Fall 2018 National Committee Meeting

Fall 2018 National Committee Meeting


NOVEMBER 16th Through The 17th



Keynote Speaker: Charles Key

Charles Key is the principal of Key Financial Services, an independent financial services firm specializing in Retirement, Financial Planning, and Insurance Services.  Charles has been helping individuals, families, retirees, and business owners reach their goals for 26 years using safe money concepts and common sense solutions to their financial planning needs.

He has lived in Oklahoma City for 51 years, has been an active member of local & national organizations, & specializes in “Safe Money Concepts & Solutions.”

Charles Key served in the Oklahoma Legislature for 18 years. Having served under both Democratic and Republican leadership, he has unique insight into the way state government really works. A life-long activist in the liberty movement, former State Rep. Key has been fighting for openness and transparency in government for over 30 years. One of his greatest personal achievements was passage of the Tenth Amendment Resolution which has now been adopted by over half of state legislatures in the union.

Charles Key was instrumental in the Grand Jury investigation into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal building and published a 600 page study about it, “The Final Report”  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16304-key-report-on-okc-bombing    Charles has appeared in over 600 programs in broadcast & print media on a variety of subjects.  Appearances include CBS News,  Fox News,  CNN,  Court TV,  Hannity & Colmes,  The O’Reilly Factor,  Michael Reagan, etc





Embassy Suites SOUTH by Dallas Hilton DFW Airport

4650 West Airport Freeway

Irving, TX 75062

Phone 972-313-8028  (Please mention that you are with the Constitution Party for the $129.00 per night rate)



Friday Nov 16th through Saturday Nov 17th

Hotel room rate $129.00 per night  (This is $20.00 less per night than at Denver)

Good through October 25, 2018


Registration – click HERE

$180.00 which includes all meals: ( lunch on Friday and Saturday.  Also included the banquet meal on Friday night.  A hot breakfast is also included the morning following each night’s stay). Snacks are served each night from 5:30 to 7:30 pm during the reception time.

Early bird registration of $180.00 is good through October 25th

Post Early Bird registration $200.00



More Information About Charles Key

Licensing: Oklahoma Life, Health, Accident, Property & Casualty. (Regulated by the

Oklahoma Depart. of Insurance) securities licensed, series 6 & 63 1992-95 & 2003-06.


  • Old Surety Life Insurance Company 2006- present.
  • Served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives 1986-1998, 2006-2012
  • Oklahoma House: Chair of the Insurance Committee, Judiciary, Financial Services, Retirement, Commerce, Industry & Labor, Education, Corrections, Rules, Banking & Finance. Asst. Floor Leader, Minority Whip.
  • Executive Director of Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Delegate to China: American Council of Young Political Leaders (1987 & 2009)

Charles has four children and one granddaughter and one grandson. He and his wife Janice (a public school teacher for 10 years) are active members of Northwest Church of Christ.  He has served as a deacon and served on mission trips to India, Guyana and Australia.  He enjoys spending time with his family and backpacking and hiking in the Rocky Mountains.





By Charles Key




1: Representatives Cannot Represent

2: The Tyranny of the Rules

3: Protecting the Status Quo

4: How Good Legislators Go Bad

5: Government by the People – the Proposal for Open Government

6: Three Avenues for Change

7: Answering Objections

8: What Can I Do?




The person you elected to protect your interests and propose policy on your behalf has no assurance of being able to do anything because all the legislative power in the state is concentrated in the hands of the Senate President Pro Tempore (Pro Tempe) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Speaker).  It does not matter what our elected officials want to accomplish on our behalf.   The Pro Tempe and the Speaker meet in secret caucuses and in private offices to decide which bills to hear and which bills to kill.


I will outline for you one of the biggest reasons why representative government does not work as it once did. This problem exists in almost every state and in Congress. When you understand what this problem is, you will clearly see that it underlies many other issues, and that changing it will help make other reforms possible. I am going to teach you the step-by-step system you can use to fix this problem in your state. Once you see what needs to be done, you will be prepared to take action and remove a major barrier to true representative government.

Join us for our upcoming Webinar!



11:00 AM

Welcome – Scott Copeland

Opening Prayer – Gary Blake

Pledge – Dustin Ussery

Minutes – Jackie Copeland

Treasurer – Kristie Van Eaton

Proposed Bylaws Changes – John McCormick


11:20 AM

Personhood Amendment – Ricardo Davis, Southern Regional Chair NEC, Chairman of Georgia Right To Life


11:40 AM

Texas Right To Life – John Seago, Legislative Director for Texas Right To Life


12:00 PM

National Update by Frank Fluckiger, National Chairman


12:15 PM

North Caroline Representative – Events concerning ballot access


12:40 PM

Veteran Update – Dustin Ussery


1:00 PM

North Region Update, Movie & Introduction of NR County Chairs – Christy Mowery


1:20 PM

South Region Update and SR County Chairs – Gary Blake


1:40 PM

John Haven College Testimony – Why The Constitution Party of Texas?


