My View on Richland Hills Proposition A

Early voting is already underway in the City of Richland Hills for the November 4 General Election. On the ballot is Proposition A, which asks:

“Shall the City of Richland Hills require by ordinance that all police officers and firefighters be paid no less than the average of all salary and benefits paid to equivalent positions in the Cities of Fort Worth, North Richland Hills, Hurst and Haltom City.”

After due consideration, I am declaring my opposition to this proposition. The conversation about fair pay for our first responders is vitally important, and deserves the ongoing attention of the citizens and City Council in setting budget priorities for our city. Let's have open, informed consideration and deliberation and hold our elected officials accountable for the budget decisions they make.

My opposition is not based on a consideration about the current adequacy of the first responder pay scale in Richland Hills.  I take no position here about whether or not the current pay scale is fair. Rather, my opposition is entirely predicated on one paramount principle: I am not willing for our city to legislate away control over a significant portion of our municipal budget and abdicate budget line items to an index of our neighboring cities.

With respect to the citizens who proposed this action, I do not doubt that they did so with good hearts and noble motivation. I agree with them that our city is best served by public service officers who are fairly compensated and have opportunity to develop and advance professionally while in the employ of Richland Hills. If there are concerns as to whether we as a city are appropriately compensating our officers and firefighters, let's have that debate. But let us not, for expediency sake, turn over the city purse strings to the fiat of averaging out salaries from neighboring cities.

Surrendering control of our budget can have unintended long-term, serious, negative consequences. There are too many variables which can impact pay scales in other cities which may have no correlation whatsoever to our city. Much larger cities have different, and often enhanced, police and fire service needs, driven by such factors such as high crime rates, high-crime areas, types of commercial and industrial development and construction, and other community-driven needs which are unique to those cities. Larger departments may unionize or engage in collective bargaining. Merely looking at overall compensation does not take into consideration other factors which accrue to fair pay considerations. Work schedules, work load, retirement policies, etc., are equally important in the calculus but are completely ignored by this proposition, as there is no reasonable way to quantify these other considerations in dollars.

There are other variables which may have a negative impact in the future. For example, consider the recent situation with the City of Dallas Police Department. Because of mismanagement of their retirement fund, there was a wave of early retirements by officers trying to maximize their retirement benefits. This created a staffing vacuum which has required Dallas to revisit police compensation. Were this to happen in Fort Worth or one of our other neighbors and Richland Hills pay was indexed to them, our city would have to make budget adjustments simply because our neighbor failed to take care of their own business.

Under this proposition, every budgetary deliberation in Fort Worth, Haltom City, Hurst, and North Richland Hills becomes material to our city's budget, but we have no voice. In essence, we're declaring “you other cities do what you want with police and firefighter pay, and once you figure it out, let us see the figures so we can calculate what it means to our budget.” That, my dear citizens, is the antithesis of good government and representative democracy.

Advocate for our first responders and hold our council accountable to see that they are paid fairly. But don't give away budgetary control of this line item to our neighbors. Vote “Against” Proposition A. There's a more excellent way to handle our municipal finances.

Birdville Bond Election -- Cary Hancock's Booster Club Campaign

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What Really Matters about Benghazi

On my Truth for Texans blog, I don't normally weigh in on national politics, but there's been so much craziness bantered around about the Benghazi attack and the subsequent handling of it that I feel compelled to do a little truthful analysis.

Let me preface my observations by saying that I have more than a political perspective on this issue. As the father of an active-duty Army officer and as a civilian contractor for the military who has had regular (albeit limited) exposure to the military culture since 2005, I would like to offer a little non-technical military and intelligence community perspective in addition to political analysis.

The Benghazi attack is a legitimate issue for a variety of reasons, but it seems conservatives are focusing on the wrong concerns. Let's look first at what is most likely NOT a legitimate issue, and then we'll look at those issues that are legitimate.

