What are the opening hours?

Saturday 8am - 5pm Sunday 8am - 5pm

http://TexasLibertyJournal.com/

Texas Liberty Journal, Trophy Club, TX (2025)

02/14/2025

From Trump Derangement to Musk Derangement: The Left’s New Obsession

When former President Donald Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it was met with predictable hostility from the entrenched bureaucracy and their media allies. But with Elon Musk now leading the charge at DOGE, the Left’s irrational hatred has reached an entirely new level—Musk Derangement Syndrome (MDS) is in full swing.

Musk’s mission has been simple: investigate waste, fraud, and abuse across every department in the federal government. Starting with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), his findings have sent shockwaves through Washington, exposing billions of taxpayer dollars funneled into dubious and outright absurd programs. The revelations have left Democrats and radical leftists scrambling to discredit the effort, accusing Musk of political bias and “authoritarianism.” But the numbers don’t lie.

USAID’s Unbelievable Spending Spree
The investigations into USAID, an agency that has long been criticized for operating as an unaccountable slush fund for globalist pet projects, have uncovered breathtaking levels of waste and corruption. Here are just a few examples:

$1.5 million to “advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”
$70,000 for production of a “DEI musical” in Ireland.
$2.5 million for electric vehicles for Vietnam.
$47,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia.
$32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru.
$2 million for s*x changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala.
$6 million to fund tourism in Egypt.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a non-profit linked to designated terrorist organizations—even AFTER an inspector general launched an investigation.
Millions to EcoHealth Alliance, the same organization tied to the Wuhan lab’s dangerous research.
Hundreds of thousands of meals that ended up in the hands of al Qaeda-affiliated fighters in Syria.
Funding for personalized contraceptives in developing countries, raising serious ethical and legal concerns.
Hundreds of millions funneled into “irrigation canals, farming equipment, and even fertilizer” that directly supported he**in production in Afghanistan, benefiting none other than the Taliban.

These are not minor accounting errors. These are deliberate, ideological funding choices that siphon American taxpayer dollars away from legitimate needs and into radical activism abroad. The Musk-led DOGE investigation has exposed what conservatives have long suspected: USAID is more concerned with leftist social engineering than it is with legitimate foreign aid.

The Left’s Meltdown Over Musk
Musk has never been a traditional conservative, but his embrace of free speech, transparency, and accountability has made him the prime target of the Left’s rage. They once lauded him as a genius entrepreneur when he was building Tesla and SpaceX, but the moment he began challenging their narratives—whether on government waste, censorship, or corporate ESG mandates—he became public enemy number one.

The Democrat-controlled Senate is already demanding hearings into Musk’s leadership of DOGE, accusing him of waging a “war on government” and “undermining democracy.” Progressive activists are calling for his resignation, and leftist media outlets are running hit pieces at an unprecedented pace. The same voices that screamed about Trump’s so-called authoritarianism are now hyperventilating over Musk merely exposing how their tax-and-spend schemes actually operate.

A Battle for Government Transparency
What we’re witnessing isn’t just political theater—it’s a desperate attempt by the Left to maintain control over the bloated, unaccountable bureaucracies that sustain their globalist agenda. USAID is only the beginning. Musk and his team at DOGE have already hinted that their next targets include the Department of Education (where billions are funneled into woke indoctrination programs) and the National Science Foundation (which funds dubious “social justice” research projects).

The Left’s unhinged response to Musk’s work proves just how deeply entrenched the corruption runs. If exposing billions of wasted tax dollars is seen as an existential threat, what does that say about the priorities of those in power?

The fight against government waste isn’t about partisanship—it’s about accountability. And if the Democrats and radical leftists think they can shout down the truth, they may have underestimated both Musk and the American people. The battle has just begun.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal.

02/11/2025

Texas Taxpayers Are Funding Left-Wing Media—And Paying for Their Own Political Marginalization

Austin, TX – In a bombshell revelation, recent investigations by the Texas Liberty Journal have uncovered that Texas taxpayers are unwittingly funding left-wing media outlets—organizations that regularly churn out stories opposing the conservative values most Texans hold dear. This misuse of taxpayer dollars echoes the waste, fraud, and abuse exposed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Expenditure (DOGE) team in their audit of USAID, but this time, the scandal hits much closer to home.

