Status Report on Texas Resistance to the Great Reset

March 15, 2023

The bills are all filed in the 88^th Texas Legislature, and we have already started testifying on bills related to the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.  This is a report on the lay of the legislative land in Texas on resistance to ESG, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), and the Great Reset.

Texas Resistance to Implementation or Use of Central Bank Digital Currency

Our flagship legislation is our attempt to get ahead of the introduction of CBDC in the U.S. by adding a recognition of our natural right to store our wealth and use the medium of exchange of mutual choice.  Those bills are SJR 67 by Senator Tan Parker and companion HJR 146 by Representative Gio Capriglione, famous for his creation of the Texas Bullion Depository.  Click here for background info and a downloadable one pager in PDF form.  SJR 67 is assigned to the Senate Business & Commerce Committee.  HJR 146 as of this date has not yet been assigned.

Note also that Senator Parker has also filed a wonderful resolution to put Texas on record as opposed to the implementation by the Federal Reserve of a CBDC.  That is SCR 25, as yet unassigned to a committee.

Bad CBDC Bills

Stablecoin Elevation and Regulation

Then there are the bad CBDC bills we need to kill.  The first to surface is a bill pushed by a national consortium of state bank regulators, the Conference for State Bank Supervisors.  You could call the conference a bureaucracy of bureaucrats.  They are pushing two companion bills which they call the Model Money Transmission Modernization Act, SB 895 by Democrat Senator Nathan Johnson and its House companion HB 3573 by Republican Rep Stan Lambert.

The bill replaces the existing money transmission statute in Texas which regulates money transmitters like Paypal and Venmo with the eye-glazing, complex “model” regulator language.  There are a number of differences between the two.  The most significant of which is that it elevates the terms “money” or “money value” to include stablecoin.  The bill does not define stablecoin, but definitions found on the Internet say stablecoin is digital currency whose goal is to maintain parity with a sovereign currency.  The best known private stablecoin that I know of is US Dollar Coin (USDC) created by a company called Circle.

A Central Bank Digital Currency is a stablecoin issued by a central bank.  The Federal Reserve started a pilot CBDC program last fall.

The bill also explicitly gives the Conference for State Bank Supervisors and another national group, the Money Transmitter Regulators Association the ability to supervise and coordinate regulatory efforts in Texas.  You read that right.  This bill gives New York and California bureaucrats a way to get involved in going after companies doing business in Texas.

I mentioned the non-Texan running the lives of Texans problem to a staffer at the legislature, and he said, well this is comity between states.  I informed him that Texans are becoming less and less inclined to allow other states the ability to run our lives.

I was the sole person testifying about SB 895 when it was heard yesterday in the Senate Business & Commerce hearing yesterday.  Click this picture to see that testimony:

UCC Slap at Private Cryptocurrencies and Implicit Aid to CBDC

A few weeks ago, Glenn Beck surfaced the issue that the national organization that recommends modifications to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in state law around the country has recommendations to update each state’s UCC to bash private crypto and implicitly pave the way for CBDC.  At the time, the provisions had already passed both chambers South Dakota.

The resultant firestorm caused South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to veto the bill using a VETO brand on the bill.  Governor Noem tweeted:

This bill adopts a definition of ‘money’ to specifically exclude crypto like Bitcoin. And it opens the door to the risk that the federal government could adopt a Central Bank Digital Currency. South Dakota will always stand for Economic Freedom.

When the news broke, I searched to see if we had a filed bill in Texas to that effect, and at the time we did not.  But, on the next to last day of filing, Senator Angela Paxton filed a large UCC update bill including the offending language (SB 2075).  Senator Tan Parker has since signed on as a joint author.  The next day, the last day of bill filing, Representative Gio Capriglione filed the companion (HB 5011).

Because, as you saw above, Tan Parker and Gio Capriglione are our champions on resisting CBDC this session, I have sent them and Senator Paxton an email notifying them about the South Dakota experience and recommending stripping out the private digital currency bashing and CBDC enabling language out of those comprehensive UCC update bills, and pointing out the inconsistency of the existing language with the other efforts Parker and Capriglione are leading.