DEFENDING THE EMBASSY AND AMERICAN PERSONNEL

One of the most well-written, comprehensive, and politically neutral reports regarding the attack and how it was defended against comes from Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/11/02/officials-counter-benghazi-attack-reports.html). It provides a very clear and concise timeline of what was a chaotic night in real time. As I read it objectively, the story unfolds precisely as one would expect in the context of combat resulting from a well-planned surprise attack against a secured installation. I don't profess the military knowledge of a trained warrior, but in layman's terms, we could break down the event like this:

Prior to 9:40p -- Surprise attack by militants against embassy compound

9:40p -- embassy calls to nearby CIA compound for support and evacuation

9:40p-10:05p -- CIA personnel plan rescue in context of facing a force which is superior in arms and personnel, and which has tactical advantage because of the element of surprise. Part of CIA plan is to include Libyan security forces in response, which will provide heavy weaponry and additional personnel to neutralize the tactical advantages of the attackers. Contemporaneously, a second CIA response team is scrambled from Tripoli, over 400 miles away by air. Special Operations forces from Europe are already on heightened alert due to the 9/11 anniversary, but they are not on standby. They are ordered to muster and move to Sigonella AFB in Italy for potential deployment. The Defense Department scrambles an unarmed Predator drone and sends it to monitor the scene.

10:05p-11:30p -- Unable to secure Libyan regulars as reinforcements, the CIA security team initiates a rescue attempt. They are outgunned and outmanned, but under complete operational autonomy on the ground, they are able to reach the embassy and begin the rescue.

11:30p-1:00a -- CIA Benghazi Team evacuates embassy personnel by vehicle, taking fire from militants as they depart. Sadly, Ambassador Stevens could not be located and evacuated. The Predator drone arrives on scene to provide real-time monitoring. The attackers pursue the team to the CIA annex, about a mile from the embassy, and continue an extended firefight with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades which finally subsides around 1:00a. At roughly the same time, CIA Tripoli Team lands at Benghazi Airport, but is not able to secure ground transportation by Libyan security forces to take them to the combat zone.

1:00a-5:00a -- While CIA Benghazi Team secures the annex and protects the rescued embassy personnel, CIA Tripoli Team scrambles to acquire ground transportation and other support to mount a search and rescue for Ambassador Stevens. After several hours, they are finally able to secure transportation, but have learned that Stevens is likely dead at a local hospital and the security situation there is "troublesome." The team heads to the CIA annex to reinforce CIA Benghazi Team.

after 5:00a -- CIA Tripoli Team arrives at CIA annex, and shortly thereafter the annex comes under an intense mortar attack. The defenders return fire, but two are killed by a mortar round. After 11 minutes, the mortar attack ends.

around 6:00a -- A heavily armed Libyan military unit finally arrives at the annex to provide support and security. The American contingent is evacuated to Benghazi Airport and flown out of country.

It is important to note that the battle flow represented above makes perfect sense in real time. There are no obvious delays or dereliction of duties on the part of the Americans. There is significant malfeasance on the part of Libyan security, who failed to provide QRF support (quick reaction force) in the initial moments of the attack, failed to provide timely transportation and support for the CIA Tripoli Team, and failed to provide heavy weapons and personnel to quell the attack until the fighting was over.

Notice that nowhere in this timeline and narrative is there any real opportunity for the highest levels of the chain of command -- The White House, NSA, CIA, State Department, or Defense Department -- to intervene in either a positive way by engaging other assets or in a negative way by withholding them. In that sense, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is correct to refer to speculation about battle management as "Monday-morning quarterbacking."

Given the realities of how the battle unfolded, both sides of the political aisle should do nothing but commend the CIA operatives and other American personnel who courageously engaged the enemy and saved lives. Without their efforts, the outcome could have been much, much more grave. It is also inappropriate for conservatives to question specifics of how the battle was carried out unless there is clear and unequivocal evidence that there was failure of command. Given the facts as now presented, I find it highly unlikely that such is the case.

So, if there is nothing to criticize in how the battle was fought, what are the legitimate issues that are worthy of further investigation and explanation? Consider the questions that follow.


WHY WAS THERE A SHORTAGE OF ASSETS SUFFICIENT TO REPEL AND DEFEND THE ATTACK?

It's not reasonable to criticize the mobilization of American assets as the battle unfolded. The CIA Benghazi Team responded timely. The CIA Tripoli Team was mobilized timely. The DoD deployed a Predator drone to the scene in a timely fashion. Special Operations assets were scrambled in Europe in real time. Let's not challenge the use of assets. However, there are other actions regarding assets that are highly questionable.

First, a major contributing factor to the chaos on the ground was our detrimental reliance on Libyan security forces to serve as the QRF and as the most substantial elements of defense. Unfortunately, the realities of international politics is that it would have been unacceptable for the USA to have heavy weaponry and military personnel stationed in Libya. In a way, we were diplomatically encumbered to defer to the Libyans for this level of support. But, where were they when we needed them most?

