Texas Loses another Round in Redistrict Gerrymandering Case

As soon as we captured Senate District 10 in 2008 with the candidacy of Wendy Davis, the Republican-dominated legislature set a course to cut out the minority precincts which supported and boosted Davis, a Democrat, into office. The Texas legislature’s redistricting plan redrew the boundaries for Congress and the state House and Senate districts, at our exclusion and without our input, and in contradiction to the Voting Rights Act.

 

Wendy Davis took Texas to court over Senate District 10, while at the same time Marc Veasey took the state to court over defining the boundaries of the new Congressional District 33. The case was heard first in the federal court in the Western District of Texas.

 

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott defended the redistricting plan, and also put forth the same plan before a three-judge panel in Washington, D.C., in order to gain “preclearance” approval.

 

As it turned out, the federal court in Texas threw out the Texas legislature’s redistricting map, and drew up a new map. Attorney General Abbott and Governor Rick Perry immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the High Court refused to endorse Texas' plan, but claimed that the lower court had overstepped its bounds. The case was sent back to the federal court in Texas, where the redistricting map boundaries would again undergo the slow process of being redrawn.

 

In the process, and as the Republican primary season in Texas lingered unsettled pending litigation, a compromise between parties was reached. Wendy Davis was awarded her original senate district back, and Congressional District 33 would be drawn as a minority-majority district.

 

NOW, the verdict is in on the other case, where Texas’s attempted and end-run around the Obama Justice Department to gain preclearance through the D.C. court.

 

[Excerpts from “Texas loses gamble on redistricting”]

 

The gamble by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Republican lawmakers to bypass the Obama Justice Department with redistricting maps backfired big time when a federal court on Tuesday rejected all the plans, even one that U.S. officials hadn't found objectionable.

 

The three-judge panel, which held a trial in January, concluded that the Republican-dominated Legislature's redrawing of districts for Congress and the state House and Senate did not comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

 

What's more, the court said lawmakers acted with discriminatory intent in crafting boundaries for congressional districts and Fort Worth's Senate District 10, represented by Democrat Wendy Davis.

 

Even though the Justice Department had not objected to the Texas Senate map, the court was persuaded by arguments from Davis and others that SD 10 was improperly reconfigured in a way that "cracked" African-American and Hispanic voters who had coalesced to elect her in 2008.

 

“That Texas did not, and now fails to respond sufficiently to the parties' evidence of discriminatory intent, compels us to conclude that the Senate Plan was enacted with discriminatory purpose as to SD 10,” wrote Judge Thomas Griffith, U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

 

The court cited several factors pointing to discriminatory purpose in developing the congressional map: The Legislature “removed the economic guts” from the three districts represented by African Americans, while “no such surgery was performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents”.

 

FOOTNOTE:

Abbott tweeted that he would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he issued a statement saying the appellate judges' decision "extends the Voting Rights Act beyond the limits intended by Congress and beyond the boundaries imposed by the Constitution."

 

COMMENTARY:

This is the question that Texas wants to present before the High Court: The Constitutionality of the Voting Rights Acts, as currently administered and enforced. In its fight for state’s rights sovereignty, Texas does not want to be compelled to pre-clear electoral changes through the federal Department of Justice.

 

In the previous Supreme Court’s ruling in (Governor Rick) Perry v. (State Senator Wendy) Davis, some members of the Court hinted at taking on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, as if sections of the old Civil Rights law may have outlived its purpose, because the era of racial discrimination is over.

 

It might be noted that other states are also taking aim at the Act on the same grounds, and the Republican Party itself is advocating the law's complete abolition. But the gerrymandering of SD 10 is proof, in and of itself, of the need for continued federal Civil Rights protection for minority voting districts.

 

Without such protection, it would be legal for a Texas GOP-dominated legislature to remove “the economic guts from the three districts represented by African Americans, while no such surgery (would be) performed on the districts of Anglo incumbents”, as stated by the U.S. Appeal Court.

 

 

 

Election Results: The Called and Chosen Protégés

Many are called, but few are chosen-

In the July 31 runoff election, we elected Marc Veasey for Democrat U.S. Congress District 33, and Nicole Collier, Democrat, for Veasey’s vacated Texas House District 95 seat. In the wings await incumbent Texas Senator Wendy Davis, District 10.

These are our chosen, from the ranks of the Democratic Party, trained and mentored, to go out and do battle against the Republican opposition. The stars are aligned, from here (DFW) to Congress and to the White House.

