Kudos to State Senator Buddy Shaw (R) Shreveport, for his tenacity in opposing an amendment that would effectively kill Senate Bill 87, the bill he authored to repeal the Stelly Tax.

According to an article in The Advocate, the Jindal administration opposed Shaw’s bill, citing inability of the state to afford the tax cuts.

I agree with Shaw, if Jindal can push for, and obtain tax breaks for businesses in past special sessions, Jindal surely should be agreeable to support immediate tax relief for working middle class Louisiana families who have been bludgeoned by Stelly - my own family included.

What a bitter disappointment.

[Courtesy of Michael Zak, author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party]

“For decades after the Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. Klansmen murdered hundreds of Republican activists and office- holders, including U.S. Representative James Hinds (R-Arkansas).

On this day in 1871, the Republican-controlled 42nd Congress passed and the Republican President, Ulysses Grant, signed into law the Ku Klux Klan Act. The law banned the KKK and other Democrat terrorist organizations. President Grant then deployed federal troops to crush a Klan uprising in South Carolina.

Eleven years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned most provisions of the Act. Though legalized, this original version of the Ku Klux Klan soon faded. Why? Because as Democrats regained control over southern state governments, they could oppress African-Americans openly, without need of sheets.

Republicans today would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party.”

{If you believe that Louisiana residents should have the right to transport and store firearms in their vehicles, you need to contact local state Senators Buddy Shaw and Robert Adley. They serve on the committee which will be considering a law next Thursday that will supercede employer prohibitions against firearms in vehicles in their parking lots. The story is linked below, along with contact information for Shaw and Adley.}

From NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

“On Thursday, April 24, the Senate Transportation, Highways & Public Works Committee will consider Senate Bill 51, the NRA-backed “Motorists’ Protection Act” sponsored by State Senator Joe McPherson (D-Woodworth). SB 51 would clarify that current state law allowing Louisianans the right to protect themselves, and to possess lawfully owned firearms in their private motor vehicles…”[Story HERE]

If any VTR readers know where Caddo Commissioners, the Bossier City Council, and the Bossier Police Jury stand on the issue of asking about immigration status, please pass the info along to VTR.

Meanwhile, the parents of Jamiel Shaw, the Los Angeles High School football star who was murdered by illegal alien gang members, have begun an effort to rescind the Los Angeles ordinance which prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about the immigration status of people it detains or arrests.

On this day in 1866, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.

The purpose of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party’s 13th Amendment.

Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African- Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Republicans thereby granted African-Americans the right to own property, engage in business, sign contracts and file lawsuits.

This was the first time Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.

Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960’s civil rights movement.

Republicans today would benefit tremendously from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party.

Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country. He is the author of Back to Basics for the Republican Party, his acclaimed history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds more articles are available on the Grand Old Partisan blog — http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com — each day celebrating 154 years of Republican heroes and heroics. See www.republicanbasics.com for more information.

Michael Zak shows Republican office-holders, candidates, and activists how they would benefit tremendously from knowing and appreciating our Party’s heritage of civil rights achievement. His book, Back to Basics for the Republican Party, is the acclaimed history of the GOP cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision.

Contact Mr. Zak to invite him to speak at conventions, fundraisers, and other Republican events.
Click here for more information

Just ran across the text of a speech given by Charlton Heston in 1999, to students at an ivy league school. Absolutely worth a few minutes of your time!

Charlton Heston died this past Saturday at the age of 84. He loved freedom, stood for morality, loved his wife of 64 years (a rarity in Hollywood), and served his country during time of war.

I’ll miss Charlton Heston, but I’m absolutely certain that he’s having a blast with his old friend, Ronald Reagan.

Doug Patton has a great tribute HERE.

[Interesting article from the Public Affairs Research Council]

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), state legislative bodies can be categorized into three general groups. Eleven states have “professional” legislatures, which generally require 80 percent or more of the legislator’s time and pay their legislators enough that most of them would not require outside income. Seventeen states have “citizen” legislatures, which require 50 percent or less of the legislator’s time to be devoted to legislative work. Legislative compensation in these states is quite low. The 22 remaining states, including Louisiana, have “hybrid” legislatures that typically require two-thirds of a legislator’s time. Although the income in hybrid legislatures is higher than that of citizen legislatures, it is usually not high enough to be a sole source of income.

