RER Op-Eds

PARKER: Gun Control Attempts to Socialize the Individual’s Right to Self-defense

By Gregory Parker

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”[i] ~ Cesare Beccaria.
Gun control is defined as the laws or established policies that regulate or restrict the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, or use of firearms by individual citizens. The New York Times defined the gun control as “a broad term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried, what duties a seller has to vet a buyer, and what obligations both the buyer and the seller have to report transactions to the government.”[ii] I consider gun control and its accompanying laws to be thinly veiled attempts to socialize the individual right of self-defense and to place such self-defense in the hands of government’s collective security.
Let me explain, gun control advocates pursue an agenda of distortion on individual freedom through reduction, by seeking the elimination of all firearms, declaring public safety will be enhanced. They perpetuate the theory government can provide for an individual’s safety better than the individual or that the individual freedom of self-defense is somehow subservient to criminals individual right to due process. Example, Justin Curmi, writing for the Huffington Post, argued that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker because it violates the criminal’s right to a fair trial. He stated that “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.”[iii] A similar sentiment was echoed by Temia Hariston, the mother of a black robbery suspect that died from a gunshot wound he suffered while robbing a Pizza Hut. She stated during an interview with CBS News that she believed the employee who shot her son had no right to do so and should have let the police handle the situation. “If there was to be a death, it was not the place of the employee at Pizza Hut. That is the place of law enforcement. It was an act of desperation, but I do not believe that Michael would have hurt anyone. Why in the hell did this guy have a gun?”[iv] The robbery suspects fathers stated “Even a criminal has a right to a degree,”[v] Likewise, 10 democrat Nevada state Senators filed a bill to water down the current castle doctrine protections, effectively allowing criminals to take legal action against their victims if the victim fights back and injures the attacker. Under the proposed legislation, a rapist who breaks into a woman’s home would be allowed to sue the woman if she interferes and injures the attacker. Similarly, a father who defends his family during a violent home invasion could be sued by the attackers.[vi]
In essence, the criminal’s freedom to do as he or she desires supersedes another’s freedom to be safe from harm. As we have seen in my essay “Freedom and Democratic Socialism,” an individual will always choose collective safety and security over freedom, unless that safety is best obtained through their own personal liberty. For instance, most Americans believe and acknowledge that a police force (collective safety and security) is necessary for a civil society and are willing to relinquish some freedoms for such collective safety. However, most Americans also agree that personal protection (individual safety) is also needed and it is up to the individual to choose which protection method best suits them. A Gallup poll finds that among those who own firearms, personal safety/protection are most often cited as the reason for ownership 60 percent, followed by hunting, at 36 percent.[vii]
In recent memory, the government has continually failed in the arena of collective safety, i.e. terrorist attacks, school shootings, illegal immigrants killing Americans, and with the increased murder rates in cities with high levels of gun control. Further, government agencies have been known to misplace firearms entrusted to them and allowing them to end up in the hands of criminals. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) misplaced 539 weapons, including a gas-grenade launcher and 39 automatic rifles or machine guns, six of which were eventually linked to crimes, two were seized during arrests, and one was held as evidence in a homicide.[viii] Moreover, In 2001, it was reported that the FBI lost 449 weapons, including machine guns.[ix] These events only increase the momentum for individual freedom of protection through firearms.
Federal background checks as well as local concealed handgun permits, increase following all mass shootings.[x] Since 2007, concealed handgun permits have increased 215 percent to more than 14.5 million. A record 1.7 million additional permits were issued between 2014 and 2015 alone.[xi] In eight states where data is listed by gender, since 2012 the number of permits has increased by 161% for women and by 85% for men.[xii] While this may not be the most accurate way to determine gun sales, given that federal law prohibits keeping a national registry of all guns and their owners, it does, however; reveal a correlation and trend relative to the fact that Americans when faced with government collective safety failures, hunger for individual freedom of self-defense. This individual freedom of self-defense, as opposed to government’s collective security, has even begun to infiltrate what are commonly known as the socialist groups. After, the Orlando mass shooting, in which a Muslim gunman opened fire killing 50 people and injuring 50 more, the gay community soon after encouraged gay individuals to purchase firearms, stating, “…the government is not able to keep you safe.[xiii] A group, the Pink Pistols, was created in response to an article by Jonathan Rauch, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, who advocated lesbians and gays carry concealed weapons to protect themselves. Jonathan Rauch stated in that article “Being able to rely on ourselves for self-defense is an important part of standing up for ourselves.”[xiv] The group’s membership tripled in size after the Orlando massacre.
In Paris, where extraordinarily strict restrictions, on firearm possession by average civilians, are imposed, and even police officers are unarmed, mass shootings still occur. Owning a firearm in France for self-defense is essentially out of the question for average citizens. Notwithstanding, fully automatic AK-47s, which were apparently used by terrorists in the most recent attack in Paris, can be purchased or sold on the black market for less than $1,200 US dollars.[xv] In the wake of the latest terrorist attacks in France police are now demanding to be allowed to carry service firearms again. The trade unions representing municipal police are demanding that all police officers routinely carry a firearm. Christophe Leveillé, General Secretary of the FO Trade Union, stated: “Our colleagues are unarmed and in danger, and something must be done.”[xvi] Deputy General Secretary Frantz Michel added “French people are being told that the government is doing everything it can to keep them safe, which is false.”[xvii]
