The Letter Read Round the World

You have probably heard about the friendly letter Texas Governor Greg Abbott sent to Biden earlier this week. It’s worth a read, so I include it here. 

Governor Greg Abbott's letter, found here

I’m in Texas, so I might be more aware of things going on in Texas than people elsewhere. But this one is important beyond our great state.

Texas has the longest boundary with a foreign nation, Mexico, which is generally on friendly terms with the US, since that separation by Texas in 1835—as a result of Mexico’s tyrannical leader who stomped on their guaranteed constitutional rights (yes, Mexico had a constitution, which their president ignored, a pattern we may see being repeated here). And then the US won the Mexican-American War 1846-1848. Since then the two nations have been at peace. Mexico has not been generally as prosperous as the US. As a result, their people have often come to the US to find work. Migrant farm workers are among these. They can be hardworking, honest people—when they come here legally. And there are plenty of legal immigrants with education and skills as well, whom we welcome.

The problem has been with people who come in illegally. There is a substantial difference between legal and illegal. Law-abiding Americans welcome a manageable number of legal immigrants and legal resident aliens. While we may agree that the process for legal immigrants could be improved and streamlined, the problem at our southern border is mostly unrelated to that process.

 

Just Dealing with the Invasion

What we have is an invasion. It includes enemies of the state from around the world. It includes drug traffickers—including the deadly fentanyl. It includes human traffickers—slave traders of enforced labor slavery and also child sex slavery. The Biden administration, nor the Obama administration of the past, will explain why they want to allow these enemies in.

Here in Texas, we have been calling this an invasion for a good long while. And we’ve been complaining about our governor taking so long to make that declaration. We’re glad he’s done it. And we add, “What took you so long?”

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick speak with Glenn Beck, January 24, 2024
screenshot from here

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick talked with Glenn Beck in an interview Wednesday, and he backed up the governor. He said that a lot of things had been going on behind the scenes. The governor’s administration wasn’t inactive.

One of the things behind the scenes was legislation that became law in December, after the latest special legislative session (I think there were four special sessions after the regular biennial session that closed in May, but I lost count; Lt. Gov. Patrick just called it the umpteenth special session).

At our Cypress Texas Tea Party meeting on Wednesday, we heard from State Rep. Tom Oliverson, giving a report on legislation passed this year. He highlighted three bills, and shared interesting stories. Then, even after the Q&A, he added one more thing, which happens to be the bill Lt. Governor Patrick referred to. So this is Rep. Oliverson:

One more little factoid for you, because this was late breaking news. So, you know, the border bill that we just passed—I heard some of you talking about the border and all this kind of stuff. So, what the law says now, under state law, is that, if DPS catches you crossing you over the border not at a port of entry, you may be arrested on the spot, charged with a class B misdemeanor, which means you can and will go to jail.

However, the judge has the ability to basically waive those charges and essentially, I guess, whatever that process is… I don’t know. But you basically give them a pass and say, “We’re going to wipe these charges out, but only if you agree to go back to Mexico today.” So that’s how the law is now.

Now, obviously, the legal process is going to play out here. But, just so you know, if you hear on TV, well, DPS [Department of Public Safety] is arresting people, that’s because the law we just passed a couple of months ago says that they can be arrested. And the other thing is, if they do it more than once, they can be charged with a felony, and then they can spend a lot of years in jail….

So they would get arrested; they would be charged; they would have a court date, a trial; they would be held. And then they’ll serve their time in jail, and then we’ll turn them over to customs. So the disincentive for somebody who’s crossing into our state illegally is, “If I get caught by DPS, at a bare minimum, I’m going to spend six months in jail before I even see a customs and patrol agent. And if I’ve done it more than once, I may go away for years.” After which time we’ll turn them over to customs. So that’s how that works.

Texas has to act. We have millions of illegal aliens flowing into our state. Some of them get bussed or flown to elsewhere in the country—that’s done by the US government; Texas only did that with a few busloads to get media attention. The government is doing it quietly every day, and dumping them in troubled US cities, even up north, all those “sanctuary cities”—Chicago, New York, etc.—which are now complaining that they’re not equipped to handle all these people.

Still, the feds are leaving far more than can be handled in small border towns without resources to deal with such an influx. Meanwhile the US government is insisting they get free housing, free transportation, free healthcare, free public education—at taxpayer expense. (Meanwhile, legal immigrants go through years of red tape and paperwork and court costs; you’d think they were trying to discourage legal immigration and encourage illegal immigration.)

This is purposeful. I can’t say definitively what the purpose is, but it’s intentional.

 

Razor wire along the Texas/Mexico border,
screenshot from here

The Vacated Injunction

The lead-up to Governor Abbott’s letter was the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling that vacated (removed) the injunction against the federal government to keep them from interfering with Texas border patrol agents.

SCOTUS ruling that the injunction is vacated.

