President Obama Gives Eulogy at Clementa Pinckney Funeral Service

President Obama delivers a eulogy for state Senator Clementa Pinckney, who was one of nine victims in the June 17, 2015, shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.


C-SPAN

Marriage Equality

UPDATE 11:00 PM July 1, 2015

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a ruling shortly before 5 p.m. on Wednesday finding that the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overrides state laws and constitutional amendments limiting marriage to couples of one man and one woman.

The federal appeals court directed the district courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to issue final orders ending enforcement of the states’ respective bans on same-sex couples’ marriages. Part of the 5th Circuit's order for Texas in the case reads:

While this appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4250 (U.S. June 26, 2015). In summary, the Court declared that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this lib- erty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson [, 409 U.S. 810 (1972),] must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

UPDATED 4:20 PM Wednesday, July 1, 2015: The Texas Attorney General's office has conceded a separate legal challenge to the state's ban on same-sex marriage brought by two same-sex couples last year.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals took up the case in January, almost a year after U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garcia of San Antonio ruled the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional because it “violates plaintiffs’ equal protection and due process rights.” The state's appeal to the 5th Circuit had been left pending.

Scott Keller, Texas' solicitor general, wrote in a letter to 5th Circuit Justices the appellate court should affirm Judge Garcia's ruling against Texas' ban on same-sex marriage. The letter responds to the appellate court's request that the state and plaintiffs advise the court on their planned next steps in the Texas case, after the higher's ruling.

More than 100 of Texas' 254 counties are now confirmed to be issuing or prepared to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The DMN has an interactive map of counties issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Glen Maxey, Texas Democratic Party Legislative Affairs Director, has been listing counties issuing licenses on his personal Facebook timeline – here.

UPDATED 3:30 PM Sunday, June 28, 2015

State Attorney General Ken Paxton tells County Clerks they may refuse — on religious grounds — to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As reported by the Dallas Morning News.

UPDATED 1:30 PM Friday,  June 26, 2015

As of 1:30 PM Friday, June 26, 2015 - The Office of Collin County Clerk says the County Clerk is currently seeking legal council on the question of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. They have no estimate on when they might reach a decision on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The official statement from the Collin County Clerk further states that if the decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses is reached, it may take some time to implement changes to computer data bases and systems and office procedures to be able to actually issue those licenses.

County Clerks across most Texas counties, today, offer a similar statement on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

---

10:45 AM Friday, June 26, 2015

The Supreme Court today ruled in favor of marriage equality when Justice Kennedy handed down the 5-4 majority opinion in the in the Obergefell v. Hodges same-sex marriage case. The ruling makes same-sex marriage immediately possible in all 50 states, even states like Texas that outlaw same-sex marriage in the state constitution.

When oral arguments were made before the Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed surprised to find out religion and the First Amendment religious establishments clause in the U.S. Constitution have nothing to do with the legality of marriage.

Friendly Neighborhood Democrats

Who are the Friendly Neighborhood Democrats?

This is the most common question I have been asked since the Facebook page was created. The answer is simply, "Anyone who wants to help redefine the Democratic Party through direct advocacy." We are a loose-knit group of liberal and progressive activists who believe that action speaks louder than words.

What do the Friendly Neighborhood Democrats do?

We engage in local community service to actively demonstrate our values in a tangible way. We publicly brand these actions by wearing one of our inexpensive "Friendly Neighborhood Democrats" t-shirts.

When do the Friendly Neighborhood Democrats work?

We encourage you to find charities that are local to where you live and to offer assistance whenever possible. While we will have a monthly event posted on our Facebook page, we hope that you will take it upon yourself to find ways to be involved in your community.

Where do the proceeds from the t-shirts go (and where can I buy one)?

The money raised from the t-shirts goes to local charities, not the Democratic Party or any of its affiliates. You can purchase one by going to the link pinned to the top of the Friendly Neighborhood Democrats Facebook page.