As I have stated previously in this essay, gun control is an attempt to socialize the right of self-defense and to place such self-defense in the hands of government’s collective security. This socialist construct of self-defense does not stop at just guns. Amid the government’s collective security failures against terrorism in Sweden, Swedes have taken to wearing body armor and bulletproof vests. Allan Widman, chairman of the Swedish parliamentary defense committee, now demands that Swedes should be prohibited from obtaining bulletproof vests to protect themselves from the increasing violence. He stated, “I believe that the sense of personal security that wearing armor gives, helps to lower the threshold for the use of serious violence.”[xviii] Moreover, given that vests are classified as military equipment in Sweden, the bill he has filed would make it illegal and punishable for individual citizens to wear body armor in public places.[xix] Essentially leaving the right of self-defense in his country to the government collective, which is evidently not up to the task.
It is also interesting to note that, gun control advocates do not appear to truly be against guns, considering such advocates will obviously need the police to have guns to disarm the people. Example, gun control advocates strive for only the police or military to have access to firearms. That is not gun control it is merely centralization of gun ownership, in the hands of the government and the political elite. As evidenced by the California state legislature, in 2011, sought to exempt itself from the “Good Cause” requirement of California concealed firearms law. Bill SB 610 would have exempted members of Congress, California statewide elected officials and members of the California legislature, from said cause requirement, “for protection or self-defense,” the bill noted. That section was removed prior to the bill’s passage. In another example, Former California Democratic State Senator and candidate for California Secretary of State, Leland Yee, a staunch gun control advocate, was sentenced to five years in prison for accepting bribes and trafficking in weapons. Yee, as a state Senator, strongly supported strict gun control laws and was named to the Brady Campaign’s Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll.[xx]
“Yee’s actions…vile…and the arms dealings particularly hypocritical given the politician’s history of gun control advocacy.”[xxi] ~ Yanan Wang.
While doing promotion for his latest Jason Bourne motion picture in Australia, Matt Damon proclaimed that he wished America would pass a gun ban similar to Australia. Lena Dunham, the actress, preceded to advocate for the removal of all guns from subway ads promoting the new movie Jason Bourne.[xxii] Matt Damon’s hypocritical answer was in effect, do it to everyone else, just not to me. “I totally get it, I mean especially given what’s going on recently, and I get not wanting to see a picture of a gun right now, and I don’t blame her at all. I mean for marketing purposes of ‘Jason Bourne’ — I mean he is a guy who runs around with a gun, so it’s not gratuitous marketing, but certainly in light of recent events I understand that impulse to tear the gun out of the picture.”[xxiii]
As you can undoubtedly see from these examples, gun control like any other socialist construct only reduces freedom creates black markets and hurts the very people it was intended to help. Further, most gun control advocates pushing for gun confiscation or outright bans, want those gun bans to apply to everyone else but themselves. Which is highlighted by California lawmakers belief that they alone are worthy of individual personal protection, while other California citizens must wait until the police arrive. Which, according to the Department of Justice, as of 2013 that average police response time is 11 minutes.
*********** [i] Cesare Beccaria, “An Essay on Crimes & Punishments”, New York: Stephen Gould, 1809, p. 124-25. (translated from the Italian with a commentary, attributed to M. de Voltaire, translated from the French)
[ii] Richard Pérez-Peña, “Gun Control Explained”, The New York Times, October 7, 2015
[iii] Justin Curmi, “A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III”, The Huffington Post, April 26, 2017
[iv] Dave Urbanski, “Even a criminal has rights’: Dead robbery suspect’s parents angry that store worker shot their son”, The Blaze, November 4, 2016 [v] Dave Urbanski, “Even a criminal has rights’: Dead robbery suspect’s parents angry that store worker shot their son”, The Blaze, November 4, 2016 [vi] Nevada Senate bill SB-254, Filed March 9 2017 [vii] Art Swift, “Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today”, Gallup, October 28, 2013 [viii] Guy Smith, “Gun Facts Version 7.0”, 2015, pp.62 [ix] Guy Smith, “Gun Facts Version 7.0”, 2015, pp.62 [x] Lacey Wallace, “Research shows gun purchases go up after mass shootings”, Raw Story Online, December 8, 2015 [xi] John R. Lott, “The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies”, Regnery Publishing, 2016 [xii] John R. Lott, “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States:, Crime Prevention Research Center, 2016 [xiii] “Pink Pistols LGBT gun club triples in size after Orlando”,June 28, 2016, The
[xiv] “Pink Pistols LGBT gun club triples in size after Orlando”,June 28, 2016, The
[xv] Alex Newman, “Amid Terror in Paris, Gun Control Leaves French Defenseless”, The New American, January 9, 2015 [xvi] Romina McGuinness, “French police demand right to carry guns as nation faces Islamic threat”, Daily Express, Aug 9, 2016
[xvii] Romina McGuinness, “French police demand right to carry guns as nation faces Islamic threat”, Daily Express, Aug 9, 2016
[xviii] Staff Writer, “Bulletproof vests proposed banned in Sweden”,, February 17, 2017
[xix] Staff Writer, “Bulletproof vests proposed banned in Sweden”,, February 17, 2017
[xx] Yanan Wang, ” Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking”, The Washington Post, February 25, 2016
[xxi] Yanan Wang, ” Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking”, The Washington Post, February 25, 2016
[xxii] “Lena Dunham Calls for Altering of Gun-Toting ‘Jason Bourne’ Subway Ads”, Arlene Washington, July 12, 2016, The Hollywood Reporter
[xxiii] Matt Damon Says ‘Jason Bourne’ Is Keeping His Guns”, Katie Jerkovich, July 21, 2016, The Daily Caller

