"The Coalition For Texas" Is It Time For A Third Party In Texas? By Joe Solis/South Texas Republicans

These are exciting times. Senator Frank Madla was thrown out of office after decades of public service by the grassroots of the Democratic Party. State Representative Carter Casteel was retired from her position in the Republican primary by the Toll Party voters, home-schoolers, and a generous donor who leveled the playing field. Speaker Craddick stood by her side and it made no difference. Amazing! The old guard in our party was there for her and she was still defeated by the voters in her district.

People want change. They want it now. Friends, these are revolutionary times. It is my belief that a conglomeration of conservative clubs, organizations, business groups, home-schoolers, Toll party members, conservative Democrats, social organizations, gun lovers, the Christian Coalition, religious organizations, and other grassroots organizations need to find a way to work together in an independent manner. 

The conglomeration can act as a quasi-third party in the state of Texas. Conservatives must have the option to run solid leaders against certain Republicans and Democrats in the primaries. We are locked out at the moment. Organizing an endless number of groups and getting them to agree on a platform would be impossible. All of these groups must continue to act independently. The Coalition for Texas would be a big stick we can use to discipline our elected officials. The recent mess in Austin clearly demonstrates how out of touch our leaders are on taxes. 

The organization can inform and it can decide to act on certain issues by mobilizing and taking action. South Texas Republicans has attempted to follow this model over the past three years as we have evolved. The spectrum of our political essays and notices vary tremendously. On the right, we feature our friends who are part of the Christian Coalition movement. In the opposite direction, we have a conservative Democrat who writes for us. (One of our sources tells us that one local leader sends this newsletter to 8,000 local Democrats.) South Texas is dominated by Democrats. We do need swing voters.

Is the Coalition for Texas possible? That is a good question. The simple fact is that the people of Texas are powerful when we unite and vote for the right people Republican or Democrat. Ultimately, that should be our long-term goal. Righteous leadership is the key. I say we have the wonderful opportunities in front of us. The Coalition might be the way to get there. Let me know what you think.
 

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Segments from the article]

The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there.

On the ground in America, people worry terribly really, there are people who actually worry about it every day about endless, weird, gushing government spending. But in Washington, those in power Republicans and Democrats stand arm in arm as they spend and spend. (Part of the reason is that they think they can buy off your unhappiness one way or another. After all, it's worked in the past. A hunch: It's not going to work forever or much longer. They've really run that trick into the ground.)

There is a widespread sense in America a conviction, actually that we are not safe in the age of terror. That the port, the local power plant, even the local school, are not protected. Is Washington worried about this? Not so you'd notice. They're only worried about seeming unconcerned.

Right now the Republicans and Democrats in Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the voter. They're in agreement: immigration should not be controlled but increased, spending will increase, etc.
 

The San Antonio Lightning featured the story as one of its lead stories Google.com has 85,600 entries under Henry Bonilla Border. Our commentary is now #8 out of 85,600 entries due to massive online readership of the Lightning. Our voice on this issue will be heard in the future thanks to Richard at the mighty Lightning.

Finally, on 5/30/2006, my comments about immigration and the GOP were featured in the San Antonio Express-News. The Express-News did not cover the letter about Henry Bonilla. One reporter did not agree with the content of the piece and refused to touch it. They should encourage this kind of open discussion about one of our representatives.

Comment #1

Joe,

I always appreciate your newsletter and enjoy reading it. A couple of opinions prompt the following comments:

Henry Bonilla may have been slow out of the gate on the illegal immigration issue but so was almost everyone else. What exactly did Governor Bush do about the issue and why was President Bush so late in formulating a program?

Richard Karkkainen

Boerne, Texas

Comment #2

Joe,

Excellent letter about Congressman Bonilla! We do need action in regard to illegal immigrants and the border. I wish President Bush would have some guts, put his foot down and take serious action. We need the wall, we need to secure and close the borders, and we need to have people abide by the laws. Why is this such a hard concept for people to get? It continues to boggle my mind.

Keep up the good work.

Mary Delaney

Comment #3

Good work, Joe. 

Now come up with an alternative: who in San Antonio can be elected on a tough immigration platform? 

Strongly suggest a carrot along with the stick, a clearly defined plan. I think that's the first thing that the President would ask to see, your alternative.

Comment #4

I wasn't going to before reading this, but I now intend to vote for Henry Bonilla!

God Bless America!