1:50 PM

No Fault Divorce – Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse


2:00 PM

Five Key Legislative Issues for 2019 Q&A


2:30 PM

Texas Ballot Access Lawsuit Update Oliver Hall


2:45 PM

Closing Comment – Scott Copeland


3:00 PM


NYT: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who had refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.

The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.

At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Justice Kennedy often casts the deciding vote in closely divided cases on major social issues. When the court agreed to hear the Colorado case last June, it seemed to present him with a stark choice between two of his core commitments. On the one hand, Justice Kennedy has written every major Supreme Court decision protecting gay men and lesbians. On the other, he is the court’s most ardent defender of free speech.

Read More

Find us at CPAC 2018!

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), hosted by the American Conservative Union, combines ideas with action to leverage the strength of thousands of grass-roots activists to break through the resistance of Washington’s powerful elites.

Members of the Constitution Party of Texas gathered at CPAC 2018 in the Nation’s Capital to spread the message of the Constitution Party among a great group of conservative leaders.

Who Makes The Law Of The Land

By Jacob N. Schulz

[NOTE: Jacob Schulz is an 8th-grade homeschooled student interested in American government. He will be giving this speech at the 4-H communication arts contest.]

How many of you believe that Congress makes the laws of our land? How many of you believe presidential executive orders are also the law of our land? How many of you believe the Supreme court’s decisions are the law of our land?

n the United States Constitution our founding fathers gave the American people a government of checks and balances–a government of three branches where none is all powerful. Our constitution clearly dictates which of the three branches makes the laws of our land, and what the duties of the other two branches are, regarding those laws.

Article I, Section 1 of the constitution states: “All legislative power [law-making power] herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States[.]”

According to our constitution then, all laws are made in the congress. This is how:

  1. A congressman drafts a bill.
  2. He submits it to the floor.

III. It is sent to a committee.

  1. It is discussed and sent back to the floor.
  2. It is discussed and voted on.
  3. It passes.

VII. It is sent to the other house.

VIII. Same process.

  1. If it passes, it is sent to the president.
  2. The president can sign the bill, veto it, or do nothing, in which case the bill becomes law after ten days.

There, that’s how congress makes laws–the condensed version.

Now how many of you believe presidential executive orders are the law of the land?

Remember that word all? “All legislative power…shall be vested in a congress.” That leaves no law-making power leftover for the president. His executive orders are for the sole purpose of enforcing the constitution as prescribed in Article II Section 3 “He shall take care that the laws (made by Congress) be faithfully executed.” Again I say, the president’s role in the government is to preserve and protect the constitution and to enforce, not make, our country’s laws.

Suppose the president issued an executive order that all Americans had to worship at a Lutheran church. Not only is there no such law passed by congress, but that executive order is a blatant violation of the first amendment, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Since this executive order is not enforcing a law, but trying to make a new one, and because this order would violate the first amendment and deprive citizens of their treasured freedom to worship as they please, the president is overstepping his constitutional bounds, and the order should be struck down.

On the other hand, suppose a president made an executive order restricting immigration from certain countries.  Article IV Section 4 states that the executive branch shall: “Protect each of them [the states] from invasion.” In addition, Congress has passed a statutory law stating:

 “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may. . .impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

This order to restrict immigration is therefore perfectly legal. Some may disagree with it, but it is still very much in line with the president’s first and foremost duty, to protect the American people by enforcing the constitution and the laws of congress.

Finally, how many of you still believe that Supreme Court decisions are the law of the land? Again I remind you, the first sentence of the constitution vests ALL legislative powers in a congress. That leaves nothing left for the Supreme court. The Supreme Court’s  function is to discover and apply the constitution and the laws of congress to the cases brought before them, and to strike down laws that violate the constitution. They are not to judge based on their personal bias. They are to judge based on the Constitution. Moreover, they have no jurisdiction unless a case is appealed to them. Even then, their opinions apply only to the case on which they have ruled–not to the entire country. Their opinions are not law!

Consider this, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in Dredd Scott v. Sanford that African Americans had no rights which white men were bound to respect. In 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled in Buck v. Bell that mentally disabled women could be sterilized “for the protection and health of the State.”