Texas Young Democrats 2015 Convention - June 26-28

Join the Millennial Texas Young Democrats Convention in Austin this weekend - June 26-28 - for their 2015 Biennial Convention.

The America of the near future will look nothing like the America of the recent past. We see a generational transformations of our political and social values, our economic well-being, our family structure, our racial and ethnic identity, our gender norms, our religious affiliation, and our technology use.

Texas Young Democrats
Part of Generation We

Today’s Millennial Young Democrats are well-educated, tech savvy, underemployed twenty and thirty somethings at risk of becoming the first generation in American history to have a lower standard of living than their parents thanks to the conservative political agenda of the Republican Party over the last 35 years.

Millennials are the largest voting generation in American history. Born between 1979 and 1998, they are 95 million strong, compared to 78 million Baby Boomers. They are independent—politically, socially, and philosophically—and they are spearheading a period of sweeping change in America.

Click Here for more information on the Texas Young Democrats Convention in Austin this weekend - June 26-28 - for their 2015 Biennial Convention.

So You're a Texan for Hillary...

First and foremost, I want to thank you for your interest in politics. Believe it or not, it's a rare thing right now in our nation for people not only to care enough to vote, but to also research candidates and make an informed decision. With your help and a decent strategy, I believe we can turn the political tides in favor of a strong middle-class.

For those of you who have yet to determine which presidential candidate would best represent you, here is a link to a detailed questionnaire on ISideWith.com. Many of the questions have links for further information.

If after you take the quiz you find that Bernie Sanders is your best option, click here.

Alright. Now that you've decided on Hillary, let's go over five things you can do to help her win.

So You're a Texan for Bernie...

First and foremost, I want to thank you for your interest in politics. Believe it or not, it's a rare thing right now in our nation for people not only to care enough to vote, but to also research candidates and make an informed decision. With your help and a decent strategy, I believe we can turn the political tides in favor of a strong middle-class.

For those of you who have yet to determine which presidential candidate would best represent you, here is a link to a detailed questionnaire on ISideWith.com. Many of the questions have links for further information.

If after you take the quiz you find that Hillary Clinton is your best option, click here.

Alright. Now that you've decided on Bernie, let's go over five things you can do to help him win.

School Privatization Primer

Originally Published at Curmudgucation Blog by Peter Greene:

Every once in a while I try to take the many complicated and twisty threads, back up, and tie them into a bigger picture. Think of this as the kind of post you can share with people who don't read blogs about education every single day (no kidding-- there are such people, and they're too busy doing the work to spend time reading about doing the work).

There are many threads to the reformy movement in education, but perhaps the most predominant one is the push for privatization. Many folks look at education and they just see a gigantic pile of money that has previously gone untouched. To them, education is a multi-billion dollar industry that nobody is making real profit from.

Many of the aspects and features of what I'm about to lay out appeal to other sorts of folks for other sorts of reasons, but here is how they fit into the agenda of privatizers.

Step One: Create Failure

POTUS Does Podcast

President Obama talked for an hour on comedian Marc Maron’s WTF podcast program, episode 613, recorded live last Friday. President Barack Obama used the n-word during during the podcast discussion to make a point America continues to struggle with racism.

President Obama used the podcast format to have frank discussion of the issues as the nation examines the role racism played in a white supremacist killing nine African-Americans last week in a historically black church in Charleston.

"Racism, we are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public," Obama said.

"That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior."

Marc Maron’s WTF podcast program, episode 613 - MP3

"I always tell young people, in particular, do not say that nothing has changed when it comes to race in America, unless you've lived through being a black man in the 1950s or '60s or '70s. It is incontrovertible that race relations have improved significantly during my lifetime and yours," Obama said. But he added that "the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination" exists in institutions and casts "a long shadow and that's still part of our DNA that's passed on."