Comment #5

Good one, Joe. I thought the SAME THING when, a month ago now or so, Bonilla was trying to "lead the charge" to stop illegal immigration.  Its like?WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN?  You are correct. It is HIS district that most of this is happening in here in Texas.

As expected, the office of Congressman Bonilla posted no comment on its web page. Their last press release was issued on 5/4/2006. We are not surprised by this since they consider us to be little people. We may be small, but we vote. That is what we have on our side. Henry, continue to stay silent at the grassroots level. We can own the issue for you as you maintain your sterling out of touch reputation.

Up to this point, we believe between 25,000 to 35,000 people may have read or heard about this letter through our newsletter, the San Antonio Lightning, the radio interview and the e-mail forwards. Our long-term goal is to hit between 55,000 100,000 people with our headline stories every Monday. Viral online outreach is the key.

This was the greatest compliment I received last week: Thanks for writing that piece. You made me think about border security in the district. You opened my eyes about Henry Bonilla.
 

Web Posted: 06/02/2006 07:59 PM CDT

Greg Jefferson
Express-News Staff Writer

{Segments From The Article}

The Senate last week passed a bill that would tighten border security, including fences and vehicle barriers. But it also would establish a guest worker program and a process for making citizens of undocumented immigrants who have lived here for five years or more, if they pay fines and taxes, and learn English.

Many House Republicans consider that approach a bitter, maybe poisonous, pill, calling it essentially amnesty for scofflaws.

The day senators approved the bill, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, told the San Antonio Express-News: "It's hard to justify legislation that would reward millions of lawbreakers, attract more illegal immigrants and depress American Workers' wages."

The House's version of immigration reform, passed in December, took a harder line. Apart from adding more Border Patrol agents and erecting fencing along stretches of the border, the bill would make felons of illegal immigrants and set out criminal penalties for those who help them.

That's the bill that touched off protests around the country that culminated in the May 1 "Day Without an Immigrant" boycotts.

"If the Republicans are smart and they want the Latino vote, they'll kill it," Lydia Camarillo, vice president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, said of the House bill.

Consensus on security

But that position puts the organization on the wrong side of public opinion, says Smith, a longtime advocate of stronger border security.

"That's the only near-consensus I'm aware of increased security on the border," he said. "The calls I get are from people saying, 'You're not doing enough to secure the borders, and if you don't, I'm not going to vote for you.'"

Smith, a former chairman and current member of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, could land on the conference committee where the two chambers will try to hash out a compromise.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who voted against the Senate bill, already has been named one of the conferees.

Joe Solis of the South Texas Republicans organization agrees with Smith. If Congress fails to produce a bill that beefs up enforcement of immigration laws, lessening the risk of terrorists slipping undetected into the country, Republicans could face a backlash at the grass roots.

"If many of our rank-and-file members stay at home this November, we're going to have serious problems," Solis said. "That level of apathy is something I'm seeing right now. I'm hearing many rank-and-file friends who are telling me, 'I'm not going to vote this November.'"

Or activists may go to the polls but decide not to block-walk for GOP candidates or make campaign contributions.

A poll conducted May 2-14 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 19 percent of Republicans contacted named immigration as the most pressing problem facing the country. Only 6 percent of Democrats identified it as the topmost issue.

Register the activists

Andy Hernandez, a political scientist at St. Mary's University, expects to see an up-tick at the polls next November as a result, saying: "You now have a higher awareness among Latino voters than there was before."

And GOP candidates could bear the brunt of it, he added, when immigration reform is added to the stew of lobbying scandals in Congress, the dicey situation in Iraq, high gas prices and Bush's low approval ratings.

But before the May 1 boycott, U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, a San Antonio Democrat, warned that the protest would be counterproductive.

"We need to make our thoughts heard through voting and holding elected officials accountable and translate this energy into long-term action," he said in a written statement.

The South Texas Republicans' Solis said the aftermath of the protests came into view when the Senate which is more moderate than the House because of its rules and longer terms in office passed amendments to make English the national language and to put up fencing along portions of the border.

"That astounded me when I saw it I never would've thought that was possible," Solis said. "I see the whole debate moving rightward."

Gonzalez said the protests emboldened some senators to take get-tough stands, but he doesn't expect the conference committee to emerge with a bill that the Senate will agree to. Immigration reform, he predicted, will have to wait until after the November elections.

"This is nothing but politics," Gonzalez said.

"It's people trying to extract what they see as political advantage. It's an emotionally charged issue that will be squeezed for every ounce of political advantage."

