What are the opening hours?

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

http://TexasLibertyJournal.com/

Texas Liberty Journal, Trophy Club, TX (2025)

06/26/2025

Texans to Vote on 17 Constitutional Amendments, with Historic Homestead Exemption

AUSTIN, TX — On November 4, Texas voters will face a marathon ballot featuring 17 proposed amendments to the state’s constitution, a document that has seen over 500 revisions since 1876. Secretary of State Jane Nelson, who oversaw the ballot order draw, urged Texans to seize this chance to “make your voice heard about the governing document of our state.” From tax relief to judicial reform, these propositions reflect a conservative vision of limited government, economic liberty, and state sovereignty. But one measure, Proposition 13, stands out as a landmark effort to deliver substantial property tax relief to homeowners—a cornerstone issue for Texans grappling with rising costs in a state without an income tax.

Proposition 13: A Game-Changer for Homeowners
At the heart of this constitutional lineup is Proposition 13 (SJR 2), which would raise the homestead exemption for school district property taxes from $100,000 to $140,000, with an even higher $150,000 exemption for seniors and disabled homeowners. Paired with a tax rate compression in Senate Bill 1, this measure promises an average savings of $496.57 for homeowners, according to Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston), the bill’s author. In a unanimous vote, the Texas Senate signaled its commitment to easing the property tax burden, a perennial concern for Texans facing skyrocketing appraisals.

For many, Proposition 13 is a lifeline. Bettencourt noted that 80 to 90% of Texas seniors could pay zero school district property taxes under this plan, as would average homeowners in 49% of Texas school districts where home values fall below $140,000. This is no small feat in a state where property taxes fund much of public education. To address concerns about local revenue losses, Bettencourt emphasized that the state would reimburse school districts, ensuring they remain fully funded. “Today, the Texas Senate delivered a win for homeowners statewide,” he declared, framing the measure as a victory for taxpayers without sacrificing educational quality.

Yet, some lawmakers raised red flags during Senate debates, warning that local taxing entities—cities, counties, and special districts—might offset these savings by raising their own rates. This tension underscores a broader challenge: balancing tax relief with the fiscal needs of local governments. For constitutional conservatives, Proposition 13 embodies the principle that government should prioritize returning money to citizens, but voters must weigh whether the state’s reimbursement plan can prevent local tax hikes that could erode the promised relief.

A Broader Conservative Agenda
While Proposition 13 takes center stage, the remaining 16 amendments advance a robust conservative agenda. Proposition 2 (SJR 18) bans taxes on capital gains—realized or unrealized—protecting wealth creation from state overreach. Proposition 6 (HJR 4) shields securities transactions from occupational or transactional taxes, bolstering financial markets. Proposition 8 (HJR 2) prohibits death taxes on estates or inheritances, ensuring families keep more of their legacy.

Other tax relief measures include Proposition 5 (HJR 99), exempting animal feed held for retail from ad valorem taxes, and Proposition 9 (HJR 1), which extends similar exemptions to income-producing personal property. Proposition 7 (HJR 133) offers tax breaks for surviving spouses of veterans with presumed service-connected conditions, while Proposition 10 (SJR 84) provides temporary exemptions for homestead improvements destroyed by fire. Proposition 11 (SJR 85) further boosts exemptions for elderly and disabled homeowners, complementing Proposition 13’s focus on homestead relief.

Infrastructure and education also feature prominently. Proposition 1 (SJR 59) creates a permanent fund for the Texas State Technical College System, supporting trade programs vital to Texas’ economy. Proposition 4 (HJR 7) dedicates sales tax revenue to the Texas Water Fund, addressing water scarcity in a growing state. Proposition 14 (SJR 3) establishes a $3 billion Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, though its hefty price tag raises questions about fiscal priorities.

Safety, Sovereignty, and Civic Values
Public safety and border security are addressed in Proposition 3 (SJR 5), which mandates bail denial for certain felony offenses, and Proposition 17 (HJR 34), which offers tax exemptions for border security infrastructure in counties along the U.S.-Mexico border. Both align with conservative priorities of law and order and state sovereignty, though the latter’s vague definition of “infrastructure” warrants scrutiny.