RERoped — GLASS: We Don’t Need to Change the Constitution to Get Liberty Back

By Tom Glass

Texans know that the federal government is constantly violating the Constitution, and are looking for workable solution.

Sadly our governor, while acknowledging that the supreme law is being violated, has proposed two solutions unlikely to work — federal lawsuits and changing the Constitution.  Governor Abbott is currently focused on changing the supreme law (the Constitution) because it is being violated.

If you are wondering why the elites who have deliberately violated the current supreme law of our land would follow a changed Constitution, you are not alone.  Neither are you alone if you think that enforcement is the proper and workable solution to lawbreaking.  Everybody knows that enforcement is a prerequisite to change.

Even the Governor has begun to implicitly admit this.  He said in a February 14, 2017 appearance on the Glenn Beck show:

[T]here is a problem with the way [the Tenth Amendment] is written.  It doesn’t specifically say who gets to enforce the Tenth Amendment.  All we want to do is add a clause or a sentence that says “States have the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment.”

But this statement by the governor displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the powers of Texas in the structure of the Constitution and of the text of the Tenth Amendment.  And if it is already constitutional for a state to enforce the Constitution, it undercuts the entire argument for constitutional change.  Change to allow enforcement is not needed – only enforcement is.

The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Since the power to enforce the Constitution is nowhere delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, states respectively (that is any individual state unilaterally) has that power.  Since the power to be the final arbiter of constitutional meaning is not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, that power is reserved to Texas unilaterally (or to any other state that understands what it is to be and act like a sovereign.)

The root of our problem is that the Supreme Court long ago created the doctrine that it was the final arbiter of constitutional meaning.  The Constitution does not say that.  As a former law professor of mine used to say, “They were just making it up!”  But the governor has not realized that it is the notion of judicial supremacy that has to be rejected for us to restore our liberty.

Representative Cecil Bell has introduced the Texas Sovereignty Act (HB 2338) to enforce the Constitution.  Senator Brandon Creighton filed the companion SB 2015.  It creates a standing Texas legislative committee that will issue opinions declaring acts of the federal government unconstitutional, stating reasoning based on the text and structure of the Constitution and the intent of the framers instead of previous Supreme Court opinions.  Once the full legislature and the governor agree, Texas lawmen and prosecutors will use the Texas Official Oppression Act to arrest and prosecute federal agents who persist in the unconstitutional action.  That Official Oppression act makes it a crime for a public official to knowingly violate the rights of Texans.

Enforcement is the direct, immediate, and constitutional solution to the problem.  A convention to produce a changed Constitution is the Rube Goldberg solution that will take at least a decade for any step forward; that relies on non-Texans to get our liberty back; and, that could break down at many places along the way.  If you want a limited, constitutional government in Texas, support enforcement and the Texas Sovereignty Act.

Tom G Glass is the founder of the Texas Constitutional Enforcement group on Facebook.

Copyright©2017 Raging Elephants Radio LLC and Tom Glass

RERoped — BRODEN: When the Church Gives Approval of Evil

An event in Washington D.C. has affirmed that we are living in an unusual time of prophetic significants.

On January 12, 2017, a group of Pastors and spiritual leaders spoke blessings over the opening of a “New Mega-facility” specializing in the abortion of babies. The facility is a Planned Parenthood operated facility which is located in the black community.

Over 20 religious leaders representing black, white, Jewish, Muslims, Hindu and other groups blessed PPH and called it a “Sacred Work.” This event is another indication that we are living in a time of great deception. The Bible warns us that deception would typify end times.

In Romans 1:22 says, “Professing to be wise they became fools” The actions of these leaders express an open rejection/rebellion of the bibles view of the sanctity of life. The Bible says “although they know the ordinance of God, which those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” Rom.1:32. Cultural Christianity leads to the embracement of doctrines of demons. Colossians 2:8 is God’s warning to us in the face of deceiving spirits.

Pastor Stephen E. Broden

Fair Park Bible Fellowship

Founder of The National Black Pro-Life Coalition

Copyright©2017 Raging Elephants Radio LLC

RERoped — WOODFILL: Where is the Remnant in the Texas House of Representatives?

By Jared Woodfill, President, Conservative Republicans of Texas

The remnant is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.   One Bible dictionary defines it as, “What is left of a community after it undergoes a disaster.”  Throughout the Bible, God looks for a remnant when a nation has abandoned its Judeo-Christian foundation.

Last week Texas House members opened the 85th Legislative Session with a vote for the next Speaker of the Texas House.  Unlike past legislative sessions, every Republican locked arms with every Democrat to support Joe Straus by a margin of 150 for, 0 opposed.  Yes, you read that right, not one state representative voted “No” against Straus. There was no remnant to be found in the Texas House last week. There was not one legislator who was willing to say through his vote that “I will not support Joe Straus for Speaker because he has been awarded and praised by Planned Parenthood.”

There was not one who would say “No!” to Joe Straus’ election, to a man who has fought against legislation that protects religious liberty and biblical marriage between one man and one woman.  There was not one who would stand against the Speaker who has waged war on social conservatives.  Not one representative would say no to Straus for supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens and who opposes the abolition of sanctuary cities. Not one Republican would stand and oppose Straus for killing the bill that would have required American law in American courts (ALAC).  There was not one in the Texas House who would stand up to Straus for preventing numerous pro-life bills, from being voted upon, that would have further protected the unborn. Not one Republican would say “No!” to Straus for making it clear that he would kill any bill that keeps biological males out of women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

Where was the “remnant” of conservatives who vocally opposed Joe Straus for the past two years while campaigning? The remnant surrendered in a single vote of support for Joe Straus, the man against whom they had campaigned and for whom they had promised voters and financial contributors they would never vote.

Over the past two years, we heard numerous conservative legislators and legislative candidates talk about the war Speaker Straus has waged on the conservative agenda.  These same politicians consistently railed against Straus for killing sanctuary city legislation, refusing to eliminate in-state tuition for illegal aliens, killing the pro-life, pro-biblical marriage agenda. These same politicians condemned Joe Straus for receiving support and awards from Planned Parenthood, the same Planned Parenthood they pledged to defund.  Some of these politicians defeated Straus lieutenants, promising voters, contributors, and grass-roots conservatives that they would never vote for Joe Straus for Speaker of the Texas House.

Sometime between their campaign promises and the vote for Speaker, something changed.