As originally published this story contained an error.

gjefferson@express-news.net
 

Thanks for having the courage to write and publish the truth about one of our elected Republican Representatives. I hope you don't mind that I have posted it on our Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas (IRCOT) ? 

Unfortunately, Republicans are going to loose many seats this November if they don't get serious about protecting our nation from the massive invasion. It is an insult for us to hear that this Administration really believes putting 6,000 National Guard troops on our border will solve anything -- especially since they have been given no enforcement power. GWB and his strategist are sadly underestimating the degree to which conservative voters want Americas borders secured and our laws enforced. First and foremost, we are a nation of laws and our sovereignty must be protected. 

How is it that we can send our brave men and women across the oceans to protect other nations from invasion but refuse to deploy them to our own borders to keep terrorists from slipping in among the 165,000 OTM (Other Than Mexicans) that crossed in 2005? Weve been protecting the borders of South Korea for some 50 years!

A report provided to the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus by Rep. Charlie Norwood revealed as few as 36,000 National Guard troops (48,000 full-time 24/7) could effectively secure our entire southern border region until adequate Border Patrol agents are funded, hired and trained. The National Guard Bureau estimates the annual cost for this deployment at $2.5 billion a year which would represent a cut in the federal deficit with the cost of benefits to illegal aliens  looming at $70 billion a year. Texans pay more than $4.7 billion a year (more than $3.7 billion after estimated tax contributions are deducted) in taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens. 

Until this President gets serious about protecting our nation, his poll numbers will continue to drop along with support for other Republicans who are weak on securing our nation. When we are attacked again, the Republicans (as the party in power since 9/11) will be out-of-office for decades for not connecting the dots. Our nation will be stuck with the likes of Hillary and we will be back to square one with all of our hard work to save and take back this nation undone....

Please keep speaking out and encourage other Republicans to do the same. 

Kindest regards,

Rebecca Forest

Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas (IRCOT)

Advisory Committee Member

(IRCOT)

Austin Townhall Conservatives, Co-Chair

(Townhall Conservatives)

BORDER SECURITY RELATED: 

Studies Page

Relevant Excerpts (click here to view):
Source Document: The Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus Report prepared by the Caucus Observation Team composed of: Lt. Col. Frederick A. Peterson, III. (RET), USMC, JD and John E. Stone, II, Captain (VA) Virginia Defense Force (both Congressional staff members)
Report Entitled: Results and Implications of the Minuteman Project, June 17, 2005

Relevant excerpts follow: 

3. 36,000 Reinforcements Would Likely Seal Our Southern Border. 

However, unlike the Minutemens 12-hour shifts, to maintain six personnel on station 24/7 on a permanent basis would require adequate personnel for at least three shifts, or 18 auxiliaries per mile. The 2000-mile southern border would therefore require a minimum 36,000 total additional personnel, with 48,000 likely for a long-term deployment requiring substantial support personnel. 

4. Reinforcements Are Available From Existing Reserves.  

Troops should be drawn from all 50 states, or the border-states and their neighbors at minimum. Mobilizing troops from just the border states would exhaust their manpower reserves, eliminate the war fighting capability of Guard members in those states, and would be unsustainable. Drawing 36,000 National Guard and State Defense Force personnel from the border-states and their immediate neighbors would require 41% of available forces in the respective states. If drawn from National Guard forces nationwide, the border reinforcements would total 11% of available forces. As a long-term solution, one-half of the 70,000 federal troops returning from overseas could be permanently assigned the mission as part of the BRAC process currently underway. 

5. The Defense Authorization Act of 2005 provides specific legal authority for the Governors and the Secretary of Defense to immediately implement this plan with full federal funding. 

Section 512 of HR 4200, the Defense Authorization Act of 2005, passed by the 108th Congress, amends Title 32 Section 9 of U.S. Code to allow Governors to call forth their National Guard for homeland security duties within their state in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and receive full federal funding for the mission, with no action required by Congress or the President.  
 

Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow for National Security Issues With Heritage Foundation.

Deborah DeMoss-Fonseca, a former employee of retired North Carolina Senator Jess Helms
 

As promised, I bring you part 2 of my exciting trip to D.C. for the Jesse Helms Center School of Communication in Foreign Policy.

After our meeting at the State Department, we heard from Deborah DeMoss Fonseca, who personally worked for Senator Jesse Helms for 15 years and then some. Senator Helms served the great state of North Carolina from 1973-2003. Mrs. Fonseca gave us a very good picture of the kind of Senator he was. Mrs. Fonseca said history was very important to the Senator, and he believed firmly that all of us should be great students of history, especially if we wish to succeed in politics and foreign policy.

