Author Archives

This Country Needs More Mike Leach’s


As a partisan alum I have always enjoyed Texas Tech football.  However, given the inherent challenges of location, funding and stature consistent gridiron success has been elusive.  That all began to change when an eccentric young coach named Mike Leach was tapped to succeed the iconic Spike Dykes in 2000. Over the next 10 years the Red Raiders would achieve thee 8-win seasons, four 9-win seasons and one 11-win season.  Leach ran a clean program and his players had the third highest graduation rate in the Big 12. Then, in an inexplicable debacle too painful to retell Texas Tech fired their most successful coach of all time.


There is no question that Mike Leach revolutionized college football offenses with his Air Raid passing attack.  Even NFL offensive-coordinators began quietly ordering his game films.  However, Leach’s innovative offensive scheme was only one aspect of his genius.  He rejected all popular wisdom that couldn’t survive rigorous analysis.  He seldom punted on 4th down because he knew mathematical probability was on the side of an unpredictable offense. This practice has become much more common because of Leach’s pioneering. He was also an amazing strategist and tactician who designed game plans that frustrated his opponents.  Lastly, he taught his players that tireless preparation and flawless execution would allow them to defeat more talented teams which they often did.


Coach Leach challenged establishment consensus and refused to allow others to dictate the way he would play the game.  He also refused to allow anyone to force him to make statements he didn’t believe.  In 2009 Leach refused to apologize for allegedly abusing a player who he didn’t believe had been mistreated at all.  This led to his dismissal at the end of the season. He was also unwilling to allow anyone to muzzle his right to free speech. Prior to the 2020 election Mike publicly supported President Donald Trump for re-election.  He was questioned at a press conference as to whether it was appropriate for him to do so. He responded by calmly stating that he defended the right of others to support the candidate of their choice and to demonstrate peacefully if they so choose.  However, he continued, he certainly was going to publicly support his candidate and that if this was no longer allowed then “I live in a different country than I was told I lived in.” Speaking one’s mind and refusing to recite coerced proclamations are uniquely American attitudes that distinguish citizens from subjects.


Mike Leach departed this life last week and the loss has rippled through the sports world and the broader culture.  Unique intellects like him are rare and their lives are worth examining.  Afterall, we want a country that engenders more free-thinking innovators and fewer robotic script-readers.  However, many of our leaders prefer the comfort of consensus to the rigor of debate.  They censure anyone who challenges their conventions. If Americans submit to woke orthodoxy and sheepishly tolerate restrictions upon their first amendment liberties, they should be prepared to accept mediocrity, conformity and ultimately serfdom. The current societal acceptance of approved speech, forbidden thoughts and mandated declarations attempt to stack the deck against men and women like Mr. Leach. But more independent thinkers and courageous truth-tellers are needed today more than ever.



Posted on December 19th, 2022 by admin  |  Comments Off on This Country Needs More Mike Leach’s

Why I Will Vote for Senator Ted Cruz

The US Senate is the most important legislative body in the world. The “upper chamber” confirms judges and major presidential appointments, ratifies treaties, adjudicates impeachment and can kill any bill that it doesn’t want the President to sign.  Republicans control the current Senate by one vote. If they suffer a net loss of two seats then Chuck Schumer of New York will control the agenda of the Senate at least until 2020.  On November 6thTexans will chose between two candidates who are very close in age (46 and 47 years old) but couldn’t be more different in policy.  If re-elected, Senator Cruz will vote for Mitch McConnell (R/KY) to continue as the Republican Leader when the 116thCongress convenes on January 3, 2019.  If elected, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s first official act as a Senator will be to vote for Chuck Schumer (D/NY) to lead the Democrat Party.  Everything else we think we know about Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is less important than his choice of Senator Schumer to be the leader of his party and possibly of the entire Senate of the United States.

If control of the Senate shifts to Beto and the Democrats here are some of the results they have promised.  All confirmations of cabinet members, federal judgeships (150 are pending) and Supreme Court Justices will cease.  If the Democrats also gain a majority in the House then President Trump will be impeached. Justice Kavenaugh will be impeached. Justice Thomas may be impeached. The Republican tax cuts will be repealed.  A carbon tax on oil and gas will be passed.  Restrictions on fracking will be enacted. Abortion rights will be expanded. ICE will be abolished.

When Representative O’Rourke speaks in public he intones wonderful themes of being a unifier, finding the middle ground, and reminding us that we are all Americans.  However, when he goes off script he is prone to unrealistic proposals and startling claims that do not comport with the “unifier” image he has so carefully choreographed.   So which Robert Francis O’Rourke are we to believe? How do we know which candidate is the genuine “Beto.”  Since Mr. O’Rourke is a 3 term congressman let’s review his voting record and public statements. Is he truly one who looks for the middle ground and brings opposing factions together?

What about abortion? While in Congress, Representative O’Rourke has in fact voted to remove restrictions on late term abortions (HR 36) and actually co-sponsored legislation (HR 3471) which sought to prohibit the individual states from enacting any pro-life legislation whatsoever. Boasting a 100% NARAL and Planned Parenthood rating O’Rourke is a zealot when it comes to promoting the legal right to end the life of an unborn child.  How will pro-life voters find common ground with Beto’s extreme positions?

What about energy?  O’Rourke’s web site informs that “Beto knowsthat climate change is thedefining existential threat of our time.”  To Beto catastrophic climate change is an undeniable truth not open to differing opinions.  So it is no surprise that Representative O’Rourke is also in favor of rejoining the Paris Climate Accords and reinstating President O’Bama’s Clean Power Plan.  These are draconian measures that would hobble our nation’s energy industry, destroy jobs and impose crushing fuel and utility costs upon Texans. It also explains why Beto has voted against approval of the Keystone Pipeline.  Congressman O’Rourke also voted in favor of a bill that would have imposed a $10/barrel tax on crude oil and recently defended his vote in a televised debate with Senator Cruz. Do these positions sound like “middle ground” to you.  Will the leading energy producing state in the nation be “unified” if represented by a Senator who has a record of working to restrict, handicap and penalize our most important industry?

What about impeachment?  The Democrat Party has made a promise to their voters that if they win control the House of Representatives that articles of impeachment will be delivered to the Senate.  Representative O’Rourke told the Dallas Morning News on October 9ththat if presented with the opportunity, he will vote for the impeachment of President Trump. The democrats have also announced plans to impeach Justice Kavenaugh and are considering impeaching Clarence Thomas.  Justice Thomas is the most conservative jurist on the Supreme Court who was confirmed 28 years ago and happens to be African American.  Is this the new unifying tone that Beto envisions for Washington?

What about health care?  Congressman O’Rourke is an enthusiastic advocate of Obama Care and supports an expansion of government health insurance.  He has proposed a universal single payer system very similar to the plan laid out by Bernie Sanders, the only member of Congress who self-identifies as a socialist.  The left of center Urban Institute has scored O’Rourke’s plan as costing $32 Trillion over the first 10 years and $2.5 Trillion in year one. When the moderator of the October 16thdebate asked how his plan would be funded Beto responded with the familiar Democrat cure all of “raising taxes upon the rich and corporations.”  Cruz pointed out that if the IRS taxed the income of every American earning $1 Million and above at a rate of 100% this would only be sufficient to fund Beto’s plan for five months.  O’Rourke then accused Senator Cruz of engaging in the politics of fear.  No, Cruz was engaging in the politics of arithmetic. The problem with socialist policies is that there is simply not enough money in the world to pay for them.  How do you find middle ground with a politician who rejects basic math and refuses to learn from the painful lessons of Obama Care?

What about immigration?  The United States is home to approximately 50 Million immigrants comprising 15% of the nation’s population. Foreign born residents in the USA have increased by 500% since 1970.  Clearly the US is an inviting and accommodating destination to peoples from across the globe.  But since the 1980s border states in particular have struggled with illegal immigration as well as massive chain migration that has overwhelmed our social services, hospitals, law enforcement and public schools. More recently, we have dealt with a crime wave committed by MS-13, drug cartels, and career criminals not to mention the ongoing threat of terrorism.  Today we face marching hordes of thousands (that have formed coincidentally on the eve of the mid-term elections) from Central America and Mexico who are demanding immediate entry into our country.  When asked about his own immigration solution Beto stated that he would be “open” to abolishing I.C.E.  Really?  You would consider abolishing the agency charged with enforcing the immigration and customs laws of a sovereign nation? [see below]

Representative O’Rourke has since tried to walk back and revise his original statement and now says he would transfer I.C.E. duties to another agency but goes on to say that he doesn’t really know enough about the issues to articulate a policy.  I would say he is trying to have it both ways.

Texas Monthly recently observed that social media is teaming with videos and postings that ridicule Senator Cruz that they found very enjoyable. However, TM noticed that there were no similar videos lampooning Beto.  The writer opined that conservatives are more interested in O’Rourke’s policy positions than “making fun of Beto”.  Well for once Texas Monthly is correct in their assessment of conservatives.  We believe that public policy is serious business.  Much is at stake and too many once free people have exchanged their liberties for promises of “free stuff” based upon math that doesn’t add up from charming politicians.  We evaluate political candidates based upon their voting record and actions, period.