Cultural and civic concerns shine through in Proposition 15 (SJR 34), affirming parents as the primary decision-makers for their children—a rebuke to institutional overreach in schools and healthcare. Proposition 16 (SJR 37) clarifies that only U.S. citizens may vote, reinforcing election integrity amid national debates. Proposition 12 (SJR 27) reforms the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, enhancing accountability for judicial misconduct, a move conservatives will welcome as a check on judicial power.

With early voting from October 20-31 and a registration deadline of October 6, Texans must act swiftly to study these amendments. Detailed information is available at VoteTexas.gov. Proposition 13, with its promise of historic tax relief, may dominate headlines, but the full slate demands careful consideration. Each amendment shapes the delicate balance between individual liberty and public needs, a balance constitutional conservatives hold dear.

As Texas voters head to the polls, they carry the weight of self-governance. In a state fiercely proud of its independence, this election is a chance to reaffirm principles of limited government and personal freedom—nowhere more so than in Proposition 13, which could redefine the financial burdens of homeownership for millions. The question is whether Texans will embrace this vision or demand greater clarity on its long-term impacts.

***This article first appeared in the Texas Liberty Journal. Michael Pipkins is an Investigative Journalist, Political Commentator, and a Constitutional Conservative. A defender of Liberty and dedicated to holding elected representatives accountable to the People they pledge to serve.

06/23/2025

Abbott’s Veto of SB3 Saves Texas H**p Industry, Sparks Battle Over Regulation

In a dramatic eleventh-hour move, Texas Governor Greg Abbott vetoed Senate Bill 3 (SB3) late Sunday night, June 22, 2025, sparing the state’s $8 billion h**p industry from obliteration and setting the stage for a contentious special legislative session to address the regulation of consumable h**p products. The decision, which defied the expectations of powerful allies like Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, has ignited a firestorm of debate, pitting free-market principles and constitutional fidelity against calls for stringent public safety measures. For Texas conservatives, Abbott’s veto represents a principled stand against heavy-handed government overreach, but it also exposes fault lines within the Republican coalition as the state grapples with the future of a burgeoning industry.

SB3, authored by Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) and championed by Patrick, sought to ban all consumable h**p products containing any measurable amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or other intoxicating cannabinoids, including the popular delta-8 and delta-9 compounds. The bill’s draconian provisions—criminalizing possession as a misdemeanor and manufacturing as a felony—would have shuttered an industry that employs 53,000 Texans, generates $267 million in annual tax revenue, and supports thousands of small businesses and farmers. Its passage through the Senate (26–5) and House (87–54) reflected strong Republican support, driven by concerns over unregulated h**p products and their accessibility to minors. Yet, the bill’s blanket prohibition clashed with the federal 2018 Farm Bill, which legalizes h**p products with up to 0.3% delta-9 THC, setting the stage for Abbott’s veto.

In a four-page proclamation, Abbott delivered a constitutional rebuke to SB3, arguing that its outright ban would “not withstand valid constitutional challenges” and would create a “collision course” with federal law. Citing a 2023 federal court ruling that halted a similar ban in Arkansas, Abbott warned that SB3 would likely be enjoined, leaving Texas with no regulatory framework to protect public safety. “The result in Arkansas? Their law has sat dormant, meaningless, having no effect for nearly two years,” he wrote. Instead of prohibition, Abbott called for a regulatory approach modeled on alcohol laws, including age restrictions, mandatory testing, and local control over retail. His announcement of a special session starting July 21, 2025, to craft such a framework signals a commitment to balancing public safety with economic liberty—a hallmark of constitutional conservatism.

The veto was a triumph for the Texas H**p Business Council, which mobilized 150,000 petition signatures and 5,000 handwritten letters to sway the governor. “Governor Abbott’s veto reinforces Texas’ reputation as a leader in business innovation and practical policymaking,” the council declared, praising his rejection of “overreach” that would have pushed consumers toward unregulated black markets. Veterans, a key constituency, also celebrated. Dave Walden, a combat veteran and Texas VFW senior vice commander, credited h**p-derived THC gummies with helping him avoid opioids since 2018. “This is about control, not public safety,” Walden said at a June press conference. “Veterans are caught in the crossfire.”