Texas Resistance to ESG

When those who want to control you have deep pockets, are relentless, and are very creative in figuring out ways to do so, you have to be as relentless and creative in your resistance.

Other than to define the ESG acronym (Environment, Social, and Governance) created and being pushed by an ever growing ecosystem of groups and companies on companies via pressures via investment entities, financing entities, and insurance firms, as well as local and federal governments, I am not going to go into the great danger that ESG presents to the livelihoods, wealth, and liberty of Texans.

This will be a survey of the filed bills that we are tracking/pushing this session.  Before I dive in, I will point out that there are a number of tools available to push back on ESG in Texas statutes.

The approaches I can think of are:

• Denying companies who push ESG from doing business with Texas or its subdivisions
• Mandating that Texas employees (teachers, firefighters, municipal and county workers, law enforcement, state workers, etc.) be protected by preventing those pension systems from investing in companies pushing ESG.
• Prohibiting ESG based discrimination in Texas (with different methods of enforcement – from private cause of action to attorney general civil suits to criminal penalties.
• Add recognitions of natural rights to the Texas Bill of Rights
• Pre-empting local governments from foisting ESG notions on local businesses

I will present the bills, organized by the statutory tool deployed.  Because each tool can be deployed narrowly or more broadly, see also the matrix below that classifies the bills by topic and by tool of resistance.

Denying Doing Business with Texas or its Subdivisions

Last session, Senator Charles Schwertner and Representative Gio Capriglione, both of whom are now chairs in their respective chambers) passed SB 19 that protected firearms or ammunition sellers from financial discrimination by discriminators from doing business with Texas or its subdivisions.  The law created by that bill is already having a positive impact.

State Representative Steve Toth has filed HB 982 this session to apply this tool to companies that “use prohibited ESG criteria to evaluate a business decision or investment strategy.”  It has been assigned to House State Affairs.

Texas Public Employee Pension Disinvestment

Last session, Senator Birdwell and then Representative (now Senator) Phil King passed SB 13 which mandates Texas pension systems to disinvest in investment firms that discriminate against oil & gas companies.  This, too, is already bearing fruit.

This session, Senator Brian Hughes has filed SB 1446 to stop Texas public employee pensions from investing in companies “furthering social, political, or ideological interests.”  Presumably, this bill will be assigned to Senate State Affairs, which Senator Hughes chairs.

Prohibiting ESG Discrimination

Senator Hughes has also filed SB 1683 which discriminates ESG and DEI discrimination by finance companies.  This bill for which I wrote an initial draft came from the idea that Glenn Beck put forth in his Great Reset book and which is listed in RPT Plank 46 Texas Resistance to the Great Reset, needs a bit more work to insure that it applies to the complete range of finance companies, including money transmitters like Paypal, who has engaged in ESG discrimination recently.  But that work is in progress.  This also will likely be referred to Chair Hughes’ State Affairs.

State Rep Tom Oliverson, who chairs the House Insurance Committee, has introduced the wonderful HB 1239, which with the current (unposted) committee substitute prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage, discriminating on rates using ESG or DEI factors, or targeting disfavored industries.  Senator Phil King, another anti-ESG stalwart, has filed the Senate companion (SB 833).  It has been assigned to Senate Business & Commerce, on which King sits.  House Insurance Chair Oliverson had a hearing on HB 1239 yesterday March 14.  A representative of Texas Public Policy Foundation and I presented testimony in favor.

State Rep Matt Schaefer, the head of the Texas Freedom Caucus, has filed HB 2837 to prohibit credit card companies from “surveilling, reporting, or tracking” purchases of firearms or ammunition.  It enforces via Attorney General civil suits.

