Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

 

Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Saturday was a sad day for Texas Conservatives as the Texas House voted illegally to override the results of a Texas election and impeach Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  

Under Texas Law a Texas official may not be impeached and removed from office for any act alleged to have been committed prior to his or her most recent election.  The Statute (Government Code, Title 6; Subtitle B Chapter 665  Subchapter D Sec. 665.081)  shown below states, under the heading "NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE" as follows: "An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office."

Those supporting the impeachment have argued that the Statute is invalid because the power to impeach is granted to the Legislature in the Texas State Constitution, can can only be limited by a Constitutional Amendment, not merely by a Statute.  However the Texas State Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 11) under "RULES OF PROCEDURE" that "Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings." And since the Statute in question was passed by both Houses, it certainly constitutes "rules of its own proceedings" which it has "determined" for itself.  In other words, the Legislature must follow its own rules, and the laws that it has passed governing its own operations are binding upon itself according to the Texas State Constitution.

 

The allegations made against Ken Paxton were all made prior to his most recent election last November.  These allegations were used by his Primary opponents and his General Election opponent in their campaigns against him in both the Texas Primary and in the General Election. Millions of dollars were spent by his opponents putting these allegations before the public  

Here are some initial findings (from my friend Tom Glass) about what the Texas Supreme Court has said about the anti-disenfranchisement provision. This is from In re Brown, 512 S.W.2d 317, 320-21 (Tex. 1974)

"Judge Brown raises several objections to the proceedings as a whole which require discussion. First, petitioner says that his re-election to his office after the commission of the things for which he was charged operates as a complete defense to any disciplinary action. He relies upon Article 5986, Vernon's Ann.T.C.S., which says: 

No officer in this State shall be removed from office for any act he may have committed prior to his election to office. 

 Article XV, Section 7, of the Texas Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the removal of officers for whom the modes of removal are not provided in the Constitution. This proceeding is authorized by the Constitution, and for that reason Article 5986 is not applicable. However, the spirit of that statute was applied to a proceeding to remove a judge pursuant to Article XV, Section 6, of the Texas Constitution in the case of In re Laughlin, 153 Tex. 183, 265 S.W.2d 805, 808 (1954). The rule was there stated:

 'Neither may removal (of judges) be predicated upon acts antedating election, not in themselves disqualifying under the Constitution and laws of this State, when such acts were a matter of public record or otherwise known to the electors and were sanctioned and approved or forgiven by them at the election. This holding is in harmony with the public policy declared by the Legislature with respect to other public officials. Article 5986, R.C.S.' 

 The rationale for the doctrine is the sound reason that the public, as the ultimate judge and jury in a democratic society, can choose to forgive the misconduct of an elected official. Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666 (1924). The underlying basis for the principle is that the public can knowingly return one to office in spite of charges of misconduct. Public access to full information was the basis for this court's approval of the rule in Laughlin, supra, as appears from the portion quoted above. Matters of public record or matters which are otherwise known to the electors may be forgiven, says the opinion. Brown, In re, 512 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. 1974)"

 

Texas voters chose to reelect Ken Paxton, being fully aware of these allegations, and this is an illegal conspiracy of RINOS and Democrats to undo the results of a Texas election! 

 Moreover the Impeachment was done, in the words of Matt Rinaldi the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, 

...without considering any direct evidence, without allowing legislators to to interview or cross-examine witnesses, without placing witnesses under oath, without allowing members to talk to investigators, without making witness transcripts available to legislators, without subpoenaing witnesses with direct knowledge of allegations, and without allowing the Attorney General to present evidence or argument.  The result of this indefensible process was to impeach based solely on accusations, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, ans speculation.

This sham process involved secret meetings by a committee of just five House members, who simply delivered a report on Wednesday and held a vote on Saturday on Memorial Day weekend.  Neither the public, nor the vast majority of House members were even aware that such secret hearings were being held to impeach our Attorney General until this last Wednesday.  And rather than conduct hearings before the entire House, the House was simply asked to accept and ratify a report from just five members!

