We The People- Longview’s December 1st Meeting


Dinesh D’Souza’s

Watch Trailer Here

america We The People  Longviews December 1st Meeting

This is by far one of the best movies I have ever seen!

Don’t miss our FREE showing of this movie. Bring your friends & neighbors!

Date:  Monday, December 1, 2014

Time:  7:00 p.m.

Longview First Church of the Nazarene
2601 H.G. Mosley Pkwy., Longview
(Get directions here)

An Important Message for Battleground Texas…

Dont Mess With Texas An Important Message for Battleground Texas...
Texas Is Getting Redder, Not Bluer

In a new op-ed in Rare, IPI’s Dr. Merrill Matthews writes:

Oops! It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Haven’t the media and liberal-pundits been assuring us that Texas was on an inevitable march to blue statedom? Now Texas voters go and make them out to be a bunch of liars.

Democrats and liberal donors apparently believed the blue-Texas dream so strongly that they have been pumping millions of dollars into Battleground Texas, an organization founded by Obama campaign alumni that carpetbagged into the Lone Star State last year.

Surely, the media hyperventilated, this would be the end of red Texas.

Or not.

Texas voters have elected the state’s most conservative slate of candidates yet, even with a growing Hispanic population.

The liberal narrative went like this: the Hispanic population in Texas is growing. It currently represents about 38 percent of the Texas population and is predicted to reach 43 percent in a decade. Hispanics tend to vote more Democratic, which means that Texas will turn purple and then blue within the relatively near future.

Here’s the problem with that scenario: The Texas Hispanic population has been growing for decades. In 1990 it was about 26 percent of the population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And yet in 1990, Democrats controlled the Texas House and Senate and most major statewide elected offices. And Democrat Ann Richards won the governor’s election that year, taking office in 1991.

Today, Hispanics make up 38 percent of the state and a Democrat cannot get elected statewide for love or money (and there is a lot of the latter). You’d think that if Hispanics were turning the state blue—or would in the near future—we’d see some evidence of it now.

Democrats ran what they thought was their dream team: State Sen. Wendy Davis, an articulate female with statewide name recognition who became the face of pro-choice Democrats, ran for the governor’s mansion. And State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a well-respected Hispanic female, ran for the lieutenant governor’s position, which in Texas is considered the real power behind the (governor’s) throne.

Democrats went into those races arguing they had a good chance. Their story changed as the election got closer, saying that as long as their dream team lost by less than double digits, it would be a clear sign of Democratic ascendency. But the Dallas Morning News cited Democrats on election day saying that if they lost by double digits it would be a devastating blow to their hopes for takeover. Both candidates lost by 20 points.

And while both won the Hispanic vote, the Dallas Morning News says Davis fell short with both Hispanics and women. Abbott won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote.

As Texas political commentator Wayne Thorburn pointed out in Politico, Texas Hispanics assimilate, intermarry with whites—Abbott married a Hispanic—and move to the overwhelmingly red suburbs. Plus they get jobs and want to keep their taxes low, and they get older. All of those factors tend to change how people vote.

But what about the women’s vote? Didn’t they buy that GOP “war on women” screed? Cari L. Christman, writing for the Texas Insider, explains why Texas women are turning away from Democrats. She notes that, “Only 360,473 women voted in this year’s Democratic primary, a dramatic drop from the 1.5 million who voted in 2008.”

Of all the Democrats’ dashed dreams on election night, one of the biggest disappointments had to be Texas. They had boots on the ground, lots of money, a believable narrative, great candidates and big hopes for a blue future—and Texas got even redder.

TED CRUZ: The Era of Barack Obama’s Lawlessness Is Over!

After the historic Republican landslide on election night, no one had more reason to smile than Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Why? Because it wasn’t just Democrats attacking him for his unbending stance on Obamacare, which lead to a temporary government shutdown. Instead, it was the Republican Party establishment, as they were concerned about the immediate poll numbers during the shutdown which could have harmed Republicans for years.

They were wrong, and Ted Cruz was very, very right.

Watch (above) as Cruz gave an exciting speech in Austin, Texas this week to explain why – with Republicans in charge of the Senate – the “era of Obama’s lawlessness is over.”




Texas Elections, Office of the Secretary of State


Eagle Forum: Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate

ef org2a1 300x57 Eagle Forum: Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate By Phyllis Schlafly

October 29, 2014

Control of the U.S. Senate is up for grabs on November 4, and illegal voters may tip the balance. Estimates are that more than 14 percent of non-citizens were registered to vote in the elections of 2008 and 2010, and that could now easily exceed the margin of victory in many tight Senate races.