State Rep Steve Toth has filed HB 645 which prohibits general ESG discrimination, but includes an exception (loophole) that allows it if the company doing the discrimination gives notice that it does so.  I will only get excited about this bill if it gets rid of the loophole.  If I get the chance, I intend to ask Rep Toth to amend the bill before being heard the assigned House State Affairs Committee.

State Rep Cody Harris has filed the very narrowly applied HB 709 to prohibit ESG discrimination.  The bill has two major deficiencies.  First it has the loophole that allows discrimination upon notice.  Second, it very narrowly applies only to state chartered financial institutions who only make loans to Texas residents or businesses organized under law of the state.  This bill has been assigned to the House Pensions, Investments and Financial Services Committee chaired by Gio Capriglione.

Pre-emption of Municipality ESG Implementation

Senator Brian Birdwell has introduced SB 1017 stopping municipalities from banning use of gasoline engines.  This bill was heard in Senate Business & Commerce yesterday, March 14.

Here is a matrix classifying the Texas Resistance to the Great Reset bills discussed here:

We will be watching for the hearings on these bills, and I expect there will be a large turnout for them.  Will try to keep this email list posted.

Toward liberty,

Tom Glass
Texas Constitutional Enforcement
www.txce.org
info at tomglass.org

Status Report on Border Security Efforts at the Texas Legislature

March 11, 2023

What a ride this has been this week on border security at the Texas legislature!

I said last weekend on social media that this week would determine the fait of millions.  I did not get everything that those of us who care about Texas border security wanted this week, but I think what we got this week will save the lives of tens of thousands and improve the lives of millions in the future.

We got two pieces of huge news this week on border security.  First, on Monday, March 6, 2023, fittingly the anniversary of another heroic day in Texas history (the fall of the Alamo), State Senator Lois Kolkhorst filed SCR 23, a legislative declaration of invasion by the cartels and “danger of irreparable harm.”  By the end of the week, two freshmen State Reps, Ben Bumgarner and Mark Dorazio had filed House companions (HCR 78 and HCR 79, respectively).

Second, yesterday, the bill filing deadline, Speaker Dade Phelan announced that he is making a suite of new border security bills his priority.  The most important of those bills is HB 20 by Rep Matt Schaefer.

Both approaches invoke the spirit of the second sentence of the RPT Border Security Legislative Priority.

Senator Lois Kolkhorst’s Legislative Declaration of Cartel Invasion

Senator Kolkhorst’s SCR 23 declaration does three things:

• Calls on feds to declare cartels a terrorist organization
• Finds that Texas has been invaded by foreign drug cartels and that Texans are “in danger of irreparable harm.”
• Invokes/encourages all state and local resources to use Art I, Sec 10 authority to repel the cartel invasion

Representative Matt Schaefer’s Comprehensive HB 20

The broad and deep HB 20 does the following:

• Sets up constitutional, independent action by Texas to take effective action by invoking Article I, Sec 3, Clause 3 reservation of self-defense power to the states when we are “in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay” or “unless actually invaded.” HB 20 formally declares that we are in imminent danger under that clause.  Note that this will be a combined declaration by the legislature and the governor.
• Creates a Border Protection Unit that will report directly report to the governor, thereby taking pressure of the volunteer resources of the Texas National Guard and the stress on DPS when they are redeployed from protecting their communities to the border.
• Repel - Authorizes the Border Protection Unit to “deter and repel persons attempting to enter the State of Texas illegally at locations outside a port of entry,” to “return aliens to Mexico who have been observed actually crossing the Mexican border illegally, and were apprehended or detained in the immediate vicinity of the border,” and to “use force to repel, arrest, and detain known transnational cartel operatives in the border region.”
• Creates beefed up border trespass offense in the Penal Code – makes it a third degree felony and subject to $10K civil penalty each time a “person knowingly enters property of another without effective consent when knowingly entering the state of Texas from a neighboring jurisdiction.”
• Creates another constitutional way for Texas to act independently by invoking constitutionally clear state authority to protect health. HB 20 incorporates the totality of HB 1491 filed earlier by Rep Brian Harrison.  It allows Texas to remove those who cross into Texas outside a port of entry as long as the feds have a vaccination mandate for anyone and “at any time which the U.S. Department of State has a travel-warning for COVID-19 for any country from which citizens have illegally entered the U.S. during the most recent year for which there is available data.”
• Creates a standing Legislative Border Safety Oversight Committee.