Pres. Obama’s statement, that there is less American racism in 2015 than there was in 1965, is undoubtedly correct. Yet, last week, a white man walked into an historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina. He sat inside the congregation for an hour, as churchgoers engaged in Bible study. Then he announced to the African American congregants that they are “taking over our country,” and he opened fire, killing nine men and women. That young white man was moved to violence by reading racist writings on the Council of Conservative Citizens website and other racist organization websites that promote white primacy. While Jim Crow segregation can not today be openly practiced, the racist beliefs behind those once prevalent Jim Crow laws remains alive and common across the states of the old confederate south.

84th Texas Legislature Wrap Up

Update Monday, June 22, 2015 at 11:00 PM - Any bills that passed the Texas House and Senate this year and escaped Gov. Greg Abbott's veto pen are now law. (Bills vetoed by Gov. Abbott)

Lawmakers this year filed 11,332 bills and resolutions and managed to pass 5,535 of those submissions. Many of those 11,332 filings were duplicate bills and language of some of the filed bills that did not advance was added into related bills as amendments.

Under Texas law, the governor can sign or veto bills passed by the legislature, or let them become law after 20 days without his signature. The governor has until June 21st to act to veto bills passed in the last 10 days of the session. After that date bills automatically become law.

Election Law Bills Passed By The 2015 Texas Legislature

Updated Monday 06/22/15 at 10:00 p.m. The 2015 84th Texas Legislature regular session ended on Monday, June 1, 2015, the 140th day of the session. The following election related bills were passed and sent to Gov. Abbott to sign into law or veto. The governor had 20 days from June 1 to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature during the last 10 days of the session. Bills not already signed or vetoed by June 21, 2015 have become law with an effected date as noted by Last Action note.  Click the more jump.

Pope Francis Issues Encyclical On Climate Change

Pope Francis today issued his anticipated 'Laudato Si' Encyclical (authoritative teaching document) on the environment and climate change, calling on Catholics worldwide to make safeguarding the environment and battling climate change an urgent and top priority of the 21st century.

Pope Francis says most climate change is caused by human activity and calls it one of the most important moral issues facing society. The Pope has repeated over recent months, "Creation is a gift from God, and we have a moral responsibility to be responsible stewards of that gift for all of humanity and all life our planet."

In his encyclical message to the world’s 5,000 Catholic bishops and 1.2 billion Catholics, Pope Francis makes clear, unlike previous encyclicals, his message is directed to everyone, regardless of religion.

"Faced with the global deterioration of the environment, I want to address every person who inhabits this planet," the pontif writes. "In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home."

The pontiff calls for an ethical and economic revolution to prevent catastrophic climate change and growing inequality. The pontiff lays out his case that humanity’s exploitation of the planet’s resources has crossed the Earth’s natural carrying boundaries, and the world faces ruin without a revolution in hearts and minds of humanity:

The National Gold Depository of Texas

In a move that harkens back to the Civil War Era "Confederate Dollar" monetary system created by rebellious confederate southern states, just before the shooting started, Texas Governor Greg Abbott last week signed House Bill 483 to establish a state gold bullion depository.  The gold depository will be administered by the Office of the Comptroller.

The gold bullion depository created by HB483 will serve as the custodian, guardian and administrator of bullion that may be transferred to or otherwise acquired by the State of Texas.

Governor Abbott issued the following statement about the bill he signed:

“Today I signed HB 483 to provide a secure facility for the State of Texas, state agencies and Texas citizens to store gold bullion and other precious metals. With the passage of this bill, the Texas Bullion Depository will become the first state-level facility of its kind in the nation, increasing the security and stability of our gold reserves and keeping taxpayer funds from leaving Texas to pay for fees to store gold in facilities outside our state."

Sponsors intend for Texas to repatriate $1 billion of gold bullion from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s vault in lower Manhattan to Texas, preparing for the U.S. currency collapse and financial Armageddon (or secessionist revolution) conservatives are convinced is just around the corner. (One of the problems with this, of course, is that Texas has no gold on deposit in any federal reserve, nor in Fort Knox. There is also the inconvient fact that Texas falls under the Federal Reserve of Dallas, not New York, so any such request would be filed with their local Reserve branch.)

