Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Ruling And The Texas Response

The Supreme Court just handed down a birthright citizenship ruling that, in our view, changes the stakes of the immigration debate overnight. We start by unpacking why the Court struck down President Trump’s executive order and why the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” matters so much to the definition of American citizenship. We also walk through the real-world pressure points critics point to: birth tourism, “anchor babies,” and the idea that citizenship becomes a legal accident instead of a guarded civic status tied to loyalty and allegiance.

From there we pivot to Texas election security and a rare piece of good news for election integrity: the Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to Texas’ ban on paid vote harvesting, leaving the Fifth Circuit decision in place. We explain how ballot harvesting creates risk for coercion and fraud, then ask a harder question that hangs over both stories: what does it even mean to protect elections if the electorate can be expanded by exploiting the border and the law?

We also cover a UTMB Equal Pay Act lawsuit, then bring on Texas Scorecard reporter Travis Morgan to break down the Texas Supreme Court injunction blocking Harris County’s $1.3 million plan to fund legal defense for illegal immigrants. We close with Ken Paxton’s egg price-fixing settlement and a blunt conversation about capitalism, antitrust, and why “no regulation ever” isn’t a serious answer, plus a look at West Texas grid reliability and the wind and solar dependence driving major transmission line fights.

************************************************
Listen every day to our strong conservative programs on Patriot Talk 920 AM.  Tune-in on your radio in Houston to KYST 920 AM or download our app by visiting 920app.com or search for "Patriot Talk 920" from your app store!

Transcript

Text-In And Two Supreme Court Calls

SPEAKER_15 0:32

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and you're listening to the Lone Star Conservative here on Patriot Talk 920, and we are going to kick it off this morning with a text in, because we got a text in at 9.30 last night. You guys probably heard about the landmark decision that did not go in our favor, and maybe the one that did. But we'll we'll start off with the text in and then we'll move to the story itself and work that into some commentary that I have that I've been thinking about for really a lot of yesterday and this morning. This text in says, uh, and it's a it's a screenshot of a Facebook post, but it says the Supreme Court rules in favor of mail-in ballots and birthright citizenship and against men competing in women's sports. The former decision destroys the country, the latter does not yippee. Yeah, they made they made a good decision and a very, very, very poor decision. And I would actually prefer to see these switch. And it's kind of it's kind of odd because I don't want them switched. And I'm not saying that I want boys and girls' sports or men and women's sports, but in terms of the future of the country, it would have been easier to get past having men and women's sports and return to normalcy than what the other ruling ultimately did with birthright citizenship. This, this and I've said this a long time, you know, we have a lot of issues in America, and I understand that, and they're all important, and they're all worthy of addressing. I try to address as many as I can on a daily basis. But as I always try to highlight, the fundamental reality is that there are some that will have quick acting, massive ramifications on the future of our country. And immigration is one of those things that if we don't start having conversations and start reaching policy decisions as to how we're going to deal with immigration and the immigration crisis, then we're going to lose our country. You're letting the invaders in the gates and you're letting yourself be replaced by foreigners. That's that's happening. And so, yes, everything else can still be super immoral. Transgenderism. Do I want to reverse gay marriage? O'Burgefeld, absolutely. Right? Do I want to have conversations about no fault divorce? For sure. I think no-fault divorce has been one of the main contributors of youth problems there is. When you talk about fatherlessness, a lot of that is due to no fault divorce. Um, dealing with questions about birth control and which ones are uh, you know, act more as a uh as an abortiface is very important, especially because of what birth control has done to the country. When you look around and you see, again, the fatherlessness epidemic and how that's because people are on quote unquote birth control, so so-called, um, and get pregnant anyway. And then the guys nowhere to be found. Happens all the time. These are real issues that are very important to talk about, that are very important to address, that are very important to fix. But unfortunately, most of them are gonna become rather irrelevant. Those are the conversations you have to fix what's going on in your house. If your house is being bulldozed, those things kind of, I don't want to say lose their urgency, uh, but they'll be the least of our problems in 50 years or less. They're already getting to be. Immigration is the most pressing issue from a philosophical perspective and a physical one. Not only what it's doing to us, but what it tells us about ourselves. Because what it's doing to us, of course, is overwhelming us and it is replacing us. And I don't want to say that the great replacement theory is just a racist piece of hogwash, but it's not. It's happening. And the philosophical ramifications of that are that we don't know what it means to be an American. If if you can just come and be born here and boom, you're as American as as somebody who's been here since the Revolutionary War, then we don't have any standard for what an American is. You just get a piece of paper, boom, you're American. That's not what it means to be an American. There used to be standards. And by the way, it used to be understood that even when you came here and you got your papers and you got to be a citizen of the country, that they understood that it was gonna take generations for real assimilation to occur. It was going to be generational. That it was gonna be your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren who would actually be American, who would assimilate in. And that was assuming that you you got married here or that your kids got married to other Americans who had been in America, that you weren't forming these enclaves of people who were just marrying each other and growing your community inside America as its own sort of people. That doesn't work. And that's what's happening. We are being replaced. It's it that that's that's the simple reality of it. And you can call that whatever you want. You can say that's a racist claim. Then I guess I'm a racist because it's what's hap- it's the physical observation I'm making of our country. If if physical observations of truth are all of a sudden racist, then the word has no meaning and it's just a word

Birthright Citizenship And National Identity

SPEAKER_15 5:40

that I don't care about at all because that's what we're watching happen. But I don't want to get too far ahead of myself. I actually want to talk a little about what happened, uh, what some people are saying about it, and then get into my full commentary on the issue. Well, we'll kick it off kind of talking about what happened. Um, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order directing federal agencies not to recognize birthright citizenship for certain children born in the U.S. if their parents did not meet specific status requirements. The order uh that Trump put in, which was entitled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, was one of the executive orders that Trump signed during his inauguration back in January of 2025. The order proclaimed that U.S. citizenship would not automatically extend to a child born in the country when the child's parents were not citizens or lawfully present at the time of birth, or were only on the U.S., in the U.S. on a temporary visa. And so Trump's order stated the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States, which is true, by the way, continued the Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States, but not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, not citizens of the country. Chief Justice John Roberts, in the majority opinion, disagreed, writing that these children are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. And you guys know that I have talked extensively about the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and have gone over the various problems that have come out. You want to talk about, you know, there's other issues like gay marriage. Yeah, gay marriage, all of the civil rights nonsense, the DEI, all of it has been justified on the back of the Fourteenth Amendment. All of it. The Fourteenth Amendment is is one of the worst, if not the worst, amendment we ever ratified. And it was because it was forced on us by a totalitarian regime after the Civil War. Nevertheless, Trump's negative order was attempting to combat the proliferation of birth tourism, which, if you don't know, that's where women who are about to give birth, who are very pregnant, come to the U.S. in order for their child to receive citizenship. They'll come here just before birth, they'll get in either on a temporary visa or they'll get in illegally, whatever the case may be. Boom, child's born. And they often are called anchor babies because a lot of times they keep the parents here. It's a whole mess. Chinese nationals have prominently undertaken this practice. Uh, we know there was somebody, I don't remember if it was Dallas or Austin or where it was, just recently uh that was discovered to have been bringing people over for that specific purpose, that people were paying for that sort of thing. And so Representative Brandon Gill said the idea that citizens from our number one geopolitical adversary should come into the U.S. for the purpose of having babies who can then later vote in American elections is hard to fathom. Not only that, but what's happening from China specifically, and it's it's a problem wherever it's coming from, but with China, it's even a greater national security threat because China is sending these women over here, their kids are being born, and then they're bringing the kids and the mothers back to China, raising the children under Chinese rule of law, Chinese communistic belief, belief in the loyalty to their home country, which is China, and then when they get older, they send them back here. Those kids have U.S. citizenship, they can vote, but they're basically agents of China. That is happening. And so Justice Clarence Thomas issued a scathing 91-page dissent to the majority opinion. He said the court has repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text. Today the court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for children of all foreign-born tourists and illegal aliens. I am not sure that today's opinion will stand the test of time. The citizenship clause added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship. Today's opinion devalues that citizenship. Pat Fallon also shared a post agreeing with Thomas's dissent. Uh, representative out of Frisco. He said SCOTUS has delivered many rulings recently that have correctly reaffirmed the intent of our Constitution. But I do not agree with the majority opinion today on the question of birthright citizenship. You also had Chip Roy. He said the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice J uh Chief Justice Roberts, failed the American people, the Constitution, and the rule of law today, not to mention the national security of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in no way stands for the proposition of creating a dangerous cottage industry, of traveling to our soil to manufacture United States citizenship. That's insane. The Supreme Court today should have said so explicitly and ended this damaging exploitation of our laws. He continued, Congress must act immediately and must not hide behind the fiction that it must amend the Constitution to fix this abuse of our laws. To do otherwise would be an abject failure of the United States Congress. Governor Greg Abbott also called on Congress to act, writing, quote, Congress must clarify that American citizenship means something and does not extend automatically to children whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily. The American people and the sovereignty of our nation deserve nothing less. Bo French, who is the Republican nominee for the Texas Railroad Commission, who will be up for election in November, said that Texas can just do things and we should. Texas is sovereign. If I have anything to say about it, Texas will not recognize them as citizens, which is just excellent. We got to go back to a little bit of sovereignty and a little bit more of the Andrew Jackson mentality, uh, which I'll highlight as saying, you and what army? That yes, I understand checks and balances exist, uh, but those things only exist in a country. And if we throw our country away and we say, well, checks and balances, as our country fades into nothingness, then that's not actually moral at all. It reminds you even more of Thomas Jefferson, who would argue that the law is not the highest good, that it is a good, but it is not the highest one. And if the law contradicts what needs to happen, contradicts what is moral and good, then we actually have an obligation to stand against it. This this is one of those cases. Um and so they've argued that states, not the federal government, are responsible for issuing birth certificates. Texas and other Republican-led states could attempt to challenge the Supreme Court ruling by refusing to issue birth certificates. And they should, by the way, and say, you and what army? Are you are you gonna do this is the kind of thing, I don't want to say that's worthy of a civil war, but it's certainly worthy of something. It is worthy of saying, you know what? No, this is this is not going to function. This is not going to fly with the state of Texas. Nevertheless, it's not just a defeat, by the way, for President Trump and his executive order. Uh, it is a defeat for the very idea that American citizenship is a guarded inheritance rather than some cheap legal accident. It it come and this is where I mentioned it's not just the physical problems that come as a result of illegal citizenship. It's also the philosophical ramifications of what we believe about ourselves. We are treating citizenship like it's just a golden ticket that anybody can get. And boom, you made it, you're an American. Which is just such a low standard. It cheapens what it means to be an American at all. Uh the court held that children born in the U.S. to parents here unlawfully or temporarily are just naturally subject to this jurisdiction here, um, and therefore are citizens. But the question that we should be asking the court, that we should be asking ourselves, that we should be asking our state leadership, is does that interpretation protect Americans? Or does it turn citizenship into something that can just be manufactured by the exploitation of our laws, by the geography of where you're at? Because this is not some abstract law school level debate, right? This is actually very real. This is about whether the United States has the sovereignty to say that citizenship belongs to a people, to a nation, to an already existent civilization, to any level of constitutional order, or whether it just automatically belongs to anyone whose parents can make it across the border and overstay their visa or fly in just at the right moment for tourism. Uh just as Clarence Thomas' dissent gets directly at the heart of that problem, right? By arguing the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to constitutionalize citizenship for children of