Farmers and small business owners echoed this sentiment. A sixth-generation Texan farmer warned that SB3 would “wipe out the entire h**p crop,” devastating rural economies. Candice Stinnett, a Texas H**p Coalition board member, expressed relief, noting the industry’s willingness to embrace “tightened” regulations. On X, the hashtag trended as Texans from all walks—entrepreneurs, patients, and liberty-minded conservatives—hailed Abbott’s decision. “Texans aren’t buying it, and neither should ,” posted the H**p Business Council, reflecting widespread skepticism of prohibitionist rhetoric.

Yet, the veto has drawn sharp criticism from SB3’s supporters, exposing tensions within the GOP. Lieutenant Governor Patrick, visibly stung, accused Abbott of betraying the 105 Republicans who backed the bill, along with law enforcement and families affected by addiction. In a fiery X post, Patrick lamented Abbott’s “total silence” during the legislative session and announced a press conference for June 23 to rally opposition. Groups like Citizens for a Safe and Healthy Texas, backed by Houston-area mothers, argued that unregulated h**p products pose a dire threat to youth, citing cases of mental health crises linked to high-potency THC.

For constitutional conservatives, Abbott’s veto is a victory for limited government and federalism. SB3’s clash with the 2018 Farm Bill risked federal preemption, undermining Texas’ sovereignty to regulate its own markets. Moreover, its criminal penalties—jailing farmers and shop owners for federally legal products—smacked of the same overreach conservatives decry in other contexts. The Reason Foundation, a libertarian voice, had urged Abbott to reject SB3, arguing it would “dismantle” an industry while doing little to curb youth access. Regulation, not prohibition, they argued, is the answer.

Still, the veto is not the end of the story. Abbott’s call for a special session places the h**p issue squarely in the crosshairs of Texas’ political machine. The governor’s proposed regulatory framework—barring sales to minors, mandating testing, and empowering local governments—offers a path forward but faces hurdles. Patrick’s influence in the Senate and the bill’s prior legislative support suggest a fierce fight ahead. The h**p industry, while relieved, remains on edge, with stakeholders like Hayden Meek of Delta 8 Denton preparing for potential legal battles if regulation veers too restrictive.

Abbott’s decision underscores a broader truth: in Texas, the battle for liberty often hinges on resisting the temptation to over-regulate in the name of safety. As the special session looms, conservatives must hold the line, ensuring that any new framework respects the Constitution, protects economic freedom, and avoids the pitfalls of prohibition. For now, the h**p industry breathes a sigh of relief—but the fight for its future is just beginning.

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

Michael Pipkins is an Investigative Journalist, Political Commentator, and a Constitutional Conservative. A defender of Liberty and dedicated to holding elected representatives accountable to the People they pledge to serve. Michael is also the owner of Trophy Club Media and Executive Editor for several online Conservative publications, including the Texas Liberty Journal.

06/20/2025

Abbott’s Backroom Play: How Greg Abbott Used a Legal Loophole to Install Kelly Hancock as Texas Comptroller Without Senate Confirmation

In a calculated maneuver that has sent shockwaves through grassroots conservative circles, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has bypassed the standard legislative confirmation process to install outgoing State Senator Kelly Hancock into the role of Texas Comptroller—without the public scrutiny, vetting, or constitutional confirmation typically required by law.

The move, which critics are calling a “legal sleight of hand” and a “raw power grab,” appears designed to give Hancock the advantage of incumbency ahead of the 2026 Republican primary, where he’ll face two formidable, independently-minded opponents: former State Senator Don Huffines and current Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick.

But beyond its political implications, the scheme raises deeper questions about rule of law, the erosion of constitutional norms in Texas governance, and whether voters are being force-fed another establishment pick wrapped in a bow of bureaucratic trickery.