The Secret

Political awareness
Will at times to you bestow
A sense of purpose, bold and bright
And with it you must show
That working with each other
We can watch our nation grow
That all our lives are sacred
And as such it's apropos
To organize and make allies
So we can overthrow
Those small of heart who make an art
Of selling status quo
When we stand up all together
We will end their puppet show

Behind the Mask: North Texans for Natural Gas

It's another beautiful day here in North Texas. The skies are a soft baby blue. Tufts of puffy, white clouds hang innocent against the haze of the Dallas skyline. Moments like this, a man might forget the recent and malicious deluge and the upcoming week of predicted thunderstorms. The lakes are full and glistening, and an abundance of storks search for fish in newly formed ponds. Joggers and their dogs move slow and sure through nearby trails, taking in the verdant foliage. The air is...

(cough... hack... wheeze...)

Delightful.

You see, here in North Texas we live on what is known as the Barnett Shale. Underneath us is an incredibly large amount of fossil fuels in the form of oil and gas. Corporations have been drilling here as far back as 1981, and they aren't too keen on stopping anytime soon.

The recent decision by Denton's voters to restrict the possibility of future leases caught the industry off guard, mostly because it had spent a great deal of money bribing, fooling, and outright threatening the city. After the fracking ban was passed, Big O&G didn't waste more than a day before suing the city and lining the pockets of our state legislators to pass HB 40, which "gave exclusive jurisdiction over the oil and gas industry to the state government, prohibiting local oil and gas-related ordinances, initiatives and regulations."

So the story pretty much goes like this: Big O&G discovers a wealth of oil and gas under North Texans' feet and start drilling. After decades, scientists discover that the drilling is bad for the environment. The people decide they value breathing more than the pittance Big O&G gives them in royalties. Big O&G buys the legislature and the people are silenced.

But wait. There's more.

The Koch Bros and GOP At War Over Voter Data

The Republican National Committee’s data arm last year called it a “historic” occasion when it struck a deal to share voter information with the Koch brothers’ rapidly expanding political empire. Oops... Read the story at Yahoo

Salon.com:

What was once a staid, mainstream political party full of Rotary Club businessmen, hard-scrabble farmers and pillars of America’s communities has become a boisterous bunch of rebellious revolutionaries. The origin story of how this came to pass is well documented in histories like Rick Perlstein’s “Before the Storm” “Nixonland” and “The Invisible Bridge,” which (among other things) trace the spirit that rose out of the rubble of the 1964 debacle of the Goldwater campaign and grew into the movement that has dominated American politics for over 30 years.

Its ideology became a matter of faith-based adherence to abstract principles about “freedom” and “small government” even as the Republican Party made a devil’s bargain with both the religious right, which sought to enforce “family values,” and the military industrial complex, which grew to gargantuan proportions under both parties. These alliances were strategic moves by the Party elders seeking a winning governing coalition and it worked beautifully for decades. They formed a strong “conservative” identity out of this coalition, while demonizing the identity of liberalism to such an extent that liberals were forced to abandon it altogether and adopt another name to describe themselves.

Meanwhile, the party banked on overweening victimization among its mainly white, resentful voters in the wake of the revolution in law and culture that began in the 1960s with civil rights for minorities and the economic and social changes that sent women pouring into the workplace and changing the traditional organization of family and home. This too worked very well for quite some time. Fear, anger and resentment of everything from racial integration to middle class stagnation to imaginary foreign threats became intrinsic to the Republican identity.

All of this was of great benefit to the Republican party’s electoral success and the message discipline within the echo chamber of their partisan media ensured that the ideology among the various strands of the Republican coalition held together in what sounded like a coherent program. But it never really was coherent.

Freedom and small government are often in conflict with social conservatism which seeks to enshrine its religious values into law. Small government and low taxes are in conflict with an imperial foreign policy and national security establishment that demands vast sums of money and requires that much of it be spent in secret. Essentially the three legs of the GOP bar stool have always been in tension.