Birth Tourism And The 14th Amendment

SPEAKER_15 13:50

foreign-born tourists. He pointed to reconstruction era debates and legal authorities suggesting that subject to the jurisdiction meant something fuller than simply being physically present and punishable under American law. Right? Uh, because again, the majority opinion here actually creates an incentive structure for illegals. It actually makes it justifiable to try to get here. You break our immigration laws, you exploit our territory, you give birth here, and suddenly your child receives one of the most powerful political statuses in the world, which is American citizenship. That child grows up with the right to vote, sponsor family members, participate in the political destiny of our country. A country, by the way, that their parents had no lawful or permanent allegiance to when they arrived, probably no allegiance to in general. A serious country, which we are not with this ruling, you can't treat being an American and being a citizen of this country as some sort of loophole. We can't allow what should be our most pre our our most precious civic status that you can just generate through invasion. We must be able to distinguish between the children of citizens and lawful permanent members of the community and children of those who entered or remained here without permission. That should be a very clear standard that we can set. And the court could have said that. The court could have recognized uh that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means more than being subject to arrest or prosecution or taxation, right? Foreign tourists are subject to our traffic laws, illegal aliens are still subject to our criminal laws. If they get, you know, pulled over for drunk driving, they will be prosecuted. Diplomats are, of course, subject to some practical limits while they're here, but nobody believes that just being exposed to legal pressure automatically means or is identical to being allegiant to the country. Nobody thinks that. Subject that are to subject to the jurisdiction thereof never just meant that, well, our laws would apply to you. It meant much more than that. And so that's that's I think the distinction that the majority just completely blurred. Uh, it treated territorial presence, your existence here, as the decisive fact. And by doing that, they have elevated the modern immigration loophole into a command of our constitution that the constitution demands that we allow every person who makes it here to stay. Right? It didn't just reject Trump's order, right? It fortified the system that made that issue a problem in the first place. It constitutionalized it. Right? And as I've said before, the danger here is that immigration policy is, I know they want to make it all about compassion and this and that, uh, but it's actually a lot about sovereignty and what it means to be a nation. It is about whether a nation has the right to choose who joins its people. It is about whether citizenship means blood, loyalty, law, and allegiance, or whether it just means your parents happen to be standing on American soil when you were born. And those are very different things. Right? The majority says the Constitution requires this result. Uh, the dissent actually looks at the history, the text itself, and the original meaning. And Congress, by the way, should not treat this like the end of the fight. At minimum, lawmakers should force the issue with legislation defending the citizenship statute as narrowly as the Constitution would let them, ending birth tourism, cracking down on visa abuse, right? All the things that are happening in our country right now. And that I think the deeper point I want to be very clear about a nation that cannot control the creation of its own citizens is not actually sovereign. That's why when you when you are required by your own law to let people stay and you have no choice in the matter, you're you're no longer a sovereign nation. Your laws have become more important than your good. And it's backwards. It's entirely backwards. The purpose of law is to serve the good, right? It's to highlight what is good so we can know. When the law becomes a violation of the good, when the law becomes a violation of the American people, and when the law purports to be something that that jeopardizes your country's future and your prosperity and your posterity, when it does that, it's not good. And by extension, it can't be a law that's allowed to stand, right? Whether that means that uh, you know, Trump comes out and says, Well, yeah, I'm gonna do it anyway, and you can feel free to try to stop me, right? And that looks like a full, full-scale rebellion. Whether that looks like the states doing so, saying, hey, we're the ones that issue birth certificates and we're not going to issue them, we're not going to do it, we're not going to give them citizenship, we refuse. Whether that comes uh with with a fight for the convention of states again, right? Saying, actually the states are the ones uh that have to that have to do this. The states are the ones that have to end this practice, that we don't even need an uh that if you're going to actually change the constitution, which would be good, I think it'd be great to just amend and and revoke the 14th Amendment generally, that there was a very limited use for the 14th Amendment that could have been viewed as positive. Very limited, by the way. Because you have to remember the original intent of the 14th Amendment. You look at the history of the text, what was it for? Does anybody does anybody know what the 14th Amendment was supposed to argued? It was argued that it was for? Well, it was for the freed slaves after the Civil War. It was that they could stack, that they could retain citizenship, having been here for likely generations, having been brought over a hundred years prior. It was designed so that they were granted citizenship by nature of having been here, even though they weren't viewed as human beings under the law, right? They were viewed as human beings by most people, but under the law they weren't. And we wanted to make sure the Constitution was clear that they were, that they were viewed as citizens automatically. What we never expected to happen as a country was to allow the mass importation of crazy people who would then give birth to people on this soil, and boom, citizens. It is a complete rewrite of the 14th Amendment, but it's because the 14th Amendment is unclear. It was a bad amendment from the start. One that has allowed for the civil rights movement to go way out of whack and approach something that it was never intended to be. It has allowed civil rights to include people not even by who who are different by birth, uh, but people who are per participating in random sexual fetishes. That somehow the transgender community and the gay community, the only people are are worthy of civil rights to the same degree. And that civil rights must include uh almost the worship of these people. Oh, yeah. The Fourteenth Amendment means that they have this, it's equal protection under the law. Well, I guess that that means two men can get married. We'll redefine what marriage is because they should have equal rights. It's been completely thrown under the bus. It's been completely reworked to mean something that nobody ever intended it to be, and it's violated the very statutes of our country that founded this country in the first place. The very, the very principles of Christian ethics that made this country great in the first place, we've used the Constitution to devalue that methodology, to devalue what our country is. And I said countless times, and for good reason, that immigration is one of, if not the biggest pressing issue we have right now. Because everything else, we can take time and we can fight against and we can push back on. But unlike a lot of the other policies that are destructive over the long term if we don't fight them, immigration can be one of those that is destructive now. If we allow this sort of policy uh to continue, if we allow this sort of policy to be the the the showrunner of our country and to decide who gets to come here, who gets to stay here, who gets to be a part of this country and participate in its elections, who gets to be an American, if we just cheapen that and throw it away and say it doesn't really matter, anybody can. If if that's the standard of our constitution, then we've already thrown our country away. It means nothing to be an American anymore. That's that's what this ruling says. And so I reject it. I think that everybody should reject it. I think that the federal government should reject it. I think the state should reject it. I think Congress should reject it. I think everybody should, in whatever way that looks like for each individual branch of government. But if we don't, Do that. If we just abide by it and say, well, it is what it is. The Supreme Court said it. So it just, I guess it just goes. And we do nothing to combat it. This will be the end of our country. We won't have one anymore. America did not just exist because we had the land uh from Texas out to California, out to the Carolinas, up to the Montana. It that's not what made America great, was the land that we had. The Louisiana Purchase didn't all of a sudden make America great. America was great because of the men that founded it, fought for it, and their posterity, the heritage of this country, the history of this country. And if you cheapen that by letting anybody come here and anybody stay here, and you can just exploit legal loopholes in order to do so, then then Americanism means nothing. It really, it really loses any sense of meaning at all. Anyone is an American. In fact, really, nation globally, everyone is an American that just hasn't made it here yet. Everybody's a potential American. And that's not the way the founders looked at our country. That's not the way that any serious person has ever looked at any country, right? Wherever you were. If you were a Roman or if you were a uh if you were a Grecian, right? Whatever you were, if you were a Greek, it it didn't matter. Everybody at least had a certain understanding that that was their country, that it was for their people. And that that didn't mean that nobody could ever come in, right? That wasn't the standard, but that you had a a definition of what that meant. And that assimilation was a small, long-term goal. Right? That it wasn't just somebody came over, boom, they're a Roman. No, it was gonna be generations before they were a Roman. It was gonna be generations before they were a Greek, it's gonna be generations before they were an American. That maybe one day their family could assimilate in years and years down the line. This rewrites everything history has ever said about what it means to be a part of your country. It rewrites all of it. And they'd already done that, they've been doing it for years, but this solidifies it as a constitutional victory for the destruction of our nation. And that's not a small little issue. That's it's not a simple little thing. And so this is gonna require um in this particular case, this is we talked yesterday about what it meant to be a hill to die on. This is one of those. This is certainly one of those, where we say no. Where we follow the advice of Bo French, say as long as it is in our power as the sovereign state of Texas, we will not be issuing birth certificates to these

Why States Might Push Back

SPEAKER_15 24:20

people. They won't be getting them. We refuse. With that being said, we get back from the break. Speaking of rulings and decisions, we have one decision that's not really a decision, it's just the Supreme Court refusing, declining to talk about something. And in this case, they are actively declining to hear a challenge to the election, Texas election security law. Uh, the Fifth Circuit decision upholding Texas' vote harvesting law remains in place. We'll talk about what that law is, what that means, why the court declined to hear it, all of that when we get back from the break. If you would like to text into the show and let us know your thoughts on anything that we're covering, or by the way, anything that we're not, if you want to hear something that I've not covered on the show that you want to hear more about, uh something that you read, saw, that you want to hear me talk about, feel free to text in. The number is 713-779-5978. One more time. That is 713-779 KYST. You're listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and Lord willing, I'll be right back with the rest of that story after this break. So stick around and we'll talk soon.

SPEAKER_11 25:30

Patriot Talk 920 is your Houston base camp for the America first movement. I'm Todd Stearns, and join me weekdays at 11 on Patriot Talk 920 and online at PatriotTalk920.com.

SPEAKER_05 25:45

Hi, I'm Craig Klein, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. I started SalesNexus to help sales teams like yours close deals faster and more efficiently. Our all-in-one CRM and marketing automation platform streamlines your sales process. With Sales Nexus, you can manage leads, automate email and text campaigns, and gain clear insights into your sales pipeline. Visit SalesNexus.com. That's salesnexus.com to start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_21 26:15

Need to make a big impression? At Bullshirts, we've been Houston's go-to for custom screen printing, embroidery, and promo items for over 40 years. Want tees, polos, hats, or giveaways that fit your brand and your budget? We've got you covered. Stop by our showroom at 5485 West Sand Houston Parkway North or call 713-983-8080. Bullshirts, the trusted printer of Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_03 26:46

Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range is the perfect place to hold your next company retreat. Team building, family gathering, birthday, bachelor, or bachelorette party. If you don't have your own gun, don't worry, we've got you covered. You can rent one of our various guns. We have everything from full auto World War II relics to modern day pistols. Our trained staff and certified instructors will make your occasion safe and memorable. Go to AegisArms.com. That is agisarms.com.