Follow the Money: How Texas Taxpayers Are Funding Leftist Journalism

According to payment records analyzed from the Texas state comptroller’s office, the Texas House of Representatives and Senate have spent at least $22,760 of taxpayer money on the Texas Tribune since 2020. However, when factoring in expenditures from various state agencies—including the Texas Military Department, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Department of Criminal Justice—the total public funding for the Texas Tribune balloons to $342,850.

The spending spree doesn’t stop there. The state has also shoveled a staggering $428,096 into the Dallas Morning News, another publication known for its left-leaning slant. Texas Monthly, infamous for its hit pieces targeting conservatives, received nearly $200,000 of taxpayer money during the same period. Politico, a nationally recognized progressive mouthpiece, has raked in over $253,000 from Texas government agencies.

In total, a jaw-dropping $1,636,836 of taxpayer funds have been funneled into just the top nine media organizations in Texas under the guise of “grants, advertising, subscriptions, printing, and other communication services.“

Political Indoctrination on the Public’s Dime
The irony is hard to ignore: Texans—overwhelmingly conservative—are paying for the very media outlets that routinely attack their values. Publications like the Texas Tribune and Texas Monthly have long been criticized for their one-sided reporting, often promoting liberal policies, demonizing conservative legislators, and giving platforms to progressive activists pushing for policies like open borders, gun control, and the expansion of government programs.

Despite this, taxpayer dollars continue to flow into these publications, giving them a financial advantage over independent and conservative media outlets that don’t enjoy the same government patronage.

Echoes of the USAID Scandal: Media Money Laundering?

The revelations uncovered by the Texas Liberty Journal bear a striking resemblance to the corruption uncovered by Elon Musk’s DOGE team during their audit of USAID. The federal agency had been caught funneling taxpayer money into left-wing media outlets under the guise of “subscriptions.” Major players like Politico were falsely accused of receiving millions in USAID funds, but the real scandal was that American taxpayers were being forced to subsidize media organizations in a way that compromised journalistic independence.

In Texas, the pattern is similar. While state officials claim that these expenditures are for “advertising” or “subscriptions,” the result is the same: a select group of media outlets receive a steady stream of taxpayer money while pushing narratives that serve the interests of the political left.

Government Manipulation Through Media Funding

This funding scheme raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns. By directing taxpayer money to specific media organizations, the state government is effectively picking winners and losers in the journalism industry. This flies in the face of the principles of a free press, which is supposed to operate independently of government influence.

Even more troubling, this practice creates a perverse incentive for media outlets to align their reporting with the interests of the government agencies that fund them. Rather than holding those in power accountable, these publications become dependent on government contracts, making them less likely to scrutinize corruption or wasteful spending within the very institutions that sustain them.

The Need for Reform

Conservative lawmakers in Texas must act swiftly to put an end to this misuse of taxpayer funds. Transparency and accountability measures should be implemented to ensure that government agencies are not funneling money into politically biased media outlets under misleading pretenses.

A simple solution would be a legislative ban on state-funded advertising and subscriptions to media organizations with a clear political bias. At the very least, a full public accounting of all taxpayer money spent on media should be made readily available, so that Texans know exactly where their hard-earned money is going.

Conclusion

Texas conservatives are facing an uphill battle—not only against a media landscape dominated by leftist narratives but also against their own government, which is using taxpayer dollars to prop up these outlets. This revelation should serve as a wake-up call to every Texan who values free speech, journalistic integrity, and fiscal responsibility.

Elon Musk’s DOGE team exposed federal-level media funding corruption. Now, Texans must demand that their own state government put an end to this backdoor subsidization of left-wing propaganda. The fight for Texas values starts with ensuring that taxpayer money isn’t being used to undermine them.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. Visit our website for more investigative news and commentary.

12/12/2024

Freedom of the Press Suffers Major Setback as Senate Rejects Key Bill

PRESS Act Dies in the Senate: A Win for National Security or a Blow to Freedom?

Washinton D.C. – In a move that highlights the growing tension between transparency and national security, the Republican-led House passed H.R. 4250—the “Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act” (PRESS Act)—only to have it quietly die in the Senate. While framed as a victory for journalistic freedom, the bill’s passage—and its subsequent demise—raises questions about motives, unintended consequences, and the troubling lack of accountability among lawmakers.

The PRESS Act aimed to protect journalists from being compelled to disclose confidential sources, shielding them from governmental overreach that could jeopardize press freedom. This legislation gained bipartisan support in the House, passing through a voice vote that notably obscured individual lawmakers’ positions. Among its co-sponsors was the late Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. H.R. 4250 was touted as a necessary shield for journalists at a time when press freedoms are under assault. The bill’s provisions prohibited the federal government from forcing journalists to reveal their sources, offering protections against subpoenas or other legal maneuvers aimed at extracting information.