I am not going to tell you that they lacked the courage of their convictions and betrayed their supporters by voting for Straus. You can decide that for yourself.

By surrendering to Straus and voting for him for Speaker, these former anti-Straus candidates set the pro-biblical marriage, pro-life, pro-legal immigration movements back many years.

It appears that on their way up the Capitol steps, they seem to have suffered from amnesia, forgetting that Joe Straus was elected by 65 Democrats and only 11 Republicans in 2009, in a coup which overthrew conservative Republican Speaker Tom Craddick who had been elected by Republicans. These politicians who campaigned as conservatives seem to have forgotten that during the last legislative session Straus’ lieutenants on the Calendars Committee killed American Law for American Courts (ALAC) legislation.

As one who supported these anti-Straus incumbents and challengers, I was shocked, disheartened, dismayed and extremely disappointed at their surrender, as were numerous other conservative leaders across the state.

I spoke with one of the challengers whose chief campaign promise was that his first vote as State Representative, would be against Joe Straus.  I was shocked by his flimsy  excuse and justification for breaking that promise.  This newly elected representative made it clear to me that a deal had been cut and all anti-Straus incumbents and newly elected state representatives agreed to walk lockstep in support of Straus.

Their convoluted logic was that if only a few of them voted against Straus, the other anti-Straus folks would look bad and Straus would appear stronger. My follow up question was “Why didn’t you all just vote against Straus?” The response: “We felt we could not win and the numbers would make us look weak.”  What? I responded by asking him how could anything be weaker than having zero “No” votes. The response was just more of the same. “We have a strategy,” etc.

I then asked him, “Why did you tell everyone you were going to vote against Straus when you wanted their votes and money and then you betrayed their trust.” This politician went silent, then stuttered and stammered and spouted the same confused  strategy that I had just heard.

Then, I reminded this new legislator of a first term State Senator, who in his first vote as an elected official chose to stand alone, voting against the Blocker Bill while his Republican colleagues supported it.  That person is now our Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick.

The coronation of Joe Straus as Speaker of the Texas House by a unanimous vote was nothing less than a full surrender on day one from those who had given us their word that they would never support Straus. This capitulation and compromise mentality in the Texas House is exactly why the RINOs and Democrats run the house and have killed much of the Republican agenda found in the Republican Party of Texas platform. Joe Straus will remain Speaker until Texans say enough is enough.

Lieutenant Gov. Dan Patrick has provided outstanding leadership in the Texas Senate. Patrick exemplifies the difference one person with courage can make if he will not compromise on his core values and beliefs. Compromise is not a winning strategy and capitulation does not change a state or nation.

Some conservative leaders have chosen to ignore this betrayal and have given these politicians, who betrayed the grassroots, a pass and remain silent. I respectfully disagree with this strategy. Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of political affiliation.  We cannot say it is okay for them to simply betray us without repercussions because they have an “R” beside their names and profess to be conservatives.  If we do, then we will quickly become a party of personalities and not a party of principles.

Joe Straus and his allies wield a great deal of power in Austin.  He is considered invincible in the same way the Israelites viewed Goliath and were terrified of him.

Then a mere shepherd boy named David rose up with indignation against Goliath’s threats, armed with a sling shot and five smooth stones, and with the courage of convictions and faith in Almighty God, he defeated the giant. David was the only one among all the Israelite soldiers who was undaunted by Goliath. Because of his courage, we are still talking and reading about David thousands of years later.

It is time for us to fight the good fight and elect men and women who honor their campaign promises instead of kneeling at the altar of political expediency. If we can’t find a remnant in the Texas House, then it’s time to drain the swamp of weak-kneed politicians who break their word to the voters, and elect men who will demonstrate the courage of their convictions and honor their commitments.

Copyright©2017 Raging Elephants Radio LLC


Woodfill: Bathroom Battles Begin in Texas Legislature

Recently, liberal Democrat Senators Jose Rodriguez (El Paso), John Whitmire (Houston), Sylvia Garcia (Houston) and Senator Kirk Watson (Austin) filed SB 165 which would allow biological males to enter female restrooms, showers and locker rooms under the protection of state law. The bill is essentially the same “Bathroom Ordinance” lesbian Mayor Annise Parker pushed through the Houston City Council. As you may recall, once the people had an opportunity to vote on the issue, we successfully defeated Parker’s Houston “Bathroom Ordinance” 61% to 31%.

My friend Pastor David Welch stated it best, “The irrational commitment by local, state and national Democrat elected officials to attack God’s design of family, marriage and now even biological sex or gender as ‘fluid” is one of the reasons for the uprising of the populace in the recent General Election,” Welch said. “The false and deceptive premise of this bill makes these Senators just the latest tools of the HRC’s agenda to use police force to silence and punish any who disagree, including pastors, and destroy the traditional family led by a married mother and father as the bedrock of society,” he added.

The LGBT political machine and their allies have clearly shown that those who oppose their radical agenda of gender confusion and sexual anarchy over faith, science, psychology, biology and basic reason will be persecuted and prosecuted anywhere they control the reins of power,” Welch pointed out. “In Texas, they do not have that unchecked power and as we did in Houston, pastors across Texas of every color from every corner will stand, we will speak and we act in the love of God and people to stop this kind of oppressive legislation in its tracks.

We are calling on legislators on both sides to stand for basic decency, defend equal rights, and oppose the radical left by refusing to sponsor, co-sponsor, speak for or vote for bills such as SB 165 which equate gender confusion/identification with race, ethnicity, religion or sex.

It is time for us to take a stand! It is time for us to fight the good fight!