While people are complaining about things which have no immediate solution, and vie for debate, we, on our end, are training up the next generation of leadership who has the courage and smarts to tackle the problems.

Marc Veasey, Wendy Davis, and Nicole Collier have each been thoroughly mentored by Eddie Griffin, international human rights advocate.

These are not isolated individuals. They are part of a team on a mission. And, it will take a kick-butt attitude to get it done. Eddie Griffin, once a leader in the 1960s revolution, is now a human rights advocate, with a dialectic perspective on government.

I believe that we have the power to solve our own problems with new and bold leadership. It is better to change government from within, rather than keep banging on the outside door. A power alignment intensifies the power of a few against the many.

God gives leaders wisdom and guidance by His Word. We, the people, give them power.

Congratulation again- Marc Veasey and Nicole Collier

 

Eddie Griffin (BASG)

Millionaire Doctors and Poor Patients

A Report By Eddie G. Griffin, International Child Rights advocate

I find it interesting that the federal government thinks Medicaid expansion is the answer when the number of doctors who accept Medicaid has decreased as the following numbers show.

2000 – 67%
2010 – 42%
2012 – 31%

Source: Dr. Mark Shelton, Facebook Post

Dr. Michael Burgess, U.S. House District 26 of Texas, explains why doctors are abandoning their practices, or refusing Medicaid patients. (See C-SPAN). In essence, the Medicaid reimbursement rates are too small. And with the anticipated expansion of Medicaid rolls under the Affordable Healthcare Act, they fear the medical care market would be flooded with poor patients, and fewer doctors willing to see them.

In 2009, in a one-on-one over coffee, Michael Burgess and Eddie Griffin debated the healthcare bill which was being drafted and reviewed at that time. Eddie Griffin was the first to point out typos and other flaws in the original 1400-page bill, before it was rushed through the Congress and enacted as a 2700-page tome, known as “Obamacare” (socialized medicine, as some would say)

In the exchange, Griffin pleaded the case of The Unborn at risk of being born with a “pre-existing condition” like the Blue Baby. In his C-SPAN interview on yesterday, Michael Burgess discusses his ideas about babies being born with pre-existing conditions. And still he has no solution for the Blue Baby, except a high-risk insurance pool, regulated by the state.

But there is irony in what Burgess says about healthcare access. Just because people have a healthcare plan, it does not mean that they have access to healthcare coverage. Having Medicaid did not guarantee that patients would receive medical attention, as there will be fewer and fewer doctors willing to take new patients, as more and more patients come into the healthcare system under the Affordable Health Care Act.

Millionaire doctors are in revolt, some threatening to shut down their offices, some threatening to leave the country and practice elsewhere.

Dr. Burgess asked: “Why vilify the doctors? These are the very people that you need.” Good doctors? Yes. Bad, greedy doctors? No.

With over 650,000 doctors now in the Top 1% of the income bracket, and 20% of doctors now in the Top 2%, how can anybody ask why healthcare cost has gone through the roof?

Millionaire Doctors are getting rich off their practices in a number of exploitative ways, from pushing pills for the pharmaceutical companies, to worthless treatments and unnecessary surgeries, to plugging the plug on terminal patients when coverage runs out, limiting their own medical tort liability, while forcing some patients to mortgage their homes to pay their medical bills, these doctors maximize profit over care.

They vilify themselves when the take the Hypocrisy Oath instead of the Hippocratic Oath.

We have all had family members bled by the system for premiums and later dropped, for some technical excuse of other, written in a policy nobody could read and understand in the first place.

Simplification and streamlining the system is necessary. Maybe that might mean that some of these millionaire doctors need to shut down their operations for the betterment of the overall healthcare system, if they refuse care to the “poorest of the poor” just because it does not pay enough.

We have often disputed whether healthcare was a right or a privilege, whereby Burgess believes the latter. And, since introducing him to the plight of the helpless unborn and uncovered, he has worked diligently to provide a fix, without having to rewrite another 2700-page Republican alternative.

And just when he puts the final touches on his alternative to introduce to the Republican-dominated House of Representative, and in anticipation of, at least, a partial victory from the Supreme Court, the Roberts’ ruling was “not exactly” as he wished. Translated, Justice Roberts threw a monkey wrench into his alternatives.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act is the law of the land. That meant Burgess’ Republican alternative plan has to be altered.