Supporters argued that such protections are vital in an era of unprecedented political polarization. Conservative journalists and whistleblowers have increasingly faced scrutiny and even prosecution from federal agencies. By codifying source protections, proponents claimed the PRESS Act would create a firewall between a journalist’s work and government interference.

But while the bill addressed legitimate concerns, its broad language opened the door to potential abuse. Critics warned that the PRESS Act could inadvertently provide cover for those seeking to exploit anonymity for nefarious purposes. Bad actors—both inside and outside the government—could weaponize the protections to avoid accountability. Furthermore, national security experts raised alarms that the bill’s vague definitions could hinder intelligence operations, particularly in cases involving leaks that threaten national safety.

Senate Silence and the Texas Connection
Despite its passage in the House, the PRESS Act met a quiet demise in the Senate, where it failed to gain traction. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas played a key role in blocking the bill. Cotton, citing concerns over national security, stated, “The PRESS Act would undermine our national security and turn liberal reporters into a protected class. No American citizen should be afforded the privileges provided in this bill, least of all the media.” He further added, “The press badge doesn’t make you better than the rest of America or put you above the law.”

Last month, President-elect Donald Trump urged Republicans to “KILL” the PRESS Act, a call echoed by conservative lawmakers who viewed the legislation as an overreach. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized this stance, writing on X, “This bill would protect journalists against overreaching government surveillance. It would ensure reporters can’t be legally required to disclose sources or research files or hand over data held by phone and internet companies.”

Cotton’s actions marked the second time he stymied the PRESS Act, having first blocked a vote on the bill back in December 2022. Critics of the Senate’s inaction point to the bill’s bipartisan origins, emphasizing that its support spanned ideological divides. However, the silence surrounding the bill’s failure is perhaps more damning than its defeat.

The House’s decision to pass the bill via voice vote ensures there is no record of which representatives supported or opposed it. This lack of transparency makes it impossible for Texans—or any Americans—to hold their elected officials accountable.

A Double-Edged Sword
The PRESS Act exemplifies the challenge of crafting legislation that balances liberty with security. On one hand, the bill addressed a clear and present danger to press freedom. Journalists—particularly those covering controversial or politically sensitive topics—face increasing risks from a government that appears more interested in silencing dissent than fostering accountability.

However, the bill’s broad protections risked creating loopholes for misuse. By shielding all journalists, the PRESS Act could inadvertently protect bad actors who use journalistic credentials as a shield for unethical or illegal behavior. Additionally, the lack of clear definitions within the bill raised concerns about its potential to undermine legitimate government investigations.

These competing priorities—protecting the press while safeguarding national security—underscore the difficulty of legislative reform in a polarized political climate. The PRESS Act’s failure reflects not just partisan gridlock but also a deeper unwillingness among lawmakers to confront the complexities of modern governance.

A Betrayal of Public Trust
The Senate’s quiet burial of the PRESS Act is a stark reminder of the growing disconnect between Washington and the American people. While the bill’s intentions were noble, its flaws demanded honest debate and rigorous scrutiny. Instead, lawmakers opted for obfuscation, leaving constituents with more questions than answers.

For Texans, the lack of transparency is particularly galling. The voice vote in the House ensures there is no accountability for representatives who may have supported a flawed bill. Meanwhile, the Senate’s inaction reflects a broader trend of legislative lethargy, where controversial issues are avoided rather than addressed.

As the dust settles, the PRESS Act serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of hasty legislation and the consequences of political cowardice. For the press, the fight for freedom is far from over. For the public, the demand for accountability has never been more urgent. And for lawmakers, the message is clear: the American people deserve better than silence and subterfuge.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. To view this post with its original formatting, and to read more in depth reporting and analysis, visit our website.

12/09/2024

Texas House Divided: Rep. Dustin Burrows Defies GOP Caucus, Seeks Democrat Support for Speaker Role

GOP Divide Over House Speakership Intensifies

In a dramatic turn of events within the Texas House of Representatives, a showdown over the next Speaker has laid bare deep divisions within the Republican Party. Rep. Dustin Burrows, a close ally of outgoing Speaker Dade Phelan, broke ranks with the GOP caucus after failing to secure the Republican nomination. In an unprecedented move, Burrows aligned himself with Democrats, undermining the party’s choice of Rep. David Cook and igniting outrage among grassroots conservatives.