SPEAKER_15 27:15

Hey y'all, this is the Lone Star Conservative Michael Wilson, and I want to tell you about my friends at Telgee Roofing. What might seem like a simple water leak in your house could be a sign of roof damage. Our friends at Telgee Roofing help homeowners uncover those problems before they get worse. Their experts provide free roof inspections, and if they find a problem, they will help you with your insurance claim as well. Don't wait for the next storm. Call Telgee Roofing today at 281-290-0606 for your free, no obligation inspection.

SPEAKER_08 27:44

Here's Jim Dotton, host of Texas Home Improvement and owner of Dew West Foundation Repair.

SPEAKER_17 27:50

It's no secret, this year has brought us a lot of rain. And that means your foundation is about as good as it's gonna get. So if you're still noticing cracks in your walls and doors that are sticking, call us today so we can help correct the problem before it gets out of hand and more expensive. Call the best. Call Dew West Foundation Repair 713-473-7156 online at du-west.com.

SPEAKER_07 28:15

Texellent AC service isn't your average HVAC company. We're high performance comfort engineers. We don't guess, we test. We design full system solutions for airflow, humidity, and air quality issues that others overlook. Whether it's one hot room, high bills, or Houston humidity, we deliver real comfort. Call 281-402-5100. Texellent AC service, where custom air service is our specialty.

SPEAKER_06 28:44

Try your course for excellence at Houston Christian University. You will find professors who challenge you and help you discover your unique calling. Explore diverse degree programs and connect with industry leaders. Whether you hope to be an entrepreneur, teacher, or engineer, HCU equips you to pursue your passion for his purpose. Invest in your future. Your journey starts at hc.edu. That's hc.edu.

SPEAKER_01 29:15

Have you thought about buying a gun or even carrying a gun? But you don't know if that's smart or where to start. I can help. I'm Tom Gresham, host of Gun Talk. Call in Sundays between 1 and 4, right here on Houston's Leader for Gun Owners, Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_15 29:52

I am going on the Newsmax National Show this morning. I believe it's at 1035 a.m. I'm going on Central Time. I think they give it to me in Central or Eastern. It's at 10:35 Central. So I'll be on at about 10:30 this morning on the main Newsmax programming. I think I'm going on with a guy, he's a Democrat named Grant Stern, and we're gonna be talking about Bom Donnie, we're gonna talk about Rosie O'Donnell, hypocrisy of the left, socialistic tendencies, all those sorts of things uh on the Newsmax national show this morning. Again, you can just tune in Newsmax uh at 1030 and I'll be on there if you wanna if you want to check it out. In

Texas Vote Harvesting Ban Stands

SPEAKER_15 30:30

the meantime, let's talk about this this I would say SCOTIS ruling, but actually lack of a ruling. Uh the U.S. Supreme Court declined to disturb the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a sweeping Texas election security law banning paid vote harvesting. Senate Bill 1, which was passed back in 2021, so it's five years old, aimed to extensively reform election security and eliminate paid vote harvesting with increased criminal penalties for offenses. Vote harvesting, again, for those who may be unaware, it's sort of where they they collect and then return completed ballots, uh, which has and can be used as a cover for voter fraud and voter coercion. If you're the one that's going out saying, hey, just sign this thing and we'll get it taken care of, there's a lot of openness for fraud in that case. Paid harvesters are often intent on delivering results for a specific candidate or measure. The legislation followed months of contentious debate, including a walkout by Democrat lawmakers who attempted to prevent a vote on the bill. After its passage, multiple left-wing plaintiffs, including La Union del Pueblo Entero, which sounds super American, by the way, and the League of Women Voters of Texas, which is as funny as it sounds, sued Texas officials, claiming the law was vague and infringed on First Amendment rights. Federal District Judge Xavier Rodriguez agreed to the plaintiffs, blocking enforcement right before the 2024 election and prohibiting investigations into potential vote harvesting schemes by Attorney General Ken Baxton's office. In other words, uh, I'm gonna make this happen and you don't get to you don't get to look at it. All right, this is gonna happen, and there could be fraud, but you you don't even get to investigate, is is sort of what happened. Paxton said he would immediately move to block this unacceptable ruling, and that a ruling weeks prior to an election preventing my office from investigating potential election violations is deeply troubling and risks undermining public trust in our political process. Paxton quickly secured a temporary stay, allowing the law to remain in effect while the case proceeded. So in February of this year, the Fifth Circuit reversed the lower course decision, concluding the law was in accordance with constitutional design that aspires to maintain free and secure elections. The judges also cited the Federalist papers, referencing, quote, the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried, and noted the plaintiffs for a group of organizations engaged in get out the vote efforts that could be construed as illegal vote harvesting. By declining to hear the appeal that those left-wing plaintiffs made, the Supreme Court has essentially let the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling stand, uh, which allows taxes to continue enforcing the security measure. In other words, you they will have they will have to that it ends there. That that that that by not hearing the arguments, they have heard them, right? If that makes sense. That they automatically agree with the Fifth Circuit's ruling, so there's no reason to even listen to the case. That they affirm the lower court's ruling, boom, we're good. And and so it it will never go before the Supreme Court unless there is some other argument made against it. Some other group sues and they can decide to hear it in ten years. But for now, that essentially is the equivalent of a US Supreme Court decision, insofar as that is what will happen in Texas. We will abide by the Fifth Circuit ruling, which means that we have now banned as of February, but it now been affirmed by the Supreme Court in a certain weird way, uh, that we now have the right, we have banned paid ballot harvesting, paid ballot harvesters, uh, which is incredibly important. If you guys think back to the mules and everything that was going on, um, it's a twofold issue, right? We understand that. On the one hand, there are automatic dangers of coercion, right? That is an automatic thing. If you're being paid to support a candidate, well, you're gonna push pretty hard to get them results. That's that's your income. And these people were doing that, right? We know they are. That that's that's not just a temptation, that's the incentive structure. You get what you incentivize. And what was incentivized by a lot of money backing these groups was to get certain people elected, right? That means that you're willing to play the game of coercion. You're willing to come in and and say and do things to people in order to get them to vote for your preferred candidate or your preferred measure sometimes. But it also is too faceted, right? On the one hand, you do have that coercion. You also have the obvious and potential fraud that can come from a mule-like scenario where you don't even know if those people actually ultimately ended up doing that vote. You that's why you have multiple votes from a single person, why dead people are voting, right? These sort of ballot harvesters will again do anything to get the results that they promised as part of their income package. And so you had widespread fraud. And that's why I always said fraud is not necessarily that just that, you know, when they're counting votes, that that the votes are illegal. It's it's also that the votes were done fraudulently in the first place. And they were mulled to certain locations. We know that happened. That that's been ruled on. We're aware that that was going on. That it is going on. And so Texas took a very important step back in 2021 to prevent that from happening further. The lower court said, no, you can't do that. And finally, five years later, the Fifth Circuit said, Yes, you can. You can do that, actually. That is in line with the constitutional rights of a state uh to preserve free and fair elections. And the US Supreme Court has essentially said, Yeah, we agree with that. That's good. That's fine. We don't need to waste our time with an with a ruling on it. So excellent news, right? Again. But let's be honest, how much does it matter that you don't have any sort of technical fraud in your elections if you're mass importing people who get to vote in them? Which is what they ruled on with birthright citizenship. I mean, these these arguments, again, are gonna become in in 10, 20, 50 years, are going to be meaningless. They are. Because it doesn't matter how free and fair your elections are if the people participating in them are not American, but are called American because the Supreme Court said they must be. None of the rest is gonna matter. It's gonna be it's gonna be irrelevant. Nevertheless, I'm really if you can't tell, I'm very upset about the birthright citizenship ruling and uh its consequences, and I I can't even talk about another decision that that would generally be a good celebratory moment because of how bad the other one was and how destructive it will be to our country if something is not done about it and done about it quickly. With that being said,

Why Election Security Still Feels Hollow

SPEAKER_15 36:20

when we get back, we're gonna talk about this uh this lawsuit, which is accusing the University of Texas medical branch of pay discrimination between men and women, especially between a man and a woman, which we'll talk about the gender pay gap and what they're alleging the Texas medical branch is the University of Texas Medical Branch is doing with this pay gap. When we get back, if you would like to text into the show, let us know your thoughts, uh, concerns, disagreements. That's 713-779-5978. That is 713-779-KYST. You're listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and Lord willing, I will return after this short break with the rest of the details from that lawsuit. So stick around. We'll talk soon.

SPEAKER_09 37:04

Hi, this is Harold Gunn, inviting you to join Bill Olson and me for Texas' longest running and most awarded outdoor show. Brought to you by Built Ford Tough Trucks, it's Texas Outdoor News. Join us Saturday mornings at 6 on Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_08 37:19

Here's Jim Dotton, host of Texas Home Improvement and owner of Dew West Foundation Repair.

SPEAKER_17 37:25

It's no secret, this year has brought us a lot of rain. And that means your foundation is about as good as it's gonna get. So if you're still noticing cracks in your walls and doors that are sticking, call us today so we can help correct the problem before it gets out of hand and more expensive. Call the best. Call Dew West Foundation Repair 713-473-7156 online at du-west.com.

SPEAKER_15 37:49

Telgee Roofing is a family-owned roofer you can trust. Since opening in 2009, Telgee Roofing has earned an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and is a proud member of the GAF Presidents Club with three-star gold status. Less than a hundred out of 250,000 roofing companies in America has this distinction. Telgee Roofing has hundreds of five-star Google reviews that speak to their quality and customer satisfaction. You can be sure that your home is in expert hands. Choose Telgee Roofing for proven excellence. Visit Telgeeroofing.com or call 281-290-0606 today.

SPEAKER_04 38:20

Hi, I'm Terry, founder of Texel and AC Service. We solve comfort and air quality issues for homes and businesses the right way by testing, not guessing. And using quality parts made here in the USA. Call 281-402-5100. That's 281-402-5100.

SPEAKER_03 38:37

Hey guys, it's Mike here, co-owner of Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range, located on 288 M Bellway 8. I wanted to personally invite you guys out to check out our firearms store. We have a huge collection of firearms you can purchase right there. Meet some of our certified instructors. They can do one-on-one classes. We can even get a group together and do classes with your group. And if you want to go down range, guess what? We can do that too. Just check us out at AegisArms.com. That's AGISARMS.com.

SPEAKER_13 39:06

Are pests creeping into your home? ProMax Pest Control is here to help. ProMax Pest Control tackles everything from roaches to rotents, keeping your home safe and pest free with fast, reliable service you can count on. Take back your space today. Call ProMax Pest Control at 832-283-0741 to schedule your service. That's 832-283-0741. ProMax Pest Control. Keeping pests out so you can rest easy.

SPEAKER_05 39:36

Craig Klein here, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. As a Christian business owner, I know that faith and business go hand in hand. That's why I built Sales Nexus to help fellow Christian business leaders and sales teams serve their clients with integrity and excellence. Our all-in-one CRM and marketing automation platform isn't just about growing your business, it's about stewarding the opportunities God has placed in your hands. Visit salesnexus.com and start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_12 40:07

My doctor won't take my plan anymore.