During Representative O’Rourke’s 6 years in the House he has voted with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi 94% of the time.  Regardless of how personally charming you may find O’Rourke and how entertained you may be by his f-bomb laced stump speeches, the policies he has supported in Congress and advocated on the campaign trail have never worked anywhere they have been tried and would be disastrous for our economy, our culture and your children’s future.

Conversely, in 2014 Ted Cruz promised that to the best of his ability he would base his votes in the Senate upon the principles laid out in our Constitution.  He promised that he would stand for those principles regardless of the political winds or even the leadership of his own party.  Over the past four years Senator Cruz has taken numerous positions that may have been unpopular with the political class but kept faith with his constituents.  In so doing he has at times incurred the wrath of Republican leaders and became the target of vicious media attacks. But Ted has been true to his word and has the third highest Conservative Review rating in the Senate.  I have engaged in public policy and worked to elect principled leaders for 42 years beginning with Ronald Reagan.  I have learned that men like Cruz who refuse to conform to the “inside the beltway” customs of career politicians are rare indeed.

I hope you will join me in sending Senator Cruz back to Washington on November 6th.   We can be confident that he will continue be a reliable vote for constitutionalist judges, reasonable immigration policies, robust domestic energy, control of our own medical care and protection of the unborn. Texans need Ted Cruz in Washington more than ever!


Kyle Stallings























Posted on October 30th, 2018 by admin  |  Comments Off on Why I Will Vote for Senator Ted Cruz


On November 8, 2016, Americans will elect the 45th president of the United States. If the new commander in chief is a Democrat, he will accelerate the “fundamental transformation of America” begun by Barack Obama. Giving an Obama “third term” to Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will enmesh our Republic so deep in European socialism that our liberties may forever be lost and the American experiment with self-governance will end. Republicans must nominate a candidate who clearly recognizes the nature of this challenge and one who has demonstrated a record of standing for constitutional principles. If Republicans set forth a candidate who relies on campaign rhetoric instead of proven conservative actions, then they will lose.

There are three candidates with a realistic chance to seize the Republican nomination. Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. There is simply no pathway to victory for Dr. Carson or Governor Kasich. Trump and Cruz split the first caucus and primary. Trump won South Carolina on February 20th to become the clear front-runner. Rubio edged Cruz by two-tenths of 1% in South Carolina and by 2.5% in Nevada to claim second place finishes. The results of the “SEC Primary” on March 1st will either solidify Trump’s lead or possibly swing the pendulum toward Cruz or Rubio. It is critical that Republican primary voters know who their candidates really are and get this right. Let’s consider the three most viable candidates who represent three distinct wings of the party.


Donald Trump is the candidate of the angry masses who are fed up with political correctness and national weakness. He has emerged as a political enigma who has flummoxed the media and the Republican Establishment. This has endeared him to many Americans who feel ignored, disrespected, and demeaned by these institutions. Their visceral resentment for the political elite is so deep-seeded that there is almost nothing Mr. Trump can say or do that they will not countenance. He has elevated important issues and given voice to middle-America’s anger. But rage unmoored from founding principles is not a prudent guide for citizens of a Constitutional Republic. The greatest danger we face is to swing from a leftist tyrant to a populist-nationalist tyrant.


Senator Marco Rubio is the candidate of the Republican Establishment. He is the clear favorite of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal and is receiving the majority of endorsements from the political class. Marco is a natural politician and has held elective offices for much of his adult life. He enjoys personal charisma and is a gifted orator. The senator can articulate conservative ideals with passion and is a formidable debater. He is generally fiscally conservative and is solid on protecting the unborn as well as on most social issues. His conservative voting record is 79% (Conservative Review). Marco is a devout Catholic and appears to embrace a genuine Christian faith.


Senator Ted Cruz is the candidate of the constitutional conservatives. He is supported by those who are weary of Republicans who campaign as conservatives, but go native when they cross the Potomac. In contrast, in three years in the Senate, Cruz has proven to be more concerned with keeping faith with voters than being popular in Washington. This has made him a pariah with lobbyists, media, career politicians, and subsidy seekers, but revered by the grassroots. Ted has a record in Washington of doing exactly what he had told Texans he would do when he asked for their votes in 2012. His conservative voting record is 97% (Conservative Review). Rush Limbaugh has called Cruz “the closest we’ve seen to Ronald Reagan in our lives.”



President Obama and Mr. Trump have more in common than you may think. When Obama appeared on the scene he promised “Hope and Change” and the “Fundamental Transformation of America.” In 2008, war-weary Americans projected their own interpretations of what Hope and Change would be. Trump comes promising to “Make America great again” and that “America will win all the time.” In 2016, recession-weary Americans again substitute their individual aspirations for American greatness. But the soaring rhetoric is never defined with detailed policies. Americans were told to ignore Obama’s associations with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, communists like Frank Marshall Davis, political “fixers” like indicted felon Tony Rezko, and his long time membership in the church of the hate-filled Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Similarly, Republican primary voters are told to disregard Trump’s past support of partial birth abortion, universal single-payer health care, his advocacy of a 14% wealth tax, assault weapons ban, gun purchase waiting period, and his statement that his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, (a radically pro-abortion jurist) would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. We are to overlook his current defense of Planned Parenthood, his confusing positions on immigration (“Everyone must leave and then the good ones can come back.”), as well as his on-going advocacy of universal health care. (“Everyone will be covered. The government will pay for it.”) All that matters is that he promises to “Make America Great Again.”

But the similarities don’t end here. President Obama has revealed an un-presidential tendency to mock and ridicule his opponents instead of engaging in debate. Mr. Obama resorts to name calling and obscene gestures when he becomes particularly annoyed or desires to convey his extreme distain, referring to tea party members as “tea-baggers” and occasionally scratching his nose with his middle finger when discussing Republicans. Mr. Trump also employs derision and scorn when his arguments go flat. His language is punctuated with expletives, he exercises vulgarities to describe women he dislikes, and recently used unrepeatable crudity to insult Ted Cruz. (Trump wants to push Cruz out of the crowded race because polls show that he loses by 16% in a head to head contest with the Texas senator.) During debate, Mr. Trump constantly talks over and thunders insults toward any candidate who attempts to set out an argument or dares to examine his record. It has become impossible to engage in civil discourse with the man.

Donald Trump has been outspoken politically and an influential donor for 40 years. Yet he demands conservatives ignore his past positions and only consider the statements he has made since he announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. In presidential elections since 1980, he has supported Carter over Reagan, Clinton over Dole, Kerry over Bush and has showered President Obama with praise. He has demonstrated that he holds no philosophical anchor or constitutional foundation. His only guiding principle is to promote the Trump Empire, regardless if that means supporting pro-abortion Democrats or moderate Republicans. Mr. Trump believes his support of left-wing democrats like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is justified because those contributions advanced his business interests. Mr. Trump is not at all troubled that the very candidates he helped elect conspired to pass Obama Care and the Gang of Eight Amnesty bill. These are not the convictions of a principled leader or a true conservative. Anyone who has demonstrated such unequivocal bias for personal financial advantage above the national interest should never be entrusted with the office of the Presidency.



Marco campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative and defeated the RNC endorsed candidate, Governor Charlie Crist. He waged a constitutional conservative campaign and won a lop-sided victory in a three-way race in the General Election. His signature campaign issue was his promise to Florida voters that he would oppose amnesty or even a path to legalization for illegal aliens. Marco rode the Tea Party tidal wave into Washington in 2011 largely on the strength of his “no amnesty” pledge.

Shortly after arriving in Washington, Marco joined with those who had opposed his candidacy. Conservative activists who supported Marco at great personal cost were dismayed by his rapid conversion to the establishment. But when he joined Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to champion the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill that granted amnesty to illegal immigrants, they felt completely betrayed. How could any true conservative mount the same horse as Chuck Schumer and think he was riding in the right direction? According to polls, Marco is no longer Florida’s favorite son and is currently running a distant third in the state’s March 15 primary.

In order to capture the Republican nomination, Establishment candidates must convince primary voters that they are true conservatives. The main obstacle facing Marco is his recent and very inconvenient sponsorship of the hugely unpopular Gang of Eight Bill. The Gang of Eight is Marco’s “threefer” meaning it carries three strikes in one swing: [1] A signature campaign promise was broken; [2] A deal was cut with the most fringe elements of the Democrat party (President Obama, Senators Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, Bennett); and [3] It violated the core immigration principle (NO AMNESTY) that has become a litmus test for Republican voters in 2016. To make matters worse, Ted Cruz, the Texas Senator who was largely responsible for defeating the Gang of Eight, happens to also be a leading candidate for the Republican nomination. Senator Cruz is very inconvenient for Rubio.

