Gov. Abbott Takes the Lead on Reining in Our Out-of-Control Government!!!

Gov. Abbott Takes the Lead on Reining in Our Out-of-Control Government!!!

Parliamentary Procedure – Republican Style Videos Online

Note: Be a Part of the American Process: Vote in the Primary & then Attend your Precinct Convention held Primary Election Night, usually at the polling place!

There you will help select delegates to go to District Convention as well as pass resolutions for the Texas Platform. This is where EVERY Primary voter is heard and can influence their Texas Party. The more conservative the delegates, the more conservative the Party. Please join us!

Parliamentary Procedure – Republican Style Videos Online

Butch Davis

Butch Davis

Presentation by Butch Davis, fmr. Harris County Republican Parliamentarian, occurred on April 10, 2012.

  • Video Presentation by Louis “Butch” Davis with PowerPoint and downloadable Cheat Sheet
  • Butch is an extraordinary Parliamentarian. He is the one we all work to send to the Republican National Convention because of his expertise and his conservatism!
  • Butch is also the one who alerted everyone to the machinations of Romney’s campaign to control the delegates the States elect to go to the RNC so we could mitigate the worst of it in Tampa.

Lou “Butch” Davis gave us a fine introduction to the Parliamentary Procedure used by the Republican Party at its conventions. Kingwood TEA Party requested him to teach the class because of the large number of new Patriots attending the State Convention in June who had no idea what to expect. He was gracious enough to allow me to record his presentation so those who could not attend could view the class before going to State.

For those of you who don’t know Butch, here are a few of his qualifications:

  • State party parliamentarian for the Republican Party of Texas
  • Former Senate District Chairman for 6 years
  • Member of State Rules Committee for 4 state conventions
  • Attended all state conventions except 2 since 1980.

Parliamentary Procedures – Republican Style is, of course, also valuable for those who want to get involved in their local political process in March 2010.

Butch has kindly provided us with a Cheatsheet to take with you to conventions, as well as his PowerPoint that I have saved as a .pdf so you can follow along as you watch the video. (Click on links to open or save a copy.)

Thank you, Butch!!!

Video 1:

Video 2:

Video 3:

Video 4:

Video 5:

Video 6:

Video 7:

Houston takes major hit w/ judge’s decision to void drainage fee tax

It’s a Clear Choice for Houston Mayor: HOUSTON’S PENSION CRISIS

king-blk-pastorsFellow Houstonians,

Credit to Greg Groogan and Fox 26 for having the audacity to air this story last night (pasted below) about the single-most important challenge facing our city on Dec. 3, 2015: THE CITY’S PENSION CRISIS – click link to see video).

As you watch this story, remember that, on March 6th of this year, Sylvester Turner stood up with Mayor Parker – who endorsed him on 12/3/15 – and declared he was heading to Austin to solve this problem

Of course, Mr. Turner frequently cites his experience and connections in Austin as a selling point for his candidacy, and Mayor Parker made special mention of that yesterday during her endorsement.

So what happened when Sylvester rode into battle to save our pensions in Austin? Well, his colleagues thought so much of Sylvester’s “leadership” that his bill never even made it to the Texas House floor.

Sylvester had his moment. He failed.

Bear in mind, Sylvester carried the original legislation for Mayor Lee P. Brown – who endorsed Sylvester earlier this week (there’s a trend here) – that created this pension crisis in the first place.

Sylvester’s unique brand of “leadership” helped create the city’s pension crisis, and his failed attempt to fix this mess – his mess – would have made the problem even worse had it passed.

Houstonians cannot afford another four years like the last six – but that’s exactly what we will get if Annise Parker’s candidate carries the day.

It’s time for people who believe in good government to stand up, get out and vote, and save our city before it is too late.


Watch the video here:

Which mayoral candidate can solve Houston’s pension crisis?

By: Greg Groogan

HOUSTON (FOX 26) – The irony was pretty powerful.

Candidate Sylvester Turner pledging to solve Houston’s pension crisis while both flanked and endorsed by Lee Brown, the former Mayor experts blame for triggering the problem by bestowing unaffordable benefits.

“We have acknowledged that the system is not sustainable and we are going to come up with something that works in the interest of all Houstonians,” said Turner.

