By then, Elon Musk had donated $176 million to Republican groups to elect conservatives, and George Soros had donated $100 million to Democratic groups to prevent that.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH

It’s hard living in the US right now. Conservative budget cuts under Donald Trump have hurt every day folks. They’re paying more for gas, groceries, health care and other necessities than they have in years.

If Trump conservatives win the midterms, things could stay that way or even get worse.

HOW THIS HAPPENED

• In 2010, the US SUPREME COURT ruling in the Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission case “is a controversial decision that reversed century old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections.” So businesses and unions created Super PACs. The PACs can’t directly donate to political campaigns, but they can spend massive amounts of money on TV ads, radio ads, digital ads and mailers, supporting or attacking a political candidate.

• The Republican party’s ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL that President Donald Trump signed into law on the 4th of July 2025, gave “corporations and the ultra-wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks” while it cut trillions of dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to pay for the tax breaks.

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS?

The One Big Beautiful Bill cut more than $1 trillion dollars from federal health programs, leaving “an estimated 10 million people losing their health insurance coverage,” according to the Center for Medicare Advocacy.” Who are these people? They’re mostly elderly people who have greater, more demanding health care needs than younger people in the advantage programs. Hundreds if not thousands live right here in Bandera County.

People living solely on Social Security – even those who have some retirement or investment income – are now having to depend on Food Banks for groceries or meals and have to restrict driving to clinics, drug stores and churches because the cost of gas is so high. And there are lots of other painful outcomes caused by the One Big Beautiful Bill.

THE SOLUTION

Take back the power stolen from American citizens – you, my dear reader for one – by voting for a Democratic takeover of Congress in the midterm elections. Then, we can quit worrying about Trump and the super-rich stealing our American rights to a comfortable life.

Jodie Sinclair is an award-winning writer who holds a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and resides in Bandera.

That's a primary reason health premiums are growing nearly three times faster than wages, even as patients spend less time with their doctors and face routine delays and denials. In nearly three-quarters of commercial insurance markets, consumers lack meaningful choices.

Americans are rightly frustrated about paying nearly $30,000 in premiums for family coverage that squeezes patients at almost every turn. Roughly 70% support using antitrust enforcement to break up large health insurance companies. And by a 20-to-1 margin, voters want to block insurers from buying healthcare providers.

Yet while antitrust powers are an important tool -- and should be used -- they won't restore insurance market competition on their own. To fix our problems, policymakers will also need to unwind the policies that fueled consolidation in the first place.

A few large insurers increasingly control not only health plans but the entire patient care journey -- from doctors and pharmacy benefit managers to clinics and hospitals. That has reduced their incentive to improve outcomes and compete on care quality. Instead, every prescription, treatment decision, and coverage policy now presents an opportunity to expand profits.

Take pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the intermediaries that determine which drugs patients receive. Today, just three PBMs, each affiliated with a major insurer, process roughly 80% of all U.S. prescription drug claims.

Insurers argue that PBMs exist to lower costs, but since PBM reimbursement is tied to drug costs, they make more by steering patients toward higher- priced drugs. One House Oversight Committee report found over 1,000 cases in which PBMs used their gatekeeping power to steer patients toward needlessly expensive drugs.

This consolidation is no accident. Policies such as the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act have distorted the market and empowered the largest insurers over their smaller competitors.

Obamacare imposed strict limits on how insurers could structure their coverage. That has made it harder for smaller insurers to compete through lower-priced, flexible alternatives while strengthening the position of larger incumbents.

Obamacare also tied federal subsidies to rising premiums, inflating insurer revenues while weakening incentives to hold costs down.

And other federal programs have created similar distortions. Weak oversight of the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which gives safety-net providers access to discounted drugs, has enabled some hospitals and insurers to profit by pocketing drug discounts rather than passing savings on to patients.

Policymakers can help by making greater use of antitrust tools like the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

But policymakers cannot stop there. To prevent consolidation from recurring, Congress must also address the root causes of insurance monopolies. It should give money to patients instead of insurers and make companies compete for customers.

Congress should also curb wasteful ACA subsidies, revise the Medical Loss Ratio rule, strengthen oversight of federal programs such as 340B, and reform Medicare reimbursement rules that pay hospital-affiliated providers more than independent ones for providing the same care. All of these policies drive consolidation, which drives up prices and premiums.

Patients deserve a healthcare market in which insurers compete for their business not one in which a handful of companies own every step of a patient's care.

Joel White is the president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, a nonprofit advocacy organization that seeks to lower the cost of health care for all Americans.

The verdict marked the latest setback for Detcon, a 3M subsidiary that served as an inspection vendor for Watson Grinding and Manufacturing before the explosion. As a businessman who has worked in the energy and other sectors in Texas, I think this case raises alarms about tort liability in the state when it’s stretched beyond a business’s actual responsibility and control. Maintaining meaningful tort reform in business friendly states like Texas is absolutely necessary to protect legitimate claims while preventing liability from expanding beyond reasonable limits.

The facts leave no doubt about who caused the explosion. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) investigators determined that a degraded hose was leaking propylene gas and the valves to an outside propylene storage tank weren’t closed. Watson Grinding also lacked adequate process-safety- management system, operating procedures, and emergency-response training to address such hazards. Despite experiencing a previous explosion in 2008, gas detectors intended to alert operators and trigger remote shutoff were disconnected from the computer system, all but ensuring another disaster.

It’s clear Watson Grinding didn’t just neglect its systems; it also neglected warnings from gas sensor calibration contractors, who warned the company about its disconnected gas detectors on three separate occasions.

To make matters worse, Watson Grinding then filed for Chapter 11 less than a month after the disaster and is proceeding to be liquidated.

This brings us to the recent court decision against 3M, which has been found partially responsible for the explosion in three out of four decisions since 2025. The courts have determined that 3M should pay over $200 million in damages. In each case, the underlying claim was that Detcon, the gas sensor contractor, failed in its duties because its technicians knew that the facility’s gas-detection equipment was defective and had a responsibility to take further steps, such as refusing services, “red-tagging” the equipment, or alerting the authorities about any safety-critical defects.

But here’s the question that these cases ignore: If a company that neither owns nor operates a facility warns a customer about a dangerous condition and can still be held responsible when the customer doesn’t fix it, what does that mean for anyone doing business in Texas? 3M acquired Detcon in 2017 but offloaded it in 2019, six months before the Watson Grinding explosion. The matter at hand was unequivocally Watson Grinding’s responsibility.

Anyone working in the energy sector, especially in Texas, wants safety inspectors to identify problems and warn operators. No one wants employees to suffer or victims to go uncompensated when companies fail to keep their facilities safe. But issuing a warning does not mean assuming responsibility or liability for everything the operator then fails to do.

If that becomes the standard, business confidence will erode. Business owners will not accept unlimited and ambiguous liability. Costs and insurance premiums will rise, and fewer contractors will be willing to service high-risk facilities, which are precisely the places where experienced safety professionals are needed most. That does not improve safety. It punishes companies for identifying danger while shifting responsibility away from the operator that actually controlled the facility. This is the reality of modern tort litigation and runaway verdicts.

Businesses should be held accountable for what they do and what they control. But justice is not served by pursuing the company with the deepest pockets or by erasing the line between a contractor’s responsibility and an operator’s responsibility. If warning a customer about a known danger makes the contractor liable when the customer fails to address it, companies have every reason to reconsider the risks of doing business in Texas.

Chad Hagan is a financier, author, executive producer, and philanthropist involved in economic and environmental policy in the United States and United Kingdom. He serves as a trustee of the Hagan Family Foundation, a Fellow of the Linnean Society, a member of The Explorers Club, and an IUCN Commission member. He studied at Harvard and the University of London.

The glitch caused by “an extra address validation” affected Texans who updated their names and addresses on the state’s government record portal, texas.gov, between Sept. 1 and last week, according to an email sent by the Texas Secretary of State’s Office.

Many of the updated records were still missing voters’ new addresses, election officials said. As of the afternoon of Oct. 16, those addresses are now showing up for Texas county election officials, according to an email from the state office.

Alicia Pierce, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state, said the agency sent 15,000 records back to counties. She added the problem has been resolved, and voters will still be able to cast a ballot.

This latest issue arises only days after Texas election officials said they cleared an earlier voter registration backlog. That was caused by an error prompted by a Texas Department of Public Safety software update.

It had an impact on more than 500,000 voter registrations submitted since October 2025, officials said.

New polls: Dems lead nearly all statewide races A new poll from the University of Texas at Austin shows Democrats with narrow leads in nearly all statewide races, the Houston Chronicle reported. However, polling in each statewide race is within the margin of error.

Only Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico polled positively with 50% of the voters.

James Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project, said Democratic competitiveness is driven by a sizable gap in enthusiasm between Democratic and Republican voters — at least 10 percentage points.

“That’s really significant,” Henson said. “That is going to be what the last two weeks of this campaign are about — it’s about Republican campaigns trying to drive up Democratic negatives and trying to stir what is right now a pretty uninspired Republican electorate in the state.”

No Democrat has won a statewide race since 1994.

Abbott says he won’t debate Hinojosa

Incumbent GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said he is better off holding campaign stops around the state than facing his Democratic opponent Gina Hinojosa in a debate, the Houston Chronicle reported.

“The most important thing that a governor can do is to show up in communities,” Abbott said during a stop in Tyler. “What voters want to see and hear, they want to see their governor in their community. They want to have the ability to ask their governor questions.”

Abbott is seeking a fourth term. This is the first race in which he has not debated a Democratic gubernatorial challenger. Hinojosa held a news conference outside the Governor’s Mansion last week with side-by-side lecterns — one empty.

“It is really on-brand for Greg Abbott to spend more money to tell lies about me, rather than showing up in person to debate me,” Hinojosa said. “These lies are funded by his billionaire donors.”

State appeals order requiring AC in prisons Lawyers for the state have appealed a federal judge’s order that all state prison cells be climate-controlled before 2030. The appeal was filed with the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas Standard reported.

The state also asked U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman to suspend his order, arguing it could disrupt critical operations in the prison system while the appeal continues.

“Throwing chaos and confusion into TDCJ’s ongoing plans to install complete air-conditioning, before the Fifth Circuit has a chance to rule, needlessly wastes finite resources, and frustrates TDCJ’s efforts to acquire funding to address operational and life-safety measures to protect its population while moving... expediently to install air conditioning,” the filing said.