The following are the RINOS that voted with Democrats to illegally impeach Ken Paxton and take away your right to vote for Attorney General.  An "A" means they voted illegally to impeach, an "N" means they voted against this illegal impeachment:

It is time to clean "House" in Texas!

Its Time to End Property Tax in Texas!

 

 

For years our Texas Legislature has promised us tax relief, but they never seem to deliver.  After every session they take a victory lap, claiming to have delivered tax relief, and yet every year our property taxes seem to go up, and not down.  This last session they are claiming to have delivered the biggest tax break in Texas history, but once again they have used fuzzy math, included past compression and have not adjusted their numbers for inflation.  

In fact this last year the State had a 33 billion dollar surplus.  That means Texans were over taxed by 33 billion dollars.  But did our legislature return this money to the taxpayers? No.  They voted to keep it, and find more places to spend it.  

Ronald Reagan said that spending is the leading cause of taxation, and that if you want to lower taxes, you must reduce spending.  He illustrated this point by comparing government to a child who spends too much money.  The solution, he said, was that you quit giving them so much money, and they will quit spending it.  

But our RINO State Legislature has lost sight of these conservative principles, and knowing they have overtaxed Texans, look for even more things on which to spend taxpayer dollars.  

And even when our legislature creates the illusion that they have provided tax relief (when have your taxes ever actually gone down?)  it is usually based on the homestead exemption.  Sadly this kind of alleged tax relief shifts the tax burden from home owners to renters.  Landlords do not enjoy homestead exemptions, and pass their tax burden to their renters, who pay hidden property tax in their rent.  This means we are robbing renters to benefit homeowners. 

So the time has come to end property tax in Texas!  Yes, this can be done.  It would need to be phased out over ten years.  But first, let me explain why this must be done.

Under the property tax system, property owners, in effect, rent their property,  Their property tax, is effectively rent. and if they fail to pay their rent, the state will foreclose and evict them.  This means that the government is landlord over every property owner in Texas (short of Churches and other tax exempt property).  And what do we call it when the government owns all the property?  When the government owns all property, that is called "Communism".  That's right, the Texas property tax system is back door Communism.  And because of this, Texans are never secure in their homes.  A Texan can spend a lifetime of work paying off a home,  and never feel confident that in their old age, after their working years, that the government will not tax them out of their homes, or even worse yet, leave behind a widow who is taxed out of her home!

Yes we can end property tax in Texas.  We will need to phase it out over ten years.  For the first five years we will pay down the next years tax with the annual surplus (the amount by which Texans are already being overtaxed each year) and we will need to phase in a voluntary tax.  By this I mean a very slight increase in sales tax, perhaps a quarter percent.  

Property tax is an involuntary tax, it is a tax on not being homeless (as explained above, even renters pay property tax built into their rent).  We do not charge sales tax on basic groceries in Texas, because we do not want to tax people for simple being survival (eating), so why should we tax them for shelter?  Taxation is theft, and if we must be taxed, let that tax be voluntary, on things you choose to buy (not, for example, groceries).  Whatever your property tax is, imagine that spread out among everything you buy in a year, so to replace the property tax revenue would be a very slight increase in sales tax.  

This will take an amendment to the Texas State constitution, so that once we kill this monster, it will stay dead and never be resurrected.

Imagine the economic prosperity Texas would experience from eliminating property tax.  Property tax is a hidden tax built into every product and service you buy.  Most products you buy have been stored in a warehouse and then brought to a retail location on which property tax is paid, and built into the price of that product.  Moreover all the employees that were involved must be paid enough to pay their property taxes (even if they rent) and that is built into the price of products and services as well.  Property tax is a viscous cycle of hidden taxes!

If the Texas Legislature wants to truly deliver meaningful tax relief to Texans, they can do so by simply proposing a Constitutional amendment before the voters and give Texans the opportunity to vote on this!