Here are the nuts and bolts.

Analysts say Houston taxpayers will spend six times more on pensions this year than they will repairing their dilapidated roads. Even with that outlay, the City is north of $3 billion in the hole when it comes to funding it’s employee pensions, a deficit that’s getting rapidly worse.

A commonly cited example – Houston Firefighters with 30 years’ service retire at 94 percent pay with the bonus of an additional, one time pay-out of up to $1 million.

Critics like Mayoral candidate Bill King call it a formula for bankruptcy.

“There were 76 firefighters that retired last year. The average age was 54. The average benefit was a distribution of a lump sum payment of $813,000 plus $58,000 a year for the rest of their life and their spouse’s life,” said King.

Backed by firefighters, cops and municipal workers, Turner says only he can broker a solution, leveraging both his credibility with unions and the strength of his long-standing relationships in the Texas Legislature.

“If someone puts forth a plan that does not have any buy in from police and fire it is already a non-starter okay and nothing will come about,” said Turner.

“They won’t get to dictate the terms and that’s what I’m concerned with about Sylvester,” countered King.

King claims salvaging the City’s financial health demands a fundamental change – moving all new hires away from pensions and into 401-k style retirement plans.

“You cannot dodge this bullet long term,”
adds King who, if elected, says he would
honor the pension terms of all existing city employees.

Career Politician Sylvester Turner Basing Mayoral Campaign on Staff Tweets and Boats … Really

Vote for Bill King for Houston Mayor, a businessman who will return Houston to being a refuge for families and businesses!

Failure to Deliver Pension Reform, Promises to Raise Taxes Not Featured in Turner Ads

Last Friday, a mid-day TV news report said that Sylvester Turner was promising “to run a clean cambill-king-friends-on-hard-times1paign.” In reality, the career politician running for Houston Mayor had already spent tens of thousands of dollars to attack businessman Bill King personally with a bought media campaign littered with juvenile smears and outright falsehoods.

If Sylvester’s promises to the media are no good, what about his promises to city voters?

More importantly, if you’ve spent 26 years in Austin, and your campaign is based on attacking your opponent for the high crime of owning a boat, you’re out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time.

Since Mr Turner is interested, here is a quick fact-check on Bill King and boating: 

* Growing up the son of a union pipe fitter two blocks from Galveston Bay, Bill developed a lifelong love affair with the water. As a young boy, Bill worked the shrimp and fishing boats and cleaned so many sea trout and red-fish that, to this day, he rarely eats fish.

* After becoming the first person in his family to graduate from college — from the University Houston — Bill enjoyed great financial success before losing everything during Houston’s severe downturn of the 1980’s. Rebuilding his life and business career, Bill earned enough success to buy a boat which he dubbed “Hard Times” in reference to his own life challenges.

* Bill sold that boat in 2012, but not before he lent it to dozens of charitable organizations — who, in turn, auctioned off rides and use of the boat to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for worthy causes. At least 200 groups and over 5,000 people benefited from Bill King’s generosity with his boat.

* Between 2009 and 2012, in fact, Bill coordinated with Rev. Leslie Smith of Change Happens! in Houston to organize eight to 10 cruises with at-risk children. Several of these Change Happens! cruises are still featured on the organization’s website:

Sylvester Turner says “We’re all in this together” on his website, but the fact is: his only interest is in dividing Houstonians by class and distracting from his failure to address the fundamental challenges facing the City of Houston. After 26 years in Austin and after more than 60 debates and forums during the course of this campaign for Houston Mayor,  Mr. Turner still has offered no plan to address the pension crisis that threatens the city’s future.

To be fair, the career politician has proposed busting the property tax cap — known as the Rev Cap — so he can raise our taxes as much as he wants and anytime he wants. Curiously, this policy position is not featured in Mr Turner’s paid ads.

ON TO THE RUNOFF: DEMs are bringing in lots of Out-of-State $$$


YOU CAN VOTE in the RUNOFF, even if you DIDN’T Vote in the 11-3-15 City/County Election!!!!

2015_COH_runoff-voter-guide-1_111915Sylvester Turner wants to repeal the Revenue Cap
which prevents City Hall from increasing Property Tax rates more than 4-1/2% in one year.