Dredd Scott and Buck v. Bell have never been overturned. If Supreme court decisions carry the force of law, then why do African Americans have rights, and why aren’t we forcibly sterilizing every intellectually disabled woman? The answer is this: the Supreme Court does not make laws. Their decisions do not need to be overturned. They are just opinions. They are not law, and can be ignored as we have been rightly ignoring Dredd Scott and Buck v. Bell for decades.

Roe v. Wade, the supreme court decision that “legalized” abortion, is not law. Obergefell v. Hodge, the supreme court decision that “legalized” same-sex marriage in all 50 states is not law. These are simply opinions. Congress, and Congress alone makes the laws of our land–not the president, and not the Supreme Court.

When we know how our government is supposed to work, we should be appalled by what we see today. Whenever the courts make decisions not based on the constitution and the law, but instead based on their personal bias, they are neglecting their duties. And when they declare rulings on things over which the constitution is silent, or declare rulings that have no constitutional foundation, they are overstepping their bounds.

When the president makes executive orders not to enforce the law, but to make new laws, he is overstepping his constitutional bounds. When he refuses to enforce laws that Congress has made, he is neglecting his duties.

When Congress neglects to exercise their constitutional power of impeachment against those who break the law, or when they won’t compromise across party lines in order to pass good legislation, they are neglecting their duties.

The president doesn’t make laws, he can only enforce them. The Supreme court doesn’t make laws, it can only discover and apply them. Only Congress makes laws. Executive orders are to enforce the laws; Supreme Court decisions are opinions about the laws; but Congress, and Congress alone holds the law-making authority in the United States of America.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jacob Schulz and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Replace it with nothing!

by Craig Roberts, CP Member – Wisconsin

With the epic failure of the Republicans to repeal Obamacare, we at the Constitution Party say: We told you so! Yes, we said it. And you will be hearing “we told you so” much more in the coming years. For the entire presidential campaign we were told by “conservatives” that we must suspend our principles and vote for the Republican candidate in order to stop Hillary, instead of voting for an actual conservative candidate, Darrell Castle. After all, they said, “he can’t win.” Well, guess what? Apparently Republicans can’t win either. The Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare, a major campaign promise, and our former president’s signature piece of legislation is still chugging along.

To make matters worse, the Republicans, after trying one time to repeal it, decided to cut-and-run and move to something else. Are they really that pathetic and weak? The answer is, Yes. The Democrats, to their credit, never give up, even when they lose. They keep scraping and clawing until they get what they want. The Republicans on the other hand, keep doing what they do best:  cave-in to the Democrats.

The Constitution Party recognizes that the Federal Government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in healthcare. None! Therefore, we propose that Obamacare be repealed and replaced with nothing. What about those who really need the coverage? That can be handled by the individual states, if the citizens of those states choose to make it a priority. The states have full constitutional authority to pursue whatever program they wish. For instance, Wisconsin has Badgercare. Massachusetts has “Romneycare,” etc. Each state has the money to fund their own healthcare system, if they make it a priority. The reason they have not made it a priority is because they want Uncle Sam to pay for it so that they may continue with their wasteful spending in order to buy votes. If you are truly interested in universal healthcare, take it up with your state representatives.

The Constitution Party has proven once again to be the only conservative party left in America. We are the only party who can oppose the Democrat Party. If you want a political party with principles, you only have one choice; the Constitution Party. Join a group of people who are willing to fight for our conservative principles, not run and hide. Go to www.constitutionparty.com to learn more

It’s Time for Congress to Investigate the CIA Hacking Scandal

With WikiLeaks providing hardware and software manufactures with technical details about the hacking tools the CIA developed — and lost — the manufactures are working to plug the holes. While that is happening, there may be the beginnings of a Congressional investigation into the CIA’s hacking activities.

Almost as soon as WikiLeaks published a trove of documents and files revealing the size and scope of the CIA’s arsenal of cyber weapons and the fact that the CIA somehow lost control of that arsenal, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) released a statement saying, “I am deeply disturbed by the allegation that the CIA lost its arsenal of hacking tools.” Lieu, who has a degree in computer science, added:

The ramifications could be devastating. I am calling for an immediate congressional investigation. We need to know if the CIA lost control of its hacking tools, who may have those tools, and how do we now protect the privacy of Americans.

Since such a congressional investigation would likely be headed by either the House Intelligence committee or the Senate Intelligence committee.

 Lieu is not alone in his concerns or his willingness to take action. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) told the assembled press at a briefing last Tuesday, “These [leaks] appear to be very, very serious.” He added, “We are extremely concerned, and we are following it closely.”

If a congressional investigation had bipartisan support, it could avoid the typical political obstacles that might get in the way. Such an investigation would have the potential to upset the apple-cart of the surveillance state by uncovering wrongdoing within the CIA’s hacking programs.