But instead of admitting he had made an error in judgment or defending his open immigration position (as the very principled Jeb Bush has done) Marco has obfuscated and attempted to brand Cruz as a “hypocrite” and “liar” who actually has the same immigration position as he does. Fox and the Wall Street Journal have been very helpful to Rubio in this endeavor. You will recall that Ted had introduced multiple “poison pill” amendments to the Gang of Eight bill, one of which provided that no illegal could ever earn citizenship. Marco and the other Gang of Eight sponsors defeated this amendment thereby revealing their true motives. Mr. Rubio’s incredible assertion (“Ted has the same position on immigration as I do.”) is predicated upon the fallacy that Ted’s introduction of an amendment to his bill evidences his support for a path to legalization. Evidently, Senator Rubio doesn’t think voters are smart enough to understand the difference between a friendly amendment and a “poison pill” designed to prevent a very bad bill from becoming law. Senator Jeff Sessions, (Alabama-R) who also led opposition to the Gang of Eight, states that he is “flabbergasted” at Marco’s allegations and clarifies that, “Without the vigorous opposition of Ted Cruz, this bill would have likely passed.”

Since 2009, the country had been in near rebellion over passage of Obama Care. Despite the people’s revulsion, Republican Party leaders selected the governor who had implemented an Obama Care prototype in his own state and force fed Mitt Romney to the voters. As a result, millions of conservatives and Reagan Democrats stayed home and a very unpopular president was re-elected. In 2016, the animating issue for Republicans is the lack of border security and President Obama’s Executive Amnesty. Now the Establishment is attempting to engineer the nomination of Senator Rubio, who is the face of the Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill. If Marco Rubio is forced on the voters the Party that never learns will likely reap the same result.

To understand why a Tea Party upstart could be so popular with the Republican Establishment just follow the money. Crony capitalists who comprise the mega donor class of the Republican Party want open borders to insure the free flow of cheap labor. Marco tried his best to deliver an endless supply of sub-minimum wage employees via his Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill. As a result, Washington power players know his heart is in the right place. The Establishment also wants the continued flow of funny money from Washington to subsidize ethanol, sugar, wind, solar, and a myriad of other schemes that aren’t viable without subsidies. These programs have enriched the politically connected for decades at the expense of consumers and taxpayers. Rubio promised Iowans that if elected he would not only preserve their sacred corn subsidies and renewable fuel mandates, but would increase them. In addition, Marco has long fought in favor of Florida sugar subsidies that happen to enrich his key political benefactors. Senator Rubio has signaled to Washington that he can “talk the talk” of a conservative with the best of them, but he “walks the walk” for the Establishment on immigration and crony subsidies.



When Cruz was sworn in to office in January of 2013, he promised to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” Unlike some senators, Ted was intimately acquainted with the founding documents and understood precisely the responsibilities that the oath of office imposes upon members of the Senate. In his mind it was irrelevant whether he was a freshman or had served for decades, the obligation to “uphold and defend the Constitution” was the first principle. Apparently, this is considered “dirty pool” by the old bulls of the club who called him a “wacko bird” and much worse. Over the years, the Senate has devolved into an institution that shows greater fidelity to re-election and the hallowed Rules of the Senate than the Constitution of the United States. So why do so many idealistic freshman Senators wilt under the Establishment pressure and why did Ted Cruz have the fortitude to stand his ground?

Rafael Cruz taught his son that freedom was precious, that this new country had been founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and that abiding faith in God should be his compass in life. As a youth, Ted memorized the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and spoke to Rotary Clubs on the subjects. He attended Harvard Law School where Professor Alan Dershowitz (no conservative) described him as “among the brightest of students I have ever had” and a “principled debater.” Cruz went on to clerk for the great William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, before becoming Solicitor General of Texas. As Solicitor General, he argued 9 cases before the Supreme Court where he defended state’s rights, religious liberty, and won the landmark “Heller” case that upheld our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The core value rooted in Rafael’s home now manifest in Ted’s adult actions is that adherence to first principles is preferable to popularity.

In the three years that Ted has served in the Senate, he has called out leadership whenever they have broken trust with the American people. When Congress funded Obama Care after campaigning to defund, Ted filibustered. When they funded Executive Amnesty and Planned Parenthood after promising to not do so, Ted stood against Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan. He has skillfully defended the right to keep and bear arms against Democrat bills that would have limited the Second Amendment. He joined with Jeff Sessions to defeat the Schumer-Rubio Gang of Eight Amnesty Bill in 2013. Ted was advocating for a border wall and biometric security as early as 2011, long before the thought ever occurred to Donald Trump. Cruz has opposed subsidies for ethanol and other crony schemes for his entire career and would not compromise his position to garner votes in Iowa, even as Rubio and Trump pandered shamelessly promising still larger handouts for the phony fuel that ruins engines and raises food prices around the world.

The Washington political elites and media traditionally discredit conservatives by raising questions about their intellect or competence. (This was famously applied to Ronald Reagan.) Of course that becomes a difficult sell with a man who Dershowitz describes as “among the brightest students” and “principled debaters” in the history of Harvard Law School. So the attack upon Ted is entirely personal and targets his honesty, integrity, and ethics. While the shenanigans of other campaigns are ignored and glossed over, any misstep by the Cruz campaign is magnified a thousand fold and repeated in a coordinated effort to portray him as an insincere hypocrite. Trump is allowed to monologue endlessly about this “nasty guy” who “nobody likes” and is the most “dishonest person I have ever met.” Fox offers Marco daily airtime to slander Ted as someone who “tells a new lie every day” and closes boyishly with “but I’m not going to attack him personally.” As syndicated talk show host and former Reagan Justice Department attorney Marc Levin has said of Marco, “He lied on my program about amnesty. He lied to get into the United States Senate. He wants to lie to get into the Presidency. This is a very, very serious matter. And then, with a Saul Alinsky twist, he accuses the man [Ted Cruz] who was there watching it on the Senate floor and trying to oppose it of exactly what he has become, a serial liar.”

So who is Ted Cruz? A few weeks ago a friend of mine related this story. His son was sitting in the balcony of a church in Houston when a man took a seat nearby just as the service began. The hour concluded and the gentleman arose apparently attempting to slip out inconspicuously; but the young man now recognized Senator Ted Cruz and introduced himself. After a cordial exchange, Ted exited quietly so as to not draw further attention to himself. The funeral for Justice Antonin Scalia was held in Washington on the day of the South Carolina primary. Ted skipped the final contentious day of vote gathering in order to pay his respects to his friend and perhaps the greatest originalist Justice in the history of the Supreme Court. Not one of the other presidential candidates or President Obama attended the ceremony. Marco edged Ted for 2nd place by 2 tenths of 1% and announced triumphantly that it was now a 2 man race between Donald and himself. In the early stages of the campaign, Ted met with a well-known major donor to ask for his support. The man told Ted that he couldn’t support him because of his positions on “social issues.” Senator Cruz responded that he had essentially the same position as all of the other candidates. The man replied, “I know that Ted, but you really mean it.”

Yes, Ted Cruz does “really mean it.” He “means it” about enforcing immigration laws and border security, appointing conservative Supreme Court nominees, abolishing the IRS, fighting and destroying radical jihadists, repealing Obama Care, defunding Planned Parenthood, defending states’ rights against an oppressive federal government, and restoring religious liberties that have been under attack by this administration. Ted Cruz can win this presidential election, and he may be the only Republican who can win. Not only do polls show that Cruz beats Trump by 16 points in a head-to-head match up, but more importantly, he has tied or defeated Hillary in 8 out of the last 10 national polls. I believe Senator Ted Cruz is the only candidate who has demonstrated the judgment, character, knowledge, and resolve to meet the challenges that the next president will face and to guide our nation with a steady and trusted hand.


Kyle Stallings


Mr. Stallings is a small businessman in the oil and gas industry in Midland, Texas. He is a long time supporter of Senator Ted Cruz.

Posted on February 26th, 2016 by admin  |  Comments Off on A TIME FOR CHOOSING

The Ruling Class Versus The People

We must pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.

Nancy Pelosi, Former Speaker of the House

Amazingly, the vast majority of legislators who voted for the Act three years ago still haven’t read it and still have no idea what is in it. Polling indicates that the American people dislike it more that ever but the politicians who don’t care about the desires of the people are forcing it down our throats.

Mark Meckler, President of Americans for Self-Governance and Co-Founder of Tea Party Patriots

American progressives have dreamed of government healthcare for a century. It was fulfilled when President Obama’s signature bill become law in 2010. The accomplishment required the orchestrated cooperation of the national media, parliamentary trickery in both Houses of Congress (including passage in the Senate by “reconciliation” after the election of the 41st Republican) and crony capitalists in the Pharmaceutical and Health Care Industries. Finally, a Supreme Court Chief Justice who will live in infamy, codified the disaster by inexplicably reinterpreting and rewriting the bill in his 2012 decision. By hook and by crook the Left finally realized their 100 year goal.