Lets end property tax now!

James Scott Trimm 

Stephanie Klick Votes for Gender Mutilation Grooming with your Money!

 

 

Stephanie Klick has just voted to use your tax dollars to groom children for gender mutilation!

During the 2021 legislative session, Stephanie Klick,  blocked all bills to protect children from gender modification.   Klick's campaign also received money from PACs associated with the clinics that perform these draconian procedures, as well as from the the Pharmaceutical company that manufactures Lupron,  a manufactured version of a hormone used as part of transgender hormone therapy, and as a hormone blocker given to children.  (See my blog Stephanie Klick Sent Children to Castration for Campaign Money! )

In fact, during her 2022 election campaign, while debating with conservative David Lowe, Klick actually referred to the gender modification of children as "a type of care"!!!!

Now, during the 2023 legislative session, Klick has voted to give your taxpayer dollars to finance so-called "mental health services" which groom children for so called gender modification in the name of so-called "gender affirming care."

The term "gender affirming care" (like the term "reproductive rights") is a classic example of Orwellian "doublespeak", a form of propaganda that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words to actual inversions of meaning. For example in George Orwell's book 1984 the Big Brother Government controls the people thru four ministries" the Ministry of Peace (which deals with war) the Ministry of Truth (which deals with propaganda), the Ministry of Plenty (which deals with rationing) and the Ministry of Love (the secret police).  When Klick and her ilk refer to child gender modification as "a type of care" or as "gender affirming care" they actually mean the opposite of their words.  Instead of care that affirms the child's biological gender, they refer to care that is aimed at denying and negating the child's biological gender.  Klick would be very much at home in Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

Conservative champion Tony Tinderholt proposed an amendment to House Bill 1898 which would have deprived funding a children's hospital to be used "to provide mental health services affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex."  

 

Stephanie Klick voted "nay" to this amendment, meaning that she voted for your tax dollars to be used to counsel children to "affirm" to a child that their sex is other than their true biological gender! 

 

Stephanie Klick has continually shown her true colors in supporting this reprehensible practice of grooming little boys for castration and little girls for mutilation and sterilization! 

- James Scott Trimm

The U.S. Constitution Prohibits Abortion in Every State

 

 

The U.S. Constitution Prohibits Abortion in Every State
by
James Scott Trimm

On June 24th 2022 SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question of Abortion back to the states.  But SCOTUS did not go far enough.  In reality the U.S. Constitution prohibits abortion in any state in the Union.  

 

Person's Right to Life Under the 14th Amendment

We read in the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that the opening clause defines citizens of the United States as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"  however no such qualification is attached to the words "person" in the clause "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which implies that these two clauses apply to persons who are "born" or "unborn".  Had the framers of this amendment indented these later two clauses to apply only to "persons born", then they could have, and certainly would have, added the same qualifier "persons born" rather than simply "persons" that was used in the opening clause defining who is a citizen. Thus a "person" (born or unborn) must not 

Equal Protection Under the 14th Amendment

Having overturned Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS has empowered states to enact laws criminalizing abortion.  It is now illegal, in some states, to deprive a person, whether born, or unborn. of the right to life, without due process.  Thus, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, unborn persons in other states, must be granted equal protection.  If abortion is illegal in even one state, it should, as a result, via the equal protection clause, be illegal in all states.

Right to Liberty Under the 14th Amendment

In wrestling with the definition of the nebulous right to "liberty" under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS ultimately turned to the Bill of Right, creating the "Doctrine of Incorporation" which has applied most of the Bill of Right to the States, via the 14th Amendment.  The logic goes like this, the framers of the 14th Amendment must have had the enumerated liberties found in the Bill of Rights (at least) in mind, when speaking of a right to "liberty".  This means that even if the 14th Amendment  did not contain its own "right to life" the "right to liberty" under the 14th Amendment incorporates the "right to life" found in the 5th Amendment.