In September Pitman issued his ruling in a case filed by prison-rights advocacy groups. The groups argued that forcing inmates to endure triple-digit temperatures inside prison cells was unconstitutional. Just more than a third of the state’s prisons are climate-controlled, while 90,000 incarcerated Texans don’t have air conditioning.

The legal fight began with a 2023 complaint filed by Bernie Tiede, a high-profile inmate featured in the film “Bernie.”

Comptroller Huffines plans $3M office renovation Republican Controller Don Huffines plans to use $3 million in funds from a state agency that manages and invests state revenues to renovate his offices, according to The Dallas Morning News. Records obtained by the paper show that Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust Co. would pay for the renovation of the comptroller’s executive suite.

Huffines is the GOP nominee for comptroller and was appointed by Abbott to serve out an unexpired term. He faces state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, D-Austin, in November. She called the proposed use of trust company funds “highly inappropriate.”

“The comptroller is supposed to keep those funds segregated,” she said. “You can’t raid it for operational expenses in the Comptroller’s Office.”

Since being appointed, Huffines has vowed to cut government spending; 41 comptroller employees were fired in recent weeks.

Home, auto insurance rates trending down

Both homeowner and auto insurance companies have filed proposed premium rate decreases since July, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. The agency said the proposed decreases affect about 700,000 Texas policyholders.

Homeowner rate changes have averaged a 4.3% decline over the past 90 days, according to TDI.

“Lower rate filings are an encouraging sign for Texas consumers, and we’re pleased to see some relief beginning to reach the market,” said Insurance Commissioner Amanda Crawford. “As rates moderate, Texans should take advantage of the competitive market, shop around and make sure they’re getting the best value for their coverage.”

Nearly 160 companies sell auto and homeowners insurance in Texas.

Borders is a veteran award-winning Texas journalist. He published a number of community newspapers in Texas during a 30-year span, including in Longview, Fort Stockton, Nacogdoches, Lufkin and Cedar Park. Email: gborders@texaspress.com

I have learned that Jeff Flowers will not seek reelection to the Bandera City Council, and I believe the people of this community deserve a moment to reflect on what this means for the future of Western civilization.

I am not saying the republic will collapse. I am saying that when a man spends his time on the City Council arguing about license plate cameras, privacy and the proper limits of government surveillance, and then quietly decides not to seek reelection, a concerned citizen has every right to wonder who will be left to ask uncomfortable questions at public meetings.

I moved to Texas in 1963 because I believe a man ought to be able to sit on his porch, drink his coffee and mind his own business without being monitored by a government agency, a neighborhood association or a suspicious-looking box mounted on a telephone pole.

I also believe that if you are going to install technology capable of tracking vehicles, you ought to be prepared to explain who has access to that information, how long it is retained and what safeguards prevent its misuse. Asking those questions is not an act of rebellion. It is the bare minimum of responsible citizenship.

But apparently, we have reached a point in American life where a discussion about privacy can turn into a discussion about whether a man should own a smartphone. I would remind everyone that there is a difference between questioning government surveillance and proposing that we return to communicating exclusively through carrier pigeons.

I say this as a conservative. I believe in law and order. I believe criminals should be held accountable. I believe law enforcement officers deserve the tools necessary to do their jobs. I also believe the Constitution does not become optional because somebody promises a new piece of technology will make us safer.

A government powerful enough to watch everybody is a government that must be watched very carefully itself.

Now that Flowers is leaving office, I hope the next generation of council members remembers that their job is not merely to approve expenditures, accept presentations and nod solemnly while somebody explains that a complicated problem can be solved with a monthly subscription.

Their job is to ask questions.

What does it cost? Who benefits? Who has access? What happens when the system is abused? And why, exactly, are we doing this in the first place?

These are not liberal questions or conservative questions. They are questions any taxpayer ought to ask before handing over another dollar or another piece of personal information.

I wish Jeff Flowers well in whatever comes next. I may not agree with every position he has taken, but a town should never become so comfortable with its own opinions that it stops tolerating disagreement.

As for the rest of us, perhaps we should spend less time worrying about whether our neighbors are asking the wrong questions and more time making sure our elected officials are answering the right ones.

Because the moment we decide that asking questions is more dangerous than government refusing to answer them, we have a much bigger problem than a vacant council seat.

And if anybody on the next City Council proposes installing a camera in my mailbox, I expect the minutes to reflect that I objected.

Respectfully,

— Robert Blacksmith Bandera A concerned taxpayer who still pays cash when possible.

The DSA is an independent political and activist organization whose candidates run within the Democratic Party. DSA’s program calls for significant changes to the economic and political system. It supports public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries, strong worker control, expanded labor rights and greater public provision in health care, housing and infrastructure. Its proposals include abolishing the Electoral College and Senate, expanding the House of Representatives, and adopting proportional representation and rankedchoice voting. DSA also supports universal health care that includes gender- affirming care, as well as other legal protections for transgender Americans. On immigration, DSA favors legalizing migration, granting amnesty to immigrants regardless of status, providing a path to citizenship for permanent residents, ending visa caps and quotas, and abolishing ICE detention and deportations. (see: https:// program.dsausa.org/) The Democratic Party’s platform describes an economy based primarily on private enterprise, combined with federal investment, regulation and social programs. Its proposals include strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding housing assistance, supporting labor unions and increasing taxes on corporations and higher-income Americans while providing tax relief for working families. On energy, Democrats support substantially expanding clean-energy production and reducing pollution while also acknowledging continued domestic production of oil and gas. On immigration, the platform calls for expanded legal immigration and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other long-term undocumented immigrants, alongside stronger border security and asylum-system reforms. (see: https:// democrats.org/) The Republican Party’s platform emphasizes lower taxes, deregulation, domestic energy production, manufacturing and border enforcement. It calls for making provisions of the 2017 tax law permanent, reducing federal regulations and expanding domestic energy production. On immigration, Republicans call for securing the southern border, increasing cooperation between state and federal authorities on immigration enforcement, penalizing sanctuary jurisdictions, emphasizing merit-based legal immigration and carrying out large-scale deportations of people residing in the country unlawfully. For education, the platform pushes for a significantly reduced role for the federal government and universal school choice, allowing parents to use public funds for private, public, charter or homeschooling options. It also calls for cutting federal funding for schools that promote what the platform describes as critical race theory, “radical gender ideology,” or other “inappropriate” racial, sexual or political content. When it comes to transgender policy, the platform opposes taxpayer funding for gender-transition procedures for minors and supports keeping men out of women’s sports. Regarding voting, the party advocates for measures including government-issued voter identification, paper ballots, same-day voting and proof of citizenship for voter registration. (see: https://www.rnc. org/) Platforms are not laws, and they do not necessarily represent every voter, elected official or faction within a party. Democrats include moderates and progressives; Republicans include conservatives, libertarians, moderates and populists; and DSA itself contains differing viewpoints.

Politics isn’t a game of team sports where you blindly root for a jersey. It is a contest of ideas that shapes our taxes, our health care, our borders, and the future of our daily lives. Knowing where these groups and individual candidates stand is the bare minimum requirement for exercising our right to vote responsibly. The only thing worse than not voting at all is walking into the voting booth uninformed.

— John Genova Bandera

Democrats might be nearing that moment, according to some polls and widespread commentary. If so, and whether the Democratic prize is a narrow perch atop some offices and institutions or a Blue Tsunami that sweeps away right-wing extremism, the Democrats will have to govern. What they get to govern is a society torn apart down to the level of families, neighborhoods and communities. What they get to govern with are remnants, fashioned over two hundred and fifty years of conflict, negotiation and compromise; but, the broken remnants left after constant assault from Nixon and Reagan through Bush and Trump.

It will not be easy, but the wishlists of what to do next have begun to emerge anyway. Since they are widely available and discussed, they will not all be listed here. Instead, first take a moment to consider the nature of lists. Many of us make To Do lists. How else can we keep track of what it is we have to do? What better way to make yourself feel better after crossing an item off the list?

There are problems. The list doesn’t go away, The list gets longer. Some items fade away, onto the subconscious Undone list maybe to get recalled later. Lists multiply. “Action Items” become lists of Action Item lists. What then? After beating yourself up for never completing your list, you resort to the classic solution. You set “Priorities.”

So one version of the Democratic Party’s “closing narrative” for this year’s affordability campaign is “Tariffs and the War.” Again, according to polls and punditry and social and antisocial media, it seems to be working.

Take a closer look. By now, most of us have understood that tariffs are a sales tax, which U.S. importers will, if they can, pass on to U.S. consumers. So there is obvious cause and effect between tariffs and inflation. There are some tariffs, however, that were around before Trump because some Americans used their democratic political rights to get favorable treatment for domestic products like cheese and automobile metal. And Trump will still be in office for two years and unlikely to raise the white flag on his tariffs.

Is inflation itself an easily understood phenomenon? Years ago an Economics 101 text might have told you about the two kinds of inflation: demand pull and cost push. But then it turned out to be not so simple. During and after Covid we learned about supply chains and how, if one link got hung up the whole chain stalled. Now, we are beginning to recall what was obvious to Americans, even Texans, in the 1890s. Capitalism, due in part to the very same intensely competitive pressures free-market worshippers rave about, generates intense pressures to consolidate assets and centralize decision-making. Back then we called those decision- makers captains or giants of industry and finance if we liked them and robber barons if we didn’t. Now we call them oligarchs and techbros. Back then and now, we call those consolidated assets “monopolies” and even our free-market friendly textbooks tell us the rational, profit-seeking monopolist will raise prices, limit production and cut costs by cutting quality.

(And our Government 101 texts will tell you that, according to our Supreme Court, those monopolists are legally entitled to spend unlimited sums from their profits in order to control our politics,) Years ago, that text might also have told you that we can control inflation by imposing a “central bank” on the finance industry, and giving that bank power to set interest rates, that is, the cost of borrowing money. Today’s text might tell you that what it is that we call the “money supply” is unclear. Now we have to deal with a poorly understood “financialized” economy, in which assets chase assets and the people who work in finance (including insurance, real estate, private equity and many others) are called “producers,” as if they were making cheese or automobiles.

As Todd Snider put it, “We’re making money out of paper, paper out of trees, making so much money we can hardly see.”