Sylvester Turner has vowed to pass another Houston ERO (Bathroom Bill) even though voters just soundly defeated it!

We can elect another liberal Mayor or we can elect Businessman Bill King and go BACK TO BASICS!

Remember your ID! No cell phones or other electronic devices permitted at polls. Please print out a copy to take with you!  They are 2 per page if printed back-to-back. Share one with a friend!

Click link below to see FOX26 Report:

BREAKING: City Takes Major Hit with Judge’s Decision to Void Drainage Fee Tax FOX26

KWTP is an Amazon Affiliate. Buy your copy of By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission with no extra charges AND  help support KWTP!

Rebuild Houston Legally DEAD after Court Ruling

Other Mayoral Candidates Continue to Support Voided Funding Mechanism

Businessman and mayoral candidate Bill King joined State Senator Paul Bettencourt, Council Member Michael Kubosh, businessman Joe Slovacek, and attorney Andy Taylor on Thursday to declare Rebuild Houston legally dead following an unprecedented ruling that voided the results of the 2010 election that created the program.

King’s statement follows, and you can watch it here.

“While the Rebuild Houston program was found to be misleading in a court of law today, it was frankly found that in the court of public opinion long ago,” King said. “All during this campaign I have asked people ‘After five years paying an additional $100 million, are your streets and drainage any better than they were five years ago?’ I have yet to find a single person that thinks that is the case. Look, I don’t want to mislead anyone. It costs money to do infrastructure. We are going to have to find a revenue stream to do this. But it needs to be one that is fully transparent, where the voters decide how much we’re going to spend, and what projects we’re going to spend it on — not some revenue stream the administration can use to try to balance the budget. By the way, there are now 550 full-time employees paid out of the dedicated street and drainage fund. It needs to be transparent. The voters should decide what the projects will be, and not decided — literally — in the basement of City Hall by a bunch of City Hall insiders and bureaucrats. We’ve got to get back to basics. We need to get out of the courtroom, and we need to get our streets fixed.”

Fox 26 led both their 5 pm and 9 pm news with a story on the impact of the ruling, which Senator Bettencourt described as “an atomic bomb for the city’s budgeting process” due to the lost revenues it entails.

Yesterday’s judgment marked the fifth consecutive legal defeat for the Parker administration, which nevertheless said they believe the ordinance remains in effect. It is expected that the city will appeal the ruling, which would delay the new election called for in the ruling for a year or more.

Bill King Denouncing Rebuild Houston after Court Ruling

Bill King with Sen. Paul Bettencourt, CM Michael Kubosh, businessman Joe Slovacek, and atty Andy Taylor Denouncing Rebuild Houston after Court Ruling

At the last televised debate of the 2015 election — also on Fox 26 last night — each of the other major mayoral candidates except King continued to express support for the Rebuild Houston program despite the court ruling. Council Member Costello, who has referred to himself as the “godfather” of Rebuild Houston, was not invited to the debate and has yet to issue a statement on the ruling.

Pensions & Voter Guide

KWTP Voters Guide for Nov. 2015 City of Houston and Harris County election

To fix our underfunded Pensions, we need to:

  1. Vote for Bill King – Mayor;
    Bill Frazer – Controller; and
    Councilmembers Dave Martin, Michael Kubosh &  Jack Christie!
  2. Help us fight in the TX Legislature for Houstonians’ Local Control of Pensions in 2017!
  3. Mayor and Council must commit to fully funded, transparent pensions that are honest about returns.

Radio Spot by

Why “Meet & Confer” Is NOT Local Control

There has been some (largely purposeful, sowed by the opposition) confusion over local control and meet and confer. 

“Meet and confer” simply means that if the city and pension plans agree on changes to retirement benefits then those changes go to Austin to be implemented by the legislature. The Police and Muni plans have “meet and confer,” but Fire does not. “Meet and confer” falls far short of real local control because the citizens of Houston do not have a say in the process (i.e., the initiative process) and any changes, even for new employees, require the full sign-off of the pension plans (note, this process is currently separate from all other negotiations with each of the employees’ unions). And even in the case of “meet and confer,” any deal between the city and retirement plans still has to go through Austin. In practical terms, all three of Houston’s plans have the same governance structure.

