Good morning!

Yesterday, we asked readers about a proposal to ban enemy nations from purchasing land in the Lone Star State. You'll find the results – and a sample of the responses – down below.

Here is the Texas Minute for Wednesday, January 4, 2023.

– Michael Quinn Sullivan 

BUT FIRST... As we prepare for the start of the 88th Session of the Texas Legislature, please make sure we have the address where you are registered to vote so we can send updates about your lawmakers.

Only Three Texas Republicans Reject Swamp Uniparty In Speaker Vote

• Of the 25 Republicans in Texas’ delegation to the United States House of Representatives, only three opposed the election of Kevin McCarthy to the speakership. Those three – Michael Cloud, Chip Roy, and Keith Self – voted for a more conservative nominee.
      
• Because of the Texas Three, and 16 other Republicans, the establishment pick for the U.S. House speakership – Kevin McCarthy of California – was denied a win in the three rounds of balloting. That is the first time a speaker hasn't been elected in the first round since 1923. 
     
• The U.S. House was reconvene at noon today to try again to select a new speaker.
      
• Before the vote, McCarthy had been asked to commit – in exchange for conservatives' support – to allow House floor votes on a balanced budget, the Fair Tax, the Texas Border Plan, and term limits for Congress. He refused.
     
• Why elect a Republican majority if it isn’t going to at least provide floor votes on issues embraced by Republican voters?
     
• “The 19 who voted against McCarthy will surely face a backlash from the people and entities that stand to gain from uniparty control in DC," said Wade Miller, executive director of the Center for Renewing America.
      
• “Our demands are simple: we want the tools to put a check [on] the swamp,” explained Chip Roy on social media. 
     
• “Congress is broken.” – U.S. Rep. Michael Cloud

Conservative Activists Urge GOP To Rally Behind Slaton Proposal

• A coalition of grassroots activists is urging Republican lawmakers to unify around a single proposal – one put forward in 2021 and again this year by Bryan Slaton (R-Royse City) – to stop giving Democrats powerful committee chairmanships in the GOP-led state House. As Erin Anderson reports, this is a top priority of the Republican Party heading into the 2023 legislative session next week.
     
• But rather than support Slaton's effort, State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) is preparing to launch an identical effort. In 2021, Toth opposed Slaton and worked to keep Democrats in charge of key legislative committees.
   
• "We are concerned with the lack of unity from within the chamber on the Slaton amendment when grassroots Texans have been united on this issue since Slaton brought it to the floor two years ago," wrote more than 50 members of the coalition in a letter to Toth. "While we welcome your willingness to change your position on this policy and join grassroots Texans, we are confused as to the reason to file an identical amendment."
      

• As of last night, Toth had not responded to the grassroots coalition (or to Texas Scorecard) about his decision to duplicate – rather than join – Slaton's effort. 

Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas' Unconstitutional Speech Restrictions

• A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that three Texas laws prohibiting Texans from speaking out about the Texas House speaker race are unconstitutional. Sydnie Henry has the details.
      
• A lawsuit was brought against the Texas Ethics Commission by State Rep. Bryan Slaton (R-Royse City), the Grayson County Conservatives, and Robert Bruce of Bexar County.
      
• The laws at issue denied Slaton the ability to donate to Tinderholt’s speaker campaign, or even to fund his own speech explaining why he supported Tinderholt. The laws also impacted Bruce and the Grayson County Conservatives in similar ways.
      
• Comically, State Reps. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) and Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) had tried to intervene in the suit as part of an effort by the House GOP leadership to protect the unconstitutional restrictions. The court found the duo had no business getting involved.
      
• “Their opinions are constitutionally irrelevant,” said Tony McDonald, attorney for the plaintiffs. “The Geren/Burrows ploy seemed designed (if it had any end in mind at all) to gum up the works. They failed. Just because they like unconstitutional laws that stifle Texans’ free speech doesn’t mean they get to tell state agencies or federal judges what to do.”

CDC Pushes “LGBTQ Inclusivity” Assessment for Schools

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is promoting an “LGBTQ Inclusivity” self-assessment for public school employees. Katy Drollinger has the report.

      

• With school districts across the country under fire for exposing children to radical gender ideology and dangerous sexual practices, the CDC is encouraging educators to help their “schools enhance LGBTQ inclusive policies, programs, and practices.”

     

• The assessment includes four separate tests designed for all users, administrators, educators, and school health services staff. The results are ranked into one of three categories: “Commit to Change,” “Beginning to Break Through,” and “Awesome Ally.”