With respect to Iran, Democrats should remember that just as there is no such thing as a “Good War,” there is no good way to end a war. Biden failed to recall the scenes of helicopters hovering over the Saigon embassy and helicopters being shoved off the stern of carriers in the South China Sea. So when he had to pick up the pieces left by Trump in Afghanistan, he made it onto what was left of the Six O’Clock News.

Leaving the dilemmas of affordability and Iran aside, Democrats better check their list twice. If the Gaza genocide and the ICE rampage continue, 2028 will not look so rosy.

If November 3, 2026 is the beginning of the end for the MAGA interregnum, praise your personal deity. If not, you will learn what Robert Johnson meant, standing alone at a Mississippi crossroads as the sun sank low, moaning about hellhounds on his trail.

Tom Denyer resides in Bandera County.

The Trump administration just launched a “Section 301” investigation into Germany’s pharmaceutical pricing practices. The move kicks off a formal process to address foreign free-riding by one of the world’s largest economies — and helps advance the broader goal of ensuring wealthy countries pay their fair share for global innovation.

Patients in the United States, Germany, and every other country ought to cheer this news. For decades, Germany and other developed nations have underpaid for lifesaving medicines — and obtained low prices by delaying and rationing drug access. These access restrictions have had real impacts on patients.

The U.S. government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has repeatedly asked Germany and other wealthy countries to end these practices. But they’ve refused those polite requests. So now, the Trump administration is ramping up the pressure on Germany — and considering investigating other countries’ pricing practices too.

It’s easy to see why the Trump administration — just like prior administrations — is annoyed with European pricing practices. Germany pays only about a quarter of the market-based prices that Americans pay for brandname medicines.

American patients bear the cost of this freeloading via their wallets. But patients in other developed countries pay with their lives. Due to rationing measures, patients in 19 other high-income countries have access to just 36% of all new medicines, including pioneering cancer therapies, that launched globally in recent years. American patients on Medicare have access to 88% of these medicines.

Even when the health systems in those developed countries decide to cover a new medicine, bureaucrats typically only allow the sickest patients to take cutting-edge drugs. Public insurance reimburses only 22% of new drugs for all approved uses. As a result, patients in those countries typically wait three years longer than Americans to access new medicines.

When my mother died of colon cancer, I saw firsthand what happens when patients run out of treatment options, and in the decades since, I have worked to ensure patients around the world have access to the medicines they need. I know that these delays have life-and-death consequences. One European analysis found that nearly 400,000 deaths across the continent each year could be prevented if patients received timely access to effective existing treatments.

Section 301 investigations — or even the threat of investigations — have proven successful at prompting countries to change their behavior in the past. Earlier this year, the United States and the United Kingdom formalized a trade agreement in which Britain committed to doubling spending on innovative medicines as a share of GDP, in exchange for the Trump administration agreeing to not launch a Section 301 investigation or impose new tariffs.

Politely asking other wealthy countries to voluntarily reform their pricing practices hasn’t worked. Patients can only hope that these Section 301 investigations, and the ensuing pressure tactics, prove more successful. More UK-style deals would enable scientists to develop more cutting-edge therapies — and ensure patients can actually access those lifesaving drugs.

Andrew Spiegel Esq., is the Executive Director of the Global Colon Cancer Association. This piece originally ran in The Washington Examiner.

For those of us who are not directly involved, the conflicts with Iran and Ukraine seem a useless waste of lives and resources that we would prefer to devote to other uses. We were just fine before they started and we’d like to be done with them; in other words: quit and call it a win.

For mysterious reasons, many of our fellow Americans rally to support any oppressed or self-described marginalized group’s cause making it our obligation to cure. They seem to believe that any amount of suffering, self-induced or not is equated to righteousness.

The quitters that criticize Israeli efforts to defend their one small country where Jews can manage their own destiny are doing so with no risk to themselves. Israelis are more than capable in their righteous response to terrorism if we back their cause and don’t pull the rug out from under them.

These wars will end with the defeat of the agressors and economies will prosper even more than they are currently, if the USA keeps up the economic and military pressure.

Quitting now will only allow evil regimes to rearm and survive to continue to plague the world. Russia and Iran are on their backs and their own populations are turning against them.

Russia has sacrificed over 1.2 million soldiers trying to overcome Ukraine. The foreign ideologies derived mainly from former and current adversaries, Germany, Russia and now Islam, have infiltrated our country with ideologies to undermine our effectiveness in opposition to a right resolution to the conflicts. T hey were all developed in reaction to societies unlike ours and are subversive to our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

They have nothing to do with an individual’s rights, nevertheless are being promoted to re-distribute power away from the people governed toward a remote elite using the votes of a naive population.

Our unique in world history governing ideas have been responsible for the generational prosperity our country has experienced while allowing us to extend benefits to foreign entities.

In a few weeks, we will be given the choice to select our next senator, James Talerico or Ken Paxton. Prudence and perserverance used to be considered virtues. Wisdom takes time to manifest itself.

At 37 Talerico is unmarried, but close to his left-leaning activist marching mother. With a good deal of higher education credit and some limited teaching background, his legislative work reflects interests in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and excusing juvenile offenders from facing law enforcement.

Someone who has never been and apparently has no plans to ever be a father has no business making policy for those of us who do. In my 20s, as a junior officer in a wartime Marine rifle company, I witnessed some young men rise to maturity and leadership far beyond their years when faced with adversity while others wilted.

I don’t see James as ever having faced any adversity that would prepare him for high office. James Talerico has extensive Biblical education but has publically denounced the posting of the Ten Commandments as a violation of the separation of church and state illusion. He also finds Biblical support for abortion, homosexuality and transexual operations.

Apparently, James T, believes God makes mistakes but blesses us anyway when we “correct” them. Mature Christians understand that Christ’s moral teaching should advise government. That is not even close to actual theocracy.

When considering someone to hire for an important position, a resume is presented for review. It illustrates what the candidate has done with his life in the past, which is the best predictor of what he will do in the future.

While James seems to be a nice boy who did eliminate Jasmine Crockett to his credit, I don’t see him standing for a difficult principle or as anything but a dependable Democrat lever puller for the Leftist leadership that guarantees unthinking lock-step solidarity.

Without a doubt, he will quickly abandon his centrist themes and revert to his Progressive (Leftist) ways should he prevail in the election as do all Texas Democrats. His TV ads about not receiving PAC money are lies as exposed by the Texas Tribune.

Admittedly, Republicans have been unable to agree on support for much good reform, but patience is required when thinking people deliberate.

No legislation is much to be preferred to the kind of toxic change the Left will bring us. Voting Left will return us to wide-open borders, inviting malign challenges to our culture, more government programs supporting corrupt NGOs that launder our tax money for the benefit of a chosen few, and more DEI perks for the non-productive class.

They constantly crow about protecting our “democracy” while lobbying to stack the deck by adding more reliably Democrat senators for Washington, DC, at less than 700,000 population and Puerto Rico with less than Harris County, each of which would be another Vermont who will send Bernie Sanders until he is unable to stand.

Lowering the voting age to easily manipulated 16 year olds and alien immigrants are their stated goals. Their desire to pack the Supreme Court is evidence that they only want a democracy they can control. This part of the country was built on the shoulders of people who managed their own defense, governance, food and shelter. Protecting your way of life requires vigilance. Please don’t fail to vote Republican, but be discerning and be certain to avoid the RINOs.

Texans should pay attention, and not because drug prices aren’t a problem, but because their plan sounds like another attempt to bring California-style politics to the Lone Star State. I saw firsthand while attending this month’s Republican midterm convention in Dallas: Texans want none of what California is offering.

Big Pharma deserves scrutiny. The skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs are a financial burden many working families can’t afford, and no one should have to choose between filling a prescription and buying groceries, paying the mortgage, or filling up the tank. Drug manufacturers, insurance companies, medical-services providers, and policymakers all share the blame in a broken system that too often leaves patients footing the bill.

But Texans should be wary anytime politicians claim the solution is for government to forcibly reorganize an entire industry.

Talarico’s proposal would push for antitrust legislation that targets vertically integrated healthcare companies, such as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), insurers, and hospital systems. Talarico has blamed healthcare consolidation and a lack of competition for rising care costs. Cuban, whose online pharmacy Cost Plus Drug Company sells generic drugs directly to consumers, praised the effort as a way to break up healthcare conglomerates and lower prescription drug and medical costs.

Cuban’s reinvention as a healthcare policy crusader is an interesting turnaround, considering that during COVID, he required his staff to be vaccinated as a condition of their employment, which was directly at odds with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order prohibiting employer vaccine mandates. Of course, Cuban’s ability to transform himself when it’s politically expedient was on display when he actively campaigned for Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race but then scrubbed all Harris- related posts from his X page after her defeat.

Texans can draw their own conclusions about Cuban’s character. But that kind of political flip-flopping and fair-weather opportunism is a good indication of what his approach to Texas healthcare policy might look like. Progressives like Talarico and Cuban want to transform Texas into California, where the instinct is to treat government intervention as the answer to every problem. High prices, complex markets, and policy disagreements are met with forced business divestment, micromanagement, and an imposition of new mandates and regulations. This approach is why California is the most heavily regulated state in the country, and now Talarico and Cuban want to try the same experiment here in Texas, with our healthcare industry in their sights as the first target.

Texas is an economic leader in the U.S. because the state has consistently prioritized free markets, competition, innovation, and accountability over heavy-handed regulation and centralized bureaucracy. We must hold drug companies accountable for pricing abuses, demand transparency and oversight from PBMs, and protect local pharmacies without adopting policies that hurt private businesses, hinder innovation, or limit patient access to affordable medication.

We don’t need California politics wrapped in a Texas flag. The Lone Star State has never been afraid to take on powerful interests, and we need practical healthcare reforms that put patients first, preserve consumer choice, and respect the competitive, free-market principles that have given Texas the most Fortune 500 companies of any U.S. state.

Texans should think twice before letting progressives like Talarico and Cuban gamble with Texans’ health.

Cindi Castilla serves as the president of the Texas Eagle Forum, a conservative grassroots organization that advocates for policy at the state legislature. She lives in Dallas.

In March 2026, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began ramping up the deportation of illegal immigrants, prioritizing those with criminal records and beginning by targeting “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with federal agents and shield criminals.