Therefore, at a nexus in time, when the Republican proposed to outright kill “Obamacare”, there is no alternative on the table, only a promise from Burgess that one will be ready before the month is out.

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE

The law is in effect. And, it will be defended. And, not until the Blue Baby is provided affordable health care coverage, pregnant mothers, elderly, and terminally ill, without caps of coverage, and patients without denial due to poverty, will we rest in the defense of this Act.

Eddie G. Griffin (BASG)

Intrusion into Texas State Sovereignty?

Governor Rick Perry
State Capitol
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, TX 78711-2428
Telephone: 512-463-2000
Fax: (512) 463-1849
E-mail: www.governor.state.tx.us/contact

Dear Gov Rick Perry,

Excuse me and beg your pardon. You say:

… the expansion of Medicaid as provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the creation of a so-called "state" insurance exchange... both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.

And you describe this intrusion upon state rights as a “power grab”.

May I ask: A power grab from what to what?

The 10^th Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Note where these Reserved Power go in the Texas Constitution:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

(Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 2)

Note: All political power is inherent in The People.

One of our Founding Fathers John Adams defined a Republic as “a government of laws, and not of men.” In other words, Texas has no czars or oligarchy.

We, therefore, call upon the people of Texas to compel the Governor Rick Perry to recognize Texas as a Republic Government of Laws, and not simply a government of laws to our own likings.

Texas GOP Platform or Articles of Secession

When the Texas Republican Party army came to Fort Worth last month for its state convention, someone should have warned them not to drink the water from the Trinity River. Without warning, however, a case of mass insanity broke out in the ranks like Mad Cow Disease. How else could they come up with such as poppycock political platform? And worse, how could all these Republican officeholders and candidates mindlessly bind themselves to this covenant by blind oath of party loyalty?



Just when we thought idiocy had reached its all-time high-water mark, here comes the 2012 Republican Party of Texas political platform. [excerpts italicized]

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. (p.12)

Did the Texas Republicans just say that they oppose “critical thinking skills”? Is the Party so devoid of critical thinking skills that it would oppose teaching such skills to school children for fear that it would dislodge their little fixed beliefs?

Oops! It was a mistake says Republican Party of Texas (RPT) Communications Director Chris Elam.

“[The chairman of the Education Subcommittee] indicated that it was an oversight of the committee, that the plank should not have included ‘critical thinking skills’ after ‘values clarification,’” Elam said. “And it was not the intent of the subcommittee to present a plank that would have indicated that the RPT in any way opposed the development of critical thinking skills.”

The Texas Republicans are stuck with the plank until the next state convention in 2014. Accident or not, ignorance is bliss for the state GOP.

·        We support reducing taxpayer funding to all levels of education institutions. (p.17)

This plank makes it clear that the GOP-dominated state legislature last session cuts in school funding was not due to fiscal constraints, but a purposeful act of undermining the education system throughout the state, except for private and charter schools.

·        We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development. (p.12)

·        We believe the Department of Education (DOE) should be abolished (p.13)

Footnote: Texas is 49^th in verbal SAT scores in the nation, 46^th in average math SAT scores, and 36^th in high school graduation rates (68%). It ranks 44^th in average per pupil expenditures and dead last (51^st) in the percentage of adults with high school diplomas. Maybe this bespeaks the fact that Texas is now a minority-majority state.

·        We encourage legislation that prohibits enrollment in free public schools of non-citizens unlawfully present in the United States. (p.12)

·        We encourage non-English speaking students to transition to English within three years. (p.11)

·        We support adoption of American English as the official language of Texas and of the United States (p.7)

We call on the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States to clarify Section 1 of the 14th amendment to limit citizenship by birth to those born to a citizen of the United States with no exceptions. (p.21)

·        Applicants (for citizenship) must waive any and all rights to apply for financial assistance from any public entitlement programs;

·        Applicant must show a proficiency in the English language and complete an American civic class;

Under the Republican Platform, it would no longer be enough to simply be born in the United States to become a U.S. citizen. A child born to an undocumented immigrant would not be allowed to receive an education in the public school system. And though their parents would be obligated to pay income and sales taxes, they would not be entitled to any of public benefits or social services of a regular taxpayer.

·        We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. (p.11)

·        We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings. (p.13)

What is “a multicultural curriculum”? And, how would it be “divisive”? There is enough ambiguity here for plausible denial. But using the GOP “Judeo-Christian” principle, all other cultural inclusions are negated by implication. In other words, if the curriculum does not fall within the guidelines of Judeo-Christian principles, then it is part of the multicultural curriculum; and, therefore, divisive.

