So, I put a poll together to let people give their input on whether they support the ongoing ICE raids in the fall of 2025. I put this page together that should update the results in real time. If it gets some traction, I will reshare this page later.
As you can see, the poll itself only takes a few seconds to complete if you haven’t.
After having AI give me a rundown of Aaron Reitz, I asked for the same on Chip Roy. Everything after this sentence is AI generated content.
Chip Roy is a prominent Republican U.S. Representative from Texas’s 21st Congressional District, serving since 2019. He’s a key figure in the conservative wing of the GOP, known for his fiscal hawkishness, constitutional conservatism, and willingness to buck party leadership on issues like spending and foreign aid. With Ken Paxton’s announcement that he’s not seeking re-election as Texas Attorney General (instead challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the 2026 GOP Senate primary), Roy has emerged as a leading candidate in the 2026 Republican primary for AG. He’s positioned himself as a battle-tested fighter against federal overreach, drawing on his time as chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz and his legislative record. Since this is a similar rundown to the one on Aaron Reitz, I’ll structure it accordingly, based on his background, career, and the evolving AG race as of August 2025.
Roy’s career has been marked by roles in state and federal government, focusing on policy, litigation, and conservative advocacy. He’s built a reputation as a principled, no-compromise operator:
Roy’s style is combative—he’s known for fiery floor speeches and has a 100% voting record with the Club for Growth, earning high marks from groups like Heritage Action.
With Paxton’s exit, the March 2026 GOP primary is a battleground for the party’s soul: MAGA hardliners vs. establishment conservatives. As of late August 2025, the field includes:
The race is ideological, with Paxton allies (via super PACs) dumping money against Roy, calling him a “Trump-hater” despite his recent endorsements. Recent X chatter shows polarized debates, with #RoyForAG trending among moderates and #ReitzForAG among MAGA users. Texas remains a GOP stronghold, so the primary winner likely secures the seat against Democrat Joe Jaworski.
In summary, Chip Roy is a heavyweight in Texas conservatism, bringing legislative clout to the AG race but navigating tensions with the MAGA wing. He’s the establishment favorite but could falter if Trump or Paxton fully weighs in against him. For deeper dives (e.g., specific votes or polls), let me know!
I knew nothing about Aaron Reitz background, history, views and saw him pop up on an ad. I thought this would be a perfect job for AI (at least how I use it) and asked Gork about him. This is what I got. I’ll do Chip Roy as well. Everything after this sentence is AI generated content.
Aaron Reitz is a Republican candidate running for Texas Attorney General in the 2026 election. He’s positioning himself as a staunch conservative, “true MAGA” figure aligned with former President Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and outgoing AG Ken Paxton. Since you’re new to him, I’ll break down what I know about his background, career, campaign, and the context of the race based on available information. He’s a relatively recent entrant to statewide politics but has deep ties to Texas Republican leadership and federal conservative legal circles.
Reitz has built a career as a conservative legal strategist, focusing on issues like immigration, election integrity, border security, and challenging federal overreach. He’s worked closely with key GOP figures:
Throughout his career, Reitz has been affiliated with conservative groups like the Federalist Society and has been vocal about “lawfare” as a tool against conservatives, vowing to use the AG’s office aggressively against it.
Incumbent Ken Paxton announced in 2025 that he’s not seeking re-election as AG and is instead challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP Senate primary. This has opened the field for Republicans in the March 2026 primary. As of August 2025, at least four GOP candidates are in:
The race is heating up along MAGA vs. establishment lines, with Paxton’s supporters pushing Reitz as the heir apparent to avoid disrupting the AG’s office momentum (e.g., ongoing lawsuits). Democrats have their own primary, but Texas is solidly Republican for statewide offices.
Overall, Reitz is a rising star in Texas GOP circles, appealing to the hard-right base amid a crowded, ideological primary. If Paxton vacates, the winner would take over an office that’s become a national conservative powerhouse. For more, check his site or X profile. If you have specifics (e.g., policy details), I can dig deeper!