Thank you,

Jared Woodfill
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas

Woodfill: Trump Wins! Harris County Republicans Suffer Biggest Loss in History of the HCRP

Last night’s presidential results were historic. For the first time in decades, Republicans will have a uniquely consolidated power base, controlling the White House, Senate, and House, as well as a majority of governorships. As a result, we should be able to appoint conservative justices, eliminate Obamacare, get rid of the Johnson Amendment (which censures the church), cut the national debt, open up the energy markets, protect religious liberties, and so much more. As my friends at AFA stated, “We were about to go over the cliff. The knockout punch was about to be delivered to the America that our Founding Fathers handed to us. We were about to lose the Supreme Court of the United States to the far left for a generation. Persecution against Christians was about to be amped up the likes of which we have never seen before. After all, Hillary Clinton called us an ‘unredeemable basket of deplorables.'” In Donald Trump, we now have a pro-life President-elect, instead of one who supported partial-birth abortion, and believed that the taxpayers should pay for it.

But incredibly, Democrats swept to victory in ALL countywide offices in Harris County. This is the worst defeat for Republicans in the 71-year history of the Republican Party of Harris County.

I wish I could say that Harris County did as well as Donald Trump performed around the country. Unfortunately, under the leadership of Harris County Republican Party Chairman Paul Simpson, we suffered the greatest defeat in our history as a local party, as other Republican counties around the country were experiencing huge victories. Under the leadership of Republican Chairman Paul Simpson, Hillary Clinton swept Harris County by over 150,000 votes even when she lost nationwide to Trump. Republicans lost all Harris County countywide elections. This is an unacceptable result and the product of failed leadership.

What happened? Among other things, the Harris County Republican Party leadership fails to take a stand. They all but ignore social issues. The Harris County Republican Party leadership refuses to speak out for the unborn. The Harris County Republican Party leadership has run from biblical marriage. The Harris County Republican Party leadership has remained silent while a local Republican candidate brags about her Planned Parenthood endorsement. The Harris County Republican Party leadership has failed to take a stand against the radical LGBT political movement. The Harris County Republican Party leadership refused to engage in our efforts to defeat Annise Parker’s “Bathroom Ordinance.” And the Harris County Republican Party leadership refused to unite around the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. Their mantra was “Harris County Works. Vote Republican.” This message would not cause anyone watching Wheel of Fortune to jump out of their seat and vote for the Republicans, nor would it motivate anyone watching football to get up and vote for the Republicans. Paul Simpson never addressed the issues that differentiate conservative Republicans from Democrats.

The election results in Harris County prove that ‘Harris County doesn’t work’ when the local Republican party stands for nothing.

If we are going to win in 2018, leadership needs to change immediately. It is incumbent upon conservatives to stand up, speak up and refuse to accept local leadership that refuses to stand for our values. The values found in our Republican Party of Texas Platform.

Donald Trump is not our savior. Jesus Christ is our King. However, Donald Trump has chosen to surround himself with many Godly men and women like Dr. Ben Carson, Gov. Mike Pence, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Kellyanne Conway and many more. I ask all reading this email to pray daily for President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect Pence. I pray they will stay true to their promises, return our country to a constitutional republic and may the Lord bring a great spiritual revival to America. It is time to fight the good fight!

Jared Woodfill
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas

Woodfill: Enough is Enough! Demand that State Rep. Sarah Davis Disavow Her Planned Parenthood Endorsement

Jeremiah 1:5 states, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.” During his day, Jeremiah the prophet had spoken out against a people who were building altars to Baal in order to sacrifice their children. (Jeremiah 19:4-5) This biblical pro-life truth is adopted in our 2016 Republican Party of Texas Platform where it states,”Right to Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn…have a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed.” (2016 RPT Platform p. 11) The RPT Platform further states, “Abolish Abortion – We call upon the Texas Legislature to enact legislation stopping the murder of unborn children…” (2016 RPT Platform p. 11) In fact, the abortion industry’s leading provider/advocate, Planned Parenthood, has fought Republicans on the life issue from time immemorial. Our RPT Platform also addresses this organization specifically, stating, “Planned Parenthood – We support completely eliminating public funding for Planned Parenthood.”

Republicans, save one (Rep. Sarah Davis), have supported the sonogram bill, defunding of Planned Parenthood, parental consent and other limits on abortion. While most of us have spent our time and resources fighting for the life of the unborn and opposing Planned Parenthood, State Rep. Sarah Davis, Republican District 134, Harris County, has chosen to embrace the abortion industry and its figurative head, Planned Parenthood. During this election cycle, Ms. Davis has taken her pro-abortion agenda one step further, bragging about her Planned Parenthood endorsement. The most recent mail piece sent to over 30,000 voters in House District 134, states the following:

“In 2013, Sarah Davis stood alone again: she was the only Republican in the entire Legislature to vote against abortion restrictions…” The flyer quotes Ms. Davis’ pro-abortion statements from the floor of the Texas’ House of Representatives, stating, “We are here, and the nation is watching what we are doing today on the floor…now is not the time to play political football with women.” In the mail piece Ms. Davis describes these statements as, “Our Voice, Our Values.” Clearly, she has disdain and disrespect for the grassroots activist who created our Pro-life Party Platform. Her pro-abortion values are not our values!

Not surprisingly, Ms. Davis is a key part of Speaker Straus’ leadership team, serving on the powerful Calendars Committee. I want to encourage you to call (512) 463-0389, email, tweet, and post on Ms. Davis’ Facebook page to disavow her Planned Parenthood endorsement. Let her know that we are the party of life and we will not stand by idly and allow Planned Parenthood to push its radical agenda on Harris County or the state of Texas. Thank you for your taking action. It is time for our grassroots army to engage. Enough is Enough!

Thank you,

Jared Woodfill
President, Conservative Republicans of Texas

Box: Scalia/Espinoza Call to Action

This morning, I was privileged enough to participate and ask questions during a conference call with members of the media and the great FreedomWorks—a grassroots, tea-party-leaning, conservative organization. The purpose of the call was to inform the media about conservatives’ goals and stance over President Obama’s inevitable nominee to the Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death.