One possibility that the CIA has dismissed is that the agency could be shown to have used its cyber weapons to hack devices belonging to American citizens living in the United States. The CIA recently released a statement saying, in part:

It is also important to note that CIA is legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans, and CIA does not do so. CIA’s activities are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with U.S. law and the Constitution.

That statement notwithstanding, the reality is that the agency has been accused in the past of hacking the computers and servers of Americans, including those used by a U.S. senator. In March 2014, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — who was, at the time the Intelligence Committee chairwoman — accused the CIA of searching the computer she used to store files for her committee’s investigation into the CIA torture program operated under President Bush.

In her remarks — made on the floor of the Senate — Feinstein said, “I have grave concerns that the CIA’s search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution.” Later that day, CIA Director John Brennan denied those claims in an appearance at the New World Order oriented Council on Foreign Relations. Brennan said that the CIA “has tried to work as collaboratively as possible with the committee on its report” and that “there have been many things written, and many things said — including, I understand, this morning — about the program, some fact and some pure fiction.”

He also told the globalist group, “As far as the allegations of … CIA hacking into … Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean we wouldn’t do that,” adding that doing so would be “beyond … the scope of reason in terms of what we would do.”

One need not be a Feinstein fan to imagine that her claims were probably more truthful that Brennan’s denials. After all, a brief perusal of the documents published last week by WikiLeaks shows that the CIA developed methods for hacking computers, mobile devices, and SmartTVs to turn them into surveillance devices to be used against their owners. As this writer said in a previous article:

While the CIA claims that it never uses its investigative tools on American citizens in the United States, one is reminded that the agency doesn’t exactly have a stellar reputation for being truthful. Besides, how many terrorist camps in the Middle East have SmartTVs to watch their favorite programs on? The reality is that these tools are designed to penetrate the very types of devices used by ordinary citizens in Western countries.

Given the lack of accountability, lack of honesty, and lack of integrity that are par for the course where the CIA is concerned, the statement by the agency that “CIA’s activities are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with U.S. law and the Constitution” would be laughable if so much weren’t at stake.

Concerned Americans should pressure Congress to investigate the CIA’s hacking programs to determine at least the following:

• Were American citizens living in the United States targeted by those programs?

• How did the CIA lose control of its arsenal of hacking weapons?

• Did the CIA even have the authorization to create that arsenal in the first place?

• If so, who granted such authorization?

• What was the cost of developing and using that arsenal?

• Who had access to the documents and files that comprised that arsenal?

In the absence of such an in-depth investigation, the CIA will simply start over, rebuild its arsenal, and continue in its unaccountable ways.

The Outcome is God’s

“The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.”
Proverbs 16:33

Years ago there was a story in one of the Dallas papers about a man (in Arizona, I believe)Jim who got in his car and drove off. Shortly thereafter, he looked down in the seat beside him and saw a rattlesnake. Terrified, he crashed through a mailbox, telephone pole and several other things before coming to a stop; then, the snake bit him. I don’t remember all the details, but you get the picture. Had he calmly pulled to the curb and carefully gotten out of the car, it is likely he would not have been bitten, and he would not have totaled his car. The point I wish to make is this, fear can cause us to do things which bring about the very thing we dread.

With each successive election cycle, it seems the level of despair among social conservatives rises, especially among Christians. From my vantage point, fear and desperation have largely replaced reason and thoughtful action. More significantly, it seems to be overruling the faith of many as well.

As a flawed human being myself, I understand the source of such desperation: I once suffered from it, and suppose there will always be times of perceived crises when it arises within me. We are intrinsically wired to perceive threats and respond to them by reflex action; this is a natural (and often first) response.

However, as Christians, we are, by the grace of God, to exercise self-control in all things, including our fears. This is only possible through a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” as the founders of this country put it in the Declaration of Independence (truly a declaration of dependence).

I was compelled to face my own fears twenty years ago, and realized they were the result of 1) a weak faith based on a poor understanding of the sovereignty of God, and 2) a bad memory of the true nature of our constitutional republic. My experience in the last two decades has been more than sufficient to convince me untold millions of Christians in America suffer from a similar condition. My prayer is that sharing what has brought me peace in regard to the state of our federal union will help others. This is the spirit with which the following is offered.

The verse from Proverbs which heads these thoughts is a good place to begin because it reminds us God is Sovereign. This is not in the least to say what we do is unimportant; rather it is precisely because God is Sovereign our actions are of utmost importance. Failing to understand this tends to predispose us to believing our actions control things. We should be humbled (and relieved!) to realize they don’t, the outcome is in God’s hands!

