Connect with us

Published

on

In the intricate web of American politics, every vote cast by an elected representative carries significant weight. Each decision can shape the trajectory of the nation, influence public opinion, and even determine the course of a political career. Rep. Kay Granger, a prominent Republican from Texas, recently found herself under intense scrutiny when she voted against the censure of Rep. Adam Schiff, a move that drew sharp criticism from fellow lawmakers and constituents alike. This controversial stance has sparked a wave of disappointment among Texas Republicans and has raised concerns about her commitment to holding elected officials accountable for their perceived unethical actions.

The Background

The contentious move to censure Rep. Adam Schiff emanates from allegations of misconduct and a perceived lack of integrity in his handling of classified information. Furthermore, Rep. Schiff has been accused of making deliberately false public statements regarding the alleged “Russian Collusion” narrative against former President Donald Trump. Many lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, saw the censure as a necessary step to restore ethical standards and ensure public trust in the political process.

Rep. Granger’s Opposition

Rep. Kay Granger’s decision to oppose the censure of Rep. Schiff has left many questioning her judgment, principles, and loyalty to the American people. Critics argue that by refusing to support accountability measures against Rep. Schiff, she is undermining the integrity of the House of Representatives and sending a troubling message that Congress members may believe themselves to be above the law.

One of the primary concerns raised by Rep. Granger’s opposition to the censure is the potential impact on the ethical standards expected of elected officials. The core tenet of representative democracy is that lawmakers should be held accountable for their actions and decisions. When a representative, such as Rep. Schiff, faces credible allegations of misconduct, it is incumbent upon their peers to investigate and take appropriate action. Rep. Granger’s vote against censure has ignited a fierce debate about whether elected officials should be held to the same ethical standards as the citizens they represent.

Constituents’ Disappointment

Moreover, Rep. Granger’s actions appear to be in stark contrast with the sentiments of her constituents, who expect their elected representative to prioritize ethical conduct and demonstrate a steadfast commitment to upholding high standards in public office. Serving the 12th district of Texas for an impressive 27 years, Rep. Granger has enjoyed a long and successful political career. However, her recent vote has sparked a significant demand for legislation that would enact term limits for members of Congress.

The Texas Liberty Journal contacted Mrs. Granger’s office by phone for comment. However, as of the publication of this article, she remained unresponsive. Furthermore, her official website has implemented restrictions, preventing individuals residing outside her district from contacting her directly. All emails sent to her office are directed to her assistant, who has thus far refused to provide any comment on Rep. Granger’s controversial vote.

Understanding Rep. Granger’s Position

To provide a comprehensive understanding of Rep. Granger’s position, it is essential to explore the factors that may have influenced her decision to oppose the censure of Rep. Schiff.

  1. Establishment Loyalty: In today’s highly polarized political climate, loyalty to one’s party often plays a significant role in lawmakers’ decisions. Rep. Granger’s allegiance to the establishment may have swayed her vote.
  2. Concerns about Due Process: Some argue that Rep. Granger’s opposition to censure might be rooted in a belief in the importance of due process. They may argue that allegations against Rep. Schiff should be thoroughly investigated before punitive measures are taken.
  3. Political Calculations: Elected officials often make decisions based on the potential impact on their political careers. Rep. Granger, with her extensive experience, may have calculated that supporting the censure could have adverse effects on her standing within the Establishment Republican Party, and her chances of re-election.
  4. Constituent Pressure: While Rep. Granger’s vote has disappointed many constituents, it is possible that she faces pressure from a specific segment of her district that supports Rep. Schiff and opposes his censure.
  5. Personal Convictions: Lawmakers occasionally vote against their party or popular opinion due to deeply held personal convictions. Rep. Granger may genuinely believe that censure is not the appropriate response to Rep. Schiff’s actions.

The Call for Term Limits

One unexpected consequence of Rep. Granger’s controversial vote has been a growing demand for term limits for members of Congress. Term limits have long been a topic of debate in American politics, with proponents arguing that they can bring fresh perspectives, prevent entrenched political power, and reduce the influence of special interests.

In Rep. Granger’s case, her lengthy tenure in Congress has come under scrutiny due to her opposition to the censure of Rep. Schiff. Many Texans, including those who have supported her in the past, now question whether long-serving representatives become disconnected from the needs and values of their constituents. This debate over term limits has taken center stage in discussions about the future of American democracy and the role of career politicians in shaping its destiny.