Why We Need this Legislation

I have been making sure that people understand why we need a declaration of imminent danger or invasion.  That reason is that the US Supreme Court opinion in US v Arizona said in essence that the federal government pre-empts immigration issues.  Because the federal government is failing to enforce federal immigration law in a way that subsidizes the cartel human trafficking business and in a way that is allowing all other sorts of danger to be unleashed on Texans, we are searching for other ways under the U.S. Constitution that Texas can act to independently (i.e., without legal federal interference) protect the people of Texas.

In other words, we need a way that the Constitution and precedent at the U.S. Supreme Court has said reserves power to Texas to defend its citizens from the fentanyl poisoning deaths, the sexual trafficking, the violation of property rights, and the potential terrorist attacks from our uncontrolled border.

HB 20 presents three methods that move us away from “immigration land.”  First, it uses Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 3, which is about public safety, not immigration.  Second, it moves us into public health, for which the structure of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and Supreme Court precedent says Texas has independent authority.  And finally, it implements state law against trespass in a way that is independent of immigration.  The bill does nothing about what the federal government does about immigration at our ports of entry.  It ensures that the feds keep control over immigration without Texas getting involved in immigration decisions or law enforcement.

Note that we in Texas Constitutional Enforcement have been urging both repel AND removal of those who got past our repel efforts.  Schaefer has recognized that the argument that we are not interfering with federal immigration enforcement is much stronger if we do not include the remove piece.  Removal also gets into serious civil liberties and due process problems, including profiling of Texans that has been a major part of the objection to immigration enforcement.  I am now convinced that repel-only is more defendable and will get the bulk of the job done of protecting Texans.

The Experienced, Skilled, Courageous Leadership of Matt Schaefer

Matt Schaefer became recognized last session as a powerfully effective leader for conservatives with his leadership in getting constitutional carry passed.  He is applying that political capital and the skills learned to border security this session, and I think he will outdo his last session triumph this session.

Note how Rep. Schaefer has secured the favor of not only the speaker, but of the governor, in the crafting of this bill.  Schaefer tweeted last week a picture of himself in his meeting with the governor.  I have always advocated for making clear that Texas is the master and the feds are the servant in our federal republic.  One of the reasons why I chose to get involved in the border issue this year is the clear necessity of independent action by Texas that is potentially in conflict with our lawless federal government.

But Texas elected leadership has been cautious about engaging in action which will create friction with the feds.  Schaefer has crafted a bill that gets the job done in enabling Texas to protect Texans while staying as far away from the shoals of federal confrontation as possible.  Note that HB 20 only declares “imminent danger,” not “actual invasion” by the cartels that exists in Senator Kolkhorst’s SCR 23.  I suspect that Schaefer’s effective and firm, but as non-confrontational as possible approach is what sold the speaker and the governor.  It will likely sell many Democrats as well.  More and more border Democrats understand that their constituents are being devastated by the lawlessness at the border.  Doing something effective that helps their constituents without exposing Texans to potential governmental harassment may win their support.

How Will the Different Approaches by the House and Senate be Reconciled?

I do not yet know how the differing approaches between the House and the Senate will play out.  And I have not yet decided how to play on that.  At the moment, I want both SCR 23 AND HB 20.  If I had to pick between them, I would choose HB 20 because it provides an organization, a statute to get the job, in addition to a minimalist declaration.