The party started to lose its bearings as long ago, as in the ’90s when it took on the self-righteousness of a religious crusade with its unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of a Democratic president.

Read the rest of the story at Salon.com

Decline of US House Elections Incumbency Advantage

Republicans enjoy a long-standing structural advantage in the distribution of partisans across districts, so this trend has strengthened their grip on the House even as they have become less competitive in contests for the presidency.

With little fanfare, the electoral advantage enjoyed by US representatives has fallen over the past several elections to levels not seen since the 1950s. The incumbency advantage has diminished in conjunction with an increase in party loyalty, straight-ticket voting, and president-centered electoral nationalization, products of the widening and increasingly coherent partisan divisions in the American electorate.

Consequently, House incumbents now have a much harder time retaining districts that lean toward the rival party. Democrats had been the main beneficiaries of the denationalization of electoral politics that had enabled the incumbency advantage to grow, and they have thus been the main victims of the reemergence of a more party-centered electoral process.

Gary Jacobson in the Journal of Politics: Here is the abstract:

Right To Use Birth Control Turns 50

Today, June 7th, is the 50th anniversary of the 1965 Supreme Court decision in the Griswold .v Connecticut case that made obtaining birth control no longer a crime for married couples. Single women still had to wait another seven years for their Supreme Court decision on contraceptive access for the right to buy contraceptives. Ninety-eight percent of all American women report using birth control during their lifetime.

Many people do not remember the purchase and use of birth control products, and even literature about birth control options, even by married couples, was against the law in many states until 1965. There are those who have worked for the last 50 years to reverse the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court finding that American women have a fundamental right of privacy in their reproductive decisions. That right includes making family planning decisions and the right to learn about and use birth control contraceptives.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says that the pivotal decision which reversed a law that prohibited women from using contraception is not supported under his interpretation of the Constitution. During a July 2012 interview on Fox News, host Chris Wallace asked Scalia why he believed that women have no a Constitutional right of privacy to choose to use contraception. “There’s no right to privacy in the Constitution — no generalized right to privacy,” Scalia insisted. “Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was,” Wallace pointed out. “Yeah, it did,” Scalia agreed. “And that was wrong.”

Republicans in the U.S. Congress and Senate want to amend to the U.S. Constitution to criminalize common birth control methods, including birth control pills and IUD's.

Sixty-three U.S. House Republicans, or over a quarter of the GOP conference in 2012, cosponsor a so called Personhood bill titled the "Sanctity of Human Life," bill to amend the U.S. constitution to outlaw birth control pills and IUD's. In the U.S. Senate, a companion Sanctity of Human Life bill was supported by more than a quarter of the Republicans in the Senate.

Personhood legislation has been regularly introduced in state legislatures around the U.S. over the past few years. The intent of the legislation is to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as people in order to grant them full legal protection, including the right to life from the moment of conception. The law would criminalize abortion with no exceptions, and effectively ban many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization and other reproductive health-care measures.

Personhood legislation and ballot initiatives to amend state constitutions have failed to pass in states around the country. Ballot measures to amend the state constitutions to include personhood language in both Colorado and North Dakota failed to pass by wide margins during the November 2014 elections. Personhood ballot measures and legislation have also failed to pass multiple times in Mississippi.

Most of the Republican field of 2016 presidential candidates are already on record supporting Personhood legislation and amendments to both the U.S. Constitutional and state constitutions around the nation to outlaw birth control. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is also on record saying women have no constitutionally protected right to use their choice of birth control.

While efforts to ban birth control use have failed, conservative Republicans who want to outlaw birth control use keep trying.  Should they gain enough legislative control in the U.S. Congress or individual states, they would outlaw birth control use. 

Read more:

• Texas Republican War On Birth Control

---

PBS.org

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control. The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender."

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and Buxton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1965.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment(prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.