Let’s get a little clarity on that. The Texas national guard has been putting up razor wire, concertina wire, to prevent access on the US side of the Rio Grande. This will force invaders to go to ports of entry. At ports of entry, the US government is still just letting them in and sending them out into the country, but at least there’s a process happening there. At other places, there’s no tracking. And there’s also the risk of death for the invaders. A number of them have drowned in the river, which would have been totally avoided by going to a port of entry.

The Biden administration’s border agents had been going in and cutting the razor wire—to give access to invaders. Texas filed an injunction to stop them, which was granted by Justice Alito on December 19, 2023. The federal government appealed, asking that the injunction be removed.

It’s obvious that removing barriers to allow access is not securing the border, which the US government is required by law to do—one of the few enumerated powers granted to the federal government, and they go out of their way to not do it, and to thwart anyone who tries to do it on their own.

The SCOTUS ruling, which is pretty wrongheaded, only removed the injunction. In other words, it said the administration could carry out its policies at the border as it sees fit. Let me reword that: the federal government is allowed to determine its methods for securing the border and protecting American sovereignty. However, removing barriers and encouraging invasion cannot be construed as securing the border. Texas has a right to secure borders. So, in essence, the ruling allows the federal border agents to do their actual job; it does not stop Texas from doing that job when they fail to.

The SCOTUS ruling did not say that Texas had to allow the federal border agents to come in and remove borders that Texas had set up. There is not, to date, an injunction against any actions by Texas. There are complaints from the feds that Texas ought to let them go in and remove the barriers, without any hindrance.

But why should we?

When the states grant powers to the US government, they have to have those powers in order to grant them. They do not lose the right to self-protection by “hiring” the federal government to carry out that duty.

That is what Governor Abbott has spelled out so nicely in his letter.

25 states stand with Texas in its right to self-protection,
image found here

This is the kind of standoff that the brink of war might look like. I don’t want war to happen. I can’t even envision that happening. As of today we have a majority of states, 25, standing with Texas (all the states with Republican governors except Vermont). Really, how could a commander-in-chief rally troops to kill their fellow citizens—so that the federal government could tear down our borders and invite invaders in? How can they spin that? I’m sure they could find a mendacious way to spin it, but I don’t think it will fly—any more than using SWAT teams to arrest “dangerous domestic terrorists” who are actually peaceful, country-loving grandmas. Good people know that is just wrong.

President Trump suggested that the supporting governors should send some of their own state National Guard troops to Texas to add support. That’s probably a good idea. It has been done before, at times when there were particular crisis points; I think at least Oklahoma and Florida had done so.

President Trump suggests supporting states send guard troops to Texas,
screenshot from here

National Guard troops are under the command of their various state governors—unless and until the President calls them into action. Anti-American, anti-Texan, Democrat “heroes” Joaquin Castro and Beto O’Rourke are of course calling for the President to federalize the Texas National Guard. The claim is that Governor Abbott is using the Texas National Guard to defy a Supreme Court ruling. But, as we went through above, Texas has no requirement to defy. The ruling only said the feds could be allowed to do their job. Governor Abbott correctly identifies the feds as not doing their job, and so Texas will do it.

Until there is a Supreme Court ruling saying Texas cannot put up razor wire on its border or otherwise act to protect its border, Texas can and will continue its self-protection. No such ruling is imminent. And if it were to come, Texas—and those other supporting states—would be within their constitutional rights to defy that order and protect themselves anyway. I think Governor Abbott explained that pretty clearly, citing the portions of the US Constitution at issue.

Texas has the “Come and take it” flag, from the Battle of Gonzales, daring the enemy Santa Anna to retrieve a cannon they’d borrowed four years earlier. 

A replica of the infamous "Come and Take It" flag
from the Battle of Gonzales hangs in the state capitol in Austin, Texas,
image from the Houston Chronicle.

There is less conflict between federal border patrol and Texas DPS and National Guard than you might think. There is a particular park the feds are not being allowed into, near Eagle Pass, because they were doing harm to the border. But they can do their business everywhere else. They are not harmed or hindered. They’re stirring up conflict. It’s just that the administration doesn’t want Texas interfering with its plan to destroy America by erasing the southern border and letting our enemies pour in.

 

Additional Resources

·        “Republican governors DRAW THE LINE on Biden’s border invasion” Glenn Beck, January 25, 2024.       

·        “26 States REBEL Against Biden Administration,” Facts Matter with Roman Balmakov, January 26, 2024. 

·        “Civil War Echoes: Unpacking Governor Abbott's Defiance in the Texas Border Clash” The Patriot Nurse, January 25, 2024. 

·        “The Secret Network Helping Biden Fuel the Border Invasion | Ep 329” Glenn Beck, January 24, 2024.  (This video includes the interview with Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick.)

·        “Texas Declares INVASION and REJECTS Federal Government's Border Authority” Robert Gouveia, January 25, 2024. 