The Setup: Avoid the Constitution, Install a Loyalist
On June 19, Hancock formally resigned from the Texas Senate and was immediately sworn in—not as Comptroller—but as “chief clerk” of the Comptroller’s office by outgoing Comptroller Glenn Hegar. That title, while bureaucratically bland, comes with sweeping authority over the agency’s operations for the remainder of Hegar’s term, which runs through January 2027.

Hegar, who is leaving to become chancellor of the Texas A&M University System on July 1, heaped praise on Hancock and handed him the reins with the enthusiastic blessing of Abbott.

But here’s the catch: Abbott didn’t appoint Hancock as Comptroller—a move that would have triggered mandatory Senate confirmation under Texas law. Instead, Hancock’s insertion as “chief clerk” is a workaround—a newly invented interim title designed to give him all the power of the office, with none of the accountability.

The workaround skirts a 2002 legal opinion written by none other than then-Attorney General Greg Abbott himself. That opinion declared that a sitting legislator cannot be appointed to a position requiring Senate confirmation during the term for which they were elected. Hancock’s resignation was intended to dodge that prohibition, yet critics say he still falls under constitutional limits due to Texas’ “holdover” clause—a provision that allows legislators to technically retain office until a successor is qualified.

In plain terms: Hancock may not be legally out of the Senate yet, and therefore not legally eligible to hold this new office either.

The Real Goal: An Unelected Incumbency
Why the rush to appoint a placeholder Comptroller for a year and a half? The answer is pure politics: incumbency.

Abbott and his allies understand the power of incumbency in statewide races. Name recognition, official letterhead, media exposure, and the implied authority of office all combine to give Hancock a serious leg up over his grassroots challengers. By installing him now, Abbott ensures that his preferred successor runs not as a candidate—but as the sitting Comptroller.

Hancock wasted no time launching his campaign. Within hours of his swearing-in, he rolled out a slick announcement touting his legislative experience, fiscal conservatism, and support for border security. But that very record is already drawing fire from conservatives, especially his vote to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton and his siding with Democrats to dilute a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

That record hasn’t gone unnoticed by primary voters, either.

Don Huffines: “They Fear You”
Former State Senator Don Huffines didn’t mince words in his response.

“The political elite are manipulating the system to install another go-along-to-get-along lap dog as State Comptroller,” Huffines said. “They don’t just fear me—they fear you, the taxpayers.”

Huffines, who has already earned endorsements from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, and a majority of the State Republican Executive Committee, framed the maneuver as part of a broader establishment pattern of undermining grassroots efforts and insulating power among insiders.

“They know that true transparency, the kind I’ve promised, would expose everything,” he said.

Huffines’ campaign is already tapping into the anti-establishment fervor that helped fuel Trump’s rise. He paints Hancock not as a fighter for fiscal integrity, but as a symbol of cronyism and cowardice—a man who lacked the courage to earn the job honestly and instead snuck in through the back door.

Christi Craddick: “I’ve Done the Job”
Current Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick, a no-nonsense fiscal hawk with actual statewide executive experience, also entered the race undeterred by Hancock’s sudden rise to power.

“I’m the only candidate in this race with statewide experience and a proven record,” she said. “While others play games, I deliver results.”

Craddick has run one of the most revenue-critical agencies in Texas—the Railroad Commission—overseeing billions in oil and gas revenues that fund schools, roads, and law enforcement. She’s pledging to bring that same results-driven approach to the Comptroller’s office.

“I trust the voters to see through political gimmicks. They know what leadership looks like,” she said.

Legal Questions Linger
Beyond the optics and political fallout, constitutional questions still loom. Article XVI, Section 40 of the Texas Constitution prohibits a legislator from being appointed or employed in a civil office during their elected term. The Abbott-Hancock team contends that Hancock’s resignation makes the restriction moot.

But constitutional scholars and conservative legal minds aren’t so sure.

Because Hancock’s replacement hasn’t yet been elected in a special election, he may technically still be “holding over” his Senate seat. That would render his new role unconstitutional—even if it comes with a carefully worded job title designed to muddy the waters.