Further, this right to privacy is "fundamental" when it concerns the actions of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." Because a married couple's use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to overcome that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Because Connecticut failed to prove this, the law was struck down as applied.

Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut law should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas as to where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, allows the Court to find the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan IImaintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White argued that a fundamental right to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract. Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).

More:

How Contraception Transformed the American Family

The Unfinished Fight Over Contraception

84th Texas Ledgislature 2016-17 Biennium Budget

The Texas House and Senate approved a $209.4 billion compromise 2016-17 biennium state budget on the last Friday of the 84th Texas Legislature, before adjourning on Monday, June 1, 2015, the 140th day of the session.

The House approved the House Bill 1 joint conference committee compromise budget on a 115-33 vote, after the Senate earlier on Friday had approved HB1 on a 30-1 vote. The budget doubles spending to $800 million for border security and gives businesses and homeowners a $3.8 billion in tax cut.

HB1 is currently on Gov. Greg Abbott's desk awaiting his action. Under Texas law, the governor can sign HB1 as is, veto it entirely, single out any line-item expenditures he doesn't like and veto them, or let it become law after 20 days without his signature. The governor has 20 days from June 1 to act on any bills that pass in the last 10 days of the session.

Most Republican lawmakers are congratulating themselves for passing a "conservative 2016-17 budget" that leaves billions of dollars on the table, spending only $106.6 billion of $113 billion in available state revenue and leaves untouched about $11.1 billion in the state’s rainy day fund.

Racial Tension At McKinney Community Pool Party

Updated Thursday, June 11, 2015

A McKinney Texas police officer resigned three days after a mobile phone video was posted on YouTube showing him cursing, assaulting and threatening to shoot a group of black teenagers, who live in the predominately white northern section of the massive Craig Ranch subdivision of McKinney. The teens were attending an end of school year pool party at the Craig Ranch community pool.

The Craig Ranch subdivision in the City of McKinney has a neighborhood park, and a gated pool and clubhouse for residents. The pool and clubhouse area is gated and a scan card is needed to gain access. Scan cards are issued to all Craig Ranch residents.

The subdivision has a Homeowners Association (HOA) which regulates and controls the activities in/around the HOA swimming pool and clubhouse, and has rules for use thereof.

Residents of Craig Ranch are permitted to host parties with a maximum of 20 invited guests in the pool and clubhouse areas. Recreation areas remain open to all residents, so it may be difficult to distinguish party groups from other residents using those facilities.

The day of the incident was the last day of school. Reports indicate a number of young teen residents of Craig Ranch knew about the pool party by reading their friend's tweets and went to pool, even though they were not specifically invited guests of the pool party host.

Some residents complain, the teens who congregated at the community pool didn't belong there, suggesting they were not residents. But those making that complaint can not factually substantiate their allegation. No one asked the teens their address to know whether their parents are or are not Craig Ranch residents. Most of the teens in the pool area entered with either a resident access scan card or a guest invitation. Without question they belonged there. There are reports a few teens jumped over the pool area fence. Those teens broke a HOA rule by jumping the fence - imagine, a teenager broke a rule. Even so, that is not proof they weren't community residents who just didn't take time to go home for their scan card.

The only evidence anyone has offered to date that non-residents - who didn't belong - crashed the pool area is that a noticeable percentage of teens did not have white skin. The only significant disturbance anyone can specifically reference was allegedly instigated by white adult residents who verbally and physically assaulted a very young black teen resident and her white friend, Grace Stone, who came to her defense. (picture right)

Some who saw that disturbance blame the teens - because what two responsible adults would attack two teenage girls. And if two teenagers, one African-American, are seen assaulting white adults, and a few other teens are seen jumping the fence into the pool area, and there are a noticeable number of black teens around, who obviously don't belong because black people don't (or shouldn't be allowed to) live here, then the teen crowd is out of control rowdy - CALL 911!

911 calls to police reported "a disturbance involving multiple juveniles at the location, who do not live in the area or have permission to be there, refusing to leave." Who made at least some of those 911 calls?