·        “‘Installing MORE BARRIERS’: Texas SLAMS SCOTUS razor wire ruling” Glenn Beck, January 24, 2024. 

·        “Biden should know better than to start a fight with Texas” by Don Huffines, in The Telegraph, January 26, 2024.

·        “What Happens if Joe Biden Tries to Take OverTexas National Guard?” by Ewan Palmer, Newsweek, January 26, 2024. 

Not Exactly a Jury of Peers

I’ve spent the last two weeks listening in on the Texas Senate impeachment trial of Attorney General Ken Paxton.

To review, at the tail end of the legislative session in May 2023, the House suddenly, without warning, held a four-hour hearing in which they heard allegations and then voted to impeach on 20 counts. No witnesses were heard. No hard evidence was presented. No interviews leading up to that point had been under oath. We were told this was like a grand jury; they just have to decide whether there is enough there to hold a trial.

So that is what the Texas House did; they passed off any actual trial work to the Senate, where all the evidence would be presented.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick presides as judge in the Paxton Impeachment Trial.
screenshot from here

The Senate Impeachment Trial Process

This is similar to a court trial, but with significant differences. The jurors are the Senate members. They do not have to reach consensus, but must have 21 of 31 voting members vote to remove the Attorney General from his duly elected position. In this case, it will be 21 of 30, because one of the state senators is Angela Paxton, wife of the attorney general, who has been attending all the sessions but is recused from voting. We should note that one of the charges, bribery, reflects on her as well. The accusers claimed the Paxtons had received home renovations as a bribe to do political favors.

Earlier in the week a friend of mine commented on social media that what he’s observing is, whatever anyone believed going into this trial, they still believe. That’s probably accurate.

There are plenty of sources for information and commentary. I’ll list some of those below. But for this piece, I’m just giving my impressions—having listened to almost every part of the two weeks, including closing arguments this morning. This isn’t intended to persuade either side. There’s no time to do that. The Senate is now deliberating, and they could come up with a decision by tonight—likely before you could read this—or in a few days, depending on how long they take.

I won’t go through each of the 20 charges. But I’ll note, the case offered somewhere around 15 hours per side to present their case. That is less than an hour per charge. Cross-examination of the other side’s witnesses counted as time on the countdown clock. [Note that, as of today they are dealing only with 16 of the charges. The four related to securities fraud are pending in courts, I believe. They can deal with those later, depending on other outcomes. If they remove Paxton permanently from office, those charges won’t need to be dealt with. If they do not remove him, they could either dismiss those charges or deal with them separately.]

 

Impressions on the Various Counts

one of a series of texts pushing 
the anti-Paxton agenda

As long as the trial was, some of the issues were barely touched on. For example, as per the texts I keep getting from some entity unknown to me, they’re pushing two main things: an affair Ken Paxton has admitted to, but they claim he got the woman a job at Paxton’s friend Nate Paul’s company as a political favor; and the renovation of Ken Paxton’s house after water damage, which had upgrades they claim were provided by Nate Paul in exchange for favors.

We learned that the investigative team presenting the case to the House back in May made these allegations based on suspicions of the so-called whistleblowers. They did not interview Nate Paul, nor the woman who was hired by his company, nor the contractor who did work on the Paxtons’ home. In the intervening months they still didn’t do those things. There was nearly an opportunity to hear from “the other woman,” but, rather than subpoena her and schedule her testimony, the prosecution noticed her presence and thought they could call her, but couldn’t give the 24-hour notice that was required, before their time was running out. Seems kind of too little too late. They couldn’t have deposed her in June, July, or August?

Here’s what they missed, which was provided to us by the Paxton defense team: the woman in question applied and was hired according to normal process, continues to work there, pays for her own apartment in Austin, has not continued a relationship with Paxton, nor is there any evidence of this hiring being a cover for a favor to Paxton in exchange for—something unnamed.

The Paxtons had a general contractor to do the remediation work. He wasn’t contacted. The only connection made to Nate Paul was the mention of the name Nate during a discussion about possible upgrades, overheard by Paxton’s aide, who was concerned about it but was relieved, visibly, on the stand, to be convinced his concerns were unfounded. There is no evidence Nate Paul paid for anything; the receipts and bank records are in hand, showing Paxton paid for the renovation work. And the defense provided photo evidence (it was in the news weeks ago, so the prosecution could have verified at any time) showing that the Paxtons never upgraded to granite countertops and new cabinets as alleged. They still have the same kitchen witnesses recognized from before the repairs.

What the prosecution did was to bring in the people who reported the claims initially. They laid out their suspicions—and they did this well. What they saw, if you make assumptions about motive, looked like possible favoritism toward a particular client.