 

Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity

Now you may wonder why I brought up the Liberty clause.  After all, while the Liberty clause might get us to the "right to life" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment already has its own "right to life" clause.  Actually there is a very important reason that the "Liberty" clause of the 14th Amendment has special application here.  This is because of what we read in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Notice that the Preamble guarantees the "Blessings of Liberty" secured by the U/S. Constitution, not only to "ourselves" but to "our Posterity" and "out Posterity" are the unborn, by definition.  If the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment incorporates the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights (and thus the Right to Life in the 5th Amendment), then so must the word "liberty" in the Preamble, and at the very least, the word "liberty" in the Preamble must incorporate the "liberty" in the 14th Amendment, which in turn incorporates the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights, and thus the 5th Amendment Right to Life.

And what if one should say that the Preamble should not be regarded as law?  First of all the Supremacy Clause does not exclude the Preamble.  Secondly the Supremacy Clause , none the less, reveals to us the intent of the Framers, and finally, SCOTUS used the Preamble as Law in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700  arguing that the phrase "to form a more perfect Union" made the secession of the Confederate states illegal, and while I disagree with this interpretation, it certainly basis its law on the Preamble.

SCOTUS has not done enough simply by overturning Roe v. Wade and returning this issue to the States.  The fact is that the U.S, Constitution clearly prohibits abortion in any State of the Union.

Star Trek was Pro-Life- Now They Want to Make it Pro-Abortion

 

 

Star Trek was Pro-Life Now They Want to Make it Pro-Abortion
By
James Scott Trimm

 

(An earlier version of this blog wrongly reported Disney owned TV rights to Star Trek, based on inaccurate reporting found on the internet.)

I  have been a lifetime fan of Star Trek.  I was born in 1966, the same year Star Trek was born.  I grew up watching the original series, reading the earliest novels, the Gold Key comics, and the animated series.  When I was thirteen Star Trek the Motion Picture came out, with even more books and a Marvel comic version.  Just as I was becoming an adult, Star Trek the Next Generation came out.  Star Trek was a huge part of my life, and helped shape my life philosophy.  In fact I have two books, in my library, dating to my childhood, on that very topic (among well over 100 Star Trek Books in my Library): Star Trek Speaks and Meaning In Star Trek. Without realizing it, I modeled myself after Spock, choosing the Stoic philosophy and with 3-D Chess as a pastime.

I was delighted with the Star Trek Continues fan production (2013-2017) from Vic Mignonga (Who is a Christian), because it made a point of making the types of episodes that were in keeping with the original vision.  (I encourage Star Trek Fans to watch it, it is real Star Trek).

Recently the Star Trek TV website published a blog titled Star Trek Has Always Advocated For Choice which attempts to make the case that Star Trek has always been pro-abortion.  The blog makes a strained and twisted argument based on the STNG episode The Measure of a Man that supposedly supports abortion.  In fact this episode is a Pro-life allegory.  In this episode Picard defends Data's right to life, from those who do not believe he has a right to life, and who want to dismember him,  What a clear pro-life message.

But the pro-life message was an even bigger part of the original vision of Star Trek.  Star Trek was born the same year I was born (1966).  It was also the year of the death of Margaret Sanger., the eugenics and abortion activist who was the founder of the original Planned Parenthood and is recognized as the founder of the modern "reproductive rights" (double speak for "abortion") movement.  

Just a few months after her death, the original producer of Star Trek (Gene Roddenberry) produced the season one episode Space Seed The episode was originally written by Carey Wilber to involve heroes from ancient Greece, but  was revised by show runner Gene L. Coon and Roddenberry himself to involve genetically superior humans, who left earth after the Eugenics Wars originally set in the 1990s.  It is no surprise that the villain's name was  Khan Noonien Singh, echoing the name of Eugenics activist Margaret Sanger.  