She spoke of his moral foreign policy. The reason for this policy is two-fold:

1.)     His love of Country and the Constitution

2.)     His love of God and his Biblical world view

Helms Moral Foreign Policy basically had 7 pillars:

1.)     Protect U.S. Sovereignty

2.)     Defend the values upon which America was founded

3.)     Protect American interests, service people, and its citizenry

4.)     Did NOT believe in Foreign Aid

5.)     Defend America's borders

6.)     Senates role of advice and consent

7.)     Against Free Trade with known corrupt governments

Mrs. Fonseca said that Jesse Helms was a fighter for his state and for America. Senator Helms fought to maintain the rule of law. He fought for proper immigration laws, and their enforcement. The Senator also believed that it was crucial that the President appoint ambassadors who stood for true American values, including democracy and government transparency across the globe. Senator Helms is a staunch supporter of human rights and supports funding for the fight against AIDS.

Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow for the Heritage Foundation in National Security spoke of the challenges of foreign policy today. He spoke on three of these challenges.

In the short-term, Iraq is a major challenge. Mr. Brookes does have some good news however, about Iraq that you certainly wont see much coverage on in the media. Today, Iraqi forces conduct 25% of operations in Iraq. On average today, there are 17 attacks per day in the Sunni Triangle. A year ago, there were 27 attacks per day in the region. Also, there is an average of 25 suicide bombings a day currently, compared to 75 a year ago. Brookes also makes no equivocation that Al Qaeda is a GLOBAL MOVEMENT!

An intermediate challenge is Iran. Iran is basically a Persian nation in an Arab neighborhood.  Of great concern is Irans relationship with Abdul Qadeer Kahn, known as the Father of the Pakistani Nuclear Program, allowing them to remain equal to India in the nuclear age. Kahn sold Iran centrifuges, weapons grade material and plans for a nuclear weapon. The problem for the U.S. is that he is currently under house arrest in Pakistan, leaving him unavailable for questioning or court. Without AQ, proving Iran violated their Non-Proliferation Treaty pledge will be very hard.

Iran also has a close relationship with Syria and the Palestinians. Both Syria and the Palestinians are well known for their hatred of America and Israel. One must also remember there is a strong military alliance between Russia and Iran as well, putting both Israel and the United States on edge. Interestingly, prior to 1979, Iran was the most industrialized nation in the Middle East.

Now, further down the road, the long-term challenge we face in foreign policy is China. Currently, China is the second largest consumer of energy according to Brookes. The Pentagon believes that China has the fastest growing peacetime budget in the world. Chinas economy ranks an astounding fourth in the world. China is very much vested in Iran. This interest is to the tune of $125 billion in Iranian gas and oil. Another concern with China is its alliance with Russia.

James Hill, Managing Editor for the Washington Post Editorial Board, spoke regarding the media coverage in Iraq.

In a poll conducted in March of this year, it was discovered that 31% believe the media makes events in Iraq appear worse than they really are. In 2005, it was discovered that there were 124 stories focused solely on the bad aspects of the Iraqi political process. In comparison, 92 stories that same year heralded the accomplishments of that same political process.

I would also like to make note here that last December, 31% of the Iraqi government was in fact female. In addition, there are currently 500 non-governmental agencies for women throughout Iraq.

After my first day of amazing speakers, my expectations for day 2 were very high. I was in no way disappointed!

We worked in groups at the mock television studio on our last day. We all went through a one-on-one interview, then we had a television debate in which we had to pretend that the person sitting next to us was actually in another location. The last part as you can imagine is TOUGH! During said debate format, we also had a caller contact us through our earpieces. It takes some getting used to looking only into a camera when you have someone talking so clearly in your ear; its as though they are right next to you.

In the end, it was a great experience with great people! I would encourage anyone interested in foreign policy or politics in general to take this training put on by the Jesse Helms Center in North Carolina and held at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without your generosity and support! Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
 

I get the impression Mr. Pauken knows something that is scaring important people in Austin. He can sense that the race for governor may now be in play as a result of the special session. Grandma just started saying she would repeal HB3 if elected. Harris County Republicans are livid over the bill that is now law. Mr. Pauken is focused on one race this November. Grassroots Republicans are livid because the main issue revolves around the belief that the ideals and principles of a political party mean something.  He simply cannot see that far and deep.