But repeatedly their claims fell apart on the stand. Under oath, one after another, the first few days admitted that, when they went to the FBI to report their boss, Attorney General Ken Paxton, they brought no evidence with them. By the second week they thought they had remedied this. Their reports, they claimed, were evidence. They brought their observations and beliefs and interpretations. So there!

Their stories might have been corroborating evidence, had there been any material evidence. There wasn’t. There was only these persons’ interpretation of Paxton’s motivations, missing quite often a fuller picture that they hadn’t sought. And neither had any other investigators.

Another oddity was that, when they went together, as a group, to the FBI on October 1, 2020, they sat around a table, together, recounting their observations. Had the FBI assumed their testimony validated any actual crime, the witnesses would have been interviewed separately, so that they did not know what the others were saying, thus coloring each others’ stories. Also note that the FBI, with all the “evidence” these five brought to them, in the ensuing three years have brought no charges.

This is not to say the FBI is spotless—although they may be in relation to this case. But it was suspicion about the FBI that led to some of the allegations. Nate Paul had had his home and storage unit searched. He believed that the original search warrant, of his home, was for drugs and guns, I think was the story. But when they of course didn’t find anything, they changed the search warrant to look for some kind of white collar crime, which entailed going through the storage unit for records. Nate Paul and his counsel, Wynne, believed they had metadata evidence showing that had happened. Note: eventual forensic work showed this to be inconclusive—not disproven.

The whistleblowers and others involved thought this was baseless, because the FBI and other federal officials never do anything wrong. Ken Paxton, however, asked for a fuller investigation. There’s more to recognize here. Paxton had been hounded and, he believed, badly dealt with by federal investigators, so he didn’t have blanket trust of them. Add to that, there were, at the time (and more since) multiple instances of federal officials playing fast and loose with citizen rights.

Former Travis County DA Margaret Moore testifies Monday.
screenshot from here

It was a rather satisfying moment in the trial when the defense Tony Buzbee was cross-examining the former Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore, who claimed the state could never so much as suspect a federal investigator. The defense listed one after another of FBI crimes. Here’s some of that exchange:

Buzbee: I mean, there’s a lot of them. But, did you hear about the FBI admitted fraud forensic testimony in 32 death penalty cases?

Moore: No.

Buzbee: How about when the FBI conducted improper searches of US officials using a foreign database?

Moore: I don’t know about that.

Buzbee: How about when the FBI improperly spied on activists?

Moore: I don’t recall reading about that either.

Buzbee: How about when the FBI misused an intelligence database and performed 278,000 searches?

Moore: I didn’t hear about that.

Buzbee: And the reason I keep asking you about these repeated alleged FBI abuses is because, when you first heard about this alleged FBI abuse, the first thing you thought was, “Ridiculous.” Correct?

Moore: No. That’s not correct. That’s not what I said.

Buzbee: You knew that a federal judge had ruled that FBI agents had conducted illegal searches of businesses?

Moore: I don’t know what you’re alluding to.

Buzbee: How the FBI violated the privacy rights of tens of thousands of Americans?

Moore: Mr. Buzbee, I’m not aware of that article.

This lifetime law enforcement expert had never heard of any of them. Her claim to know the Nate Paul claim was false, without investigating it, rang hollow. My personal suspicion is that she didn’t want to investigate federal agencies she had to maintain a good working relationship with. That does not bode well for the people subject to the violations, though.

A similar line of questioning happened with the former Texas Ranger near-superhero David Maxwell, in the OAG, who was handed that case by Moore. He did a quick Google search on Nate Paul, concluded that he was a crook. So when he heard out Nate Paul and his counsel, with this suspicion they had about the search warrant, he thought it was ludicrous. He didn’t say so to them, but he never intended to do any investigation whatsoever.

 

The Whistleblowers

Paxton’s difficulty was that, despite his assignment to his subordinates to do an investigation, they admitted they “slow-walked” it, and in essence refused to do the investigation. When he followed up, they said they would get on it, but they didn’t. They didn’t so much as open a file on it.

Finally, Paxton hired outside counsel. He signed a contract with a young lawyer named Cammack, who was interested and willing in doing the investigation. Cammack said Paxton instructed him to just find out the truth.

Cammack was derisively dubbed "the kid" by the whistleblowers.
screenshot from here

Cammack started that investigation, and he also started another referral given to him, which the prosecutors had been unaware of and had assumed he was issuing grand jury subpoenas related to the Paul case, which he was not doing. He was thwarted at every turn by the “whistleblowers.” They derisively called him “the kid” in their conversations and correspondence. And they took it upon themselves to deny his contract, give him a cease and desist letter, and left him unpaid—claiming the Attorney General didn’t have the rights of the office given to him by the voters, which he could delegate to them but still held.

And these whistleblowers did worse. They got or made (it was disputed) official OAG stationery without the Attorney General’s name on it, and they hired, without permission, outside counsel for $50,000 to investigate/prosecute/persecute Attorney General Paxton. And then they claimed the AG was out of line in firing them.

