserve law 
> enforcement authority under the Tenth Amendment.
> • We oppose expansion of federal law-enforcement authority and use of 
> military against citizens.
What is this about? Please leave our wackos in Waco alone?

> Continuity of Government – We oppose appointing members of Congress to 
> fill large vacancies, depriving our right to elect our own 
> representatives.
Is this a swipe at Hillary? Seems like a weak attempt to justify 
shutting down options when they aren't in power.

> Elimination of Executive Orders – We demand elimination of 
> presidential authority to issue executive orders and other mandates 
> lacking congressional approval, as well as repeal of all previous 
> executive orders and mandates.
I'm sure they were asking for this during the Bush II years, right?

> Washington D.C. – We strongly oppose making the District of Columbia a 
> state and adding unconstitutional voting Congressional members.
Any other liberal citizens you'd like to marginalize? What could 
possibly be their rationale?

> Candidate Eligibility – A candidate running for office should be 
> required to reside within the geographical boundaries of the office 
> sought. A candidate must submit proof of qualifications for the office 
> being sought, including proof of citizenship and in the case of a 
> presidential candidate, an original or certified copy of a birth 
> certificate, bearing names and signatures of parents, attendant(s), as 
> well as date, time and location of birth for the purpose of satisfying 
> the requirement of being a "natural born citizen".

> Ten Commandments – We oppose any governmental action to restrict, 
> prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious 
> symbols.
Are you sure you are OK with Muslim symbols on your courthouse lawn?

In the OK category:

> If It’s Good Enough For Us, It’s Good Enough for Them – The Government 
> shall not, by rule or law, exempt any of its members from the 
> provisions of such rule or law.
I kind of like this one in principle, although it should be carefully 
implemented. Mostly, this should exhibit as careful auditing and 
serious, fast trouble for abuse but with reasonable gray area.

> Speed Limits – We support highway speed limits based only on safety 
> standards.
A speed limit is an estimate of general worst case safe travel speed, 
except baselined on old vehicles with typically distracted poor drivers. 
In practice, the de facto speed limit is whatever has been deemed and 
proven safe by the drivers on that particular stretch of road. When 
everyone (and I mean everyone: 4 lanes of bumper to bumper rush hour 
traffic every day), including all police vehicles, travels at 70 on the 
Capital Beltway (I495), the "speed limit" is 70, not 55 as posted. When 
on the highway (and only on the highway, on residential / city roads, 
the safe speed limit is roughly what is posted), the speed limit is the 
speed for safe travel that is not substantially different from other 
traffic on the same road.

[1] http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency


More information about the FoRK mailing list