If the Libyan forces were unreliable, what could we have done to be better prepared to respond with American assets? First, there is a standing question whether we had willfully reduced our security capacity in the months prior to the attack, and whether those reductions were ill-advised given the potential threats? We knew there was a heightened threat due to the 9/11 anniversary; rather than merely putting our forces on higher alert status, should we have had our own Special Operations units loaded up on standby, ready to take flight on a moment's notice to places of trouble?

While it seems that we were caught short-handed and outgunned, it is unreasonable to expect Special Ops teams to be sitting on the tarmac in anticipation of potential trouble. That's just not the way the military and intelligence communities work. However, I would like a good answer why we had so few security personnel available, and why we couldn't arrange transportation from the airport at the very least.

Finally, as the battle unfolded, should we have responded unilaterally with air support? To this, I can answer absolutely not. Even had we flown in fighter jets from Italy, there were no clearly defined targets to hit, and no action on the ground to tactically support. This was basically a renegade siege. Even if the US had requested and received permission from the Libyan government to use air support, there was no bona fide tactical opportunity to do so.

WAS OUR CAPACITY SUFFICIENT IN LIGHT OF THE AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE AND THREAT LEVEL?

This question is necessary to ask, but difficult to answer publicly because of the classified nature of the intelligence. Did we really know an attack was being planned? Did we have intelligence on the size, scope and nature of the attack in advance? Was there a lack of intelligence, was there faulty intelligence, or was it fragmented intelligence for which the dots were never connected? Or, was the intelligence available but not acted on appropriately higher up the chain of command?

I believe these are all reasonable and necessary questions to ask, but once again I don't see an obvious intelligence failure from what we know so far.

WHY DID THE WHITE HOUSE PERSISTENTLY ADVANCE THE NARRATIVE THAT THE ATTACK WAS IN RESPONSE TO AN OFFENSE TO ISLAM?

For me, this is the most significant question with which the Obama Administration needs to be confronted. None of the explanations offered so far make any sense in light of what we know. I cannot accept the Administration's suggestion that the movie protest was the best explanation at the time, because there has already been too much evidence to reveal that such an explanation was at best highly dubious, given the collection of contemporaneous information that has already been made public.

Some have conjectured that the motivation to advance the false narrative was strictly political, a kind of universal denial that terrorism against the USA still exists. That scenario makes no sense to me, because all Americans, and particularly swing voters, know we are still at risk. And frankly, the President could have made himself look strong and assertive to those voters by being out front on this attack and promising a definitive response.

Some have also hinted that the fictional narrative was advanced as a way to protect the classified intelligence on the attackers, giving our intelligence and military community a strategic advantage in identifying and locating the bad guys so they can be permanently removed. Once again, I find this theory implausible, because there were too many witnesses to the attack, too many news sources through which the true story would be unfolded, for the Administration to get any reasonable intelligence advantage from a well-crafted prevarication.

All this leaves only one other viable theory as I see it: due to some degree of incompetence, the Administration simply couldn't put together all the pieces of information to come up with an accurate assessment. Given the demonstrations at the US Embassy in Egypt on the same day, elements of the Administration simply assumed that the two events were similarly conceived and motivated. It was the easiest explanation without getting to the bottom of the story. If this scenario is the actual one, it calls into question the most fundamental competencies of the Obama Administration.

Going forward, let's push for answers to the questions that matter, rather than engaging in conjecture and criticism about the tactical specifics of a battle that was not of our choosing.

TX House 91 – Ken Sapp: All-American at Intellectual Dishonesty

My dear friend Jim Sutton has been reading my blog posts, and he believes that I have shown favoritism to and bias for Mr. Sapp in my posts. I take Jim's rejoinder to heart. Some of my word choices in the previous posts were meant to be witty, a bit satirical, and entertaining. Instead they may have come across as snarky. My apologies. To demonstrate to Jim that I am equally hard on every candidate, I share this post, with the observation that you will not find the name of the other candidate in the District 91 race anywhere in this article.

Before the candidates began to announce their run for the District 91 seat, as a concerned citizen I decided to do as much research on them as possible before the record began to get tainted and colored by the various claims of the campaigns. (DISCLAIMER: Because of political connections I have, I already knew the names of each of the ultimate candidates in late December 2011 or early January 2012.) As I researched Sapp, I came across these self-penned articles from 2004-2005:

http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/04_12_07sappcolumn.htm

http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/05_03_17sapp.htm
http://www.localnewsonly.com/01newlno/nrh/05_03_11sapp.htm

I found the last article to be particularly noxious. He is in total attack mode against those he opposes. His attacks use pejorative and spurious arguments, trigger words, and absurd hypothetical extremes. He sets the tone early in the article by accusing the opposition of having ties to the Libertarian Party, but he never offers any evidence to support the accusation. Then, in his most condescending professorial tone, he instructs the reader:

“Libertarians support very limited government (some call it anarchy). They believe individual citizens should have absolutely no restrictions on use of their personal property and should not be required to support societal issues.”