The Battle for Speaker of the House

On Saturday, the Texas House Republican Caucus met to select its nominee for Speaker, a critical position that sets the legislative agenda and controls committee appointments. The race came down to two contenders: Rep. David Cook, a staunch reformer who had publicly pledged to appoint only Republicans as committee chairs, and Rep. Dustin Burrows, a last-minute entrant who offered no commitments to conservative reforms.

Cook emerged victorious after three rounds of voting, with the final tally standing at 48-14 after 26 members loyal to Burrows walked out. This defection sparked a firestorm, as Burrows and his allies immediately began courting Democratic support in a bid to form a coalition that could challenge Cook on the House floor in January.

A Betrayal of Party Principles

The actions of Burrows and the defectors have drawn sharp condemnation from Republican grassroots activists and party leaders. The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) has long advocated for reforms to ensure Republican control over legislative priorities in a state where Democrats have often wielded disproportionate influence. In 2022, 81% of Republican primary voters supported a resolution requiring that only Republicans serve as committee chairs. Cook’s candidacy embodied this grassroots demand for reform, while Burrows’ maneuvering represents a continuation of the status quo.

The RPT Executive Committee issued a strong resolution following the caucus meeting, calling for unity behind Cook and warning that any member voting against the caucus nominee or supporting a secret ballot for Speaker would face censure. Such a censure could prevent them from running for reelection as Republicans.

The Dustin Burrows Record

Burrows’ record has long been a source of contention among conservatives. As Chairman of the powerful Calendars Committee under Speaker Phelan, Burrows held significant sway over which bills reached the House floor. Critics argue that this power was wielded to suppress conservative priorities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Burrows championed legislation that expanded the ability of local governments and businesses to enforce mask and vaccine mandates, a move that alienated many Republican voters. He also played a key role in blocking a bill that would have protected minors from irreversible gender-transition procedures, though a similar measure passed in a subsequent session.

More recently, Burrows was one of 61 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, an act that further fueled skepticism about his conservative credentials. Burrows’ low rankings on conservative scorecards—73rd out of 86 Republicans in the Rice University rankings and a failing 48% grade from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility—underscore his tenuous relationship with the party’s grassroots base.

Grassroots Outrage and Calls to Action

The grassroots backlash to Burrows’ actions has been swift and fierce. Conservative activists argue that Burrows’ alliance with Democrats undermines the integrity of the Republican platform and disregards the will of GOP voters. They have mobilized to pressure representatives to support Cook on the House floor when the legislature convenes on January 14, 2025.

In an email to supporters, Rep. Andy Hopper detailed the events of the caucus meeting and urged constituents to hold their representatives accountable. Hopper emphasized that the caucus rules and the RPT platform explicitly require Republicans to unify behind the caucus nominee, particularly when that nominee is committed to advancing a conservative agenda.

A Pivotal Moment for Texas

The battle over the Speaker of the House has become a litmus test for the Republican Party’s commitment to conservative principles in Texas. Historically, Democrats have been granted significant influence in the state legislature, including committee chairmanships, despite their minority status. Cook’s victory in the caucus reflects a growing determination among Republicans to end this practice and ensure that legislative leadership reflects the will of the majority.

However, Burrows’ defection threatens to derail these efforts. By seeking Democratic support, he risks fracturing the party and empowering the opposition. The stakes are high: if Burrows and his coalition succeed, it could signal a return to the bipartisan power-sharing arrangements that have long frustrated conservatives.

Conclusion

The January 14 session will be a defining moment for the Texas House of Representatives and the Republican Party. Will Republicans rally behind their caucus nominee and seize the opportunity to implement meaningful reforms, or will divisions within the party allow Democrats to dictate the agenda once again?

As grassroots conservatives mobilize to demand accountability, all eyes will be on the Capitol. For Rep. Burrows and his supporters, the path forward may come with significant political consequences. For the Republican Party, this is a battle for its soul.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. Visit our website for more in-depth coverage of Texas Politics.

12/06/2024

Heated Congressional Clash: Rep. Pat Fallon Confronts Secret Service Director Over Security Lapses

TLJ - Washington, D.C. — A congressional hearing turned fiery when Texas Republican Rep. Pat Fallon clashed with acting Secret Service Director Ronald Rowe over the agency’s recent controversies and alleged politicization of its operations. The bipartisan task force, investigating assassination attempts on President-elect Donald Trump, convened to scrutinize security failures, but tensions escalated as Fallon accused Rowe of neglecting his duties during a high-profile 9/11 memorial event.