Many years ago, my mother informed me my dad had a terminal illness, polycythemia. She explained to me the progression it would take, and I watched over the years as her words came to life in my dad’s health.
Polycythemia has some weird impacts. He had to take Benadryl before a shower because his skin was basically allergic to water. There were times when he had to donate red blood cells (RBCs) frequently because his blood was too thick. It basically kicks your RBC creation into overdrive. Over time, your body produces deformed RBCs until they are so deformed they can’t carry oxygen.
My dad hit that point in the summer of 2012. He was in the ICU, and we couldn’t get anyone to give us information on his prognosis. My mother and I finally “cornered” a doctor in his room. My dad asked him, “Can you fix me for a while?” The doc was somewhat evasive and finally said, “There are still options.” He told my dad that the options consisted of regularly swapping all his blood through transfusions.
My dad said, “Send me home.” The doc was like, “Sir, if we do that you won’t survive more than a few days. He said, “Send me home. I’m not dying hooked up to machines in an ICU.”
We got a hospital bed set up at home. He came home. His family took turns sitting and visiting with him. When he died, he was surrounded by family singing hymns to bid him farewell from this realm. It was beautiful. The hospice nurse that showed up thought she had the wrong house because it was so peaceful.
He left my mother prepared and not burdened by medical expenses from years of care that I’ve heard referred to as “extended death,” as opposed to extending life.
I’ll never forget that. My father had zero fear of death. I pray for that fearlessness and ability to think of others who will remain when I am gone. I do not want to leave any burden on my family or anyone else when my time comes. Praise God for an assured eternity.
You need to unplug sometimes. Unplug from the internet once in a while to do yourself some good. Negativity reigns there and constant soaking in the negativity of protests, political idiocy and humans offing each other in various wars will taint your views and your health.
Unplug from Russia v Ukraine. Unplug from Israel v Iran. Unplug from “No Kings.” Unplug from calls about the end of Western Civilization. While you’re consuming “fear porn,” the birds are singing, rabbits are nibbling on someone’s vegetable garden, and the earth continues as it always has.
I appreciated a thing that seems to have gone away. I used to see “timeline cleanse” posts occasionally that featured someone’s pet or kid doing something cute or funny. You don’t see them so much anymore. But those things still happen. And if you don’t unplug, you may find yourself being manipulated by algorithms seeking to keep you stressed and tensed. Not a good constant state to be in.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
Phillipians 4:6-7
AI seems to be everywhere now. I’ve expressed my thoughts on it to people as, “AI will be the end of new knowledge.” All AI can do is reorder and reorganize knowledge it draws on from existing information. Over-reliance on AI will result in humans forgetting how to think creatively. Already it wants to make your blog post titles for you, suggest edits for you, and tell you when the best time to publish is etc. While I think it has limited use value, I think it should be declared when used.
As such, I will place the following images at the top of articles from this day forward if a page has AI generated or edited content. The images and their meanings are below:
This image will indicate a video on the page has AI generated content.
This image indicates there is AI generated or manipulates textual content.
This image indicates there is at least one still image on the page that has been generated or edited using AI.
I came across the following video on x.com today. I wanted to have the information readily available, and some things get lost/removed there so here is a link and a transcript, created for free at clideo.com (it did a decent job too). We have come to the point where the SCOTUS is often viewed as the supreme power of the land. It isn’t.