Effective July 1, 2007, the per diem rate increases to $138. Legislators will then receive a minimum of $8,280 for a full 60-calendar-day, odd-year session or $11,730 for a full 85-calendar day, even-year session.

Assuming an average of six “special session” days per year and 22 days per year in which a legislator must attend interim committee meetings, Louisiana’s average legislative pay after July 1, 2007 would be:

Average Legislative Pay

Odd-number years, and Even-number years
Annual salary
Odd years $16,800
Even years $16,800

Unvouchered expense allowance
Odd years $6,000
Even years $6,000

Average annual per diem (regular sessions)
Odd years $8,280
Even years $11,730

Average annual per diem (special sessions)
Odd years $828
Even years $828

Average per diem for interim meetings
Odd years $3,036
Even years $3,036

Total
Odd years $34,944
Even years $38,394

According to the NCSL 2007 data, average legislator compensation (including salary, per diem and unvouchered expenses) is $68,599 in professional legislatures, $35,326 in hybrid legislatures like Louisiana’s, and $15,984 in citizen legislatures.

Mileage and Travel-Related Allowances
2006 CSG data indicate that 47 states, including Louisiana, provide mileage reimbursement to legislators. Reimbursements range from $0.10 to $0.485 per mile. Hawaii and New Jersey do not offer any mileage reimbursement. California provides members with a vehicle in lieu of mileage reimbursement.

For 2007, Louisiana legislators are reimbursed $0.485 cents a mile for round trips to legislative sessions (no more than one per week) and interim committee meetings. Commercial coach air fare is allowed if a legislator lives more than 100 miles from the capitol. The mileage rate is the same as that for federal employees.

Members are reimbursed expenses surrounding conference and convention travel provided the travel is approved in advance and is in furtherance of the conduct of holding of office. Reimbursements may include registration fees, lodging and air fare or mileage. The per diem (above) provided during attendance is intended to cover all other travel-related expenses.

The president of the Senate and speaker of the House receive an expense account of up to $10,000 per year to cover their travel, lodging and other travel-related expenses.

District Office Allowances
Legislators receive up to $500 per month (vouchered) to pay rent and utility expenses to maintain an office in the parish(es) they represent. In addition, they receive a one-time allowance of $2,000 for office equipment and furnishings for their first term in office. Legislators also receive $500 for equipment and furnishings in each subsequent term.

Each member is provided with a desktop computer for his or her district office and a laptop computer in the Capitol during session. High-speed Internet access and up to three phone lines are also provided to each district office.

Each state representative and senator is entitled to a supplemental office allowance of up to $1,500 per month for other vouchered expenses related to the operation of the district office and performance of duties as a legislator. This expense allowance is used to pay for district office telephone lines, office equipment and supplies, and other approved reimbursable expenses. The House and Senate Executive Committees set the maximum amount of this allowance annually.

Legislative Assistants
Each legislator may hire one or more legislative assistants who are employed as unclassified state employees. The legislator sets the salary and qualification levels for their assistant(s).

The total amount available to the legislator for salaries varies from $2,000 to $3,000 monthly based on the employee’s years of service as a legislative assistant or the employing legislator’s years of service as a legislator. Legislative staff who are at the $3,000 salary cap receive a 4% step increase in their salary limit for each subsequent year of service.

Health and Retirement Benefits
Legislative members are eligible to participate in health insurance and life insurance plans provided by the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB.) The state pays approximately 75 percent of the member’s portion of the premium and approximately 50 percent of the premium for the member’s dependents. Legislators are eligible to keep their benefits when they leave office only if they have retired or meet the definition of retirement as provided by the OGB Rules.

The legislative Office of Human Resources offers members additional health benefits such as vision and dental coverage, however, the members themselves are responsible for payment of those premiums.

Legislative members are not eligible to participate in, or receive credit for service in, any public retirement system sponsored by the state of Louisiana, unless the member was serving on January 1, 1997, or participating in a public retirement system at that time. Retirement benefits earned are 3.5 percent of the member’s salary per year, which is 1 percent more than other state employees.