In his death, Americans lost a great conservative and fellow human being.

The country mourns the passing of Justice Scalia, a Constitutional giant. He will be remembered as a firebrand originalist who never wavered from our founding principles.

His death has shaken up both the political Left and Right, with the clear understanding that several key Constitutional decisions hang in the balance. In addition to illegal immigration, abortion, affirmative action and voter I.D., the Second Amendment will be once again up for debate.

Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller, which had the potential of essentially overturning the Second Amendment. In the case, the Justices had to determine if the Second Amendment applied to individuals or simply “armed militias.” Thankfully, but by the slimmest 5-4 margin, the Court determined that, indeed, the Founders wrote the Constitution to insure that all law-abiding Americans had the right to keep and bear arms.

Today, that intrinsic, purely American right is in jeopardy. Liberal activist jurists have shown they have no qualms in nullifying Americans’ Second Amendment protections—and today, more than ever, they will seek to effectively quash this sacred right.

Republicans in Congress have shown, for the last seven years, they will bend over backwards to accommodate the lawless Obama administration for fear of being seen as “racist” if they rightfully and forcefully oppose his dictates. They bend and sway far too easily as America sinks into tyranny. They care more about what the liberal media and their Democrat colleagues say about them than the voters who gave them power.

During the conference call with FreedomWorks, I asked two questions. First: what do Republicans in the Senate have planned for the knee-jerk and predicable Democrat and media (redundant, I know) attacks against them and will they invoke the newly-coined “Schumer Rule” when dealing with the blows? Secondly: how do conservatives know these leaders who have stabbed us in the back and have clear disdain for us will not buckle and capitulate to President Obama and Democrats yet again?

For those not aware, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is as far left as Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Ayers, Code Pink, Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, Al Sharpton, and every other left-wing kook organization hellbent on “fundamental transformation” of this country.

When President George W. Bush had 18 months left in his last term in office, Schumer famously said, publicly, that he should not be able to nominate anyone else to the Supreme Court—that it should be left to the next president. Now, of course, Schumer is walking back his obvious intent in the statement, as are other Democrats who did nothing but obstruct President Bush and Republicans (who managed to capitulate to them even when in the majority). But hey—what’s good enough for the Left-wing Insane Society is good enough for us. Run out the clock, ladies and gentlemen: RUN. OUT. THE. CLOCK.

The crux of FreedomWorks’ messaging is this: they are mobilizing grassroots organizations throughout the country to insure the spines of often-vacillating GOP Senators remain firm, with the understanding that if they waffle and allow another Kagen or Sotomayor to even come to the floor of the Senate for a hearing, they will have holy hell to pay from conservatives who’ve had their belly full of betrayal from Republicans. For once, conservatives pray, Republicans will hold the line against the most blatantly lawless, unconstitutional president this country has yet endured.

As conservatives, it’s imperative we elect the most effective, Constitutional fighters possible. Every election counts. In Texas, early voting starts today, and you better believe I’m getting out there.

Voters deserve to know who will truly fight for them at all times, and not just during an election.

In the race for Congress (TX-7), my home district, conservatives face entrenched Republican Congressman John Culberson, who has an abysmal D-minus rating from Conservative Review, and two challengers. One challenger is James Lloyd, whose family is highly connected to several Establishment Republican figures and who very recently was still registered to vote at his parents’ home. James’ college buddy, who just happens to work at The Hill newspaper, wrote a near-endorsement for him while pretending to be objective in reporting the fact that Rep. Culberson has a true fight on his hands.

The other challenger is Maria Espinoza. 

Maria Espinoza is a full-spectrum, Liberty Movement conservative and, when elected, will immediately join the Freedom Caucus in Congress. John Culberson has never taken this action.

Maria has been on the front-lines against illegal immigration with her national organization The Remembrance Project, which highlights the terrible toll American families face when a loved one is killed by an illegal immigrant. John Culberson voted for the $1.1 trillion omnibus which fully funds not only President Obama’s executive order on illegal alien amnesty, but also sanctuary cities, Planned Parenthood, and Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugee resettlement programs.

Maria is a grass-roots fighter who has personally faced down members of the Obama administration and ineffectual members of her own party over their lack of commitment to border and national security issues. She is staunchly pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, anti-amnesty for illegals, pro-free market capitalism, pro-religious freedom, and, on every other issue conservatives consider priorities, Maria stacks up in our favor.

We face a monumental choice this November: will we be a country actively seeking greatness once again, or will we be a country in managed, but purposeful, decline? If liberals in Washington, the media, and the wholly corrupted educational system have their way, it will be the latter.

I urge every American to do their homework diligently and send Washington a clear message that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.

And do it NOW.

Angela Box

Box: Curious Case of the Missing Islamist

I visited the Houston Holocaust Museum this week. It was moving, extremely emotional, and there were several amazing local connections to many Holocaust survivors who live in Houston. Like the Los Angeles version of the museum, the exhibits traced back events leading up to the Holocaust, from Biblical times, and showed mass intolerance by Christians for Jews. As a Christian, this part of our history is extremely shameful, and while many incredible Christians risked their own lives to save individual Jews, far too many turned the other way—throughout history.

Also like the Los Angeles Holocaust Museum, our Houston version left out something quite significant that troubles me greatly. Can you guess what it is?

There was absolutely no mention of any persecution of Jews by Muslims, or the fact that the Quran in several places calls for the destruction of Jews, or the fact the Crusades were fought to convert Christians and Jews by the sword to Islam, or the fact that the budding Muslim Brotherhood in the 1930s admired and aligned themselves with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. (see: HERE)

This whitewashing of history is alarming, but not shocking. (It should be noted that perhaps the reason this “omission” of Islamic atrocities against Jews occurred is because the curators of the museums know Christians aren’t likely to cut off someone’s head simply for criticizing Christianity or pointing out historical facts. Unlike, say, Islamists.)