I have been advocating a legislative declaration AND a statute requiring repel and remove.  I note that the bill I had crafted with Kinney County County Attorney Brent Smith for that and shopped was also filed this week by freshman State Rep Richard Hayes (HB 4368).  Rep Hayes’ staff filed the bill saying they intended to strip out the removal piece before a committee hearing.  I much appreciate that leadership of Texas Freedom Caucus member Rep Hayes, but suspect that the repel piece of HB 20 will what will get the committee hearing, given its priority status by the Speaker and the fact that the leader of his caucus filed HB 20.  If HB 20 is passed, we don’t need HB 4368.

If we only pass SCR 23, I think we need a repel bill like HB 4368 to complete the job.  But I was told by one member of the Senate Border Security Committee that he did not want to lead on a repel bill, but would wait to see what came from the House.  I suspect that he and Senator Kolkhorst had been given a heads up on Schaefer’s leadership.  I noted to Lieutenant Governor Patrick’s border security staff that border security was conspicuously absent from his priority list.  The response was that the lieutenant governor is working to ensure that sufficient funding goes to border security.  I replied that using large amounts of money on an approach that has yet to produce results is not the path to success.  We need the money, but it needs to be spent differently.  But because I have reason to believe that he knew what the House was planning, I have no reason to believe that the lieutenant governor or the Senate will get in the way of the HB 20 approach once it passes out of the House and makes it to them.

And even though Rep Schaefer is for legitimate reasons taking a low-key approach on his declaration, I believe that a formal declaration is better with a comprehensive list of arguments for the decision similar to the Declaration of Independence.  A declaration is the opening argument of the Texas case when we are hauled into federal court by those determined to stop our independent action without seeking permission, as sovereigns should do.  When you are in court, you want every argument presented you can because you never know what will catch the judiciary’s fancy.  That is why I really want in addition to HB 20 a declaration like Kolkhorst’s that gives BOTH actual invasion and imminent danger as the reasons for our action.

Other Issues

I did not get any takers this week for a comprehensive denial of Texas taxpayer services to illegal aliens (the first sentence of the RPT Legislative Priority).  However, Freshman State Rep Ellen Troxclair has filed HB 2240 and HB 2241 which stop Texas housing assistance and legal assistance, respectively, to illegals.

Senator Bob Hall (SB 237) is working interstate compacts to supplement Texas resources in stopping the border chaos.  In the House, Homeland Security & Public Services Chair Ryan Guillen has a different variant (HB 2396) and Representative David Spiller has introduced the Hall companion as HB 82.

There are several other border-related bills that I am tracking (including the ones designated as priorities by the speaker), but this piece is already way too long.

We will be watching for the hearings on these bills, and I expect there will be a large turnout for them.  Will try to keep this email list posted.

Toward liberty,

Tom Glass
Texas Constitutional Enforcement
www.txce.org
832-472-4726
info at tomglass.org

Status Report on Border Security Efforts at the Texas Legislature

As I write this status report on Sunday, March 5, 2023, the Texas legislative session deadline for filing of bills by end of day, Friday, March 10 looms.  In past sessions, as the filing deadline approaches, legislative staffs put up signs on the office doors saying they are not taking any more bill filing requests, so every day matters this week.

Of all the issues I am working on this session, border security is the farthest behind.

First, let’s recognize some facts.  The federal government is not only failing to enforce federal immigration law, it is deliberately violating it in a way that uses federal tax dollars to subsidize the profits of the cartels.   These violations are enabling the deliberate fentanyl poisoning deaths of over 100,000 Americans per year.  It also enables the sexual exploitation of children and the entry into the Texas of potential sleeper foreign agents.

And worse, the billions of Texas tax dollars and deployment of DPS and Texas National Guard resources is not working to stop the devastation being wrought on Texans.  And to the degree that Texas resources are being used to assist federal agents in the illegal processing of illegal aliens, Texas taxes are also being used to enrich the cartels.

The reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in US v Arizona that says that the federal government pre-empts state action to enforce federal immigration law has sapped the will of Texas elected officials to do what it will take to stop the devastation – to repel all border crossings that do not come through ports of entry.

