Do We Have the WILL to KEEP Our Republic?


Gov. Greg Abbott Presents the Texas Plan to Restore the Rule of Law

Reflections on Our Government & the Texas Plan by Robin Lennon

Gov. Greg Abbott: Why We Need the Texas Plan

(Excerpt: 1/8/16, TPPF Policy Orientation Keynote), 5 min.

Join us in ending the tyranny of unelected bureaucrats or men in black robes from ever again imposing laws and amendments upon the free men and women of the United States without representation or due process!!!

Read/Download: The Texas Plan to Restore the Rule of Law

Gov. Abbott Presents the Texas Plan for an Article V Convention: 

(Complete speech; 25 min.)

Gov. Abbott Joins Mark Levin about the
Texas Plan for Restoring the Rule of Law

AUDIO ONLY (15 min.)

The fear of a runaway convention is too often touted by the opposition. It is needless when you consider that we have already lost the Republic our Founders fought and died for. Freedom is worth fighting for. I often hear conservatives speak of the genius and prescience of our Founders, yet they FEAR To use the tool the Founders put into the Constitution for just such a day as today.

Answering the ‘Runaway Convention’ Myth by Michael Farris

Thomas Sowell on the Constitution and an Article V Convention, “Messing with the Constitution” – 1/12/16

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!!!

Privacy Protects Our Freedom of Speech

Dr. Kyle Scott, TheConservative Professor from 1070 AM radio

Lone Star College Board of Trustees

When privacy is threatened so too is our freedom of speech. The government is capable of grotesque abuses of power as recent events at the IRS attest. The government can be turned into a bully pulpit. If gone unchecked, bureaucratic agents can be agents of abuse in which those groups that challenge the current regime can be singled out by the government. As James Madison wrote, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” If you don’t believe Madison, just ask the Associated Press whose phone records were placed under subpoena by the Justice Department in hopes of finding out who the anonymous sources were to stories that shed an unfavorable light on the White House.

Fortunately public attention has been directed to the abuses of power by the Justice Department and the IRS. But there are instances in our own state government where “the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments” is occurring in this current legislative session.

Senate Bill 346 which passed the Senate and House is being sent to the Governor. SB 346 would require non-profit groups that contribute more than $25,000 to political campaigns in a six month period to disclose the names of donors who contributed $1,000 or more to that organization in the same period. Labor unions would be exempt from this disclosure requirement. The exemption of labor unions explains why this bill has received almost unanimous support from Democrats in the state legislature. Support from Democrats was paramount for this bill to pass as most Republicans who receive support from grassroots organizations such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and the Tea Parties oppose this bill. State Representative Charlie Geren (R) and State Senator Ken Seliger (R) have been challenged by the same grassroots organizations this bill targets.

By disclosing the names of contributors, SB 346 would allow donors to these organizations to be targeted by politicians they oppose. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958) the Supreme Court ruled that the right of political groups to keep their membership private was essential for protecting First Amendment rights. If privacy is not protected then those who speak out can come under attack from those whom they speak out against.

The threat to privacy as relevant to First Amendment rights is at the heart of the current AP scandal. The Justice Department wanted to know who was leaking stories to the Associated Press, stories that were damaging to the current administration. This information, if given to the Justice Department, would expose the identity of anonymous sources which could potentially put them at risk. If privacy is not protected there will be fewer people willing to come forward and speak out against the government.

Privacy permits people to speak out against impropriety and to challenge the status quo without risk of political backlash. We need to encourage Governor Perry to veto SB 346 just was we need to encourage our elected officials in Washington to oppose any measures that would quell political dissent. If there is any doubt about the government’s willingness to squash opposition once they know who the opposition is we need not look any further than the IRS office in Cincinnati.

Kyle Scott, PhD, is the author of Federalist Papers: A Reader’s Guide, teaches at the University of Houston, and has just been elected to the Lone Star College Board of Trustees. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Houston or the Lone Star College District, its board or any other officer or employee of those institutions.