Mr. Pauken: How can we say that we are the party of lower taxes when our conservative leaders determined that the solution for revenue enhancement/replacement is more and higher taxes on the businesses of Texas? Does that make sense?

Did the tax commission ever say:  How can we cut waste in government? How can we privatize the Department of Motor Vehicles? How can we find innovative ways to raise money with our current resources? Our solution was to select a Democrat who has spent his life battling Republicans and give him the job of rewriting our tax code that affects business owners and millions of their employees. Does that make sense?

Look at the list of people and groups that supported and opposed HB3. It is clear. The grassroots of the party lost to big money. Conservatives said over and over: This is all about our platform and our principles. The other side cut deals, sucked up and caved in because they were afraid to oppose those in power. The freight train for more taxes on businesses flattened conservatives in the special session. For the record, Mr. Pauken was not on the train with the grassroots of the party. 

Mr. Pauken, you are now afraid that one of our Republican leaders might lose this November. I get the feeling that conservatives are ready to take out one of their own this November. It is in the air. People are upset. Sacrificing one of our brethren seems to be the right thing to do at this point in our history based on what I am hearing. Yes, it is personal for many of them.

Will this happen? I have no idea, but you are right to be scared. Your letter exudes fear, angst and uncertainty. Let me repeat, if things are so great, why are conservatives so upset? The validity of your propaganda is as thick as a Pringles potato chip.

You have good reason to be concerned. 
 

Thanks for the letter. 

Joe
 

BEN WEAR: GETTING THERE

The naked truth of 'double taxation'

Monday, May 29, 2006

I paid a double tax out at Lions Municipal Golf Course a couple of weeks ago.

My daughter will probably be hit with a double tax sometime this summer at Barton Springs.

And Travis County, if you can believe it, is levying a double tax on naked people.

This comes up in the context of toll roads and tireless toll road opponent Sal Costello, who has been inveighing for the past couple of years against what he and fellow travelers say is the double taxation of Austin-area highways. I get asked about this a lot. The general assumption seems to be that Costello is, at best, exaggerating.

Well, no, not really. We will be paying twice, to some degree, for some of the toll roads planned for Austin. But the real question is, as public policy, is that immoral or corrupt?

At the risk of making your head hurt, some quick review: There are four Austin-area toll roads under construction, all of them "traditional" toll roads. That is, they're cutting new paths rather overlaying existing roads and are funded mostly with borrowed money. So initially the tolls will be used to pay back the bonds, run toll operations and maintain the roads. However, the tolls are permanent, so someday most of the revenue will be profit and go to building other stuff.

Costello's main heartburn is with six other planned toll roads in Central Texas. Four of them will be expansions of existing roads, including two where construction is going on right now, paid for with 100 percent gas tax money. Two will be completely new roads, but one of those Texas 45 Southeast will be built with nothing but gas tax money.

To Costello and others, putting a toll on a road built purely with tax money is double taxation. However, he also considers it double taxation if you take an existing road like Ed Bluestein Boulevard which lies on right of way bought with tax money and then expand it and slap on tolls. You're taking a publicly purchased asset, the argument goes, and then charging people to use it.

But state Rep. Mike Krusee, the Williamson County Republican and toll advocate who's chairman of the House Transportation Committee, made an interesting point on a recent KLRU documentary about toll roads. He said, hey, it's not like we'll be paying the construction companies twice to build these roads. And he said that no one cries double taxation when they have to pay to swim in Zilker Park, site of an awful lot of public tax spending over the years.

The same logic applies to innumerable public assets, including city golf courses, the Erwin Center, parking meters and, while we're at it, Hippie Hollow, a Travis County park favored by skinny-dippers. The fees we pay for swimming, parking and golf are really just another form of taxes, and so are tolls. The city could jack up property taxes and eliminate fees at Barton Springs, but it won't. And the legislators could triple the gasoline tax and have fewer toll roads. But they won't.

There are equity and efficiency arguments to be made against toll roads, but they're hard to explain and sell. Double taxation is easier, catchy and just sounds wrong. But is it really?

Getting There appears Mondays. For questions, tips or story ideas, contact Getting There at 445-3698 or bwear@statesman.com To read this article, click here.
 

By John Merrifield,
Professor of Economics
Director, Entrepreneurial Conservatism Institute

May 7, 2006

Im going to directly address the San Antonio situation, but its just one symptom of larger state, local, and national leadership failures. Its a debacle characterized by confusion and controversy on several fronts, including the reliability of the air quality data, the significance of the official air quality standard, and the primary sources of San Antonios key pollutants.