This debacle was visited upon us without one Republican vote. It was passed over the objections of the majority of the American people. Congress mocked and ignored the largest protests on the National Mall in the history of our nation and told us that “we will have to pass it so you can find out what is in it.” Twenty-seven states filed suit to overturn the bill. Its constitutionality was overturned in 6 lower court decisions. Running against Obama Care enabled the Republicans to win 65 House seats in 2010; the largest party shift in 72 years. Republicans continued running against Obama Care in 2012 and retained control of “The People’s House.” The bill was so unpopular that President Obama didn’t emphasize it in his 2012 re-election campaign and congressional democrats literally ran away from it.

All that was needed to re-take the White House was to unify the party behind any nominee who could articulate a clear alternative to big government in general and Obama Care in particular. Shockingly, the Republican establishment managed to nominate the one presidential candidate who had actually implemented government healthcare in his own state! Not surprisingly, faced with a muddled choice, millions of conservative voters stayed home and Mr. Obama was re-elected.

Now we find ourselves at the precipice. There is one final opportunity to avert the irreversible decline of the nation. But Republican leadership tells us that principled opposition is foolish and will cost the GOP seats in the mid-term elections. These sophisticates tell us that Ted Cruz and his Tea Party supporters are taking us over the cliff. That if we will just be patient, Obama Care will collapse under it’s own weight. All we have to do is simply let it go into affect and the people will demand repeal of its onerous regulations, privacy invasions, suffocating costs and scarcity of quality care.

Really? Since when does congress repeal regulations that burden, badger and harass small business and law-abiding taxpayers? The Internal Revenue Service is the most hated bureaucracy in the history of the republic and has been exposed as a partisan enforcer used to target and intimidate the political opponents of this administration. Is its budget or authority being reduced? On the contrary, the agency has received additional funding and new powers to hire 16,000 new agents who will police our compliance with Obama Care. No hopelessly flawed government program or out of control agency has ever been repealed or eliminated. Instead they are sustained by additional funding to hire more Federal bureaucrats who impose even more burdensome regulations. This is the unmistakable history of the Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Student Loans, Freddy Mac and Ginny Mae Mortgages, Ethanol mandates, Farm programs, as well as Solar and Wind subsidies. These programs have been proven to be riddled with fraud, enrich the connected, distort the free market, fail in their objectives and bankrupt the treasury. But they are seldom reformed and never repealed. Ronald Reagan famously said that the “closest thing to eternal life on earth is a Federal Program.” His prognosis will be the legacy of Obama Care. Our Republican leaders, who have lived most of their adult lives in Washington, know this very well.

The looming burden of Obama Care is the major component of the President’s assault on the private sector. And make no mistake, the private economy and small business in particular is under assault. The amorphous bill, characterized by uncertainty, overwhelming complexity, unknown enforcement mechanisms, astronomical cost, and oppressive penalties has already decimated job creation and the law hasn’t even taken full affect. To spare his union, big business and congressional buddies the pain of “hope and change” the president has awarded over 1200 waivers, a one year deferral and a sweet subsidy to the boys on the Hill. But those destined to toil under the edicts of Obama Care are announcing layoffs by the thousands in anticipation of the train wreck. The full implementation of this soviet style bill will devastate the nation. Yet establishment Republicans from Karl Rove, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to the republican leadership howl that Ted Cruz may cost them congressional seats in 2014. As the Titanic takes on water they are busy fighting over the luxury suites.

Of course the establishment Republicans protest that they too want to defund Obama Care, just in a “smarter” way. Yes, the establishment is always smarter than the people who make the country work. That’s why they have chosen to join the law passing, regulation promulgating, tax code writing political class. May I remind you that these same “smart” Republicans were also too “smart” to support Ronald Reagan in 1976 or in 1980 and reluctantly joined him only after every attempt to derail his candidacy had been defeated. They dismissed him as “unelectable” and “outside of the main stream.” Of course now they claim to have been part of the great Reagan revolution….kind of like they profess to want to defund Obama Care.

Speaking for the establishment wing, John McCain complains that Cruz’s plan to defund Obama Care is unrealistic because the Democrats will never agree to it. What’s more, he reminds us that “elections have consequences” and the democrats won. Of course, when President Bush was elected to a second term and Republicans held both houses of Congress Senator McCain was only too happy to cross the aisle and help torpedo the president’s judicial appointments. You will recall that McCain, six other establishment republicans and 7 Democrats helped formed the “Gang of 14” in 2005 that would dictate which judicial nominees would receive confirmation votes. In so doing, he undercut President Bush and Majority Leader Bill Frist (Rep., TN).At the time Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives and enjoyed a 55 to 45 advantage in the Senate. Apparently, “elections have consequences” only when the Democrats control the Senate. So much for John McCain.

The Republican establishment is zealous in its defense of the GOP. Ted Cruz is committed to the preservation of liberty. The Senate leadership is protective of the sacrosanct rules of the upper chamber. Cruz is passionate for the Constitution of the United States. Senior republicans would argue that the preservation of the GOP and the liberty of the people are inseparable. But the American people increasingly see both political parties as co-conspirators against freedom.

President Obama is committed to progressive ideology and desires to subordinate a free people to an all-powerful federal government. He cannot do so without a compliant press and a feckless opposition party and he enjoys both. Mr. Obama knows that socialized medicine is the poison pill that will set the country on an unalterable decent into statism that the left has envisioned since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Each day that conservatives hold the line against funding Obama Care the more shrill and unhinged the president and Majority Leader Reid have become. Everyday, more Americans reveal stories of cancelled policies, skyrocketing premiums or the dysfunctional health care web site. Everyday, companies announce more layoffs and convert more employees to part time. The president becomes more irritable, the national media becomes more partisan and the bill becomes more unpopular. These trends should embolden the republican leadership but instead they are unnerved and lash out against Ted Cruz and the Tea Party. The battle to defund Obama Care was clearly a fight the establishment didn’t want to wage. Now we must wonder if it’s a battle they truly want to win.

Posted on October 22nd, 2013 by admin  |  Comments Off on The Ruling Class Versus The People

Which Course Will We Choose

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the  

gospel of envy whose inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

– Winston Churchill

Four years after President Obama’s historic election, the nation’s good will and hope has been squandered. The promise of a unified country under a post-partisan administration seems like a line from an actor’s script. “I don’t see red states, I don’t see blue states, I see the United States,” the president famously proclaimed. A good campaign theme but apparently never intended for implementation. Former President Bush is castigated, Republicans are vilified, patriotic Tea Party supporters are ridiculed while the Occupy protestors are embraced.

The president calls things that are not as though they are and things that are as though they are not.

He imposes suffocating regulations and promises that they will help small businesses. Mr. Obama’s EPA wages war on the oil and gas industry while he takes credit for increased domestic production. He constantly conjures images of “fairness”, a “fair shot” and a “fair share” yet he taunts businessmen who believe their companies have been built by hard work. Exactly where does President Obama want to take us in a second term?

The dutiful silence and willful cooperation of the lap dog media allows the president to create his own reality without fear of fact-checking from the networks or the NY Times. Mr. Obama announces that Al Qaeda is “on the run” while our embassies are under attack and our Libyan Ambassador is assassinated. He publicly shuns President Netanyahu and yet insists that our alliance with Israel has never been stronger. Thinking he is off-mike he whispers to Russian Prime Minister Medvedev that he “will have more flexibility after the election”. Flexibility to do what Mr. President!

It is stupefying to witness such bankrupt theories of economic and foreign policy being so carefully repackaged by a politician and tirelessly defended by the official media. Does the president really believe that higher taxation, stricter regulation and more burdensome bureaucracy will actually create investment and employment? Is the press so ignorant of history that they are unaware that these policies have created scarcity and human suffering wherever they have been implemented? Has the electorate become so infected with envy that they are willing to suspend common sense in order to exact “revenge” on “the rich”?


The Obama Administration bears a striking resemblance to the Jimmy Carter presidency of the late 1970s. Mr. Carter raised taxes and the economy stalled. He passed the windfall profits tax and gasoline prices sky-rocketed. He withdrew America from geopolitical leadership and Russia invaded Afghanistan. He coddled dictators and treated Israel with contempt and our Iranian Embassy was overrun, resulting in a 444 day hostage crisis.


The nightmare of Jimmy Carter’s failed presidency ended with the election of Ronald Reagan and the country was spared the pain of a second Carter term. I can only imagine the course he would have taken had Carter’s economic and foreign policies been ratified by the voters. Fortunately, we never had to find out. Likewise, Mitt Romney must be elected in order to deliver us from Barack Obama’s vision of a “fundamentally transformed America.” If Mr. Obama is able to secure a second term on Tuesday we will surely learn what he means by “the best form of revenge” and Prime Minister Medvedev will find out what the president was implying when he promised “more flexibility after the election.” I think we have a pretty good idea.