The most important action – and in my opinion – the only way we will actually solve the problems is to act upon the power reserved in the Constitution to Texas to act independently to repel the danger and invasion at the border.  That reservation of power is found in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. (emphasis added)

This provision allows Texas to protect Texans – without seeking the approval or allowing the intervention of the federal government.  Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 makes clear that Texas has the sovereignty to take care of the business to protect its citizens.  Sovereigns don’t seek permission.  Sovereigns act.  Especially when the servant delegated to defend you not only refuses to do so, but actually joins in the assault.

So, a Texas declaration of invasion and/or imminent danger that tells the world and the feds why Texas will be repelling all cross-border traffic outside the ports of entry - whether the feds help or get in the way – is the top border security priority of Texas Constitutional Enforcement this session.  Note that this approach is also part the RPT Border Security Legislative Priority.  And to ensure that we do this, the legislature must act.

We are being told by a state senator and a state rep that a legislative declaration is coming, but it has not been filed yet.  And we have language out of Legislative Council ready to file that will require repelling and removal of invaders if the declaration is made, but we have no legislator that has yet stepped up to file and lead on it.

The Speaker several times has publicly promised an innovative border solution to be filed soon.  I don’t know what that is, but some knowledgeable legislative players have speculated that it will be a combination of the creation of a new border security department that will take the pressure off the DPS and Texas National Guard combined with a declaration of invasion.  We will know in a few days.  By the way, I think it likely that the Texas House Freedom Caucus will play a prominent role in this effort.

The RPT Border Security Legislative Priority has two other provisions – stopping Texas taxpayer services for illegal aliens and interstate compacts to bring more resources.  There are several interstate compact bills (2 in the House and 2 in the Senate), including HB 2396 by the Chair of House Homeland Security & Public Safety, Ryan Guillen.

And we have a draft in the works to stop Texas taxpayer services for illegal aliens, but it is not yet released, and we have no one stepping up to introduce it in either chamber.

By the way, it is clear to me that there is still LOTS of constitutional ignorance at the Texas Capitol.  An SREC member told me this week that a Republican member of the Border Security Committee told him that Texas declaration of invasion would be unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause.  Clearly that Texas Senator does not understand that the U.S. Constitution makes, not the federal government supreme, but the U.S. Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof.  And Article I, Section 3, Clause 3 clearly reserves the power of Texas to act independently to protect its citizens is right there in black and white in the Constitution.

I have also been told – without any stated reasons – that “experts” are telling legislators that only the governor, not the legislature, has the authority to declare an invasion.  See this article refuting that canard.  There is not a scintilla of constitutional text supporting such a notion.  I am reminded of the Ayn Rand quote, “The question is not who is going to let me; it is who is going to stop me.”  Texans used to know that fortune favors the bold.  Is that still true? 

So, while busloads of various groups and an army of lobbyists are seeking the legislature to focus on the normal, business-as-usual issues, a very few are pushing to get substantive action on what most of Republican primary voters think is an existential threat to Texas – the border invasion.

What happens in the next few weeks will determine the fate of untold millions.  If you want to help this week, call the members of the Senate Border Security Committee and the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee, especially chairs Brian Birdwell and Ryan Guillen to let them know that you want a legislative declaration of invasion and Texas to actually repel border-crossers outside ports of entry.  It will only be when the busses are heading to Mexico to remove invaders rather than shipping them to the interior of the U.S., that we will know we are starting to solve this problem.

Tom Glass
Texas Constitutional Enforcement
www.txce.org
832-472-4726
Email:  info at tomglass.org

Texas Constitutional Enforcement Legislative Status Report – Feb 4, 2023

When you are trying to get legislation passed in the Texas Legislature, the first month of the Texas Legislature should be spent gathering information on who is on staff for the legislators, meeting with your legislators who are your potential champions, persuading legislators to put your draft legislation into the long Legislative Counsel queue, and making sure that you have the best champions you can get for the bills you want to see passed.

