Media Rush To Defend Wendy Davis’ Lies

Photo Credit: Kevin Sutherland via Wikipedia (Creative Commons)

Since her filibuster last year in support of unrestricted abortion rights, Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis has been a hero among leftists – and, naturally, a media darling to boot.

When reports surfaced this week regarding numerous lies she has told about her past, though, it seemed her fledgling plan to seek higher office might have been derailed. Democrats have tried for months to position Davis as a feasible gubernatorial candidate; however, her credibility sustained a huge blow when her lies, which primarily concerned her previous marriages, were exposed.

The mainstream media has been dutifully cleaning up her mess in subsequent days, with many outlets actually demonizing those who believe Davis should have told the truth.

According to the unabashedly far-left site, any criticism of Davis is proof of prevailing sexism.

In a shameful critique of the developing controversy, an article on the site claims media sources “have played up her marital and familial problems to poke holes in this story.” In reality, though, Davis made patently false statements about specific events in her life; and thankfully, at least a few news outlets chose to expose her deception.

The site goes on to contend that such “personal details would be hardly a blip on a male candidate’s record,” effectively castigating all of Davis’ detractors as misogynists.

While one might expect such a sycophantic defense from a site like Think Progress, mainstream news sources are doing their part to downplay Davis’ lies, too.

In an ABC News report, one need not read past a headline that declares Davis “may have misstated details” about her past. The lies she told have been unequivocally exposed; however, her supporters in the media continue to suggest it was all a big misunderstanding.

The report continued by including Davis’ accusation that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott was behind “campaign attacks on the personal story of my life as a single mother who worked hard to get ahead.”

Cable network MSNBC naturally joined in the pro-Davis rhetoric, allowing Democrat strategist Jason Stanford to suggest Davis’ ex-husband was actually the villain for exposing her lies.

“God forbid any of us have our life story subject to our exes having veto power,” he said. Disregarding the fact that Davis left her second husband the day after he finished funding her law school education, Stanford contended that bringing up any such accusations is “really demeaning to women.”

So many leftists have expressed their undying loyalty to Davis that it would be nearly impossible for them to turn away from her now. Instead, they resort to the all-too-common tactic of blaming anyone and everyone except the true culprit.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo Credit: Kevin Sutherland via Wikipedia (Creative Commons)

Website Exposes GOP Senator’s Love Of ObamaCare

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Despite a largely conservative voting record, Texas Sen. John Cornyn has often faced attacks by those on the right. As he now prepares for a primary battle against Rep. Steve Stockman in coming months, Cornyn has been touting his record as one that will compare favorably against his opponent’s proven conservative leadership.

While he certainly has his supporters in the Lone Star State and beyond, a new website promises to expose Cornyn’s deep-seated infatuation with ObamaCare. Obviously, any show of support for the unpopular law would prove to be a significant hurdle as November elections approach.

The site, Cornyn Loves ObamaCare, chronicles the senator’s response to a number of developments during the healthcare law’s implementation. Each entry sheds light on the apparent eagerness he had at the time to see it succeed.

According to the timeline, which dates back as far as 2009, Cornyn has repeatedly supported efforts to rush a vote on ObamaCare when it was still a bill. He routinely disparaged other legislators’ plans to halt its advancement, whether by attacking plans by principled conservatives like then-Sen. Jim DeMint or abandoning fellow Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as he spoke out against ObamaCare last year.

Cruz’s efforts were a major factor in a subsequent federal government shutdown and corresponding national debate over the behemoth healthcare law. Though millions of conservatives expressed solidarity with Cruz, Cornyn was decisively opposed to any attempt to stop ObamaCare.

His spokesperson, Megan Mitchell, said at the time that Cornyn “will not block a bill that defunds Obamacare. He will support the House-passed bill.”

Though he expressed a desire to see the shutdown come to an end, the website notes Cornyn was “a no-show” at a protest of the Obama administration’s overtly partisan policy of erecting barricades around prominent war memorials and other outdoor monuments.

Instead, the site alleges, Cornyn was far more interested in currying favor among Democrat leaders – especially Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. As he prepares for what promises to be a contentious election cycle, however, the senator seems to be embracing his conservative values – at least with his rhetoric.

In reality, the site suggests, Cornyn’s relationship with ObamaCare is best summed up in the Atlantic Starr song, “Secret Lovers.”