Does that mean teaching a Black History Month lesson in the classroom is divisive? If so, then from who’s perspective? Note: political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. If it fosters alienation among racial and ethnic groups, it is NOT politically correct. If it were politically correct, it would be unbiased and inclusive.

Education is not a Judeo-Christian monopoly. In a globalized society, multiculturalism is an asset.

·        We believe the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed. (p.19)

·        We urge the Legislature to resist making Workers’ Compensation mandatory for all Texas employers (p.19)

·        We urge the Congress to repeal the Prevailing Wage Law and the Davis Bacon Act. (p.19)

·        We oppose affirmative action. (p.3)

·        We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized. (p.5)

The Texas Republican agenda creates a servile class, with no minimum wage guarantees and protections. There must be, however, protection for the worker against illegal exploitation.

Every worker is entitled to, at least, livable wages. Without affirmative action, equal opportunity through hiring and promotion would not exist. The proof is in the courts. As long as there is discriminatory hiring and promotion, there will be a need for affirmative action.

Selective hiring is reflected in the disparity in unemployment rates. Were it not for affirmative action EEOC, the defense industry would still be Lilly White.

Killing affirmative action would be like killing a baby before it is born.

·        We support the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act. (p.20)

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was enacted because of the discriminatory practice of “redlining”. When bank deposits come out of a community, instead of lending back to the businesses in that community, the banks would take minority funds and lend to Lilly White developers in another part of town. One side of town flourish, while the other side languish.

The CRA has since been almost amended out of its existence. Then also, there was a turn for the worse in housing lending by banks on over-inflated priced housing. Therefore, instead of abolishing CRA, the Act needs to be strengthened.

We support a favorable business climate of low taxes and deregulation to encourage capital investment, ensuring retention and creation of American jobs. (p.19)

·        We recommend repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, with the goal of abolishing the I.R.S and replacing it with a national sales tax collected by the States (p.17)

·        We urge repeal of the Texas business tax.

·        Abolishing property taxes

·        Shifting the tax burden to a consumption-based tax

·        We urge outright repeal of property taxes on inventory.

·        Oppose all professional licensing fees and real estate and similar transaction fees or taxes

·        Oppose Creation of a state income tax or state property tax

·        We urge the income tax, capital gains tax, estate tax, and all other tax reductions be made permanent. The death tax is immoral and should be abolished forever.

·        We believe Congress should repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (p.19)

The aim here is clearly to abolish the federal government by strangulation on taxes. The Texas Republicans have been gradually eliminating, not only legitimate sources of federal tax revenue, but undermining federal taxing authority itself. This proposal to eliminate the IRS and impose a sales tax upon all consumers is merely another shifting of the tax burden more upon the backs of the middle-income and poor consumers.

Eliminating the monetary system and returning to the gold standard, as alluded to in this document, is a regressive step backwards. Doing away with the Federal Reserve System would cut off the circulation of government IOUs, known as Federal Reserve notes or simply greenback dollars.

What would we have in its place? Gold bonds? And, how would money circulate, from bank to bank, without the Federal Reserve central banking system. The economy needs an arbiter of value and a pipeline for liquidity.

We support abolishing all federal agencies whose activities are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution; including the Departments of Education and Energy. (p.16)

·        We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished. (p.3)

·        We call for the disbanding of the TSA and place airport security into the more accountable and capable hands of the state and local law enforcement. (p.14)

·        We demand the immediate repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we believe to be unconstitutional. (p.11)

Environmental pollution almost brought us to our knees before conceded the need for air and water quality monitoring. EPA came into being as a long-range survival agency for a short-sighted generation.

On the other hand, airport security, with its Interstate Commerce range and regulations, cannot be overseen and managed by any single state or through local law enforcement. State and local governments do not have the intelligence capacity.

·        We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil. (p.20)

·        We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (p.10)

·        We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. (p.22)

·        We oppose the influence, promotion and implementation of nongovernmental organizations, metropolitan and/or regional planning organizations, Councils of Government, and International Council for Local Environmental initiatives and the use of American (Texas) citizen’s taxes to promote these programs. (p.20)

The Texas Republicans take an isolationist perspective on the global community. It would disassociate itself from every world body. It would refuse to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which rights would also be protected in the United States.