Most depressing is that hardly any of the officially proposed responses have any relevance to San Antonios unique air quality problem. Is that because our local officials havent tailored solutions to San Antonios unique issues, or because the law prevents them from doing so?  To the extent that the Clean Air Act (CAA), as interpreted by the courts and implementers, allows creativity in tailoring mitigation to local conditions, we should expect that of our leaders. To the extent the CAA blocks creativity, our national leadership should move to eliminate the barriers. It could start with something as basic as a re-examination of the definition of a State Implementation Plan credit. Incredibly, among its many flaws, the CAA actually prohibits the consideration of cost as a regulation issue; a serious mistake literally begging for the leadership drive to overcome economically illiterate demagoguery about the incalculable value of life and restore sanity to environmental regulation. If we had that at-all-costs attitude towards the regulation of safety, the government would have to force us to choose between driving armored vehicles at slow speed and walking.

A unique problem? Many areas have the potential for an air quality problem almost every day; places like Houston and Los Angeles. But even before the local response to the non-attainment challenge, San Antonio had (and still has) great air quality about 340 days per year. San Antonio is close to violating the air quality standard only 25 days per day. But of the approximately sixty responses proposed by the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG), only three minor steps address the peak-period-only nature of the problem. The other 57 proposed responses developed through AACOG impose costs every day, but deliver benefits on only a handful of days. Thats truly wasteful.

Responses tailored to the San Antonio air quality problem are described at:

San Antonio Air Quality
 

This week has brought a lot of talk of toll roads that beautifully displayed the pro-tollers cavalier attitude over promoting a whole new tax on driving which is indisputably DOUBLE TAXATION when roads paid for with gas taxes are then tolled. However, two seemingly competing sources also call tolls a DOUBLE TAX: the Comptroller's investigation of the tolling authorities and even a pro-toll industry report done by Fitch Ratings. 

 But the REAL NEWS this week is found in this Denver Post multi-part expose' on toll roads exposing the fraud of inflated projections, and the money trail between firms that forecast traffic, bond companies, highway engineers, contractors and more:

For much more information and to sign our online petition, go to our web site here: http://satollparty.com 
 

The question arises every issue, Who will the Republicrat zero in on this week? Will the focus be on conservative Republicans and their mean-spirited unwillingness to really fund education, or liberal pigmy Democrats who offer no viable alternative to fund education or any issue for that matter.

And, of course, many readers salivate to read about which individual from either Party will suffer scrutiny under the political microscope and be chastised, demeaned and ridiculed for his or her behavior or illogical ideological positions. This week is a little different. Take a deep breath.

Neither Democrat nor Republican is the focus of my barbs, this week. This week the spotlight shines on the Republicrat itself.

My reasoning for doing so is that this column has passed the six-month mark with this being the 24th article I have submitted to the South Texas Republican Newsletter.

The exciting aspect of writing this column is hearing the speculation through the grapevine as to who is the Republicrat. Unfortunately, I cannot reveal that information without being disrespectful to the people who talk to me about everyday issues, since they are not aware of my identify as the anonymous writer. That would not be fair to them.

I have been told that while many seem to disagree with my take on issues, they still read it every week. For that I am grateful. I apologize (sort of) to the number of irate Democrats and upset Republicans that are steamed at me for continually trashing their sacred ideology or their favorite politicians.

I must admit the volume has escalated over the months as the shrill voices of anger are hitting the high decibels. The angry bi-partisan mob is demanding to know who writes the Republicrat. Does it really matter?

My sources (many who share with me and dont realize I AM the Republicrat) inform me that readers on both political sides have come up with answers to that question. Let me share some of them with you for your scrutiny and judgment.

I am told that I am a man, a woman, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, Republican posing as a Democrat, disgruntled Democrat, old and young.

All I can say is I dont believe that I am most of what I am being accused of, but then again, I may be. That is your decision. I must point out that I dont write fiction. I couldnt make up all the stuff I have written. I am not that clever. Obviously, that is for you to decide and up to Editor Joe Solis if he wishes to continue publishing my column.

I will give you one hint. I am the last person you would ever think would write this column. And I readily admit that it is really a rush to be the anonymous insider Democrat that I am touted as being. With anonymity, I am free to write at will without being revealed. You, the reader, can take it for what it is worth, or not.

Thats the moderate viewpoint. I AM the Republicrat.