Democrats typically win more than 80 percent of the votes cast by non-citizens, so votes cast by non-citizens produce a net bonanza of additional votes for Democrats. Democrat Al Franken won a Republican U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota by a margin of only 312 votes in 2008, and with the immense power of incumbency he is expected to cruise to reelection this time.

New non-partisan research by professors at Old Dominion University uncovered the shocking amount of voting by non-citizens, as published by the Washington Post last Friday. Their work did not choose sides in the debate over whether non-citizens should be allowed to vote, which Congress has already answered in the negative by sensibly limiting voting in federal elections to only American citizens.

This study concluded that voter ID alone will not eliminate voting by non-citizens, because voter ID does not require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate. But that loophole is easily closed by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, just as one must show proof of citizenship in order to obtain a passport.

Several states enacted common-sense provisions in order to strengthen voter integrity in this year’s election. The U.S. Supreme Court denied an attempt to block voter ID from going into effect in Texas, so at least the Lone Star State will be able to limit mischief at their polls in this election.

Other states are not so fortunate. Wisconsin passed a voter ID law that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit, but the U.S. Supreme Court then blocked that good law from going into effect this November.

Continue reading “Eagle Forum: Illegal Voters May Decide Fate of Senate”

Could This Happen to Texas?

With Michelle Malkin

“Liberty-loving Americans: You MUST watch our film exposing how a small group of wealthy liberals overtook Colorado. They used every scheme possible to impose a backward agenda and they transformed the place I love into a testing ground for their liberal ideology. Make sure it doesn’t happen in your state next!” — Michelle Malkin


Watch Fox News’ Megyn Kelly interview with
Michelle Malkin

You can order this DVD HERE ($6.99 for 1 or $9.99 for 2 plus $3.00 shipping & handling).



Texas Red 300x108 Could This Happen to Texas?

JoAnn Fleming Speaks On The Texas Border Crisis Action Plan

JoAnn Fleming speaks at GAWTP’s Friday September 12th meeting on the Texas Border Crisis Action Plan: A Plan to Secure the Border with Mexico and Protect the Health, Safety, and Economy of the State of Texas.  VIEW DOCUMENT HERE…

Grassroots TEA Party Leaders Agree with US Border Patrol Rep
about the Federal Government’s Deadly “Catch and Release” Program

Leaders say, “In spite of political rhetoric, the Texas National Guard’s mission won’t secure the border. Why? Because their orders are to participate in ‘catch and release’.


David Simpson: Reasons for my Public Integrity Unit Vote

Many of you may have seen a recent newsletter from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility concerning the Travis County indictment against Governor Rick Perry.

Why the indictment? The governor vetoed funding going to the Travis County District Attorney’s Office after demanding that DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, resign. Governor Perry’s actions were the result of Travis County DA, Rosemary Lehmberg being arrested for drunk driving.

In this newsletter from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, it states that Conservative lawmakers tried legislatively to move the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) from Travis County to the office of the Attorney General. However, 18 Republicans joined forces with Democrats. Here is list of these Repulicans. You will notice State Representative David Simpson is listed.

Read entire article here.


Never rush to judgement until you hear
“the rest of the story”…

David Simpson 300x111 David Simpson: Reasons for my Public Integrity Unit VoteRead online here

August 19, 2014

Since Governor Perry’s indictment by a Travis County grand jury, I have received inquiries as to why I voted against an amendment that was intended to move the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) from the Travis County District Attorney’s office to the Office of Attorney General. When I was first elected to the Legislature, I was advised to do the right thing and then explain it. Here is the explanation:

During the 83rd Legislature the District Attorney for Travis County was arrested for drunk driving and exhibited reprehensible behavior. In many cultures the public shame of such actions would result in an official’s voluntary resignation. There is however, no mechanism for the legislature to force the resignation of a locally elected official who has lost the public’s trust. That did not stop members of the legislature from trying.

Senate Bill 219, a bill which dealt with the Texas Ethics Commission and was vetoed by the Governor, presented the opportunity for a political statement through an amendment to “transfer the duties and responsibilities of the Public Integrity Unit of the Travis County district attorney’s office to the office of the attorney general.”

The problem with the amendment was that the PIU is merely an organizational division within the office of the District Attorney. Travis County like the other 253 counties in the State, derive their authority to prosecute criminal violations from the Texas Constitution. The Attorney General has no such authority and the amendment would not have conferred it to him. Only a constitutional amendment can do so.