SPEAKER_18 40:10

Why is my Medicare supplement so expensive?

SPEAKER_16 40:13

My prescription drug plan sucks.

SPEAKER_00 40:16

When you need some help with Medicare, go to senior health services.com.

SPEAKER_02 40:24

In all seriousness, we know you're frustrated, but if you'll call 281-894-7540, we'll help you with your Medicare and we'll do it for free. Plus, we're not with the government and we are fully licensed to help.

SPEAKER_11 40:37

Patriot Talk920 is your Houston base camp for the America First Movement. I'm Todd Starns, and join me weekdays at 11 on Patriot Talk 920 and online at PatriotTalk920.com.

UTMB Equal Pay Lawsuit Skepticism

SPEAKER_15 41:23

In a lawsuit filed over the weekend in U.S. District Court, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the Galveston-based health center violated the Equal Pay Act. The agency is seeking back pay for the female employee and a court order requiring UTMB to establish policies to prevent future pay discrimination. Jeremy Crosby, the deputy director for the EEOC's Houston District, said that's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Quote, the EEOC remains fully committed to ensuring that sex is not factored into compensation. The Equal Pay Act ensures that employees receive equal pay for equal work, and we will enforce the statute. A spokesman for UTMB has not responded to any requests for comment. According to the lawsuit, UTMB paid Maria Alza significantly less than Henry Dominguez, while both employees worked as solutions architects between October of 2023 and January of 2026, when their roles were just done away with. Alza who was promoted into the role started a salary of $112,000, while Dominguez, an outside hire, started a salary of $125,000, about 10% higher than Alza's according to the lawsuit. Federal officials said that their responsibilities were essentially identical and that ALSA performed just as well as Dominguez in the role, which involved identifying improvements to internal software and programming applications. ALSA also had a belt held a bachelor's degree in computer information systems, which was listed as a requirement for the job, while Dominguez had no technology-related degree and had experience mainly in education. UTMB continued to pay Dominguez more than ALSA, even after ALSA completed a Master of Science degree in business analytics, a program that was similar to master's degree programs listed as preferred qualifications for the role. After ALSA raised concerns about the pay disparity, UTMB conducted a compensation review, but did not increase her salary. The federal agency filed suit after it was unable to reach a settlement out of court with UTMB, a pretrial conference for October 14th, so that's when the next part of this will kick in. But the fact that they didn't reach a settlement would would sort of highlight a little something. They've not responded to any media requests, so we don't know what their position is. But the fact that they wouldn't settle, despite what the federal government is painting to be a slam dunk case, maybe tells you it's not as slam dunk as you think it is. Let me give you an example of this. You're allowed to pay people in the same role different salaries. That's not something that you're prohibited from doing. And if you can prove that it's active discrimination based on sex, that's one thing. If you can prove that, that's very, very difficult to prove because most of the time that's actually not the case. Most of the time it's well, and here's part of what you know wherever they got him from, that may have been his salary demands when he was hired on. And the the the girl who's working here, well, she's been promoted inside the company. She may have said, Yeah, I just want to whatever the 10%, 20% raise is for the new position. We have no idea what those conversations were. The federal government doesn't have any clue what those conversations were. And so do automatically assume, and this is the problem again with the Civil Rights Movement, do automatically assume that there's this gender pay gap. And we've highlighted that before en masse, where they say, well, for every dollar a man makes, woman only makes whatever the 70-80 cent range is, or 90-something cents, whatever the number was for many, many years. As conservatives should have highlighted and continued to in some in some ways, that's not due to a difference in sexes in terms of, you know, just that it's a woman or just that it's a man, right? It's actually much greater than that. Women tend to work less hours, be more preoccupied with quote unquote work-life balance, less dedicated to their craft because they they have other things they'd rather be doing. That's not necessarily a negative on women, by the way. That's just how it is. And that's to be expected. From a conservative Christian position, that's that's obviously expected. You're not surprised by that at all. Women would much prefer to be home, um, to be raising children. God designed them to prefer that. Even when they're lying to themselves, saying we don't prefer that, they still, nine times out of ten, do. And so we have no idea what the hours worked were, what they were hired on as, what they were promised. Her getting a degree doesn't automatically mean that she makes more than somebody else who got hired at a higher pay. They don't want to pay anybody as higher than they need to in order to get them to do the job. They'd rather pay them less. But they're not going to get the workers that they pay them too much less, and so they pay them the bare minimum that person is willing to be paid in order to work for them. For that guy, it was $125k. For her, it was $112. She took the job at that pay rate. So I I I don't see why there's automatically a lawsuit with evidence they have that it actually has anything to do with gender or sex at all. But we'll see. I mean, maybe they're right. Maybe that really was it. Maybe they just said we just hate women here and they decided to pay her less and they won't settle because they really just want to hate women. I I couldn't tell you, but that just doesn't appear to be the case, given all of the details, and we just don't have enough details to know more than that. With that being said, of course, at the bottom of the hour, we are going to have our weather report coming up, and then of course, at the top of the next hour, we're going to have a Texas scorecard coming on, and we'll be talking about some some really interesting things that we kind of covered a little bit, specifically in Harris County, that you guys will not want to miss that conversation. So stick around, text in at 713-779-5978. That is 713-779-KYST. You are listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and Lord willing, I'll be right back after this break to wrap up the first hour of the show with our weather report. In the meantime, stick around, and we'll talk very soon.

SPEAKER_01 46:23

Houston, this is Tom Gretchen, inviting all gun owners to join me live every Sunday from 1 to 4 p.m. for gun talk. Call in with your questions or range reports, and let's tackle everything Second Amendment. Here on Houston's Leader for Gun Owners, Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_05 46:40

Houston, this is Craig Klein, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. At Sales Nexus, we're proud to support businesses and organizations that make a difference, like Patriot Talk 920. As one of our valued clients, Patriot Talk 920 trusts SalesNexus to manage their leads, automate communications, and build strong relationships with listeners and advertisers. Ready to take your sales to the next level? Visit salesnexus.com and start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_22 47:11

The Medicare Minute with Justin White is brought to you by Senior Health Services.

SPEAKER_02 47:15

We talk to a lot of people who will literally come up and say, I hate shopping for Medicare plans so much. And I'll say, What's happened? And they'll say, My gosh, my phone won't stop ringing. I've got people showing up at my door. My mailbox is full of garbage. It's just so unpleasant. And I'm like, I get it, and I'm sorry. But you know what? Don't let that keep you for demanding the best out of the plans that you have. These are available to you. You earned these. So do not allow those practices to discourage you from reaching out to somebody who can help you understand what your options are and change each year when it's appropriate to do so. Did you know that these plans they change kind of a lot? So if you've been in a plan for a long time, there's a good chance that thing has degraded a lot since you put it in place. Not a guarantee, but you got to get it reviewed so you know. Because you deserve to be in a plan that is on the cutting edge of whatever your needs happen to be. So pick up the phone, call a trusted agent, or call senior health services. We do this every day for free. There's no reason to fear it, and do not settle.

SPEAKER_22 48:22

Medicare choices are easier with a professional in your corner. Senior Health Services is not associated with the government, so you know you can trust them. Visit Senior Health Services.com today to connect with a trusted agent for a free consultation.

SPEAKER_19 48:40

Listen up, Patriots. Got armory needs? Then you need Fire Armadillo. They've got guns, tactical gear, body armor, firearm training classes, and more. Call 832-437-3869. You won't find a better place to go for your firearm needs than Fire Armadillo. Call 832-437-3869 or visit firearmadillo.com for more information. Get fired up, Houston, with Fire Armadillo.

SPEAKER_03 49:11

Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range invites you to visit us at 3915-South and Houston Parkway East in Houston and see all what we have to offer. You can have our On-Site Gunsmith adjust your personal firearms, sign up for our various classes, plan your next event, and use one of our clean ventilated lanes to practice or to cite in a new purchase. You can also give us a call at 713-503-7645. Or visit agentsarms.com. That's AGISARMS.com.

SPEAKER_10 49:41

Hi, this is Harold Guy, and this is Bill Olston. Texas Outdoor News is the longest running, most awarded outdoor radio show in the state for a lot of good reasons. We bring you the latest news and information about hunting and fishing across our great state and beyond.

SPEAKER_09 49:54

And our guests are who's who from industry, government, and the field. Texas Outdoor News is brought to you by Ford Trucks and your best in Texas Ford dealers, the state's number one outdoor radio show, Texas Outdoor News. Saturday mornings the 6th on Patriot Talk, 920.

SPEAKER_15 50:23

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. You're listening to the Lone Star Conservative here for the weather report at the bottom of the hour. Houston weather on the first day of July find itself in a very familiar pattern today, with heat and humidity again being the main weather hazards. Peak heat index values, or humidity-driven feels-like temperatures, will range between 102 and 107 degrees, with values increasing to 105 to 110 for the weekend, according to the National Weather Service. The Weather Service said in a forecast bulletin, quote, We continue to monitor the forecast, try to see if heat advisories may be needed for the holiday weekend. Frequent hydrating and shade breaks will be key to beating the heat. In Houston, dew point emergers can help indicate how rough the summer heat's going to be, right? Again, that's how cool the air has to get for dew to form, and it tends to increase and how saturated the air is with water vapor. For instance, you'll find the air becomes uncomfortably muggy when the dew point is 65 degrees or higher. Houston dew points over the next several days will largely be between 74 and 76 degrees. Houston today is shaving up to be sunny, with temperatures peaking at a seasonable ninety-five degrees, but light southeast winds off the Gulf Coast will be sending in moisture-rich air that will drive unit values at 10 degrees higher to 105. And so that's going to be pretty similar, right? The upper level range of at high atmospheric pressure, responsible for the uncomfortable heat, has shifted northeast, opening the door to rain chances, though low in our area. This will be accompanied by an increase in moisture from the Gulf as the moisture plume moves into our region on Thursday, that's tomorrow, shower coverage looks to increase to scattered 25 to 40 percent along and south of I-10. So Houston has about a 30% chance of rain in the afternoon on Thursday. If the guidance continues to trend toward richer moisture further west, rain chances may need to be increased for the southern half of the forecast area for Thursday over the next couple of days. Although major heat risks are likely to increase Friday and through the 4th of July holiday weekend, there's also the chance for rain. The potential for hazardous heat will be closely monitored with it being the 4th of July. We will continue with these afternoon convection, sea breeze storms through the 4th of July weekend, so we need to be aware of those. And we'll, of course, give you better updated to get tomorrow and Friday's weather report. Let you guys know what's going on. In the meantime, when we give everything, we're gonna have Travis Morgan coming on to talk about the Texas Supreme Court halting Harris County's illegal alien defense funding. We've talked a little about this before, but we're gonna have more about it in the next hour, so stick around. You're listening to Love Star Conservative, and Lord will only be back with Travis Morgan from Texas Scorecard at the top of the next hour.

SPEAKER_07 52:54

From deep in the heart of Texas, it's Houston's God-loving patriot, the voice of reason. This is the most star conservative, Michael Wilson.