Local control would establish appropriate roles for the city, retirement plans, and the state. Below is a description of what those appropriate roles should be.

  • City – Municipalities should be able to negotiate all aspects of compensation, including retirement benefits, within the same negotiating process, and should be able to implement any changes locally. And city leaders’ decisions should be subject to referendum to allow citizens a voice in the process.
  • State of Texas – The state should set minimum funding requirements, reporting standards, and remedial actions that would occur in the case of mismanagement. The state should not control retirement benefits levels or plan design just as it does not currently dictate other elements of employee compensation.
  • Retirement Plans – Pension boards should simply administer the plan and manage plan assets for the sole benefit of plan members. Retirement plans should not have the authority to negotiate benefit levels or reduced government contributions, and certainly should not lobby the legislature.

Sen. Ted Cruz: Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Sen. Cruz Introduces the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Online Press Release here
Complete pdf Text of the Bill here



Sen. Ted Cruz Press Office


Cruz Press Office: 202-228-7561

Phil Novack:

June 17, 2015


Sen. Cruz Introduces the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act

Bill would end the ability of DHS to use legal immigration service fees to fund amnesty


WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today introduced the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from using the fees it collects for the provision of legal immigration services to fund amnesty. The bill would also restore congressional authority over the appropriations process and refocus the department on its national security mission.

“America has always been a land of refuge and opportunity for those seeking freedom, and we should champion legal immigration,” said Sen. Cruz. “Ronald Reagan referred to legal immigrants, immigrants like my father, as Americans by choice. The federal government should not be in the business of looting the wallets of those who followed the law and came here legally to fund the President’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty. This bill will cut off DHS’s credit card and put Congress back in charge of funding the agencies responsible for immigration.”

 Specifically the Immigration Slush Fund Elimination Act proposes the following:

End DHS’s ability to fund lawlessness.
The Obama Administration’s DHS, via U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has admitted it uses so-called offsetting accounts (which function like agency checking accounts) to take the fees it charges legal immigrants and use them to fund amnesty and other activities that Congress has not authorized. In recent congressional testimony, USCIS Chief Financial Officer Joseph Moore confirmed that USCIS can access more than $1 billion in fee-based funding, and that it used those funds to pay for an unauthorized amnesty processing center in Arlington, Va. Eliminating the ability of USCIS to use the money it collects to support amnesty and other unauthorized activities is a first step toward reining in the executive branch’s lawless approach to immigration.

Restore congressional authority over DHS and immigration issues.
By eliminating the offsetting accounts under USCIS’s control, Congress would end USCIS’s ability to self-fund. This would reduce USCIS’s ability to ignore the people’s representatives and restore respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers and the legislative power of the purse.

Eliminate DHS’s profit incentive, which distracts from the agency’s core national security mission. Right now, USCIS has an incentive to process as many immigration benefits as possible, without regard to consequences. While legal immigration should be celebrated and supported, the agency’s desire to collect more fee-based revenue – along with its unrestricted ability to keep and use those fees – arguably interferes with USCIS’s objective review of application processing. Removing the focus on fees and revenue will once again focus USCIS on its core responsibilities, including protecting our national security and preventing immigration benefit fraud.

Complete bill text can be found here.




Sen. Ted Cruz: Important Note to Conservatives on the Trade Agreements

Sen. Ted Cruz

Download copy here to share! Note to Conservatives on Sen. Cruz’s site

Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President.Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.

Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.

There have been a lot of questions and concerns about the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let’s unpack the issues one by one.

What are TPA and TPP?
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track.”TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.

TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.

Some Key Facts:

Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.
Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.
TPA gives the Congress more control up-front over free trade agreements.
TPA mandates transparency by requiring all trade agreements (including TPP) to be made public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on them.

Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?
No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law:

1. through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or
2. through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress.

TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.

Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?
No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?
Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.

Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.

Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.

TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.

Is TPA Constitutional?
TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.

Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.

Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.

Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.

How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.

Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?
That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.

But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.

Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.

Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.

Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.

Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.LINK to Press Release

Two Republican Senators (Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.

And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.