I won't take time to dissect this statement for all the ways it is untrue, misleading, and mean. This is not the kind of well-reasoned, insightful, intellectually honest discourse that adds value to the community. Rather, it's the ugly side of politics that has become cancerous to the Republic – a rhetorical scorched-earth approach.

When I read these articles, even before Sapp had declared as a candidate for the race, I concluded that I could not support him on matter of principle. I want more from my leaders. I have purposed in my heart that I will hold my elected officials to a higher standard of honesty and integrity. I encourage all my readers to join me in this crusade.

In conclusion, many may ask the question “to what standard we should hold our candidates?” Is it some high and lofty, unattainable standard? I don't think so. Here are the two tests that I use to judge the integrity of political statements:

1. Could I make that statement personally and still be able to look in the eyes my wife, my children, my friends, my neighbors, my pastor, my co-workers, my clients, and my elderly parents?
2. If my child made the statement, would I accept it from them as being true, accurate and fair?

If we began to put the claims of Sapp and all other candidates for office to this two-fold test, I wonder how many of their statements would pass?

PENALTIES: For myself being snarky in previous posts, I get a reprimand from the league office for blowing calls. For Sapp, I'm warning all my officials to pay special attention to him on the field because he plays dirty.

TX House 91 – More Sapp-y Rhetoric and Klick-it or Ticket

I had no idea a House race for an open seat could get this pricey, nasty, and crazy all at the same time. The mailbox has been full the last two days with ads from both Stephanie Klick and Ken Sapp, almost all negative. Let's take a look at the issue of RESIDENCY.

Klick is infuriated by Sapp's alleged “false claim that I just moved into the district” (July 26 campaign letter). The problem is that I have not seen, read or heard Sapp make that claim. He has said in his ads that Klick “has only lived in the district for four months” (various mailers). There is a huge difference between those two statements. If Sapp said the former, it's an outright lie, and I'm open to anyone supplying evidence to support Klick's claim. However, if he said the latter, it's a true statement. While one can argue whether Klick has lived in the district for 4 months or 17 months, she has not lived in the district any longer than April of 2011 at most. Klick defends herself in her letter by saying “I have lived in the same home for 12 years, and my home is in District 91” (July 26 letter). That's a true statement, but doesn't really help clear up the issue.

Here's a press release from Stephanie's campaign that will help us understand: http://tcgop.org/stephanie-klick-announces-run-for-hd-101/. This is the press release from November 22, 2011, declaring her candidacy for State Representative – DISTRICT 101. What?!? Eight months ago Klick was running for a seat in the neighboring district to the West of District 91?!? Somebody help me out here!!!

OK, friends, let's peel the layers off this very stinky onion. Yes, it's true that the Klicks have lived in their current home for 12 years. But, their home has not always been in District 91. In the previous decade, their home was part of District 98, which was primarily Far North Tarrant County, including Keller, Southlake, and Grapevine. It did not include most of North Richland Hills, Richland Hills, Haltom City, and Watauga – the heart of District 91 for decades. When the State Legislature redrew the various district lines in the 2011 legislative session, Klick's precinct was added to District 91 (thus my 17-month figure above).

The redistricting maps were immediately subjected to a plethora of lawsuits seeking changes to the lines. One of those maps was given interim approval by the courts, which then placed Klick's precinct in “HD 101, a newly-drawn district which includes the cities of Azle, Blue Mound, Ft. Worth, Haltom City, Haslet, Keller, Pelican Bay, and Saginaw” (from the November 2011 press release). At that point, Stephanie decided to announce her candidacy for the new District 101. However, the courts weren't through, and ultimately redrew the lines again in March 2012. On the last revision, Klick's precinct was moved into District 91 for the 2012 election cycle (the basis for Sapp's 4-month figure). Therefore, Stephanie changed her candidacy from HD 101 to HD 91. Exhausted yet? Wait, there's more.