SPEAKER_15 53:21

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. You're listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and I'm being joined this morning on air with our good friend Travis Morgan coming on from Texas Scorecard to walk us through this Texas Supreme Court rulingslash half ruling. We'll kind of differentiate what we actually are talking about here as soon as we bring him on. Welcome to the show, Travis. Thank you for having me, Mike. Of course. Well, to kick it off, uh,

Heat Index And Fourth Of July Forecast

SPEAKER_15 53:43

I do want to go through a little bit of background. Before we even get into this case in particular, can you kind of explain to us what type of ruling this is? Uh, so that we can kind of understand what we're talking about in general before we get into the specifics. Because obviously we didn't really get a ruling on the merits of this case, so can you kind of walk us through what this decision is and what that means?

SPEAKER_14 54:03

Right. So an injunction is important to differentiate from a merits ruling. A merits ruling is when you are when a judge really rules or a court really rules on uh the issue that is at the center of the case, right? When somebody brings a lawsuit, you always hear um they're suing them for this thing. So that's when the court actually considers that thing and makes a decision on it. But there's a lot of procedural steps before that. Uh a lot of the times the defendant will say, uh, you know, they don't actually have a right to sue in this court. Uh if they brought a lawsuit, it would have had to be over in that court, or maybe they are not a party who has standing to sue under that law. So there's a lot of uh you know jurisdictional steps, and then also parties will say uh when they are seeking a lawsuit, they would they're trying to block a law or block something that was passed. And so they will ask the court to block that temporarily or the court has a chance or the judge has a chance to consider uh you know the case in full while the case proceeds, because that can take a very long time, the law has to be blocked so that they have a chance at um really really receiving the relief. You know, sometimes for example, when it's a funding package, the funding can't go out while a case is still being considered, otherwise it's kind of a done deal. Uh we'll actually get into that a little bit more as as we talk about this.

SPEAKER_15 55:32

Absolutely, and I want to give a quick example to our listeners as well. You guys might re remember Maria Rojas, uh, the alleged abortion nurse, practitioner, midwife situation, and how the claim was that she was doing these abortions and had staff that was doing abortions and whatever. And the argument was hey, while the case proceeds, while we decide what she was doing, what criminal action there was, whether she can be stopped, we can't let her facilities continue operating because there's danger of this stuff happening. That's what we're suing about. And so the courts ruled and said, Yeah, in the meantime, we'll put what's called a temporary injunction, where we say she cannot continue to do operations. Um, and that gets messy and whatnot, but that's kind of the difference in the rulings here. Uh now, the other thing I want to talk about, getting some more background, but going into the more specifics of this particular case, for listeners who might not be aware here in Houston, what was this program? It was the Harris County's immigrant legal services program. What is that and how much money were they trying to give to it?

SPEAKER_14 56:29

Right. So as deportations have been ramping up, and I mean, it's kind of funny because this goes back to 2020. That's when the program began. The goal of it is to essentially fund

Harris County Illegal Defense Funding Fight

SPEAKER_14 56:41

the legal services for illegal immigrants who are potentially being deported. And it it does sound crazy up front that a Texas County or anywhere in the United States would be paying taxpayer money to defend those who came here illegally when the state or you know is is bringing essentially uh these these charges against them. So it doesn't just sound absurd up front, and it is.

SPEAKER_15 57:10

No, absolutely, and I I I it kind of reminds you in the the vicious cycle sort of insanity of taxpayer-funded lobbying, where we're paying our money to then have people go and lobby against our interests. It kind of reminds you of that sort of setup.

SPEAKER_14 57:24

It does, yeah. That's that's exactly right. And so they have to, you know, refund this program a lot, and especially as quote unquote deportations are ramping up as they're making a big deal about in Harris County. Uh of course, of course. They are trying to push through $1.3 million in new funding. Well, they really did, in new uh funding for this program, and that's where Attorney General Ken Paxton stepped in and said, Whoa, whoa, whoa, we need to we need to put a stop to this. Um, this this cannot be allowed.

SPEAKER_15 57:51

Right. Now, can you walk us through who those organizations were and then of course what they specifically were going to do if they received that funding? Who who who are these organizations? Because it's not that we're just funding um some random lawyer in a court, these were given to specific organizations, right?

SPEAKER_14 58:06

Right. So there's five organizations that this money is uh divided between. Uh, and it was it was uh 4-1 commissioner vote. So pretty pretty heavy favoring this. Of course. And so Baker Ripley, the Galveston Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Justice for All Immigrants, Kind Inc., the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services. So these are left-wing legal groups that are you know designed to represent illegal immigrants, and that's of course why they were chosen by the commissioners to receive this funding.

SPEAKER_15 58:40

Right. And I have to guess, Tom Ramsey, the dissenting vote.

SPEAKER_14 58:44

Correct. That is correct.

SPEAKER_15 58:46

The lone Republican in Harris County that's still holding the bastion of freedom high as much as he can. The number of times you see 4-1, everyone's go, wow, 4-1, that must have really and I always go, Tom Ramsey, right? That's it's almost never that it's somebody else dissenting. It's it's almost always Tom Ramsey, because we have one Republican on there that goes, This is actually kind of crazy. So the other thing I want to get into is the specifics of this lawsuit. So Ken Paxton sued under what's known as the Texas Constitution's Gift Clause. Can you explain that clause to those who aren't lawyers and what the constitutional concern there is?

SPEAKER_14 59:20

Right. And it's something I've come across before in a case. So very very interesting. It's a very interesting uh intricacy of Texas law. So counties, cities, any subdivision of the state is prohibited from granting public money, um, and then you know, to be specific, in aid of or to any individual individual whatsoever. So essentially, the state cannot gift anything to you know a private individual. Right. So that that could be land that they've eminent domains, they can't just gift it to somebody else. That's where I've come in contact with this before. Or here, you can't just grant a ton of public money to these private groups unless you're actually getting some sort of benefit or some some sort of uh return on it. And that, of course, does come into play in the judge's ruling here.

SPEAKER_15 1:00:16

Right. So let's talk about that. So the gift clause, um according to the Judge Supreme Court, these expenditures need to bring, I I think it's I think it's three different kind of tiers or or three different kind of co-acting uh standards, if you will, uh, that have to apply in order for this to qualify under the gift clause in order for it to be legitimate. Um I think that's something like public benefit, public purpose, and and with safeguards. So what are the allegations? Where is it alleged that Harris County failed that?

SPEAKER_14 1:00:48

So when Ken Paxton brought the lawsuit, he was saying that um they're essentially not going to like Harris County is not going to receive any sort of public benefit. Like there's there's not gonna there's not gonna be any money that comes back from this program, right? It gets spent on illegal immigrant, illegal defense funding, and there's just nothing that Harris County can expect to get back. Of course, that wasn't Harris County's goal in passing this. They were just sort of going to be giving all this money away to these organizations, and whatever happens to it, happens to it. And we can say we can we can pound our chest and say we're helping illegal immigrants who are, you know, as they're ramping up deportations against them, but there's no way to recover the money. And and that's sort of what the judges ended up finding in this case.

SPEAKER_15 1:01:37

Right. It would be like if you if you were giving money to contractors, uh, but you found out those contractors weren't gonna be building any roads, they were just building people's homes. You're like, how does that where's the public benefit of that? Where's the public purpose in that, other than that it benefits these companies and whoever buys the house? Where's the public side of things? So I think it's kind of similar in that regard. One of the big points, I think, in the lawsuit is that deportation proceedings are civil and not criminal. What relevance does that have to the case? Where does that kind of come into play?

SPEAKER_14 1:02:07

Right. So if it was criminal proceedings, I guess that's what people would expect to have this funding go toward. Um so Paxton, when he when he filed the lawsuit, he he claimed that individuals involved in deportation proceedings being civil and not criminal have no constitutional or statutory rights to government-funded legal representation. Right. So, of course, when you hear, you know, you you read your Miranda rights and you're told that if you don't if you can't afford an attorney uh an attorney, that one will be uh sort of given to you by the state, that does not apply in these civil cases. And so that's that's that's very at issue in this case.

SPEAKER_15 1:02:51

Right, right. That's very relevant because obviously if it was criminal, then already we would have that standard, right? And so the fact that there's even funding already kind of denies that that's what's happening, that it's not criminal court because they would already be given their own lawyer. Civil court doesn't have the same thing and and for a good reason. So, unlike a criminal defendant who has a right to counsel, someone in these proceedings doesn't have the same automatic right. And so the the court also mentioned that once these funds are spent, they can't be feasibly recouped. I'm assuming that's a big part of why we've ruled, not on the merits, but on this this sort of injunction, uh, the concern that, hey, how are we gonna get the money back? Is that part of why they they they push this part of the ruling through?

SPEAKER_14 1:03:26

Absolutely. And you know, you know, part part of it is the it got all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, and the Texas Supreme Court did say that there's actually uh they they're making a decent argument here, and that's that's often what they're considering is how reasonable is this argument to win on the merits before we make a determination on the merits, and we need to figure out how likely they are to win. And that's essentially what they said. They said they have a reasonable argument here, and then the case is now being sent back down to the courts to proceed on the merits, but an injunction has been issued to at least block things in the meantime.

SPEAKER_15 1:04:04

Right, make sure that again that the money is not spent, because if the money is spent then the case, I don't want to say it becomes moot, we still need the precedent set, uh, but that if you spend it, that $1.3 million is not coming back. You can't then go to them that have now spent the money on the legal defense and say, well, give us the money back. They don't have the money anymore. But they did express, right, in order to make this ruling, uh, that there was a lot of ground for the merits. I think they they expressed there is serious doubt as to the constitutionality. One question that I have on this is that gonna come into play in the actual lower court ruling? When when they argue the merits, is it gonna come into play? Well, the Supreme Court has already said that there is at least serious constitutional doubt uh as to the viability of this particular case.

SPEAKER_14 1:04:46

Right. The serious constitutional doubt quote uh is is a good one from the ruling. And certainly I think the lower court can look up and say, well, if we rule a certain way, we kind of have an idea how the Supreme Court is going to rule now on that. So do we really just want to pass this through, waste the ton of a taxpayer money to get overturned? Well, they might still do that. I think you know, judges tend to think that they're gods once they're elected. And um they can really rule however they want to, and especially they're not gonna look at the Supreme Court and say, well, it's not likely to win there, so I'm gonna rule a different way. I think they'll still rule their own way, but at least it does inform them a little bit. It does inform them a little bit. And I would add that something you mentioned, uh you know, once it if the funding were to go out and there wasn't an injunction issued, then it kind of makes the case move. And that's actually exactly what happened in Bear County. They passed something like this. They were they were funding these groups that were uh defending illegal immigrants, and there was a lawsuit brought against it. And what ended up happening is it was just too late. You know, the the money was already dispersed, and so the cases essentially got thrown out.