Just this week, the Supreme Leader (read: Supreme Islamic Maniac) of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, once again made public statements that denied the Holocaust. Keep in mind this was after the United States and the other five  nations (Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia) who participated in the ridiculous and phony Iran nuclear deal released $150 billion in sanctions which had been held since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. He (or a surrogate) said in a propaganda video released on—wait for it— International Holocaust Remembrance Day that “No one in European countries dares to speak about the Holocaust, while it is not clear whether the core of the matter is reality or not. Even if it is reality, it is not clear how it happened. Speaking about the Holocaust and expressing doubts about it is considered to be a great sin. If someone does this, they stop, arrest, imprison and sue him. This is why they claim to be supporters of freedom.”


Iran—not to mention its inbred leaders–is a full-throated Islamist, Israel and America-despising, caliphate-seeking, seventh century-barbarian, Sharia Law hellhole which has made it quite clear it has no intentions of abiding by the sham deal negotiated by the bumbling fool Secretary of State John Kerry. The Iran nuclear deal, signed by the six countries foolish enough to enter into it, which guaranteed billions so Iran can rebuild its economy and sponsor terror around the world through Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists groups, was never signed by Iran. The Obama State Department finally had to admit it. (see the articles HERE and HERE 

So what we have are liberal ostriches and stoned hippies around the world bending over backwards for Islam, covering up statues in Italy so as to not offend the Muslim sensibilities of the backwards Iranian Prime Minister, doling out money to Iran (the number one state sponsor of terror), lying about what is happening in Europe by Muslim refugees pouring over the borders (rapes, assaults, murders, extreme entitlement attitudes, the expectation that host countries’ citizens assimilate to their Islamic culture instead of assimilating themselves into European culture), denial that 99% of all terror is perpetrated by Muslims, claiming to be for women’s rights and gay rights and human rights but saying absolutely nothing about Muslims who favor or perpetrate female genital mutilation, enslavement of women and girls, throwing gays off roofs, torture of Christians and Jews, and wholesale slaughter of “infidels”—not to mention the thousands of other horrible things enshrined in Sharia Law.

No, for some reason, liberals (and I include the majority of American Jews in this category), have their minds so warped around the concept of “tolerance” that they have now equated Israel’s defending themselves to Palestinian terrorism. They have equated Islam to Christianity—when they could not be more different. They have made morally equivalent America and Iran–not grasping that America and other Westernized countries with nuclear capabilities aren’t sponsoring Islamic terror and have as a goal the destruction of Israel, America, and Western Civilization as a whole.

To add some more insanity into the mix, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted the money we voluntarily released to this country of madmen will go to funding terror against Israel, Europe, America, and anywhere else with running water and a functioning society which doesn’t force its women into Grim Reaper shrouds. He said, “I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” he said in the interview in Davos, referring to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. “You know, to some degree, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented.”

Wait. Did anyone catch his little disclaimer?

“Some of which are labeled terrorists.”

What more evidence do worldwide liberals who drink sunshine and eat unicorn droppings need to see to understand the true evil Iran and Islamic terrorists seek to impart? (see: HERE

So, back to my original observation about the two Holocaust museums I’ve visited so far. (I can’t attest for any others–only the Los Angeles and Houston versions.) Why did the curators of the museums purposefully leave out the Islamic connection to the Holocaust and the ongoing aims of Islamists around the globe—to wipe out Israel and Jews everywhere? These monsters make it very clear that is their intent—so why don’t American Jews listen to them?

Because—again—fully 70% of Jews vote Democrat. They vote Democrat despite the Obama Administration’s (and most left-wing organizations’) clear and obvious animus towards Israel before and during Obama’s entire presidency. Despite his speech at the Israeli embassy claiming “We are all Jews” and condemning the rise of anti-Semitism during remarks on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the way Obama has treated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu borders on evil, especially when one compares how Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups into the White House throughout his tenure, his curious tendency to morally equivocate Israel and the Palestinians (not to mention the almost deference he gives to Islamic countries verses America or other Western countries), and the anti-Semitic people with whom he chose to surround himself (Bill Ayers, Rashid Khaledi, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright—to name a few).

It is time for Jews, and everyone else who believes that Western Civilization is worth saving, to stop whitewashing history. Stop pretending terror occurring around the world in the name of Islam isn’t happening. Despite all evidence to the contrary, American Jews continue to believe in the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, continues to stab American Jews in the back.

We are seeing today the Holocaust can indeed occur again—Islamists seek to make it so. It’s time American Jews see it as well.

Angela Box

Box: Is Abbott’s call for an Article V Convention of States a good idea?

Governor Abbott Joined the Movement for an Article V Convention of the States—and Here’s Why It’s Imperative

Recently, Texas governor Greg Abbott joined the growing Article V Convention of States movement by adding Texas to the list of states willing to send delegates to a convention. Some have criticized this move as grandstanding, or an attempt to raise his national profile. Personally, I don’t care why Abbott finally threw Texas’ hat into the ring—I’m just glad he did.

The Founding Fathers were geniuses. Pure, unadulterated, propelled-by-God geniuses.  Their genius is exhibited throughout the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution—and  when the Founders, at nearly the last minute of the Constitutional Convention, placed into the document Article V, they not only showed brilliance but sooth-saying clairvoyance.

The Founders knew that, eventually, even the best government in human history they had established would turn to rot—as all governments do. No, it was not the governing document that had turned the government to rot—it was the people running it, and the bureaucratic machine supplying the engine of destruction. Therefore, Founder and future President James Madison insisted on Article V of the Constitution, which reads:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

In layman’s terms, the Article simply states that whenever the cogs of government became too unwieldy or burdensome to the citizenry, or when Congress itself became complicit in the country’s demise, a federalist (state) remedy was available. Not only could the Congress propose and ratify Amendments to the Constitution, but so could the states propose amendments. As in a Congressional amendment, three-fourths of the states must ratify each amendment.