This Sunday our pastor recognized a Chinese member of our congregation who was hosting seven Chinese human rights lawyers. These defenders of the persecuted are in Texas to observe our election. None of our Chinese guests have ever seen a ballot and can only dream of actually casting a meaningful vote. Before their Chinese-American host offered a prayer on behalf of our foreign visitors he offered a few observations. He stated that the world watches our elections because the outcome affects all of their lives. He said that they hoped that America would be restored as a “shining city on a hill” and that she would regain her position of strength and courage as a beacon to the rest of the world.


As the world watches, over 130 Million Americans will have cast their votes by Tuesday evening. Almost 2 Billion souls compelled to labor under communism or statism will tune to static radios to learn the outcome of our election. Those who dream of escaping to “The Land of the Free” or hope of protection from “The Home of the Brave” will awaken Wednesday morning to find out if the Shining City has continued it’s lurch to the left or regained her historic commitment to liberty. Which course will we choose? The world and seven human rights lawyers from China are watching.


Kyle Stallings is a member of board of directors of the Liberty Institute, The Texas Public Policy Foundation and operates a small business in Midland, Texas.

Please visit Liberty or Bondage at

Posted on November 5th, 2012 by admin  |  Comments Off on Which Course Will We Choose

Send Mr. Cruz to Washington

“Texas has yet to learn submission from any oppression, come from what source it may.”

Sam Houston

It is not unusual for Texans to be faced with two good choices for public office.  Our great state produces many exemplary candidates who are accomplished in their fields and principled in their positions.  The current contest for U.S. Senator is no exception as voters must choose between two attractive candidates.  However, it is rare that we have the opportunity to send a 41-year-old man to Washington who possesses the credentials, charisma, intelligence and passion as Ted Cruz.

We are living in times that try men’s souls.  Who would have thought that:

  1. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by a conservative Republican President, would write a landmark opinion vesting Congress with the power to regulate minute aspects of Americans’ lives so long as the regulation can be called a tax.  This is exactly what Justice Roberts has done in spite of the bill’s chief proponent, President Obama himself, fervent protestations that his health care mandate is NOT a tax.
  2. The President of the United States would go on national television and mock small business owners for believing that they had created their own enterprises through hard work and sacrifice.  But that is exactly what President Obama said in Roanoke, VA on July 13th.
  3. The Justice Department would ignore clear cases of voter intimidation and fraud while filing suit against any state that attempts to enact and enforce voter protection statutes. Yet this is precisely the philosophy of our current Justice Department.
  4. The regional head of EPA would brag that he intimidates energy companies the same way that the Romans maintained order whenever they conquered new territory… “just crucify the first couple of men you see and then everyone will do anything you want.”   But that is a quote from Dr. Richard Armendariz, who until recently was the head of EPA’s energy regulation for the Southwestern Region.
  5. The State Department would refuse to allow crude oil to be shipped into our country from our Canadian allies (Keystone Pipeline) while simultaneously arguing that oil prices are “too high” and must be brought down.
  6. In an effort to create support for gun control laws, the Obama Justice Department would allow semi-automatic weapons to be “walked” into Mexico even after the gun dealers notified the ATF to say that they were suspicious of the buyers (Fast and Furious). These guns were later used by Mexican drug cartels to murder Mexican citizens and U.S. DEA agents.
  7. While Americans are suffering a horrible economic recession that the president constantly reminds us is the worst since the “Great Depression,” his Labor Relations Board refuses to allow a great American company (Boeing) to open a new factory in South Carolina that would have created thousands of new jobs.  (The LRB was offended that South Carolina is a “right to work” state and as such does not require compulsory union membership in order to find gainful employment.)

As Rush Limbaugh says, “You just can’t make this stuff up.”

These are dangerous times.  The first Obama term revealed his ideology and vision for “fundamentally transforming” this country.  A second term, unencumbered by concerns about re-election, would permit him to whole-heartedly pursue his long held dreams of punishing his enemies (think Arizona), rewarding his friends (think Solyndra) and “redistributive justice”. The future of our Republic is truly hanging in the balance.  This is not the time to send another politician, no matter how honorable and qualified, who isn’t prepared to engage in a life or death struggle for the survival of our country.  We must send men and women who realize that we are not fighting over nuances and minor disagreements.  This is not the time for compromise and favor trading.

Texas has much at risk.  We are a right to work state, with no income tax, the leading energy producer and enjoy a unique trading partnership with our southern neighbor.  We are one of the only solvent states in the union.  More jobs have been created in our state in the past ten years than in all of the other states combined! Yet President Obama has turned his contempt upon us.  His Justice Department has rejected our very reasonable voter ID bill passed by our legislature and signed by our governor.  He has declined Governor Perry’s pleas for additional security on the Mexican border.  His Fish and Game Department is attempting to curtail oil and gas drilling on private lands in West Texas. His EPA has filed suit against Texas oil companies over fracking, alleging that producing oil and gas two miles below the surface of the earth can somehow contaminate fresh water aquifers a few hundred feet under the soil. The EPA has lost every case! Yet they continue to litigate, costing public and private Texas companies hundreds of millions in defense cost.

We face a Texas-size challenge and we need a Senator who will defend our interests and aggressively assert the rights that every state holds dear under the Tenth Amendment… “Those rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the individual states…” Ted Cruz is the right man for the job. As an honor graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, Ted clearly possesses the intellectual firepower and training for the job.  As a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist and Solicitor General for the State of Texas, Ted’s legal resume is impeccable.  Ted has argued and won cases before the Supreme Court and the World Court.  He has drafted briefs for the Texas Public Policy Foundation in their work to defend and assert our rights under the Tenth Amendment against an increasingly aggressive Federal Government.

Most importantly, as a second generation Cuban American, Ted knows the repression of a government big enough to give you anything you need and strong enough to take everything you have.  Having escaped the horrors of Cuba’s “workers’ paradise” Ted’s parents instilled within him a love for liberty and a healthy distrust for demagogues and the promises of socialism, no matter how it is packaged and disguised.  We need men like Ted Cruz.  We need more like him who will stand shoulder to shoulder with patriots like Senator Marco Rubio.

I am supporting Ted Cruz for three reasons:

  1. He will be a difference maker, not a placeholder. Ted has the constitutional knowledge, rhetorical skills, philosophical anchor and personal charisma to influence fellow members in the Senate.
  2. Texas must support qualified liberty-loving Hispanics who comprise such a large population in our wonderful state.  If Ted Cruz does not merit our support then what Hispanic can ever hope to gain the support of Texas conservatives?
  3. Lt. Governor Dewhurst needs to complete the term of office for which we have elected him. Texas faces a potential budget shortfall in our next biennium.  Moderates and liberals are already conspiring to foist tax increases upon us.  If Mr. Dewhurst is elected to the senate then a moderate senator will likely replace him as interim Lt. Governor.  That Senator could easily usher in an income tax or other business tax.  That would be a very bitter and expensive consequence of a Dewhurst victory.

Now is not the time for hedging bets and playing it safe. It is time for bold and decisive action.  Please join me in supporting Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate on July 31st.

By: Kyle Stallings, Member of board of directors of the Liberty Institute, The Texas Public Policy Foundation and Managing Partner of Desert Partners, LP in Midland, Texas.

Posted on July 25th, 2012 by admin  |  Comments Off on Send Mr. Cruz to Washington

Bringing Down the Wage Payer

By Kyle Stallings

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”

William J. H. Boetcker

We need to spread the wealth around.”
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama

For the past 29 years, I have been a self-employed businessman.  During that time I have known sacrifice, anxiety, recessions, price collapses, commodity cycles, stressful competition, uncertainty and setbacks. I have faced banking challenges, sleep-depriving debt, heart-breaking disappointments and self-doubt.  For the first 10 years of the adventure my family lived in small rent houses and drove old cars, and I officed in class C office buildings or out of my home. However, I wouldn’t trade a day for the lessons that I learned about thrift, long-term goals, deferred gratification, perseverance, never-never-never giving up and faith. I have experienced the American dream.

For the past 15 years, some might consider me successful, but no one familiar with my story would call me an overnight success.  My partner and I provide well-paying jobs for 13 people. We deliver a stable financial return to the 100 private individuals who invest in our partnerships.  Our small company generates millions of dollars in annual business activity. The multiplier effect of our activities impacts hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I now pay a fortune in sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, severance taxes and income taxes in eight states, in addition to federal income taxes. To insure that I am in compliance with the complexity of the tax code, I also pay accountants and lawyers. The cost of compliance is actually just an added tax.

My little story is shared by millions of other small businessmen in this wonderful country. We are entrepreneurs. We think about our small businesses every waking moment. We worry about our clients, employees, banks, investors, vendors and competitors constantly. We wake up in the middle of the night to write down a thought that might help us improve our service. We worry about how we are going to navigate through this recession without laying off long-time employees while still providing the level of excellence that will be needed to survive.