We’ve got five minutes if you would please make sure your green light is on and then state your name and title for the record. Thank you. It is on. My name is Publius Hulda. I’m a retired litigation attorney and I write on the original intent of the constitution using the federalist papers. I do not go by Supreme Court opinions because for 200 years the Supreme Court has been ignoring the federalist papers and the constitution are framers given and they have. have gone off on tangents of their own, which have nothing to do with the constitution. the attorney general’s opinion begs the question, he states that states can’t nullify acts of the federal government which are authorized by the constitution, but then he completely fails to cite article section and verse, a clause where the constitution delegates to congress authority to restrict our arms. when we ratified the… constitution, we created the federal government, we listed, enumerated every power we granted to our creature, the federal government. article 1, section 8, clauses 1 through 16 lists most of the powers we delegated to congress for the government for the country at large, we didn’t put on our list that our creature could restrict our arms, we didn’t delegate this power to congress because our framers wanted the American people to be heavily armed, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write about this in the federalist papers in Federalist paper number 46, James Madison writes why the American people are armed, it is so we can defend ourselves, our communities and our states from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical and oversteps the constitutional limits its powers. In article 1, section 8, clause 16, pursuant to that, Congress passed the militia act. of 1792, where they required every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 46, except for federal officers and employees to buy a rifle, ammunition and report to their local militia for training. pursuing to article 1, section 8, clause 11, congress is authorized to issue letters of mark and reprisal.v this is what authorizes private warships to make war on our enemies, these were the privateers who fired on British ships during the war of 1812. Our framers contemplated people who were heavily armed. That is why we never delegated to our creature authority to restrict our arms in any fashion whatsoever, and when the federal government attempts to do so, they are usurping powers which they do not possess. The attorney general. goes by court opinions, not the constitution. there is vast gulf between the two. we have 200 years of Supreme Court opinions and Mr. chairman very kindly shared some of these 200 years of Supreme Court opinions, which have nothing to do with the constitution. Charles Evans Hughes said, over 100 years ago, the constitution means what the judges say it means. “that has been the prevailing dogma ever since, and generations of lawyers have been indoctrinated with this lie. that is why we no longer have federal government which is held down by the chains of the constitution. what we have is rule by five, five judges on the Supreme Court who claim the power to do whatever they want to us and our country. so today we have two options, it’s what the constitution.” says and what the Supreme Court says, well, your oath of office requires you to obey the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is merely a creature of this Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. My third point, the AG asserts that the Attorney general, I’m sorry, that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on the extent of the powers of the federal government, but framers knew that Supreme Court judges were as likely as anybody else to be corrupt usurp powers and act lawlessly, so Congress, the president and the states all have checks on the Supreme Court. Hamilton shows in federalist number 81 that Congress’s check on lawless supreme of lawless federal judges is to impeach them and remove them from office.v The president has his oath of office as a check on the Supreme Court, President’s oath is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, it is not to obey the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not set up in our Constitution as the. superior branch of the federal government, and then there’s no need for me to, well, Madison says in his report on the Virginia Resolutions that it is a plain principle founded in common sense that the states as the sovereign parties to the constitution are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the constitution and that we may that the states may check all branches of the federal government, not just they may check the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches by nullifying their acts. if the judicial branch connives with other branches usurping powers, our constitution will be destroyed if we do not stop them. this is what James Madison said in his notes on in his report on the Virginia resolution. I’m sorry didn’t have time to finish, hope that during questions. Someone will ask me about the so-called nullification crisis of
First, why does everyone I know say “erbs” but everyone I see from Britain calls them “herbs?”
Now that that’s out of the way. We’ve been growing our own herbs for a while. Our oregano is four feet wide. That’s about a foot a year. So, there’s a lot there and it was time to clean it up a bit.
In doing so, yesterday I cut a bunch off and dropped it into the dehydrator. I was sitting outside crumbling some of it into a jar whilst having a St. Arnold Fancy Lawnmower beer after mowing (side note, it is a refreshing outdoor beer).
Anywhere, when I was done and I went to put the lid on, I couldn’t help but notice that the home dried herbs, at least oregano, seem much more aesthetically pleasing to me than the minute crumbles you get from the grocery store.
We need these. I’m open to input for change. I’m going to try to hold myself to them.
Voluntary Rules of Procedure for the Court of Public Opinion
These rules are recommended for individuals to sue in forming and sharing opinions responsibly, ensuring public discourse is fair, evidence-based, and resistant to misinformation and emotional manipulation. They are voluntary and designed for adoption by anyone engaging in public discussions.
Rule 1: Verify Before You Share
Principle: Only share or endorse information supported by credible, verifiable sources.
Action: Cross-check claims with primary sources (e.g., official statements, documents, or reputable news outlets). Avoid spreading unverified rumors or anonymous posts.