The Texas Liberty Journal’s Efforts

The Texas Liberty Journal, as a responsible and conscientious source of political news and analysis, reached out to Rep. Granger’s office to seek her perspective on the controversial vote. Unfortunately, her lack of response has left many constituents and observers disappointed. In a democracy, transparency and communication between elected officials and the public are crucial elements in maintaining trust and accountability.

The restriction on communication via her official website, which limits contact to residents of her district, has also drawn attention. While it is customary for constituents to have direct access to their representatives, this practice has raised concerns about transparency and accountability. In an age of increasing digital connectivity, such restrictions may be viewed as an attempt to control the narrative and limit engagement with a broader audience.

The controversy surrounding Rep. Kay Granger’s decision to oppose the censure of Rep. Adam Schiff has ignited a passionate debate about ethics, accountability, and the role of long-serving representatives in American politics. While her vote may have been influenced by various factors, including party loyalty and personal convictions, it has left her constituents and the broader public questioning the integrity of their elected officials.

Moreover, the call for term limits in Congress has gained momentum, with Rep. Granger’s lengthy tenure serving as a focal point for this discussion. The Texas Liberty Journal’s efforts to seek her perspective and the limitations on communication through her official channels have further fueled the controversy.

As this debate continues to unfold, it serves as a reminder of the profound impact that individual votes can have on the perception of elected officials and the direction of our democracy. The scrutiny faced by Rep. Granger is a testament to the importance of ethical conduct, accountability, and open dialogue in the realm of American politics.

Fate, TX

Developers, Builders, and Political Insiders Fuel “Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD” PAC

Published

on

Tax Pay to Play

Rockwall, TX – When money talks, it doesn’t whisper — and in Rockwall, it’s shouting from billboards, mailers, and TV ads. Behind the polished “Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD” campaign urging residents to support the district’s VATRE (Voter-Approved Tax Rate Election) lies a familiar cast of Texas developers, contractors, and political insiders — all with deep pockets and deeper interests in keeping the district spending big.

While the PAC’s glossy flyers and heartfelt slogans suggest it’s a grassroots movement of teachers and parents “standing up for students,” the campaign finance records tell a much different story. In reality, the PAC was created, funded, and operated by people who stand to gain financially from Rockwall ISD’s continued expansion.


A PAC Built by Developers, For Developers

The Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD PAC was born on August 19, 2025. That same day, it received its first $10,000 — seed money courtesy of Meredith and Ryan Joyce, owners of a land development consulting firm that works with both commercial and residential projects across Texas.

It was an auspicious start — and a revealing one. The Joyces’ business depends on district growth: more schools, more infrastructure, more construction. In short, higher taxes mean higher contracts.

A few weeks later, the second $10,000 came rolling in from Terra Manna, LLC, a real estate development and land management company led by Bobby Harrell and Bret Pedigo. Terra Manna specializes in large-scale residential projects — the very sort of developments that flood school districts with new students and new tax demands.

Then came another $10,000 from Northstar Builders Group, a firm specializing in — of all things — school construction and development. The irony practically writes itself.

If the VATRE passes, Rockwall ISD keeps spending, schools keep expanding, and developers keep building. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of “growth” — for them.


The Builders’ Ball: Who Really Funds “Vote Yes”?

The PAC’s donor list reads less like a community support roster and more like a who’s who of Texas construction and development.

At the top tier:

  • Joeris General Contractors, LLC – $5,000
  • Z Constructors Nationwide – $5,000
  • Matt Zahm (Z Constructors) – $5,000 (personally)
  • RPRE, LLC – $3,500 (real estate brokerage and development firm)

These are not concerned citizens hoping to keep classrooms funded — these are professionals whose livelihoods are directly tied to district spending and capital projects.

Add to that a lineup of $2,500 donors, including:

  • Chris Harp Construction
  • Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc.
  • Glenn Partners (Architectural Firm)
  • Billy & Julie Burton (private)

Then there’s the $2,273 in-kind donation from State Representative Justin Holland and his wife, Neely, for what they listed as “hats.”

$2,273 worth of hats? That’s either a new fashion trend in political branding — or a convenient way to funnel campaign merchandise under the radar. Holland, a familiar name in local politics, has long been an ally of the developer class, and his support here fits neatly into the pattern.

