response to Texas loophole in the judicial system

My classmate Erin wrote a very interesting blog about Texas immigrants getting away with crimes. Here is a link to her post. Here is my response:

I agree with you that the people committing these crimes should be held accountable for their actions. Also, the loophole that allows bondsmen to make money from these immigrants should be stopped. I was unaware that this was going on and am glad you wrote your blog on it. What I was thinking while reading your blog though, was why should we have to pay for these people to be imprisoned in our system that already costs us so much money? The cost of the trial, and incarceration should they be convicted would be costing Texans millions if not more a year. I think the best option is to not just deport them, but have a system in place for them to be prosecuted when they are returned to their country. Let their government pay for their wrongdoings. I know this may not be likely, considering the shape of many countries law enforcement, but I believe it is only fair. The option does seem better than just shipping them back and letting them disappear into their home countries, never paying for their crimes, as you pointed out happens now. I hope something changes soon and that the bondsmen quit profiting from these horrible crimes. I also hope we can come up with a compromise between just sending them back with no punishment and prosecuting and incarcerating them here at home.

More security needed for prisons and transporting prisoners

While reading the Statesman, I came across an article that got me thinking about the laws for those in prison. Arcade Comeaux escaped when being transferred to Houston. He pulled a gun on two guards and forced them to drive to Baytown where he put on a guards uniform and took off running. I am sure the guards were surprised to see him take off on foot considering he was in a wheelchair and has been for years. Christmas miracle it is not, though. Seems like Comeaux was a scam artist, and a pretty good one at that.

Comeaux was originally in prison for indecency with a child, a charge filed against him in 1984. He got out only to return to prison for aggravated sexual assault of a child in 1997. In 1999, he stabbed his wife while she was visiting him in prison and also stabbed a man who came to her aid. For these stabbing crimes, he was sentenced to 2 life sentences. He claims that he is paralyzed from suffering strokes. Doctors at the prison have written in reports that he does not have paralysis from these strokes and that the use of his wheelchair is probably not necessary. Comeaux even sued the prison citing cruel and unusual punishment being that his wheelchair was not good enough quality, and that he was unfairly segregated from other prisoners because he needed wheelchair access cells. Thankfully, the judge overturned his claims, stating that if Comeaux's legs worked well enough for him to be able to stab two people in 99, then he shouldn't be complaining. At least someone has some sense.

So, why was there not more security covering a man that is a rapist, and who is obviously violent and has been violent on prison grounds. Apparently the prison thought they needn't worry that this prisoner would escape because he was bound to his wheelchair. Well, as we can see now, they were wrong and the search for Comeaux is still underway. I think the prison, after medically testing Comeaux and determining he did not need the wheelchair, should have recognized him as a true threat and provided much more security during his transport. Senate Criminal Justice Comittee Chairman John Whitmire agrees, and has been calling for tighter security in prisons. There have been many escapes from prisons in Texas recently, a fact that should get public officials moving on new standards for security, especially when prisoners are being transported. But, because of the lack of security in this case, Texans have to worry about a dangerous man on the loose, a man who is much quicker on his feet than many people thought.

Abortion: does it belong in politics?

Abortion is an emotional subject, but should be a political subject as well. Although I agree with Randy that politicians making laws about abortion may never have experienced the heartbreaking decisions that women who choose abortion must face, it is still important for them to be involved and at the very least regulate abortion. There are so many laws passed by politicians that they have no personal experience with. They can't possibly have experienced all of the things they are voting on. I feel that the government should be very involved in the issue. Consider Dr. Boyd in Dallas, Texas. He does late term abortions on women who are up to 6 months pregnant! He admits that he is murdering. This is horrendous considering that a baby has a good chance of surviving should it be born at this time. We cannot expect the government to stand by and allow abortions to go on, and not even try to to regulate them. In fact, if this happened, I would be very afraid of what would come next, and what else would be allowed to happen to humans in this state. Protecting life is the governments' job and should be a political issue.

Texans are paying for state officials to travel in luxury

Governor Perry’s travel bills are catching quite a bit of attention. The Governor has traveled frequently this year, across the United States and internationally. His passport stamps may be public, but the bill surely isn’t. Who’s paying for all of these trips and are they all necessary for him to run the state?

Perry’s aides say travel is just part of the job, and other state governors do travel often as well. The question though is why are the expenses so top secret that they can’t be made public? If we as taxpayers are paying for the governor to travel to Colorado, Israel, Las Vegas, Turkey, California, etc., then we have the right to know what he is spending money on and how much he is spending. Staying at glamorous hotels is not necessary and not the way I want my money spent. In most companies that require travel, an employee is given a travel allowance, giving them money for food and board. Also, mileage is taken into account if the employee is driving. These rules are, in general, very strict and every mile is accounted for. The person traveling is required to account for all money spent and the expenses must be reasonable. But, apparently we are not enforcing these types of rules for the governor and his close aides.