“This is a clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Texas Constitution,” said one former legislative attorney who asked not to be named due to potential backlash. “It’s a loophole engineered for a political ally, and it disrespects the very laws these men swore to uphold.”

Abbott’s Real Message to Texans
Governor Abbott’s rapid endorsement of Hancock—along with his backhanded swipe at Don Huffines as a “candidate who already lost to a Democrat”—reveals much about the governor’s priorities. Abbott appears less interested in an open, transparent race for the state’s chief financial officer and more focused on installing a loyalist who will support his education agenda, including school choice and other spending priorities.

The entire operation has the feel of a political chess game, with Abbott moving pieces behind the curtain to ensure control, compliance, and consolidation of power.

To many observers, the stunt feels less like governance and more like a monarchy: appointments made in private, authority granted by favor, and the people kept safely at arm’s length.

What’s at Stake in March 2026
The 2026 Republican primary for Comptroller is now shaping up to be more than just a contest for a relatively obscure financial office. It’s becoming a litmus test for whether grassroots conservatives still have a say in Texas politics—or whether power brokers like Abbott will continue to manipulate the machinery to protect their allies and sideline principled insurgents.

Texans should pay close attention. If the Comptroller’s office can be quietly handed to a hand-picked insider without constitutional confirmation or public scrutiny, what’s next? Attorney General? Land Commissioner? Lieutenant Governor?

The Hancock appointment is more than a cynical political move. It’s a bellwether. And if Texas conservatives don’t push back hard, they may wake up in a state where elections are merely formalities and public offices are auctioned behind closed doors.

This is about who runs Texas: the people, or the political class.

And in March 2026, the people will have their say—if they’re paying attention.

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

03/13/2025

Bureaucratic Blacklist: The Texas House’s War on Independent Media

When the Texas Legislature convenes every two years, the state’s 150 House members and 31 Senators meet to deliberate, debate, and pass laws that will govern the lives of 30 million Texans. Covering this process is essential to transparency and accountability in government, but the ability to do so is tightly controlled. And the man holding the keys to access? Steven D. Adrian, Executive Director of the Texas House Business Office.

Adrian is the gatekeeper of ALL press access to the Texas House of Representatives. Any journalist wishing to cover legislative proceedings must apply through his office for media credentials. Each session, applicants go through an approval process dictated by House Administration Committee Rules. In theory, this process ensures that only legitimate journalists gain access. In practice, however, it has become a bureaucratic cudgel used to keep out independent and conservative journalists who aren’t part of the Austin “good ol’ boy” media club.

A Process Designed for Exclusion
On December 9, 2024, I submitted my application for media credentials to the Texas House, complete with all required documentation. After weeks of silence, I received a response on December 30—not an approval or denial, but a request for additional information.

I submitted my response on January 28, 2025—fully answering all questions. On February 19, I sent a stern letter demanding a response and the requesting the ability to pick up my credentials… as my Texas Constitutional Rights provide. Within hours, I received a letter from Adrian himself: my application was “refused by operation of House Administration Committee Rules” for failing to meet the five-day response deadline. “This action is not subject to further review,” the letter concluded. So, five days … that’s all you get to respond … five days.

A rule designed to ensure legitimacy was instead weaponized as a pretext for exclusion.

Ok, so I clearly didn’t submit my response in time … That’s on me. But that’s not the whole story. I immediately checked online to find that, indeed, they are still accepting applications … even after rejecting mine for being late. One might call this brain-dead bureaucracy.

So, I submitted a fresh application the very next day, February 20, citing the Texas House Media Credentials website, which explicitly stated that applications were still being accepted as of February 18.

Adrian’s response? Another rejection, this time citing the exact same vague inability to determine whether my publication, Texas Liberty Journal, met the eligibility criteria. Even though, they had already received my response from the first application … albeit late. It seems that it was all too ‘unclear‘ to Mr. Adrian. Despite nearly four years of continuous publishing, 116 articles, and clear adherence to the House’s requirements, Adrian’s office claimed “uncertainty” over whether my work constituted journalism.