SPEAKER_15 1:05:57

Right. And so, and by the way, for a listener. Remember, this is Harris County, right? Where we all know uh basically every day, in different ways, in different words, uh that we're we're constantly told that there's not enough money for our core services. They're always complaining and saying, like, oh, well, we don't have the money for funding public safety and roads and flooding infrastructure is one of the big ones here. Flooding infrastructure is always complaining about that we don't have enough money. And then we find out that, well, we want to send $1.3 million, something that is, I mean, even the Supreme Court of Texas is saying has very serious constitutional doubt. Even if there wasn't very serious constitutional doubt, there's just a little. It's just so shocking to me that this is where we're choosing to try to spend our money when there are so many services that the people actually need that do definitively provide public benefit, that we just say, oh, we just don't have enough. Where we always find enough for the pet projects of our leftist commissioners. One thing that I want to say is getting into the president a little bit, you mentioned Bear County, but I I want to kind of tie this into the broader fight in general. Say that the court does side with Paxton on this and says, yeah, there is, there is, this is unconstitutional. This is not providing public benefit, this doesn't qualify under the gift clause, it's a violation. Does that set us up to be in a good position for where, say, Bear County wants to do it again or trap or whoever wants to do it, that they're kind of limited in even being able to start that process?

SPEAKER_14 1:07:13

Right. I would say so. And especially since this is something that does it, you know, it's a recurring issue. Like they can pass this and it's gonna get used up, sadly. Um and after that, then what are they gonna do? They're gonna try to pass it again, unless they have new commissioners or it becomes super uh you know, you know, a huge public issue or just protests and such. But yeah, it's something where they're gonna have to keep passing it again. And if and if we get a favorable ruling in this case, if taxing gets a favorable ruling, then other counties are gonna know that because these cases will always be taken up to the state supreme court, it'll end up before the same court. And yeah, I mean, I mean it'll discourage it from happening in the first place, maybe. I I think it probably will still happen. But knowing that we have that safeguard at the Texas Supreme Court for things like this is is very good because of course, you know, Texas laid out the argument very well about this this is absurd. You know, we like taxpayers should not be funding illegal immigrant offense, and it's it is very similar to, as you said, uh, you know, funding organizations that hate you. Um it's it's not something that should be going on in Texas, and wherever we can stamp that out is a good thing.

SPEAKER_15 1:08:18

Right, absolutely. So the last question I have is just procedural. Where do things go from here? What's what's the next step? Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the injunction side of things, but not on the merits, where is the merits case sitting right now? Where where is that at and where does it go?

SPEAKER_14 1:08:34

Right. So it's being left to you know lower courts to decide these matters on the merits. Um but you know the the Supreme Court has signaled kind of that there's there's a very good argument here. And now the courts essentially the lower courts had to deal with these injunction questions up front. Injunctions have a lot higher standard. That's why you need to know you have a good likelihood to win to be issued an injunction because it blocked it, you know, sort of before the case is a chance to proceed. So, of course, that's going to be a very high standard. And the lower court can actually consider the merits of the case. Um is this funding legal? Can they do that? And the long term process, but the good thing is that the funding is blocked until then, and I think the Supreme Court has signaled that there's a good argument here. So again, you never know how that's gonna play out when they do consider the merit, and they make clear in the ruling that the courts always do an injunction ruling that they did not consider the merit. They did not actually make a decision on the merits, any of that. They just looked at some of the arguments, said, okay, these are reasonable arguments. We actually think there's some good ground here, but we haven't gotten into it yet. But we think there's some good ground, and we're gonna issue the injunction and send it back down. So uh yeah, the court has not considered that yet. Uh, and it's gonna start at lower level courts, which are more likely to favor the county, but with the you know, in information from the Supreme Court that might that might help.

SPEAKER_15 1:10:02

Right, and one one, and it's sort of the same question, but it's just kind of wrapping this up. And I I'm not asking you to be a prophet, just general expectations. Do we expect whoever I know this happens a lot of the time where we expect, you know, we'll look at a at a appeals court and we'll say, okay, so they ruled on it. Whichever way they rule on it, often we expect that the other side will automatically appeal. Is that probably a similar expectation here that regardless of who wins in each court, that it's probably gonna end up back at the Texas Supreme Court anyway?

SPEAKER_14 1:10:28

Right. Um, it it's become a high-profile case, of course. We're talking about it here, but it really there's a lot of money involved. Whatever there's a lot of money involved. Clearly, there's some passionate parties that are willing to put that money behind it um and and and not want it to go out for sure. And you know, some of the issues you mentioned in Harris County and talk about all the time, and the amount of taxpayer money that's there and what it should be used for are big issues that I think riles a lot of people up. So um, but certainly would appeal this all the way up. He already knows he got somewhat of a favorable ruling at the Texas Supreme Court. Um you know, and either way, it doesn't hurt, it doesn't hurt uh if you're you know the county to to try again, and if it ends up at the Texas Supreme Court, and that's your last chance at appeal, I think you're still gonna do it. You've you've gone this far. You might as well, and maybe you do get a favorable ruling. Maybe you come up with new arguments or new angles. Um, maybe maybe you point out flaws and lower court rulings that are worth overturning by the Texas Supreme Court. You know, they're gonna throw everything at the wall, of course, to try to try to get this through.

SPEAKER_15 1:11:32

Right, absolutely. Well, that being said, Travis, how can people stay up to date with this case and all the other ones that you guys are reporting on over at Texas Scorecard?

SPEAKER_14 1:11:39

Yeah, check out Texas Scorecard.com. Uh check out Travis Morgan76 on X. Always trying to try to cover cases, especially in the courtroom if I have a chance to.

SPEAKER_15 1:11:48

Yeah, absolutely. Well, as always, we greatly appreciate your time for coming on and all the reporting that you're doing over at Texas Scorecard. And Lord willing, we'll log you in, hopefully, with some good updates in this case in the future. Absolutely. Thank you for having me, Michael. Of course, with that being said, when we get back from the break, we're gonna jump over and talk about UTMB, uh, where police are now searching for a man accused of assaulting a security officer down in Galliston. You won't want to miss that update coming out from UTB. We just talked about UTMB with this pay gap issue. We'll talk about this next. Text in 713-779-5978. That is 713-779-KYST. You are listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm your host, Michael Wilson. Don't go anywhere because, Lord willing, I will be right back after this short break with the rest of that story. So stick around and we'll talk soon.

SPEAKER_11 1:12:34

Patriot Talk 920 is your Houston base camp for the America first movement. I'm Todd Starns, and join me weekdays at 11 on Patriot Talk 920 and online at PatriotTalk920.com.

SPEAKER_05 1:12:49

Hi, I'm Craig Klein, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. I started SalesNexus to help sales teams like yours close deals faster and more efficiently. Our all-in-one CRM and marketing automation platform streamlines your sales process. With Sales Nexus, you can manage leads, automate email and text campaigns, and gain clear insights into your sales pipeline. Visit SalesNexus.com. That's salesnexus.com to start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_21 1:13:19

Need to make a big impression? At Bullshirts, we've been Houston's go-to for custom screen printing, embroidery, and promo items for over 40 years. Want tees, polos, hats, or giveaways that fit your brand and your budget? We've got you covered. Stop by our showroom at 5485 West and Houston Parkway North or call 713-983-8080. Full shirts, the trusted printer of Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_03 1:13:50

Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range is the perfect place to hold your next company retreat, team building, family gathering, birthday, bachelor, or bachelorette party. If you don't have your own gun, don't worry, we've got you covered. You can rent one of our various guns. We have everything from full auto World War II relics to modern day pistols. Our trained staff and certified instructors will make your occasion safe and memorable. Go to AegisArms.com. That is AGISARms.com.

SPEAKER_15 1:14:19

Hey y'all, this is the Lone Star Conservative Michael Wilson, and I want to tell you about my friends at Telgee Roofing. What might seem like a simple water leak in your house could be a sign of roof damage. Our friends at Telgee Roofing help homeowners uncover those problems before they get worse. Their experts provide free roof inspections, and if they find a problem, they will help you with your insurance claim as well. Don't wait for the next storm. Call Telgee Roofing today at 281-290-0606 for your free, no obligation inspection.

SPEAKER_08 1:14:48

Here's Jim Dotton, host of Texas Home Improvement and owner of Dew West Foundation Repair.

SPEAKER_17 1:14:54

It's no secret, this year has brought us a lot of rain. And that means your foundation is about as good as it's gonna get. So if you're still noticing cracks in your walls and doors that are sticking, call us today so we can help correct the problem before it gets out of hand and more expensive. Call the best. Call Dew West Foundation Repair 713-473-7156 online at du-west.com.

SPEAKER_07 1:15:19

Texant AC service isn't your average HVAC company. We're high performance comfort engineers. We don't guess, we test. We design full system solutions for airflow, humidity, and air quality issues that others overlook. Whether it's one hot room, high bills, or Houston humidity, we deliver real comfort. Call 281-402-5100. Texellent AC service, where custom air service is our specialty.

SPEAKER_06 1:15:52

You will find professors who challenge you and help you discover your unique calling. Explore diverse degree programs and connect with industry leaders. Whether you hope to be an entrepreneur, teacher, or engineer, HCU equips you to pursue your passion for his purpose. Invest in your future. Your journey starts at hc.edu. That's hc.edu.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:19

Have you thought about buying a gun or even carrying a gun? But you don't know if that's smart or where to start. I Can Help. I'm Tom Gresh, the host of Gun Talk. Call in Sundays between 1 and 4, right here on Houston's Leader for Gun Owners, Patriot Talk 920.