Originally posted in the Kingwood Observer, Thursday, May 16, 2013
Kyle Scott’s Blog

We Have Freedom OF Religion, NOT Freedom FROM Religion

by Gus Faris, Director, Kingwood TEA Party, Inc., Secretary – Director

[NOTE: Gus wrote this but he speaks for all of the KWTP Directors and Advisory Board Members in attendance. Thank you, Gus for so eloquently stating our outrage at Ms. Longnion’s misunderstanding of this important doctrine, and our disgust at the lack of a means to correct it right then and there.–rhl]

Thomas JeffersonLast week I had the good fortune to attend the Candidate Forum for Humble ISD at the James Eggers Instructional Service Center on Tuesday evening. I would like to report on a hugely egregious error. First, the format was horrible. Questions were asked blindly of individual candidates without input from the others or from the floor.

Bonnie Longnion was asked what she would do in education to comply with the separation of church and state issue. Bonnie fumbled with the question attempting to describe freedom from religion and never really giving an answer except for her emphatic closing comment that the two are separate. Personally, I wanted to scream out, “WE HAVE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION!” But, the audience had no voice at that time.

It truly frustrates me when people try to change the meaning of words to suit their own desires and expect the rest of us to follow like sheep. One little change, interpret the word of as if it were from. That is how the atheists start the conversation. And then when it has been stated and described in those terms over and over, we start to believe that freedom of really means freedom from and religion must be shunned by government. Well, I’m not going along with it.

There are two mentions of religion in the Constitution:

  1. The first is Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states, “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States“.
  2. The second is a clause called the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Many people have used Thomas Jefferson’s comment about the establishment clause when Jefferson wrote,

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State,’ as affirmation of this separation. But the entire section reads,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,‘ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

‘When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.’

All these men are truly attesting to one single issue – that there is a place for both religion and government, but that neither has the right to establish or rule the other. Many of our Founding Fathers or their immediate ancestors had recently escaped the bonds of state founded and supported religion. While they recognized that religion and sound government were both necessary, they were well aware of the recent religious wars in Europe, they were eager to prevent anything like that from happening in the United States, and the easiest way to do that was to simply separate religious and political authority.

Go back to Jefferson’s comment above, he clearly believed that religion was between a man and his God. Government had no sway over religion. He also believed that the legitimate powers of government were action items only, not opinions, and certainly not opinions of what faith others should follow. He also believed that government should not prohibit the free exercise of religion.

George Washington went further in his farewell address of September, 1796. Washington called religion, as the source of morality, “a necessary spring of popular government.” John Adams claimed that statesmen “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

Government is clearly the set of rules by which we run our society. In order for those rules to be just, they must have a moral basis. Consequently, the government must be based on morals. Government does not give us morals. Religion gives us morals. God teaches us to recognize right and wrong. And it is with that moral teaching that we establish our government. Certainly good government is essentially entwined with religion in order to be endowed with moral guidance. But neither entity can rule the other. People must be free to seek God with their own conscious while those same people establish societal rules for the good of all the people being governed. Two separate paths entwined for individual freedom and establishment of a state. That is what the Constitution establishes.

That is what is meant by freedom OF religion. That is what is meant by separation of church and state. There is no basis for banning religion from the government. That is how Bonnie should have answered the question.


The Kingwood TEA Party Advisory Board has published our recommendations based on interviews and discussions with many behind the scenes p3ople involved on a regular basis.

The KWTP Board proudly recommends Angela Conrad for Trustee, Pos. 3 to bring Humble Independent School District into the 21st Century!

Sen. Ted Cruz – CPAC: Do We Surrender or Do We Stand Up Now?

This is why Texans united to send Ted Cruz to Washington!



Senator Ted Cruz Gives Keynote Speech at CPAC 2013
Watch this video on YouTube.


02/18/13 Gallery: TX AG Greg Abbott

For those who don’t DO FaceBook. Here are some of Bob Price’s photos-click on image to enlarge: