GOP Divide Over House Speakership Intensifies

In a dramatic turn of events within the Texas House of Representatives, a showdown over the next Speaker has laid bare deep divisions within the Republican Party. Rep. Dustin Burrows, a close ally of outgoing Speaker Dade Phelan, broke ranks with the GOP caucus after failing to secure the Republican nomination. In an unprecedented move, Burrows aligned himself with Democrats, undermining the party’s choice of Rep. David Cook and igniting outrage among grassroots conservatives.

The Battle for Speaker of the House

On Saturday, the Texas House Republican Caucus met to select its nominee for Speaker, a critical position that sets the legislative agenda and controls committee appointments. The race came down to two contenders: Rep. David Cook, a staunch reformer who had publicly pledged to appoint only Republicans as committee chairs, and Rep. Dustin Burrows, a last-minute entrant who offered no commitments to conservative reforms.

Cook emerged victorious after three rounds of voting, with the final tally standing at 48-14 after 26 members loyal to Burrows walked out. This defection sparked a firestorm, as Burrows and his allies immediately began courting Democratic support in a bid to form a coalition that could challenge Cook on the House floor in January.

A Betrayal of Party Principles

The actions of Burrows and the defectors have drawn sharp condemnation from Republican grassroots activists and party leaders. The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) has long advocated for reforms to ensure Republican control over legislative priorities in a state where Democrats have often wielded disproportionate influence. In 2022, 81% of Republican primary voters supported a resolution requiring that only Republicans serve as committee chairs. Cook’s candidacy embodied this grassroots demand for reform, while Burrows’ maneuvering represents a continuation of the status quo.

The RPT Executive Committee issued a strong resolution following the caucus meeting, calling for unity behind Cook and warning that any member voting against the caucus nominee or supporting a secret ballot for Speaker would face censure. Such a censure could prevent them from running for reelection as Republicans.

The Dustin Burrows Record

Burrows’ record has long been a source of contention among conservatives. As Chairman of the powerful Calendars Committee under Speaker Phelan, Burrows held significant sway over which bills reached the House floor. Critics argue that this power was wielded to suppress conservative priorities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Burrows championed legislation that expanded the ability of local governments and businesses to enforce mask and vaccine mandates, a move that alienated many Republican voters. He also played a key role in blocking a bill that would have protected minors from irreversible gender-transition procedures, though a similar measure passed in a subsequent session.

More recently, Burrows was one of 61 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting to impeach Attorney General Ken Paxton, an act that further fueled skepticism about his conservative credentials. Burrows’ low rankings on conservative scorecards—73rd out of 86 Republicans in the Rice University rankings and a failing 48% grade from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility—underscore his tenuous relationship with the party’s grassroots base.

Grassroots Outrage and Calls to Action

The grassroots backlash to Burrows’ actions has been swift and fierce. Conservative activists argue that Burrows’ alliance with Democrats undermines the integrity of the Republican platform and disregards the will of GOP voters. They have mobilized to pressure representatives to support Cook on the House floor when the legislature convenes on January 14, 2025.

In an email to supporters, Rep. Andy Hopper detailed the events of the caucus meeting and urged constituents to hold their representatives accountable. Hopper emphasized that the caucus rules and the RPT platform explicitly require Republicans to unify behind the caucus nominee, particularly when that nominee is committed to advancing a conservative agenda.

A Pivotal Moment for Texas Republicans

The battle over the Speaker of the House has become a litmus test for the Republican Party’s commitment to conservative principles in Texas. Historically, Democrats have been granted significant influence in the state legislature, including committee chairmanships, despite their minority status. Cook’s victory in the caucus reflects a growing determination among Republicans to end this practice and ensure that legislative leadership reflects the will of the majority.

However, Burrows’ defection threatens to derail these efforts. By seeking Democratic support, he risks fracturing the party and empowering the opposition. The stakes are high: if Burrows and his coalition succeed, it could signal a return to the bipartisan power-sharing arrangements that have long frustrated conservatives.

Conclusion

The January 14 session will be a defining moment for the Texas House of Representatives and the Republican Party. Will Republicans rally behind their caucus nominee and seize the opportunity to implement meaningful reforms, or will divisions within the party allow Democrats to dictate the agenda once again?

As grassroots conservatives mobilize to demand accountability, all eyes will be on the Capitol. For Rep. Burrows and his supporters, the path forward may come with significant political consequences. For the Republican Party, this is a battle for its soul.

Here is the complete list of key representatives in the Texas House Speaker race, categorized by their positions on reform:

(List provided by Grassroots America. https://grassrootspriorities.com/phelan.php)

Opinion – Today is no ordinary election day; it’s a watershed moment, a last-ditch effort to reclaim the foundations of liberty in a country slipping rapidly toward authoritarianism. The vote you cast today may be the most consequential act of civic duty in your lifetime—a choice that could spell the difference between restoring our constitutional republic or watching its final decay. A vote for Donald Trump represents more than a candidate; it is a vote to preserve the freedoms and self-governance that generations have fought to safeguard. Without a decisive, overwhelming turnout that leaves no room for doubt or manipulation, we may be watching the end of the great American experiment.

For years now, a deep-seated erosion has taken hold in our institutions, our values, and even our communities. Government, once an instrument of the people, has been infiltrated by forces at odds with liberty and self-determination. This infiltration stretches from local school boards to federal agencies, with unelected bureaucrats and activist judges deciding what is best for the people, often ignoring the people’s will entirely. The outcome of this election will determine whether we, the American citizens, can assert ourselves against this encroaching authoritarianism, or whether we’re content to passively accept our descent into one-party rule.

The Stakes Could Not Be Higher

Let’s be clear about the stakes. If Kamala Harris were to ascend to the presidency, either through election or through a manufactured disqualification of Trump, it would signal the formal end of the two-party system. With 20 million illegal aliens on a path to citizenship—and therefore to voting—our electoral balance would be irreversibly skewed. In every state, their votes would drown out those of lawful citizens, effectively dismantling the prospect of a Republican president for generations. A one-party system, historically, is the path to poverty and oppression. The policies pursued by today’s Democratic leadership already show signs of those authoritarian leanings: centralization of power, stifling of dissent, and an alliance with a compliant media eager to silence the opposition.

Imagine a nation where the people’s choice no longer holds sway, where elections resemble those of one-party regimes, a mere show to legitimate those already chosen by the elite. A Harris administration would solidify a monopoly on power that would cripple our middle class, reduce our freedoms, and enforce an ever-growing dependency on government. We have seen such examples in every authoritarian regime throughout history: a downward spiral that relegates the majority to mere subsistence, while the elites grow ever more powerful. This is not hyperbole; this is the blueprint Democrats themselves have revealed through their policies, which elevate government authority over personal liberty.

And if they win, they won’t pretend to listen to the people any longer. Our Republic will become, in effect, an oligarchy, veiled in the trappings of democracy but devoid of its essence. This is what we face.

An Urgent Plea to American Patriots

This election must be too big to rig. Every American with even a passing sense of patriotism must turn out and vote—not just for Trump but for the very survival of our democratic processes. Our votes must overwhelm any margin of error, fraud, or manipulation. The Left has proven itself adept at working every lever within its reach to secure its desired outcomes, from ballot harvesting and mail-in voting to courtroom battles waged by teams of highly-paid lawyers who ensure that laws tilt their way. This is no time for complacency or hesitation; if we don’t assert ourselves now, the window will close, perhaps forever.

The Left’s Agenda is Already in Motion

If Trump wins, we should expect the Democrat machine to mobilize its forces against him once again. Their commitment to opposing him goes far beyond ideological difference; it is visceral, almost pathological. “Trump Derangement Syndrome” isn’t merely a phrase; it is the lens through which the Left has viewed him from day one. They don’t see him as merely a president or a politician—they see him as a threat to their power, and as such, they will deploy every available means to dismantle his administration and nullify the people’s choice.

Plans are already being made to ensure that Trump either cannot take office or, if he does, that his power will be so restricted he will be unable to enact any meaningful change. Impeachment efforts, relentless media attacks, judicial blockades—these tools have been utilized in the past and will be refined and unleashed again, with greater ferocity and purpose. The question is not whether the Left will resist Trump; it’s how far they’re willing to go, and if history is any indicator, they are willing to go all the way—even if it means tearing down the very institutions they claim to protect.

What We Stand to Lose

Our Constitution was crafted not just as a governing document, but as a safeguard against tyranny. But the Constitution is only as strong as the people’s will to uphold it. For too long, we’ve watched as unelected officials interpret, redefine, and often disregard it to fit the narratives of those in power. This election offers us a chance to reaffirm our commitment to self-governance. But if we fail to turn out in force, if we allow fraud and manipulation to taint the outcome, we will have lost the last true mechanism for resistance.

The cost of failure is unfathomable. A future without a middle class, a future where government dictates every aspect of life, a future in which dissent is crushed and replaced with Orwellian newspeak—the loss of American freedom would resonate globally. We cannot afford to assume that someone else will secure this future for us; the responsibility rests on each of us.

The Republic’s Last Stand

There will be no do-overs, no second chances, no reset button. This election is our moment to choose: to either reclaim our nation from the grips of radical ideologues or to watch its transformation into a state we no longer recognize. Freedom, once lost, is rarely regained without extraordinary sacrifice. But here and now, with a vote, we have the power to resist—to assert the founding principles of our Republic, to demand accountability, and to preserve the precious liberties that countless Americans have died defending.

So let this be your rallying cry, your mission, your civic duty: vote for Donald Trump, for freedom, for the Constitution, and for the America we know and love. Because if we lose today, we may never get another chance.

As Vice President Kamala Harris steps into the 2024 presidential race as the Democratic nominee, her record as California’s top prosecutor has once again come under intense scrutiny. The very policies she once enforced, sending nearly 2,000 individuals (mostly black men) to state prisons on marijuana-related charges, starkly contrast with her current position advocating for marijuana legalization. This glaring inconsistency has raised questions about the sincerity of her political evolution and the implications it holds for her potential presidency.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

During her tenure as California’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2016, Kamala Harris oversaw the prosecution of 1,974 individuals for marijuana-related offenses, according to a report by the Washington Free Beacon. These prosecutions were part of a broader enforcement strategy that disproportionately affected minority communities, a reality that Harris herself has acknowledged in more recent years. Yet, despite this acknowledgment, the disconnect between her actions as a prosecutor and her rhetoric as a politician cannot be ignored.

Harris has since positioned herself as a champion of criminal justice reform, aligning with President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign promises to end incarceration for drug use and decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. This pivot, however, raises questions about whether her newfound stance is a genuine change of heart or a calculated move to align with the progressive wing of her party.

A History of Harsh Enforcement

Kamala Harris’s record as Attorney General extends beyond marijuana prosecutions. She also defended controversial cases, such as that of prosecutor Robert Murray, who falsified a confession in a 2015 case. Despite the dismissal of the indictment due to this falsification, Harris’s administration appealed the decision, arguing that only physical brutality could justify such a dismissal. This decision was widely criticized, highlighting a troubling aspect of her prosecutorial approach: a steadfast defense of convictions, even when they were tainted by misconduct.

Moreover, while Harris did mandate body cameras for officers working directly with her office, this policy did not extend to all law enforcement officers across the state. This selective application of accountability measures further underscores the inconsistencies in her approach to criminal justice.

The Hypocrisy of Marijuana Prosecutions

The most glaring contradiction in Kamala Harris’s record lies in her personal history with marijuana. In a 2019 interview, she openly admitted to having smoked marijuana in her youth, even laughing about it. This admission, juxtaposed against her role in incarcerating nearly 2,000 people for similar behavior, has not gone unnoticed.

During the 2019 Democratic primary debates, Harris was confronted by then-Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who accused her of hypocrisy. “She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana,” Gabbard stated, referencing Harris’s own admission. The exchange was a pivotal moment in the debate, bringing Harris’s prosecutorial record into the spotlight and raising doubts about her commitment to the principles she now espouses.

Harris’s response to the accusation was dismissive, framing the criticism as mere political attacks. “This is the work I’ve done. Am I going to take hits? Of course,” she said. Yet, this response failed to address the core issue: the discrepancy between her past actions and current positions.

The Impact on Minority Communities

The war on drugs, particularly marijuana enforcement, has long been criticized for its disproportionate impact on minority communities. Harris’s record as Attorney General is no exception. The nearly 2,000 marijuana-related incarcerations under her watch were part of a broader pattern of punitive measures that disproportionately targeted African American and Latino communities.

Harris has since acknowledged these disparities, noting that Black Americans are four times more likely than white Americans to be arrested for marijuana possession. However, acknowledging the problem does not erase the impact of her past actions. The individuals who were incarcerated under her watch, many of whom were likely to be young men of color, have had their lives irrevocably altered by the criminal justice system. For these individuals and their families, Harris’s shift in position may seem too little, too late.

A Convenient Evolution?

As Harris positions herself as a progressive leader in the fight for criminal justice reform, it is essential to question the sincerity of this evolution. Her record suggests that her commitment to reform may be more about political expediency than genuine conviction. After all, her shift on marijuana policy only emerged as the political winds changed, particularly as she sought the Democratic nomination in 2020 and now, the presidency in 2024.

Erik Altieri, the Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), described Harris’s stance on marijuana as “problematic,” arguing that her views on the drug would not qualify as progressive. Indeed, while Harris now champions marijuana legalization, her past actions tell a different story—one of a prosecutor who vigorously enforced laws that disproportionately harmed the very communities she now claims to protect.

The Political Ramifications

As the Democratic nominee for president, Kamala Harris faces a significant challenge in reconciling her past with her present. While she has successfully navigated criticism thus far, her record as California’s Attorney General remains a potent issue that could alienate key voter demographics, particularly young voters and minority communities who are increasingly supportive of marijuana legalization and broader criminal justice reform.

Donald Trump and his campaign will likely seize upon this vulnerability, painting Harris as a hypocrite who cannot be trusted to lead on issues of justice and equality. For voters who are disillusioned with the political establishment, Harris’s perceived inconsistency may reinforce their skepticism about her candidacy.

As Harris campaigns for the highest office in the land, these contradictions will undoubtedly continue to be a focal point of discussion. Whether voters will ultimately see her evolution as a sign of growth or a matter of political convenience remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Kamala Harris’s past will be a central issue in the 2024 presidential race, and the American people deserve a clear and honest accounting of her record before they cast their votes.