Now I am told that I am the problem. Even though I am among the 1% who shoulders 40% of the federal tax burden, I am the one who is not paying my fair share.  When President Obama talks about raising taxes on citizens earning over $250,000, he explains that “we can’t afford to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.”  Only in Mr. Obama’s America does $250,000 of earnings confer inclusion into the billionaire club.  The president seems intent on inciting class warfare as he mischaracterizes fledgling entrepreneurs and business owners as robber barons.  We have become targets of derision and contempt.

Now I labor under a president who systematically targets and demonizes almost every sector of the private economy while insisting that his measures will “help small business.” President Obama has scorned medical, pharmaceutical, insurance, financial, energy, automotive and fast food industries. Is his knowledge of the American economy so limited that he doesn’t comprehend that these sectors are populated by small enterprises? The president likes to say that his policies are good for “mom and pop” businesses, but his agenda of government health care, increased taxation, cap and trade and compulsory unionization will suffocate small companies. I believe that he is far too intelligent to sincerely believe that his policies are “pro-small business” in any sense of the term.

How could anyone who has known even one or two small businessmen have such animosity toward the entire demographic?  Then I realized that President Obama has never known anyone like me. Shockingly, his primary frame of reference with businesspeople seems to have been with felons or the wealthy elite. Prior to becoming a political superstar, Mr. Obama’s most notable business associate was Tony Rezko, who helped arrange a very curious land deal that resulted in the Obamas living in a home in Chicago’s Kenwood Addition that they otherwise would not have been able to afford. (Mr. Rezko has now been convicted of fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering).  After ascending to the halls of power, Mr. Obama likes to associate with the super rich such as George Soros (the man famous for breaking the Bank of England). No wonder he has such little appreciation for legitimate small businessmen. His limited experience has taught him that business people are either shysters or billionaire currency speculators. Who cares about them?

Therefore, I would like to introduce Mr. Obama to an entire segment of the citizenry that he evidently has never met. Below is my open letter to the President.

Dear Mr. President,

Mr. President, please allow me to introduce you to America’s small business owners. They reside in every state and town in the country. These men and women are the backbone of the communities where they live.  They represent the 20% that do 80%. They are the ones who serve on school boards and hospital boards, coach Little League, lead Boy Scout troops, serve in Indian Guides and volunteer in their churches and synagogues. They pay a disproportionate share of the property taxes that build the public schools and hospitals. They give generously to local charities and United Way, buy the uniforms for the Boys & Girls Club basketball teams and make anonymous gifts to send underprivileged kids to summer camp.

You may not care about the community service and enrichment activities that mark the lives of so many small businesspeople. But did I mention that the 29 million small businesses provide 144 million jobs (55% of the jobs in this country), creates 66% of all new jobs and generates over half of the private GDP? Since our country is in the midst of a recession that you say is “the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression,” I assume that the health of the engine that sustains employment might be of some concern to you. However, your proposed tax increases upon the “rich” will land squarely on small businesses like a ton of bricks.  You see Mr. President, 66% of those who earn above $250,000 are small businessmen. I understand that you believe that business owners are rich predators who “need to give more,” but have you considered the effect of your policies upon their employees? I respectfully direct you to Boetcker’s warning that “you cannot lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.”

As a businessman facing the prospect of higher taxation, please allow me to personalize the likely effect upon my own small enterprise. First, you must understand that taxes are a direct deduction from my bottom line and capital reserve. Why is this important? Every dollar you subtract from my bottom line is a dollar I cannot use to give raises, increase benefits or add employees.  Although this may appeal to your “spread the wealth” instincts, it may not be such good news to my current employees or to job-seeking college graduates. Every dollar you take from my capital reserve is a dollar I cannot invest in new property or equipment. This may satisfy your sense of “shared prosperity,” but will not be as heartwarming to my suppliers or to those hoping to market assets next year. Is this beginning to make any sense to you?

The decision to increase my taxes will of course also reduce my disposable income. This will result in fewer dollars allocated to consumption which, ironically, you say is critical to the economic recovery of the nation. Although you may be delighted that I won’t have as much discretionary money to travel, buy a condo at the beach, or remodel my home, those employed by the airlines, mortgage companies, real estate industry and the construction trades may not be as cheery. And though you may be pleased to see me mowing my own lawn and cleaning my own pool again, it may not bring as much joy to my long-time contractors, Bibiano Ortega and Gina McDaniel.

We have observed your tendency to punish your “enemies” and borne witness to your willingness to use executive power to sanction certain industries. Your unwarranted drilling moratorium that has decimated the oil and gas and service sectors in the Gulf States provides a recent example.  This policy has already created more unemployment and inflicted more economic carnage on small businesses in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and the other gulf states than the actual oil spill could have ever done.

Finally, Mr. President, let me assure you that we have nothing in common with your friend Tony Rezko and we bear no resemblance to your benefactor George Soros. After laboring all of my adult life in the private sector, I know a thing or two about real entrepreneurs. First, we were made to innovate and risk capital to support our dreams and visions. But we will only do so when we feel that the rules of the game are fair and predictable. Secondly, we will not put our hard-earned money at risk if we feel that the portion absorbed by taxation is too great. Lastly, when we sense an animus toward us from the highest office in the land that questions our motivations, integrity and patriotism, we begin to take defensive measures, not increase our investments. I hope this letter provides you with a more accurate view of who the real small businessmen in this country are. And I hope it helps you realize the destructive consequences of your policies on the small businessmen you profess to support.

Kyle Stallings is the Managing Partner of a small oil and gas investment company in Midland, Texas and serves on the Governor’s Business Council of Texas.

Posted on November 17th, 2010 by admin  |  Comments Off on Bringing Down the Wage Payer

Three new Cap and Trade Perspectives

The following articles are in PDF format:

Posted on September 28th, 2009 by admin  |  Comments Off on Three new Cap and Trade Perspectives

The Coming Cap and Trade Debacle

(A Real Man-Made Disaster)

“Coal makes us sick, oil makes us sick, its global warming, it’s ruining our country, its ruining our world.”  Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid

“‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.”  F. A. Hayek

Over the past few years, energy and climate, two previously unrelated subjects have become conjoined in a way that demands that one cannot be discussed apart from the other.   This confluence is largely due to the efforts of former Vice-President Al Gore, Jr. and a well-choreographed procession of activists to link energy and climate.  Interestingly, they know absolutely nothing about the former and can do nothing about the latter.  Nevertheless, this lack of knowledge and power has not deterred their resolve to replace our complex energy industry with windmills and corn stalks and dictate global temperatures.  If the stakes were not so high the spectacle would be amusing.

This convergence could not have been achieved apart from a generation of media propaganda combined with an increasing portion of the population that no longer labors to produce fuel and power for themselves.  While the media foist relentless attacks upon oil and gas companies more and more Americans reside in metropolitan areas far removed from the understanding and production of energy. (Given the state of the debate it is appropriate that the authors of the so called “American Clean Energy and Security Act”, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, reside in Beverly Hills and Boston.) Ironically, the continuous and reliable supply of fuel and power provided by domestic energy producers has made them contemptible in the mind of the citizens and a suitable culprit for problems that they don’t understand.

It is hard to believe that after arguing that we could save as much energy by simply “getting tune-ups and keeping our tires inflated” as we could gain by tapping our enormous reserves of off-shore oil, candidate Barack Obama went on to become President of the United States.  If is also difficult to fathom that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to strong-arm a terribly flawed Waxman-Markey bill (Cap and Trade) through congress after announcing that “natural gas is not a hydrocarbon” (it is). Once again, Americans who take for granted the most reliable and affordable supply of energy in the free world continue to overlook ludicrous misstatements of fact about the subject. For too long, career politicians, who have no earthly idea what they are talking about, have gotten away with spouting platitudes like “earth friendly”, “green jobs”, “clean energy”, “windfall profits” and “dirty oil” to shape the energy debate. These empty slogans have found their way into the national lexicon and are now repeated by print media, network anchors, cable news broadcasters, schoolteachers and students who in turn have no idea what they are talking about.

The Administration insists that hydrocarbons are “making the planet sick” and that Cap and Trade will create millions of alternative energy jobs. Our national energy policy has been totally subverted by these suppositions. President Obama concedes that our transformation into a carbon free economy will not be without sacrifice and dislocation.  Nevertheless, he moralizes that we are compelled to take courageous action for the sake of the planet and “future generations.”   In other words, this is a big gamble, but we really have to implement “cap and trade” because the current energy policy is unhealthy and unsustainable. But what if Al Gore and Barack Obama are exactly wrong – or worse, what if they are shown to have conflicts of interest?