The universal acceptance of Children’s Rights leaves the United States as one of only two countries who have not ratified it. This shows how alienated our country is from the rest of the world.

Note also that the GOP lists of disassociations would also include Councils of Government, such as the North Central Texas Council of Governments. This notion goes against regional planning and collaboration on the local, state, national, and global scale.

This myopic perception impedes our broader view of our relative place in the global community.

We oppose the abusive use of class action lawsuits. (p.19)

Parties who pay greater fines, penalties, and awards are the greater culprit. Lawsuits are a necessary arrest to illegal and harmful practices. It is the check in Checks-and-Balances.

The size of the award should not be an incentive to continue violating. It must be a deterrent.

We call for truckers working within the state of Texas to enjoy the full benefits of the Texas Concealed Handgun License law irrespective of unreasonable and intrusive federal regulations. (p.14)

Only in Texas.

We reaffirm Texas’ state sovereignty, as reserved under the 10th Amendment. Texas retains its sovereignty, freedoms, independence, power, jurisdiction and rights which are not delegated to the federal government by the U. S. Constitution. (p.20)

·        We oppose all unfunded mandates by the federal and state governments. (p.16)

Every Republican is responsible for implementing this platform. Party candidates should indicate their positions on platform planks before their acceptance on the ticket and such information should be available on the Party website. (p.6)

The Surprise Supreme Court Decision on Healthcare

Are you kidding me? People must be asking themselves.


What just happened? The Supreme Court of the United States let stand “The Affordable Healthcare Act”, a/k/a ObamaCare. The ruling shocked everybody, on both sides of the issue.

However, being taken by surprise is an understatement. CNN and FOX News both reported that the Court struck down the ObamaCare mandates. In their haste to be the first to pronounce doom, they did a SNAFU by broadcasting a Breaking News false report. In the split second, between false news and its retraction, the world went bananas.

Some news analysts were already touting that this was a blow to President Barack Obama. Then, suddenly, they choked on their words, and begged their viewing audience to be cautious.

Are you kidding me? The FOX New anchorman tells me to be cautious after he realizes that he was wrong in his initial report on the demise of ObamaCare mandates. Be cautious against whom, I would ask?

SECOND: The Chief Justice prefaced the ruling by rejecting the mandates on the basis of the Interstate Commerce Act. BUT SAY NO MORE. The bean-head Twitters are off tweeting: Mandate Struck Down.

Was Justice John Roberts a wily fox? Here was a landmark decision that could etch the Roberts Court into immortal history, and he held the decisive swing 5-4 vote.

He coyly implies that the legislation may not be good policy, but its legality can stand because of the authority given it through the legislative process. Therefore, he was NOT judging the policy of healthcare mandates, he was justifying the law as a TAX.

SURPRISE, surprise. As one writer puts it, a Lucy-and-the-football surprise.

WTF? The Twitter world went crazy with acronyms. Even worse, the Republicans immediately declared war to repeal the Healthcare Act. And, it did not seem to matter to them that they kill the whole thing in one swoop.

Mitt Romney told reporters shortly before noon that he would repeal the law his first day in office if elected. “ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today,” he said. 

“Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

Phrases like “first day in office” and “the urgency” indicates that the battle lines are drawn against the full Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act.

Had the Court issued a partial ruling, as many watchers had originally expected, then both parties would have gone back to its respective Congressional corners and immerse itself in more gridlock. There would be more anti-Obamacare sideshows and rallies and inflamed townhall meetings.

With the ruling, there was now nothing to nitpick, not even a thread. The Act is ruled law, and therefore constitutional. What other GOP option was there, short of concession? The impulse is to strike back. But they can only do so by stirring up more public anger. In order to do that, the public again must be misinformed and incited.

After all, nobody has read the dang thing. A 1,000-page law is 999 more pages than a simpleton can handle. A false report about it is as good as the truth when hardhearted minds are set in stone.

The Morning after the Primaries

Good News-Bad News

By Eddie Griffin

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

After the polls closed on yesterday, I went out to celebrate the watch of the returns with the jubilant Nicole Collier group. A small group of about 75 people were crammed into the restaurant, awaiting the lady of the hour. They were all bone tired exhausted, as they trickled in from the field, looking for food, refreshments, and victory. There were children present to witness this historic day.

I, too, was tired, exhausted to the brink from supporting and promoting other hopeful candidates in other races. But of this one watch party was a must attend for me, because the Collier candidacy looked like our best shot, for a diamond-in-the-rough underdog to take the lion’s share my home turf, District 95.