It may be hard to know exactly what was in AG Paxton’s mind at every turn. But his communications show interest in the people of the state in general, not the single friend they insisted he was working for. He had worked hard to stop foreclosures from going through—before the first Tuesday of the month, during this time of COVID when a stay on foreclosures was about to end. This ended up having no affect on Nate Paul, as they insisted it did. But what AG Paxton had expressed to his team was that they may have kept some elderly grandmother from losing her home. And his policy became national policy by executive order a couple of weeks later.

There’s a question about whether the whistleblower laws affected these high-level appointees in the Office of Attorney General. Courts have ruled that it does, but that is pending appeal. What we might be seeing is something of a mutiny—and then, because of bad feelings, jumping to conclusions and accusations to convince themselves and others that their failure to do the work assigned to them was not what led to the loss of their jobs.

One of them, Brickman, I think it was, insisted that he was not interested and would never take the settlement—the $3 million that was brought to the legislature, which supposedly triggered the investigation during the legislative session last March. Except, when the settlement was finally agreed upon, he took it. He testified that he required the AG to apologize to them for calling them rogue employees (which, obviously, they were). He didn’t get that. So far the money hasn’t been appropriated to pay them, but when it does, it’s because he signed on to receive it. Hmm.

In closing arguments, the prosecutors urged the jury (the Senate) to believe that they didn’t have to remove all doubt. They just needed to do what they thought was right. Isn’t that convenient—when the rules and the law say they must acquit if the evidence hasn’t taken them beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

The biggest difference between this and a regular case is that it is political. Sad to say, it is highly unlikely that any of the eleven Democrats in the Senate will vote to acquit. It’s a team sport. They’re not really on either team in this one; they’re the handicap. The two teams are: the ones trying to oust the duly elected Republican official and the ones trying to restore him to his office to do the people’s work. There are 18 total Republicans allowed to vote (excluding Senator Angela Paxton).

We can identify the ones very likely to acquit. These are the ones who voted to dismiss before the trial: Bettencourt (my state senator), Campbell, Creighton, Hall, Kolkhorst, Parker, Perry, Schwertner, and Sparks. However, Sparks, Schwertner, and Perry did not vote to dismiss on all counts. So there are a solid six. If as many as ten senators vote to acquit after hearing the case, then Paxton is acquitted and returns to work.

There are six identified as pushing to convict: Huffman, Hughes, Hancock, Middleton, Birdwell, Nichols. With the eleven Democrats, that puts their count at 17. They would need four more to convict.

There are several considered “swing” voters on this issue: besides possibly Perry, Schwertner, and Sparks, who were willing to dismiss on several counts, there are unknowns Springer, Flores, and King. So the question is, where will four of them go?

 

The Senate Trial Players

Unlike other Senate votes, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick does not cast a tiebreaking vote. He was the judge. And I have to say, I appreciated his work. It was done with humility, good humor, and professional respect. I do not know what his opinion is. There were times when the defense seemed to be saying “Objection. Hearsay” every other sentence. I didn’t keep track, but as the umpire I couldn’t see that he gave more to one team than another. He had some expertise on hand to help him answer questions he had about it. And generally he seemed fair.

I had definite responses to the two legal teams. There’s a particular style of Texas lawyer, where he talks with a slow drawl and doesn’t appear too bright—but that is an act that surprises the opposition when the bite happens. The slow Texas drawl and fumbling described the prosecution team, particularly their lead lawyer. But there was no bite. It was fumbling to the end—including when Rusty Hardin rested his case before cross-examine and redirect of the last witness. Not knowing page numbers was a problem. Not putting exhibits into evidence was another.

The defense, on the other hand, was quick, organized, strategic. Tony Buzbee is probably an acquired taste, but he was passionate and capable, as were the others on his team.

 

My Conclusion

As my friend said, you probably saw what you expected from the trial. I had been appalled at the lack of evidence presented at the House hearing, and the last-minute push to do that dirty deed. But people kept saying the evidence would come with the real trial in the Senate. I was open to that. I’ve been disappointed by way too many politicians in the past. I’m disappointed that Ken Paxton was guilty of the affair. Where can public virtue be found where there is not private virtue? Or, as John Adams put it: "Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” I am willing to accept that he is repentant; his wife has accepted that. And, as they quipped during trial, if we impeached for infidelity in Austin, we’d be holding impeachments for a long long time.

I was willing to see the evidence. Each time the prosecution laid out the things that looked bad, I could see why a person might have thought that. But then, each time, the defense got up and displayed how flimsy that was. Innuendo. Suspicion. Hearsay. Assumption. No proof. Not any.

I believe I know what should happen. Whether I am right or not, I pray that the Lord, who knows all, will grant our state what is right for the people of Texas, that justice may be done.