This episode not only inspired the sequel in Star Trek II the Wrath of Khan, but sent ripples thru the Star Trek universe and it's sequels.  The idea that earth outlawed eugenics after the Eugenics Wars which became a foundational part of earth culture in the series.

This eventually led to an episode of STNG titled The Masterpiece Society which involved a colony which had left earth hundreds of years earlier to build a eugenics based society.  The colony is facing destruction from a stellar core fragment from a disintegrated Neutron star.   Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge who was born blind, discovers a technology that can save the colony, as part of the technology which was originally developed to create the visor that allows him to see.  This irony is the central message of the episode with some amazing pro-life dialog coming from Geordi who points out that he would not have been allowed to be be born on their colony.  Here is the amazing Pro-life dialog:

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge : So... guess if I had been conceived on your world, I wouldn't even be here now, would I?

Hannah Bates : No.

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge : No. I'd have been... terminated as a fertilized cell.

Hannah Bates : It was the wish of our founders that no one have to suffer a life with disabilities.

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge : Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I should be here, whether or not I might have something to contribute?

...

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge : Oh, that's perfect.

Hannah Bates : What?

Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge : If the answer to all of this is in a VISOR created for a blind man who never would have existed in your society. No offense intended.

 Anyone who is seriously familiar with the subject knows that Star Trek was specifically Pro-Life and that it's anti-eugenics pro-life stance was woven into the fabric of the show...

Klicks Dirty Trick's - Evil Prevailed Last Night

 

 

Klicks Dirty Trick's - Evil Prevailed Last Night
By
James Scott Trimm

It has been said that the only thing necessary for evil to prevail, is for good men to do (or say) nothing.  So let it be with the recent election for House District 91.  I am supposed to move on, perhaps even congratulate Mrs. Klick on her victory.  But I cannot do that.  The world needs to know and remember, that evil prevailed.

David Lowe, a decorated American combat veteran, ran a clean, issue based campaign.  A campaign of which he could be proud.  He knocked on 9,000 doors and talked one on one with voters,  On Primary day, most of Klick's constituents voted against her, bringing her into a runoff with David Lowe.

The serious dishonesty from the Klick campaign began when they began airing TV and radio ads that played an out of context audio quote from David Lowe, cut off in the middle of a sentence, to make it appear David Lowe is pro-choice, which then immediately cut to pleasant music and "but pro-life champion Stephanie Klick..."  In fact the quote was cut off before Lowe said the words "all we need to do is abolish abortion in Texas,"  This dirty trick was bad enough, but it was nothing compared to what came later.

The Klick camp waited until five days before early runoff voting began, and then released an all out assault of blatant lies about David Lowe.  Mailers and Facebook ads declared that Lowe owned pornographic websites, had invested in pornographic businesses , was involved in "human trafficking" and that this had been "uncovered by law enforcement".  All of these things were patently false.  David Lowe was never owned or operated a pornographic website, never invested in a pornographic business, was certainly never involved in human trafficking, nor was he involved in any criminal activity uncovered by law enforcement.  All of these things, stated by Facebook ads and mailers that bombarded the voters of HD 91 just as early voting began.  This was intentionally launched just before and during early voting, so that there would be no time to effectively respond to the large number of lies.

The truth is that over ten years ago, David Lowe engaged in armature "Domain Name Peculation", an investment scheme of purchasing domain names and holding them, hoping to sell them at a higher value.  This is an internet analogy to land speculation.  At no time did David operate any pornographic websites.  The domain names remained "parked" waiting for resale,  David owned literally hundreds of domain names at the time. which he bought and traded in bulk, the vast majority of which were innocuous domain names.  However a domain name is not a website, nor is it a business, any more than a physical address is a building (it may only be an empty lot).  And even a bad sounding domain name, can be used simply to drive internet traffic.  One could, for example. purchase a naughty sounding domain name, and point it to a Christian website, in an effort to reach the lost.  Or the domain "findsomesex.com" could used as a clever name for a business that gives sonograms and tells you the sex of your baby.  The point is, that a url is not, in itself a website of a business.  