Other mid-level donors include Jason Volk Consulting, Noelle Fontes, and Brian Berry at $2,000 apiece.

At the $1,500 mark, the donor pool widens to include Elite Landscaping, PCI Construction, Skorburg Company, and Hanby Insurance, LLC — all companies that directly benefit from ongoing construction and development contracts in fast-growing communities like Rockwall.


Follow the Money — and the Math

In total, the PAC has reported $96,068 in contributions. But here’s the number that matters: $89,273 — or 93% — came from developers, builders, and real estate professionals.

The PAC’s promotional materials claim they’re “standing with teachers.” Yet only about 8% of all donations — under $1,000 each — came from teachers or district employees.

In other words, the people being used as the public face of this campaign are the least financially involved in it.

The illusion of grassroots support masks what is, in fact, a highly coordinated and well-funded lobbying effort — one aimed at convincing taxpayers to fund the very projects that enrich the PAC’s donors.


Big Money, Bigger Ads

The spending patterns are just as revealing. Since August, Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD has spent more than $27,000 on flyers and mailers, $9,000 on billboards, and even $3,000 on television ads — a heavy push for a local tax election.

They’ve also purchased $1,250 in ad space in Blue Ribbon News, the same publication that ran a “news article” touting the VATRE’s supposed benefits. The placement wasn’t coincidental — it was strategic.

And then there’s the expense that raised more than a few eyebrows: a $435.40 reimbursement to Meredith Joyce for “Car Polish Supplies.”

Car polish. From the same person who donated $10,000 in seed money.

One has to wonder what, exactly, was being polished — the campaign’s image, or something a bit shinier?


The Real Stakeholders: Not the Kids, Not the Teachers

Let’s be honest: when developers and construction firms pour nearly six figures into a local tax election, it’s not out of civic virtue or classroom compassion. It’s because they see a return on investment.

Every new bond, every tax hike, every “yes” vote translates into another round of district-funded construction — and another series of lucrative contracts.

Meanwhile, teachers — the supposed heart of the movement — are relegated to bit players. Their donations are symbolic at best, swallowed up in a sea of developer dollars.

Even worse, the campaign’s slick messaging exploits their image. Smiling teachers in front of whiteboards, holding “Support Our Schools” signs, while the fine print reads like a blueprint for cronyism.


Political Influence Runs Deep

The fingerprints of political insiders like Rep. Justin Holland only reinforce the perception that this isn’t about education — it’s about influence.

By lending his name (and hats) to the campaign, Holland helps cloak the PAC’s true motives under a veneer of community support. But his connections to the donor class are no secret.

When state legislators, developers, and contractors align to push a local tax increase, taxpayers should pause and ask: Who benefits most from this vote?

Spoiler: it isn’t the students or the teachers.


Manufactured Consent

The “Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD” campaign is a textbook case of manufactured consent. Using big money, polished marketing, and local political connections, the PAC is attempting to sway residents into supporting a measure that serves private interests far more than public good.

It’s the same formula seen across Texas — from bond packages to tax rate elections — where growth and progress are invoked as cover for sweetheart deals and endless construction booms.

Rockwall residents deserve to know who’s funding the message before they cast their ballots.

Because when nearly all the money pushing a tax increase comes from developers, builders, and their political allies, it’s no longer a campaign — it’s an investment.

And like any investment, the people writing the checks expect a return.


Bottom Line:
The Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD PAC isn’t a movement of parents or teachers. It’s a development-driven marketing operation, built to protect the flow of taxpayer money into the hands of builders, consultants, and political allies.

Rockwall voters should take note: when the people who build schools are the loudest voices demanding higher taxes “for the children,” it’s worth asking whether their real concern is education — or their next contract.

Continue Reading

Featured

Radical Doc Ditches Her Scalpel After Paxton’s Lawsuit Exposes Transgender Hustle

Published

on

Dr. May Lau no longer a doctor

Dallas, TX – A Dallas pediatrician, once hailed as a “trusted resource” for troubled teens, has thrown in the towel on her medical career. Dr. May Lau, the UT Southwestern associate professor whose office walls likely echoed with the sobs of confused adolescents, has voluntarily surrendered her Texas medical license. This comes hot on the heels of a blistering lawsuit from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who accused her of peddling banned gender-transition drugs to at least 21 minors, all while allegedly doctoring records to dodge the law.