At the heart of the confrontation was a photo of Rowe at the memorial, standing in close proximity to Vice President Kamala Harris, President Joe Biden, and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. Fallon pointedly questioned whether Rowe’s position compromised the protective detail for Trump, who was also present at the event in New York City.

“Who is usually, at an event like this, closest to the president of the United States, security-wise?” Fallon asked Rowe.

Rowe, deflecting from directly addressing his own role, stated that the special agent in charge (SAC) is typically positioned closest to the president. However, Fallon pressed further, asking if Rowe himself was acting as the SAC during the event. Rowe avoided a clear response, asserting that he attended to honor Secret Service members who perished on September 11, 2001.

Accusations of Politicization
Fallon, a staunch advocate for transparency and accountability within federal agencies, challenged Rowe’s motives for attending the event. He suggested Rowe’s presence near high-profile political figures might signal aspirations to secure a permanent appointment as Secret Service director under the Biden administration.

“This isn’t about showing respect for the fallen,” Fallon said. “You endangered lives—those of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and President-elect Trump—by misaligning your agents. This was a political audition, plain and simple.”

Rowe, visibly agitated, pushed back against Fallon’s assertions, calling them “out of line.” The acting director defended his record, emphasizing his service at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks and accusing Fallon of politicizing the tragedy.

“Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes,” Rowe retorted, raising his voice.

Fallon fired back, refusing to back down. “Don’t try to bully me. I am an elected member of Congress, and I am asking serious questions. You’re playing politics and failing in your duties.”

Fallout from Security Failures
The confrontation comes on the heels of a major scandal for the Secret Service. On July 13, a gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, managed to access a rooftop near a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and opened fire. President-elect Trump was wounded in the attack, along with two attendees, one of whom later died. The incident highlighted glaring security lapses within the agency, prompting the resignation of former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle.

Rowe, who was appointed as acting director following Cheatle’s departure, admitted to failures during the hearing. “July 13 was a failure of the Secret Service to adequately secure the Butler Farm Show site and protect President-elect Trump,” Rowe stated in his opening remarks. “We did not meet the expectations of the American public, Congress, or our protectees.”

Despite acknowledging these shortcomings, Rowe’s testimony did little to assure lawmakers, particularly Fallon, that the agency had learned from its mistakes. The congressman lambasted Rowe for what he described as a pattern of political maneuvering and lack of accountability.

A Texas Voice for Accountability
For Fallon, a representative known for his commitment to constitutional principles and government transparency, the stakes of the hearing went beyond partisan politics. The Texas congressman argued that the Secret Service’s apparent politicization poses a direct threat to national security.

“This isn’t about partisan loyalty—it’s about whether the American people can trust their government to safeguard their leaders,” Fallon stated after the hearing. “When those in power prioritize personal ambitions over their sworn duties, we all lose.”

Rowe’s future as acting director appears uncertain, with the task force’s findings expected to heavily influence Trump’s eventual nomination of a permanent Secret Service director. As the investigation continues, Fallon has vowed to hold the agency accountable, underscoring the need for reforms that prioritize safety over politics.

The clash between Fallon and Rowe encapsulates broader concerns about trust and integrity within federal agencies, a pressing issue for many Americans—and a rallying cry for constitutional conservatives demanding accountability in Washington.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. For more in depth political commentary, visit our website.

11/05/2024

Election Day: America’s Last Stand Against a Descent into Darkness
Texas Liberty Journal

Opinion – Today is no ordinary election day; it’s a watershed moment, a last-ditch effort to reclaim the foundations of liberty in a country slipping rapidly toward authoritarianism. The vote you cast today may be the most consequential act of civic duty in your lifetime—a choice that could spell the difference between restoring our constitutional republic or watching its final decay. A vote for Donald Trump represents more than a candidate; it is a vote to preserve the freedoms and self-governance that generations have fought to safeguard. Without a decisive, overwhelming turnout that leaves no room for doubt or manipulation, we may be watching the end of the great American experiment.