Example: If a post on social media claims a person committed a crime, check for official police reports or court filings before commenting or reposting.
Rule 2: Pause Before Reacting
Principle: Avoid snap judgments driven by emotional triggers.
Action: Take time to assess the full context of an event. Wait for additional information if the situation is unclear or evolving.
Example: If a viral video sparks outrage, wait for corroborating reports or the other party’s perspective before forming an opinion.
Rule 3: Cite Your Sources
Principle: Transparency builds trust and accountability.
Action: When sharing an opinion or fact, link to or clearly reference your sources. If relying on personal experience, disclose it as such.
Example: Instead of saying, “This company is corrupt,” say, “This company was fined for violations, per [link to government report].”
Rule 4: Acknowledge Uncertainty
Principle: Honesty about unknowns prevents premature conclusions.
Action: If information is incomplete or unverified, state it clearly. Use phrases like “alleged,” “unconfirmed,” or “based on current reports.”
Example: Instead of “They caused the crisis,” say, “Reports suggest they may be involved, but investigations are ongoing.”
Rule 5: Seek Multiple Perspectives
Principle: Balanced discourse considers all sides.
Action: Actively look for opposing viewpoints or alternative explanations before forming an opinion. Avoid echo chambers.
Example: If a news outlet reports one narrative, check other platforms for counterarguments or additional context.
Rule 6: Correct Mistakes Promptly
Principle: Accountability strengthens credibility.
Action: If you share incorrect information, issue a clear correction as soon as possible, referencing the original error.
Example: Post, “I previously shared [incorrect claim]. New information shows [corrected information]. Apologies for the error.”
Rule 7: Avoid Personal Attacks
Principle: Focus on facts, not character assassination.
Action: Critique actions or ideas without resorting to insults, defamation, or assumptions about motives.
Example: Instead of “They’re a liar,” say, “Their statement contradicts [specific evidence].”
Rule 8: Promote Constructive Dialogue
Principle: Public discourse should aim to inform and resolve, not inflame.
Action: Engage respectfully, ask clarifying questions, and encourage others to follow these rules.
Example: Respond to a heated comment with, “Can you share your source for that? Here’s what I found: [link].”
Implementation Guidelines
For Individuals: Apply these rules in posts, comments, and conversations. Share the rules with your network.
For Influencers: Model these behaviors to set a positive example for followers.
Feedback and Updates
Share feedback on these rules via x.com with hashtag #COPORules.
Rules will be reviewed periodically to ensure relevance and effectiveness.
By voluntarily adopting these rules, we can elevate the Court of Public Opinion into a space of reason, fairness, and truth.
I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve read through the Book of Proverbs in my lifetime. I loved reading as far back as I can recall. It’s perfect for reading one chapter a day for an entire month. What day is it? Read that chapter.
I find it has timeless wisdom for leading a peaceful and productive life. I spent some of my time yesterday reviewing video from a security system. The video showed an individual obviously upset, spewing vile curses and filth, about something they’re completely in the dark on. I had to stop and pray for that person right then.
Today, while reading Proverbs 15, these verses really stuck out at me:
The lips of the wise broadcast knowledge, but not so the heart of fools.
A discerning mind seeks knowledge, but the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.
A hot-tempered person stirs up conflict, but one slow to anger calms strife.
The mind of the righteous person thinks before answering, but the mouth of the wicked blurts out evil things.
Anyone who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever listens to correction acquires good sense.
As I read these, I couldn’t help but think that the ancient wisdom in this book still applies thousands of years later. I went back and read it again. On the second reading I was thankful to God that He has allowed me to be raised in a home, and life, that valued His Word. It has served me so well.
On re-reading it, it occurred to me that non-believers could benefit greatly from reading it as well. I know, there are other wisdom literatures out there. I’ve read some of them, not all. I don’t know if it’s just how our civilization formed or why, but Proverbs has always seemed more real to me.
Anyway, I hope you have a blessed and peaceful day surrounded by wise people, not fools.