Let’s rewind the tape, because this isn’t just another footnote in the endless culture war skirmishes. It’s a stark reminder that in the Lone Star State, at least, the adults in the room are finally drawing a line in the sand against the medical-industrial complex’s latest fad: turning kids into lab rats for irreversible experiments.

Senate Bill 14, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in 2023 and upheld by the Texas Supreme Court, couldn’t be clearer: No puberty blockers, no cross-sex hormones, no mutilating surgeries for anyone under 18 chasing a “gender identity” that clashes with their biology. It’s common-sense guardianship, rooted in the unshakeable truth that children—bless their impressionable hearts—aren’t equipped to consent to life-altering alterations pushed by activists masquerading as healers.

Paxton’s office dropped the hammer on Lau back in October 2024, filing suit in Collin County and laying out a dossier of alleged deceit that would make a Watergate operative blush. We’re talking falsified prescriptions, bogus billing codes, and medical records twisted to make testosterone shots look like treatment for anything but affirming a minor’s delusion about their sex... alleges Paxton. Paxton says over 20 kids—biological females, no less—got dosed with this controlled substance, all post-ban, in direct defiance of Texas Health & Safety Code § 161.702(3). And for good measure, Paxton tacked on claims under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, painting Lau as a scofflaw who didn’t just break the rules; she gamed the system to keep the hormone pipeline flowing.

Lau’s professional bio paints her as the epitome of the caring clinician: A pediatric specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas and Plano, with a self-proclaimed mission to “guide my patients to make the best and healthiest decisions for them“—alongside their parents, naturally. Her Healthgrades profile boasts expertise in adolescent health, reproductive woes, and menstrual mysteries, and she’s even open to telehealth chats for the Zoom-generation youth. But peel back the polish, and the shine fades fast: A measly 2.7-star rating from patients, whispers of controversy, and now this. Affiliated with powerhouse institutions like UT Southwestern, Lau wielded privileges that let her roam hospital halls unchecked—until Paxton turned the spotlight.

The fallout? Swift and surgical. As the case barreled forward, Paxton inked a Rule 11 agreement with Lau, slamming the brakes on her patient-facing practice mid-litigation. No more stethoscope sessions, no more “guidance” sessions that could scar a lifetime. And now, the coup de grâce: Her license is toast, voluntarily surrendered to the Texas Medical Board, ensuring she can’t play white-coated wizard with Texas tykes ever again. The civil suit chugs on, with Paxton gunning for injunctions and fines up to $10,000 per violation—because accountability isn’t optional when you’ve potentially wrecked young bodies and psyches for ideology’s sake.

Attorney General Paxton didn’t mince words in his victory lap, and why should he? “Doctors who permanently hurt kids by giving them experimental drugs are nothing more than disturbed left-wing activists who have no business being in the medical field,” he thundered in a statement that lands like a constitutional thunderclap. “May Lau has done untold damage to children, both physically and psychologically, and the surrendering of her Texas medical license is a major victory for our state. My case against her for breaking the law will continue, and we will not relent in holding anyone who tries to ‘transition’ kids accountable.

Spot on, Ken. This isn’t about cruelty; it’s about custody of the innocent. While the ACLU’s Harper Seldin wails that such enforcement is a “predictable and terrifying result,” trotting out the tired trope of politicians meddling between “families and their doctors,” let’s call the bluff. Families? Try ideologues greenlighting puberty blockers for preteens. Best medical judgment? More like Big Pharma’s profit playbook, subsidized by blue-state bureaucrats and cheered by coastal elites who wouldn’t dream of letting their own kids near the knife.

Lau’s capitulation isn’t isolated—it’s the latest domino in Paxton’s crusade. Just this year, he’s reined in three other Lone Star docs for similar sins, while states like Arkansas and Florida see their bans clobbered in court only to bounce back on appeal. Twenty-six states now stand athwart this madness, a federalist firewall against the transgender tide.

For constitutional conservatives, this saga sings the praises of federalism at its finest: States as laboratories of liberty, shielding the vulnerable from federal overreach and cultural contagions alike. Dr. Lau’s license loss? It’s not vengeance; it’s vindication. A win for wary parents, bewildered youth, and the unyielding biology that no amount of activism can rewrite. As Paxton presses on, one can’t help but wonder: Who’s next in the crosshairs? Because in Texas, the housecleaning has only just begun.