What I’m about to say will be hard for many to hear, so I ask you to take a deep breath and keep reading, even if you are initially shocked, or angry.

It is entirely possible God may make Hillary Clinton the next President. I’ll admit that’s an awful thought, but frankly, I feel the same way about her much touted opponent in the other major party. My point is this, I don’t know whom God, in His providence, intends to use for His purposes and glory in the next four years; and neither, dear reader, do you. At this juncture, let me remind you of Proverbs 21:1, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.”

Regardless who wins the election; they will be an instrument of God for His ultimate purpose and glory, even though we don’t understand how this will play out. Being aware of this demands us to be diligent about how we exercise our duty as Americans before Him. When our chosen representatives are doing things we don’t like, it is a safe bet our collective conduct, especially in the area of civil government, is not pleasing to God. So, the question becomes, “How should we conduct ourselves in choosing those who represent us?”

It is imperative to remember our system was designed recognizing God is at the top of the Chain of Command, the people are next in line under the rule of law (i.e. His will), and civil government is under the control of the people. I probably don’t need to tell you this constituted order has been de facto reversed in the minds of “we the people” today, by power seeking tyrants and their pawns in public education and the mainstream media, and God has been removed altogether from public debate.

We may reason God prefers candidate because we believe they will do the best job; however, this belief assumes we know God’s will and purpose for the election. Since we do not know what He intends to accomplish in the process, we should seriously consider our options. Absent such knowledge, we could do what most people do, and simply abstain from the process altogether. However, as Americans, we have a God given duty to choose those who represent us; therefore, dropping out is an abdication of a sacred trust of stewardship.

Those who understand the stewardship of citizenship are compelled to take an active role in the governance of this country. Even if there is no one we can support, we have a duty to work to offer candidates who do understand just and lawful government. Realizing this, our options then are determined by our worldview.

A secular worldview ignores the Sovereignty of God because His will does not fit into the equation. Such a worldview compels a person to choose their representatives on the basis of man’s thinking (i.e. who has the most education, the greatest business acumen, the biggest following, the most money, etc.). Based on one’s qualification checklist, and the importance placed on the various factors, secular thinkers make their decision. In my experience, “does he have a chance to win” is by far the most important factor for those operating from a secular worldview. Sadly and tragically, many Christians have adopted this view.

We, as Christians, have clear biblical instruction in the matter of electing representatives; therefore we should be operating from a biblical worldview. Though we don’t know God’s plan and purpose in a given election, we should be aware how He wants us as Christians to fulfill our duty in choosing those who act on our behalf. God’s word to Samuel is instructive:

But the LORD said to Samuel,
“Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him.
For the LORD sees not as man sees:
 man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”
1 Sam. 16:7

Clearly, our very first priority in selecting representatives is to be confident they have a heart for the LORD and His will. Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, gave him similar counsel for delegating authority when God delivered Israel from bondage in Egypt:

Moreover, look for able men from all the people,
men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe….
Exodus 18:21a

This may seem like a short list, but it is comprehensive because the very first requirement encapsulates all of life. Still, Jethro gave Moses a couple of specifics which identify key hallmarks of worthy candidates in every generation (i.e. “men who fear God”). I’ll leave it to you to decide whether any major party candidate fears God. I don’t know their hearts, but based on their words and actions I have a firm conviction on this matter, and it is one you can probably guess.

A recent poll shows that less than 40 percent of eligible voters trust either major party candidate. Americans don’t trust the people they elect, in part, because they are well aware those candidates are driven by lust for money and power. Incredibly, voters will still go to the polls in November and use their precious vote to approve of someone they believe is untrustworthy! The saddest note in this is, Christians who have embraced a secular worldview feel compelled to ignore scripture and support biblically disqualified candidates. History teaches us this is a perilous path!

God didn’t want Israel to have an earthly king, but they wanted one, so He gave them what they wanted; and the giving was not for a blessing to them. We desperately need to ask ourselves what must guide our choice of representatives if we are to enjoy God’s blessing. God’s desire is certainly for us to have representatives who will honor Him and His will, but when we use our vote to demand unrighteous representatives, He may well give them to us (and He has)!

How can we to reverse what has been happening for decades? The answer is simple, demand candidates who meet biblical qualifications! If we will do this, we will at least put ourselves in a position where God may yet choose to bless us with liberty again. Until then, we deserve what we get, or worse.

How many righteous people demanding righteous candidates will it take to turn the tide of evil God has allowed to grip our country? Ask Abraham. God wasn’t looking for a majority in Sodom; He was looking for a righteous minority. He still is. Will you be one of them?


©Jim Wade 2016