Egg Price Fixing And Real Capitalism

SPEAKER_15 1:16:44

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. I'm your host, Michael Wilson, and you're listening to the Lone Star Conservative. I'm actually going to hold off on that UTMB story for one second. I actually have something else that I do want to talk about. That's a case of eggs here in Texas coming out from Paxton. I just saw this and I want to go over it. So, food banks all across Texas are going to receive over seven million free eggs. After Attorney General Ken Paxton, alongside other State Attorneys General and the Department of Justice secured a settlement with three egg companies, which were accused of purposefully manipulating consumer prices. Texas, along with 16 other states, pretty pretty big lawsuit, filed suit against Calmain Foods, Centrum Versoba, and Hickman's Egg Ranch, alleging they conspired to inflate egg prices between 2022 and 2025. This was discovered during an investigation conducted with the U.S. Department of Justice and other partners. Details from the investigation revealed that the three companies had allegedly conspired to coordinate their bidding in a way that would influence daily egg price price quotes published by a benchmark pricing service company, Earner Berry. Earner Berry prices are used in egg supply contracts with retailers and the food service industry. According to Paxton, an example of this occurred when an executive from McMahon's Egg Ranch urged executives from CalMean Foods and Tender and Versova to submit aggressive repeated bids just to push eces higher. All three companies did this, causing Earner Berry to raise its price quotes. This is what it's worth, I suppose, if all the companies are willing to bid like this. This led to the companies causing an artificial rise to the cost of eggs for consumers all over the country, but specifically here in Texas. Bagson said, These three major e producers conspired to profit off antitrust violations that ultimately raise the price of eggs for Americans. Now they will have to donate over seven million eggs to food banks across Texas. This settlement serves as another reform that we have secured to prevent price gouging and unlawful conduct that hurts Americans and their wallets. Under the agreement, the companies will also pay out $3.3 million to the states involved in the lawsuits, stop their illegal conduct, and implement safeguards to prevent for similar misconduct. Specifically, this will require each company to appoint compliance officers who will oversee adherence to the lawsuit and report any violations to the Attorney General's office, the DOJ, and other participating states. The other states, just to give you a quick list, I'll say this very quickly, are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In other words, bipartisan lawsuit. When you have Texas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New York, all in the same boat, alongside Utah and North Carolina and Ohio and Florida, you can see that this is not a left or a right-wing lawsuit. This is very clearly just, hey, nobody, nobody likes this. Paxton secured another settlement with Cal Calmain Foods back in January when he alleged the company illegally raised the cost of eggs by 300%, resulting in the donation of more than two million eggs to food banks across the state. But this actually gets into a really important conversation that I want to have with people, uh, because I I think that so many of us would consider ourselves capitalists, right? It's that's a pretty good, I think, wager that most of the listeners to this program, most people on the right in general, if you're Republican, you'd consider yourself a capitalist. Now, exactly how that plays out, exactly what that means to each individual person can be different, but we would largely all agree with the economic uh method, the the economic standard, the economic system of capitalism. Now the big question I would ask is and this is an issue that I've had consistently with people on both sides of the political aisle, but especially on the right, is what does capitalism actually mean? Because because the problem is that I think so many people have have have in an effort to be capitalists, right? In an effort to be capitalistic, I I think they've they've put themselves in a boat where they don't actually know what capitalism is. Um they've kind of put themselves in a scenario where they don't realize what the system they're actually promoting stands for. I think that's a real danger. Um because capitalism is not just free market for everyone at all times, right? Capitalism is specifically just where private individuals own the the the control of means and means and control of production. Right. That's the that's the standard, right? Socialism is different and communism is different, and it all applies in slightly different ways. Who essentially owns the the control and means of production was though is one of those very important delineators between your system of economics. Capitalism would say that private industry, private individuals, the private side owns the means and control of production. That's the general standard. The problem is that people have mistaken capitalism for rampant mega corporationism, oligarchy. Right? They've they've mistaken the prospect of private companies owning the means and control of production and assume that that inherently means no limits. The the it's often been titled as the invisible hand of the free market, which rectifies all concerns. It's not true. We know that's not true, right? Any regulation at all into how things are run. And I I I know it's so funny because you'll debate somebody who is a free market capitalist, right? I'm not saying I'm not, I'm saying somebody that that believes in what I'm promoting here, which is basically zero regulation, zero governmental regulation when it comes to the free market. But what they'll do, that's very funny, it's it is, because if you're not really thinking, you can kind of get tripped up by it. What they'll do is they'll say, and the law, the moral law that pertains to what is moral in the country, is unrelated. And you'll say, What do you mean? They'll say, well, things like slavery, for instance. Slavery is not a far part of the free market, right? Slavery is not a part of the free market because slavery is and of itself bad. That is a not good thing. Therefore, the government can put regulation on slavery, they can say slavery, uh essentially specifically chattel slavery, man stealing, right, where you you purchase people, not indentured servitude, which was historically also called slavery, but differentiating. That the owning people and making them work. That's a moral question, not an economics one. And therefore the government can end things like slavery without infringing on the rights of the free market. It's very interesting that they do that, though. Because what they're admitting, and they don't like that they're admitting this, and they try to twist it, they may not even admit to themselves they're admitting this. But what they admit in doing that is that it turns out there are good regulations for the market. That actually the market doesn't resolve all questions. There are moral questions. Hey, is this thing good? Is this thing beneficial for the people? And if not, if it's a a violation of rights, if it's a violation of your benefit, then does the government have an interest in regulating it? Right? And it's interesting because they want to draw a certain distinction, say, well, slavery is one of those. Uh, but uh things like like monopolies, they don't they don't qualify. Right? We don't you know we the the market will resolve all other things, other than these things that I've I've chosen arbitrarily qualified. You can't do that. The problem with a lot of these these people that will call I don't want to say that I'm not a free market capitalist because I am, but the same as is calling myself an environmentalist, right? Because I am an environmentalist, but what that means to somebody is very different from what it should mean, right? The left has taken environmentalism to include radical climate change activism and anti-fossil fuels. And I'm not saying any of that when I say that I'm an environmentalist. I merely mean that we should be good stewards of the land that God has given us. That that we should be careful how we we spend our resources and how we use them. In similar fashion, with a lot of these people that would call themselves free market capitalists, they're ultimately just consumerists. They're oligarchians, right? That they believe that the government has basically no role in regulating the market. And in a lot of ways, that's true. There are a lot of things the government can do that are bad regulations of the market. Don't get me wrong. Uh things like long-term price controls on renting, things like uh welfare in general, which is a uh is a market, right, because regulation, because you're assuming these people can't afford the things on their own and can't work and can't provide, therefore you must come in and give them money. It is a form of economics, that's why it's socialistic rather than capitalistic, because the government is controlling the means of production, they're giving money out, right? So there are examples where government intervention is bad and doesn't work and is unsuccessful and is immoral on the surface. But not all regulation is created equal, my friends. And and the problem is that we we live in a time now where you're almost not allowed to have any sort of nuance in your life. You're required to automatically side with two extremes, and you're not allowed to say, actually, I think that neither of these is good. Zero government regulation of economics is actually very negative. But also allowing the government to control the means and control of production is very bad. Both of those things are not good. Both of those things result in a cataclysmic amount of rights violations. And so we have to determine on a case-by-case basis what is good, right? If you are artificially raising prices on consumers uh by working with other companies to create really, it is a monopoly, but it's a it's a tri-tiered monopoly of multiple companies, it's still a monopoly. It's just not being done by one company, so I guess the the term mono monopoly is one. So it would be like a triopoly, right? But either way, it's the same result. These companies are artificially raising prices on consumers. That's that's evil. That is a violation of benefiting the common good. That's not good for Americans, that's not good for the people. And companies do it all the time. And the frustrating part is I expect the left to have crazy arguments. I expect the left to say crazy things. It really irks me when people who who would call themselves right wingers, people who would call themselves Republicans, come out and they say, No, no, no, no, no, no government intervention at all. I don't want the government in my business. And that sounds great when businesses are good. I mean, that sounds great when the country is so moral that you don't have to worry about it. But we actually don't live in heaven. It turns out we live in a fallen world. And the reason that you have government and you can't survive in an anarchical state, the reason that you can't have anarchy is because actually we do need regulation and law. We actually do need enforcement of the law. We actually do need the proposition, the truth is objective, and you have to you have to enforce good laws and strike down bad ones. And that applies all across the board. It applies to economics, certainly. If you have these triopolies, monopolies, if you have these oligarchial especially when you look at lobbying, especially and these mega corporations that can just spend millions to billions of dollars on their preferred candidate that will then biasedly give them extra rights and and w corporate welfare. Well, that's really bad for everybody. And it shouldn't be allowed. We should have regulations on spending, and we should have regulations on who can do what and what that looks like. And again, that Doesn't mean total government control over all industry, but it does mean that if you're not willing to have some, then what's even the point of having a government? Well, I don't trust the government. Yeah, me neither. But also, at some point you have to have a a certain amount of trust. Otherwise, you can't let them do anything. And we know there are certain cases where the government needs to be able to operate. And you can say all day long, I don't trust the government. Sure, but I I bet you're darn glad that we have a government that can at least in some degree guard the border. And even if they're releasing people, that would still be better than the alternative of having no border protection at all. Same thing is true of economics. Uh the same thing is true of all of your constitutional rights. Right? We have government protections in place for a reason. The government is there to make sure that your rights are not vi violated, um, and to make sure that they stay out of the way of the violations, right? Making sure that they are not part of the reason why they're being violated. And all of those things, from the 14th Amendment to the First Amendment, all of them ultimately are supposed to be defended against. Those tyrannical rulings, the tyrannical regimes, the the oligarchial sense of the country that we've created, all of those things have one primary mechanism to stop them. And that is the Second Amendment. And if you believe that, which you should, you should also become a member of our sponsor, Gun Owners of America. Gun Owners of America understands that all of our rights, cliche or not, all of them are ultimately protected and defended by the Second Amendment. That that is the anti-tyrannical amendment. It is the one that says you don't get to be a tyrannical government. Because we the people will stand up and can stand up against you. And that's why when they try to ban weapons of war or assault rifles or whatever, suppressors, all they're really saying is we don't want you to have the right to stop us. We don't want you to have the ability to stop us. Well, that's the whole point of the Second Amendment. And if you believe that, Gunners of America is in your corner with their promise of no compromises of lobby. They will go and they will fight for those rights in their campaigns, in their lobbying, in their lawsuits, and so much more. If you would like to become a member, you can go to goahuston.com. That is G-O-A-Houston.com. It is a $25 annual membership, just $25 per year, which all goes right back to the continued defense and support of your God-given, constitutionally enshrined Second Amendment rights one more time. That is G-O-Ahouston.com. With that being said, when we get back from the break now, we're going to talk about that uh the the situation down in Galveston with UTMB on the search uh for the man who was accused of assaulting a security officer in Galveston. Police say the suspect attacked a uniformed security officer before fleeing the scene. I'll give you guys those updates. It's a relatively short story, but I just wanted to mention it before we uh before we wrap up the show. With that being said, if you would like to text in over this break, let us know your thoughts on anything we've covered this morning. If you had a thought about something I said in the last hour, feel free to do so. That number stays open all throughout the show. And by the way, it also stays open after the show. If you have thoughts later today, you can text and let us know your thoughts, and we'll get to them in the next show. The number is 713-779-5978. One more time, that is 713-779-KYST. I'm your host, Michael Wilson. You are listening to the Lone Star Conservative, and Lord William will be back with the rest of that Galveston story of the attacked uniformed security officer when we get back. So stick around. We'll talk about it soon.

SPEAKER_09 1:31:17

Hi, this is Harold Gunn, inviting you to join Bill Olson and me for Texas' longest running and most awarded outdoor show. Brought to you by Builtford Tough Trucks, it's Texas Outdoor News. Join us Saturday mornings at six on Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_08 1:31:32

Here's Jim Dotton, host of Texas Home Improvement and owner of Dew West Foundation Repair.

SPEAKER_17 1:31:38

It's no secret, this year has brought us a lot of rain. And that means your foundation is about as good as it's gonna get. So if you're still noticing cracks in your walls and doors that are sticking, call us today so we can help correct the problem before it gets out of hand and more expensive. Call the best. Call Dew West Foundation Repair 713-473-7156 online at du-west.com.