In the Texas Senate, committee chairmanships and members have been assigned.  We are still waiting on Texas House committee assignments, and many House members will not decide to champion a bill until they know what committees they are on.  Right now, we are sitting at Day 26 in the 88^th Legislature, and that is later than 3 of 4 of the last legislatures.  (The longest was 31 days in 2017.)

So, let’s review the top bill ideas in the Texas Constitutional Enforcement Legislative Agenda:

Right to Use Cash and Cash Substitutes Add to Texas Bill of Rights – There are lots of urgent issues for this session because there is a multi-front war on Texas.  But my personal highest priority for this session is getting this passed.  That is because I believe we will need it before the next legislative session comes around in 2025.  The Federal Reserve is already piloting its digital Central Bank Digital Currency (CDBC) as we speak.  I think we are one financial crisis away from implementation.

The good news is that we have two able champions who have said they will lead in the Senate and House.  Senator Tan Parker filed our bill last session (called HJR 100 then) when he was a State Rep, and has agreed to file it again in the Senate.  And State Rep. Gio Capriglione, who is well respected for his knowledge and leadership on monetary issues, has agreed to file in the House.  We don’t have the SJR and HJR numbers for this session, yet, but stay tuned.

Click here for more information on this bill.

Border Security – Legislative Declaration of Invasion and Statute Requiring Repel and Remove During Invasions – I have been disappointed that there does not seem to be much energy around border security so far.  But the Senate is showing leadership by appointing a new committee dedicated just to Border Security chaired by the able leader, Brian Birdwell.  The other two Republicans on the Senate Border Security are Phil King and Pete Flores.  The Democrats are border Senators, Cesar Blanco and Juan Hinojosa.  I heard last week that Senator Lois Kolkhorst has a legislative declaration of invasion in draft in Leg Counsel.  But I could find no one working on a bill to repel and remove when we declare invasion.

So, I have drafted such a bill and am circulating it, trying to get it into Leg Counsel fast, so we have a shot at getting it filed in time to be heard.  Click here to see the draft language of the required repel or remove bill. Click here for more discussion of who declares an invasion and why.

On another border security note, I have given feedback to Rep. David Spiller and Senator Bob Hall’s staff on their interstate compact companion bills (HB 82 and SB 237).  The bills contain language requiring Congressional approval for the interstate compacts (as required by Art. I, Sec. 10).  But I recommended adding language to NOT require Congressional approval if the governor or the legislature has declared an invasion because Art. I, Sec. 10 also says that it is not needed in that case.

Unalienable Right to Decline Vaccination – we have the language in Leg Counsel, but no legislator has yet agreed to champion when it becomes ready to file.  Click here for more information on this issue. 

Federal No-Knock Raid Bill -  we have an enthusiastic sponsor in the House for this bill.  It is in Leg Counsel, and I hope to announce its bill number and sponsor soon.

Texas Sovereignty Act -  this bill is farther along than we have ever seen in that it was pre-filed by both chambers.  Our champions are Rep. Cecil Bell, Jr. and Senator Bob Hall (HB 384 and SB 313).  Click here for more information. 

Rule of Law Enforcement – Big county DAs in Texas have been captured by George Soros and cannot be relied upon to enforce laws fundamental to the liberty and safety of Texans.  On top of that, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has opined that the Texas Legislature cannot delegate independent prosecutorial authority to the Attorney General on separation of powers grounds.  I am pushing the creation of a state level independent prosecutorial office under the judiciary that will have the ability to prosecute election integrity, border security-related matters, public integrity, official oppression, abortion, sedition, and riot.  At least one such bill is in Leg Counsel.  Click here for more information.

More is in the works.  But that is enough for now.

If you want to help now, contact the legislators you think might help to ask them to lead on our Border Security legislation and the Unalienable Right to Decline Vaccination.  And keep me posted on who is interested, so that I can give staffs the right documents and information.

Once bills get filed and assigned to committees, there will be lots more we all can do!

Toward liberty,

Tom Glass

Texas Constitutional Enforcement

www.txce.org

832-472-4726

Email:  info at tomglass.org