Throughout the spring and summer, ICE deportations steadily climbed. In March, ICE arrested 18,877 illegal aliens. The Trump Administration crossed the 20,000 threshold for total arrests within a single month in May, arresting 22,636 illegals. It crossed the 30,000 threshold in June with 30,436 arrests. July and August both saw over 50,000 arrests.

The Department of Homeland Security also reported in August that since President Donald Trump has taken office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the United States voluntarily. DHS notes that staying in U.S. detention centers is a choice, as the United States offers streamlined self-deportation with the CBP Home App.

Democrats have been saying for years that the GOP’s approach to deport illegal aliens and reverse open borders policies is structurally and politically untenable. But in a year when deportations spiked across the country, Americans are more supportive of President Trump’s immigration agenda than they were in January, according to new polling.

Ten months into 2026, with deportation numbers in July and then August breaking records for the largest numbers of illegal alien arrests, voters are more supportive of President Trump’s handling of immigration than they were in January of this year.

The New York Times/Siena College survey from Sept. 8–13 asked voters to rank President Trump’s performance on a number of issues, including immigration. While 55 percent of voters disapprove of his immigration strategy, 43 percent approve. This translates into a net approval rating of -12 points on immigration.

In the Times/Siena survey from Jan. 12–17, before deportations of illegal aliens began setting records, voters disapproved of President Trump’s immigration agenda by 18 points, 58 percent to 40 percent. As voters observed Trump’s deportation plan in action, more of them came around to supporting it.

Support for Trump’s immigration strategy shifted at the margins across several demographics since January, but the largest shift occurred among non-college voters, indicating that the original demographic concerned with cheap foreign labor and rising crime is more supportive of the president’s immigration agenda now that it is being enacted.

Non-college voters shifted +9 points toward supporting President Trump’s handling of immigration since January, going from 42 percent approval to 51 percent.

Non-college whites shifted five points toward supporting President Trump’s handling of immigration since January, going from 54 percent support to 59 percent. However, it wasn’t only whites. Non-college minorities improved their support for President Trump’s handling of immigration by three points since January, going from 23 percent approval to 26 percent.

While the largest shift occurred among non-college voters, a core Trump demographic, swing voters shifted toward supporting President Trump on immigration at the margins as well.

Voters under age 30 shifted two points toward supporting the president on immigration, going from 24 percent approval to 26 percent. While not a large move, it questions the narrative that immigration policy is driving young people toward the left.

Immigration policy and deportation show a mixed bag in polling, with the mainstream media constantly pushing the narrative that Trump’s immigration policy is pushing away voters who believe it is too radical. In August, Politico published a poll showing that “half of Americans still say the president’s mass deportation campaign is too aggressive.” That is exactly what the poll found, though presumably the other half did not think so.

When it comes to deporting illegal aliens who have committed other crimes — which the Department of Homeland Security documents with weekly memos detailing the administration’s commitment to deporting the “worst of the worst” including gang members and those convicted of manslaughter, murder, sexual battery, and spousal injury, among many other crimes —support for deportation skyrockets.

A Harvard-HarrisX survey from May 29–31 found overwhelming support for deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, with voters saying 80 percent to 20 percent that these individuals should be deported. Seventy-one percent of Democrats, 90 percent of Republicans, and 79 percent of independents support mass deportation for criminal illegals.

The reality is polls consistently show about half of Americans reject the president’s core immigration premise — that deportation of criminals must be enacted to make the country safer — and about half support it. This is not surprising; a little over half the country voted for President Trump, who made it clear that mass deportations were on the agenda. What is interesting is that as mass deportations have been carried out, support has not deteriorated, instead it has slightly risen.

While polling continues to show a mixed bag of views on immigration, the data shows that Republicans have suffered very little political repercussion for supporting mass deportations, despite vehement warnings from Democrats. The people wanted a reversal of the Biden-era mass influx of illegal aliens, and they voted for exactly that in 2024. Disapproval of President Trump’s immigration policy has decreased, not increased, over the past ten months, which saw record-high numbers of arrests and deportations.

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

I was born just before World War II. Shock was common. Kids pretty much yelled that a lot back then. We couldn’t use cuss words. If we did, we’d get our mouths washed out with soap.

Today, I have to say “Holy Cow” every time I turn on my computer. Because….

HISTORY’S REPEATING ITSELF We’re facing things that can hurt our freedom like people were hurt before the American Revolution In 1776. Our founders started the revolution 250 years ago because the king of England had a “wide array of powers” that attacked their ”unalienable rights.”

In 1763, England’s king had “…refused to protect their rights and defend their liberties” and had in essence …”become a tyrant,” according to The National Constitution Center. · The Bill of Rights Institute lists 27 of those rights King George III violated. · The Declaration of Independence lists those “core rights” — dissolving colonial legislatures when they opposed his rules, denying the right to a trial by jury, making judges entirely dependent on his personal will, keeping standing armies in the colonies during peaceful times, ruining local economies by cutting off colonial trade with the rest of the world.

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects us from elected officials trying to rule America like a king. We can protest and speak our minds without fear of being arrested by any level of government — state, local or federal.

But now, America has a “ wanna be king.” He’ll keep fighting for a new form of our U.S. government — one he alone can run. To date, he has lost “75 of the 93 First Amendment cases” brought against him. That many cases prove Donald Trump is determined to consolidate total power in the Oval Office, but the courts are winning most First Amendment cases against him.

VOTE NOW

Our freedom has been shielded since 1791 under the First Amendment. It protects freedom of speech, of the press, and the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Our founders warned those freedoms will always have to be protected.

• George Washington — “The spirit of party…serves always to distract.”

• Thomas Jefferson — “Liberty… yields as government gains ground.”

• James Madison — “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

• Benjamin Franklin — “A republic… if you can keep it.”

So quit hollering “Holy Cow.” Vote in November. Protect our Republic.

Jodie Sinclair is an award-winning writer who holds a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and resides in Bandera.

“We, the people” covers an impressive range of differences between us, including our personalities, our tastes, our languages, our religious beliefs, our ancestries, and our ideas about how our country should be run. That used to be something our democracy could handle.

A foundational principle, stated clearly in our Constitution, is that we must remain free to express our beliefs and preferences, but we must also respect the rights of others to express their beliefs and preferences as well. Maintaining that balance is necessary to prevent the people in power from deciding that their beliefs count for more than those of ordinary citizens or those on the margins of society.

But there is a difference between tolerating people whose beliefs differ from our own and tolerating conduct that undermines the very democracy that allows us to disagree.

Lately we are being asked to tolerate differences that challenge the boundaries of the tent. Do we support corruption and self-dealing, buying of political influence, and the blatant use of enormous amounts of money to distort representative government? Do we accept that lying, deception and lack of transparency have become normal since they happen every day and are practiced at the highest levels of our government?

As we approach the midterm elections, through which voters typically express their opinion of the administration’s performance so far, there are races that seem to capture this dilemma in stark relief. In my last column I highlighted the race for Texas Governor between incumbent Greg Abbott and challenger Gina Hinojosa, a Texas state representative who is pointing to Abbott’s abuse of power to enact pet projects, like private school vouchers, as evidence of his disregard for the wishes of the majority of voters.

The race for US Senator from Texas offers an even more dramatic contrast. The Democratic nominee, James Talarico, has made corruption and the influence of corporate and billionaire money in our political system the centerpiece of his campaign. While he has raised a large amount of money, including some from a PAC with billionaire backing, over half of his contributions come from individuals donating less than $200.

Paxton, on the other hand, arguably would not be in the position he is in today, both as Attorney General and aspiring US Senator, without the support and influence of billionaire and corporate donors. By now we’re familiar with the facts of his impeachment by his own party and the accusations of his own aides that he used the power of his office to intervene in the legal troubles of a wealthy donor.

I don’t want to be tolerant of the enormous influence of money in politics. I don’t want to be tolerant of the idea that contributions can be unlimited and, in many cases, anonymous. Wouldn’t it be fascinating to see what a political campaign would look like if advertising were possible without needing millions of dollars?

Talarico is often asked about how he practices the “love thy neighbor” aspect of his Christian faith, and gives the example of bipartisan legislation that he has sponsored in the Texas House of Representatives. He says that he and a Republican representative once challenged each other to sit together and talk and listen, in search of common ground. Through their openness, they found a path that could help all their constituents, not just create winners and losers. Remember how that used to happen?

Paxton, on the other hand, thinks that displaying the Ten Commandments in all Texas classrooms will go a long way towards building a strong ethical foundation in our students, and that his personal behavior does not pertain. But I don’t want to be tolerant of that kind of hypocrisy in my elected officials.

So I do have some requirements for democracy’s big tent. There must be boundaries; there must be limits to what we agree to in order to allow our nation to flourish with respect to all its citizens and not just the wealthy, powerful ones. There must be strong support all around the tent, holding it firmly within the Constitutional framework that has survived many tempests of human conflict. The rule of law, free and fair elections, and active, vigorous representation by those we entrust with our votes are some of the pillars that keep the tent from collapsing.

To be sure that your vote will be counted, visit votetexas. gov to check that you are registered. If you’re not registered, go to votetexas.gov to begin the registration process. The deadline for registration is October 5, 2026. Early voting runs from October 19-30. Election day is November 3.

Let your government know what you won’t tolerate anymore.

Susan Hull is a retired clinical psychologist, a horse trainer and an independent voter. Contact her if you need help getting to the polls.

God speaks clearly about this in the book of James.

James 4:6-7 “ 6 …God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 7 Submit yourselves therefore to God.”

In a world of social media that counts “likes and shares” it’s easy to get caught up in praising ourselves, but as Christians we need to remember the words given by God through Paul, “ 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.” Philippians 2.

This isn’t something we can do on our own, we need to ask God for the strength to be humble rather than serve our own egos and desires.

When faced with our own needs for help, or the need to admit wrong, are we practicing humility? This was something I recently battled with as I had to leave town for a few days. While I was trying to complete my responsibilities on the ranch, I was put in a dilemma when I ran into a small water problem that I didn’t have time to fix. I could hold onto my pride or admit I couldn’t do it and ask for help. In this case it was an easy decision, because I knew that the cattle wouldn’t have water if I didn’t humble myself and ask for help. It was obvious, if I would have held onto my pride it would have caused suffering to others, in this case the cattle.