As reported by the Ed Barnes of Fox News, Barack Obama was a director of the Joyce Foundation which helped launch the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the early 2000s that will facilitate carbon emissions trading.  Goldman-Sachs was President Obama’s largest private contributor in 2008 and coincidently owns 19% of CCX.  Generation Investment Management, co-founded by Al Gore and former Goldman CEO and US Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, hold 10% of CCX.  Commodities Futures Exchange commissioner, Bart Chilton, expects carbon trading to become a $2 Trillion market within five years.  Given the direct economic enrichment that will accrue to President Obama’s political patrons it would be irresponsible and naïve to ignore this obvious conflict of interest and to assume that the administration’s enabling policies are altruistic. [1]

The three most important criterion any consumer of energy considers when he desires to access power or fuel are:  Will it turn on? Will it stay on? How much does it cost?  Our conventional energy industry (oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear) has a demonstrated record of providing Americans with the most affordable and reliable supply of energy in the free world, while alternative energy receives failing grades in all three categories. We are truly building bridges to nowhere if we are expecting wind, solar and ethanol to take us to the mythical carbon free world.

The wind turbines and solar panels promoted by the “clean energy” advocates provide less than 1% of the nation’s energy supply and are incapable of being scaled to impact our economy.  Furthermore, their intermittency issues are fatal limitations for Americans who require a continuous power source. Ethanol has been so thoroughly discredited as a commercial fuel that only the most obstinate zealots continue to lobby for its mandated consumption and subsidies. So before we disassemble the greatest energy production and delivery system the world has ever known maybe we should take a breath and question the premises that undergird the climate-energy cabal:

  1. What if hydrocarbons are NOT warming the planet?
    Fact:  Earth’s temperatures appear to have peaked in 1998 and have been cooling for the past decade.  During this same period carbon emissions have increased. Hence the catch phrase “global warming” has been quietly replaced with “climate change” thereby allowing for all possible outcomes. [2]
  2. What if we have no ability to significantly reduce the earth’s temperature?
    Fact:  The Obama Administration desires to reduce US emissions by 50% by 2050.  This would equate to the horse and buggy emission levels of 1900 and according to the International Energy Agency would cost $45 trillion dollars. Climatologists project that this colossal effort might result in an inconsequential temperature reduction of .1 to .2 degree C. [3]
  3. What if there will NOT be millions of new “clean energy jobs” and that alternative energy is actually a job killer?
    Fact:  Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for every 1 “clean energy” job that has been created.  Most of the new jobs have been in the government bureaucracy.  As one of the largest energy producing and consuming countries in the world job destruction in the United States would be far more dramatic.  Even the Department of Energy’s own model projects a net employment loss if cap and trade is mandated particularly in energy and manufacturing. [4]
  4. What if the only people lobbying for wind, solar and ethanol are those who stand to profit immensely from subsidies provided by our tax dollars?
    Fact:  All of the so called renewable energy sources that President Obama favors rely exclusively upon subsidies, tariffs and huge tax credits in order to be economic.  The American people will only use these inferior sources under compulsion.  General Electric and Archer Daniels Midland will only manufacture wind turbines and distill ethanol with the promise of government assistance and taxpayer subsidies.(Ethanol receives 190 times the subsidy as natural gas per unit of energy produced.  Wind and Solar receive 97 and 93 times respectively as much subsidy per energy unit produced as natural gas.) [5]
  5. What if alternative energy sources are in fact unreliable, inferior and actually destructive?
    Fact:  Wind and solar are intermittent (the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine continuously) and cannot be commercially stored or easily transported. Therefore they can never be relied upon to supply power “on demand” but can only serve as a secondary or supplemental source of power.  Ethanol is the “post office” of all transportation fuels.  More energy is consumed in its production than a unit of ethanol contains.  Once produced, the BTU (energy) content of a gallon of ethanol is 25% less than that of gasoline.  Refiners are compelled by law to blend the so-called “biofuel” with gasoline which reeks havoc in fuel injection engines and water craft and of course decreases fuel efficiency of the vehicle. [6]
  6. What if “alternatives” can never be produced in sufficient quantities to replace our conventional energy sources?
    Fact: As of 2007 the United States derived 3.8% of its energy from alternative sources including ethanol (7% if hydroelectric power is included).  According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) the massive spending President Obama has mandated for alternative energy will result in an impressive 184% increase in the nation’s “clean energy” supply.  Unfortunately, this will only equate to 7% of U.S. energy demand and will be the most expensive and heavily subsidized energy source ever produced.  Mr. Obama has not yet informed us as to where and how we will dig up the remaining 93% of our energy needs. [7]
  7. What if an ample supply of affordable energy is requisite to the economic prosperity and security of the nation?
    Fact:  Economic productivity and quality of life are products of energy consumption.  Mechanized agricultural, transportation, air conditioning and adequate sanitation depend upon power and fuel.  Developing nations understand this and covet access to hydrocarbons.  Adequate energy is also essential for military armaments and transport.  Therefore, our global competitors (and potential adversaries) China and Russia are engaged in a contest to capture large reserves of oil and gas in Africa, South America and around the world. They are not interested in politically correct but unviable energy sources like solar and wind. India and China have informed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that they would be pleased for the United States to sign Kyoto or self regulate its own carbon emissions but that they most certainly would NOT. On August 12 of this year the Australian Senate rejected legislation that would have created a carbon tax and trade system by a vote of 42 to 30.  It seems these countries intend to grow their own economies. [8]
  8. What if we DO have sufficient supplies of coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power to sustain us for the foreseeable future until economic alternatives are developed?
    Fact:  The BTU content of US coal reserves exceeds the energy content of the oil reserves in Saudi Arabia.  The oil shales of Western Colorado are estimated by the Department of Energy to contain 1.5 Trillion barrels of oil equivalent and the Energy Information Agency estimates the country has a 90 year supply of recoverable natural gas (1,744 Trillion Cubic Feet). Successful exploration efforts in Louisiana and Pennsylvania promise to augment this estimate. [9]
  9. What if the cost of fossil fuels has risen less than the rate of inflation over the past 30 years?
    Fact:  Even with the oppressive regulation and taxation of the energy sector the cost of energy consumes less of our Gross Domestic Product or of household income that it did 30 years ago.  This despite the constant hand-ringing and apocalyptic warnings of the media.  Furthermore, gasoline, which is simply a component of transportation, has increased in price far less than automobiles that are the largest component of transportation.    This reality is reflected in the financial performance of oil and gas companies who consistently shows earnings in the middle range when compared with other industries.  It should be noted that oil company profits often run countercyclical to the broader economy.  For instance, during the historic expansion of the late 1990s when ten of the largest DOW components enjoyed average earnings of 15.69% and individual retirement accounts inflated like never before, major oil companies experienced only 3.99% profitability and many independent oil companies actually lost money or suffered bankruptcy.  However, even during the high oil and gas prices of 2006 through 2008 the major oil companies earned less than 10%. [10]
  10. What if “Cap and Trade” is a giant scam designed to reward politically connected corporations by creating skyrocketing energy prices on the backs of the American people?
    Fact:  Cap and Trade will burden the real energy producers with additional regulation and taxation rendering usable energy rare and expensive. It will reward opportunistic Wall Street firms like General Electric and Goldman Sachs. GE will manufacture the obtrusive wind turbines while Goldman orchestrates the climate trading labyrinth. The difference between Cap and Trade and Las Vegas is that the American taxpayers (the “players”) can’t possibly win and the President’s Wall Street cronies (the “House”) can’t possibly lose.  At least the suckers playing the slots on the strip have a mathematical chance.

The foundation of our entire energy policy is based upon falsehoods.  These false choices create an illusion that would require the abandonment of our abundant natural resources and the energy technology that has been developed over the last century. Now we learn that those attempting to mandate our energy choices have maneuvered themselves into position to be the primary beneficiaries of their own legislation. But if the very premises of the argument are false and if their implementation would be ruinous, then their exposure and defeat are vital. A sound energy policy is essential to the economic well-being and the national security of any nation.  Abundant, reliable and affordable fuel and power is fundamental to the prosperity and quality of life of the American people.  It is high time that those of us who know better speak up before President Obama’s policies shackle us to the windmills and Dutch ovens that our great grandparents forsook a century ago while he oversees the largest transfer of wealth in American history.

By Kyle L. Stallings
August 19, 2009


  1. “Obama Helped Fund Carbon Program.” Ed Barnes, for Fox News. March 25, 2009.

    “Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade”, By Deborah C. Barnes, Human Events, October 3, 2007.

    “Goldman Sachs doubles stake in Climate Exchange”, Energy Risk, January 23, 2007.

    “Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown?”, Rachel Morris, June 8, 2009, Mother Jones.

  2. “Answering Three Simple Questions”, August 11, 2009, Science and Public Policy Institute.
  3. “Global Warming Primer”, National Center for Policy Analysis – 2007.
  4. “Green Jobs: Fast-tracking Economic Suicide”, Michael Economides and Peter Glover, August 4, 2009, American Thinker.
  5. “Green Jobs, Fact or Fiction”, Robert Michaels and Robert Murphy, January 2009, Institute for Energy Research.

    “The Climate-Industrial Complex”, Geoffrey Styles, August 14, 2009, Energy Tribune.