Housing and Housing Allowances
The president of the Senate and speaker of the House receive up to $1,000 per month to maintain a residence in Baton Rouge.

Some lawmakers are allowed to rent an apartment at the Pentagon Barracks complex, across the street from the State Capitol in Baton Rouge. The president of the Senate and speaker of the House decide which of the 144 legislators will be granted the opportunity to stay in the 40-unit complex. The decision normally turns on seniority, committee chair appointments and other duties, and individual need. One-bedroom units rent for $300 per month; two-bedroom units rent for $375 per month. Legislators renting the units are responsible for payment of the monthly rent.

[Courtesy of Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries]

“A friend of ours was recently job hunting and came across an advertised opening at Planned Parenthood. Though she wasn’t interested in the job there, she was interested in the terminology used in Planned Parenthood’s self-description that follows:

Planned Parenthood offers high-quality health care, including birth control and family planning, gynecological care, STI/STD testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, and abortion services. Our providers prevent an estimated 617,000 unintended pregnancies annually, helping to ensure that everyone has the right to choose when or whether to have a child, and that every child is wanted and loved. We advocate for expanded access to these services, drawing on a base of 3.5 million activists and supporters. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive health care needs.

Helping to ensure that “everyone” has the right to choose? What about the baby being aborted. Does she have a right to choose whether she will live, grow up and be able to make a million other choices, including about having children herself?

Ensuring that “every child is wanted and loved”? What about all the children whose lives are taken by Planned Parenthood’s “abortion services”? Are they being wanted and loved as they are mercilessly torn apart in the womb?

I deal with this in my books Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments and Why Prolife? But here is my response to the motto of Planned Parenthood: “Every Child a Wanted Child”:

There are unwanted pregnancies, but there is no such thing as an unwanted child. While certain people may not want them, not only does God want them, but other people desperately want them.

Nearly 1.3 million American families want to adopt, some so badly that the scarcity of adoptable babies is a source of major depression. There’s such a demand for babies that a black market has developed where babies are sold for as much as $50,000. Not just “normal” babies are wanted; many people request special-needs babies, including those with Down syndrome and spina bifida.

Many children who are at first unwanted by their mothers are very much wanted later in the pregnancy, and even more at birth. Unfortunately, many women who would have wanted the child by their sixth month of pregnancy get an abortion in their third month.

Furthermore, many children wanted at birth are not wanted when they are crying at 2:00 A.M. six weeks later. Shall whether or not the parents want the baby still deter­mine whether she deserves to live? If that’s a legitimate standard before birth, why not after?

The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children. But it’s a poor argument for killing them.

One of the most misleading aspects of pro-choice argumentation is making it appear that abortion is in the best interests of the baby. This is so absurd as to be laughable, were it not so tragic. A little person is torn limb from limb, for her benefit? Similarly, slave owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of the Africans. (Who are we kidding?)

People say, “I can’t have this child because I can’t give it a good life.” And what is their solution to not being able to give him a good life? To take from her the only life she has.

So what about that wonderful Planned Parenthood slogan that looks so nice on a bumper sticker: “Every Child a Wanted Child”?

Unwanted describes not the child but an attitude of some adults toward the child. The real problem isn’t unwanted children, but unwanting adults.

“Wanting” is simply one person’s subjective and changeable feeling toward another. The “unwanted” child is a real person regardless of anyone else’s feelings toward her. A woman’s worth was once judged by whether or not a man wanted her. A child’s worth is now judged by whether or not her mother wants her. Both of these are tragic injustices.

So Planned Parenthood’s slogan, “Every child a wanted child,” is something we should all agree with. Where we will disagree is in the proper way to finish the sentence. How do you think the sentence should be finished?

1) Every child a wanted child, so… let’s place children in homes
where they are wanted, and let’s learn to want children more.

2) Every child a wanted child, so… let’s identify unwanted children
before they’re born and kill them by abortion.

Everyone agrees that children should be wanted. The only question is this: Should we get rid of the unwanting or get rid of the children?

When it comes to the unborn, the abortion rights position is more accurately expressed in a different slogan, one that wouldn’t look so good on a bumper-sticker:

“Every unwanted child a dead child.”