Continue Reading

Featured

Texas Braces for “No Kings” Protests on October 18 – Areas to Avoid

Published

on

George Washington sets crown on fire.

As Texas gears up for a wave of nationwide “No Kings” protests scheduled for Saturday, October 18, residents in major cities across the state are advised to steer clear of key downtown and civic areas to avoid potential disruptions, traffic snarls, and heightened security measures. The anti-authoritarian demonstrations, organized under the banner of opposing perceived executive overreach by President Donald Trump, are expected to draw crowds echoing the large turnouts seen in June. While organizers promote peaceful assembly, past events have occasionally spilled into street closures and increased police presence.

The “No Kings” movement, which frames itself as a grassroots push against authoritarianism, has ties to left-wing groups including Indivisible and, according to state officials, Antifa networks previously designated as domestic terrorists by President Trump. Protests are slated in at least eight Texas locales, focusing on central hubs like city halls, parks, and capitol grounds. Here’s a rundown of the hot spots to sidestep:

CityLocation/DetailsTime WindowNotes
HoustonMarch from Houston City Hall; Rally at Discovery Green (1500 McKinney St)Noon–2 p.m. (rally); ~2 p.m. start (march)Downtown core; expect pedestrian crowds and possible road blocks.
Houston (Suburbs)The Woodlands (Lake Woodlands Dr & Six Pines Dr); La Porte City Hall (604 W Fairmont Pkwy)10 a.m.–1 p.m. (The Woodlands); 10 a.m.–Noon (La Porte)Satellite events in suburban civic spots; lighter traffic but monitor local alerts.
San AntonioTravis Park4–6 p.m.Downtown landmark; anticipate street closures and elevated foot traffic.
DallasPacific Plaza (401 N Harwood St)Noon–3 p.m.Central business district; business commuters should plan alternate routes.
AustinMeet at Texas State Capitol, march ~1 mile to Auditorium Shores2 p.m. startTraverses downtown; riverfront park finale could draw lingering crowds.
Fort Worth501 W 7th St11 a.m.–3 p.m.7th Street corridor in downtown; entertainment district vibe with protest overlay.
ArlingtonArlington Sub Courthouse (700 E Abram St)10 a.m.–NoonCivic center area; near courts, potential for quick law enforcement response.
PlanoNE corner of Preston & Parker Rd (near Wells Fargo Bank)10 a.m.–NoonCommercial intersection; suburban but busy with shoppers and drivers.
LaredoJett Bowl North10 a.m.–NoonLocal rec landmark; public gathering spot in a border community.

These sites were compiled from announcements by organizers and local media reports. There will be many more protests in cities of all sizes. Authorities urge the public to check city traffic apps and news updates for real-time detours.


SIDELINE: Abbott Mobilizes Guard and DPS to Safeguard Austin

In a preemptive strike against potential unrest, Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the deployment of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Texas National Guard to Austin, where the democrat run city is expected to be the hub of the most violent and extreme protesters. The move, announced Friday, targets the capital city’s planned march amid concerns over links to Antifa groups, which President Trump recently labeled a domestic terrorist organization.

Violence and destruction will never be tolerated in Texas,” Abbott stated in a release from his office. The surge includes state troopers, Special Agents, Texas Rangers, aircraft surveillance, and tactical assets, coordinated with the state’s Homeland Security Division to scan for extremist ties. This echoes a similar summer operation around the Capitol during prior demonstrations.

Local law enforcement will collaborate on arrests for any acts of violence or property damage, emphasizing deterrence over confrontation. Austinites near the Capitol or Auditorium Shores should prepare for a visible security footprint.


Behind the scenes, the “No Kings” push has drawn scrutiny for its funding streams, with reports pointing to deep-pocketed backers like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (nearly $8 million to Indivisible since 2017), the Arabella Advisors network (over $114 million to affiliates from 2019–2023), and billionaire donors such as Hansjörg Wyss and Walmart heiress Christy Walton. While much of this support flows through dark-money channels for broader civic engagement, critics argue it amplifies protest logistics and messaging.

As the sun sets on these gatherings, it’s worth a final nod to the movement’s own rallying cry: There are no kings in America. And Donald Trump doesn’t see himself as one—for if he did, he wouldn’t allow protests like this to occur in the first place. Stay safe, Texas.

Continue Reading