I listened to these courageous folks tell their stories about their work in the field, going door to door, pressing the flesh, and talking to voters. The joke around the room was about Nicole’s worn-out pink sneakers. I felt refreshed to be among earthly people who put their heart and soul into this campaign.

Entrance the lady of the hour, and after introductions, we were off and running, watching the results on multiple TV screens, cheering the tally, round by round.

Eddie Griffin was wired and connected to instant feeds and direct communications in the field. But watching the numbers come in was like watching paint dry.

GOOD NEWS – BAD NEWS

Nicole Collier was up and at holding at 48%. Our strategy was to attain a 50.1% majority, and avoid a runoff. GOOD NEWS, nevertheless, we are in the Runoffs, with a 10% lead.

BAD NEWS: Kyev Tatum and his group of prayer warriors, not only fell short of glory, but crashed in 10^th place in his race for U.S. District 33. Here was another campaign that Eddie Griffin had poured heart and mind into. My protégé, who lovingly calls himself my “hardheaded” student, acted just as hardheaded student, ignoring the Stop Signs and failing to Slow Down while speeding through a Political Zone, with Eddie Griffin as a passenger.

Every mistake a man can make can be overcome, except the one that is fatal. A few days before the election, I described to Tatum a visualization of his fatal mistake in the race. His premature boasting got him shot down like a soldier sticking his head up out of the foxhole. Covertly some Democratic Party elite sabotaged his boasting by undoing his plan.

“They got me, Brother Eddie,” he lamented over the phone. “They knocked the wind out of me.” It took him by surprise like a man mortally wounded and he sounded like a man who had lost his self-confidence.

It was at that point that I saw a defeated man.

THE LAST MISTAKE- WORSE THAN THE FIRST

Eddie Griffin cannot fix a man’s pride and boastfulness. Humility is the best teacher, and Brother Tatum is now learning plenty of that with only 200 votes to show for his campaign effort. The good part, however, was that, for once, “the least, last, lost, and left out”, had a voice and a legitimate shot at a congressional seat at the table.

But after the public embarrassment of a refuted claim of support, Tatum called up his “prayer warriors” to come to the rescue and pray themselves to victory.

God is above politics, I wrote, and warned Tatum that by invoking the name of God and putting Him to the test, that he (Tatum) must prove the power of his prayers by winning the election or risk proving the false hope of his prayers.

The bible declares that God hears and answers the prayers of the righteous, but God disdains the prayers of those conceited in their faith. “Prayer warriors”, what are they? How can they approach the throne of grace except through humility and total submission to His Will?

No, prayer is not answered on the basis of man’s volition or fervency. Thus, Brother Tatum could not pray his way out of his mistakes and on to victory, no more than the “prayer warriors” in the time of the prophet Elijah.

It troubles Eddie Griffin to see people trying to get God to do their will, instead of God’s will. The race is given neither to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.

IN THE MEANTIME

I bypassed the Tatum Watch Party to go and be with a winner, Nicole Collier. Although I felt spent and would have preferred some much-needed sleep after the polls closed, I just didn’t want to spend the night alone, at home, watching the election results. And, I had a number of invitations to Watch Parties from various candidates that I supported. I wanted to be happy, and to be around cheerful people, and not to be depressed by the Tatum funeral Party.

When I first met Nicole Collier, I asked if she could “take a punch”. I had meant if she could take a knockdown in the political arena. She took the challenge at physical face value, balled up her fist, and declared that she will hit back. That’s when I knew that we had a winner who could champion our district.

But on this watch night she was on pins and needles as the numbers came in. The old jokes were for laughter to break the tensions of the night.

I told her a story about another candidate who, several years ago, held a lead that kept declining as the night wore on, knowing that this was why Nicole was so uptight. At any rate, as the story went, as this particular candidate’s lead began to slip, she began to drink. As the margin lead continued to fall, the drunker the candidate got. Finally, when they declared her the victor, by the slimmest margins, her hair was skewed in a hundred different directions and she could barely walk straight.

Nicole whispered, “I’m glad you told me that story, because I was just thinking about getting me a drink.”

Then she paused and looked at me, and asked, “Can I have a drink?”

I responded, “No, not now.” Remember the previous experience, I said, “You may have to make a victory speech.” And, when I finally left just after midnight, I left a jubilant Nicole, sane and sober.