For years now, a deep-seated erosion has taken hold in our institutions, our values, and even our communities. Government, once an instrument of the people, has been infiltrated by forces at odds with liberty and self-determination. This infiltration stretches from local school boards to federal agencies, with unelected bureaucrats and activist judges deciding what is best for the people, often ignoring the people’s will entirely. The outcome of this election will determine whether we, the American citizens, can assert ourselves against this encroaching authoritarianism, or whether we’re content to passively accept our descent into one-party rule.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher
Let’s be clear about the stakes. If Kamala Harris were to ascend to the presidency, either through election or through a manufactured disqualification of Trump, it would signal the formal end of the two-party system. With 20 million illegal aliens on a path to citizenship—and therefore to voting—our electoral balance would be irreversibly skewed. In every state, their votes would drown out those of lawful citizens, effectively dismantling the prospect of a Republican president for generations. A one-party system, historically, is the path to poverty and oppression. The policies pursued by today’s Democratic leadership already show signs of those authoritarian leanings: centralization of power, stifling of dissent, and an alliance with a compliant media eager to silence the opposition.

Imagine a nation where the people’s choice no longer holds sway, where elections resemble those of one-party regimes, a mere show to legitimate those already chosen by the elite. A Harris administration would solidify a monopoly on power that would cripple our middle class, reduce our freedoms, and enforce an ever-growing dependency on government. We have seen such examples in every authoritarian regime throughout history: a downward spiral that relegates the majority to mere subsistence, while the elites grow ever more powerful. This is not hyperbole; this is the blueprint Democrats themselves have revealed through their policies, which elevate government authority over personal liberty.

And if they win, they won’t pretend to listen to the people any longer. Our Republic will become, in effect, an oligarchy, veiled in the trappings of democracy but devoid of its essence. This is what we face.

An Urgent Plea to American Patriots
This election must be too big to rig. Every American with even a passing sense of patriotism must turn out and vote—not just for Trump but for the very survival of our democratic processes. Our votes must overwhelm any margin of error, fraud, or manipulation. The Left has proven itself adept at working every lever within its reach to secure its desired outcomes, from ballot harvesting and mail-in voting to courtroom battles waged by teams of highly-paid lawyers who ensure that laws tilt their way. This is no time for complacency or hesitation; if we don’t assert ourselves now, the window will close, perhaps forever.

The Left’s Agenda is Already in Motion
If Trump wins, we should expect the Democrat machine to mobilize its forces against him once again. Their commitment to opposing him goes far beyond ideological difference; it is visceral, almost pathological. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” isn’t merely a phrase; it is the lens through which the Left has viewed him from day one. They don’t see him as merely a president or a politician—they see him as a threat to their power, and as such, they will deploy every available means to dismantle his administration and nullify the people’s choice.

Plans are already being made to ensure that Trump either cannot take office or, if he does, that his power will be so restricted he will be unable to enact any meaningful change. Impeachment efforts, relentless media attacks, judicial blockades—these tools have been utilized in the past and will be refined and unleashed again, with greater ferocity and purpose. The question is not whether the Left will resist Trump; it’s how far they’re willing to go, and if history is any indicator, they are willing to go all the way—even if it means tearing down the very institutions they claim to protect.

What We Stand to Lose
Our Constitution was crafted not just as a governing document, but as a safeguard against tyranny. But the Constitution is only as strong as the people’s will to uphold it. For too long, we’ve watched as unelected officials interpret, redefine, and often disregard it to fit the narratives of those in power. This election offers us a chance to reaffirm our commitment to self-governance. But if we fail to turn out in force, if we allow fraud and manipulation to taint the outcome, we will have lost the last true mechanism for resistance.

The cost of failure is unfathomable. A future without a middle class, a future where government dictates every aspect of life, a future in which dissent is crushed and replaced with Orwellian newspeak—the loss of American freedom would resonate globally. We cannot afford to assume that someone else will secure this future for us; the responsibility rests on each of us.

The Republic’s Last Stand
There will be no do-overs, no second chances, no reset button. This election is our moment to choose: to either reclaim our nation from the grips of radical ideologues or to watch its transformation into a state we no longer recognize. Freedom, once lost, is rarely regained without extraordinary sacrifice. But here and now, with a vote, we have the power to resist—to assert the founding principles of our Republic, to demand accountability, and to preserve the precious liberties that countless Americans have died defending.
So let this be your rallying cry, your mission, your civic duty: vote for Donald Trump, for freedom, for the Constitution, and for the America we know and love. Because if we lose today, we may never get another chance.

**This post first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. Please visit our website for this and other political analysis and commentary.

Texas Liberty Journal

02/14/2025

02/11/2025

12/12/2024

12/09/2024

12/06/2024

11/05/2024

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category