Klick was raised in Richland Hills. She went to TCU. She has worked and lived in Tarrant County a long time. I can't find anything on where she lived and what she did between graduating from TCU in 1981 and moving to her present home and becoming a Republican Party officer in 2000. On the other hand, Klick accuses Sapp of hypocrisy on the issue because he “just moved to North Richland Hills in 2001, moving here from Chicago and Connecticut” (July 26 letter). Oh my goodness; now we know the problem! It's not that Sapp is a tax-and-spend liberal (that's another debate), it's that he's a – (gasp) – Yankee!!! Unfortunately, there's a little problem with Klick's narrative on this.

Sapp was raised in Fort Worth and graduated from Castleberry High School in 1963. I can't find information about where he lived or what he did from 1963 to 1987. From 1987 to 2001, he was an insurance company executive in Illinois and Connecticut. He moved back to Tarrant County in 2001 where he has been a business owner, active in the community, and served on the North Richland Hills City Council. I don't know how long he was gone from Texas – a fate worse than death for Lone Stars – but he came home to his roots in 2001. To portray his years in the North as anything more than his being a professional expatriate is a bit disingenuous. I would really like to know if the Klicks ever resided outside the Land of Contrast for professional or personal reasons? Those in the know can help me on this.

The real issue about residency that the candidates should be debating is “who can best represent District 91?” Both candidates have deep Tarrant County roots. One can argue whose roots are deepest, but no one can legitimately claim that either of these candidates are not native sons (or daughters, as the case may be). Ken was gone a long time. That's a fair concern. He's been back a long time. Is is long enough? That's a fair question. Stephanie has lived in Tarrant County a long time. But her primary community has been outside District 91. How well does she know NRH/RH/HC/Watauga? How in tune is she with the unique local needs of the district? That's a fair question. How about we ask these questions of both candidates until we get a satisfactory answer instead of the barrage of weak charges and counter-charges about where they live and for how long?

To officiate this contest, I'm going to call this an off-the-field issue. Both candidates are at the end of the six weeks and are on the verge of flunking out. If so, we'll have to enforce the “no pass, no play” rule.

TX House District 91 -- Sapp and Klick get Flagged

This is from my dear friend Rachel Sutton, a Republican stalwart and wife of Councilman Jim Sutton of Haltom City:

...Ken sent out two large flyers to Rep. primary voters in this district. One stated that Stephanie has only lived in the district for 4 months. David, ...she has lived in the same house for, I'm guessing, 8-10 years at least. She didn't move, the redistricting is what put her in this new district. She's still in the same community and quite involved in it. Ken is "technically" telling the truth, but it was said to mislead people. She is likely more aware of the community than Ken, having been the Tarrant Cty. party chair for the last number of years. I have stayed out of bashing Dewhurst and bashing Ken, but when I got that flyer, that made me mad. And not just me. We had friends calling and stopping by our house very frustrated by this plot.

Also, Ken has been stating that he has not raised taxes in NRH. Again, technically he is correct. However, he has failed to state that the property taxes in NRH have continued to increase every year, but the council, of which he is a voting... participant as councilman, continues to keep the tax RATE the same - effectively raising the taxes on the citizens every year. Jim is on council in HC, so we understand why cities do that, but to state that he's never voted to increase taxes is a misnomer...

Let's take a look at the facts here:

1. Sapp's claim that Klick has only lived in District 91 for 4 months
Klick lives in the Park Glen area of Far North Fort Worth in the Keller ISD.  Their house was built in 1999 and they bought it and moved in in March 2000 (SOURCE: public records).  Klick was raised in the area and has lived here most, if not all, of her life.  While it is true that her precinct was recently added to District 91 in the decennial redistricting, it's misleading to leave the inference that she's only recently moved to the area.  If Sapp wants to make a case that he's more in tune with 91 because he's in North Richland Hills (the heart of the district, without dispute), make that case.  Adding to the foul is the 4-month number.  The Federal Appeals Court mandated the final district boundaries in February 2012, which is the basis for Sapp's timeline.  But, Klick's precinct was added to 91 by the State Legislature in April 2011, and ultimately the court upheld that boundary, so at worst, Sapp would have to at least acknowledge that Klick has lived in District 91 for 14 months.

PENALTY: 5 YARDS FOR ENCROACHMENT, PLUS 5 YARDS FOR DELAY OF GAME.

2. Klick's claim that Sapp "worked to defeat tax relief for citizens."
Klick has put out multiple mailers with variations of this charge: "Do you support Tax Relief? Ken Sapp says you're not a conservative!"; "Ken Sapp worked to defeat tax relief for citizens."  At issue is the property tax freeze for homeowners 65 and older in North Richland Hills.  Sapp opposed the tax freeze on the very intellectually honest and mathematically defensible position that freezing taxes on one sub-set of taxpayers (over 65) would unfairly shift additional tax burden to other taxpayers, such as young families and businesses.  Sapp made very good, strong, well-reasoned conservative arguments for his position.  Klick can argue that Sapp's position was wrong, and that tax freezes for seniors are in fact solid conservative fiscal policy (which, by the way, I've never heard her say).  But it's not truthful to say that Sapp "worked to defeat tax relief."  In reality, he was working to protect the interests of his constituents who would be additionally taxed by an unfair, regressive tax policy.  Neither did Sapp accuse those who supported the tax freeze as being "not conservative."  His point was that opposing the freeze was the most intellectually consistent position for conservative ideology, and conservatives who supported the freeze didn't fully understand it. (To Klick's credit, on at least one of her pieces, she included this quote from Sapp: "So any conservative that supported this law didn't understand it.")

PENALTY: 5 YARDS FOR ILLEGAL FORMATION

3. Klick's claim that Sapp "voted to support a push for higher gas taxes."
At issue is a vote by the North Richland Hills City Council to support SB 855 in the 2009 State legislative session.  SB 855 would allow Metroplex voters to vote for highway projects that would be funded by designated gasoline tax revenues which would be used only to fund the specific project and would sunset once the project was paid for.  Think of it like cities and school districts that put bond elections before the citizens to allow them decide whether or not to spend the money for a new project.  Sapp's vote in support of the City of North Richland Hills' position was a vote to give citizens a right to decide at the ballot box for themselves, not "a push for higher gas taxes."  This claim is like saying that when the Fort Worth City Council voted to support thestate legislation that allowed the City of Arlington to help fund Cowboys Stadium with increased hotel taxes, the Fort Worth City Council "voted to support a push for higher hotel taxes."  This one is 100% intellectually dishonest in my mind.

PENALTY: 15 YARDS FOR UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT

4. Sapp's claim that he never voted to raise taxes in NRH.
At issue here is how to define "tax increase".  Does it mean hard dollars of total revenue brought into the city?  If that's the case, then one has to take the position that any year-over-year increase in the budget is a tax increase.  This position is absurd on its face.  Let's say there is a little city somewhere with a $100,000 annual budget.  All of a sudden, Ross Perot Jr. comes to their city and builds a major subdivision that doubles the number of homes in town, doubles the number of residents, and triples the total property value for the city.  If the City Council adds these new homes to the tax rolls the annual budget jumps to $300,000, have they voted for a tax increase?  There are about 178 other ways to look at this question, but all lead to the same conclusion: Sapp's claim is true to the extent that the claim can even be evaluated.

PENALTY: NO FOUL -- PICKED UP THE FLAG AND WAVED OFF THE PENALTY

Your thoughts, please.  And please, send me more campaign lies to expose!!!  Next up should be David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz.

Truth for Texans -- A Blog for Political Integrity

Friends, the time has come. I can stand it no longer. People running for political office are manipulating, stretching, coloring and distorting the truth with such regularity and panache that it is time to call out the liars.

This blog is apolitical. We do not exist to take one side or the other in the political debate. Rather, we are the referees, umpires, officiating the game and enforcing penalties when we see an infraction. This game has one and only one rule: tell the truth. If you break the rule, you will get flagged.

There are many different ways to lie; some are more nuanced and marginal, others are obvious and egregious. The type, manner and severity of the lie will dictate the penalty received. For now, we shall use a football metaphor, although we may change sports metaphors later. So here are the levels of penalty that can be enforced:

5 yards -- a relatively minor infraction that doesn't necessarily directly impact the outcome of the play, such as illegal procedure, illegal formation, delay of game, etc.

10 yards -- a moderate infraction that can directly impact the outcome of the play, such as holding, interference, etc.

15 yards -- a serious infraction that shows disregard for the rules and could result in injury to other players, such as clipping, late hit, unsportsmanlike conduct, roughing the passer, etc.

Ejection -- an egregious infraction that not only show callous disregard for the rules but also potentially causes injury and expresses being so out of control the offender needs to leave the field.

Multi-Game Suspension -- an offense either on or off the field that shows a continual pattern of rules violations that warrant being separated from the sport for a period of time.

Now that I've outlined the rules and penalties, please send me examples of campaign literature, TV and radio ads, e-mails, scripts, audio/video clips of candidates, or anything else that you think needs to be reviewed for violations. Let's take back Texas by demanding truth from our leaders.