That’s how they getcha. They don’t say no … they say they are “unclear”, then send you a notice on a Friday afternoon … at 4:00 pm. And if you don’t respond within the 5 days …. you – are – out. Hey, it’s not their fault that you didn’t follow the rules. See how this game is played?

Moving the Goalposts
The rejection letter dated February 26, 2025 that I received, was a masterpiece of bureaucratic obfuscation. The House Business Office suddenly needed to confirm:

Whether Texas Liberty Journal was a for-profit entity supported by advertising or subscription revenue.
Whether it was independent of lobbying or special interest groups.
Whether I personally was involved in lobbying or paid advocacy.
All of these criteria had already been met and documented in my previous submissions.

Undeterred, I responded the next day, with an exhaustive rebuttal. I provided links to our publication’s website, proof of financial independence, and a clear declaration of editorial autonomy. I attached exhibits proving our operational history and revenue sources. I left nothing to chance.

Yet, as of March 12, 2025—two weeks later—I have received no response. Maybe Mr. Adrian is just too busy to respond. Maybe he was too busy cashing his $257,985 salary check.

The Bigger Picture: Who Gets In, Who Gets Shut Out
This isn’t just about one journalist or one publication. The Texas Legislature meets only once every two years for 140 days. By delaying and denying credentials, Adrian’s office effectively silences voices that might challenge establishment narratives.

Meanwhile, legacy media outlets and Austin insiders waltz through the credentialing process unimpeded. The Texas Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and Dallas Morning News have no trouble gaining access. Their reporters are not subject to nebulous “uncertainty” about their qualifications. The unspoken reality is that independent, conservative, and alternative journalists are held to a different standard—one designed to exclude.

And lest I not be completely forthcoming … this is NOT the first time. Two years ago, I went through the same process. But back then, I was just getting started, and while I still met the qualifications, I was too naive to understand that this was a sick game they were playing. So I just let it go. But now, I’m a little more wise … and a lot more pi**ed off.

Accountability and the Public’s Right to Know
The Texas Constitution guarantees a free press, and the public has a right to access unfiltered information about their government. When an unelected bureaucrat like Steven D. Adrian, who has been employed by the state for 32 years, controls which journalists can report from the House floor, it raises serious questions about transparency, press freedom, and political gatekeeping.

If media credentials are to serve their intended purpose—ensuring legitimate, professional coverage of the legislative process—they must be applied fairly and consistently. The House Business Office should not be a tool for suppressing dissenting voices or protecting lawmakers from scrutiny.

For now, my application remains in limbo, buried in Adrian’s bureaucratic black hole. But this fight is bigger than me. It’s about whether Texas remains a place where the press can hold government accountable—or whether access to lawmakers is reserved only for those willing to play by the establishment’s rules.

One thing is clear: if Steven D. Adrian is the gatekeeper, then someone needs to hold him accountable for who he lets in—and who he keeps out. It’s time for Steven Adrian to retire.

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

03/06/2025

Al Green’s Disgraceful Outburst: A Constitutionalist’s Take on Democrats’ Descent into Chaos

HOUSTON, TX — On Tuesday, March 4, 2025, the hallowed halls of Congress bore witness to a spectacle that would make the Founding Fathers recoil in disgust. Representative Al Green (D-TX), the long-serving voice of Texas’ 9th District south of Houston, turned President Donald Trump’s joint address into a personal soapbox, erupting in a tantrum that ended with his forcible removal from the chamber. Two days later, on Thursday, March 6, the House delivered a rare and deserved censure, with a 224-198 vote that saw ten Democrats break ranks to join Republicans in condemning Green’s antics. What followed was a screaming match on the House floor—a fitting capstone to the Democrats’ descent into petulant disorder.

Green’s outburst was no spontaneous act of passion. It was a calculated middle finger to decorum, tradition, and the very principles that undergird our constitutional republic. As President Trump spoke of his electoral mandate—a mandate secured by the American people in November 2024—Green leapt to his feet, brandishing his cane like a prop in some low-budget melodrama. “You have no mandate!” he bellowed, his voice cutting through the chamber as he railed against Trump’s supposed plans to “cut Medicaid.” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), a man tasked with maintaining order in an increasingly fractious body, issued stern warnings. Green ignored them. The Sergeant at Arms was summoned, and the 77-year-old congressman was escorted out to a chorus of Republican cheers—and, tellingly, Democratic silence.