 

Resources

Texas Senate provided livestreaming and archived recordings. The archived segments were not always up the same day, but I believe there are all up now. When the Senate convenes to vote, that should be livestreamed as well. (If you search YouTube you will also find some livestreaming by various local news outlets, which was helpful when the Senate website delayed posting after livestreaming ended.)

Texas Scorecard has several resources, in addition to daily news coverage.

·        Luke Macias, daily emails up through day five and weekly podcast. 

·        Brandon Waltens, daily headlines.  You can also look for Brandon Waltens on X (Twitter).

·        The Texas Heist documentary 

 

Houston Conservative Forum—Don Hooper. This source was new to me. As with Texas Scorecard, there is a bias toward defending AG Paxton. Know that going in, but the coverage is good, and squares with what I saw in the hearings, but adding some inside baseball I didn’t know. Video clips are sourced from Brandon Waltens.

·        Day 1 Prior Election Doctrine (vote on whether to dismiss each count) 

·        Day 2—Beginning of Trial 

·        Day 3 

·        Day 4 

·        Day 5 

·        Day 6 

·        Day 7 

·        Day 8 

·        Elements of Articles of Impeachment

Primary Picks—Part I: Statewide Races

Today is already the first day of early voting in Texas. I’m sitting down today to go through the ballot and figure out—and share—who’s getting my vote in the various races.

I’ve been working hard on the Mark Ramsey for Congressional District 38 campaign. That has left me less time to go over all the others. So some I’m still fuzzy about. But at least today I can put together the info I have. Whatever happens in these races, I’m ready to support the Republican candidates in the general election, barring some catastrophic news I can’t foresee.

Today I’ll get through the statewide races. The local races and judicial races will take additional posts later this week.

Governor

Governor Greg Abbott has a number of challengers this year. People outside Texas might not be aware of reasons for displeasure. We have a conservative state. We’re not locked down. Business is growing. In fact, businesses—and people—from locked down states are moving here in droves.

Public Service Announcement: Y’all are welcome here, but leave your blue state politics behind.

Anyway, what has Texans riled can be summed up with pandemic response government overreach. Governor Abbott, in campaign materials, is claiming Texas is successful because we didn’t lock down. But we did. It was comparatively short, about four weeks, a week longer for “nonessential” businesses. Then it became a local prerogative. But we did shut down. Remember the Shelley Luther, Dallas salon owner, who was arrested for opening back up a few days early? She had people on her payroll who needed income for food and housing; after a month she had to open up. So, yes, we did shut down. And it took quite a long time before the state stopped local jurisdictions from forcing lockdowns and mandates.

And mandates—that’s another thing. We never actually had mask or vaccine mandates statewide. But we didn’t get the governor to step in against them until fall 2021. A year and a half of allowing local places to impose mask mandates—on school children, on workers, on private businesses, on churches. And vaccine mandates were allowed under certain circumstances—like for healthcare workers, regardless of whether they had natural immunity. Governor Abbott’s executive order to stop mandates came at the end of the third special legislative session. That means it was his fourth opportunity to put forth an executive order at a time that the legislature could then follow up to make it lawful. But he waited until it was too late for the legislature to act—until 2023.

Back a decade or more earlier, Governor Rick Perry got into trouble with Texans by calling for a vaccine mandate of Gardasil for young women. It’s intended to prevent the spread of some causes of HPV (human papilloma virus), an STD that can lead to cervical cancer. But it had been tested on women 16-26 old—so untested on those younger, and he was requiring it for 12 and up. There were risks, including a few deaths. And it is totally unnecessary for young women who are not sexually active. He seemed shocked when there was an uproar against his mandate.

What I don’t understand is any elected official who claims to believe in the Constitution—and I’ve been a big Abbott fan in the past for his ability to articulate constitutional principles—thinking they have authority under any circumstances to force people to put something into their bodies. Ever. Even if it’s a massive Ebola outbreak. Go ahead and make a recommendation. But do not suppose you control the sovereign bodies of individual citizens.

Add to this disappointment the lack of response to the conservative grassroots and their legislative priorities.

So, Governor Abbot has challengers. There are many, but foremost are Allen West, Don Huffines, and Chad Prather. I have good and bad to say about each. You can see candidate forums here and here. Governor Abbott did not participate. I also recommend checking out the Conservative Coalition of Harris County voter’s guide and questionnaires. If you go to their website, you can get their recommendations in a page or two; they only endorse when a candidate gets 70% of their board’s support. You can also click on the level of race—federal, state, county—and get the questionnaire answers that the candidate submitted, and links to other information that candidate provided. This is for Governor and the other state, congressional, and county races.

