Rep. Tan Parker doesn’t support your right to vote
Trophy Club State Representative Tan Parker says he will not support giving Texans the right to Vote on TEXIT.
01/30/2021 – Trophy Club, TX
Texas House Representative Tan Parker (R), who represents the people of Trophy Club Texas, has determined that the people of Trophy Club, albeit all Texans, do not deserve the right to vote on whether Texas has the right to secede from the United States.
A bill known as HB 1359, the Texas Independence Referendum Act (aka: Let Texas Vote; TEXIT) has been proposed by Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R) of district 73 which if passed and signed by Gov. Abbot, put the issue of Texas Secession to a vote by the People. If citizens vote, “Yes”, then the bill requires the Texas Legislature to begin the process of writing terms and to begin the negotiations with the United States.
In a statement provided to the Trophy Club Journal, Rep. Parker stated,
“Texas is a vast state with a diverse population and distinct regions. While I respect the ability of each state legislator to introduce legislation they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents, I am not in support of weakening this Nation through this notion of secession. My love for our country and the freedom we cherish led me to public service, and I will instead work to keep Texas as the state that leads for America. My focus remains on strengthening Texas’ economy, getting more Texans back to work, returning our children to the classroom, ensuring election integrity, and lessening the burden of taxes and regulation. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the United States but rather preserve our democracy and build a brighter future for every American.”
While it is admirable that Rep. Parker loves his country, what he seems to have forgotten is that he is first a representative, elected by the People of Texas to represent them in the Texas Legislature, not the United States. As a representative of the People, it is his job to follow the will of the People. In short, Texas should come first.
If the People of Trophy Club, indeed all People of District 63 where Tan Parker calls home, decide that they want the right to be able to vote on the issue themselves, and not rely upon the whims of the politically connected elitist who may have a conflict of interest, then the People should have that right.
Does Tan Parker think that the People of Trophy Club are too stupid to make this decision for themselves? Honestly, we didn’t ask that question but by following social media it’s pretty clear that many people have come to the conclusion that Rep. Parker believes so.
Already the forces against Texas secession are mustering. False rumors and opinion are being spread in the news and on social media in an attempt to nip the proposal in the bud. Chief among them is the false narrative that it is not legal for Texas to secede.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is clear with the very first document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, that our founding fathers believed that the right of the People to determine the government of their choosing is a God-given right. They specifically declared it as such in the Preamble.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So there is absolutely no question as to the right of the People of Texas to choose their representative government as far as the United States is concerned. But what about the laws of Texas?
We turn to the very first section of the Texas Constitution. Article 1 – Section 1
FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
So the Texas Constitution says we are a free and independent State in all ways except where the U.S. Constitution intervenes. Fortunately for us, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids a State from leaving the Union… and why would there be? To our Founding Fathers, the right to choose self-governance is a God-given right reserved by the People.
Others on social media are clamoring about how the Civil War killed tens of thousands of people and we shouldn’t want to jump right into that again. But this argument is intended to scare people into submission and has no basis in fact.
BREXIT, a term assigned to the separation of the UK from the European Union, and the model by which the Texas Referendum was created, is essentially a contract dispute. The People of the UK voted to separate from the EU in 2016 and in 2020 the contracts were finally completed. On January 1, 2021 the UK was officially an independent sovereign nation once again. Not a single shot was fired.
The nuances of the contract dispute in terms of TEXIT are not part of the debate about whether or not Texans should assert their independence. There will be plenty of time to debate and negotiate the terms of the separation. All that is at issue right now is whether or not the People have the right to decide for themselves.
We encourage all Trophy Club Citizens to contact Tan Parker’s office and let him know how you feel about Texit, but more importantly about your right to make the decision yourself and NOT leave it up the Texas Legislature to decide for you.
##
The Trophy Club Journal is owned by Trophy Club Media, who also owns the website Texit Times and has provided the supporting documentation for this article.
WASHINGTON, DC — The Clinton political machine, long accustomed to dictating the terms of engagement, ran headlong this week into an institution that does not negotiate its constitutional authority. In a rare and politically explosive move, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted on a bipartisan basis to advance contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defying lawful subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The January 21 vote clears the way for the full House to consider whether to formally hold the Clintons in contempt, a step that could result in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. While neither Clinton has been accused of a crime related to Epstein, lawmakers framed the issue more narrowly and more starkly: whether elite political figures are subject to the same compulsory process as everyone else when Congress demands sworn testimony.
The subpoenas arise from Congress’s ongoing investigation into how Epstein operated a vast international sex trafficking network for years while avoiding meaningful accountability. Epstein allegedly died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 as he awaited trial, but subsequent court filings and document releases revealed his deep and troubling access to political, financial, and cultural power centers. Bill Clinton, and numerous other influential figures appear in those records.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said the subpoenas issued to the Clintons were approved unanimously last summer by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bill Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, then moved to December 17, and later reset for January 13, 2026. Hillary Clinton followed a similar trajectory, declining multiple proposed dates before failing to appear for a January 14 deposition. In each instance, the committee said it offered flexibility if the Clintons would propose firm alternative dates. They did not.