Thankfully, Jesus has given us the perfect example of humility through His life. Paul reminds us that Jesus, who is fully God, humbled himself, came down and took on human form to pay the ultimate price and be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

Philippians 2:5-8. “ …Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Could you imagine if Jesus would have left it up to us to try and earn our salvation, instead of humbling himself to take God’s wrath in our place? We could never do it and would just end up suffering. On our own we are incapable of living a life good enough to enter heaven. Paul reminds us of this in Romans.

Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

Don’t let yourself suffer without the living water because of your pride, but humble yourself and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

Cowboys of the Cross is a rodeo/ bull riding ministry that leads cowboy church services at events and maintains an online presence to share the gospel and make disciples among the ranch and rodeo community. They can be found at CowboysOfTheCross.com.

September 17, 1787 deserves a holiday equal to July 4, 1776.

It is called Constitution Day. Two Hundred thirty-nine years ago, thirty-nine men in Philadelphia signed a compact to a frame of Liberty purchased at a price we can scarcely imagine today.

Many let it pass unmarked and unmentioned. That neglect is a national tragedy.

Those men had studied the wreckage of every historical republic from the past. They learned that a nation could keep the outward form of a republic while surrendering its soul. These gentlemen were not improvising. They had learned and understood that Power, if not controlled, always grows, and that the only reliable restraint on power is a written barrier---if the people will defend it. Thomas Jefferson knew human activity well when he wrote, 'In question of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.' The chains are only as strong as the citizens are willing to keep them rust free.

The Constitution is a command. It tells our Republic what it may do and also what it may not do. Our Constitution cannot enforce itself but depends on the vigilance of a free people. Take away the vigilance and it slowly begins to rot. The form remains, but power will slip in. Elections continue to be held, but substance is slowly disappearing and what is appearing is a shell of a republic housing machinery of slipped constitutional restraints such as: agencies write law without representation; courts discover meaning outside the original intent; a Federal Government that was assigned only a handful of enumerated tasks now reaches into every aspect of our lives; the federated sovereign states, meant to stand as pillars against overreach have been bribed to silence with their own citizens' money.

This is a government our Founders feared. So let us promote a national yearly recognition of our unique U.S. Constitution-designed to bind down those of mischief intent. The Founders did their part. They gave us the finest form of government devised by the mind of men. It is now up to us to defend it by responsible citizen civic participation.

Editor’s Note: This letter is in response to a cartoon published Sept. 13.

Lacking anything substantial on which to disagree with James Talarico, Mr. Allyn reverted to the time-honored fascist tactic of repeating lies ad nauseum. Hitler and Goebbels were masters of this ploy, and everything SCROTUS (Self-Crowned Ruler of the US) says is a lie. (One example: 'They're eating the dogs in Springfield.') https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9gEuUp2Um3E It seems that Mr.Allyn is trying to imply that Mr. Talarico is gay? If he has any credible proof, he should provide it. He's just trying to divert criticism away from Pen-Stealing Adulterous Ken Paxton. https://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/americas/us-politics/ ken-paxton-divorce-angela- laura-olson-b2787080.html https://www.texasmonthly.com/ news-politics/ken-paxton-pen/ We can't fix 'stupid', but the red hats ('hatred' flipped a bit is 'red hat') sure helps identify them.

Why not go after real problems, like data centers and AI?

James MacMillan Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Ret) Vietnam combat veteran Anti-fascist

This marks the most arrests in a single month for President Donald Trump’s second term. About half of those arrested are either convicted felons or have pending criminal charges, while the remaining individuals were arrested for violating U.S. immigration laws. The vast majority of those arrested are male, representing 86 percent of arrests in July.

The month of July marked the highest total number of arrests of President Trump’s second term, with 49,571 total arrests, according to data from ICE provided to the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.

This represents a 15 percent increase in arrests compared to June of this year and a 70 percent increase compared to February.

The number of arrests of illegal aliens has ramped up rapidly since February of this year. In January, 12,330 arrests were made. In February, that number rose to 17,370, and in March, it reached 18,877. The Administration crossed the 20,000 threshold for total arrests within a single month in May, arresting 22,636 illegals. It crossed the 30,000 threshold in June with 30,436 arrests.

States like Arizona, California, Georgia, Florida, and Texas are already benefiting significantly from the Trump Administration’s efforts to arrest and deport criminals. In July, over 4,000 of the nearly 50,000 arrests came from California, and over 2,000 came from Arizona. Georgia saw over 2,000 arrests as well. The state of Texas saw over 12,000 illegal immigrant arrests in the month of July, and Florida saw over 7,000.

About half of those arrests in July — 24,147 individuals — were either convicted felons or had pending criminal charges, according to the data. The remaining individuals were marked as “Other Immigration Violators” for violating U.S. immigration laws.

The data is broken down by gender, and because immigration analysts have expressed concern about military-age men representing a significant share of recent illegal immigrants, it is worth noting that the vast majority of those arrested were men. In July, nearly 43,000 of the 50,000 total arrests were male, or around 86 percent. Women accounted for just over 6,600.

As for where illegal immigrants are being deported, over 9,000 of the total July arrests will be deported to Mexico once their deportation status clears, and over 2,000 will be deported to Honduras. That said, the administration has recorded deportations to a wide range of countries.

While August numbers have not yet been recorded, the Trump Administration is empowering ICE to ramp up deportations as the year comes to a close. The number of arrests of illegal immigrants is accelerating, with ICE looking to hire thousands of new deportation officers by the end of the year and the agency forming close working relationships with state and local law enforcement to facilitate deportations.

Recent survey data shows the American people back President Trump’s deportation initiative by over half, with an Economist/ YouGov survey from August 7–10 showing 53 percent of Americans believe all or most illegal immigrants should be deported. Independents and college-educated voters agree, supporting the deportation of all or most illegal immigrants by over half, according to the survey.

While Democrats have made opposing deportation a talking point, President Trump has been quietly delivering on his promise to make the United States safer and enforce the rule of law. The Administration has made significant progress in deporting illegal aliens from American cities, many of whom carry criminal records or pending criminal charges. It is interesting to note that in the year where mass deportations of criminals have spiked, crime is plummeting to 126-year-low, according to a Mid-Year report from the independent Council on Criminal Justice.

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

Everyone talks like they knew “Dolly” on a first name basis because in a sense, she belonged to everyone through her work, personal way of communicating and her giving.

Christians claim Dolly as theirs because of her expressions of faith.

Progressives claim her as theirs because of her support of loving others even if they're different from you.

Everyone claims her as their because she literally personifies the American Dream no matter what your politics. She came from nothing here in Sevier County where I get to live, and built herself an entertainment empire that will continue on likely until Jesus comes back.

Dolly's story gives everyone hope that with hard work and dedication, they can make it.

My reason for being on social media is primarily to be connected with the rodeo and ranching cowboy communities through Cowboys of the Cross. I'm writing this encouragement for you.

Whether you like country music, whether you were born 75 years ago or 15, you know who Dolly Parton is. Many of you have made the trek to Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge and I've seen many of you post right from Dollywood.

Whether ranching or rodeoing, we can't make it without hard work and dedication.

Being a Christian cowboy is the same thing. Where Dolly's success story gives us all hope in what we can achieve here, there's one more important hope we need to let her faith point us to and that's the hope that comes in Jesus Christ. It's an eternal hope where we know even if we don't make it here, there's something even greater waiting for us after this life if we put our hope in Jesus.

A saving faith in Jesus comes from this understanding: God, who we know is perfect, will not allow our imperfect sin into His presence. He will actually judge and condemn it. Jesus, as God's son, was sent to live in this world and eventually die on the cross as a sacrifice meant to take God's full wrath against all of our sins. When we believe in who Jesus was, and is, and what he did for us, we then need to repent of our sin with a sincere desire to be saved and forgiven from God's judgment. When we do this, God will no longer condemn us and we gain eternity with Him.

Dolly advocated kindness and to love everyone. This is how God does it—by giving everyone the same chance to be saved and spend eternity with Him, no matter who we are and what mistakes we've made. He loves us all and wants us with Him for eternity.

That's a hope that transcends the American Dream and gives us everything we need, success or failure in our own eyes or the eyes of others who wrongly judge us, to make it through this life and to the perfect one waiting for us.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Cowboys of the Cross is a rodeo/ bull riding ministry that leads cowboy church services at events and maintains an online presence to share the gospel and make disciples among the ranch and rodeo community. They can be found at CowboysOfTheCross.com.

However, one of the many problems with our political system is that, while most of us don’t fit neatly into a red or blue box, we’re forced to choose from candidates who do. Or at least they say they do, because that’s the behavior we reward with our votes.

You’ve seen those graphics in which a map of the US looks like a sea of red with blue patches, or a sea of blue with red patches, depending on what variable is being illustrated. But what if those graphics are totally misleading?

What if our nation is a sea of purple, with some areas shading into a reddish purple and others more bluish purple? It matters because I believe our values and beliefs are more similar than different, yet the candidates we have to choose from are forced to emphasize the differences.

Even if a staunch Republican becomes very unhappy with the direction the party is taking, the idea of voting for a Democrat may seem totally out of the question. Whether this voter grits their teeth and votes for the Republican anyway, or decides to stay home, the results are not representative of what that voter really wanted.

For example, my last column, describing the advantages of a single-payer healthcare system, helped me understand how realistic such a system could be and what broad benefits would be delivered to all citizens regardless of party.

Prior to writing it, when I heard the phrase “Medicare for all,” I honestly thought it was just a wacky progressive idea that was way too radical (socialism!). Now that I’ve learned more, I wonder, why can’t a Republican candidate present a case for single-payer healthcare reform? Does being Republican mean you have to support the profits of huge insurance companies at the expense of your constituents? Must voters reject a plan they believe would help their families merely because it came from the “wrong” party? Should the health of all our citizens be a partisan issue?

Two major Texas races, for Governor and US Senator, are good examples of this dilemma that many voters will face in November. This week I’ll discuss the gubernatorial race, in which Democrat Gina Hinojosa is challenging incumbent Greg Abbott, who is seeking a record fourth term.

I’m embarrassed to admit that when I first heard of her candidacy, I assumed it was a hopeless cause, because of both her relatively low profile and Abbott’s seeming lock on the office. It turns out, however, that her qualifications are impressive and her policy proposals are relevant to voters across the political spectrum.