Allen West, former military, former representative in Florida, until he was redistricted out of his district and couldn’t retain the seat. He moved to Texas—his wife’s choice after lots of military-required moves in their life. Two years ago he ran for state GOP party chair. Name recognition paid off. We had a good administrator in that position. But the grassroots elected West—during that weird convention where we were forced at the last minute to do the largest political gathering in the country (world?) online, purportedly because of COVID-19. There were tremendous problems involved—including denial of service hacking. Eventually, then, West took over the remainder of the convention. And we never really finished. We didn’t get to discuss the platform. We put off handling remaining business. It was a mess. Not necessarily caused by him, but not relieved by him either.

Then he steps down less than a year before the next convention (to be held in person in Houston in June 16-18). I have friends who explain this. There was a rule that he couldn’t run for governor while holding that other elected office, and he felt the need to run for governor. There are those who thought he only ran for RPT chair as a step to something higher, and now it appears they were right.

West talks a good conservative message. I like that. And he’s charismatic enough to draw people in. But I have yet to see him actually succeed in administration.

Then there’s Don Huffines. He’s a former state senator from near Dallas, with a good conservative voting record. He has an unfortunate way of sounding like a used car salesman, but there are times I’ve been leaning toward him. However, in the forums there have been a couple of things that trigger a negative response. One is his push for replacing state property tax with some version of a consumption tax, not necessarily a bad thing. He explained that he’s run the numbers. We run a surplus in Texas, and that should be used to buy down property taxes, and over time we can convert to a consumption tax. But, he says this will only take 8 to 10 years. That may very well be true. But no one can go into office with a plan that they may not be there to complete and expect it to happen. What mess would we be in if we were halfway there—with consumption taxes increasing to take over for property taxes—and then some other leader comes in and keeps the property taxes too?

Then there’s Chad Prather. When he got in the race, people couldn’t tell if he was serious. He’s an entertainer, with a show on The Blaze, where he does political commentary. And he’s known for being provocative, in a Texas sort of way. He started out doing YouTube videos from his truck, wearing a cowboy hat. The things he said rang true and spread. Sometimes what he says, though, is too spicy for my taste. But in the forums, he actually comes off as the most conversant in the Constitution and how government should be run according to those principles. He’s intelligent, articulate, and convincing. What I don’t know is whether he could actually translate those principles into running a state that’s something like the 12^th largest economy in the world. The principles work—every time they’re tried. But would he have the influence to implement the correct principles?

Chad Prather, image from his campaign website

What I expect to happen is that Abbott will win the Primary, and he will handily be reelected against Democrat challenger Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, who lost against Ted Cruz in a Senate race a few years ago. This is the Beto who said, “Heck, yeah, we’re taking their guns,” but has suddenly now modified to saying he’s a great fan of the 2^nd Amendment. That’s not going to convince anyone here in Texas.

Anyway, I plan to do something of a protest Primary vote, possibly for Chad Prather, maybe Huffines. This is to let Governor Abbott know that we expect better from him. Then I’ll support Abbott, who is light years far and away better than the likes of former Congressman Beto, who shouldn’t be elected to anything ever again.

I’m going to have to be briefer about the rest of these races.

 

Lieutenant Governor

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick is from our part of Texas. He was state senator for my district before this position. We want to like him here. But, as with Governor Abbott, we feel disappointed. When he put out his priorities at the beginning of last year’s legislative session, it did not fully encompass the grassroots legislative priorities—the things the state convention voted on that they wanted the legislature to accomplish. Of our 8 priorities, some version of 4 got passed, and that was better than any previous Republican-led legislature in the nearly two decades of GOP leadership. Still, what happened to the other things? Why, for instance, couldn’t we get a vote on the Senate floor once our school choice bill made it out of committee—with the support of even a Democrat committee member? The Lt. Governor is leader of the Senate. His priorities get done. But this priority did not.

So, again there are challengers: Daniel Miller (website here); Trayce Bradford (website here); Aaron Sorrells (website here); Zach Vance (website here); and Todd Bullis (website here). There was a candidate forum (Patrick did not attend) in Wise County; video here.

 

Daniel Miller is probably the most well-known. He heads the Texas Nationalist Movement (Texit—I wrote about it here), although he’s not talking about that much on the campaign. He would probably see to it that the question gets put before the people of Texas, which is all he’s been asking for—and that is in the party platform. It just never gets anywhere in the legislature, which it must go through first. His book on the subject is convincing, and I’ve leaned toward that. But in truth I want the United States to remain whole and return to the Constitution. So, until that becomes impossible, I think that’s where most Texans are. Nevertheless, Miller knows the law and the Constitution—and the state constitution—better than most. I also have liked some of what Aaron Sorrells said in the forum.

Daniel Miller, image from his campaign website

 

So, again, I may do another Primary protest vote here, probably for Daniel Miller, in the hopes that Lt. Governor Patrick will wake up to our displeasure that he hasn’t kept faith with us. I think he can do better.