The fact that travel is part of the job is undeniable, however, spending tens of thousands of dollars so these officials can stay at upscale hotels is unacceptable, and in addition, we as taxpayers should have access to the documents showing us exactly what our officials are spending our money on while they are traveling. The courts seem to agree on this opinion. In May, an Austin appeals court upheld the decision that the travel records of the governor and other top officials cannot be kept secret. This is the second time a newspaper has won in an appeals court to obtain travel records.

During his trip to Israel this year, documents that have been released show that Perry’s family, friends, and a few state officials accompanied him. Some of this trip was paid for by Perry’s campaign fund; however, DPS was responsible for his security detail. The security officers stayed at an expensive hotel that cost $17,000, billed to none other than the state of Texas. The taxpayers paid for this luxury. Seems quite ridiculous to me, and who knows how many other outrageous bills there are out there that the government is not releasing to the public. The records should automatically be made public, and newspapers and other media outlets should not have to take the issue to court so taxpayers can see where our money is being spent.

V and Obama

Shawn Griffiths from The North Texas Conservative echoes my thoughts on the new show called V. The show is about an alien race that comes to Earth promising great things. Among their promises is universal healthcare, hope, peace, everything sweet and nice for the world. Sounds familiar right? Maybe like Obama’s campaign for Presidency. Well, that is what many people are saying, and there are plenty of Liberals that aren’t too happy about it.

I have to say, when watching the show for the first time, I was thinking the “visitors” portrayed on the show were sounding a lot like Obama. See, the thing about these aliens on V is, they promise all these great things, and guess what? They aren’t going to follow through with these promises. They want to get rid of the human race, and are killing anyone who is figuring them out. Now, part of this sounds like Obama doesn’t it? As opposed to the liberal people that think this is wrong and not a good comparison, I think it is actually quite funny. I am happy for anything that can bring attention to all of Obama’s false promises. Maybe people watching this show will see how ridiculous it is to put all of our hope into someone over promises, simple words. So many people had all of these expectations about Obama just because of his speeches, and were walking around during his campaign and in the weeks after his election, literally believing he was going to change their lives.

I have to agree with Shawn when he talks about the fact that out of all of his promises, Obama hasn’t really accomplished anything. He has been in office for almost a year now, and his list of accomplishments is so small. "President Obama promised to bring change in Washington, but he has proven to be no different than any other liberal Democrat in our nation's capitol. This is not change."

So many were very quick to support Obama and put all of their hopes for change in him, and all he had to make them believe in him was words, his great speeches. He had no major accomplishments in his political career, nothing to prove that he was capable of leading this Country. Shawn makes a great point when he says that although V may have a conservative bias to it, it sure conveys an important message, there hasn’t been much of the promised change since Obama took office.

The Hazlewood Legacy Act

State Senator Leticia Van De Putte wrote a great commentary about Senate Bill 93 in on Memorial Day, and I think it brings up a wonderful point as we are nearing Veteran’s Day. Van De Putte was speaking to the people of Texas when she explained the purpose of the bill, stating that the bill is intended to help veterans of the Military get an education at any higher education center in Texas with no tuition and little fees for up to 150 credit hours. Any veteran that has served 180 days of active duty is eligible, and they can transfer this benefit to their children. In May, when she was trying to get this bill passed, only veterans that have lost their lives in action, or who are termed 100% disabled could transfer their benefits to their children. Van De Putte makes a great point when she states that these veterans have sacrificed so much for our country, including time with their families. If they choose to transfer their unused benefits for higher education, then they should be able to. Van De Putte does an excellent job in touching the hearts as well as the minds of the readers, clearly showing the readers that this bill is the right thing and should be passed. Governor Perry agreed, and in July, he signed senate bill 93, also known as “The Hazlewood Legacy Act.” It is a great thing that Gov. Perry signed this bill, and hopefully it will help many veterans and their families get an education and pursue their dreams after sacrificing so much for our country. As van De Putte put it, “ This is not something we give, they have earned it.”

Prop 7

We are approaching the November elections for Constitutional amendments, and as reported by KXAN, one of the propositions that has some people nervous is proposition 7. This proposition will allow members of the Texas State Guard to hold other civil offices. As it is written now, the Constitution prohibits members of public office from being compensated in more than one office. However, there are exceptions to the rule, including practically every other state or national military group, other than the Texas State Guard. The Texas State Guard serves our state, but cannot serve overseas. People opposed to the proposition say that it is a conflict of interest for people to be part of making the budget as well as serving in the Guard. Also, opposition to the proposition includes the argument that members of the Guard should be volunteering to help our state in times of need, and not ask for pay. Those in favor of the proposition on the other hand, say if passed, this amendment will just clear up the misunderstanding and clear the language in the law. I support this proposition, I believe that if members of the Texas Air National Guard, Texas Army National Guard, and other military groups are exempt from the restriction in the Constitution, then the Texas State Guard should be included. They serve our state in times of disaster and deserve to be compensated for that.