This wasn’t Green’s first rodeo. The veteran lawmaker, who’s clung to his seat since 2005, has a history of grandstanding that stretches back to his early pushes to impeach Trump in 2017. A self-styled “civil rights advocate,” Green’s resume boasts arrests for protests outside embassies and a decade-long stint leading Houston’s NAACP chapter. But Tuesday’s stunt wasn’t noble dissent—it was a cheap shot at a president addressing a joint session, a moment meant to reflect the unity of our governing institutions. Instead, Green gave us a glimpse of the Democrats’ true face in 2025: unhinged, undisciplined, and utterly incapable of rising above their partisan bile.

The House’s censure vote on Thursday was a necessary rebuke, though it barely scratches the surface of what’s wrong with Green and his ilk. The resolution, spearheaded by Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), passed with bipartisan support—a rarity in these polarized times. Two members voted “present,” one of them Green himself, who couldn’t even muster the dignity to stand by his own disruption. Speaker Johnson read the censure aloud as Green, surrounded by fellow Democrats, launched into a rendition of “We Shall Overcome”—a civil rights anthem cheapened by its use as a prop in this circus. What followed was pure chaos: a screaming match between Democrats and Republicans that turned the House floor into a scene more befitting a barroom brawl than the people’s chamber.

Let’s not mince words: Green’s behavior, and the Democrats’ tacit endorsement of it, is an affront to the Constitution itself. Article I vests Congress with the power to govern, not to grandstand. The House isn’t a stage for personal vendettas or theatrical protests—it’s a place where representatives are duty-bound to uphold order and reason, even in disagreement. Green’s refusal to heed Johnson’s calls to sit down wasn’t just a breach of decorum; it was a rejection of the very framework that keeps our republic from sliding into mob rule. And the Democrats’ response—singing hymns while the chamber dissolved into anarchy—only underscores their contempt for that framework.

The broader context makes this episode even more galling. Trump’s address came five months after a decisive electoral victory, one that handed Republicans the House, the Senate, and the popular vote—a trifecta not seen in decades. Democrats, still licking their wounds, had been urged by their leadership to show restraint during the speech. Green ignored that directive, as did others who walked out or heckled in quieter tones. Reps. Maxwell Frost (FL), Jasmine Crockett (TX), and a handful of others staged their own mini-rebellions, but Green’s was the loudest—and the most shameful. This wasn’t resistance; it was a tantrum from a party that’s lost its moorings.

Conservatives, of course, aren’t surprised. Green’s track record—impeachment crusades, cane-waving histrionics—reads like a playbook for the modern Left: when you can’t win at the ballot box, disrupt the process. But what’s truly abhorrent is how this behavior erodes the trust Americans place in their institutions. The House isn’t a sandbox for overgrown children; it’s a bulwark of liberty, a place where the people’s will is meant to be hashed out with grit and grace. Green and his Democratic cheerleaders forgot that—or, worse, they don’t care.

The censure itself is a slap on the wrist—a symbolic condemnation with no real teeth. But it’s a start. Ten Democrats crossing the aisle to support it signals that even some in their ranks are fed up with the clown show. For constitutionalists, though, the stakes are higher than party lines. We’re watching a slow-motion assault on the norms that keep our government functional. If Green’s outburst goes down as just another blip in the news cycle, we’re one step closer to a Congress where shouting matches replace debate, and the rule of law bows to the rule of the loudest.

Texas’ 9th District deserves better than Al Green. So does the nation. On March 4, he didn’t just embarrass himself—he embarrassed the republic. And on March 6, when the House rightly censured him, the Democrats’ screaming response proved they’re more interested in theater than governance. The Constitution demands more. We should, too.

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

Texas Liberty Journal

06/26/2025

06/23/2025

06/20/2025

03/13/2025

03/06/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category