Instead, the Clintons’ attorneys countered with what Comer described as an unacceptable proposal. Under that offer, Comer would travel to New York to speak with Bill Clinton alone, without placing him under oath, without producing an official transcript, and without allowing other members of Congress to participate. Comer rejected the proposal, arguing that it amounted to special treatment unavailable to any other witness.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Comer said during the hearing. “They carry the force of law and require compliance.”
The committee emphasized that sworn, transcribed testimony is essential to transparency and accountability. Oversight investigators have already released transcripts of interviews with former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, both of whom had direct dealings with Epstein during earlier stages of his prosecution. Allowing the Clintons to substitute informal conversations or written statements, Comer argued, would erode the integrity of the investigation and leave the public dependent on competing recollections rather than a fixed record.
Democrats on the committee were divided. Some argued the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, while others conceded that Congress cannot selectively enforce its authority based on party loyalty. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said no current or former president should be categorically immune from oversight. Several Democrats stressed that full transparency in the Epstein case demands uniform standards, even when politically inconvenient.
Recent history undercuts claims that contempt powers are merely symbolic. Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign and White House strategist, was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser, was likewise charged and later imprisoned after refusing to provide testimony to the same panel. Both cases demonstrated that contempt citations can and do result in criminal penalties, including incarceration.
The Clintons have argued through counsel that the subpoenas are invalid and that they possess little relevant information. In a letter to the committee, they described Epstein’s crimes as “horrific” and said they had cooperated in good faith by offering written declarations outlining their limited interactions with him. The committee rejected that approach, noting that Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state gives her direct knowledge of federal anti trafficking initiatives and that both Clintons maintained documented personal and social ties to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Historically, contempt of Congress has been used sparingly, particularly against high profile political figures. No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. However, legal analysts note that the Clintons are private citizens and cannot claim executive privilege protections that might apply to a sitting president.
The contempt resolutions now move to the full House, where passage will require a majority vote. Even if approved, the Justice Department retains discretion over whether to pursue prosecution. That uncertainty has not dampened the broader significance of the moment.
At its core, the dispute is not about partisan score settling or retroactive guilt. It is about whether Congress’s investigative power means what the Constitution says it means. For decades, the Clintons operated within a political ecosystem that treated them as exceptions. The Oversight Committee’s vote suggests that era may be ending.
If subpoenas bind only the unfavored and the powerless, they bind no one at all. The House must now decide whether the rule of law applies equally, even when the names on the subpoena are Clinton.
Fate, Texas — The City of Fate has completed its review of the recall petition targeting City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, formally verifying the petition as valid and clearing the way for a recall election to be ordered by the City Council.
City officials confirmed that 396 signatures from registered Fate voters were verified and accepted, exceeding the 351 signatures required under the city’s home rule charter. With the verification process complete, the matter now advances to the City Council on Monday, January 26th, which is legally required to call a recall election in accordance with Texas election law.
Under the charter, the action is administerial and the council has no discretion to reject or delay a properly presented petition. Chinn will be given an opportunity for a hearing to address the council, if she chooses, but it will not change the fact that a recall election must be held.
A Stark Electoral Comparison
The verified signature count carries added political significance when viewed against the backdrop of Chinn’s original election.
In June 2024, Chinn prevailed in a runoff election against challenger Cinnamon Krause, winning by a margin of 835 votes (56.92%) to 632 votes (43.08%). The recall petition, which gathered over 400 signatures in approximately one week, represents almost half the total number of votes Chinn received citywide in her election.
While a recall petition is not a direct proxy for voter intent, the comparison underscores the speed and scale of the opposition effort, as well as citizen dissatisfaction with Chinn, particularly in a city where municipal turnout is typically modest and electoral margins are measured in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
From Certification to the Ballot
With the petition signatures verified and considered “Sufficient”, the recall effort now enters its next—and most consequential—phase. If the council follows the standard timeline, the recall election is expected to be placed on the May ballot, coinciding with regularly scheduled municipal elections for City Council Place 2 (Mark Harper) and Place 3 (Scott Kelley).
Harper and Kelley have not yet announced if they intend to run for reelection.
The recall ballot will present voters with a single question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term in May 2027. A simple majority is required for removal. If the recall succeeds, the resulting vacancy would be filled by appointment of the council. If it fails, Chinn would retain her seat for the remainder of her term.