The fact is that the Klick camp launched a campaign of outright lies about David Lowe in a last minute, dirty tricks campaign, and sadly, our Tarrant County Sheriff Bill Waybourn, participated in this campaign of lies, whole heatedly!

The sad fact is that the trust of the voters was violated and this election was stolen from the voters just as sure as if the ballot box was stuffed.  

I am supposed to keep my mouth shut about this steal and take this loss gracefully.  After all, if I say anything about these things, it is "sour grapes".  But far more importantly, my silence is all evil needs to prevail and propagate,

 Evil prevailed, but I am making sure that it has done so in broad daylight, not under the cover of darkness!

 

  

 

 

 

Stephanie Klick Does Not Believe Preborn Babies are "Persons" (Understanding Equal Protection)

 

Stephanie Klick Does Not Believe Preborn Babies are "Persons"
(Understanding Equal Protection)
By
James Scott Trimm

  

In the runoff race between Klick and Lowe for House District 91, Lowe has been criticized for supporting "Equal Protection" for the unborn.  Klick's camp has falsely claimed, based on his belief in "Equal Protection", that Lowe supports the death penalty for women who abort their babies.  This is actually false, because David (and myself) are opposed to the death penalty (based on the potential for wrongful convictions)and the Abolish Abortion bill which Klick blocked, and which Lowe supports (HB3326) does not mention the death penalty, only equal protection.  But what does "equal protection" mean, and why is is so important?

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the  US Constitution reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This amendment says that a "person" cannot be deprived of "life, liberty or property" without due process.  This, friends, is your Constitutional right to life!  And the second phrase is very important.  This second phrase says that a person is also guaranteed "equal protection of the laws".    This critical right prevents there from being one "due process" to protect one class of people, and a different "due process" to protect another group of people.  This amendment was passed, because, at the time, there were many who did not want African Americans to have the same protection under the law, as a white man.  Today we call these people bigots.

There is a new class of bigots today.  Now we have a group of people who do not want Pre-born babies to have the same protection under the law as those already born.  This is a new type of bigotry.

 Now if we want to abolish abortion in Texas, we simply need to declare that the pre-born are "persons".  This makes prefect sense, since the Preamble of the US Constitution promises to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" and our "posterity" are by definition, the pre-born.

By declaring the pre-born to be "persons" we guarantee their "right o life" and their right to "equal protection under the law".  It is very important to realize that a "person" under the 14th Amendment must be entitled to both.  If you do not believe in "equal protection" for the pre-born, then you do not believe, at least Constitutionally, that they are "persons" with a "right to life".  According to the 14th Amendment, all three of these things: personhood, the right to life, and equal protection of the law, go together.  No one of them can truly exist without the others.  

My point is, that if you do not believe in equal protection for the pre-born, (And Stephanie Klick has telegraphed very strongly that she does not, in criticizing Lowe for having this belief) then you do not really believe that the pre-born are actually "persons" with a 14th amendment right to life, and you are part of this new class of bigotry!

 Unfortunately, Texas Right to Life, which has recently gone full RINO (see my last blog Texas Right to Life Goes Full RINO)  and they appear to have also opposed the idea that the pre-born should have "equal protection".  

There is a pro-life organization in Texas that is fighting for Texas to recognize the pre-born as persons with both a right to life and equal protection under the 14th amendment, that organization is Abolish Abortion Texas, and they are very much worthy of your support.

PS:  For the record, since yesterday I have been blocked from commenting on the Texas Right to Life Facebook Page. Of course I am even more Pro-Life than they have become. Apparently their position has become so weak, that it cannot withstand debate! To Texas Right to Life: " Have I now become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16). To everyone else: If you want to abolish abortion in Texas not just regulate it, support David Lowe for HD 91 in the runoff, and support Abolish Abortion Texas. Texas Right to Life has gone full RINO!