Hinojosa is a civil-rights and labor lawyer, a former Austin school board president and a five-term member of the Texas House. Her policy proposals include replacing the STAAR test, ending the private-school voucher program, raising teacher pay, strengthening rural hospitals, preventing private-equity firms from buying up Texas homes and requiring large data centers to pay the costs they impose on our electric grid and water supply.

I don’t think those are proposals that appeal only to Democratic voters. The voucher program was strongly opposed by rural Republican legislators for years until Abbott targeted the holdouts in Republican primaries and helped defeat many of them. Stronger data center regulations, including more local control for counties, also are widely popular. After years of courting the industry with tax breaks, Abbott’s recent data center reversal is a sign that his business-friendly approach was no longer working to his advantage.

Hinojosa’s proposals have broad cross-party potential; they are issues that voters care about because they affect their daily lives. My sense, on the other hand, is that Abbott is offering sound bites meant to convince voters that he is on their side, even though much of his governing record has favored wealthy donors and powerful corporate interests. His strong-arm tactics, supported by deep-pocketed donors, are beginning to wear thin with voters who feel increasingly ignored.

For those who worry that Democratic victories will sweep us all into extreme policies and radical upheaval of our normal lives, there are two important points worth considering. First, we’re talking purple here, not blue. Every bill would still have to pass the House and the Senate. Voting for a Democratic governor would not be a vote for unchecked Democratic power; it would be a vote to make our state government negotiate over a different set of priorities.

Second, and possibly most important, when you think about how things are going for you and your family right now, do you feel that one-party government has served you well? Might a bluer shade of purple be worth a try, instead of continuing the status quo simply because it’s been there for so long? Our votes are what makes ordinary citizens as powerful as the big shots.

We can let them know that from now on, it’s not red or blue - it’s purple.

Susan Hull is a retired clinical psychologist, a horse trainer, and an independent voter. She urges you to check your registration – or begin the process of registering – at VoteTexas.gov. The deadline is October 5.

A decline in support for Democrats is significant among millennials and Gen Z — groups that combined now account for nearly half of all eligible voters in the United States. By the 2028 election, they will account for over half.

The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University indicates that in the Gen Z cohort alone, 50 million voters will be eligible to vote in November. The data shows that by the midterm election, nearly 8.5 million new voters who were ineligible to vote in the 2024 election will have aged into the voting pool.

But will they vote for Democrats? Data is mixed but vote intention and favorability for Democrats have declined significantly since 2022.

Part of this could be explained by younger voters claiming the Democratic Party has not gone “far enough” in stopping the Trump Administration. After all, 53 percent of Gen Z hold a favorable view of socialism. But Democratic identity and favorability are declining while Republican identity and favorability are largely stable.

Looking at the YouGov congressional ballot voting intention tracker, it is apparent that Democrats have not gained ground among Gen Z and millennial voters over the past four years. In fact, despite Democrats taking every opportunity to push the narrative that the Trump Administration has made life more difficult, young voters are less enthusiastic about supporting Democrats now than they were in the fall of 2022.

Among Gen Z, young voters are planning to support Democrats by 27 percentage points (53 percent to 26 percent). A full 16 percent are unsure. Compare this to late August of 2022 during the Biden Administration, when Gen Z planned to support Democrats by 36.6 points (56 percent to 19.4 percent).

This is not a significant swing toward the GOP, but it is evidence that even in an election year where Democrats have the opportunity to construct a narrative blaming Republicans for issues like inflation or the war with Iran, young voters aren’t necessarily buying it.

Part of that could be because some young voters don’t believe Democrats go far enough in pushing a radical progressive agenda, considering 53 percent of Gen Z hold a favorable view of socialism according to a Cato Institute–Morning Consult survey from June 25–26. Whatever the case may be, the Democratic Party has failed to rally young voters during an off-year election where Republicans are in control of the White House and Congress.

The Democratic Party’s favorability among Gen Z has also flipped upside down since the fall of 2022. Today, the party holds a net favorability rating of -5.7 points. In the fall of 2022, under the Biden Administration, young people had a much rosier view of Democrats. At that time, the party had a net favorability of +17.6 percentage points, with 51.7 percent holding a favorable view of Democrats and 34.1 percent holding a negative view.

The decline for Democrats among millennials (aged 30–44) has been pronounced compared to 2022 voting intention. Today, millennials plan to support Democrats by just 13.5 percentage points (48.9 percent to 35.4 percent). On August 30, 2022, millennials were pledging to support Democrats by 31 percentage points (55.4 percent to 24.1 percent). This amounts to shaving 17.5 points off the Democratic advantage compared to four years ago.

Overall favorability for the Democratic Party has also plunged among millennials compared to 2022, with the party’s net favorability sitting at -18.8 percentage points as of this writing. In the fall of 2022, Democrats’ net favorability was positive by 6 percentage points, with 47.3 percent holding a favorable view of the party and 41.3 percent holding an unfavorable view.

These numbers are supported elsewhere, too. In the 52nd Edition of the Harvard Youth Poll released this spring, Democratic Party affiliation had dropped substantially among young voters compared to 2018. Only 28 percent of young people identify as Democrats now, down from 40 percent in 2018. The survey showed “Strong Democrat” identity fell from 22 percent to 16 percent. Republican identity actually rose — from 21 percent to 25 percent.

Despite a perfect storm of events Democrats could capitalize on, from cost-of-living woes to the war with Iran, young voters appear apathetic about swapping Democrats into Congress. They do not appear to believe Democrats can or would do any better. Not to mention, data shows that on the issues the GOP has focused on — such as deportation of illegal immigrants, massive reductions in crime across major cities, slashing foreign aid to the lowest number since 2004, and a resurgence of the American manufacturing sector — voters are satisfied with the Trump Administration and Republicans.

This is not to say that Republicans should not prepare for a fight in November, but it means the tidal wave could be blunted. Long-term, a party losing its edge by double digits with the younger generation over a short four-year period does not bode well for Democrats.

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

I know from personal experience that many Texas veterans struggle to obtain disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Most VA personnel genuinely want to help veterans. But the sheer scale and complexity of the system can make clear guidance difficult to obtain.

Even in a major metropolitan area like Dallas-Fort Worth, veterans can struggle to find providers for medical treatment and disability claim examinations. Limited availability can mean long waits or onerous journeys for appointments. I’ve also heard troubling accounts of providers submitting inaccurate and, in some cases, allegedly fabricated information that can directly influence VA benefit determinations.

I’ve spoken with veterans who have waited years for decisions, only to have claims denied and find themselves paying out of pocket for medical treatment while fighting for the benefits they believe they are owed.

Some ultimately feel they have little choice but to hire private attorneys just to navigate the process.

Others give up because the maze of the VA benefits system is simply overwhelming. Many live in rural communities, where the nearest VA clinic is an hour’s drive. Others don’t know what benefits they’re entitled to. The more I discuss these issues with my fellow Texas veterans, the more I realize these experiences are the norm, not the exception, for veterans living in America toIn short, the status quo leaves veterans to suffer from two huge shortfalls — one in the quality of assistance available to them, and the other in the number of people allowed to help.

Some believe that the solution is reforming the VA, which could help with quality. Others think expanding Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) or providing them with more funding or experienced staff is the answer, which could help with numbers. Those ideas are worthwhile, but it will take time and extraordinary effort to get them off the ground. Another option can address both shortfalls by leveraging resources standing at the ready right now: allowing private services to guide veterans through our complex VA claims-filing and benefits process.

If outside professionals can responsibly assist veterans with the complicated process of filing paperwork or accessing benefits, that means more veterans can receive the benefits they’ve rightfully earned. There are currently more than 70,000 veterans in the VA backlog, and about 40 percent of the VA claims our veterans submit are not initially approved. In addition to asking who should help veterans, a better question is this: Why do we refuse to qualify the parties who are willing and able to help? If more organizations and professionals can assist veterans in navigating the system, if they can complement—not replace— the existing support network and reduce the current backlog, why would anyone stand in their way? The answer, I’m afraid, is obvious: The current system is designed to benefit traditional VSOs and maintain the status quo.

When I served in the Air Force, success wasn’t measured by who completed the mission—it was measured by whether our mission was accomplished. We should treat veterans’ benefits the same way. The mission should always be helping veterans, not protecting outdated institutions or the status quo. Our veterans deserve a benefits system that makes good on its promises, and we give them one by welcoming every partner who is willing and able to help.

Will Thomson is an Air Force veteran, pilot, husband, father of two, and financial advisor who lives outside Dallas. After serving his country, he dedicated his career to helping families prepare for their financial futures and believes veterans deserve the same level of personalized guidance when accessing the benefits they’ve earned.

Texas has more hungry people than any other state in America. And this is the 3rd year in a row for that. It’s called “overall food insecurity.” And FEEDING TEXAS, a “state wide network of food banks,” has the numbers. If you are food insecure, you have “limited or uncertain access to sufficient amounts of safe, nutritious food needed for an active and healthy life,” I was born in Texas. When I was a kid, and for years after that, Texas was a rich state, with booming oil and gas industries making millions along with other companies. And Texas is still rich.

Talk About Disgusting

On June 15, 2025, Texas had a “$24-billion-dollar budget surplus. So what is our state doing to help hungry people? It’s spending just a bit more than $200 million to feed them, so less than 1 percent of that $24 billion surplus. Most of the surplus money is going to business growth, property tax relief and border operations. The Texas Economic Development Corporation has a list of everything else being funded with that $24-billion-dollar surplus.

The Hunger’s Hurting

It’s hitting “roughly 1 in 5 people” in Texas. And it’s hurting children a lot. One in every 4 kids is going hungry – that’s 26.1% of little kids without enough food. And it’s not getting better. It’s getting worse. This July, “Texas had a food insecurity rate of 19.4%, an increase of 11% from last year.

Even More Damage

Last week, a worker from a San Antonio home services company came to our house, just off Polly Peak road outside Bandera, to do a test on our water well. He was a hard-working young guy, just 26 years old, really smart and friendly. Once he got the test done, I asked if he had kids. He said, “No, we can’t afford that.”

Really? It hit me hard. And it woke me up. Why would he say that? I jumped on the Internet to do some research. And I saw for the first time, just last week, the hunger slamming Bandera County, and the rest of Texas, because so many people are “food insecure.”