Election
Texas AI Attack Ad Sparks Outrage After Showing Jasmine Crockett and John Cornyn Dancing “Washington Waltz” in Heated Senate Race
AUSTIN, Texas — A controversy over the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising has erupted in the Texas U.S. Senate race, after a newly released AI-generated video depicts Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett and Senator John Cornyn dancing together in stylized scenes meant to satirize their relationship in Washington, D.C. The ad, issued by Texas Attorney General and GOP Senate contender Ken Paxton’s campaign, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum and underscored growing concerns about the use of synthetic media in elections.
The ad, which circulated online beginning around January 16, 2026, shows AI-rendered versions of Crockett and Cornyn engaged in choreographed dancing inside what appears to be a dance hall and in front of the U.S. Capitol. According to reporting, the visuals are meant to reference past remarks in which Cornyn described Crockett as his “dance partner” in the Senate in a metaphorical sense, highlighting their occasional bipartisan cooperation.
What Happened
Ken Paxton’s campaign released the ad titled “Partner” as part of his broader effort to define Cornyn as a weak Republican and to draw contrasts with other candidates in the GOP Senate primary. The video pairs the AI imagery with music and imagery that suggests a partnership out of step with conservative values, implying that Cornyn’s willingness to work across the aisle weakens his Republican bona fides.
The ad appears on social media platforms rather than traditional television and it includes a small disclaimer noting that parts of the video were generated using artificial intelligence. A move supporters say aims to satisfy transparency concerns even though Texas law does not require such disclosure outside of defined electioneering periods.
NEW AD: John Cornyn has been dancing the night way with liberal lunatics like Jasmine Crockett and selling us out every step of the way.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 16, 2026
That’s why he called Crockett his “dance partner” and she said Cornyn was her “best partner” in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/b2LeuBfRYX
The Candidates Involved
- Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic congresswoman from Texas’ 30th District, which has been redefined by the Texas Legislature, is running in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Cornyn. She has toured parts of the state campaigning on issues such as opioid crisis intervention, hunger, and broader economic concerns. She is currently running behind her Democratic challenger, James Talarico.
- John Cornyn is the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator seeking re-election in 2026. Polling shows him falling behind his rival, Ken Paxton, and may even come in third, behind Wesley Hunt.
Reactions From Campaigns
Crockett’s campaign has pushed back against Paxton’s framing, with spokespeople noting that the focus on bipartisanship is not a substantive attack on her record but an attempt to weaponize generative media against her. Supporters say Crockett’s actual work on issues like the opioid crisis and food insecurity demonstrates cross-party cooperation in service of Texans, not political theater.
Cornyn’s team has so far declined to directly comment on the ad, according to reporting, leaving a vacuum that has allowed digital discourse to flourish largely unchecked on social platforms.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The use of AI to depict real political figures doing things they never actually did raises significant legal and ethical questions. Texas law includes provisions that make it a misdemeanor to distribute a “deep fake” video within 30 days of an election with intent to influence the outcome, although enforcement of such statutes is untested and subject to interpretation.
Experts and advocates warn that generative content in political advertising could mislead voters, erode trust in legitimate campaigning, and outpace current regulatory frameworks. There is no federal requirement that ads containing AI-generated content carry clear labels, and states vary widely in how — or whether — they regulate synthetic media in political contexts.
Public and Political Response
The ad has quickly become a topic of discussion on digital forums and social media. Commenters have described it variously as humorous, cringe-inducing, or disturbing, with discussions often centering on broader fears that AI will drown political discourse in manipulated content. Some observers on platforms like Reddit note that the synthetic depictions could backfire on Paxton, especially among voters who see bipartisanship as a virtue.
Republican and Democratic voters alike have expressed frustration online that artificial intelligence is being used to blur the line between satire and misinformation in an already polarized political environment.
Context Within the 2026 Senate Race
The Texas Senate contest in 2026 remains highly competitive. Polls show Cornyn’s support varying across matchups against Democratic contenders, including Crockett and others, with some surveys indicating narrow leads or possible runoff scenarios in the Republican primary.
This ad is one of the earliest signals that the 2026 cycle will ably test the boundaries of campaign messaging technology, and it arrives amidst broader debates about whether legislative or judicial action is needed to govern the use of AI in political communications.
Why This Matters
The “Washington Waltz” style ad exemplifies how rapidly advancing technology is reshaping political campaigns — for better or worse. It forces voters and lawmakers to ask whether current laws are equipped to preserve truthful discourse, or whether new guardrails are required to prevent deceptive content from influencing elections.
For constitutional conservatives and civic activists alike, this incident highlights a deeper tension between free speech protections and the need for electoral integrity. The stakes extend beyond the characters in this particular Senate race; they speak to a future in which digital manipulation can construct realities that never occurred.
As the 2026 primaries approach, voters in Texas — and observers nationwide — will be watching not just who wins or loses, but how campaigns wield revolutionary tools of persuasion in a hypercharged political era.