For more details surrounding his ongoing love affair with the law, or to submit your own “Dear John” letter to let him know how you feel about it, visit

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Abortion Hero Caught In Multiple Lies

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

A woman whose sole claim to national fame is her hours-long filibuster in favor of unrestricted abortion access for women, it is clear Wendy Davis is guided by a set of morals far different than the majority of Americans. The Texas state senator is aligned with many on the far left, however, as many prominent Democrats are now touting her as a possible gubernatorial candidate in an otherwise reliably red state.

Apparently showing her solidarity with other leftists, recent reports show Davis has completely lied about key aspects of her past. According to one article in a recent issue of the Dallas Morning News, Davis’ failed marriages were the object of many lies and distortions.

Though she claimed she was divorced for the first time at the age of 19, she was actually two years older when her marriage dissolved.

Furthermore, her second ex-husband accused her of adultery and received custody of the couple’s two children – a point conveniently left out of her campaign propaganda. One of the children a court awarded to him, in fact, was not even his biological offspring, but Davis’ daughter from a previous relationship.

Perhaps most outrageously, the report indicates Davis initialized the divorce just one day after her then-husband made the final payment for her law school education.

For someone who is fashioning herself as the next women’s rights leader in America, it seems a man was integral to her success. In true feminist fashion, however, it seems she had no qualms with casting him aside after he had served his purpose.

The article also claims Davis’ first political pursuit was as a Republican in Fort Worth. Whether this was based on her belief that only a Republican could win, or signifies as radical shift to the left in the years since, this is another detail omitted from the narrative she has embraced recently.

In a frustratingly weak admission, she maintained only that her “language should be tighter.”

Of course, she has likely learned from decades of anecdotal evidence that a Democrat can easily get away with lying as long as he or she never actually admits the lie. That remains to be seen for this rising star, however.

She still faces plenty of Republican competition, and few political pundits actually believe she could win a statewide race at this point. As leftist leaders continue their mission to turn Texas into a Democrat-controlled state, one wonders if they will want to hitch their wagon to someone who cannot even be honest about her own past.

While liars generally perform well among voters on the far left, Texas is proudly different than the Democrat enclaves on either coast.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)


Judge Orders Homeschooled Children Removed From Christian Parents’ Home

Photo credit: ladybugbkt (Creative Commons)

In the age of federally mandated Common Core curriculum and widespread evidence of leftist indoctrination, it is not surprising a growing number of American families are exploring educational options other than public school. As parents try to protect their children from the propagandistic government system, however, the government is in turn seeking vengeance against them.

Nowhere was this disturbing trend more evident than in the recent removal of seven children from a Texas couple dedicated to homeschooling them. While Child Protective Services initially became involved in the case involving Trevor and Christina Tutt after two of the children wandered a short distance from home, a case worker subsequently indicated that “[t]here is no problem here.”

The same employee, however, subsequently made a highly subjective accusation against the couple.

“Nobody in their right mind would want to stay home all day with so many children,” she told a court during the hearing. In response, the Tutts provided ample evidence showing they were fit to be parents and educators to the group of children.

Nevertheless, an activist judge directed CPS to remove the children based entirely on their manner of education. The ruling was in apparent violation of a state policy that a parent’s choice “to homeschool their children or send their child to another private or public school is not relevant to the CPS investigation.”

The Texas Home School Coalition is behind an effort to reunite the family and has ridiculed the court’s response regarding this issue.

Thankfully, a judge last week ruled that there was no evidence of abuse or neglect against the Tutts and ruled most of the children should be reintegrated into the home. Two of the children – both in foster care – were not returned based on an impending adoption by the Tutts while another is awaiting a reunion with his birth parents.

Still, the terms of the reunion require the children to attend public schools.

According to the Family Rights Project, CPS attempted to use at least five different accusations against the Tutts in an effort to seize their children. While none of the ploys ultimately worked, this family has been forever traumatized by the state merely for trying to provide their children a proper education.

This outrageous miscarriage of justice is a clear warning to any parents who seek an alternative to a public school system designed to turn the next generation into pliable leftist automatons. With absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing, the Tutts learned how vindictive the state can be in protecting its own power.

–B. Christopher Agee

Have an idea for a story? Email us at


Photo credit: ladybugbkt (Creative Commons)

Texas Court Throws 2nd, 4th Amendments Under The Bus

Texas map SC

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn, based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “…did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “…based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.”  Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family, and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.

When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “…because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.

The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:

“…in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.

Should Americans who exercise their God-given, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts, or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of–or protection guaranteed by–another right is despicable, disgraceful, and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.

Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on site, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?

Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.