Here’s Help

If you need help to feed yourself and your family, or you know someone who needs that help, thanks to Bandera’s Silver Sage senior center, here’s a list of places it gave me that you can call:

• Out of the Way Community Corps in Lakehills 24/7 outdoor food pantry

• 830-346-1255

• 830-777-9713

• Lakehills United Methodist food pantry and free dinner every Monday night

• 830-751-2404

• Walker Community Church pantry (in Whartons Dock)

• 830-837-3517

• 830-796-3171

• Medina Food Pantry next to Keese's BBQ 2nd Friday every month

• 830-426-4847

• 210-273-8033

• Ridin' the River Cowboy fellowship food pantry • 830-460-0710

• St. Victor's Chapel in Lakehills food pantry various Saturdays

• 830-460-4712

• Silver Sage Meals On Wheels

• 830-796-4969 If you’re not food insecure, call to donate money if you can.

Jodie Sinclair is an award-winning writer who holds a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and resides in Bandera.

During my years in law en forcement, I learned that threats rarely arrive without warning. They develop when oversight lacks and weaknesses and vulner abilities are left unaddressed until a crisis is already underway.

That is why the rapid expan sion of illicit compounding should concern every American. As a for mer partner in a compounding pharmacy, I have seen how com pounding enables pharmacists to prepare customized medications for patients with specific med ical needs when commercially available options are unsuitable or unavailable, including during drug shortages.

However, in the case of GLP 1 drugs, what was intended to be a narrow and carefully regulated practice is increasingly being ex ploited by bad actors to mass-pro duce unapproved compounded drugs outside the traditional reg ulatory framework. The FDA has identified compounded products contaminated with harmful bac teria, containing unapproved ingredients not fit for human consumption, and made with research-grade substances never intended for patients.

These illicit compounding practices bypass the rigorous re view, manufacturing standards, and quality controls that Ameri cans expect from FDA-approved medications, creating dangerous gaps in oversight and enforce ment that allow unsafe products to enter the marketplace. These weaknesses are not abstract, they represent real vulnerabilities that can be exploited, making it hard er for regulators and law enforce ment to detect, deter, and stop harmful products before they reach patients.

From a law enforcement perspective, these gaps are not theoretical, they are opportunities. Criminal networks actively search for weaknesses in supply chains. When large-scale compounders operate without the same reporting and inspection requirements as traditional manufacturers, they create an unverified and largely unregulated parallel system. That system makes it harder for regulators to detect and stop dangerous products before they reach patients.

Even more troubling is the growing overlap between illicit compounding supply chains and those tied to transnational crime. Evidence shows that some of the same Chinese chemical manufacturers supplying unapproved compounding ingredients are also linked to the production of fentanyl precursors. Recent analysis has found that actors previously associated with fentanyl trafficking are now marketing peptide and GLP-1 ingredients through the same gray-market channels. Americans deserve better than a system where the ingredients used in their medications may originate from the same networks responsible for fueling the opioid crisis.

Congress has an opportunity to act before this threat escalates further. The Safeguarding Americans from Fraudulent and Experimental (SAFE) Drugs Act would strengthen oversight of high-volume compounding by requiring transparency in production, mandating FDA inspections before products are distributed, and closing loopholes that allow largescale operations to function without appropriate accountability. These reforms would bring greater visibility to a supply chain that currently operates with too many unknowns and would reinforce the integrity of our pharmaceutical borders.

As a retired Sheriff, I can attest that law enforcement is often called when the damage has already been done. But our responsibility is also to recognize emerging risks and act before they become crises. We have seen what happens when dangerous supply chains are allowed to grow unchecked. Illicit compounding presents a similar warning sign. Congress should act now to address this vulnerability, strengthen oversight, and protect the safety of American patients before this issue becomes the next public health emergency.

Sheriff Bob White (Ret.) is a 35-year law enforcement veteran and former Sheriff of Pasco County, Florida, where he served for over a decade after being elected to three consecutive terms.

“We are workers fighting to transform society: to win the battle for democracy, draft a new constitution, and create a democratic socialist republic.”

That is part of the 2026 platform of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a revolutionary document that is calling for a new Constitution of the United States. And it is dangerous.

Take note: This is neither a call for Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution, which would require two-thirds majorities and then three-quarters of the states to ratify, or for a convention of the states called by two-thirds of the states, still requiring three-quarters of the states to ratify, under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, it is calling for a full replacement of the current Constitution outside the supreme law of the land under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

Why? In order to take ownership of the means of production and to confiscate wealth, according to the platform: “Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.” What else would socialists be concerned with?

Why, that would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Now, here, one might quibble and say that 100 percent wealth tax is not a deprivation without due process if Congress enacted it. Really?

What about a 100 percent life or liberty tax? What if Congress passed a law naming certain individuals criminals and subject to execution or life imprisonment simply because of their political affiliation? Due process?

No, this is Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “general will”: “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

That is, democratic socialism, as described by DSA, is nothing remotely approaching constitutional, limited government. A government that can do whatever the majority wants. Take whatever it wants: Your life, your liberty and your property.

And the socialists won’t care that it’s all unconstitutional, they’re going to “draft a new constitution”, remember?

Businesses should be paying very close attention. Currently the S&P 500, the largest U.S. corporations, constitute about $61 trillion of market cap, which would all be surrendered to the new democratic socialist republic. Wall Street might become a homeless encampment for former CEOs.

And what would that new socialist utopia look like politically? A parliamentary system, on paper: “Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.”

But there would be no more President, Electoral College or life-tenured Supreme Court: “Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

And, to guarantee that the socialists always win the elections, the franchise would be extended to anyone who can establish permanent residence: “Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions.” That’s another 17.4 million voters right there: 13 million permanent residents and 4.4 million felons.

In addition, immigration enforcement would end, dramatically expanding the franchise: “ABOLISH ICE… End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents' brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.” There’s another eventual 35 million foreign-born residents winding up on the voters rolls, too.

That tracks pretty well with historical precedent. When political parties explicitly call themselves socialist — in about 79 percent, or 34 out of 43 cases, an Americans for Limited Government Foundation analysis shows — usually that’s the end of competitive elections and the establishment of one-party rule Heck, even the military would be ended: “Defund the Department of War. End all foreign wars and close overseas military bases.” What would become of the U.S. nuclear arsenal of 5,177 nuclear weapons, one wonders? Maybe China and Russia will get those, or something.

Now, normally, such a radical plan would not be taken very seriously, except Democrats keep losing to democratic socialists in their primaries. The danger is not if the socialists lose, but if they win. Usually, totalitarians tell you exactly what they want to do — and when they do, we should listen.

Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

Big time. So was I. So were millions of Americans.

In 2004, we all watched that show “The Apprentice” on TV. It was a smashing success. Its first year on the air, it averaged 20.7 million viewers every week. It had up to 28 million viewers watching its last show that season. Those are 2024 New York Times research statistics.

The Show Was a Lie

And its producer knew it. But he made Trump look like one of America’s most successful business men. The New York Times called the show “The Star-Making Machine That Created Donald Trump.” Trump starred in it for 11 years. Before it even went on the air, “Trump had declared bankruptcy four times” according to a 2024 US News and World Report. He also declared bankruptcy “twice more” during its 14 seasons. But the show “….revived his business fortunes by creating the illusion that he was already doing great.”

He was famous for yelling ‘YOU’RE FIRED” at the end of each show to participants he judged “didn’t make it.” The show was on NBC every week for 13 years…” It made Trump rich. He earned “$197 million directly from The Apprentice”…and “an additional $230 million flowed from the fame associated with it…” according to a New York Times study of his tax returns.

By 2015, Trump was so famous, he left the show to run for President. On November 8, 2016, he was elected the 45th President of America.

Why Didn’t We Know?

In 2016, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of Pennsylvania reported the TV show, “played a key role” in getting Trump elected “because Americans consume more entertainment than news…” It provides ‘one-sided information flows’ about a candidate’s qualities.”

Confession of an NBC Executive In 2024 - John D. Miller – a former NBC marketing chief – publicly apologized for promoting Trump as a super successful businessman. He said he created ” a monster.” He said “successful CEOs were too busy” to be on the show every week. So he chose Trump.

Trump …”had plenty of time” every week to be on the show because his business was a failure. Yet Miller still put thousands of weekly NBC TV commercials on the air spreading the lie about Trump “to nearly every household” in the United States.

Here’s the Good News

In July 2026, CNN research showed voters are favoring Democrats in elections by an “8-point margin…” Trump became president again when there was a “sharp drop” in 2024 of Democratic voters in “growing cities.” That year “6.2 million fewer Democrats showed up to vote than in 2020,” according to Governing, an organization “devoted to making government work.”

We can return our country to peace and predictability this year if every eligible Democrat votes in November’s midterm election. We can win back the House and the Senate and hold Trump responsible for the Iran war he started that killed 18 American soldiers and wounded 685 soldiers so far and shut down the Strait of Hormuz, driving up gas and grocery prices and medical costs. We deserve a whole lot better.

Jodie Sinclair is an award-winning writer who holds a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University and resides in Bandera.

That growth requires infrastructure.

Infrastructure growth requires more energy. More pipelines. More localized natural gas generation. More dispatchable power. More infrastructure that strengthens the reliability of our grid.

But only if that infrastructure is built the Texas way.

After nearly sixteen hours of testimony before the Texas Senate Committee on Business and Commerce this past week, where lawmakers heard from landowners, industry leaders, regulators, and Texans who will live with the consequences of these decisions, I was left with one unmistakable conclusion.

Texas needs more infrastructure to strengthen grid reliability, but the 765-kV transmission line proposal is not the cure. It is the consequence. It is the bill coming due after years of energy policies that prioritized bending the knee to climate catastrophism and “all-of-the-above” energy sycophancy while ignoring the clear and obvious shortcomings of that approach.

After Winter Storm Uri, the consequences of overreliance on intermittent energy production should be clear to every Texan. I said it then, and it bears repeating today. We invested so much in renewable energy that we let the pilot light go out on reliable power. In response, all we’ve done is further the proliferation of intermittent power generation across our great state.