    “Is Wind the next Ethanol?”, Ben Lieberman, May 11, 2009, The Heritage Foundation.

  6. “The Great Ethanol Scam”, Ed Wallace, May 14, 2009, Business Week.

    The Clean Energy Scam”, Michael Grunwald, May 27, 2009, Time Magazine.,9171,1725975,00.html

    “Gusher of Lies”, Robert Bryce, copyright 2008, page 164 (ethanol); pages 224-226 (wind); and page 220 (solar).

  7. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2009, EIA data.
  8. “Australian Senate Rejects Cap and Trade..”
  9. “Energy Kids Page” Where Do We Get Coal, Energy Information Administration.

    “Marcellus Shale gas reserves could meet US natural gas needs for 14 years.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 8, 2008.

    “Developing Shale Oil May Solve Our Energy Crisis”, H. Sterling Burnett, PHD, Washington Examiner, July 29,2009.

    “National Strategic Unconventional Resource Model”, Department of Energy, April, 2006, Page 5.

    “Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States:A Primer, U. S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy, April 2009. (Executive Summary, Page E-5).

  10. “Earnings in Perspective”, Energy

Consider 2006 energy expenditures in relation to 1981 energy costs:

1981 2006
Gas expense as a percentage of new car cost [1] 13.8% 5.3%
Gas expense per auto as a percentage of household income [1] 10.7% 5.1%
Oil Consumption as a percentage of GDP 6.0% 3.3%

[1] Assumes 12,000 miles annually based upon average new vehicle costs [$8,912 for 1981 and $27,800 for 2006], average fuel efficiency [13.2 for 1981 and 21 for 2006] and average costs of regular gasoline [$1.35 for 1981 and $2.58 for 2006] including light trucks and SUVs.

The chart below compares the profit margins of the independent and major oil sector with the profit margins of ten widely held non-oil companies from 1997 to 1999. Average NYMEX oil price of $16:

Category Profits Margin Capital Inv Reinvest. %
Independent Oil ($176 M) -18% $21.0 B N/A
Major Oil $42.8 B 3.99% $82.6 B 193%
Major Non-Oil $145 B 15.69% $120.7 B 83%

Independent Oil includes Range, Occidental, Marathon, Amerada Hess, Apache, Pioneer, Anadarko, Murphy, Chesapeake, Devon.

Major Oil includes ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips.

Major Non-Oil includes Phizer, GE, Microsoft, Home Depot, Verizon, Wal-Mart, Intel, IBM, Caterpillar, Coke and Federal Express.

The chart below compares the same companies for 2004 to 2006.

Average NYMEX oil price of $49.

Category Profits Margin Capital Inv Reinvest. %
Independent Oil $55 B 18% $75 B 138%
Major Oil $182 B 8.2% $112 B 61% [2]
Major Non-Oil $241 B 12.8% $178 B 74%

[2] Higher prices allowed major oil companies to increase dividends to their shareholders while also increasing capital investment by 36% over the 1997-1999 period,

The oil and gas industry is the most heavily taxed sector in the United States.   In addition to income taxes, the industry pays severance and property taxes calculated upon gross production as well as import duties, sales and use taxes.  Severance taxes in Texas alone exceeded $5.7 Billion in 2006. Taxes paid by the three largest U.S. oil majors in 2006 were in excess of their profits as shown below:

Company Income Tax Other Tax Total Tax Net Income
Exxon $27.9 B $42.4 B $70.3 B $39.5 B
Chevron $14.8 B $20.8 B $35.6 B $17.1 B
Conoco $12.8 B $18.0 B $30.8 B $15.6 B

Posted on August 22nd, 2009 by admin  |  1 Comment »

What We Believe

We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it.” –Benjamin Franklin

We believe that when this country was formed it was uniquely blessed to have had at least six world class leaders among it’s founders. A world-class leader is one who impacts civilization in such a powerful way that a paradigm shift is created and typically comes along only once in a generation. The six leaders who converged in 1776 would include George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Such notable men as Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Hancock and Noah Webster greatly fortified and enhanced the effectiveness of these leaders and would themselves have been classified as “world-class” in any other generation.

These men were uniquely educated as well as intellectually gifted. They were well trained in history, philosophy, economics, languages, law, agriculture, warfare and religion. They were keen observers and analysts of the various forms of government and economic systems that had been tried in ancient and contemporary Europe. They were quite familiar with gun control, wealth redistribution, pure democracy (which they equated with mob rule) the importance of the rule of law above judicial fiat and the danger of the “proliferation of offices” (bureaucracy). They feared government and believed that it’s powers must be carefully defined and restrained.

As a result of their valiance a miraculous victory was won over the most powerful empire the world had ever known. Because of their brilliance, a government was established that created a level of liberty, tolerance, prosperity and stability that became the envy of the world. Accordingly, we have inherited a sacred trust that must be safe guarded for succeeding generations. In the words of Jefferson, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

The success of our Republic is evidenced by the millions of immigrants who annually risk their lives or leave their families to come to “the land of opportunity.” The hordes come from every country on every continent representing every religion and language. As long as these men and women embrace our tradition of liberty and respect our laws they are welcomed with open arms. No other country on earth holds such an attraction to immigrants. If fact, many have walls to keep their citizens in bondage and absolutely no one is trying to get in.

Liberty or Bondage is dedicated to the Jeffersonian principle that “the government that governs least governs best.” As President Reagan famously said, “Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.” However, we also know that what is received too easily is soon despised. Although we have been given a freedom that others risk their own lives to share, too many Americans only see the imperfections of our country instead of its abundant virtues.

We were given the right to life, liberty and the “pursuit of happiness” but we were never guaranteed happiness. We are promised equal opportunity, but not equal outcomes. Freedom carries with it the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed. Whenever failure is “bailed out” the prosperity of all others is diminished. Bail-outs not only burden the successful but also those who may have been on the brink of success. When government plans too much, private citizens and business cannot plan at all. When government engages in activities that were not envisioned in the Constitution (such as welfare) then private charity and philanthropy will recede. When government assumes responsibility for certain population groups then the personal responsibility of those groups will decline.

We believe that man-kind is generally split into two groups. Group one believes that government is responsible for the health and welfare of it’s citizens. Group two believes that the citizens are individually responsible for their own health and welfare. Those adhering to Group one tend to downplay the private sector while working tirelessly for government favors and benefits that can only be underwritten by the private sector. As they seek the growth and influence of government they unavoidably create subsidies, tariffs, income redistribution, taxation, bureaucracies, regulation and oversight that progressively suppresses private enterprise. Those adhering to Group two downplay the role of government while working tirelessly to generate benefits for themselves, their families and their communities. As they seek the best interest for themselves and their families they unavoidably produce income, opportunities, employment, property, investments and stability that inures to the benefit of their community.

Those committed to the proposition that government should provide the needs and desires of the citizenry tend to be activists who are employed by government or liberal-progressive foundations and community action groups or by the media. Many of these groups actually receive partial funding of their budgets from government grants. As such, they are able to devote an inordinate amount of time toward the goal of expanding the role of government.

Those committed to the proposition that the individual and families should attend to their own needs and desires tend to be employed in private enterprise. As such, he expends the majority of his energy producing income for the care and advancement of himself and his family – and increasingly to the payment of taxes to fund the constantly expanding government. Therefore, he does not have the time, energy or resources to equal those expended by the pro-government constituents.

Critical mass has been attained by the pro-government side of the argument. They control the mass media, public education, most governmental agencies except the military, colleges, universities and law schools. They enjoy a distinct electoral advantage in California, the northeast and in most metropolitan areas of the country. Their positions are advanced in Hollywood, the networks, all major newspapers with one exception, and all of cable television except one. They dominate commercial and investment banking and most of Wall Street. Those who share the belief that the individual is paramount over the state reside in the south, southwest and portions of the west and mid-west. They dominate the energy and agricultural sectors and most of small business. They press their arguments in talk radio, the Wall Street Journal, and to some extent on Fox News.

The battle lines are clear and the stakes are high. Will we continue down the road to European style socialism or will our Constitutional Republic be revitalized? Will America become a place where incomes are redistributed and outcomes are predetermined or will we remain a land of innovators and risk-takers? Will Americans be satisfied with a guaranteed stipend and government health care or will we insist upon free enterprise and state of the art medicine? Will bureaucrats dictate the cars we drive and the energy we use or will we make those choices based upon our individual needs and preferences? Will the Federal government assert absolute dominance over the states or will the states insist upon the autonomy guaranteed by the 10th Amendment? Are we all destined to become wards of the state or will we demand liberty?

America is the last country on earth where the freedoms described above are still enjoyed by its citizens. The fight to keep liberties is much easier than the fight to gain them. Our forefathers secured these rights for our benefit, we must decide if they are worth the fight to preserve them for the next generation. Will they have liberty or bondage?

By: Kyle L. Stallings

Posted on June 5th, 2009 by admin  |  Comments Off on What We Believe