      
• You'd think an agency (allegedly) working to control and prevent the spread of disease would push back against highly unhealthy lifestyles... 

Quote-Unquote

Y'All Answered

State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) wants to ban the governments and citizens of several enemy nations – including Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China – from owning land in Texas.

In yesterday’s One Click Survey, we asked readers if her proposal should become law. Just over 92 percent of readers agreed with the proposal, while 7.97 percent disagreed with it.

Here's a sample of comments folks sent to my inbox...

• “For the life of me, I can’t figure out why this is allowed in Texas or in any of the United States!  Absolutely no good can come of it!” – Karen Lane
     

• “Only citizens should be allowed to buy U.S. soil.” – Gary Ludwig
     

• “Citizens should be free to sell their property to anyone they want, as a consequence of their ownership right to that property. There is no acceptable standard for defining foreign countries that are ‘enemies’ of the United States, particularly in the absence of declared or undeclared wars. Should we prohibit China? Venezuela? Vietnam? Germany? There are already enough laws available to prevent the land being used for illegal, injurious, and treasonous activities, and those are what this prohibition would be infringing freedom to prevent.” – Wayne Stargardt
     

• "Stop enemies from buying Texas land. Americans and Texans are regulated, penalized and taxed out of existence, yet foreigners and enemies come in here and buy up precious land to do what with? We will have nothing left for our own future generations if we don’t stop selling off all our heritage." – Nancy Wood
      

• “Selling a birthright has an ancient precedent. It works out well for the buyer; the seller regrets being stupid.” – Mark Juelg
     

• “Many other countries do not permit non-citizens to purchase land or in some cases even houses. Even Canada just instituted such new rules. Why should we be less protective of ourselves?” – Albert Greech
     

• “We in Texas should not even be having this discussion! If ever there was a proud and independent state it is Texas! Why would Texans succumb to foreign intervention of any kind?” – Kathy Fisher
    

• “Actually, I think all foreign nationals should be banned from buying land in Texas. They are driving up the real-estate values, making it harder for citizens to buy property. In most countries, we are not allowed to buy property, so why should they…” – Wm. Douglas Van Syckle, USN (Ret.)
     

• “For someone who was born in the former Soviet Union...NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OWNED A CENTIMETER OF LAND.  It all belonged to the 'rulers' in the Kremlin. At least the Commies would never permit foreign countries to purchase land in their 'paradise.’” – John Makow
     

• “Property rights need to be absolute. We do not need another government agency approving property sales. If a property owner engages in nefarious activities on their property, they risk forfeiture of their property. That is a proper role of government.” – Mike Tayloe
     

• "Of course we should ban our enemy nations from purchasing land in Texas. They only want to harm our nation in any way they can, so land purchases would aid that immensely! Do you really think China or Russia would allow an American to purchase some of their land? Insane that any Texan would allow this!" – Phyllis N. Peek
     

• “If no U.S. citizen or corporation is allowed to outright own property in China or Mexico, or Switzerland, then no citizen or entity from those countries should be allowed to own any property of any kind in the U.S. Further, if they do own property, it will receive the highest property tax rate of owned property (e. g. no cushy, squishy farm exemptions or the hoax-founded carbon off-set credits). And, absolutely no transfer of mineral rights on foreign-owned property to non-citizen owners.” – Patrick Bell
    

• “NO foreign entity should be allowed to own real property in Texas or any other state. If any potential buyer or existing owner of property is found to be more than 50% owned by a foreign person or entity, they should be given some reasonable amount of time to transfer ownership before their interest would be auctioned off, similar to a tax lien auction.” – Kevin Wade
     

• “This seems like a no-brainer, and since all-important mineral rights can be bought & sold, ban that too.” – Tim Rhodes
     

• “As much as I want to keep hostile nations off Texas soil, I don't see how this could be enforced. If anything, it would push the problem deeper undercover with shell corporations, proxy buyers, and other fraud. Better to have your enemies in the open.” – Jason Kerr
     

• “If the property owned by the foreign governments were taxed at 100% of value per year, it might discourage the practice.” – James Moyer
     

• “I see a practical need for this in today's environment, but I think it's a slippery slope. The term ‘enemy states’ implies that some acid test should be used to define who's an enemy and who's a friend. It may be easy to distinguish in the short term, but what about the long term?” – Thomas Camardo
     

• “It appears to me that a landowner should be a citizen of the country in which the land exists. Otherwise, the property owner could have conflicting interests to the detriment of the country containing the property.” – Arthur Potter

Your Federal & State Lawmakers

The districts and names displayed here should reflect those taking representational effect on January 1, 2023.