 

Texas Attorney General

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (campaign info here) will have primary challengers in 2022. He has made national news, and again those outside Texas (and many inside) will wonder why the challengers. There is a corruption lawsuit always looming in the background; his defense seems to be saying that it is not criminal, not that it wasn’t done. I don’t know enough to say. But there have been a number of issues where my lawyer son Political Sphere has raised questions about his incompetence. My disappointment has been his slowness to prosecute election fraud—even when the evidence is laid out for him in detail from people I know who did the investigation here in Harris County.

 

The challengers include current Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush (campaign info here), former TX Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman (campaign info here), and US Rep. Louie Gohmert (campaign info here).

 

Eva Guzman,
image from her campaign website

George P. Bush is a Bush, which is a drawback this decade. He was actually educationally qualified to be Land Commissioner. People were upset about his handling of the Alamo preservation approach. Mostly I was not. But he had some transparency issues, to which he eventually opened the books. That said, I don’t see evidence that he’s qualified to be Attorney General.

 

Louie Gohmert is a US representative, and has been pretty reliably conservative. He also ruffles feathers. That’s a good thing, if also effective in making good things happen. Son Political Sphere doesn’t trust that he can translate that into Attorney General skills.

 

Eva Guzman, on the other hand, is a former state Supreme Court justice, and definitely has the skills and demeanor. I doubt that she’ll have enough push to oust an incumbent, but I would be pleased to see her in that position. So I’ll give her my vote in the Primary.

Texas General Land Office Commissioner

Dr. Jon Spiers,
image from his campaign website

The Texas Land Commissioner position is open, as GLO Commissioner George P. Bush is running for a different office. The candidates are Dr. Jon Spiers (campaign info here), State Senator Dawn Buckingham (campaign info here), former Texas Real Estate Commissioner Weston Martinez (campaign info here), Ben Armenta (campaign info here), Victor Avila (campaign info here), Rufus Lopez, Don W. Minton (campaign info here), and Tim Westley (campaign info here). Texas Scorecard has video conversations with five of the Texas Land Commissioner candidates here.

I haven’t spent a lot of time on this race. My first impression is to support Jon Spiers. He’s from here locally, so I got somewhat acquainted with him several years ago. He was one of eight candidates in the Congressional District 2 race after the retirement of Rep. Ted Poe; Dan Crenshaw won that race, but several of the candidates were impressive. Spiers was quite good on the Obamacare issue, which was on all our minds at the time. And he was good on other issues as well. He’s a former heart surgeon turned medical attorney (an accident made it impossible for him to continue doing heart surgery, so he went to law school). He seems thoroughly conservative.

I suggest, again, looking at their videos. And also check the Conservative Coalition of Harris County voter’s guide and questionnaires. 

 

Texas Agriculture Commissioner

 

Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller (campaign info here) will be challenged by Rep. James White (campaign info here) and Carey Counsil (campaign info here). Texas Scorecard article here. Texas Scorecard has video conversations with the each of the three candidates here. Again, this is not a race I have spent a lot of time on. There are whispers of some corruption that I can’t seem to get clarity on. Maybe true, maybe spin, maybe just an attempt to discredit for political reasons. I don’t know. But my outside view is that Sid Miller has been a good Ag Commissioner, and I plan to vote for him.

Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner
screenshot from this campaign video

 

 

Wayne Christian,
image from campaign website

Texas Railroad Commissioner

 

The Texas Railroad Commission is a three-person group who handle oil & gas/energy in the state. There are long historical reasons for the name, which seems confusing. But this is really about the energy industry in Texas. Only one of the three is up this election. Texas Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian has several challengers. All candidates include Wayne Christian, Tom Slocum Jr., Sarah Stogner, Marvin “Sarge” Summers, Dawayne Tipton. I suggest, again, the CCHC questionnaire, which also shows links to their websites and social media. But my impression is that Wayne Christian has done well enough and will get my vote.

 

 

Texas Comptroller

 

This is essentially an accounting, or treasurer position.  Mark Goloby is challenging Glenn Hegar for Texas Comptroller. Goloby campaign info here. Hegar campaign info here. Goloby is actually precinct chair of my next-door precinct. He spent several years accomplishing putting an end to the Chapter 313 problem. He spoke at our Tea Party on this. It wasn’t an easy issue to take on, because it takes some explanation (I never seem able to repeat the explanations afterward). I supported him in that effort and was glad the legislature finally did what was needed—which was actually to do nothing, to not renew. But Goloby is saying the Comptroller hasn’t yet updated practices. And there are some other issues.

 

Overall I think Glenn Hegar has been a good Comptroller. One story I read acknowledged this, but added that he ought to deal with the issues brought up by his challenger. If he does that, we can be satisfied. So Hegar will get my vote—and we’ll be watching.

Glenn Hegar, image from campaign website

 

Next up, in a post later this week, will be the US congressional races and other local and county races. There are a few statewide judicial races, but rather than include them today, I’ll handle them in a separate post that will include local judicial races as well.