Texas needs to ask itself why the Permian Basin, one of the richest natural gas regions on Earth, now requires billions of dollars in new transmission infrastructure simply to sustain its growth and maintain reliable power. The answer is clear. Years of federal subsidies, regulatory pressure, and political mandates have distorted our electricity market.

Under the banner of an “energy transition,” Washington pushed policies designed to accelerate renewable generation, not because wind and solar alone can provide the reliability required to power a growing industrial and technological economy, but because the climate cult convinced policymakers there was no other solution. The tax credits and subsidies they imposed deliberately tilted the playing field against Texas natural gas and coal, undermining their competitiveness.

But let’s now discuss the greatest sin.

Instead of the beating heart of North America’s fossil fuel industry refuting the false notion that carbon dioxide emissions were to be embraced, not feared, Texas instead welcomed climate alarmism in the name of reaping the benefits of federal subsidy. Texas actively chose, through both state policy and advocacy, to proliferate the expansion of our federal debt in the name of greed at the expense of grid reliability.

That sin has distorted our energy market and brought us here.

It should not be possible that one of the most fossil fuel-rich regions on the planet is facing a growing need to import, rather than export, electricity because the proliferation of tax credit- backed renewable power has made local, dispatchable fossil fuel generation less economically viable.

What makes my skin crawl most is that these transmission lines are doubling down on that problem.

Rather than correcting market distortions and ensuring that the region producing our nation’s energy can power itself, Texas is considering a multi-billion-dollar transmission project to accommodate the shortcomings of intermittent, unreliable energy investments, and the harm they’ve done to our natural gas and coal industries.

Enough is enough. Ratepayers should not be asked to further subsidize this problematic plan, born from our grid’s growing reliance on renewable energy, to build the infrastructure required to compensate for its limitations.

For months, I have been one of the strongest advocates in Texas for defending data centers because I believe our state’s progrowth, pro-business principles require us to solve the challenges growth creates—not simply hit pause on economic opportunity. That is what Texas has always done. We don’t fear growth. We build the infrastructure necessary to support it, and we should build it the Texas way—or not at all.

I have consistently argued that new demand should be met by encouraging more localized, dispatchable natural gas generation, not by socializing costs or asking Texans to subsidize workarounds for a broken market.

That is why I oppose these transmission lines.

These transmission lines aren’t a free-market solution. They’re a government correction for a government-created distortion. Instead of restoring competitive conditions so reliable generation can once again be built where it’s needed, we’re proposing another multi-billion- dollar intervention to prop up the consequences of the last one.

Texas doesn’t need another expensive workaround. It needs the courage to fix the policies that created the problem in the first place.

Wayne Christian serves on the Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates the oil and natural gas industry. This piece originally ran on TexasScoreCard.com.

“We are bringing the Bible back into schools this week for the first time in 60 years,” SBOE member Brandon Hall, R-Aledo, said during a prayer session outside the hearing this week.

The new standards will be implemented in phases, starting with elementary schools in the 2030-2031 school year.

Republicans favor the new standards as a win for Judeo-Christian values and say the required lessons on Jesus, Abraham and Moses are intended not to evangelize but help children develop moral compasses.

Critics say the board is promoting Christianity at the expense of racial and religious diversity.

“Texas is telling millions of children that one religion deserves the government’s seal of approval, while everyone else is an afterthought,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Cornyn: Closed primaries could backfire on Texas GOP U.S. Sen. John Cornyn is warning Texas GOP leaders that closing party primaries would be “paving the way to minority party status,” The Texas Tribune reported.

The Texas Republican Party and its top elected leaders are pushing to require voters to register with a party, thereby prohibiting them from crossing over in party primaries. Texas is one of 17 states with open primaries.

Cornyn, who was defeated for reelection in a runoff by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, commented on an op-ed published in The Dallas Morning News, sharing its title — “Closed primaries are a threat to Texas voters.”

He added, “Exactly,” and “Democrats haven’t turned Texas blue; Republican’s (sic) might.”

Paxton has joined the GOP’s pending lawsuit to strike down open primaries in court.

Supreme Court ruling could affect 147K TPS recipients The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the Trump administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria means more than 147,000 migrants in Texas under the program face imminent risk of arrest and deportation, the Texas Standard reported.

Texas hosts one of the largest concentrations of TPS holders in the nation, and University of Houston constitutional law professor Seth Chandler said the ruling has dramatic consequences for them.

“It basically streamlines the ability of the Trump administration to revoke TPS status, not just for the Haitians and Syrians who were litigating in the case the Supreme Court decided today, but with respect to Hondurans, Nepalis, Afghans and, perhaps critically for Houston, potentially Venezuelans as well,” Chandler said.

The decision could have economic consequences, since many immigrants in the country under TPS work in sectors already experiencing labor shortages. “If you look at our plaintiffs in the Syria case, for example, we have a highly sought-after pediatrician,” said Hussein Elbakri, attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

He added, “We have somebody who is a special- needs teacher by day and is training to be a nurse at night. We have construction workers. We have people in the food-services industry, and we have many, many people, especially in the Haitian community, who are home healthcare workers.”

Tesla accused of allowing toxin release from refinery Two Texas property owners have filed a class-action suit against Tesla, accusing the company of dumping toxins from its lithium refinery near Corpus Christi onto their property, according to the Houston Chronicle.

They claim that Tesla has violated its state-issued wastewater discharge permit by allowing contaminated water to flow onto their property.

The company’s permit allows it to discharge up to 231,000 gallons a day of treated industrial water into Baffin Bay, according to state records. A review of the water leaking into a drainage ditch by a lab hired by the Nueces County Drainage District revealed two toxic metals — arsenic and the carcinogen hexavalent chromium, as well as elevated levels of other chemicals.

Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.

Majority of Texans oppose data centers in their community

A new poll from the University of Texas’ Texas Politics Project indicates a majority of Texans oppose having data centers in their community, according to the Texas Standard. The state has become the nation’s top destination for data centers, which provide the infrastructure for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency mining.

The poll found 43% of Republicans oppose data centers, while 42% support their construction. More than 60% of people who identify as Democrats oppose new data centers.

“I think people are objecting for different reasons,” said James Henson, director of the polling center. “On one hand, lots of environmental concerns about water and resource use. But if you’re living next to these data centers or in the region… they have a big impact on people’s lives.”

Both Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have made regulation of data centers a legislative priority in next year’s session.

Texas GOP elephant lacked mandatory permit When Paige the elephant made an appearance at the recent GOP state convention in Houston, its owner did not acquire the required city permit to bring wild animals into the city, The Dallas Morning News reported.

Public records acquired by the paper indicate Trunks and Humps, the elephant’s owner, has been cited repeatedly for federal animal welfare violations and failed to apply for a permit before bringing Paige to the June 12 convention.

The elephant arrived as the finale to Abbot’s speech. A video of the event went viral after the elephant urinated on the convention floor.

Borders is a veteran award-winning Texas journalist. He published a number of community newspapers in Texas during a 30-year span, including in Longview, Fort Stockton, Nacogdoches, Lufkin and Cedar Park. Email: gborders@texaspress.com

Please call or email Cornyn as soon as possible to urge him to finally say NO to Trump.

Susan Hull Bandera, TX

As treatment begins, I’ll need to make major adjustments to protect my health. I’ll be stepping back from many public activities and limiting my time in larger groups. If you see me wearing a mask, avoiding handshakes or hugs, or keeping a little distance, please know it’s not personal. What I have isn’t contagious—these precautions are simply to protect me while my body heals.

With only about 55% lung capacity right now, I tire easily and need to pace myself. I’ll miss many activities and, truthfully, I’ll miss the hugs and handshakes most of all.

That said, I’m not disappearing. I’ll continue supporting the causes and organizations I care deeply about, including small-group activities, work behind the scenes, and my ongoing projects—including BanderaNewzJunky.com. I may stop by larger events briefly when I can, but I’ll be making decisions based on what’s best for my health.

One difficult decision is stepping away from hosting a foreign exchange student this year for the first time in many years. It saddens me, but I fully intend to return in 2027.

I’ve fought tough battles before and won through faith, determination, and stubbornness. That part of me hasn’t changed. I will still be involved with activities at the American Legion and in the background at the Medina Lake Cajun Festival.

Thank you for the support, prayers, friendship, and understanding. My door— and my phone—remain open. Small visits are always welcome as long as we respect these health boundaries.

This is simply a season of healing. I plan on winning this fight too.

Thanks!

Ron Clarke Lakehills, TX

He referenced that his article was in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s famous satirical essay “A Modest Proposal.” Swift uses absurdity and exaggeration to expose the failures and arrogance of those in power. There is an important difference between Swift’s work and Mr. Flowers’ article. Swift’s satire was aimed at criticizing those in power on behalf of ordinary citizens. Mr. Flowers is not an outsider challenging authority. He is a sitting member of City Council criticizing ordinary people who disagree with expanding surveillance technology.

The irony is that Flowers’ article defends power and ridicules citizens questioning it.

Mr. Flowers attempts to frame opposition to Flock cameras as irrational by reducing privacy concerns to absurd extremes: banning phones, banning Ring cameras, eliminating technology altogether. Citizens raising concerns about privacy are not demanding Bandera “return to 1880” by banning or eliminating technology. They are raising reasonable concerns about privacy, oversight, data collection and how much government monitoring belongs in our small town.

Their concerns should be heard, not mocked or dismissed.

There is also a factual issue that deserves clarification. Mr. Flowers stated that the DMV state grant paid 100% of the cost and subscription for the Flock cameras. In reality, it was a 20% matching grant which was reimbursed upon receipt of documentation. The citizens were repeatedly told during discussions that the grant could only be used for Flock cameras and not for other programs or public safety priorities. This was not the case, and the public deserves a more honest and transparent conversation about how these funds were presented and whether other options were ever seriously considered.

Whether someone supports or opposes Flock cameras, this debate deserves seriousness and respect. Instead, the article reduces concerned citizens to caricatures by suggesting they somehow support criminals or oppose public safety itself.

The question is not whether law enforcement should have tools. Of course they should. The real question is where the limits are, who controls the information, and what protection exists for ordinary citizens. Do citizens have the right to debate legitimate public concerns without being mocked by elected officials?

Conversation is not a threat to democracy It’s part of living in a free country. Reasonable people can disagree about Flock cameras, but elected officials should probably spend more time listening to citizens than mocking them.

Laura Devenport Bandera