As written, the amendment would have charged the Texas Ethics Commission (currently accused of abusing its authority) with creating a plan to move the duties and responsibilities of the PIU from Travis County to the office of attorney general. It would have required implementation of the plan to be carried out in a matter of months without further statutory authority, thereby circumventing both the Texas Constitution and statutes. In other words, the amendment required the Commission to do what it has no authority to do.

I voted against the measure because: (1) it was unconstitutional and (2) fraught with unintended consequences.

It perplexes me that the same people who are decrying the actions of the Ethics Commission are also questioning the votes of members who opposed granting the Commission an unconstitutional task.

Beyond my vote on the amendment, although I believe the Governor’s public threats were imprudent, they alone do not appear to be a crime. He was threatening a legal and constitutional action, if the District Attorney did not take a legal action-resignation. If this is ruled a crime, it will certainly dampen political debate among lawmakers.

That being said, I disagree with the Governor’s decision to line-item veto the funding for the Public Integrity Unit based on the refusal of the District Attorney to resign. And while I do think that Governor Perry was completely within his authority to veto the funding, I believe the situation could have been handled differently.

The indictment of Governor Perry may appear to be vindictive and politically motivated based merely on public statements. If there is no more evidence than what is public, the indictment seems to me to be a misuse of the justice system for political purposes-much like the intent of the politically charged and unconstitutional amendment.

“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” – Samuel Adams, Essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749

For Texas and Liberty,

David Simpson


More Upcoming Meetings & Event Info

October 6, 2014 Monthly Meeting

Longview First Church of the Nazarene
2601 H.G. Mosley Pkwy., Longview
7:00 to 8:30 p.m.

JoAnn Pic 300x281 More Upcoming Meetings & Event Info

GUEST SPEAKER: JoAnn Fleming, Executive Director of Grassroots American We The People in Tyler and a leader in the constitutional conservative movement for twenty-two years, JoAnn is the two-term Chair of the Texas Legislature’s TEA Party Caucus Advisory Committee.

TOPIC: Status of Texas Races for the November 2014 Mid-term elections

WE THE PEOPLE-LONGVIEW ANNUAL TEA PARTY EVENTdownload More Upcoming Meetings & Event Info 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Gregg County Courthouse Lawn, 101 E. Methvin, Longview

The Life Liberty & Property Tour – currently touring all across Texas
The radical liberal agenda threatens to change the state of Texas and destroy our conservative values and principles. Take the jeopardy out of Texas’ future: Be informed and get involved, while you still can make a difference! Our coalition has joined together to voice the concerns that threaten Texans’ Life, Liberty, and Property. Join us for a no-holds-barred local Town Hall meeting near you!
www.LifeLibertyTexas.comlogo More Upcoming Meetings & Event Info

The Fight Continues for Mt. Soledad Venterans Memorial Cross

The ACLU is taking action to have the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross removed. Liberty Institute continues the fight against ACLU to keep this Memorial Cross. It is incomprehensible that this could happen in the United States of America. The Veterans represented by this Memorial Cross are the very same heroes who fought to protect this country and our freedoms!

Mt. Soledad The Fight Continues for Mt. Soledad Venterans Memorial Cross

While the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross case at this time, it left the door open to reconsider the case in the future. Now, the fate of the cross rests with the federal district court in San Diego, and Liberty Institute is getting ready for the fight ahead.
The outcome of this case will affect not only this veterans memorial, but also thousands of others across the nation. The fight for our religious liberties is now more important than ever. If the ACLU can force the government to tear down the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Cross, where will they stop? What will happen to the 20-foot Canadian Cross of Sacrifice or the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery?

The Facts

  • The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial has stood since 1954 as a symbol of the selfless sacrifice and service of our nation’s military. The memorial is a 29-foot Latin cross surrounded by six concentric walls that display the photos, names and diverse religious symbols of our veterans who paid the ultimate price for freedom.
  • For more than 20 years, this veterans memorial has been the subject of a lawsuit brought about by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which claims the memorial’s cross violates the “separation of church and state.” In January 2011, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the cross is unconstitutional.
  • In February 2012, on behalf of our client, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association (MSMA), Liberty Institute filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to have the 9th Circuit decision overturned. In March 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice also joined the appeal.
  • On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions to hear oral arguments in the case at that time. As part of the denial, Justice Alito issued a statement saying that the court’s denial was not a ruling on the merits and that the court may reconsider the case after the district court issues its final order determining the fate of the memorial.
  • In July 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice and the ACLU advised the district court that they were entering into settlement negotiations without the participation of the MSMA. The ACLU then sought to have the MSMA removed from participating any further in the case as a party. However, in October 2012, the federal district court judge rejected the ACLU’s attempt to remove the MSMA from the case, granting their request to intervene as a party.