SPEAKER_15 1:32:02

Telgee Roofing is a family-owned roofer you can trust. Since opening in 2009, Telgee Roofing has earned an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and is a proud member of the GAF President's Club with three-star gold status. Less than a hundred out of 250,000 roofing companies in America has this distinction. Telgee Roofing has hundreds of five-star Google reviews that speak to their quality and customer satisfaction. You can be sure that your home is in expert hands. Choose Telgee Roofing for proven excellence. Visit Telgeeroofing.com or call 281-290-0606 today.

SPEAKER_04 1:32:32

Hi, I'm Terry, founder of TexLent AC Service. We solve comfort and air quality issues for homes and businesses the right way. By testing, not guessing, and using quality parts made here in the USA. Call 281-402-5100. That's 281-402-5100.

SPEAKER_03 1:32:49

Hey guys, it's Mike here, co-owner of Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range, located on 288 and Bellway 8. I wanted to personally invite you guys out to check out our firearm store. We have a huge collection of firearms you can purchase right there. Meet some of our certified instructors. They can do one-on-one classes. We can even get a group together and do classes with your group. And if you want to go downrange, guess what? We can do that too. Just check us out at AegisArms.com. That's AGISARMS.com.

SPEAKER_13 1:33:19

Are pests creeping into your home? ProMax Pest Control is here to help. ProMax Pest Control tackles everything from roaches to ropes, keeping your home safe and pest free with fast, reliable service you can count on. Take back your space today. Call ProMax Pest Control at 832-283-0741 to schedule your service. That's 832-283-0741. ProMax Pest Control. Keeping pests out so you can rest easy.

SPEAKER_05 1:33:48

Craig Klein here, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. As a Christian business owner, I know that faith and business go hand in hand. That's why I built Sales Nexus to help fellow Christian business leaders and sales teams serve their clients with integrity and excellence. Our all-in-one CRM and marketing automation platform isn't just about growing your business, it's about stewarding the opportunities God has placed in your hands. Visit salesnexus.com and start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_12 1:34:19

My doctor won't take my plan anymore.

SPEAKER_18 1:34:22

Why is my Medicare supplement so expensive?

SPEAKER_16 1:34:26

My prescription drug plan sucks.

SPEAKER_00 1:34:29

When you need some help with Medicare, go to Senior Health Services.com.

SPEAKER_02 1:34:36

In all seriousness, we know you're frustrated, but if you'll call 281-894-7540, we'll help you with your Medicare and we'll do it for free. Plus, we're not with the government and we are fully licensed to help.

SPEAKER_11 1:34:50

Patriot Talk920 is your Houston base camp for the America First Movement. I'm Todd Starns, and join me weekdays at 11 on Patriot Talk 920 and online at PatriotTalk920.com.

UTMB Security Officer Assault Case

SPEAKER_15 1:35:31

According to the University of Texas Medical Branch Police Department, the incident happened on Sunday. Police say UTMB employee was approached by a man driving a 2010 Honda Accord. A uniformed security officer intervened during the encounter. Investigators say the suspect got out of the vehicle and assaulted the security officer before driving away from the scene. Authorities have identified the suspect as Mark Anthony Johnson Jr. Police say a warrant has been issued for his arrest on a third degree felony charge. Anyone with information about his whereabouts is asked to conduct the University of Texas Medical Branch Police Department or their local law enforcement agency. But I mean, how stupid can criminals be? You think back to the good old days of criminality. It used to be that when you were a criminal, and look, I know this is just the movies, but it used to be that there was a certain standard for criminality that you wanted to get away with it. Right? That you had some level of discretion. I mean, come on. It used to, you know, you would have to go through all of these steps to try to hide and cover up the things you were doing and that you could get away with it, right? Think back to the Oceans movies, for instance. And unfortunately, uh or maybe fortunately, that's not how criminality works, at least not today. Uh nowadays, you know, we talked about the guy who lost his croc running away from a crime scene after murdering somebody, and they found his DNA on his croc, because he wore his crocs without socks, and they found out who the guy was because he left his shoe at the scene of the crime. Because, of course, crocs are the best shoe for committing a crime. This guy's reminiscent of that. You you get caught doing something maybe you shouldn't be doing, and there's some sort of confrontation that you could maybe just leave it alone and move on. And instead you decide to actively assault a uniformed security officer, and now you have the whole police force looking for you. So, congratulations. Um, if anybody has ever played video games, this is when you go from being, you know, minorly underwatch to being, you know, like a five-star wanted sort of situation. You're now on the the most wanted list by everybody because you decided to assault a uniformed security officer. Rather than just cutting your losses and moving on, uh what can I say? Criminals are not the brightest tools in the shed. With that being said, to wrap up the show when we get back, very exciting story, uh, because just yet again, this whole idea of climate activism proven to be a bad idea. Over reliance on wind and solar is apparently allegedly driving the Permian Basin energy issues. Unreliable energy and a mockery of Republican form of government takes interstage in this transmission line ongoing battle, which we'll talk about after the break. If you'd like to text in, this is your final opportunity to do so. You can do that at 713-779-5978. That is 713-779-KYST. I'm your host, Michael Wilson. You are listening to the Lone Star Conservative, and Lord willing to be right back to wrap up the morning show with this final story. So stick around. Hang tight. We'll be back very soon.

SPEAKER_01 1:38:19

Houston, this is Tom Gresham, inviting all gun owners to join me live every Sunday from 1 to 4 p.m. for gun talk. Call in with your questions or range reports, and let's tackle everything Second Amendment. Here on Houston's Leader for Gun Owners, Patriot Talk 920.

SPEAKER_05 1:38:36

Houston, this is Craig Klein, founder and CEO of Sales Nexus. At Sales Nexus, we're proud to support businesses and organizations that make a difference, like Patriot Talk 920. As one of our valued clients, Patriot Talk 920 trusts SalesNexus to manage their leads, automate communications, and build strong relationships with listeners and advertisers. Ready to take your sales to the next level? Visit salesnexus.com and start your free 30-day trial today.

SPEAKER_22 1:39:06

The Medicare Minute with Justin White is brought to you by Senior Health Services.

SPEAKER_02 1:39:10

We talk to a lot of people who will literally come up and say, I hate shopping for Medicare plans so much. And I'll say, What's happened? And they'll say, My gosh, my phone won't stop ringing. I've got people showing up at my door. My mailbox is full of garbage. It's just so unpleasant. And I'm like, I get it, and I'm sorry. But you know what? Don't let that keep you for demanding the best out of the plans that you have. These are available to you. You earned these. So do not allow those practices to discourage you from reaching out to somebody who can help you understand what your options are and change each year when it's appropriate to do so. Did you know that these plans they change kind of a lot? So if you've been in a plan for a long time, there's a good chance that thing is degraded a lot since you put it in place. Not a guarantee, but you got to get it reviewed so you know because you deserve to be in a plan that is on the cutting edge of whatever your needs happen to be. So pick up the phone, call a trusted agent, or call senior health services. We do this every day for free. There's no reason to fear it, and do not settle.

SPEAKER_22 1:40:17

Medicare choices are easier with a professional in your corner. Senior Health Services is not associated with the government, so you know you can trust them. Visit Senior Health Services.com today to connect with a trusted agent for a free consultation.

SPEAKER_19 1:40:36

Listen up, Patriots. Got armory needs? Then you need Fire Armadillo. They've got guns, tactical gear, body armor, firearm training classes, and more. Call 832-437-3869. You won't find a better place to go for your firearm needs than Fire Armadillo. Call 832-437-3869 or visit firearmadillo.com for more information. Get fired up, Houston, with Fire Armadillo.

SPEAKER_03 1:41:06

Aegis Arms Indoor Gun Range invites you to visit us at 3915-South Sam Houston Parkway East in Houston and see all what we have to offer. You can have our On-Site Gunsmith adjust your personal firearms, sign up for our various classes, plan your next event, and use one of our clean ventilated lanes to practice or to cite in a new purchase. You can also give us a call at 713-503-7645. Or visit AegisArms.com. That's AGISARMS.com.

SPEAKER_10 1:41:36

Hi, this is Harold Guy. And this is Bill Olson. Texas Outdoor News is the longest-running, most awarded outdoor radio show in the state for a lot of good reasons. We bring you the latest news and information about hunting and fishing across our great state and beyond.

SPEAKER_09 1:41:49

And our guests are Who's Who from industry, government, and the field. Texas Outdoor News is brought to you by Ford Trucks and your best in Texas Ford dealers, the state's number one outdoor radio show, Texas Outdoor News. Saturday mornings at 6 on Patriot Talk 920.

Permian Grid Plan And Wind Limits

SPEAKER_15 1:42:28

In response to lawmakers' request for a pause on extra high voltage transmission lines, transmission service providers admitted reliance on wind and solar power alongside government intervention is driving Permian Basin energy issues, which aligns with a third-party report that the lines are primarily built to support wind and solar, while local reliable generation alternatives were never fully examined. Providers are arguing that public utility commissioners do not have the power to grant lawmakers' requests to pause the project. The next day, state senators announced they would be holding a hearing on the proposed lines in late July. The Senate is on ERCOT's 765 kilovolt strategic transmission expansion plan, a key part of the Permian Basin Reliability Plan. They propose three transmission lines spanning over twelve hundred miles to move power from East Texas to the gas-rich Permian Basin, with routes crossing North Texas, Central Texas, and South Texas. The three lines are split into five interconnected segments for phase one, and phase two is going to build out those lines from northeast Texas southward through central and south Texas. And so on June 24th, in a joint filing, transmission service providers, uh, Encore, Lower Colorado River Authority Transmission Service Corporation, AEP Texas, and City of San Antonio owned CPS Energy, admitted that the risk to sustained electrical supply in West Texas is greatest during low wind, no solar conditions when the Permian Basin relies heavily on imports from the lower voltage, 365, 345 kilovolt network. In other words, they're outright admitting that a lot of the issues are because of rather than addressing that we have plenty of natural gas to drive our state forever, rather than admitting that we don't actually have a need for this program and this project at all, if we're saying, if the argument is that we're only going to use wind and solar, well, the Permian Basin doesn't have enough. And so of course we have to draw from elsewhere that has more opportunity for wind and solar, especially during those times of the year where maybe they get less in the Permian Basin. The problem is I don't grant the initial claim. I actually think that it's stupid that we have any reliance on wind and solar. And by the way, I don't have a problem with any any of this. If you want to utilize wind and solar in addition to, I have no issues. If you want to do more research into nuclear power, no issues. None. But if you want to demand that we be reliable on those things and that we cost the taxpayers a hundred billion dollars and you imminent domain family land and generational land without even a discussion with the taxpayers, because you don't want to rely on natural gas. Well, now we have a problem. Because no longer is it let's figure out how we can kind of make these things work together and benefit everybody and and whatnot and reach some sort of compromise. No, no. It's we demand that you do this for us. And it just so happens that you get rich while it happens. Not you, not you, the listener. No, no, you get poorer. No, no, the big companies, they get they get richer because that's how it always goes. That is over the show today. Thanks everyone for tuning in. You've been listening to Lone Star Conservative, Lord William be back bright and early tomorrow at 6 a.m. In the meantime, enjoy the rest of your Wednesday, hot as it may be, and Godspeed.