In the past seven years—and, let’s be honest, for a long time before then—the federal government has grown enormously in scope and power, amassing an unimaginable $18 trillion debt that, even if the federal government confiscated every dime from its citizens, would not even make a dent in its payment. We have a president who thinks because he has a “pen and a phone” he can override Congress’ proper role in treaties, legislation, regulatory powers, and the like. We have a Supreme Court so rogue and unaccountable that one or two individuals essentially overrule the will of the People on issue after issue, not to mention shoving grossly unconstitutional mandates like Obamacare down Americans’ throats. We have out-of-control spending that never seems to end. Crony capitalism rules the day. Reckless legislators get reelected time and again because there are no term limits on any branch of government, save the Executive Branch.  Our problems as a country are great, and growing.

The rising up of a potential Article V Convention of the States should be met with gratitude—understanding that the amendment itself was seen as a ubiquitous “Break Glass In Case Of Emergency” clause. Some conservatives are leery about such a convention, thinking that all sorts of crazy, progressive amendments would be passed. This thinking is silly. Liberals already have every other branch of government and the bureaucracy locked down. A Convention of States would, instead, greatly benefit conservative ideas and Constitutional governance, which liberals generally eschew anyway.

The growing movement of Convention of the States has catalogued four major problems in government today: The Spending and Debt Crisis, The Regulatory Crisis, Congressional Attacks on State Sovereignty, and Federal Takeover of the Decision-Making Process. (See for more details.)

As conservatives, we can all agree that these four federal government abuses are vast and stubborn. So how does Article V help?

The goal of the Convention of States is to not throw a bunch of ideas up on the wall and see what sticks. The goal is to first define the broad problem: the federal government has greatly overreached its boundaries; the states are left practically impotent; and the American people—at least the ones funding the insanity—are left in the lurch. From the Convention of States website: “A convention of states needs to be called to ensure that we are able to debate and impose a complete package of restraints on the misuse of power by all branches of the federal government.”

Some detractors of the Article V process have claimed that this would be a “runaway Constitutional Convention.” In fact, it would not be. Since the first Constitutional Convention in 1789, over 400 calls have been made for Article V hearings, but not one has made it far. Why? Because either the amendments presented were unpopular or impractical, or not enough states joined in the process.

The purpose of today’s Convention of States is to grow a coalition of at least 40 states, with 4,000 Congressional districts represented. 100 citizen—and that’s key—CITIZEN—volunteers would be needed for each district in order to both hold state legislators accountable and provide support for legislators willing to take up this fight.  After close to 40 states and their representatives in the legislatures had signed up to participate in the Article V Convention, they would meet to debate exactly what amendments they would propose.

Some amendment ideas, from the COS website, include:

  • A balanced budget amendment
  • A redefinition of the General Welfare Clause (the original view was the federal government could not spend money on any topic within the jurisdiction of the states)
  • A redefinition of the Commerce Clause (the original view was that Congress was granted a narrow and exclusive power to regulate shipments across state lines–not all the economic activity of the nation)
  • A prohibition of using international treaties and law to govern the domestic law of the United States
  • A limitation on using Executive Orders and federal regulations to enact laws (since Congress is supposed to be the exclusive agency to enact laws)
  • Imposing term limits on Congress and the Supreme Court
  • Placing an upper limit on federal taxation
  • Requiring the sunset of all existing federal taxes and a super-majority vote to replace them with new, fairer taxes

All these amendments sound quite reasonable and would begin to curb an out-of-control federal government. Liberals and establishment Republicans won’t like them, since it removes power from a centralized government, but who cares? They’ve shown they have no self-control in the offices and institutions in which voters have entrusted them, so let’s try something different.

Some detractors of a Convention of States have also said we don’t need to go this route; we just need to elect conservatives to all levels of government. The last part is true, and more so than ever today. But that still will not curb spending, regulatory insanity, the debt, and deal with ensconced bureaucrats all too willing to sell the future of this country down the river for a temporary fix of a guaranteed job. No—our Founders knew this emergency button was necessary to reset the balance of power of our Republic, and place power back in the hands of citizens in the form of states and state legislatures.

Another objection to a Convention is the thinking that if the federal government won’t adhere to the Constitution now, why would they after a Convention of States? From the COS website, because I can’t say it any better:

“When the Founders wrote the Constitution, they did not anticipate modern-day politicians who take advantage of loopholes and vague phraseology. Even though it is obvious to all reasonable Americans that the federal government is violating the original meaning of the Constitution, Washington pretends otherwise, claiming the Constitution contains broad and flexible language. Amendments at a Convention of States today will be written with the current state of the federal government in mind.

The language they use for these amendments will be unequivocal. There will be no doubt as to their meaning, no possibility of alternate interpretations, and no way for them to be legitimately broken. For example, the General Welfare Clause could be amended to add this phrase: ‘If the States have the jurisdiction to spend money on a subject matter, Congress may not tax or spend for this same subject matter.’

In addition to this, it should be noted that the federal government has not violated the amendments passed in recent years. Women’s suffrage, for example, has been 100% upheld.”

Read more about those amendments HERE.

I urge anyone who is serious about this issue, either for or against, to visit the Convention of States website. Our Founding Fathers anticipated just this type of morass in which we currently find ourselves immersed. They have given us a simple and profound remedy: Article V.

Don’t worry, liberals and establishment Republicans: you’ll always have the vast majority of the media, most of Hollywood, and the Kardashians. The states can and must take back their rightful place in governance, and thank you James Madison for having the foresight to see what a mess these people would make of the most brilliant government system ever devised.

Angela Box